12 iAfr. F. P. C.unlni.l-c-.J Hevi^i'on 



author of the species was quoted : — (1) T/urid, \-punci<ilum ; 

 ['!) Tlier'uJ.castaneuin ] (3) Tlierid. albumac.uUilum ; (4) Therid. 

 lunatuvi, 



'J'lie first sjxcies, presuii)al)ly Walckeiia<M's, wliicli, sec. 

 Tlioroll, Simon, ajul \\\\\cz\\\>W\,= Each aria bi/xtnctiitti^ C. L. 

 Kocli,= .-i?-c/»/o bi'/iunctcita, Liim., and the second sj)ecies, 

 inesiunably Oliviei's, which, sec. 'rUoreW, = t'uc/iaria hera^ 

 C. L. Kocli, were both removed by the hitter author to lii.s new 

 genus Eucharia in 1H35. The third, which, sec. Thorell,= 

 At-anea lineata, Linn., was removed by Koch under Boly- 

 jdwntes in lJS-41 (or, it it be Th. albonidculatum, llahn, which, 

 sec. 'VhoxvW ^=:coroUatus^ Linn., was renjoved by Koch under 

 Phrurolithus in l8o9). 



The tourth species then, whicli, sec. Thorell and !Sinion,= 

 Upidaricrum, C. L. Koch, is left as the type of the genus, 

 and the name Steatoda must follow the fortunes of this species. 



Thorell says: " According to Sundevall's characteristics of 

 this genus, Th. i-punctaiutn and Th. castuneum must be con- 

 sidered as its types, and these species are also t he ^Vsi entered 

 by him as thereto belonging; ajtertcards he names 7'. albo- 

 rnaculatum &c." 



Kow Sundevall quotes the species after his diagnosis, 

 exactly as 1 have placed them above, and he nowhere defi- 

 nitely points to either of the species as more typical than the 

 otheis. T hey all, for Sundevall, fell under his genus — or, if 

 not^ why did he place them there? — and must bear equal 

 nsponsibility. As to characters in the diagnosis, under 

 Tlitrtdium he says the eyes are small, and under Steatoda he 

 says they are large; and even this qualification is placed in 

 biaikets, as though he were doubtful of its value. 



Seeing that the author, presumably with lull consciousness 

 of the characters contained in his diagnosis, immediately 

 includes four distinct species, how can it be reasonably urged 

 that he did not mean to include the last two? 



Under these considerations it is impossible to allow 

 Thorell's theory of Sundevall's wishes to override C. L. 

 Koch's action when he removed, as he had a perfect right to 

 do, tlie first two species under Euchana. It makes no 

 ditierence that Eucharia was a nom. prajocc. The species 

 iiicluded follow the fortunes of the Kucharian group ; they 

 cannot, so far as Ji.ving on the type is concerned, be rejilaced 

 in the origmai generic group. 



Otherwise, ot course, Tliorell's action, fir he f')rms a new 

 genus Lithypliantes, with corollatu}> = a(boinaculatuin as its 

 t\]ie, would have been a perfectly legitimate selection of two 



