SUPPLEMENT

TO

HARVESTING ANTS

AND

TRAP-DOOR SPIDERS.

SUPPLEMENT

TO

HARVESTING ANTS

AND

TRAP-DOOR SPIDERS.

BY

J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE, F.L.S., F.Z.S.

WITH SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SPIDERS,

BY THE

REV. O. PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE.

LONDON:
L. REEVE & CO., 5, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
1874.

LONDON:
SAVILL, EDWARDS AND CO., PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,
COVENT GARDEN.

[CONTENTS.]

[EXPLANATION OF PLATES.]

NOTE: Click on Plate images to view larger sized view.

[Plate XIII.], p. 183, fig. A.—Silk lining of tube of Atypus piceus (Sulz.), taken at Troyes in Champagne, and communicated to me by M. E. Simon; B, drawing of portion of nest of Cyrtauchenius elongatus (Sim.) made after the description of the discoverer, and subject to his (M. E. Simon's) corrections. This is the only illustration in the present work not taken from an actual specimen. These figures are of the natural size.

[Plate XIV.], p. 193.—Diagrams of the known types of trap-door nest. Fig. A, nest of Atypus piceus (Sulz.); B, nest of cork type; B 1, the layers of silk with earth rims of which a cork door is composed; C, single-door unbranched wafer type; D, single-door branched wafer type; E double-door unbranched wafer type; E 1, lower door of the same, of the natural size; F, Hyères double-door branched wafer type; F 1, lower door of the same, of the natural size; G, and G 1, double-door branched cavity wafer type. At G 1 the perfect type is seen, while at G, the descending cavity, the outlines of which are indicated by dotted lines, has been filled up; G 2, lower door of the same of the natural size. (Figs. A, B, C, D, E, F, G and G 1, diagrammatic representations of nest on a reduced scale, Figs. B 1, E 1, F 1 and G 2, of the natural size).

[Plate XV.], p. 198, fig. A.—Nest of Cteniza Californica (Camb.) nearly entire, enclosed in the clayey earth of the bank from which the specimen was taken, the door being artificially represented as being partly open; A 1, door of the same as seen when closed; B, Cteniza Californica (Camb.) from a living specimen; B 1, the same seen in spirits, the legs not represented; B 2, the same seen sideways; (figs. A, A 1, B, B 1 and B 2, are of the natural size); B 3, the eyes, greatly magnified; B 4, the three claws terminating the tarsal joint of the hindmost left leg; B 5, line representing the measured length of the spider excluding the falces and spinners, the uppermost division gives the length of the caput terminating at the half-moon-shaped fovea, the middle division that of the thorax, and the lowest that of the abdomen, while the transverse line gives the breadth of the cephalothorax; B 6, eggs laid by the spider in captivity on the under side of the gauze which covered the box (the position is reversed here) of the natural size; B 7, the same magnified; B 8, another group of eggs, magnified; B 9, a portion of the same still more highly magnified; B 10, lines showing measured lengths of legs of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pairs, and of palpus, with those of the several joints.

[Plate XVI.], p. 211, fig. A.—Part of the nest of Nemesia Simoni (Camb.) taken at Bordeaux; A 1, N. Simoni (Camb.) from life, of the natural size; A 2, the same seen in spirits, the legs not represented; A 3, the same seen sideways and magnified; A 4, the eyes, magnified; A 5, the thoracic fovea, magnified; A 6, line showing measured length of spider, (see above explanation of fig. B 5, plate XV.); A 7, lines showing measured lengths of legs of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pairs, and palpus of spider, with those of the several joints. B, cephalothorax and abdomen of another specimen of N. Simoni, in which the proportions are different, taken from life, of the natural size.

[Plate XVII.], p. 215, fig. A.—Part of the nest of N. suffusa (Camb.) taken at Montpellier; A 1, N. suffusa (Camb.) from life, of the natural size; A 2, the same in spirits, seen sideways and magnified, the legs not represented; A 3, another view of the same; A 4, the eyes, magnified; A 5, length of spider (see above, fig. B 5, plate XV.); A 6, measurements of legs and palpus; B, N. meridionalis (Costa and Sim.), male, from a specimen in spirits, of the natural size, legs not represented; B 1, the same magnified; B 2, the eyes, magnified; B 3, radial and digital joints of the left palpus with bulb, magnified; B 4, another view of the same, magnified; B 5, back view of the same, magnified, but less highly; B 6, length of spider (see above, fig. B 5, plate XV.); C, N. meridionalis (Costa and Sim.) female, from a specimen in spirit of wine, of the natural size, legs not represented; C 1, eyes of the same, magnified; C 2, length of spider. These two specimens (male and female) were collected in Corsica, and named by M. E. Simon, who kindly presented them to me; they are now in the possession of the Rev. O. Pickard-Cambridge.

[Plate XVIII.], p. 225, fig. A.—Part of nest of N. congener (Camb.) taken at Hyères; A 1, lower door of this nest viewed from above, of the natural size; A 2, side view of the same; A 3, N. congener (Camb.) taken from life, of the natural size; A 4, side view of the same, enlarged to twice the natural size, the legs not represented; A 5, cephalothorax and falces from specimen in spirits, magnified;[108] A 6, the eyes, magnified; A 7, femur, patella (or genual joint) and tibia of leg of third pair, showing the three spines on the outer side of the patella, magnified. B, lower door from a smaller and younger nest, viewed from above, of the natural size; B 1, the same viewed sideways.

[108] While these pages were passing through the press (Hyères, Oct. '74), I have had an opportunity of examining 17 additional specimens of N. congener. I learn from this that the pattern represented on the caput in fig. A 5, does not accord with that in the majority of adult specimens, being usually less defined and composed of three converging bands. Mr. Pickard-Cambridge's description ([p. 293] below) is, however, quite correct. I may mention that three spines were present on the patella (genual joint) of legs III in 16 specimens, the 17th specimen having but a single spine.

[Plate XIX.], p. 229, fig. A.—Nest of a young specimen of N. Manderstjernæ (Ausserer = N. meridionalis Camb., in "Ants and Spiders," p. 101) from Mentone, showing the descending cavity, with the lower door pushed across, so as to close the main tube and join the cavity; A 1, upper portion of the same, showing the lower door closing the branch. B, N. cæmentaria (Latr.) from a living specimen taken at Montpellier; B 1, the same seen in spirits of wine, legs not represented; B 2, the eyes, magnified; B 3, one of the two larger claws; and B 4, the small claw of the tarsus of one of the hindmost legs; B 5, length of spider; B 6, measurements of legs and palpus. C, the eyes of N. Moggridgii (Camb.) (= N. cæmentaria, Camb., in "Ants and Spiders," p. 92), magnified. D, N. incerta (Camb.), male, from a specimen preserved in spirits, collected at Digne in the Basses Alpes, by M. E. Simon, who kindly lent me the specimen for examination, represented of twice the natural size, and without the legs; D 1, another view of the same; D 2, radial and digital joints of the palpus and palpal bulb, magnified; D 3, back view of the same; D 4, the eyes magnified. E, eyes of N. dubia (Camb.), male (= N. cæmentaria, Sim.), from a specimen in spirits, collected in the Pyrénées Orientales, communicated by M. Simon, magnified; E 1, radial and digital joints of the palpus with palpal bulb of the same, magnified; E 2, another view of the same.

[Plate XX.], p. 254, fig. A, Cteniza Moggridgii (Camb.), male (= Ct. fodiens, Camb., in "Ants and Spiders," p. 89), from a living specimen taken at Mentone, of the natural size; A 1, the same seen sideways, the legs not represented; A 2, cephalothorax and falces of the same; A 3, the eyes; A 4, radial and digital joints and the palpal bulb; A 5, another view of the same; A 6, one of the two large claws, and A 7, the small claw of the tarsus of one of the legs of the hindmost pair; A 8, length of the spider and breadth of the cephalothorax; A 9, measurements of legs and palpus. (Figs. A 1, A 2, A 3, A 4, A 5, A 6, and A 7, are all magnified.) B, N. Manderstjernæ (Ausserer), male (= N. meridionalis, Camb., in "Ants and Spiders," p. 101), from a living specimen taken at Mentone, of the natural size; B 1, the same seen in spirits and magnified to twice the natural size; B 2, the same viewed sideways; B 3, the eyes; B 4, tibia, metatarsus and tarsus of the right leg of the first pair showing the spine and process on the under and inner side of the enlarged tibia; B 5, right leg of the third pair showing the three short spines on the patella; B 6, one of the two large claws, and B 7, the small claw of the tarsus of one of the legs of the hindmost pair; B 8, radial and digital joints of palpus with palpal bulb; B 9, another view of the same; B 10, back view of the same (figs. B 1 to B 10, all magnified); B 11, measurements of legs and palpus. C, tibia, metatarsus and tarsus of right leg of N. Manderstjernæ (Ausserer), male, viewed from the under side and magnified, drawn from the original specimen belonging to Dr. L. Koch, collected at Nice, and described as N. Manderstjernæ by Professor Ausserer. My best thanks are due to Dr. L. Koch for having enabled me to examine this valuable specimen. [In fig. C, the curved spine should bend towards, and not away from, the process on its right and inner side.]

LIST OF SPIDERS DESCRIBED.

[SUPPLEMENT
TO
HARVESTING ANTS.]

During the short time which has elapsed since Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders left the printer's hands, fresh material has rapidly accumulated, and an assiduous search after these creatures, and the continued study of their works and ways, has met with ample reward and encouragement.

It was my wish, when originally publishing these observations, many of which were due to the active co-operation of friends, to invite my readers to take part with me in my pleasure and pursuits, so that we should from that time work together, and, by communicating our discoveries to each other, increase our knowledge, and at the same time enlarge the field of our research. My intention was that we should leave to others the necessary work of collection, preservation, and arrangement, and that, while our fellow naturalists pin specimens into classified cabinets, and devote long hours to the description of peculiarities of form and colour, we should undertake the lighter task of complementing their labours by observing and recording the habits and conditions of existence of the creatures themselves.

