Harvesting Ants and Trap-door Spiders, by J. Traherne Moggridge

I cannot say what may take place during the summer months; but from October to May I have but rarely found one of these spiders ready to oppose me, though Nemesia meridionalis and N. Eleanora frequently did so. Many times, wishing to provoke them, I have tapped at the door in order to apprise the occupant of my arrival, or lifted it and let it fall again, and always in vain, though the spider was there, crouching at the bottom of her tube.

Indeed I can only recall six or eight instances in which this spider did hold down her door, and on three of these she was captured.

I will now relate what I saw on one of these occasions,[65] for there has been much speculation as to the manner in which the spider clings to the door and offers the determined resistance which is experienced.

No sooner had I gently touched the door with the point of a penknife than it was drawn slowly downwards, with a movement which reminded me of the tightening of a limpet on a sea-rock, so that the crown which at first projected a little way above, finally lay a little below the surface of the soil. I then contrived to raise the door very gradually, despite the strenuous efforts of the occupant, till at length I was just able to see into the nest, and to distinguish the spider holding on to the door with all her might, lying back downwards, with her fangs and all her claws driven into the silk lining of the under surface of the door. The body of the spider was placed across, and filled up, the tube, the head being away from the hinge, and she obtained an additional purchase in this way by blocking up the entrance.

I did not force the spider to release her hold, but, by a rapid stroke with a long-bladed knife, cut out the upper part of the tube with the surrounding mass of soil, and thus secured the trap-door and its owner. This specimen is represented at fig. C, Plate VIII., where the pin-point holes made by the claws may be seen in pairs round the whole circumference of the flatter portion of the lower surface of the door except on the side next to the hinge.

Whenever a spider resists in this way she must make these holes, but I have very rarely seen them in other nests; this may perhaps be accounted for by their having been effaced by the action of moisture which would stretch the silk. However this may be, this specimen showed the claw marks quite distinctly on my return to England after the lapse of several weeks.

Much has been written about these marks, which are frequently spoken of as holes purposely made in the silk in order to give the spider a better purchase. It has also been stated that two holes may be seen in the silk of the tube near the mouth on the side away from the hinge, but these I have never been able to find. The door of nest A in Plate VIII. is rather abnormal, as it is made up of two doors, the smaller one being spun into the top of the one now in use. This is, I believe, an abnormal and rather clumsy example of the ordinary way of enlarging the nest, but of this we shall see more when we come to speak of the construction and repairing of these nests generally.

Fig. B in this plate represents a moss-covered sod pierced by the tube of a nest, the door of which is entirely concealed from view, and only discovered when opened as at B 1.

This nest was found accidentally by Mr. Robert Lightbody, who kindly brought it to me, its presence having been betrayed by the tube, which he happened to cut through in digging up a plant. The moss on the door grew as vigorously, and had in every way the same appearance, as that which was rooted in the surrounding earth; and so perfect was the deception that I found it impossible to detect the position of the closed trap even when holding it in my hand. There can be no doubt that many nests escape observation in this way, and the artifice is the more surprising because there is strong reason to believe that this beautiful door-garden is deliberately planted with moss by the spider, and not the effect of a mere chance growth. I shall adduce evidence in support of this statement by-and-by.

I alluded to the nest C (Plate VIII.) when speaking of the claw marks which it exhibits, and that figured at D and D 1 in this plate is merely an instance of a good example of this type. I have taken nests of N. cæmentaria both at Cannes and Mentone, and have little doubt that this species will be discovered at many points along the Riviera. I detected two abandoned nests of the cork type, which I fully expect had belonged to N. cæmentaria, in an enclosed space called the Campagne de Garonne in Marseilles itself. These nests lay in the little mound of undisturbed earth between the divided trunks of the small olive-trees, and I do not doubt that if I had had time to search I should have discovered more nests, and perhaps others which were still tenanted.

