above all, important to lay down the rules by which the 
author proposed to be guided in his decision between per- 
plexed and conflicting synonyms. It is no part of the 
object of this notice to criticise the rules thus laid down 
in Part I. pp. 3—18 of Dr. Thorell’s work ; suffice it to 
say that they are substantially those laid down by a com- 
mittee of the British Association, Ann. N. H. 1, vol. xi. 
p. 239 e¢ seg. Their general reasonableness is obvious, 
though in many cases their rigorous enforcement would 
savour of pedantry and lead to undesirable results. 
Another feature in Part I. of “ European Spiders,” that is 
the list of works upon Arachnology, with the name of the 
author and date of publication, is a useful and important 
one, and cannot fail materially to assist the general 
student as well as anyone desiring to test the justice of 
the author’s decisions, This list is considerably enlarged 
in the portion of the work now under consideration, 
pp. 584—589. 
Coming then thus to Dr. Thorell’s “Remarks on 
Synonyms of European Spiders,” we soon observe that 
whatever the difficulties may have been which beset the 
determination of the generic synonyms in Part I., these 
difficulties must have been immensely increased when the 
specific nomenclature came to be decided, The task was 
not merely to ascertain and fix the names of those species 
common to Blackwall and Westring, but those of all the 
authors quoted by them as synonymous, with their 
species, together with the names of many other species 
into the bargain, such as those which have been subse- 
quently described by E. Ohlert (“Die Araneiden oder 
Echten Spinnen der Provinz Preussen,” 1867), A. Menge 
“(Preussiche Spinnen,” 1866—1872, not yet complete), 
and other authors. This laborious task Dr. Thorel 
has executed with exceeding care and minuteness of 
investigation ; his plan has been first to {take, by way 
of text, the species described by Mr. Westring, as being, 
with only four exceptions out of 308, known to him- 
self from examination of the type specimens; then to 
determine by strict and careful comparison of figures and 
descriptions what species described by other authors ap- 
peared to be more or less certainly identical with those 
of Westring ; and then which of these had priority in 
regard to time of publication, the date of publication 
being in each case placed in immediate conjunction with 
the names of the spider and author, and the usual refer- 
ence to the name of the publication or where published. 
Some idea of the labour of comparison and discrimina- 
tion of descriptions and figures may be obtained by the 
fact of the number of synonyms given of a single species, 
being in some instances as many as twenty-two, Each 
of these would form the subject of a separate investiga- 
tion, independently of those, often numerous, synonyms 
quoted by each author cited, and which would frequently 
have to be investigated in a similar manner; and after 
all, when the frequent meagreness of ¢Crscriptions and 
badness of figures are considered, it will be evident that 
the determination of synonyms must, without types of 
the species described for examination, be often little more 
than approximate guess-work ; in fact it is not too much 
to say that the greatest care and pains bestowed upon 
figures and descriptions alone would give but very unsa- 
tisfactory results. 
In the present instance Dr, Thorell has had the advan- 
Se 
NATURE 
pu decke-p tet 
Sif SS 
379 
tage (fully acknowledged in his work) of being able to 
examine and compare, not only the types (as before ob- 
served) of all but four of Westring’s species, but also, with 
them, a very large proportion (nearly 250 out of 304) of 
those described by Mr. Blackwall, and many more de- 
scribed by other authors quoted in the “ Synonyms.” 
With these undeniable advantages the various considera- - 
tions entering into each question of synonymic identity or 
distinction are detailed in a manner at once full and yet 
terse ; and wherever a doubt has finally rested it is never 
slurred over or disguised. 
It would be in vain to select special examples in proof 
of this; the details which follow the list of synonyms 
appended to each species, are, in almost every instance, 
of this thorough and honest character, 
The first section’of the work being occupied with the 
spiders described by Westring, forms by far the largest 
portion of the whole—pp. 1—407 ; for the complete deter- 
mination of all the synonyms involved in this section of 
necessity cleared off a very large number of the species 
described by Mr. Blackwall. The consideration of the 
remainder of these forms section ii, and occupies pp. 
414—470. This part ends with an exceedingly useful 
“List of the Spiders described and figured in Mr. Black- 
wall’s ‘History of the Spiders of Great Britain and 
Ireland, together with a statement of the names believed 
to belong to each of them, the year in which the assumed 
specific name was published, and the work in which this 
publication took place ; or instead of these last-mentioned 
particulars, a reference to the place in the present work 
where the species may have been more fully treated of,” 
In this list, those species, about 67 in number, of which 
Dr. Thorell has not himself seen types, are marked 
with an asterisk. Section iii, contains “Synonymic 
remarks on some of the Spiders included in Simon’s 
Catalogue Synonymique des Aranéides d’Europe.” For 
reasons given in the introduction to this section, Dr, 
Thorell’s remarks are confined to a small number of the 
species contained in Mr. Simon’s Catalogue ; in fact this 
catalogue, being a mere list of names, is used only as 
indicating some European species of general interest 
not contained in either Mr. Blackwall’s or Westring’s 
works. 
Ina work of the nature of that now under consideration, 
and occupying nearly three years in its appearance, it was 
inevitable that some errors should get in, as well as that 
modifications and additions should be necessitated in con- 
sequence of extended research and more accurate infor- 
mation obtained during that’time ; these, under the head 
of “Additions and Corrections,” occupy pp. 544—582 ; 
and the remainder of the volume, pp. 582—607, is taken 
up with additions and corrections to that portion of the 
original design (mentioned at first), entitled, “ On Euro- 
pean Spiders, Part I.” This is a very important, as well 
as interesting, /iza/e to the whole, containing, as it does 
some further observations on nomenclature, with a disqui- 
sition on the present state of the question as to the exact 
functional use of the palpal organs of the male spider. Some 
remarks are also made upon the fourth pair of spinners, 
or inframammillary organ, discovered by Mr. Blackwall 
many years ago, and ascertained to be correlated (in the 
female spider only) with a peculiar comb-like row of 
bristles—calamistrum—on the metatarsi of the fourth pair 
