106 Mr. R. I. Pocock on 



strong suspicion that Dr. Karscli may have made an error in 

 tlie particular named *. 



* Since writing these comments I have received from M. Simon his 

 report upon the Arachnid.a of the ' Hamburger Magalhaensische Sammel- 

 reise,' Hamburg, 1902. On p. 5 of this work two species of Aviculariinte 

 are enumerated under the names Fhryxotrichus chilensis, Mol., and 

 Citharoscelus Kochii, Poc. 



As s}Tionyms of the first are quoted My gale rosea, Gu6r., M. rosea, 

 C. Koch, ad part., ? M. rubiginosa, Nic, ? Orthotriclms vulpimis, Karsch, 

 and Phryxotrichus roseus, Sim. Of the second, ?M. chilensis, Mol. (pars), 

 ? M. rosea, Walck., C. Koch (saltem ad part.), Mygale rosea, Nic. 



The following criticisms must be offered to this suggested synon\^my : — 



The species, whatever be its identity, that was described by Molina 

 was named in the first instance Mygale scrofa (Sagg. Stor. Nat. Chili, 

 1782, pp. 214-215 & 347). In a later edition of the same work this 

 name was changed to chilensis (op. cit. ed. 2, p. 18o, 1810). But 

 whether M. scrofa is assignable to Phryxotrichus, Paraphysa, or Citha- 

 roscelus, or to some other genus, no word in the diagnosis clearly 

 indicates. The use of the words " bruno veluttato " and " fusco/" as 

 applied to the colour, points to a brown species like Paraphysa mani- 

 cata, rather than to a pinkish-rosy form such as the Myyale rosea of 

 Walckenaer, Guerin, and Koch. Again, the synonymy given hy Simon 

 suggests that M. rosea, Walck., and M. rosea", Guenn, were based upon 

 species belonging to different genera, whereas Gu^rin's words leave no 

 doubt whatever that the two authors described the same specimen. Nor 

 does there appear to be any reason to think that Walckenaer and Koch 

 had more than one specimen before them, and thus confounded more than 

 one species under the name " rosm," as is suggested by Simon's insertion 

 of the woods " saltem ad part." 



Comparing the figures and descriptions of M. rosea, given by Walck- 

 enaer, Guerin, and Koch, one can hardly help believing that these 

 authors had examples of one and the same species in their hands ; and I 

 should have unhesitatingly adopted the name rosea, Walck., for the type 

 species of the genus Citharoscclns, had it not been for Simon's citation 



as type of the genus Phryxotrichus, M. rosea, Walck., which he pre- 

 sumably knew, assigning to the latter characters not possessed hy the 

 type of Citharoscelus. However that may be, it is quite evident that 



the correct names of the three commonest species of " Mygale " inhabiting 

 the best-known localities in Chili, namely the species 1 have described as 

 Citharoscelus Kochii, Phryxotrichus auratus, and the one I determine 

 as Paraphysa ma^iieata, are still wrapped in obscurity. 



To avoid future confusion, it may be well to point out that the type of 

 Phryxotrichus should be the species represented by the specimen Simon 

 determined as Orthotrichus vulpinus of Karsch, when he proposed 

 Phryxotrichus to replace the preoccupied generic name given by Karsch 

 (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. 1888, p. 222). Simon himself now admits the 

 uncertainty of his determination. Should the two species prove to be 

 generically, as well as specifically, sepai-able, a second name must be 

 substituted for Orthotrichus. Further, Simon subsequently cited 

 M. roseus, Walck., as the type of Phryxotrichus (Hist. Nat. Araign. i, 

 p. 163, 1892), evidently supposing vulpinus and roseus to be synonyms. 

 It appears now, from his latest contribution to the synonymy, that he is 

 doubtful even about the generic identity of the two. 



I have discussed this question at some length because it furnishes an 

 admirable instance of the confusion that may arise from guessing at the 

 identity of another author's species. Far better propose a new specific 

 name than wrongl}' delermine and describe a previously established form. 