We now turn from the single-door nests to those with double doors, and from the well known to the new types of structure.

In these we have a thin and wafer-like door at the mouth of the nest, and from two to four inches lower down, a second and solid underground door. These lower doors are characteristic of the nests to which they belong, that of the branched nest (Nemesia meridionalis, Plate IX.) being long and more or less tongue-shaped, while that of the unbranched double-door nest (N. Eleanora, Plate XII. p. 106) is somewhat horse-shoe shaped.

The surface doors of these two kinds of nest do not appear to differ, and, though rather thinner, may be compared to those of the single-door wafer kind from Jamaica.

The commonest form at Mentone is the branched nest, which may be found in abundance in many of the loosely-built walls of the lemon and olive terraces or on sloping banks, but they are rarely to be met with on flat ground.

In the nests of Nemesia meridionalis the tube, instead of being simple, as it is in all other known nests, is invariably branched, a second tube joining the first at the point where the lower door is hung and forming with it an angle of about 45°. The main tube descends and is frequently curved, or sometimes doubly bent like the spout of a tea-kettle (A, Plate X. p. 100), while the branch ascends, and in some few instances reaches the surface, though it is usually a cul de sac (Plate IX.)

In the exceptional cases where the nests have two superficial openings, one of the two surface doors always appears neglected and going to decay, or is covered with earth which chokes the upper part of its tube. The explanation of this probably is that the spider found the original entrance blocked up or in some way unfitted for use, and then prolonged what was the blind branch until it reached the surface and replaced the former doorway. However this may be it is certain that in the great majority of nests it will be found that the branch ends in the earth, and is a cul de sac, and this I have invariably observed to be the case in the nests of very young spiders of this species (fig. B, Plate IX.)

The tube is frequently enlarged at the mouth, and forms a spreading lip which the surface door is usually large enough to cover (A 1, Plate IX.)

In these branched double-door nests the upper door does not fit into, but merely lies upon, the mouth of the tube, the elasticity of the hinge and its own weight being sufficient to keep it closed. The lower door is suspended by a hinge placed at the apex of the angle formed by the bifurcation of the tube, and is hung in such a manner that it can either be pushed upwards so as to lie diagonally across and block the main tube, or be drawn back so as to fit into and close the entrance to the branch.

This will, I think, best be understood by reference to the drawings of a small nest of this type given at B 1 and B 2 in Plate XI. p. 105, where the second door is shown in its two positions. This lower door is from 1 to 1¹/₂ lines thick, channeled above, but nearly flat on the back, and of an elliptic form, with a loose appendage at its lower end, the whole being made of earth enclosed in a case of silk.[66] When the lower door is drawn back so as to close and conceal the entrance to the branch, it lies in the same plane, and closely corresponds in curvature with the lining of the main tube and almost appears to form part of it (fig. A, Plate X. p. 100, and fig. B 1, Plate XI. p. 105).

When digging out these nests, after carefully removing the upper portion, I have frequently seen the lower door move across and block up the main tube in a mysterious manner, it being in reality pushed by the spider from below, and she may sometimes be captured at her post with her back set against the door. More frequently, when the spider finds that resistance is hopeless and sees the earth crumbling in, she drops to the bottom of her nest and lies there helpless, with her legs folded against her body like an embryonic creature; some, however, more savage than their neighbours, fly out and strike at the intruder with their fangs.

What then, it may be asked, is the use of the branch? I do not think that we can draw any safe conclusion from what takes place when we dig out a spider, as to what would occur if she were besieged by one of her natural enemies, such as ichneumons, sand-wasps, centipedes (Scolopendra), small lizards &c.[67]

Let us suppose, however, that one of these creatures has found its way into the nest and is crawling down the tube. What will probably happen? Why, in the first place, the spider will slam the second door in the face of the intruder, and then, if worsted in the pushing match which follows, quickly draw this door back again and run up into the safety branch, when the enemy, after descending precipitately to the bottom of the main tube, will look in vain for the spider as it searches on its way up for the secret passage now closed by its trap-door. This is but a purely imaginary case, and it may be that the branch has some wholly different purpose.

