IGO Mr. R. I. Pocock 07\ the 



icsfiiction is null and void. Kaiscli regarded Phri/nus and 

 Admetus as synonyms of Tarantula as restricted by himself. 



CuAKUN stands as defined and does not further concern my 

 present purpose. 



In the Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. Ixi. pp. 45-52 (1892) appeared 

 Simon's classification. He adopts Karscli's nomenclature 

 with two exceptions. He shows that the genus Tarantula 

 as recognized by Karsch is divisible into two genera. He 

 restricts Tarantula to jniniilto as Karsch had done, and for 

 the second he rightly takes Admetus of Koch, citing palmatus, 

 Herbst, as its type. In tlie second place he follows Pallas, 

 Heibst, and Koch in their determination of re??//brnH'.s, Linn., 

 wiiich brings that species out as tiie type of Tarantula. 



In Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6) xiv. pp. 274-298 (1894), 

 I returned to Fabiicius's determination of reniformis^ Litni., 

 and applied the name to a West-Indian species from Antigua. 

 This species was made the type of the genus Tarantula, 

 Fabr., on the assumption that Tarantula and P/iri/nu.t were 

 strictly synonymous. ]\loreover, although I overlooked the 

 fact that Simon had st Kcted pahiatus as the type of Ad- 

 metus, nevertheless I assigned Admetus to the synonymy of 

 2arantula-\- Ihrynus. Also I showed that tlie genus called 

 by Karsch and Simon Tarantula was nameless, and proposed 

 for its reception the term lleterophrynus, with chiracanthus, 

 Gerv., as the type. This name will stand. For lunatus, 

 Pall., Karsch's name Phrynichus was kept. 



The type species of the other genera established in this 

 paper are clearly stated and need not be further discussed. 



The innovations proposed by Kraepclin (Abh. nat. Ver. 

 llamb. xiii. pp. 3-51, 1895) come next in order. He 

 followed Karsch's determination of reniforme, Linn., and, 

 holding that reniforme mut?t be the type of Tarantula, 

 used this generic name in place of Phrynichus, Karsch. In 

 the second place, overlooking Simon's selection of palmatus 

 as the type of Admetus, he proposed Neophryiius for this 

 same species. 



And, lasily, in 1899 ('Das Tierr./ Scorp. et Pedipalpi) 

 Kraepelin makes still lurther changes. He discovered, what, 

 indeed, is pretty clear from the diagnosis, that Fabricius's 

 specimen of remformis was identical with, or at least closely 

 allied to, the specimen subsequently described as palmatus by 

 Herbst, and, holding that the species represented by this 

 specimen must be the type of 'Tarantula, lie retransfcrred 

 Tarantula to the West-Indian species, with Phrynus and 

 JS'eojjhrynus as synonynis. Phrynichus he readopts for rem'- 



