1897] NOTES AND COMMENTS 5 
THE ARTHROPODS 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 Lispe,” 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 
Lispe, 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 Hbenia, though he gives no reference to the place where he 
published it; but the real Hbenia 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 
