134 AMERICAN SPIDERS AND THEIR SPINNINGWORK. 



1 spent a portion of one day in study of the figured Orbweavers alone, 

 and took copious notes of those species vvhicli were entirely familiar to me. 

 After my return to Philadelphia I made careful studies of Walckenaer's 

 published descriptions, comparing the same with my notes, and thereupon 

 published a jaaper in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences 

 of Philadelphia (1888). Therein was considered the necessity for revising 

 the nomenclature of various Hentzian species of Orbweavers, of which a 

 brief tabulated list was given. 



The paper caused an animated discussion in the Academy upon the 

 limits within which the law of priority should obtain. The Hentzian 



names had so long prevailed, and were so widely inwoven with 

 p . . our aranead literature, that it was held by a few that they ought 



to be retained, since a change would cause embarrassment to nat- 

 uralists, confusion in popular literature, and thus detriment to science. 

 On the contrary, the majority present, among whom were the eminent Presi- 

 dent of the Academy, the late Professor Joseph Leidy, and Professor Dell of 

 Washington, held tiiat the earlier names should in all cases be adopted, 

 no matter how much inconvenience might be entailed thereby. 



This position has since received general approval. Professor T. Thorell, 

 who is justly regarded as the most eminent of living arancologists, and 

 whose authority on such a point is of sijecial value, thus wrote : ' 

 Approval : « rpj^g discovery of Abbot's drawings of American spiders is 

 ~, „ . indeed a fact of the greatest interest, not only to Americans, but 

 Dr. Marx. ^^ '^'^ arachnologists, and I congratulate you on having had the 



luck to make tliis discovery. 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 Profes.sors 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 i)reveiits arbitrariness, and 

 that gives stability to nomenclature. I think, then, that in all such cases, in 

 wliich Walckenaer's species can, with tolerable certainty, be recognized, 

 his names should be preferred to those more lately published, even if sucli 

 names are more commonly used, or the sfjecies better described or figured 

 under the newer names." To the approval of this most distinguished 

 authority may be added that of Dr. George Marx, who, in his Catalogue 

 of Described Aranese, fully accepts the conclusions, and adopts the revised 

 nomenclature suggested by me. 



To this general concensus, however, there was one notable exception. Mr. 



J. H. Emerton'^ published a criticism upon my paper, in which 

 p . he rejected the conclusions, and depreciated the value thereof, 



as well as of the Abbot manuscripts, which he further claimed 

 to have seen in 1875, although he had never in any way made known 



' Proceed. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1888, page 430. 



2 Pscyche, Vol. V., No. 149-150, Sept.-Oct., 1888 : Cambridge, Mass. 



