Fedipulpi from the Loicer Amazons. 367 



In connexion with Prof. Kraepelin's latest utterances upon 

 the subject of the genus Brotheas, the following observations 

 may be made (see JB. Hamburg. Anst. xi. no. 1, p. 173, 

 18U4) :— 



In the first place, this author reserves the name mawus, 

 Herbst, for the type of the genus, on the grounds that the 

 species identified as Scjrpio maurus by Herbst is generically 

 distinct from the Scorpio maurus of Linn^. He therefore 

 admits in his system both Ueterometrus maurus (Linn.) ( = the 

 true Scorpio maurus, Linn.) and Broteas maurus (Herbst) 

 { = Scor2)i'o maurus, Linn., Herbst). This, however, is not 

 the practice that is usually followed in such matters. Nor 

 has Kraepelin himself ajjplied this principle of nomenclature 

 in analogous cases : if he liad done so, consistency would 

 have compelled him to adopt such names as Parabuthus 

 australis (Herbst), Androctonus australis (Linn.), Centrurus 

 australis (De Geer) ; or, again. Tarantula reniformis (Linn.), 

 Neophrynus reniformis (Fabr.),and Heteroplirynus reniformis 

 (Pallas). 



In the second place, if maurus be retained as the specific 

 name of the type species of Brotheas, I>e Geer, and not 

 Herbst, should be cited as its author, the former in 1778 

 being the first to start the error, which was subsequently 

 handed on by Herbst and C. Koch. This, however, is a 

 matter of but little importance, seeing that the name maurus 

 cannot be retained for the species. For this I adopt the 

 name Herhstii, proposed by Thorell (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 

 (G) xvii. p. 14, 1876). It is to be observed, however, that 

 Thorell primarily gave the name Herhstii to the species 

 wrongly identified as maurus by De Geer and later writers,, 

 without regard to the possibility of more than one species 

 being involved. But the tyj)e of Brotheas, C. Koch, must 

 presumably be the species upon which C. Koch establishes 

 the genus. Therefore it seems that it is to this species that 

 the name Herhstii must be atfixed. The fact that the species 

 came from Cayenne renders it piobable that my identification 

 of certain specimens from Denierara in the British Museum 

 as Herhstii is correct, and at the same time throws doubt 

 upon the identity of Simon's Herhstii from La Plata (see Ann. 

 tSoc. Ent. Fr. 1877, p. 241). Finally, it may be added that 

 the description of Simon's species paraensis (Ann. Soc. Ent. 

 Fr. 1880, p. 381) does not ai)ply to the females of the 

 Demerara specimens mentioned above, so that if the latter 

 are correctly named, as I venture to think probable, it is 

 impossible to follow Krae[)clin in regarding paraensis as a 

 synonym of Herhstii. 



