112 T. THORELL. DESCRIPTIONS OF SEVERAL KUROPEAN AND NORTH-AFRICAN SPIDERS. 



Gen. MICAKIA Wkstr. 



M. Rossica Thor. cephalothorace paullo breviore quam tibia cum patella 4:ti paris, 

 nigru-fusco, s(ju;inuilis pallidis luicantibus tecto; oculis inediis anticis cvidenter mino- 

 ribus quiini lateralibu.s; pcnlibus aiiterioribus testaceis, coxis et feinoribus, apice horuni 

 excepto, iiigricantibus, pedibus posterioribus obscuris, apice pallidioribus; femoribiis 

 omnibus noii taiituiii supra, sed etiaiu aiitice aculeatis, tibiis 4 anterioribus aculeis 

 2.2.2. subter armatis; abdomine nigro, squamulis ininutis obscure anieis tecto et ina- 



conspicua (L. Kocii) or Mel. nocturna Mengk appears to me to be a ifciiuine Prosthesima: its maxillre are 

 perhaps a little niore parallel than iu f. iust. Pr. Petiverii, but uot fiilly so straight as in Pwc. variana: 

 thcy are ([uite as strougly rounded at the base as in Pr. Petiverii, but their extreinity is at the inner 

 side broadly rounded, not truncate. The niandibles are destitute of the sliarp and liijrli ridp^e or angle into 

 wliich the inner side of their apex is raiscd in Pcec. variana (and Drassus braecatus). In all the Prosthesimu- 

 species here mentioned the maxiUoe are slightly differeut, but they have in all a strong oblique depression 

 iu the middle, and their outer side is more or less broadly eniarginate or sinuate; also Avithin the genus 

 Drassus the form of raaxillre is somewhat variabla. — The genus Callilepis Westr. is wcU distinguished by the 

 form oF the maxilhe, the arniature of the mandibles etc.: the maxillae are rounded at the outer side, witii 

 a small depression only uenr their apex. Conf. Westk., 1. c., pp. 40 — 45. 



Mr Westiuxg states (1. c., p. 5) that Reuss' treatise, "Zoologisehe Misccllen, Arachniden", is pre- 

 ceeded by a Preface, according to which F. Wideh, and not Keuss, is the author of the descriptions and 

 figures of the (German) spiders made known in that work. I have only seeu two copies of the tirst volunie 

 of "Museum Senckenbergianum", in which volurae Reuss' treatise is inserted : in ueither of these copies 

 (whicli are perfectly complete) does any suck preface occur, and consequcntly I had, till now, no sufficieut 

 reason to assurae that the author of the descriptions in the work bearing Reuss' name, was not Reuss, but 

 another person. (Conf. Thor., Ou Europ. Spid., p. 5.) The name of the artist, at the bottom of a plate, 

 is not always that which must be cited as authority for the species which he has tigured; in Reuss' work, 

 f. inst., " .Meijamyrrncckion caudatum Reuss" (from Egypt) is figured on a plate (Pl. XVIII), at the bottom 

 of which we read: "F. Wiuer delt." However, as Mr Westri.ng has now shown that there exist copies 

 of Reuss' Zool. Misc, in which Wider is by Reuss himself stated to be the real author of the descrip- 

 tions in cjuestion, it is clear that Wider, and not Reuss, should be cited as authority after the names of 

 the species. 



P. 60 of the "Bemerkungen", Mr Westring expresses the opinion that Lycosa mericliana Hahn is 

 identical with L. lufjubris Walck., and not with L. (Tar.) nivulis C. Kocii or L. nemoralis Westr., as I 

 had supposed. A renewed examination of Haiin's figure has convinced me that Mr Westring is right in 

 this; L. {Tar.) nivalis C. Kocii (Tar. meridiana Thor.) ought therefore to be called Tar. nemoralis (AA''estr.). 

 — Finally, I think Mr Westring is right in considering (p. 38) ^^elanophora petrensis Westr. nnr- 

 rens Thor.) as identical with ^^. prcefica L. Kock. 



Against 07ie of the remarks made by Mr Westring in the work now cited, I consider it niy duty 

 to enter a protest, ■because that remark appears to me undeservedly to affect, not myself, but one who is 

 now no longer able to defend himself, even if he could desire to do so — the late Dr E. Ohlert of 

 Königsberg. — Ohlert, who had formerly (1854) supposed that Epeira marmorea and E. qiiadrata bc- 

 longed to one and tlie same species, has since, tliirteen years låter (1867), in his work "Die Araneiden d. 

 Provinz Preussen", corrected that mistake. Mr Westring now supposes that Ohlert did not discover by 

 his own observations that E. marmorea and E. (piadrata are separate species, but learncd it either from 

 Mr Westring's "Araneae Snecicae" or from Menge's "Preussische Spinnen, I", where Mr Westring's work 

 is cited. Through my own correspondence with Dr Ohlert, I am in a condition deeidediy to affirm that 

 he in the year 1867 was unaccjuainted with Mr Westkixg's above-mentioned work; and although Menge's 

 Preuss. Spinn., 1, bears the date 1866, and Ohlert's Aran. d. Prov. Preuss. the date 1867, these two 

 works appeared nearly simultaneously, so that Ohlert, when writing his Aran. d. Prov. Preuss., canuot wfll 

 be supposed to have posscssed any knowledge of Menge s Preuss. Spinn. As Ohlert has moreover always, 

 in his Aran. d. Prov. Preuss., conscienciously cited a previous work by Menge, it is not easy to assign a 

 reason why he should not have mentioned Preuss. Spinn., if that woik had been known to him. I con- 

 sider therefore the unproved charge of deficient honesty involvcd in jNIr Westring's words (p. 11): "Ohlert 

 thut wie gewisse andere Autoreu: er verschweigt die Urquelle, ans der er geschöpft, wodurch es den An- 

 sehein hat, als ob diescs eine Selbsterfindung wäre", as destitute of foundation, and I am convinced that 

 Ohlert in no way deserved the staiu that those words cast upon his mcmory. 



