of the Genera of the Aranee. AO7 
well.” He admits, then, that the original type (not several 
types) is to be sought for under the International Rules; but 
that is precisely the problem before us, to settle what is to be 
considered as this original type. 
Dahl would have us analyze and weigh every word of an 
author, in order that we may glean, if possible, some inkling 
as to what species he would seem to have had more especially 
in his mind when he founded a genus, so that we might select 
that species which appeared to embody more fully the cha- 
racters of the genus according to the author’s original idea. 
Theoretically this course appears reasonable, for practical 
purposes it is impossible. How many arachnologists would 
agree, first, as to what the original idea of the genus was, 
and second, as to which species fulfilled all the requirements 
of that idea? In this way we launch ourselves at: once into 
that labyrinth of hair-splitting arguments out of which there 
is afterwards no escape for the disputants and no practical 
way out foratype. It is exactly this fatal quagmire that 
we have to avoid if we are ever to come to any agreement at 
all. ‘There are a quite sufficient number of “hard cases” to 
exercise our analytical faculties over in minor details without 
rendering the settlement of every case impossible at the 
outset. But on what practical grounds can Dahl, ostensibly 
seeking for Latreille’s original type of Saléicus, tor instance, 
refuse to recognize the species which the author himself a 
few years later cited as “type”? Is it likely, without neces- 
sarily converting the word type into a fetish, that Latreille 
would have cited the species which he did noé regard as fairly 
embodying his idea of the genus? Is it not more reasonable 
to suppose the contrary to be the case ? 
In fact Dahl himself says :—‘ Since later authors ought as 
closely as possible to follow the original author, the species 
specially named by the latter must, by them also, be the first to 
be considered.” Precisely so! And tor practical purposes 
the adoption of the type cited saves us a great deal of un- 
necessary trouble. Why, then, ignore Latreille’s citations in 
1810 ? 
But of course every one has a right to his own opinion, 
and if Dr. Dahl does not agree that it is necessary to select a 
type species at all, I fully respect his opinion. But it is of no 
use discussing with him as to the methods to be adopted in 
the process, when he does not even agree that the process 
itself is necessary. 
C.—On the method of fixing upon a single species as the 
type in the case of heterotypical genera. There are four 
methods :—I1. Elimination or exhaustion; 2. Restriction ; 