It seems very improbable, however, that it should be mainly intended as a safety place for the eggs or offspring; at least if this were the case we should not expect to find it, as we do, in the nests of very young spiders (fig. B, Plate IX.), which could have no use for it.

The large spider and its nest figured at A and A 3 in Plate IX. were taken at Mentone on March 17, 1872, and the following is the technical description of the species, written by Mr. Pickard-Cambridge:—

Nemesia Meridionalis. Plate IX.

Syn. Mygale meridionalis (Costa). Fauna del Regno di Napoli, p. 14, Pl. I., figs. 1-4, ad partem.

Female adult, length 11 to 13 lines.

This spider is very nearly allied to N. cæmentaria both in general structure and colours, but it may be distinguished by the more elongate form both of the cephalothorax and abdomen; the colours also of the present species are more distinctly distributed; a well-defined narrow marginal band, irregular on the inside, surrounds the thorax; and the caput has a large curved patch of the same on either side of the ocular area, with a broad tapering band tinged with orange, which runs from immediately behind the eyes to the thoracic junction, where it ends in a point. The transverse diameter of the ocular area is also less in proportion to its longitudinal diameter than in N. cæmentaria, and the eyes are all smaller, but placed on a similar oval eminence, and several bristles are directed forwards from the middle of the lower margin of the clypeus, while one or two others are found in the ocular area, and three or four more (long, strong, and nearly erect) form a longitudinal row along the middle of the central tapering thoracic band. The Falces are deeply yellow-brown, with two to three elongate oval patches or short longitudinal parallel bands on their upper sides; in their armature the falces are similar to those of N. cæmentaria. The Labium appeared to be less broad in proportion to its height, and the Sternum smaller and of a more oval form than in that species. The Abdomen is similarly marked, though the chocolate-brown markings appeared to be less deep and dense, being more broken up, but still forming several fairly defined, bold, and broad angular bars or chevrons on the upper side. The inferior spinners, though small (like most of the corresponding pair in species of this family), are yet considerably stronger than in N. cæmentaria.

Adult females of this spider were found in tubular silk-lined holes in the earth, closed at the external orifice with a flat scale-like hinged lid, covered with lichens and mosses. Not quite half way down this tube is a tubular branch running off upwards at an angle of 45° or less; the main tube also at this point is furnished with an elliptical-hinged valve, with which the spider appears to have the power to close the entrance to the branch or to shut off the upper part of the main tube. This branch (found also in the tubes of very young examples) seems to be certainly a strong distinguishing character in the economy of the species, and separates it at once from N. cæmentaria. In the nest of N. meridionalis the tube also projects at times above the surface of the soil upwards among the herbage which serves to conceal it. Costa appears to have had before him this latter species as well as what is here taken as the typical N. meridionalis, as he speaks of the nests under his observation as being frequently branched, while his description would suit both species; his figure, however, more nearly agrees in the thoracic pattern with the spider above described. Ausserer, in his elaborate paper on the Mygalides, lately published (Beiträge &c. vide supra), appears to have overlooked M. meridionalis (Costa) altogether; while Canestrini and Pavesi (Catal. degli Araneidi italiani in Atti Soc. Ital. Sc. Nat. xi. (1869)), p. 25, include it under the synonyms of M. fodiens Walck., from which it is undoubtedly distinct, as may be seen at once, even if it were only by the difference in the form and structure of the lid with which the external orifice of the tubular nest is closed.

In the case of the upper door of these branched nests, as there is but a very thin coating of earth on their upper surface, it is rare to find any of the larger mosses or lichens growing upon them; but, as if to compensate for this deficiency, a variety of foreign materials are employed which are scarcely ever found in cork doors, such as dead leaves, bits of stick, roots, straw of grasses, &c., and I have even seen freshly-cut green leaves, apparently gathered for the purpose, spun into a door which had recently been constructed.

