114 PSYCHE. 



[September— October iSSS 



to be used for the species to which they 65. Mubioiia oincilis Hentz, 



belong but the difficulty is, as Mr. 77i7^- IHoljorus. 



McCook shows in this article, in their 79,^0. Epeira caudata Hentz. 



identification. 117. Epeira thaddeus Hentz. 



Walckenaer, as is well known, never 116. Epeira insularis Hentz, 



saw the American spiders that he 131. Epeira insularis. 



named. He bought a large number of 122. Theridion sphaerula Hentz. 



drawings of spiders made in Georgia 556. Epeira insularis. 



by John Abbot and published des- A comparison of the' numbers shows 



cnptionsot_ the drawings, so that the that only five of these identifications 



first step in identifying Walckenaer agree with those of McCook showing 



names is to identity the drawings bv n, . <. • x r .^^ , , • , -^ 



p^\^\^Q^ ' ^'^^ uncertainty of oft hand identifica- 



Theonlv known drawings of spiders f'^;;';^ ^!',^'^ drawings by two persons 



by Abbot^lre in the library of the '^^h familiar with the common spiders 



o -i- 1 Tvr I i-i I ■' 1 ot the northern states. 



British Museum where they have been 31a i^s. 



for a long time and have been shown ^"5 greater number of Abbot's 



to any person interested in them. These f'''''^wings represent the spiders only in 



are probablv the same drawings used *'''^ .'"°^^ general and indefinite way 



by Walckenaer as Mr. McCook has j^'^^^ '^ seems to me improbable that any 



compared the numbers and notes upon ^l^^ number of them can ever be iden- 



them with those referred to in Walck- ^'^'^.^'- At any rate this cannot be done 



enaer's descriptions of similar spiders ""*'' the spiders of the southern states 



and found them to be the same. "'^^^ become better known. An attempt 



Mr. McCook is inclined, however, to "°^^ ^° ^\My :is many as possible of 

 set too higli a value on these drawings. Walckenaer's names to any spiders that 

 for although his engagements prevented ^""^ tlescriptions or Abbot's drawings 

 "him giving more than an hour or two "^'^^^ possibly belong to, will only in- 

 to the study of the figures," and as far urease the number of uncertain names 

 as mentioned, no American spiders '" ^'^^ ''*"'^' so add to the labor of every 

 were compared directly with them, he ^n^^''^ student of the subject. After the 

 undertook to identify, oft' hand, a con- common spiders all over the United 

 siderable number of "them, a partial list States have been described and are 

 of which he gives in this article with '^"^^yi to several students it w'ill be 

 the revised names by which, as he says, P^^ssible to compare them with the 

 "they must hereafter be known" if ^descriptions of Walckenaer, Koch and 

 Walckenaer's names are to be ac- Hentz with some prospect of finding 

 cepted." ^"t what these old descriptions are 



In 1871^ I looked over these same ^'eally worth and how many of them can 



drawings' at the British Museum and l^e referred with certaintv to particular 



like Mr. McCook made hasty identifica- species of spiders. With the present 



tions of such few of them as I could. small number of students of American 



In my notes made at the time I find the spiders it seems to me safer for each to 



following list. use such names as appear to him the 



4. Epeira placida Hentz. most certain even if not the oldest and 



54. Linyphia communis Hentz. leave the law of propriety and the 



55. Young Linyphia marmo- "credit of entitulation" to take care of 



rata Hentz. themselves. 



