482 Mr. F. Pickard-Cambridge—A Revision 
I must first of all write a few lines in reply to Dr. Dahl, 
who challenged the types referred to certain genera imme- 
diately on the publication of my first paper dealing with the 
genera of Latreille, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat. xxiv. (1804), 
namely Gnaphosa, Micromata, and Lycosa. It need scarcely 
be said that all criticisms are welcome in an undertaking of 
this kind, because it is almost impossible for a single author 
not to pass over some important detail here and there 
throughout the whole literature, and one is glad to have his 
attention called to the fact. 
Dahl was good enough to point out that I had not read 
Latreille’s works, or if I had, that I did not understand the 
meaning of what was written. Without laying claim to 
omniscience in any matter, I may, however, explain that I am 
perfectly well acquainted with the various works and passages 
contained in them to which Dr. Dahl refers, although I must 
confess that I cannot venture to interpret some of the latter 
with the same confidence as to their meaning that he himself 
manifests; nor am I at all sanguine that anyone else would 
agree with me if IJ did. 
In connection, for instance, with Latreille’s work men- 
tioned above, I cannot agree that it is at all clear what that 
author did or did not mean when he quoted Walckenaer’s 
“< denominations’ in immediate relation to his newly-founded 
genera. For he himself says explicitly that he wishes to 
preserve his own divisions and names because he prefers 
them to those of Walckenaer. 
But why, then, did he not quote his own denominations, 
« Vagabondes” Div.* &c., &c., when he founded his genera ? 
He cannot be quoting Walckenaer’s denominations for the 
sake of the names themselves, some of which he declares to 
be absurd, so that we are left to conclude that he does so 
with respect to the species involved. And if he does not, then 
are many of his generic names “ nomina nuda,’ connected 
with diagnoses but unaccompanied by species quoted by 
name or definitely referred to without possibility of mistake. 
If he does mean to include the species understood by 
Walckenaer’s ‘‘ denominations,” the question is, how many 
and which of them? We may refer, as a guide to our deci- 
sion, to Latreille’s table, Hist. Nat. Crust. Ins. vol. 111. p. 60, 
where, referring to these same “ denominations” of Walcke- 
naer, he says: “ elles répondent a mes Vagabondes Div. *, 
&e., &e.” 
But what does répondent mean in this connection? One 
cannot agree that when he says, e. g.: “Chasseuses répondent 
& mes Vagabondes, Div.*,” that he means to exelude all the 
