1897] NOTES AND COMMENTS 5 



The AuTiiRoroDs of Funafuti 



Part II. of the " Memoir on the Atoll of Funafuti," based on 

 collections made by Mr Charles Hedley, was published by the 

 Australian Museum, Sydney, on February 25, 1897. Its arrival 

 gives us rather a shock, for we were under the impression 

 that, when the Royal Society invited the Australian Museum to 

 send a naturalist on their expedition, a stipulation was made that 

 the representatives of the Royal Society should retain the right 

 of prior publication. If such an agreement was not made, it ought 

 to have been, in the interests not merely of justice, but, as this 

 publication proves, of science also. 



Mr W. J. Rainbow undertakes to describe the whole of the land 

 arthropods, and his knowledge is scarcely commensurate with the 

 undertaking. Whose knowledge could be ? Probably it is not Mr 

 Rainbow who is to blame, but the authorities of the Australian 

 Museum, who, like the head officials in many other scientific 

 institutions, seem to think that they have only to say to a 

 subordinate, " Do ! " and he doeth it, even though it be a task for 

 which years of training are necessary. In recent zoology, just as 

 in palaeontology, work of this kind can only be done well by the 

 specialist having at his disposal large collections and complete 

 libraries. We have no wish to be hard on an obedient servant, but 

 we must justify our remarks by a few selected criticisms of Mr 

 Rainbow's work. 



On p. 97, the syllable "Nob." following "genus Zispe," is, no 

 doubt, a printer's error for ' Latr,' since Latreille founded this genus 

 in 1796. We let this pass, but discover from the figure that the 

 single female specimen, here made the type of a new species of 

 Lispc, is not a Lispe at all, and does not even belong to the same 

 family. So far as may be judged from the figure, it is a Coelopa 

 (family, Phycodromidae.) " Nob." again, this time following " genus 

 Ebenia " ! Mr Rainbow may have described a genus under the 

 name Ebenia, though he gives no reference to the place where he 

 published it ; but the real Ebenia was founded by Macquart for a 

 Brazilian species having no sort of affinity with the two specimens 

 here described under that name. It is impossible to say whether 

 the four species of Diptera described, three on the evidence of single 

 specimens, are new or not ; the descriptions are too short to be of 

 value, the figures are atrocious, no reference is made to allied forms, 

 and the author, while including family characters, ignores those of 

 specific rank. With the exotic Muscidae {sens, lat.) in their present 

 state of chaos, every attempt of inexperienced workers to describe 

 new species is a distinct retarding of science. 



Of Arachnida, 88 specimens were secured, and these are 



