1888.] NATURAL SC1EN(,'ES OF PHILADELPHIA. 77 



new phase upon the matter? Shall we not be compelled, in view of 

 the fact that tiiere can now be no doubt of the identity of Walcken- 

 aer's species, to give the priority to him ? 



The very few American students of our spider fauna have become • 

 so familiar with many of Walckenaer's species under Hentz's names, 

 that it will be difficult to throw those names out of mind. Moreover 

 they have entered into all our literature up to this date, and there 

 will be o-reat confusion in makino; the corrections. Besides, it must 

 be allowed that Hentz's names are better chosen then Walckenaer's. 

 If Abbot, whose patient, long continued and intelligent labors de- 

 serve the real honor, could receive the credit of entitulation, one 

 migiit, at least on the ground of sentiment, feel more reconciled to 

 seeing the priority pass from flentz; especially as Baron Walcken- 

 aer was often indifferent to the prior rights of fellow naturalists. 

 But the laws of priority must be considered, and honesty and justice 

 can give no room for considerations of convenience and sentiment. 



Many of Walckenaer's descriptions may be considered as fairly 

 good, and indeed they have all along been recognized as clearly 

 Covering some of Hentz's species. But when those descriptions are 

 placed alongside of Abbot's drawings, from which they were made, 

 all doubt is removed as to the identity. For the most part, Abbot's 

 drawings are tolerably accurate, Avell finished, are colored after 

 nature, and there was no difficulty at first sight in identifying a 

 large number of our well known species, under the names published 

 bv Professor Hentz. It seems unfortunate that such good work 

 should have remained so long unnoticed, and that credit for the same 

 should liave been so wholly lost to the author. It is at least some 

 satisfaction to be able to render such justice and honor as this notice 

 may bring, to one who barely escaped the distinction of being the 

 father of American araneology by inability to publish or procure 

 the publication of his faithful labors. 



There are thus raised very delicate points as to the law of priority, 

 concerning which Dr. McCook desired to obtain the judgment of his 

 associates: — first, in view of the fact that Walckenaer's species were 

 described not from the spiders themselves, but from the drawings of 

 them made by another hand, can we be permitted to give priority 

 to Hentz, whose descriptions were made from the animals them- 

 selves? Second, does the fact that two years previous to Walcken- 

 aer's descriptions, Hentz published the names of one hundred and 

 twenty five sjiecies. manv of which are identical with those of Abbot's 

 drawings and Walckenaer's descriptions, entitle the American au- 

 thor to priority as to these species? Under ordinary circumstances 

 it would perhaps be at once admitted that Hentz could have no 

 claim, but in view of the special circumstances alluded to may there 

 not be some departure from the strict construction of the lex prlorita- 

 iist The inconvenience of overthrowing Hentz's names would be 

 a peculiar hardship to American araneologists, unless the original 

 or a fac-simile of Abl)ot's Drawings could be obtained and made ac- 

 cessible on this side of the Atlantic. With the book in the British 



