188 F. P. SMITH ON SOME BRITISH SPIDERS TAKEN IN 1907. 



In the first place this settles the type of Dismodicus, Sim., 

 for one species, bifrons, is here withdrawn, leaving elevatus as the 

 type. In the second place the question arises, " Is Hypomma a 

 a new genus, sensu stricto, or is it in substitution for Dicyphus, 

 whose type it includes ? " Were it possible to accept the latter 

 alternative I should not have hesitated to have done so, for by 

 regarding Dahl's action as a case of substitution we should have 

 avoided the necessity for sinking Hypomma as a synonym. Such 

 a course is, however, rendered impossible by Dahl himself, for 

 he effectively forces our hands by using the genus Dicyphus 

 in the very same paper. Whatever may be our wishes, we 

 are bound to accept Dahl's own statement made at the time, 

 and his action in employing Dicyphus is absolutely as definite 

 as if he had written, " Hypomma is a totally new genus and not 

 intended to replace Dicyphus." Dicyphus therefore still requiring 

 a new name, I proposed Enidia. 



With regard to the further history of Hypomma it seems 

 straightforward enough. We first determine its type, a simple 

 matter because it contained but two species, one of which (bituber- 

 culata) could not serve, being the type of Dicyphus. The other 

 species, bifrons, is therefore the type of Hypomma. Simon, in 

 1894, selects bifrons as the type of Dismodicus, but this he 

 has no power to do, since Dahl's withdrawal of bifrons in 1886 

 irrevocably settled the matter by leaving elevatus as the type. 

 As long as bifrons and elevatus are held to be congeneric, the 

 name Dismodicus, having priority, will stand, and Hypomma 

 sinks as a synonym. Should these species ever be separated, 

 then Dismodicus will serve for elevatus and Hypomma for bifrons. 



Enidia is employed by Rev. O. P. Cambridge for two species, 

 bituberculata and cornuta. This, of course, is merely a matter 

 of personal opinion, not affected by any laws of nomenclature. 

 The species coimuta I separate as the t} 7 pe of the genus Falco?ieria, 

 differing by the possession on the hind metatarsus of a sensory 

 seta. (I hardly think in the present state of our knowledge that 

 we are justified in ascribing auditory functions to these bristles, 

 although probability points in that direction.) As I have before 

 stated, the decision as to whether these setae can be regarded as 

 generic characters is a question for the individual, and I should 

 not mention the matter here but for the fact that the two 

 objections most generally put forward seem extremely weak. 



