agreeing exactly with this description, are not the males of the species above described by myself as N. cæmentaria, Latr., from numerous females found at Montpellier, appears to me clear, not only because I assume that of the true N. cæmentaria, Latr., males will be found to have the point of the palpal bulb bifid, but because the position of the eyes is markedly different in M. Simon's Pyrenean males and the Montpellier females. In the latter the eyes of the front row are separated from each other by equal intervals, in the former the interval between those of the central pair is very perceptibly greater than that between each and the lateral of the same row nearest to it. The interval also between each of the fore-central eyes and the hind-central on its side is proportionally much less.
It appears therefore necessary to characterize N. cæmentaria (Sim. l.c.) by some other name, for if eventually it should be found that Latreille has erred in N. carminans (with the bifid point to the palpal bulb) being the male of his N. cæmentaria, and that the Montpellier species has a male with a simple point to this part, even then the present spider cannot retain its name (cæmentaria), being distinct from the females found at Montpellier.
It is possible, of course, that the present species may hereafter be found, perhaps abundantly, at Montpellier; in that case it will have to be decided which of the two is most likely to be the species described by Latreille. In that eventuality it seems to me that the spider, above described from Montpellier, would be more probably Latreille's species, for one of its specific characters is a tolerably distinct and bold series of, not more than, five dark angular bars
