1936 ] 
New Species of Southern Spiders 
99 
more than a diameter, posterior row longer than an- 
terior, procurved, eyes equidistant and subequal; quad- 
rangle of median eyes narrower in front and as high as 
wide; clypeus one and a half diameters of a.m.e. ; man- 
dibles three-fifths as long as cephalothorax antenuate, outer 
margins parallel, fang groove long, oblique, superior mar- 
gin with a distinct carina from base of fang ending in five 
teeth which extend on median margin, inferior margin illy 
defined and impossible to see any teeth; Petrunkevitch in 
redescribing the female W. immaculata states, Trans. Conn. 
Acad., 1930, 31, p. 85, that the mandible when stained and 
mounted on a slide shows a row of nine small teeth, very 
scant scopula on superior margin only, fang long and sinu- 
ous ; labium higher than wide ; maxillae twice as long as la- 
bium, tips slightly widened, palpi inserted at basal third; 
sternum flat, oval, IV coxae separated by a diameter ; abdo- 
men oval, more than twice as long as wide, colorless, spin- 
nerets extending beyond tip, openings of tracheal spirale 
about middle; legs, I pair much the longest, fern., 3.0 mm.; 
pat. + tib., 4.6 mm. ; metat., 4.1 mm. ; tar., 2.0 mm. =13. 7 
mm. Spines colorless, femur, 3 dorsal serial, tibia, 2-2, 
ventral, 2 lateral, metatarsus, 2, basal, 2 lateral, spines 
more numerous on posterior legs ; palpus, longer than ceph- 
alothorax, tibia longer than patella, but little over half as 
long a terminal joint, tibial apophysis a small abrupt cusp 
at right angles from the joint with three short spines on 
ventral side and several long bristles on exterior. 
Allotype $ Florida; Bicknell’s Hammock, 30 April, 1935 
(Gribbins) . 
The type, a female from Vinales, Cuba, is in the Ameri- 
can Museum of Natural History. It has been found since 
at Porto Rico and Mona. A female was taken at Siboney, 
Cuba, without the first pair of legs. Petrunkevitch gives a 
detailed description of the type female in Trans. Conn. 
Acad., 1930, p. 85, fig. 72. The male agrees with the fe- 
male with the long first legs, the eyes, teeth on the mandi- 
bles and number of spines on the legs. The spines are dif- 
ficult to see. It does not agree with the definition of the 
genus given by Petrunkevitch, 1930, p. 66, but probably 