Looked at in this light, the present pages and those of the preceding work may be regarded as so many drawers in our Cabinet of Habits, and though, as we open drawer after drawer, many gaps and blank spaces remind us how much remains to be done in order to complete the collection, yet the interest and suggestiveness of the specimen-facts already secured, should encourage and direct us onwards. There have not been wanting instances in which my readers have associated themselves with me in the way indicated, and it is with pleasure, when reviewing the entire work, that I recall how many of its most interesting features are due to the researches and assistance of friends,[109] and commemorate at once their discoveries and unfailing kindness. I had certainly expected that before this time some new species of harvesting ants would have been discovered, either on the Riviera, where attention has been especially called to the subject, or in other parts of Europe, where dissimilar conditions might have been expected to be associated with a different fauna; but this has hitherto not been the case.

[109] To all who have rendered me this valuable help I tender my cordial thanks. I am under very special obligations to Mr. Pickard-Cambridge, for descriptions of spiders, and to Mr. F. Smith for the names of the Ants; assistance which I should have found it almost impossible to dispense with or to replace.

One might naturally suppose that if harvesting ants were discovered in localities very widely distant from each other, they would prove to belong to different species, but thus far, both in Europe and Northern Africa, it is the same two well-known species of Atta barbara and A. structor that constantly reappear.

For instance, I have recently learned that harvesting ants are found at Cadenabbia on the lake of Como, and at Montpellier in Southern France; but on examination, the ants from the former place are clearly seen to belong to the species structor, and those from Montpellier to the two species structor and barbara.

I was greatly interested to receive specimens of ants, and of the seeds which they were carrying and storing beneath the stones of a paved road at Cadenabbia, for this is the northernmost point[110] at which the habit of harvesting has as yet been noted. This discovery suggests the possibility of the occurrence of the habit in the warmer and more sheltered of the Swiss valleys. When at Montpellier in May last I frequently observed long trains of ants bringing seeds and small dry fruits to their nests, but these harvesters also turned out on close inspection to be Atta structor and A. barbara, with its red-headed variety. These, it will be remembered, are the only species of European ants which have as yet been proved to be harvesters and seed-storers in the fullest sense of the term, that is to say, which not only gather and carry seeds, but also store them in large quantities below the surface of the ground.[111]

[110] I have related in a note at the foot of p. 4 in Ants and Spiders how Formica nigra in England, though paying no attention to seeds generally, will sometimes collect the fresh seeds of the sweet violet (Viola odorata).

When I published this account I was quite unaware that the fact that certain English ants collect sweet violet seeds had been observed by Mr. R. Wakefield forty years before.

This was communicated by Mr. Wakefield in a letter to Mr. John Curtis, the substance of which was read before the Linnean Society in 1854, and published in their Proceedings (see Proceedings of the Linnean Society, ii. 293), where we read: "He (Mr. Wakefield) states that he has seen the black species (Formica nigra, L.) for days and nights together industriously occupied in dragging to its cells the seeds of the common violet (Viola odorata, L.)

"He first noticed this fact on the 3rd of July, 1832; and he regards it as a curious subject of inquiry for what purpose, if not for their own future provision, they could accumulate these stores?" Mr. Wakefield appears to accept this as evidence that these ants possess the habit of storing seeds; but this is not so, as will be seen by reference to my note alluded to above, and I am inclined to believe that they collect these particular seeds either under the mistaken belief that they are larvæ, to which when fresh they bear some resemblance, or for the sake of some juices which they may obtain from the fleshy appendage attached to the seed.

[111] Six other species belonging to the genus Atta are found in Europe, but they are all unknown to me.

It seems likely that, if other harvesting ants do exist in Europe they may belong to one of these six species; for we have seen (Ants and Spiders, p. 59) that all the ants which are known to possess this habit are either members of the genus Atta or belong to genera closely related to it.

In the case of Pheidole megacephala (the only other European ant which I have detected collecting seeds in large numbers), I have never been able to find granaries or subterranean stores of any kind, though I have frequently made extensive search for them, and explored, to all appearance, the whole nest.

When we remember the great variety of ants which inhabit Europe alone (a recent list[112] enumerating no fewer than 104 distinct species), it certainly may seem strange at first that only two of their number should possess this habit. Perhaps, however, we may yet discover that some other of these species are true harvesters; but at present the chances seem rather against it, since the harvesters found at such distant points as Algiers, Cadenabbia, and Montpellier have all turned out to belong to one or other of the two species, structor or barbara.

[112] Description des Fourmis d'Europe pour servir à l'étude des insectes myrmecophilis, by Ernest André, in Rev. et Mag. de Zool. 3^e ser. tom. ii. (1874), p. 152, &c.

Indeed it may very well be that the numerical superiority and wide distribution of these two species have served to secure to them a more or less exclusive right to the habit of harvesting, for it is clear that a given tract of country can only afford supplies of grain to a limited number of colonies; so that, if these ants have taken up the ground and are strong enough to maintain possession, no others would have a chance. However this may be, I find that the more insight I gain into the distinctive habits and relations of animals, the more the belief impresses itself upon me that wherever we find many closely-allied species inhabiting restricted areas, there we may safely look for important differences among these species in respect of their modes of life, and in the development of their instinct and intelligence. And indeed this may be considered as a corollary of the great law of natural selection, which uniformly tends to secure the greatest possible amount of divergence in this respect, and to prevent the co-existence in close proximity to each other of distinct species having the same requirements and manner of life.

Thus, for example, even Atta barbara and structor, though most closely related as species, differ in habit; the former leading a much more active life during the winter months at Mentone than the latter, and seeking its home rather in wild than cultivated ground. Then what differences different ants present in respect of strength, speed, powers of offence and defence, numerical strength of colonies, timidity, date and frequency of departure of winged ants from the nest, odour emitted, combativeness, architecture and selection of localities, nature of food, nocturnal and diurnal habits, and in many other properties and conditions! It is doubtless owing to dissimilarity in these and other respects that it becomes possible for so many species to co-exist within very narrow limits, so that even three or four distinct kinds sometimes form their nests so close to each other that their galleries interlace and almost touch.

There are probably very few conditions of life (except those concerned with the nature and manner of obtaining food) which have a greater influence either in keeping creatures apart or in bringing them into collision, than those which constitute differences in their respective periods of activity and development. Thus, two species of which one has nocturnal and the other diurnal habits, or of which one is dormant while the other is active, may be said to travel different roads and to be complete strangers to one another. Complete separation of this kind is, of course, not the rule, and the greater number of species find themselves in more or less constant rivalry, but possess a sufficient number of points of dissimilarity in habit and requirements to make their co-existence possible.

It is curious to note what little differences, as they seem to us, may determine the fate of an ant. For example, the lizards will lie in wait for and greedily seize and devour the winged males and females of structor and barbara, though they dare not attack the assembled workers. It is curious to watch the way in which these worker ants will protect the winged ants which are about to leave the nest, by gathering round and swarming over them. When, as often happens, the nest is placed in an old terrace-wall, one may see the lizards creeping along or lying moulded into the inequalities of the stones, all having their eager eyes directed towards the swarm. One may then see the worker ants walk with impunity straight up to the very noses of the lizards, while the male or female which should chance to straggle in the same direction would infallibly be eaten up. The lizards plainly show their fear of the workers by the way in which, when they make up their mind to try a dash at some outlying part of the ant colony, they leap through the lines in the utmost haste as if traversing a ring of fire.

Now these worker ants are destitute of stings, and I can only suppose that their power of combination, stronger jaws and more horny coats, have gained them this immunity. I remarked that the smaller lizards appeared to have some difficulty in dealing with the males and females which they captured, and would beat and pound them against the stones before devouring them, while the larger ones would often make but one mouthful of them, swallowing wings and all!

If it were not for this body-guard of workers it is difficult to see how the males and females in such situations could ever escape. It is also plain that if the worker harvesting ants were as liable to be seized and devoured as their winged companions, the species would soon become extinct, for they expose themselves more than ants ordinarily do, and their long provision-laden trains would be almost at the mercy of any enemy which could attack them without fear of results.[113]

[113] Speaking of the enemies of ants, I may mention having seen a young robin in England picking up and swallowing the workers of Formica nigra just as if they were crumbs. I knew that birds would eat the male and female ants, but I had thought the workers were exempt from their attacks, and, indeed, they must be so as a rule, for otherwise they would speedily become extinct.

Remembering this, it is interesting to note how differently the tiger-beetle (Cicendela) behaves when hunting the powerful harvesting ants and when preying upon the weak little Formica (Tapinoma) erratica; for, while it seizes the latter without taking any precautions, it is evidently more than half afraid of the former.

I have seen this beetle lying in wait near a train of structor or barbara ants, watching until some individual separated a little from the main body, when it would rush forward and make a snap at it, retiring again as quickly as it came. If the tiger-beetle fails to seize its prey exactly behind the head it will let it go again, and two or three ants are often thus cruelly mutilated before a single one is carried off.

No doubt the beetle has learned that if once this ant clasps its mandibles upon either antennæ or legs, nothing, not even death itself, will make it release its hold. It therefore tries to pin the ant in such a way that it cannot use its formidable jaws. Perhaps the habit of forming long compact trains may have been acquired by the ants partly with a view to guarding against attacks of this kind.

The colonies of the little F. erratica, on the other hand, apparently have to trust to their habit of working under the covered ways which they construct, as well as to their activity and great numbers for their preservation.

I had thought that the very powerful, and, to me, disagreeable, odour of these little ants might have rendered them distasteful to the tiger-beetle, but this is evidently not the case.

I have said above that, as far as our present knowledge goes, only two out of the 104 species of European ants are possessed of the habit of collecting and storing seed, and it may be reasonably asked how it can have come about, if this is the case, that the ancient authors were so well acquainted with the fact.

The explanation is that these writers lived on the shores of the Mediterranean, where these two species—Atta barbara and structor—are extremely common objects, both on account of their abundance and their habits. The long trains of harvesters remain exposed to view for hours together, and structor seeks the neighbourhood or even the interior of towns, so that these ants arrest the attention even of the unobservant, and often become familiar as the sparrows.

There can be little doubt that these two ants display the same habits throughout all the warmer districts which they inhabit, but whether they do so in Switzerland, Germany, Northern France, and the other colder portions of their range, remains one of the many interesting questions which still await investigation.

