THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 21 



In one special direction, however, Prof. Montgomery has probably 

 overestimated variation, namely, in regard to the tarsal claws. In his '04 

 paper this author calls attention to the great variability of the claws, and 

 in substantiation refers to a paper prepared under his diiection. An ex- 

 amination of this ]iaper reveals as examples of great variation the 

 description and illustration of the occurrence of a doubling in the claws, 

 this occurrence being spoken of as "mutation." Probably had the eyes 

 of the same specimens been carefully examined, they also would have 

 been found to have doubled, for, as will be clear to most students of the 

 Arthropoda, the doubling was due simply to the fact that the spiders were 

 moulting. 



In dealing with Prof Montgomery's species I may say that I have 

 studied with care co-types sent me by him in 1904 of nearly all, and the 

 statement made by that author that I had not seen any of the type speci- 

 mens in his private collection is consequently misleading, for co-types 

 labelled in his own hand should certainly be practically as reliable as 

 those that may have been chosen for preservation as types. A few types 

 which Prof Montgomery felt he could not loan through the mails, 

 furthermore, represent almost the only described species of North 

 American Lycosidje, of which types are known to exist and to be available 

 which I have not studied with care. 



Quite, on the contrary, indeed, had it not been precisely for this study 

 of types or cotypes, I must have regarded more of Prof Montgomery's 

 species as good. Every worker has a certain "personal equation" which 

 must be considered, and a description must be interpreted in accordance 

 with the preponderating, consistent evidence of the whole as against the 

 contradiction of a part. Prof Montgomery quotes from his own published 

 descriptions to substantiate his contention for the specific separateness of 

 certain forms ; but to show the folly of regarding recorded observations 

 absolutely and as necessarily correct and authoritative, there may be 

 mentioned wide differences of statement concerning the same character in 

 the same sjiecies, and even in the same identical specimen where Prof 

 Montgomery writes of it at two different times. Thus, in his paper of 

 igo2, p. 538, in describing Lycosa nigra, Stone, he writes : "Eyes of the 

 second row largest, less than their diameter apart," while concerning the 

 same form in 1904, p. 285, he writes: "Eyes of second row largest, 

 almost /.J times their diameter apart." Also in the first place he says 

 concerning the first eye row : "Middle eyes larger and higher tJian the 