But here again there is the widest possible difference between nest and nest in the degree of perfection in their concealment; and, although as a rule the surface of the upper door harmonizes well with the general appearance of its surroundings, there are some individual nests in which it readily catches the eye and even attracts attention.

Thus, I have seen nests in mossy banks where the doors, being made of nothing but earth and silk, showed distinctly as brown patches against the green; and those doors which are covered with earth only, even when they are surrounded by earth, are often easily detected, because when they dry up, as they quickly do, they become much paler in colour than the earth of the bank, which retains its moisture.

Perhaps in no case is the concealment more complete than when dead leaves are employed to cover the door. In some cases a single withered olive leaf only is spun in and suffices to cover the trap; in others, several are woven together with bits of wood and roots, as in the accompanying woodcut, which represents different views of the upper door of the nest which is drawn in Plate X. p. 100.

In this nest another interesting feature presents itself, for here the tube projects a short way beyond the surface of the ground and is hardened and coated with earth and fine gravel in such a way that it requires no other support. This is not commonly the case, and may perhaps be the result of a contrivance to meet the necessities of a nest which has had the surface earth washed away from it. But I have frequently observed nests in which the upper part of the tube is carried up for two or three inches through grass, moss, ferns, pellitory, or the like, the stems of the sheltering plants being interwoven with and made to support the tube.[68] In every case the second door, which is designed for resistance and requires a firm-walled tube into which it may be wedged, is below ground, and for the same reason we scarcely ever find cork nests constructed with any part of the tube projecting beyond the surface of the soil.

At fig. A, Plate XI., one of these branched nests is seen concealed in a plant of ceterach fern, and here the tube is raised a short way above the soil; while in fig. B of the same plate the common form is represented, the upper door lying flat on the surface of the ground, from which, thanks to its covering of small mosses, it is scarcely to be distinguished.

The figs. B 1 and B 2 show this door open and the lower door in its two positions.

Now that attention has been drawn to the existence of this new type of nest, I fully expect that Nemesia meridionalis will be found at many points along the Riviera and in the whole Mediterranean region, but I have hitherto only discovered it at Mentone and Cannes. Mrs. Boyle saw one of these nests in the Pallavicini gardens near Genoa, and there seems every reason to believe that certain nests which have been detected near Naples and in Ischia, will, when better known, be found to be of the branched double-door type.

It seems probable that our spider belongs to the species which was first described by M. Costa,[69] under the name of Mygale meridionalis, though, if we are to rely implicitly on the figures and detailed account given by this naturalist, we must suppose that it constructs a different nest in Southern Italy from that which it makes on the Riviera, and one which, although it agrees in most other respects, is destitute of the characteristic subterranean door.

It is more likely, however, that M. Costa has overlooked the existence of the lower door, though it is strange that he should have done so, as he says that the nests "sometimes have a double aperture, and the upper portions of the burrows meet and anastomose at about two inches distance," thus showing that he was aware that the tube is branched.

One more nest only now remains to be described, and this is again an example of a new type—namely, of that which I have distinguished as the unbranched double door (Plate XII.), the work of Nemesia Eleanora. This nest is never branched, and its second and subterranean door is situated from one to four inches below the surface door, and only serves to close the one tube which is narrowed above the insertion of this lower door. Here, as in the branched nest, the thin and wafer-like surface door appears to serve principally for concealment and the lower one for resistance. This latter, made out of earth encased in strong white silk, is from one to two lines thick, and has, at the end away from the hinge, a similar appendage to that found in the lower door of the branched nest. This appendage serves, I imagine, as a kind of ear by which the door, when firmly jammed into the tube on the approach of an enemy, may be pulled down again as soon as the alarm is over. As in the branched nest it has the upper surface concave and the lower slightly rounded, so that when drawn back and not in use it may not obstruct the passage. The sides of this lower door slope a little, so that the crown is smaller than the base; and this is important, because it causes the door to fit more tightly when driven upwards into the tube, acting on the principle of an inverted cork door.