Mr. F. Smith has recorded the presence of Atta barbara in Palestine, and I have lately obtained some curious evidence which goes to show that harvesting ants not only carried on their operations in times past in that country, but that their seed-stores were on a much larger scale than any I have observed on the Riviera.

I am indebted to Dr. F. A. Pratt for the information that mention was made of ants and their stores in the Misna, that codification of the traditionary and unwritten laws of the Jews, which was commenced after the birth of Christ under the presidency of Hillel, and which has at least the merit of serving as a record of a multitude of very ancient customs and observances which, but for it, would probably have long ago been forgotten.

Now it so happens that the very first section of the Misna is called Zeraim, and has to do with seeds and crops, and I was thus enabled, without any very prolonged search, to light upon one of the passages in question.[114] It occurs in a chapter entitled De Angulo in the Latin version, treating of the corner of the fields bearing crops which should be set aside for the poor, and of the rights of the gleaners, and may be freely rendered as follows: "The granaries of ants (Formicarum cavernulæ), which may be found in the midst of a growing crop of corn, shall belong to the owner of the crop; but, if these granaries are found after the reapers have passed, the upper part (of each heap contained in these granaries) shall go to the poor and the lower to the proprietor." And then is added: "The Rabbi Meir is of opinion that the whole should go to the poor, because whenever any doubt arises about a question of gleaning the doubt is to be given in favour of the gleaner."

[114] "Formicarum cavernulæ in media segete proprietarii censentur; pone messores superiore parte pauperum, inferiore proprietarii. R. Meir totum pauperum esse censet, quia quod dubium est in spicelegio, spicilegium est." And to this the following explanatory note is appended: "Formicarum cavernulæ, Frumentum inibi repertum." Misna, Sect. I. Zeraim. Cap. IV. p. 25. Latine vertit et commentario illustravit Gulielmus Guisius. Accedit Mosis Maimonidis Præfatio in Misnam, Edo. Pocockio Interprete, Oxoniæ A.D. 1690.

The intention of this very quaint bit of legislation, or rather of the ancient custom which gave rise to it, appears to have been the following; it was to settle once and for all a nice point of conscience with reference to the claims of the poor upon these ant stores. If the heaps of grain were found among the standing corn before the reapers reached the spot or while they were still at work, the proprietor might claim them without any hesitation; but, if they were discovered after the passing of the reapers, then it was conceivable that the ants, which during the whole time had never ceased their labours, might have collected some of the grain from the fallen ears of corn which lay upon the ground, and were the property of the gleaners. These grains would be those which the ants had collected most recently, and would therefore lie on the surface of each granary heap. Thus it was settled that the upper portion of each heap should belong to the poor, and the lower, that collected from the standing crop, to the proprietor.

We may perhaps laugh at the notion of critically discussing and legislating upon such a subject, and think that such a pitiful matter might have been allowed to pass among those minima about which even the Jewish law need not care.

Be this as it may, it is interesting for us to learn that a custom of the kind had its place among the recognised traditions of the people, and that the harvesting ants of Syria had earned a place in these records by amassing stores of sufficient size, and so disposed as to make them worth collecting.

This reminds us of what M. Germain de St. Pierre has related (Ants and Spiders, p. 29) of the extent of the depredations made among the corn crops at Hyères by these ants; and doubtless other observers who have opportunities for watching the ants during the summer months might supply further confirmation.

It would be of interest to learn the extent and manner of concealment of these large stores of grain, but, during the months from October to May, I have never seen corn in any quantity in the granaries, though there was frequent evidence of its late presence in the dense masses of husks of oats and other large grain lying near the nests. In October, 1873, I found near the entrances to a nest of structor a circular mound formed of this refuse, twenty-seven inches in diameter, and averaging two inches in thickness, while near other nests I have found the chinks between the stones of the terrace-wall behind which the nest lay, literally stuffed with husks. It was plain that these grains of cereals and the larger grasses had been collected during the summer. The granaries in the winter and spring contain the grains of some few of the autumnal grasses, but are principally filled with seeds of the other more abundant autumn-fruiting plants belonging to the neighbourhood.

I have now collected from the granaries of these ants the seeds or small dry fruits of fifty-four distinct species of wild plants, and on examination I find that during my stay in the south (from October to May) the seeds of the distinctively spring and summer-flowering plants are either entirely absent or are very scarce, while the great bulk of the seeds belong to plants which ripen their fruits in the autumn. Thus the grains of oats, of the large fescue and brome grasses, of quaking grasses (Melica), and other kinds common near the nests in May, are conspicuously absent in the winter, as are the fruits of all the sedges but one, and this one (Carex distans) retains its fruits till late in the autumn. Among other spring-flowering plants common near the nests, the seeds of which are also absent, I may mention violets (Viola odorata), poppies, (Papaver), certain species of Veronica, Helianthemum guttatum, Silene quinque-vulnera and Plantago Bellardi.

Here a curious question arises—viz., What becomes of the large stores of seeds which one may still find in the nests in May, when the ants are busy pouring fresh supplies into the nest? The answer probably is, that, as the weather becomes warmer, ever-increasing calls are made by the larvæ upon the food-resources of the nest, and that old and new seeds rapidly disappear together, and all the energy and activity of the colony is needed to meet the increased demand.

Still, it would be interesting, if it were possible, to assure oneself whether this is the case; that is to say, whether the residue of the winter stores is really consumed during the summer, or whether a portion of it remains in the granaries until the following autumn. One might perhaps learn something as to this if one had an opportunity of opening a nest late in July, and before the characteristic autumn-fruiting plants had set their seed. If the granaries were then principally filled with seeds of spring-fruiting plants, and the winter seeds were almost or entirely absent, this would afford tolerably good negative evidence in favour of the latter having been eaten during the summer.

One thing is certain, and that is, that these harvesting ants do not habitually abandon their nests every year. On the contrary, while many swarms leave the nests at different seasons, a portion of the original colony, or of its descendants, still remains in the old home, and very few out of the many nests which I have watched during the past three years, and of which I have noted and mapped the positions, have been deserted. On my return to Mentone in October, 1873, I hastened to examine the nests between which war had been carried on in the previous year (Ants and Spiders, p. 38), and found in one case that the vanquished nest was completely lifeless and abandoned, while the victorious colony was remarkably thriving, and its granaries teemed with seeds. The locality occupied by the other belligerent colonies had unfortunately been built over.

I have often been asked whether I could give an approximate estimate of the quantity of seeds contained in a nest of average size, but I have hitherto felt unable to do this in a satisfactory manner. I am now in possession of more reliable data, and believe that the following calculation may be taken as a near approximation to the truth. During the spring of 1873 I removed with but very little loss the contents of two granaries from a very extensive nest of Atta structor, consisting principally of seeds of clover, fumitory, and pellitory. These seeds, when perfectly clean and freed from earth, weighed in the one case 4 sc. 4 grs., and in the other 5 sc. 8 grs. Now there cannot have been less than eighty such granaries in this nest, so that, if we take five scruples as the average weight of the seeds in each granary, and this, allowing for loss in collection, which we may fairly do, we should have a total weight of more than sixteen ounces, or one pound avoirdupois weight of seeds contained in the nest. But, though this mass of seeds represents the result of infinite labour on the part of the ants, each individual granary contains but an insignificant quantity, and the store-chambers often lie at great distances apart; it is therefore impossible to believe that the stores alluded to in the Misna can have been as small and scattered as these were, and we must, on the contrary, suppose them to have been both larger and more accessible.[115]

[115] Perhaps these heaps of corn may have been piled up at the entrance to the nest, as is sometimes the case when the workers, in their eagerness to secure as much as possible of a passing harvest, bring in the supplies too fast for their companions within the nest to be able to find room for and accommodate. When this happens the seeds lie outside the nest until fresh chambers are prepared for their reception.

The means employed by the ants to prevent the germination of the seeds contained in their granaries still remain secret, and all the experiments and investigations which I have hitherto been able to make have failed to give me the clue.

The problem to be solved is the following: Given seeds, the readiness of which to germinate has been proved, to place them in damp soil at depths varying from half an inch to twenty inches below the surface in such a manner that they shall remain there dormant, neither germinating nor decaying, for weeks and even months. These very seeds must be capable of germinating after the conclusion of the experiment.

This is what the ants do for millions of seeds, for the instances in which a few seeds appear to have sprouted within the nest in defiance of the ants, are very rare and wholly exceptional; and when after prolonged wet weather germinated seeds are seen outside the nest, it will usually be found that these have the little root cut off, and are eventually carried back into the nest and used as food. By a fortunate chance I have been able to prove that the seeds will germinate in an undisturbed granary when the ants are prevented from obtaining access to it; and this goes to show not only that the structure and nature of the granary chamber is not sufficient of itself to prevent germination, but also that the presence of the ants is essential to secure the dormant condition of the seeds.

I discovered in two places portions of distinct nests of Atta structor which had been isolated owing to the destruction of the terrace-wall behind which they lay, and there the granaries were filled up and literally choked with growing seeds, though the earth in which they lay completely enclosed and concealed them, until by chance I laid them bare! In one case I knew that the destruction of the wall had only taken place ten days before, so that the seeds had sprouted in this interval.

My experiments also tend to confirm this, and to favour the belief that the non-germination of the seeds is due to some direct influence voluntarily exercised by the ants, and not merely to the conditions found in the nest, or to acid vapours which in certain cases are given off by the ants themselves.

In order to put this latter point to the test of experiment, I confined about a hundred harvesting ants (A. structor), with their queen and several larvæ, in a glass test-tube eight inches long and one inch in diameter, closed with a cork and filled up to within about an inch of the cork with damp sandy soil, most of which was taken from the ants' nest.

I added six peas, six cress and six millet, and then kept the tube tightly corked for nine days, only once removing the cork for a few seconds in order to sprinkle a little water on the ants, which were evidently in need of it. On the ninth day I turned out the contents of the tube and found that all the peas, millet and cress, had germinated and were growing strongly. One of the cress, however, had had its root, which lay across the gallery constructed by the ants, gnawed off; four clover seeds, which had come with the soil taken from the nest, and which had formed part of the ants' stores, had germinated also. Here the small quantity of air contained in the test-tube must certainly have become saturated with any vapour which the ants may be supposed to give off, and we cannot therefore accept this as the cause of the dormant condition of the granary seeds.

