of the Genera of the Aranee. 409 
our own minds on the matter, just as we were on the question 
of the tenth edition of Linneus. It is not a question of right 
or wrong, nor of common sense; it is purely a question as to 
what course is for practical purposes the simplest and least 
likely to lead to disputation. 
Personally, and I have no wish to lay down any law for 
any one, I am inclined to believe that the line should be 
drawn at “ example.” That we should assume that when an 
author cites a single species with the additional designation 
of typ, typus, or type, he was definitely citing what he 
regarded as the species fairly embodying the characters of 
the genus, provided, of course, that it was originally included 
in the genus. 
Thorell, as long ago as 1870, recognized the significance 
of this term and himself selected ‘ types”’; Simon has also 
taken the same line; and the only point one would insist upon 
is that we shall not allow ourselves to open up disputation as 
to what an author did or did not mean when he used the 
term. The point is that he has done so in printed fact, and 
for our present practical purpose that is sufficient. 
I would not admit ‘‘ example,” because it is more than 
probable that this word has frequently been used by writers 
who had no idea of definite systematic study ; and if we did 
so we should instantly open the door for the entrance into 
the field of enquiry of all those popular and trivial works 
referred to above, which are well excluded by confining 
ourselves to those selections cited under the word “ type.” 
One does not fora moment suggest that this course has any 
great underlying principle which would commend it, but that 
it is the simplest for those whose only object in view is to 
narrow down as early as possible the area within which the 
type need be sought for—no unimportant consideration in 
cases where sixty or seventy species were originally included. 
This course will, I have little doubt, be adopted by all 
authors, as it has been by very many already who have had 
abundant experience inactually dealing with the complex ques- 
tions involved, and have ascertained on what lines absurdities 
can best be avoided and some definite result reached. Men 
whose knowledge of the subject is purely theoretical will 
probably not agree on any lines that may be suggested, for 
the simple reason that there is not one of the lines proposed 
against which one or more weighty objections cannot be 
urged. ‘This we freely admit, and it is necessary then, if we 
are determined to arrive at some practical result, to choose 
that method against which fewest objections can be urged by 
those who have actually worked out results. 