In form this door is somewhat elliptic, but much broader and shorter than the second door of the branched nest, and it is frequently of a nearly horse-shoe shaped outline. The second door of the branched nest is necessarily longer, having to perform the double function of closing the opening to the branch and the passage of the main tube.

In either case, however, these doors will be found to be more or less elliptic, and this is necessarily so, for, lying as they do when in use in a plane which cuts the subcylindrical tube obliquely, they have to fill a somewhat elliptical area.[70]

I have observed some variation as to the exact proportions of these doors, and it is quite possible that in many cases they are specially adapted to meet peculiarities in the curvature of the tube.

The nest and spider drawn at figs. A and A 3 of Plate XII. were first discovered by the Honourable Mrs. Richard Boyle at Mentone, on March 26th, 1872, and the following is the description of the species kindly prepared by Mr. Pickard-Cambridge:—

Nemesia Eleanora, sp. nov. Plate XII.

Female adult, length 11 to 12 lines.

This spider, which has (like N. meridionalis) probably been confused with its near ally N. cæmentaria, is yet easily distinguished from both by its deeper and richer colouring, as well as by other characters.

The Abdomen has a far more spotted appearance; in some examples a similar series of dark, broken, slightly angular bars is indistinctly visible on the hinder half of the upper side; in others (the more common type) the darker colouring preponderates, and some transverse, broken, slightly angular, or nearly curved bars or lines of pale spots constitute the pattern; the lateral margins of the thorax are not so distinctly yellow as in N. meridionalis, and there is a single longitudinal stripe on the caput, of a dull orange-yellow brown, commencing directly behind the eyes and tapering to the thoracic junction; the depression or pit at this point is more strongly marked than in either of the two foregoing species; the ocular area is also smaller, and its transverse diameter is less in proportion to its width; the bristles on the margin of the clypeus, as also those within the ocular area and in the central longitudinal line of the caput, are similarly disposed to those in N. meridionalis, but are more numerous; in some details, however, of form and structure—viz., the Labium and Sternum—the present species is more nearly allied to N. meridionalis than to N. cæmentaria. The Legs seemed to be rather longer and stronger than in either; the tarsi and metatarsi of the two first pairs, as well as the digital joints of the palpi, are rather densely clothed a little underneath on their outer sides with a kind of fringe or pad of close-set hairs; in other respects the armature of the legs appeared to be similar to that of the other two species, except that in the present one there are three short strong red-brown spines in a longitudinal row on the outer sides of the genual joints of the third pair; these spines were plainly visible in all the examples found, but did not exist in any one of those of the two former species. The armature of the falces, which are of a uniform yellow-brown colour, is similar to that of those species.

Adult females were found in tubular silk-lined unbranched holes, closed at the orifice with a flat scale-like hinged lid concealed by mosses and lichens, and having a horse-shoe shaped second valve or door less than half way down the tube, of which it serves to shut off the upper part. In this nest, as in that of N. meridionalis, the upper part of the tube often projects above the surface of the soil.

Nemesia Eleanora ♂ Adult, natural size.]