I made other experiments in which harvesting ants were imprisoned along with various seeds in small, cylindrical, closed vessels containing a little damp sand. Here the vessels were frequently rolled from side to side or shaken, during the twenty-two hours for which the experiment lasted, so as to excite the ants and make them give off such odours as they possessed, but no trace of injurious influence was produced upon the seeds, which germinated and grew normally afterwards.

At Mr. Darwin's suggestion I made a long series of experiments with formic acid, in which measured quantities, pure or diluted, were placed in a watch-glass on damp sand and surrounded by seeds, the whole being enclosed in a covered tumbler, so that the effects produced on the seeds by the vapour rising from the acid might be noted. Similar seeds were sown at the same time and in the same way, but without the acid, so as to permit of comparison. These experiments have afforded some interesting results,[116] but do not supply any positive data which might help us to discover the secret of the ants. They narrow, indeed, the area in which search can profitably be made, indicating as they do that the vapour of formic acid is incapable of rendering the seeds dormant after the manner of the ants, and showing, on the contrary, that its influence is always injurious to the seeds, even when present only in excessively minute quantities.

[116] I hope shortly to offer these observations, together with another series of a similar nature in which my friend Mr. J. B. Andrews has taken part, to the Linnean Society.

It appears to me now that the most promising field for experiments made with a view to clearing up this difficulty, is that afforded by the closer investigation of the phenomena of normal germination, and by a study of the conditions under which seeds remain dormant, as they are occasionally known to do, in situations which our general experience would have selected as favourable to germination.

I have good hopes, also, that when we come to know more of the habits of harvesting ants in tropical countries, and when naturalists have excavated and described their subterranean stores—a thing which has not yet been done as far as I know—we may gather fresh indications to guide us in our search.

I am puzzled to account for the fact, which I have seen stated by more than one observer in India, that the ants there have a habit of bringing out large quantities of grain and seed and laying them in heaps outside their nests at the commencement of the wet season. Dr. King, the director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Calcutta, has told me that when in the Gwalior territory during the beginning of the rainy season, he saw heaps of seeds, principally those of a leguminous plant (Alyssocarpus), piled up round the entrances to the ants' nests, and that it was precisely at that time that flocks of a rock-grouse (Pterocles exustus) first made their appearance. They fed freely upon the seeds, and Dr. King found the crops of some of these birds, which he had shot, filled with them.

It is difficult to imagine why these Indian ants should turn out from their nests the very seeds which it had cost them so much labour to collect, and the more so as we find that these seeds are devoured by birds. It seems just possible, however, that the ants, remaining torpid during the rainy season, do not require the seeds, and know that, under these circumstances, if left in the nest, they would sprout, and choke up the galleries and granaries. Perhaps also they may have learned that a certain number of the ejected seeds will spring up and afford future harvests within easy reach of the nest.

All this, however, and especially the suggestion as to the dormant condition of the ants during the rainy season, might easily be proved or disproved by direct observation; and at present we have nothing but mere speculation to go upon.

It is curious to find that the native population in a certain part of India pay a kind of tribute to the ants, for Dr. King informs me that the Hindoos in Rajputana, a province in which the old traditions and superstitions retain especial hold, have a custom of scattering dry rice and sugar for the ants, and thus apparently recognise both their love of sweet things and their habit of collecting seeds. It may be that this custom is now little more than a meaningless rite; but in the past it probably had its origin, either in a wish to propitiate the good will and avert the destructive attacks of creatures which are the scourge and dread of entire districts, or in a sentiment of combined fear and admiration—fear of the power, and admiration of the energy, forethought, perseverance, and sense of duty to the community displayed by these marvellous insects.

That the latter feeling may have had some share in prompting this act is suggested by another custom which is stated[117] to prevail in Arabia, in accordance with which an ant is placed in the hand of a newly-born child, in order that its virtues may pass into and possess the infant.

[117] Freytag, paragraph under the Arabic word for Ant, in his Lexicon Arabico-Latinum, vol. iv. p. 339, where he quotes from a local dictionary.

Among the many curious and obscure features in the economy of ants, one of the most interesting is the occasional presence in their nests of different creatures which live among and often in harmony with them, the nature of the relations between host and guest being for the most part quite unknown.

When examining the contents of some granaries from an extensive nest of Atta structor at Mentone last spring (1874), I found large numbers of a minute, shining-brown beetle moving about among the seeds. These little creatures were themselves not unlike some very small seeds, and were of an elliptic form, measuring a trifle less than one line in length. They proved to belong to the scarce and very restricted genus Coluocera.[118] This species, named by Kraatz C. attæ, on account of its inhabiting the nests of ants belonging to the genus Atta, has been found in Greece.

[118] I am indebted to Mr. F. Smith of the British Museum for the name of this beetle and for the following reference to its description; Kraatz in Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift for 1858-9, p. 140.

Mr. Bates,[119] in his most interesting account of his travels on the Amazons, remarks upon the singular fact, of which the above instance is an example: "that some of the most anomalous forms of Coleopterous insects are those which live solely in the nests of ants," and he then goes on to allude to the strange snake Amphisbæna, a native of that region, which also lives in the nests of the Sauba ants (Œcodoma cephalotes), observing how curious it is that an abnormal form of snakes should be found in the society of these insects. He is of opinion, however, that the Amphisbæna is not an inoffensive guest, but lives upon the ants whose nest it selects for its home.

[119] Naturalist on the Amazons, p. 61-2 (Ed. 2, 1864).

Another remarkable inhabitant of ants' nests is a minute cricket, of which I found a single example in the midst of a colony of black ants at Mentone in February, 1874. This miniature cricket is scarcely as large as a grain of wheat, the body, excluding the antennæ and other appendages, measuring only two lines in length. It has been described by Dr. Paolo Savi[120] under the name of Gryllus myrmecophilus. He detected it in the nests of several species of ants in Tuscany, where it lived on the best terms with its hosts, playing round their nests in warm, and retiring into them in stormy weather, while allowing the ants to carry it from place to place during their migrations.

[120] Dr. P. Savi, Osservazione sopra la Blatta acervorum di Panzer in Bibliotheco Italiana, tom. xv. p. 217.

Gryllus myrmecophilus has also been observed in nests of the turf ant (Tetramorium cæspitum) near Paris.[121]

[121] Bulletin Soc. Entom. de France (1872), p. li.

At Mentone I have never found more than this one specimen, and the ants among which it was domiciliated were of a species new to me (Camponotus (Formica) lateralis, Oliv.). This colony of ants was composed of many winged males and females, as well as workers, the last-named measuring from two and a half to three lines in length, and black in colour. In other colonies I have found the workers black, with red head and thorax.

Another ant, not enumerated in my list in Ants and Spiders, is Camponotus (Formica) sylvatica, which I detected in March last under stones on Cap Martin, near Mentone. When disturbed, this ant runs along with its abdomen raised vertically in the air, much as the devil's coachhorse (Staphylinus) does. The same curious habit of erecting the abdomen is found in another ant, not uncommon in decaying wood in the South, Crematogaster scutellaris; and probably all three insects adopt this threatening attitude, which is that of the scorpion preparing to strike and sting, in order to intimidate their enemies, though Crematogaster is the only one which really possesses a sting.

Camponotus sylvatica has the same long legs and slender body as Formica cursor, and is of about the same size; the workers, which are of a dark brown colour, measuring about 3¹/₂ lines in length.

Perhaps it may be well, in concluding these remarks on Harvesting Ants, to call attention to the principal questions which still await solution. The first is one which any observer who travels in Central Europe during the summer may help to solve.

1. Do any ants collect and store seed in Switzerland, Germany, North France, England, or indeed in any of the colder parts of the world?

2. What are the habits of Atta structor and A. barbara when living, as they are known to do, in Switzerland, Germany, and Northern France?

3. How do the ants contrive to preserve the seeds in their granaries free from germination and decay?

4. How are the seed-stores of tropical ants disposed below ground, and of what do they consist?

5. Do harvesting ants exist in the southern states of North America, in Australia, New Zealand, or at the Cape?

[SUPPLEMENT]
TO
TRAP-DOOR SPIDERS.

There would doubtless be a just feeling of pride and satisfaction in the heart of a naturalist who could say that he had made himself thoroughly acquainted with all the species of a particular group of animals, had learned their most secret habits, and mastered their several relations to the objects, animate and inanimate, which surrounded them. But perhaps a still keener pleasure is enjoyed by one who carries about with him some problem of the kind but partially solved, and who, holding in his hand the clue which shall guide him onwards, sees in each new place that he visits fresh opportunities of discovery. The latter is certainly the condition of those who take an interest in searching out the habits and characters of trap-door spiders; for this subject, far from being exhausted, expands under the light of recently acquired facts, and invites research in many parts of Europe, north as well as south.

We have only to compare the number of types of trap-door nest which were known before the publication of Ants and Spiders, with those at present recorded, to see how fruitful this field of inquiry has already proved.

Before this little work was published, only one type of trap-door nest was known in Europe: two new types were described in its pages, and I have now the pleasure of being able to bring three more hitherto unknown European types before the notice of my readers, thus raising the number to six in all. I do not include in these six types the very curious, and still imperfectly-known nest of Atypus;[122] a spider which is a true representative of the trap-door group as far as its structural characters are concerned, but which, although it excavates a silk-lined burrow in the earth, does not appear to construct any kind of door at the mouth of its tube.

[122] See Ants and Spiders, page 78. Atypus belongs to the sub-family Atypinæ, a division which does not include any of the Nemesias or Ctenizas, and of which indeed Atypus is the only European representative.

Much uncertainty still hangs over the habits of this spider, as the facts hitherto recorded, though perfectly authentic, are difficult to piece together into a satisfactory whole. One thing, however, is clear, and that is, that the nests and habits of the spiders of the genus Atypus (of which, as Mr. Pickard-Cambridge, informs me, two if not three distinct species inhabit England) merit attentive study, and would most certainly repay it. Hastings, Portland, the coast of Dorsetshire, and the neighbourhood of London and Exeter, are the habitats hitherto cited for this spider, but I cannot doubt its existence in many sheltered localities on the south coast of England.

