430 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1888. 



4. Mr. Emerton's conclusion concerning the questions raised by ray- 

 paper is that we should wait until all the common spiders of America 

 are described before attempting to determine priority of names. 

 This seems to me very curious reasoning. Emerton has described 

 and figured all but two of the spiders contained in my list of Abbot's 

 drawings. Does lie intend us to count his work as worthless for 

 comparative service? I think better of it than that. With his 

 New England "Epeiridte" and Hentz's "Spiders of the United States" 

 in my hand, I have no doubt at all of my ability to determine 

 positively therefrom the ultimate names of many species by comparing- 

 the same with Walckenaer's descriptions and Abbot's drawings. 

 What we need chiefly is a facsimile copy of the latter somewhere in 

 America; but in lieu of that, that some one should take up the 

 matter in London with a good collection of American spiders. 



Meanwhile, no naturalist ought to doubt that it is our duty to recog- 

 nize the Walckenaer species which we know by whatever means to 

 be identical with descriptions made by Hentz, repeated by Emerton 

 and others, and now thoroughly familiar and recognizable. As to 

 the doubtful species, there can, of course, be no question that they 

 had better remain as named by Hentz and more fully described by 

 others. AValckenaer's descriptions are undoubtedly incomplete and 

 some are positively l>ad, but they are no worse in this respect than 

 many of Hentz's, and in my opinion are just as readily identified l)y 

 the aid of Abbot's di-awings as are Hentz's descriptions by the aid of 

 his own drawings. 



At this point I may submit the opinion of one who stands at the 

 very head of living araneologists, Professor T. Thorell, who thus 

 writes me from Italy in a letter dated April 7th, 1888: "The dis- 

 covery of Abbot's drawings of American spiders is indeed a fact of 

 the greatest interest, not only to American but to all arachnologists, 

 and I congratulate you upon having had the luck to make this 

 discoverv. Of course I have read with great attention what you 

 have said on the subject, As to me, I do not entertain the least 

 doubt that you and Professors Leidy, Lewis and Dall are right, and 

 that the earlier names should in all cases be adopted. The law of 

 priority must be respected, and is the only one that prevents arbi- 

 trariness and that gives stability to nomenclature. I think, then, 

 that in all such cases, in which Walckenaer's species can with toler- 

 able certainty be recognized, his names should be preferred to names 

 more lately published, even if these names are more commonly used, 

 or the species better described or figured under these newer names." 

 The weight of this distinguished authority can not be questioned, 

 and I place it in the scale against the judgment of Mr. Emerton. 



I venture to add from the same letter the following sentence, with 

 the earnest expression of hope that the suggestion therein may be 

 realized: "Would it not be possible to have Abbot's work publish- 

 ed ? There are in America so many Avealthy citizens who are 

 willing to make sacrifices for scientific purposes; and in this case an 

 appeal to the national feeling of your countrymen, would not, I 



