57 
1973] van Helsdingen — Linyphiid Spiders 
A first attempt to revise Oreonetides has been published recently 
(Saaristo, 1972). The paper contains a good characterization with 
excellent figures of the type-species, O. vaginatus (Thorell), but the 
many other, mostly Nearctic, species are not included. The diagnosis 
of the genus, therefore, might be too narrow to fit the other species, 
though it very well may be necessary to divide the genus into a num- 
ber of smaller units. The creation of Montitextrix by Denis (1963) 
for O. glacialis (L. Koch) was a first step in that direction. Oreone- 
tides flavus (Emerton) and O. rotundas (Emerton), both from the 
Nearctic region, are very close to M. glacialis in their genital struc- 
tures, but differ in the positions of the Tm I (0.65-0.70 in glacialis , 
0.30-0.40 in flavus and rotundus) and the presence of a trichoboth- 
rium on metatarsus IV in glacialis (absent in all others). 
A few species are more closely related to — i.e. more closely re- 
semble — the type-species vaginatus, viz., filicatus, firmus and abnor- 
mis, and possibly also rectangulatus. I do not see the principal dif- 
ference between vaginatus on the one hand, and fir?nus and abnormis 
on the other (cf. Saaristo, 1972: 70). Oreonetides might constitute 
an example of transition from the still folded scapes (but how un- 
der-developed in comparison with the flexible and elaborately built 
scapes of Lepthyphantes species!) of vaginatus and filicatus to the 
rigid and unfolded scape of firmus and abnormis, where the narrow 
portion of the scape with the socket or semi-covered depression is not 
present. The absence of a well-developed median apophysis (Saaristo: 
suprategulum ) is, of course, correlated with this simple build of the 
epigyne, and should not be used as an independent character. 
Oreonetides filicatus is a good species and not a synonym of 
vaginatus as suggested by Saaristo (1972: 72). It is smaller than 
vaginatus, but both male palp and epigyne are resembling each other, 
though they differ in detail. Without question the species is con- 
generic with vaginatus. However, the anterior tibia does not bear 
the T-spine, which is one of the characters mentioned in the diagnosis 
of the genus by Saaristo (1972: 69). I put this forward here as a 
demonstration of my above remark on the too narrow delimination 
of the genus. 
Oreonetides rectangulatus (Emerton), of which I only know the 
male, is different in several respects. Most striking are the pecul- 
iarly shaped chelicerae, which bear a strong conical protrusion on 
their dorsal surface for three-fifths of their length. The palp also 
deviates from the true Oreonetides type. 
Oreonetides flavescens (Crosby), described in Aigola (Crosby, 
1937: 39, figs. 7-8) from New York I have not seen, but judging 