The most recent contribution to our knowledge of this genus is contained in a paper by M. Eugène Simon,[123] who describes three species (two of which are new), as inhabiting France, and it remains to be ascertained whether our British Atypi agree in their characters with any of these.

[123] Note sur les Espèces françaises du genre Atypus, Latr. in Ann. Soc. Entomologique de France, 5^e ser. tom. iii. (1873), p. 109.

He describes (p. 113-4) the nest and mode of life of Atypus piceus, Sulzer (=A. Sulzeri, Latr.),[124] the commonest of the three species, as follows:—"They (the spiders) seek dry and somewhat sandy slopes, sometimes also woods, chiefly plantations of evergreens; their retreat is always concealed either by stones, or in moss which one must remove carefully and in large masses (plâques) in order to detect them."

[124] Thus named by M. Simon.

"This Atypus excavates an oblique hole of 15 to 20 centimetres deep, and of the size of its body; it lines it with a rather narrow silken tube of a very close texture, the upper part of which, exceeding the subterranean portion in length, lies horizontally on the surface of the ground, and ends in an open tapering point. Near its lower extremity the tube is suddenly contracted, and then dilates into the form of a fairly spacious apartment, in which the spider lives; the cocoon enclosing the eggs is suspended by a few threads at the contraction. I have frequently surprised Atypus in the act of holding earth-worms in their falces, and I think that these Annelids constitute the larger part of their food; indeed, if one examines the lower portion of the silk chamber, one may remark a part where the tissue is thinner and more transparent. I have not been able to detect an opening, but it is probable that the Atypus can easily part the not very compact threads, and thus obtain for itself an easy prey, and dispense with the necessity of ascending to the surface of the ground. When taken out of its tube, Atypus does not even attempt to escape; it is therefore plain that it is not organized for the pursuit of an active prey; and, on the other hand, the upper extremity of the tube is ill-adapted for an ambuscade, being almost closed, and without support. This small opening would seem to be solely intended for the entrance and exit of the male (a very much smaller creature than the female) during the breeding season, which occurs in the month of October."

Plate XIII

M. Simon says that this species of Atypus is common in all the centre, east and west of France, and that he has detected it in great abundance in the neighbourhood of Troyes, in Champagne, in the month of October, when the male was inhabiting the same tube with the female.[125] I am greatly indebted to M. Simon for having given me the specimen of a silk tube taken entire from a nest found in this locality, which I have figured in [Plate XIII], fig. A. It will be seen that the tube has collapsed, but one may still trace the enlargement near the base which forms the chamber, the elbow where it is bent at the surface of the ground, the moss, scales, and fibres of plants which are woven into, and serve to conceal the aërial portion, and its termination in a twisted and apparently-closed mouth.

[125] M. Simon has discovered another species of Atypus at Digne in the Basses Alpes which constructs a similar nest to that described above. This species was detected for the first time by M. Simon and described by him under the name of Atypus bleodonticus.

Indeed, I believe that, in this specimen, the upper extremity of the tube is really closed, for, when I succeeded in inflating this aërial portion, the lips did not part, but remained drawn together.

It seems very extraordinary that the mouth of the tube should be thus closed, so that the female spider becomes a prisoner, self-immured, and I can only suppose that this is a temporary condition, limited perhaps to the period during which she receives the visits of the male.

At the very base of the tube I found a mass of earth, roots and vegetable fibres, and in this I hoped to have detected the débris of insects or other food, such as I sometimes find at the bottom of and below the tubes of the trap-door nests in the South, but of this there was no trace.

It is difficult to me to imagine how the spider could contrive to live by the capture of worms, after the fashion suggested by M. Simon; for who does not know the speed with which, on the slightest alarm, worms draw back into their holes and escape pursuit, and the muscular power which they exert in resisting any attempts to drag them out of the earth?

M. Simon's account of the closed tube and capture of worms by this spider corresponds, however, with that given by Mr. Joshua Brown, the first discoverer of Atypus in England.

This gentleman communicated his discovery to Mr. Edward Newman[126] in 1856, since which time (with the exception of M. Simon's paper quoted above) little or nothing seems to have been done to clear up the points which remain doubtful in the history of these singular creatures.

[126] Note on Atypus Sulzeri of Latreille, by Mr. Edward Newman, read before the Linnean Society; a report of this communication is given in The Zoologist, vol. xiv. (1856), p. 5021.

Several nests of Atypus were discovered by Mr. Joshua Brown in the neighbourhood of Hastings, when traversing a lane bounded on either side by high and steep sand-banks, partially covered with grass and bushes.

His attention was at first arrested by the sight of "something hanging down which looked like the cocoon of some moth;" but, on closer examination, the silk case proved to be empty, and was continued as a tube into the ground to a depth of 9 inches, where he came upon the spider lying at the bottom. Further research revealed the existence of a number of these nests in the same locality, but the length of the different tubes varied much; they were usually about 9 inches long, but some were much longer, often baffling his attempts to follow them; the longest which he was able to secure entire measured 11 inches. All the nests were, however, alike in having a tubular silk lining, about ³/₄ of an inch in diameter, a part of which protruded from the ground for about 2 inches, and was pendent, inflated, and covered with particles of sand, assimilating it to the surrounding surface; it was closed at the upper extremity, leaving no exit to the open air.

Mr. Brown took home some of these tubes in a collapsed state with the spider at the bottom. In one case, on opening the box in which the nest was placed, he perceived a movement throughout the tube, as if it were being inflated; this however soon subsided, but the following morning he was surprised to see that the whole tube was inflated, especially at the end which had lain exposed on the bank. He failed to find any aperture by which the spider could enter or leave her nest, and his captives, though passing backwards and forwards in their tubes, never came out at either end. He never saw flies or any fragments of insects in the nests; but, on drawing out one of the tubes, he observed a worm at the lower end, partially within it, partially outside, and he perceived that the spider had evidently been eating a considerable portion of its anterior extremity.

It will readily be seen that there are some discrepancies between the different accounts which have been given of the nests of Atypus found in England and France,[127] and I think it quite probable that some at least of the nests described may really differ, and be the work of distinct species belonging to this genus. Mr. Brown describes his nests as having by far the greater part of their length under ground, while in those observed by M. Simon, as shown in my figure, [Plate XIII] fig. A, the exposed portion of the tube equalled or exceeded the subterranean.

[127] A subject already alluded to in Ants and Spiders, at p. 78.

An imperfect specimen at the British Museum, from some English station (exact habitat not given), appears to have the proportions described by Mr. Brown; the length of the aërial portion of the tube being less than one-fourth of that of the subterranean; the upper end of the tube is however open, but I am doubtful whether this was originally so or not, for the silk is torn at this point, and the opening may be a rent caused by rough handling.

After a comparison of the above description, it appears to me that the following are the principal points which remain to be cleared up:

1. What is the precise structure of the nests of Atypus, and are they always uniform in character at all seasons of the year?

2. What is the use of the exposed aërial portion of the tube?

3. Do the two British species make similar nests?

4. What food, besides worms, does the female live upon, and how does she obtain it?

5. Does she ever leave the nest?

6. What becomes of these spiders and their nests in the winter, and how long do they live?

7. When do the young leave the nest; and do they, like their relatives in the South, construct nests like those of their parents in miniature?

I would commend all these points to any lover of Nature who may seek the southern coasts of England during the autumn and winter months, and I think it more than likely that a careful search in the sandy banks near St. Leonards, the slopes under the fir-woods of Bournemouth, and the deep lanes in the neighbourhood of Torquay, would be rewarded with success.

If the breeding season in England only commences in October, as appears to be the case in France, it would seem most probable that the spiders survive the winter. Very possibly these spiders and their nests might be transplanted and placed for observation in a garden; and if room were granted them in a greenhouse or Wardian case, or even in a large flower-pot in a living-room, it is not unlikely that the warmer temperature might waken them up to renewed activity.

It seems clear that Atypus has to fear the insidious attacks of enemies; for not only is the external portion of the tube closed or almost closed at certain seasons, but it is covered outside with such materials as may serve to make it resemble the surrounding surface of the ground. Thus Mr. Brown's nests, lying on a sandy bank, were covered with particles of sand, while my specimen from Troyes has moss and fibres of plants woven into its upper extremity.

Indeed, all the European representatives of the suborder Territelariæ which I have myself met with, conceal their nests with great care and skill. There appear to be others, however, which either make no nests at all but hide under stones, or only construct a simple silk tube, open at the mouth, and without any special contrivance for its dissimulation. Further observation of the habits and dwellings of these apparently unworthy members of the trap-door group is much to be desired.

Mr. Bates,[128] in his work on the Amazons, describes Mygale (Theraphosa) Blondii, a large and powerful spider of that region, as burrowing into the earth and "forming a broad slanting gallery about three feet long, the sides of which he lines beautifully with silk." This spider "is nocturnal in his habits," and maybe seen "just before sunset keeping watch within the mouth of his tunnel, disappearing suddenly when he hears a heavy foot-tread near his hiding place."

[128] Bates, H. W., Naturalist on the Amazons, Ed. 2. (1864).

This nest would therefore appear to have an open tube undefended by any door; but in this case the great size of the spider and the depth of the burrow, which is more than twice as long as that of the average European nests, may help to explain this apparent want of precaution.

But, if we wish to learn with what different materials and by what varied means the same end of self-preservation can be attained, we have only to cast a glance at the sketch of a portion of a nest at fig. B, [Plate XIII], p. 183, where it will be seen that the entrance to the nest, far from being concealed or obscured in any way, is rendered a most striking object, and one which appears devised for the very purpose of attracting attention. The nest to which I refer is the work of Cyrtauchenius elongatus, from Morocco, and consists, according to the account given me by its discoverer, M. Simon, of a deep cylindrical burrow in the soil, the silk lining of which is prolonged upwards for about three inches above the surface of the ground, and enlarged into a funnel shape, so that it becomes from two to three inches across at the orifice. This aërial portion being snow-white, at once attracts the eye even from a considerable distance, and the nests rising up amid the sparse grasses and other small plants which serve to support but not to conceal them, present the appearance of scattered white fungi.