Since the above description of the female of this species was written, an example of the adult male has been most opportunely discovered. It is much smaller than the female, its length being only six lines. The Cephalothorax is of an uniform clear yellow-brown colour, tinged with orange, and thinly clothed with a greyish pubescence: the oblique indentations marking the union of the cephalic and thoracic segments are indicated by a strongish black-brown band on either side, which becomes obsolete as each approaches the other near the central curved indentation; there are also two or three converging suffused blackish stripes on the hinder slope. The relative length of the Legs is the same in both sexes, 4, 1, 2, 3, but in the male those of the fourth are longer in proportion to those of the third pair than in the female; the spines also on the legs are more numerous and stronger, the upper sides of the femora of all the legs are deeply suffused with black, while in the female this suffusion is not nearly of so marked a character, though the genua of the different females examined had a strong brown-black macula on the outer side of each, while the corresponding maculæ in the single male examined were but just visible; the three spines observed on the outer side of the genua of the third pair of legs in the female are of even a more marked character in the male, and hence they may be considered a good and tangible specific difference from other nearly allied species; the tibiæ of the first pair are considerably enlarged on the under side at the fore extremity, where each is armed with a single, longish, strong, slightly curved, pointed black spine directed forwards (fig. a, 3). The Abdomen is small and of an oval form; its colours and markings resemble those of the female, but on the hinder half of the upper side two or three indistinctly traced pale angular bars or chevrons are formed by the distribution of the black-brown colours and markings; the under side of the abdomen is of a uniform pale whitish yellow, except the spiracular plates, which are yellow-brown. The Palpi are moderately long and strong; the radial joint is longer than the cubital, and is of a tumid and somewhat oval form, suffused over most of its surface with dark brown, the rest of the palpus being of a yellowish-brown colour; the digital joint is small and somewhat oblong-oval, curved downwards, and very slightly concave on its inside; the palpal organs consist of a nearly globular, basal, corneous bulb prolonged into a strongish, curved, but not very long, pear-stem form, the stem being distinctly cleft or bifid at its extreme point (vide figs. a 1, and a 2), one portion of the bifid part is larger than the other, though both are equal in length, and the stem of the palpal bulb is directed transversely outwards, almost at right angles with the digital joint.

Until the discovery of the male spider now described, and which is, without doubt, the male sex of the female described immediately before, this latter was thought to be the female of Nemesia Manderstjernæ (Ausserer), and it had indeed been so determined by Professor Ausserer himself. But the form of the palpal organs differs so decidedly from those of N. Manderstjernæ (Ausserer, Beiträge ... der Territelariæ, Verhandl. Z. B. Gesllsch: Wien, 1871, Bd. xxi. p. 170), that all doubts as to the present being a distinct (and as it is believed to be) a hitherto undescribed species, are removed. From M. Ausserer's description, the pear shaped stem of the palpal bulb in N. Manderstjernæ is comparatively slender, ending in a fine and uncleft point, whereas, in N. Eleanora, the stem is strong and its extremity cleft: other differences are also observable in the two spiders, but this one is well marked and the most tangible.

The specific name, Eleanora, now conferred upon the species, is taken from the Christian name of the Hon. Mrs. Boyle, reference to whom has been before made, and of whose kind exertions some acknowledgment is thus permanently recorded.

In fig. A, Plate XII., the upper door, which, if closed, would be entirely hidden by the long filmy mosses which surround and cover it, is represented open; but it should be clearly understood that this is artificial and not natural, as in reality these doors close of their own accord by means of their weight and the elasticity of the hinge. It will be seen that living mosses of two kinds are worked into the upper surface of this door, which was admirably concealed. (fig. A 1, Plate XII.).

It is chiefly in the absence of the branch and the different form of the lower door that the nest of Nemesia Eleanora differs from that of N. meridionalis; and, as they inhabit the same localities, it is only when one has dug down as far as the lower door that it can be known to which of the two species the nest belongs. When once this point is reached however, all doubt is at an end; for in this case the unbranched double-door nest differs from the branched in a way which any child could realize, though the respective spiders are not very dissimilar when seen with the naked eye alone. This affords a good instance of the benefit which may accrue to a collector from a study of the habits of the creatures which he collects, for it is certain that it was the nest in this case which first proclaimed the distinctness of its tenant.

