S littlhlin Aiiitrinut Musiitm of Natural Ili.slory. [\'ol. XXIX, 



Thr former iH-coininj:; in Simon's system a Tlirridion has un(loul)te(l priority, 

 l)Ut if \vf leave the original name a terrible confusion will result. The 

 Cliry.sHo nigricrpfi \vt)ul(l heeome Theridion nigriccps, hut not what Keyser- 

 ling has deserihed under tiie name of Theridion nigriceps, and the Theridion 

 nigriceps of Keyserling would have to receive a new name. The rules of 

 nomenclature propose in such cases to leave the specific name to the species 

 which was first described and to put the name of the author in parentheses, 

 /. c, the Chri/fisi) nigricrp.s- Keyserling would become Theridion nigriceps 

 (Keyserling) and Theridion nigriceps Keyserling (without parentheses) 

 would receive a new name. It seems to me, however, that in such cases it 

 is much simpler and less confusing to change the name of the species which 

 was origiiudly described under another genus, no matter whether it has 

 priority or not. Following this idea I leave the name nigriceps to the spe- 

 cies described by Keyserling as Theridion nigriceps and give a new specific 

 name to Chri/sso nigriceps. A similar case (among many others) is met 

 with in Baihyphantes pallida Banks, 1S92, p. 45, and Diplosfyla pallida 

 Banks, 1892, p. 43. Diplosfyla being a synonym of Baihyphantes a new 

 name was substituted for it and not for Baihyphantes pallida Banks. 



A case in which the substitution of a new name would be unnecessary 

 and objectionable merely l>y multiplying the number of names already too 

 many, is that of Chrysso splendida Banks, 1898, which is a Theridion, 

 while the Theridion splendid nm Taczanowski, 1873, is a Theridiosoma. 

 They stand much better as Theridion splendidum Banks and Theridiosoma 

 splendid um Taczanowski. With all these limitations a number of new^ 

 names had to be created to avoid true homonymy. They will be found 

 mentioned in both parts of the catalogue. 



The synonymy of old names is largely a matter of opinion. Wherever 

 possible I adopted the synonymy laid down in the latest works of Peckham, 

 Chamberlin, Crosby, Emerton and to some extent of Banks, although the 

 last author has often placed the same species under different genera without 

 giving either the reason for it, or a detailed description of the specimens 

 in his possession. Two of Mr. Banks's own specimens which he was not 

 able to identify and in consequence left without a name, have been given 

 new names by Strand. These are Cicnus sp.? Banks from Porto Rico, and 

 Gonglydiuvi sp? Banks from Alaska. In the latter case Strand has not only 

 given the spider a new name, but has also placed it under another genus, 

 thus making of it Oedothorax hanksi Strand. This Avay of multiplying 

 names without sufficient reason is very objectionable. Once these names 

 were published, I was obliged to accept them in this catalogue, but I con- 

 demn most emphatically such a method of christening without the slightest 

 acciuaintance with and in the absence of the godchild. 