This is therefore quite a new type among the nests constructed by trap-door spiders, new in form and probably in function also, and I would propose to distinguish it provisionally as the funnel type.

Now the female Cyrtauchenius is, like its near relatives the Nemesias, a sluggish and rather helpless creature, and shows no apparent physical superiority which might countenance its dispensing with the methods of concealment which form the characteristic habit of the group.

How then does this spider manage to escape its many enemies, especially the insidious attacks of the insects of the Sphex and Ichneumon families, which certainly abound in Morocco?

Mr. Wallace, to whom I put the question, suggested that this species may perhaps be chiefly nocturnal in its habits, and that, if this is the case, the bright white and flower-like tube of the nest may possibly serve to attract night flying insects, which would thus become its prey.

In any case, whether we can discover them or not, some curious points of difference must exist between this spider and its allies, which secure to it a comparative immunity.

It appears to me that there are few questions which can be of greater interest to the naturalist than those which have to do with the conditions determining the existence of a given species in a given place.

Of the questions, Who are your relatives? Where do they live? and How are you able to live here? surely the last is not the least important.

And, if we wish to try to answer this question, we must do all in our power to find out how the habits and conditions of life of the creature in question, differ from those of its competitors; for we may be quite certain that it does not exist where we see it by grace and favour, but by merit; if it is neither stronger, cleverer nor more numerous than its neighbours, we may be sure that it has found some means of living which does not interfere fatally with their requirements. Hence the endless diversity of function and habits in all living creatures, which forms such a prolific and marvellous subject for our study and contemplation.

I am indebted to M. Simon for permission to publish the details given above on Cyrtauchenius elongatus, and also for having given me such directions as enabled me to make the sketch from which the drawing at [Plate XIII], fig. B, was copied.

I must however state that this illustration is not taken from an actual specimen, but is prepared solely from his description; so that it cannot pretend to complete accuracy of detail. M. Simon assured me nevertheless that it conveyed the general appearance of this remarkable nest with sufficient fidelity, and I have been induced to reproduce it here in the hope that it may serve to make my meaning plainer, and to suggest the kind of object which one should look for, if an opportunity offered.

Another species of the same genus, Cyrtauchenius Doleschallii, is known to inhabit Sicily, but the nest is undescribed. M. Lucas has described two species,[129] belonging to the closely-allied genus Cyrtocephalus, both of which appear to construct nests somewhat similar in form to that discovered by M. Simon. Whether these nests are equally showy we cannot tell, as the account is brief and few details are given; but one, that of Cyrtocephalus terricola, appears to differ in having threads stretched from the opening of its funnel, which serve to ensnare insects and to give notice of these captures.

[129] Cyrtocephalus Walckenaëri and terricola, Lucas (H.), Animaux articulés de l'Algérie (Paris, 1847-9), vol. i. p. 94-5.

The great trap-door group therefore comprises spiders which differ widely in respect of their dwelling places. Some construct no nest at all or only an irregular web, and live under stones; others, like Theraphosa Blondii, make a simple cylindrical tunnel, or, like those just described, a tube having a prolonged, uncovered, funnel-shaped mouth: others again, belonging to the genus Atypus, form the curious and as yet imperfectly-understood nests with a silken tubular lining, part of which hangs down outside; while on the highest rung of the architectural ladder, stand the builders of the veritable trap-door nests.

It seems quite possible that, when we know more of the structures made by Territelariæ generally in various parts of the world, we shall find that nests of various degrees of complexity and perfection of structure exist, bridging over the gulf between the barbarous dwellers under stones and the highly civilized inhabitants of the branched wafer and cork nests.

Indeed, thanks to recent discoveries, I am already able to do something of this kind for one small group of spiders, namely, for that of the European Nemesias having nests with wafer doors.

Plate XIV.

I hope to make this plain by reference to the diagrams on [Plate XIV], where the figures C, D, E, F, and G represent on a reduced scale five types of wafer nest constructed by as many distinct spiders, and where a gradation may readily be traced between the simplest type at C and the most complicated at G; but we shall speak more fully of this matter by-and-by.

In these diagrams I have placed that representing the nest of Atypus on the extreme left (A);[130] next to this stands that of a nest of the cork type (B), a type which must be carefully distinguished from all the rest. It must not be supposed that the solid cork door (so called from its resemblance to a short cork closing the neck of a bottle), is nothing more than a thicker edition of the wafer door; it is not so, but, on the contrary, possesses a very characteristic structure of its own, being composed of many layers of silk, each furnished with a sloping rim of earth, while the wafer door consists of but a single layer of silk.

[130] These types may be briefly enumerated as follows:

I have represented at B 1 the 14 layers of silk and earth which went to make a single cork door examined by me. It will be seen that the outermost of these layers is the largest, and the innermost the smallest, and I have already (Ants and Spiders, p. 150) shown reason for believing that the latter constituted the first door the spider ever made, and that the consecutive layers mark successive stages in the enlargement of the nest.

There is therefore a broad distinction as to construction between cork nests and wafer nests; moreover, while the former are, as far as we know at present, all of one type, and only differ in size or proportion, the latter appear under five distinct types.

Thus, every known cork nest, whether found in Europe, America, or the Antipodes, has the same solid door and simple tube; while of the wafer nests, some have branched and others simple tubes, and some again possess a lower door in addition to the upper or surface door.

In the following pages I intend to treat of the trap-door spiders and their nests in the same order in which the latter are placed in the diagram, commencing with those of the cork type B, and then dealing successively with the several wafer nests from C to G. We have already spoken of A, the nest of Atypus piceus, and seen that our present knowledge of this nest, of the habits of its occupant and of those of its relations, is still far from complete.

The cork type is, as my readers will perhaps remember, the great cosmopolitan type which ranges round the world, and which, curious to say, is built by many different spiders belonging to distinct genera.

The idea of planning this very perfect bit of mechanism appears to be the common inheritance of these several spiders, separated though they are by wide intervals of geographical space as well as to structural divergence.

At Mentone two distinct spiders construct nests of the cork type, one of these being a Nemesia and the other a Cteniza. They are as unlike each other as they well can be, and it seems remarkably strange that their nest-building instinct should be so similar. The nest of the Cteniza is indeed shallower than that of the Nemesia, and a practised eye can usually trace a difference between the slightly less angular lower surface and more semi-circular outline of the door of the former, and the more abruptly bevelled and more circular door of the latter.

These spiders and their nests have been already described and figured in Ants and Spiders under the names of Ct. fodiens and Nemesia cæmentaria. Recent discoveries have however shown that these spiders possess distinctive characters of their own, and, though closely allied to the species indicated, should be separated from them.

Last spring when pulling down an old terrace-wall (by permission) I had the good fortune to discover the very remarkable male Cteniza drawn at fig. A, [Pl. XX], p. 254. I found no trace of a nest or web of any kind, and the spider was merely hiding between the stones.

There appears to be scarcely any doubt that this is the male of the female Mentonese Cteniza which has, up to this time, been called Ct. fodiens. A comparison with typical specimens of the true Ct. fodiens from Corsica, has however shown that the two are certainly distinct, and Mr. Pickard-Cambridge[131] now describes the Mentonese form under the name of Ct. Moggridgii.[132]

[131] Mr. Pickard-Cambridge has once more kindly undertaken the task of naming and describing my collections of trap-door spiders, and the results of his labours will be found at the end of the present work.

[132] I take this opportunity of thanking him for the compliment. A description of this new species will be found at p. 254, below.

The females of the true Cteniza fodiens are far larger than those of our new Mentonese species, and construct their nests in dry and exposed places, instead of in the moist and shady ivy-covered banks selected by the latter. I have found Cteniza Moggridgii at San Remo and Mentone, and it will probably be also discovered at Nice, but I failed to detect it either at Cannes or Hyères.

The Corsican male at the first glance curiously resembles that found at Mentone, but differs essentially in details and especially in having the surface of the caput unbroken, whereas the caput of the latter presents a very peculiar character in an impressed line which runs across it from side to side (figs. A 1 and A 2). Both agree, however, in being strangely unlike their females.

The other builder of a nest of the cork type at Mentone was, as has been already stated, described and figured in Ants and Spiders under the name of Nemesia cæmentaria. Now the true N. cæmentaria of Latreille is found at Montpellier, the classical habitat where the first discovery of trap-door spiders in Europe was made towards the end of the last century, but its true characters have been hitherto but imperfectly known.

I have lately been able to secure several specimens at this place, and they certainly differed in their markings from the so-called cæmentaria of Mentone. M. Simon had previously informed me that he considered our Mentonese spider distinct from the typical cæmentaria, and had kindly proposed to give my name to the Mentonese species; and now Mr. Pickard-Cambridge, on the receipt of the specimens collected by me at Montpellier, coincides with M. Simon, and adopts his nomenclature, calling the Mentonese Nemesia N. Moggridgii.[133]

[133] See below, p. 273.

I found but one nest of the cork type at Montpellier, where it was most abundant, and invariably inhabited by the same spider, so that there can be little doubt that this is the celebrated Nemesia cæmentaria of Latreille, the nests of which were described by the Abbé Sauvages in 1763.

When living, the pattern on the abdomen is far more distinct and is traced on a paler ground than in N. Moggridgii, and the patterns on the back of the caput, as seen in specimens preserved in spirits, and the relative sizes of the lateral eyes, as well as other details enumerated by Mr. Pickard-Cambridge, afford characters by which they may be known apart; and it is probable that when the males, which are at present unknown, shall be discovered, they will be found to present other distinctive peculiarities. In the present instance we have the reverse of the case described above, in which two very distinct spiders constructed a similar nest, for here both spiders and nests are much alike.

We have yet to learn what are the special advantages which each type of nest affords; but it is plain from the fact of the same type being adopted indifferently by both nearly- and most distantly-related spiders, that the form of the nest is governed far more by the conditions which it is contrived to meet, than by the affinity or resemblance of the spiders which construct it.

I have found N. Moggridgii at San Remo, Mentone, Cannes, Hyères, and Marseilles, but thus far, I only know of the true N. cæmentaria at Montpellier.