Nemesia Eleanora is rather less common at Mentone than N. meridionalis, but at Cannes I found the reverse to be the case. At the latter place, on the northern slope of the little hill of St. Cassien, branched and unbranched double-door nests may, however, be found in tolerable abundance, the traps being frequently concealed by fallen leaves from the cork oaks, which are woven into their upper surface.

The nest of N. Eleanora often has the upper part of the tube prolonged above the surface of the ground and carried up through mosses, grasses, and the like.

An example of this is seen in figs. B and B 1, Plate XII., in which the upper part of the tube is represented with the surface door open in the one case and shut in the other.

The concealment here was so complete that I should never have discovered the nest but for the merest accident. I happened to want some moss to lay with flowers in my botanical tin, and in one handful which I plucked up this trap-door lay concealed. It should be observed that the upper part of the tube and its surface door were covered with growing moss, and this moss must have lived exclusively upon the moisture which the very damp and shady situation afforded, as there was no earth mixed with the silk.

When digging out the nests of N. Eleanora, I have frequently seen the lower doors pushed forwards so as to close the tube; and it is my belief that the spider, after having thus barred the passage, puts her back against the door and resists in this way. I must own, however, that, though I believe I have seen the spider in this attitude when I have severed the tube from below, I am not quite certain about it.

I have twice in the months of April and May, and frequently in October and November, found young of this species in the nests with their mother. Usually they were all very small and not larger than that represented at fig. B 2, Plate IX., p. 98, but occasionally in October I have found two or three young spiders thrice the size of their companions still in the nest. On one occasion (in April) I found twenty-four small spiders clustered beneath and beside their mother.[71] I secured the whole family by quickly cutting out the mass of earth containing the lower door on the under side of which they remained crouched, and brought them home alive. I had up to this time been in the habit of killing the spiders by placing them in a stopper bottle full of strong spirit of wine, but on treating these spiders in this way I saw reason to regret having done so. I knew that these large spiders, when thrown into spirit of wine, would continue to struggle for an hour or more, spasmodically spreading out their legs as if swimming; but I had supposed that this was only muscular motion, and was not in the least aware that the unfortunate creatures were probably conscious all the while. In this instance I first placed the mother spider in the bottle, and then, after the lapse of about ten minutes, when I supposed that the spider, though still struggling, was dead to sense, I dropped in the young spiders. No sooner, however, had I done this than the mother, perceiving them, gathered all her young to her, and, after placing them beneath her, with her legs drawn up round them, as a hen screens her chickens with her wings, never stirred again, and retained this attitude until death released her, and the limbs, no longer under the control of this wonderful maternal resolution, slackened and fell abroad.[72]

I need scarcely say that the small spiders were killed by the spirit in a very few instants, but it is almost certain that the mother was alive and conscious for half an hour. Now this pain can easily be spared by placing large spiders for about ten minutes in a closed box with a piece of cotton wool steeped in chloroform beside them, before dropping them into the spirit of wine, a system which I have since that day adopted and found to answer perfectly.

I examined these young spiders carefully, hoping to detect some males among them, but the males, though they differ markedly from the females when adult in their smaller size and curiously enlarged palpi, do not appear to afford any distinctive mark at this early period. It appeared that these spiders had been but recently hatched, for some among them were still semi-transparent.

I have never found young spiders in the nests of Cteniza fodiens or Nemesia cæmentaria.

M. de Walckenaer [73] quotes a statement made by M. Rossi to the effect that Cteniza fodiens carries its young on her back, as certain species of Lycosa (Tarantula) do. He points out the interest which would attach to this observation if confirmed, as showing a similarity in habit between the two groups, which are otherwise nearly related.

Observations of this kind are difficult to make satisfactorily, at least in the case of the trap-door spiders with which I am acquainted, and which appear to be nocturnal in their habits. I have certainly never seen them out of their nests in the daytime, and but rarely detected one of them (Nemesia cæmentaria) even venturing to peer out of her door set ajar for the purpose.[74]