158 Mr. R. I. Tocock on the 



depicted in tlic ' History of Jamaica.' Ilencc tliis specimen 

 must be regarded as the type of reniforme. The species it 

 belongs to is now known to occur in Ceylon. 



In 1772 (Spic. Zool. pt. 9, pp. 3;{-37) this Ceylonese 

 species was recharacterized as Phahwgium lunaium by Pallas, 

 and in the same work appear a figure and description of a 

 South-American species believed, though erroneously, to be 

 reviforme of Linn. 



In 1792 (Ent. Syst. ii. p. -43) Fabricius established his 

 genus Tarantula upon three species, namely, Phalangium 

 rtnifornie, L., caudatum, L., ajid lunattim, Pall. He did 

 not, however, discover that Pallas had renamed reniforme^ L. ; 

 and for the latter species he takes a form which may be 

 considered to be s])ecifically identical with the Antigua 

 specimen figured and described by Browtie. His description 

 plainly tells so much, and the specimen he described is said 

 to be still in the Museum of the Kiel University. 



Tarantula, then, was based upon the following species, 

 any one of which might be its type : — 



1. A species, wrongly named Phalangium reniforme, L., and identified 



vith Browne's figure. 



2. rhalanyinm cau(Jatu7n, Linn. 



3. Fhalanyiwn reniforme, Linn. (=lunatuni, Pall.). 



In 1797 the spicies included under no. 1 (i. e. reniformis, 

 Fabr.) was desciibed as palmatus by Herbst (Nat. unge- 

 tiugelt. Ins. i. p. 82). 



In IbOl * Lamarck (Syst. Anim. p. 175) based the genus 

 Phrynus upon the following two species: — (I) Tarantula 

 rtnijormis as restricted by Fabricius, (2) Tarantula caudata 

 (Linn.). It is significant that he omits all mention of lunata. 

 Pall., and all reference to the example in Mus. Ludov. 

 Ulricse. Hence the genuine reniformis, Liim., formed no 

 part of the genus Phr J/ nus as first constituted, and Lamarck's 

 elimination of caudata, L., and reniformis (L.), Fabr., from 

 Tarantula fixes the latter name upon the third and last 

 species included in that genus, namely reniformis, L. 

 [:=lunata, Pall.). 



In 1802 Lamarck's Phrynus was subdivided by Latreille 

 (Hist. ^at. Crust. Ins. iii pp. 47 & 48), who took caudatus out 

 of it as the type of his new genus Tfulyphonus, and thus left 

 renifuimis, Fabr., as the type o^ Phrynus. It is significant, 



* Phrynus does not date from Latreille, 1802, as I have already 

 pointed out (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (0) xiv. p. 274, 1896). Kraepelin 

 repeats the old error ol ascribing it to Latreille, 1802, in Das Ticrr., 

 Scorp. Sec. p. 241 (l6'M). 