The latter spider is rather bolder than the former, and I frequently saw it at Montpellier watching at the slightly raised door, with the tips of the claws projecting from the nest, and it rarely failed to resist most vigorously any attempt of mine to force the door open.

During the summer of 1873, I received two specimens of trap-door nests from California. Both of these nests were of the cork type and nearly entire, wanting only a small portion of the base of the tube; they most closely resembled one another and were probably the work of the same spider. For one of these, coming from the San Joaquin valley, between the Calaveras and the Tejon, I have to thank M. J. C. Puls, a Belgian entomologist residing at Ghent; and for the other, containing the spider which had constructed it alive within its tube (!), I am indebted to Mr. G. H. Treadwell of San Francisco. The former nest is drawn at fig. A, [Plate XV], and the spider[134] from the latter at fig. B of the same plate.

[134] This spider, which proves to be a new species, is described below (p. 260) as Cteniza Californica.

Plate XV.

Mr. Treadwell had carried this spider and its nest, with the block of earth in which it lay, all the way from Visalia, a town about 350 miles south of San Francisco, where he had taken it; the nest and spider travelled safe to London enclosed in an empty cocoatina tin, 4¹/₂ inches deep, and 2³/₄ across.

The nest was then entire, for these spiders appear to make singularly shallow tubes; and it might have remained so up to the present day had it not been for the rash curiosity of a chambermaid in the London hotel where Mr. Treadwell was staying, who, smitten with a great desire to learn what the heavy little box which came from the land of gold might contain, proceeded to examine the earth, when the sudden appearance of the spider frightened her so much that box and nest and all were thrown with a crash upon the floor.

Were it not for this unlucky incident I might have seen a complete specimen of this curious nest; but as it was, though the spider miraculously escaped uninjured, the bottom of the nest was pounded into dust, and only the upper portion remained intact.

Both this nest and that sent to me by M. Puls, were of the true cork type, and presented a solid door with a bevelled edge, fitting into the correspondingly bevelled lip of the tube, and shutting flush with the surface of the ground. The lining of the tube was strong and thick, but soft and silky to the touch.

The tube itself in Mr. Treadwell's specimen, when intact, cannot have measured more than 3¹/₂ inches in length; and we learn from Dr. Lanzwert, who collected the other specimen, that the average length of these nests does not exceed three inches. Dr. Lanzwert, writing in one of the local papers[135] of "The Mygales or Ground Spiders," says, "the poisonous black tarantulas, so well known to naturalists, are extremely common in California, but only in places upland, or lowland which are very hot and dry. Their principal haunts are the San Joaquin valley, between the Calaveras and the Tejon. A similar species from the coast is not only smaller than the interior variety, but the colours are much deeper. They both make a curious habitation under the ground, composed of a glutinized, web-worked purse, about three inches long, and which is furnished with a tightly-fitting lid which they can open or shut at pleasure, and which is as cunning a piece of insect architecture as is to be found in nature. These ugly loathsome Californian spiders are often mentioned by thoughtless scribes as carrying no more danger than a common wasp, like the species of Italy, but it is well known that several persons, young and old, have lost their lives in this State from the bite of such tarantulas as are met with in our coast and interior country. Their enemy in the Tulare valley is an immense shining black wasp,[136] fully an inch long, which will pounce upon them, and after a short battle drag the tarantula along in the most valiant style of heroic conquest. These interior tarantulas are often seen measuring two inches in the spread."

[135] The Evening Bulletin for Oct. 25, 1866.

[136] This insect was probably not a true wasp, though belonging to an allied family; it may perhaps have been a Pepsis, certain species of which genus Mr. Bates informs me he has frequently seen near Santarem on the Amazon, hawking over the ground where the huge trap-door spiders lived, and suddenly pouncing down upon one of these creatures, often many times larger than themselves, when, after paralysing their victim with their sting, they would deliberately saw off the legs before dragging away the bodies!

Mr. Treadwell was quite as much impressed as Dr. Lanzwert with the belief that the bite of these spiders is fatal, but it does not appear that either of these gentlemen have obtained conclusive evidence in support of this allegation.

I have occasionally been bitten by the trap-door spiders in South France, but have never experienced the slightest subsequent inconvenience, nor was there any trace of inflammation or poisoning about the punctures which they made. Mr. Blackwall[137] has made a very careful set of observations on this head, and has caused some of the largest species of British spiders to bite his finger and wrist until the blood flowed, without the slightest ill effects. He also inoculated himself at the same time with the poisonous secretion of the spider and with that of the wasp; when the latter wound became extremely painful, while the former was not perceptibly aggravated. Mr. Blackwall obtained the spiders' poison by causing a spider to seize a slip of clean glass with its mandibles, when a small quantity of a liquid showing a slightly acid reaction was deposited.

[137] Mr. J. Blackwall, Researches in Zoology, ed. 2, 1873; chapter on "The Poison of the Araneidea," pp. 240-256.

Mr. Treadwell informed me that these Californian trap-door spiders leave their nests in the daytime, and may be seen walking by the roadside, though they are always prepared to hurry back to their nests on the approach of danger.

I received the spider which I have represented at fig. B, [Pl. XV], p. 198 (Cteniza Californica), from this gentleman alive, and still within the remaining portion of her nest, on the 6th of July, 1873. She then had the legs and cephalothorax of a brownish-black, and the abdomen of a dull, uniform, dusky chocolate brown, but with an indistinct median line near the anterior end on the upper side, intersected at right angles by a shorter line. Mr. Treadwell said, however, that when captured, this spider was much darker, and of a pitchy black colour. The hairs all over the body were short, but especially so on the abdomen, which had the appearance of cloth or felt.

This creature in many ways recalls Cteniza fodiens of Corsica, and in a less degree the Cteniza of Mentone and San Remo.

We find not only the same general form of body, but also the same claws furnished with only one tooth, instead of many as in Nemesia, and other distinctive features; and it is interesting to observe in the nest that the more semi-circular form of the door and the wider hinge also connect it rather with Cteniza than with Nemesia.

Here, as in all spiders yet observed in cork nests, we find the habit of resisting any attempt to open the door, and many a time when I have wished to raise the lid in order to drop in flies or other food, I have been obliged to desist because the bending blade of my penknife showed that I should injure the nest if I used greater force.

No doubt the shallowness of the nest is an advantage to its occupant in one way—namely, that it enables the spider to start up at the shortest notice, and cling on to the door.

It is curious to find that, far as California is removed from the Riviera, the same habits of construction and self-defence are common to the spiders of both countries, and that the bond of kinship sets time and space at defiance.

I kept this spider all through the summer and early autumn at Richmond (Surrey), sprinkling the nest from time to time with water, and constantly supplying its inhabitant with flies, wood-lice, grasshoppers, earwigs, and other similar dainties. She did not, however, seem eager for food, and the insects provided for her, and actually placed within the nest, were often turned out again almost untouched.

When I placed living insects, such as grasshoppers, for example, within the nest over-night, she would often allow them to remain there unharmed, so that I found them ready to escape on opening the door the following morning.

I never saw her leave the nest of her own free will, and when I made her come out and set her to run in the garden, she began at once to seek for a place to hide in, hobbling along in an ungainly way and at a slow pace.

She must, however, have left the nest on more than one occasion, unseen by me, for she deposited several clusters of eggs at various times upon the under-surface of the gauze net which was fastened over the mouth of the box in which she was imprisoned.

The first of these groups of eggs was laid during the night between the 12th and 13th of July, and formed a raspberry-shaped cluster attached to the gauze.

I have represented this cluster of the natural size at fig. B, 6, and magnified at fig. B, 7, on [Plate XV], only in an inverted position, for they really hung downwards from the under side of the net.

These eggs were greyish white or pale brown, and varied in shape from globose to oblong.

All were very small, the largest only measuring ¹/₂ line in its greatest length, but it is doubtful whether any of these eggs were fertile, and, though they appeared full and plump, many presented an irregular and fissured surface.

A fortnight later (July 27) another cluster of eggs was laid, and this time between the hours of five and eight P.M. When the lamp was brought in at the latter hour, I perceived what I took to be a drop of water hanging from the gauze cover above and rather in front of the spider's door, the very position occupied by the cluster of eggs previously described. On closer inspection this proved to be a drop of a pellucid colourless liquid, in which some thirty eggs floated. One egg was laid on the gauze at some distance from the main group, and several were also attached to the inside of the tin box.

At midnight I found that the drop had coagulated and contracted, and by the following morning the mass was quite dry and resembled the former group, only that it was not quite so convex.

Some of the eggs forming this cluster were much larger than any in the preceding one, and one measured as much as a line in length by half a line in breadth. This group is shown magnified at fig. B, 8, [Plate XV], and some of the separate eggs more highly magnified at fig. B, 9.

Between this date and the end of November when the spider died, eggs were laid on seven distinct occasions—viz., on July 31, August 11, 15, 31 (when I again found the eggs floating in a drop of liquid, having been deposited on the gauze between two and half-past four o'clock in the afternoon); September 9 (23 eggs laid on the earth near the entrance to the nest); September 19 (about 30 eggs on the gauze), and November 4 (about 30 eggs on the gauze).

Thus, between July 13 and November 4, this spider laid nine clusters of eggs, all but one of which were placed on the same part of the gauze cover, above and a little in front of the door, and the total number of eggs deposited cannot have been less than 250. It is difficult to understand why she should have laid these eggs outside the nest, unless indeed she knew them to be sterile, and so treated them as refuse. I can scarcely believe that such a procedure is in accordance with the ordinary habits of these spiders; for, if the eggs and young are habitually exposed, then the perfect concealment of the nest would lose one of its most important uses. When we remember that there are minute hymenopterous insects which lay their eggs within the eggs of the spiders, we can see how important it may be that the entrance to a nest, which is at once nursery and stronghold, should be closed by a well-fitting door, and one which may exclude, not only the larger and more powerful enemies of the full-grown spiders, but also the tiny and almost imperceptible assailants of the eggs and young.

