DESCRIPTION OF GENEKA AND SPECIES. 135 



his information, nor anywhere alluded thereto in his published descriptions 

 of spiders. I replied to this criticism, 1 vindicating the value of the Ahbot 

 drawings, and strengthening the ground upon which my judgment rested. 

 Nevertheless, in view of the above challenge, I resolved to make more 

 thorough study of the manuscripts before publishing the final volume of 

 this work, and meanwhile allowed, for the most part, the Hentzian names 

 to stand in Vols. I., II., which are chiefly concerned with the habits of 

 spiders. 



Accordingly, in the summer of 1892 I visited London, and gave a week 

 to the study of Abbot's drawings, confining my attention to the Orbweavers. 



I verified my former notes, carefully compared Abbot's figures 

 Second an( j b r j e f memoranda with Walckenaer's published descriptions, 

 L ' , and made colored copies from tracings of most of the Orbitelariffi. 2 



This work done, I submitted the whole to Mr. R. I. Pococke of 

 the Kensington Museum, who kindly went over the same, comparing Abbot's 

 figures with Hentz's, and with Walckenaer's descriptions. In every instance 

 he was able independently to reach a conclusion as to identity that almost 

 exactly tallied with my own. These studies confirmed all that I had pre- 

 viously published, and added several species to the list of Hentzian names 

 that must yield priority to Walckenaer. Accordingly, in the following 



pages I have felt compelled to revert to the earlier nomenclature. 



This is done with sincere regret, as the well known names of 

 Q , Hentz are embodied in all my previous publications, and the 



use of the index alone can disentangle the resulting confusion. 

 Nevertheless, the rectification of nomenclature must sometime inevitably 

 be made, and postponement could only add to the confusion. It seemed 

 better, therefore, to face the difficulty at once with an honest effort to 

 bring in final order by the just sovereignty of the law of priority. 



I now regret that I permitted confidence in my first judgment of the 

 value of the Abbot . drawings to be so far shaken as to lead me to retain 

 the Hentzian synonyms in the first two volumes of this work, instead of 

 at once eliminating them. For this I can only excuse myself by the fact 

 that the books were going through press while the matter was still under 

 discussion, and before my own conclusions had been assured by the judg- 

 ment of leading araneologists. I have done the best, under the circum- 

 stances, to lighten the inconvenience which the reader may thus have 

 been caused, by full references in the synouoma, and liberal references 

 and cross-references in the Index. 



1 Proceed. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1888, page 428 : " The Value of Abbot's Manuscript 

 Drawings of American Spiders." 



2 My thanks are especially due to Mr. William Caruthers, Keeper of Botany, for kind 

 services during these studies. He gave me the use of his office, procured for me all required 

 books and material, assisted me with his extended knowledge and experience as a 

 biologist, and added thereto the charm of a hospitable host. 



