•J' TUK fANAUIAN K.NTOJKH.Otilhl 



I l>clieve, furthermore, ihat the other genera in ilie Lyiositid, as con- 

 ceived and (Iclmed l)y Prof. Moni-iomery, are in sonic degree artificial and 

 looindelinitcly liniiied to he followed. Perhaps this may I)est Ik indicated by 

 referring to some things in his own usage. Tlius he is led to place his humt- 

 coins, in all fundamental structural features a typical Piratn, under the exotic 

 genus .iuionia ; descriJKS (1902 and 1904) as a new species, yvr<j^i//-i//i, 

 undei riralii specimens of Kexserling's xeramptlina, a sirongl\Mnarked 

 I\ttiioiti : in the sanu" papers refers somt- s|)e«imens oi 00 fata, I lent/, l<» 

 J\iriiosa as a new species. 5«»//7'<i;vi and others to I.ycosa as another new 

 s|)ccies, Slonei, etc. Then, again, he considers under Lycosn (1904) 

 Keyserling's two species, xerampelina and Mackenziana, which are 

 certainly naturally within ParJoia and well-marked representatives of this 

 genus. It would seem possible in this last case that these species were 

 simply taken up from literature, and that Prof. Montgomery did not per- 

 ceive that Keyserling uses Lycosa where m our present nomenclature we 

 UbC Pardoia. 



Such facts as these doubtless explain some of the synonyms among 

 the names proposed by Prof. .Montgomery. Others result from the 

 omission, or apparent omission, from consideration of the species described 

 by Mr. Banks, as well as those of various other authors. Kven in the 

 case of Keyserling's species, whicli are all so fully described, and all of 

 which Prof. Montgomery claims to include in his '04 paper, four are 

 omitted. Then it would seem that he much underestimates the extent of 

 variation in the group, and that differences due solely to ordinary indi 

 vidual variation and to variation with age are in some cases made the 

 basis for separation of forms as species. This is the case, as I believe, 

 with his three species, euepi^nata, itnopita and Purce/ii, the differences 

 being due to age, and all belonging to Keyserling's puU/ira, which is 

 preceded by Walckencer's t^u/osa, as elsewhere pointed out. Prof. 

 Montgomery mentions a certain difference in the relative length of legs, 

 but such a difference appears in other species between )oungor ami older 

 specimens, together with differences in proportionate length of joints. 

 I*"ven tlioiigh llcnt/s utitatrix l>e not used- -though it is clearly recogni/- 

 al^je — Montgomery's lelucetts and charanoitiei had been previously de- 

 scribed by l!anks as s^rtuiV/s and humilh ; tlu»ugh \\tx\\i!-s fixfifftn be not 

 u»cd, the form described as latiftons has long been ilesignated by Hanks 

 as .l//iitf//r7>«i/i, and similarly llentc's milvnui was followed hy Jiavipfs 

 of Keyserling and nigropalpii of tmerion before Montgomery wrote. 

 Hence tl^; intimation that these names were placed as synonyms only 

 through the resurrection of very early ones is without foimdation. 