This Californian spider was always careful to eject from the nest the remains of insects with which I had supplied her, and, as she did so deliberately and by day as well as by night, I had frequent opportunities of watching her. Sometimes, if not alarmed by any sudden movement, she would remain for one or two minutes at the mouth of the nest with the door partly raised, and I was glad to seize these opportunities for making some experiments, with a view to learning whether she would prove as sensitive to sound as she did to other vibrations and to the sight of moving objects.

Placing myself so that the partly-opened door screened me from her view, I was able to approach close to the nest without causing her alarm, and to make different sounds and noises at distances varying from three to fourteen inches.

In no case, however, did she pay the slightest attention; and neither shrill and sudden whistling, deep chest and buzzing sounds, an octave of piercing notes struck upon brass bells, my best imitation of the whirring of the fern owl, or finally, the angry hum of a large humble-bee imprisoned in a paper box, and held within three inches of the door of the nest, appeared to produce any kind of effect. This surprised me, I confess, for, though I am aware that no auditory apparatus has as yet been discovered in spiders, I can scarcely believe that they stand at so great a disadvantage as creatures would seem to do which lack the power of hearing.

These experiments must not, however, be taken for more than they are worth; and the results obtained may have been due rather to apathy in the individual spider than to a want of perception in the race generally. In any case they suggest the need of further experiment and observation in this direction.

In October I carried this Californian spider out with me to Mentone, and she lived there and appeared plump and well until the end of the following month, when she suddenly died, having laid one more group of eggs in the interval. On examination, I found a dark brown spot on one side of the abdomen, and this, I think, probably indicates that her death was caused by some insect of the ichneumon family, which had laid its eggs within the spider's body, after having stabbed it at the place indicated by the discolouration.

Not very long before this melancholy event occurred, I had put the spider to some inconvenience in order to secure her portrait from life, to effect which I took her from her nest and placed her in a deep china saucer.

She exhibited the strongest dislike to exposure, and sought to hide herself even under a fold of blotting-paper which lay in the saucer with her. I also noted that she appeared quite incapable of walking up the sides of the saucer, and it would therefore seem that she was destitute of the viscid hairs which enable some spiders to traverse glazed and polished surfaces.

Seeing this anxiety on the part of the spider for concealment, it came into my mind that, perhaps, if she were placed on the surface of a pot full of garden mould she might excavate a tunnel in order to hide herself from view. This I accordingly did in the evening of November 15, and on the following morning I was delighted to find that she had commenced to dig and was still at work.

In little more than an hour's time the hollow had become about the size of half a walnut, and resembled in its nearly semi-circular outline and size the surface of the door of her own nest. I was greatly pleased to be able to watch the creature at the work of excavation, a sight which I believe no naturalist has ever had before.

The legs took no part in the digging, and the palpi were but little used, the mandibles and their fangs being the implements chiefly employed. As soon as a little earth had been loosened and gathered up, the spider walked up to the edge of her excavation and deposited there her mouthful of particles of earth, separating and working the mandibles up and down in the effort to part with the pellet, which had been carried between the fangs and the mouth-organs. Each pellet was very small, and the operation appeared to be excessively tedious and laborious. I had expected to see the spider scrape out large quantities of earth at a time, and either drag it backwards or kick it out behind her as a terrier does when working at a rabbit-burrow; but no, every little pellet removed was carried forwards, and deposited separately on the "tip."

On the two following days, the 17th and 18th November, the spider remained almost inactive, and brooded over the cavity she had made, and which still remained too shallow to conceal or even contain her. At 4 P.M. on the latter day I made a hole for her in the earth, and, after some indecision, she took possession of it. Next day, however, finding that she remained motionless in the hole which I had made, and displayed no apparent intention of either lining it with silk or furnishing it with a door, I replaced her in her own nest.

Within a few days after this date I found her dead at the bottom of her tube, and at first I was inclined to fear that the treatment to which she had lately been subjected might have caused her end. When, however, I detected the brown spot on the side of the abdomen, described above, and which so strongly recalled the marks frequently observable in caterpillars attacked by ichneumons, I came to the conclusion that she had really died from the internal injuries caused by the gnawing of these cruel parasites; and that the eggs, laid long before by one of these insects, had been hatched within her body and developed into larvæ, which, living upon her tissues, had at length destroyed some vital part. It is surprising that a creature, carrying within itself such a fatal brood, should not only live, but be capable of undergoing such adventures and misadventures as this travelled spider endured with seeming indifference; but similar facts are familiar to all those who have attended to the rearing of caterpillars, and the frequent disappointment caused by the death of apparently sound specimens which have been attacked in this way is but too well known.

It would appear that Cteniza Californica is peculiarly amenable to captivity, and indeed to captivity of the strictest kind.

My specimen lived during all the time she was in my possession in a cocoatina tin, a cylindrical box 4¹/₂ in. deep and 2³/₄ in. in diameter, which always stood among the books and papers on my writing-table. It is probable that those trap-door spiders which inhabit nests with short tubes, and which therefore can be transported nest and all, would be less disconcerted by imprisonment than is the case with other kinds living at the bottom of a long burrow which it is almost impossible to carry away entire. This is borne out by what has been related (Ants and Spiders, p. 122) of the habits of Cteniza ionica in captivity, which not only endured to have its nest set upside down in a flower-pot, but actually furnished the inverted base of the tube with a door appropriate to its new position.

Canon Tristram (the well-known author and naturalist) was so kind as to send me two trap-door nests from Palestine for inspection; these were small cork nests, the doors of which resembled those of the Mentonese Cteniza (Ct. Moggridgii), but the tubes were exceedingly short, and that of the more perfect specimen, as I gather from Canon Tristram, measured only two inches and an eighth in length when entire.

The nests of Cteniza ionica are but little longer, and that of the Mentonese Cteniza, though never so shallow as these, are far less deep than those of Nemesia cæmentaria, the builder of the typical cork nest.

And now we will leave the nests of the cork type and their inhabitants, and turn to the more intricate group of nests belonging to the wafer type. Following the order indicated in the diagrams, we will begin with the simplest type of all, fig. C, and afterwards take the remaining types one after the other, advancing until we reach the most complex type, G. The nest represented diagrammatically at fig. C, in [Plate XIV], is shown of the natural size in [Plate XVI.], with the spider (Nemesia Simoni, Camb.) which constructs it (fig. A 1).

Plate XVI.

It belongs to the single-door unbranched wafer type, of which one example has already been described in the West Indian nest (see Ants and Spiders, p. 79, fig. B in woodcut); for, though this latter has a shorter tube and a much stouter silk lining than is the case with its European representative, there does not appear to be sufficient difference to justify their separation as distinct types.

This, which is the simplest known form of trap-door nest, is quite new to Europe, and the spider inhabiting it proves also to be one hitherto undescribed; it has received from Mr. Pickard-Cambridge, the name of Nemesia Simoni,[138] being so called in honour of M. E. Simon, the well-known arachnologist.

[138] Mr. Pickard-Cambridge describes N. Simoni at p. 297 below. This species is remarkably well characterized, an assertion rarely to be made in the case of those Nemesias of which, as in the present instance, the female only is known. The elevated, rounded, and glabrous caput at once distinguishes it, not to speak of other peculiarities. Mr. Pickard-Cambridge alludes to the presence, in the specimens forwarded to him in spirits, of two singular indentations on either side of the caput (fig. A 3, [Plate XVI]). I did not observe this when these spiders were alive, but I remember that the caput of one of these spiders which had been injured in capture contracted and expanded spasmodically, presenting a painful resemblance to laboured breathing. I have not observed this in other spiders.

During last May (1874) we spent a few days at Bordeaux on our homeward route. While there my sister was fortunate enough to discover a single nest of this type when we were out together on a spider-hunt near the little village of Lormont, which is situated on the opposite bank of the river to that on which the city stands. We subsequently found these nests in tolerable abundance in a deep shady lane near a restaurant called Mon Répos, on the same side of the river, but rather farther up.

Here the hedge banks were high, and the soil was composed of a fine even-grained loam of great depth, which permitted the spiders to carry their tubes very far down, some of them attaining a length of 15 inches.

This made it very difficult to follow them throughout their whole course and so to assure oneself of the real structure of the nests, but I succeeded in doing this in twelve instances.

In every one of these I found the tube cylindrical and unbranched throughout, and destitute of any trace of a lower door.

This deficiency alone distinguishes the present type from that to which the nest of Nemesia Eleanora belongs; the latter being of the double-door and the former of the single-door, unbranched wafer type.

But perhaps it may be asked whether it is safe to assume that because twelve examples of this nest were found to correspond in structure, and were tenanted by the same occupant, that therefore all the Bordeaux nests in which this particular spider might be found would present similar peculiarities.

I greatly hope that other naturalists will put this question to the test of actual investigation on the spot, but I do not hesitate to assert my conviction that this will prove to be the case.

The result of my experience among the nests of the other Nemesias, scores of which I have carefully examined in many widely separated localities, shows that a given spider is invariably associated with a fixed type of nest.

Thus, Cannes is from fifty to sixty miles distant from San Remo, but the nests of N. cæmentaria, N. Manderstjernæ, and N. Eleanora show precisely the same characteristics in either place.

Moreover, the twelve nests referred to were not all taken from one restricted locality at Bordeaux, but were found presenting the same characteristics and occupied by the same spider in three distinct habitats, distant some miles from one another. In two nests several young spiders were found with the mother, and, in one case where the family consisted of twenty-three young ones, I observed that they were not all equally small, and some had nearly attained one-third of their full size.

This agreed with the fact that no very small nests were observed, and it seems probable that the young are not turned out of their nursery quite so early as some of their relations are at Mentone. This, however, varies perhaps in accordance with changes of climate and local conditions.

We failed to detect any other type of nest at Bordeaux than the one described above: and even the cork nests, which we had shortly before seen in such abundance at Montpellier, were apparently absent.

Bordeaux is by far the north-westernmost point in Europe[139] at which any spider constructing a true trap-door nest has as yet been discovered; and the fact that they exist in a climate so different from that of the Riviera and of the whole Mediterranean region, leads me to hope that their range may in reality be much more widely extended than has hitherto been supposed to be the case.

[139] Cork nests have however been mentioned as occurring in the neighbourhood of Lyons, which lies in nearly the same parallel of latitude with Bordeaux.