On EUROPEAN SPIDERS. 5 
objects in manuscripts ("in litteris") or in private or public collections and 
museums.?) It follows further, that the date which ought to be accepted as 
the epoch of a denomination, is the time when it was in the above manner 
made public, but not that, at which it was written down or announced in 
a verbal lecture, or that at which it was delivered to the editor of a perio- 
dical or to some learned Society to be published under their auspices.’ 
which distinguish the genus, have not been separately set forth in the description. 
Nevertheless that now very common method of forming new genera is by no means 
so deserving of commendation and imitation as it is easy and convenient. 
To reject a name, as some have proposed to do, on account of defectiveness in 
the definition, would seem not to be right, as leaving room for much arbitrariness. 
What seems to one good enough may to another appear insufficient or faulty. When 
one only knows with certainty what is to be understood by such a name, every one 
can either alter or improve the characterization for himself. A new genus on the 
contrary, that has been distinguished merely by referring to some particular species 
of an older genus as it’s type, without in any way indicating, which of the characte- 
risties of the species is to be considered as the mark of the new genus, no one can 
indeed be looked upon as bounden to acknowledge; nevertheless it appears to me 
advisable to do so, especially if the species referred to deviate in any generally 
known manner from the typical species of the old genus, and always if the new ge- 
nus has been once received and acknowledged by a subsequent investigator; the right 
of priority ought also then to be assigned to him who first proposed the name. 
1) One is of course no more at liberty to take an authority from such sources 
than to take a name from them. It is for this reason that e. g. for the names of the 
spiders described in Reuss’ Zool. Miscell (Mus. Senck. I) I always cite Reuss as the 
authority, although he has in most cases appended "WrpER" to the names: I do not 
in fact consider myself at liberty to doubt, that Reuss is the author of these Zoo- 
logische Miscellen and of the descriptions that occur in them, and have nowhere seen 
it stated that they were written by WIDER. Probably in WIDER'S collection and his notes 
thereupon these spiders have borne the names, under which Reuss has published them. 
Again when it is certainly known, that the person, who has published for ex- 
ample a description, is not really the author of the same, then it is evident that the 
name, that ought to be cited as authorithy for the described genus or species, is 
that of the real author. 
2) I am perfectly aware that, especially on this last mentioned point, considerable 
differences of opinion exist, and that many consider that the priority of a work ought 
to be reckoned from the day, when it was delivered to the academy or society. Others 
are of opinion that every separate printed sheet ought to bear the date of its delive- 
ry to the press and that from such date priority ought to be reckoned. Against the 
first of the opinions here urged it may be objected, that it would frequently mislead 
a person who endeavoured to ascertain the true date, when an observation was first 
made or a species first described, because an author has frequently the opportunity 
of making extensive corrections and alterations in his manueript and proofsheets , 
