t 
84 Psyche [Sept.-Dee. 
ten to include other characters not used by Banks in the original 
description. 
Genus Dictyolathys Banks 
Proc. Philadelphia Acad., 1900, p. 534. 
Cephalothorax moderately high, no thoracic groove; eight 
eyes , lateral eyes on a low tubercle, a.m.e. very small on the 
posterior slope of the tubercle, widely separated, so that the 
anterior row of eyes is strongly procurved, posterior row slightly 
procurved, p.l.e. largest of the eight; clypeus equals a radius 
of a.l.e.; labium triangular, as long as wide; sternum convex, 
almost as wide as long, ending in a lobe between fourth coxae; 
legs varying little in length, fourth pair longest, no spines, 
dorsal row of trichobothria on fourth tibia; calamistrum con- 
fined to basal half of fourth metatarsus. 
Dictyolathys is separated from Lathys by the strongly pro- 
curved anterior eye row, and the p.l.e. larger than the p.m.e., 
and from Scotolathys by the presence of small a.m.e. and the 
large p.l.e. 
The genus Lathys Simon, 1884, was based on the species 
humilis Blackwall, common to northern Europe. This has eight 
eyes, with the anterior row straight, eyes contiguous, a.m.e. 
very small, posterior row slightly procurved, eyes equal and 
usually equidistant. 
The genus Scotolathys Simon, 1884, was erected for a species, 
(. simplex ) from Algiers, with but six eyes, the a.l.e. the largest 
of the eight. In both Les Histoire Naturelle des Araignees, 
1903, 2, p. 977 and Les Arachnides de France, 1914, 6, p. 62, 
Simon has placed Lathys heterophthalma Kulczynski, 1891, in 
the genus Scotolathys but states that the a.m.e. almost obliter- 
ated. No specimens of this species are in the museum collec- 
tion; but in the original description, “ $ Oculorum; series 
posterior paullo procurva, oculi magni, inter se subaequales et 
spatiis parum inaequalibus, circiter radium aequantibus remoti; 
series anterior subrecta, oculi valde inaequales, mediorum diam- 
eter radio lateralium minor, oculi laterales posticis subaequales, 
medii inter se late (plus quam diametro sua) distantes, laterali- 
bus valde approximate.” Having regard to this and the figures, 
it would seem that Kulczynski was correct in placing the species 
in the genus Lathys. 
