DESCRIPTION OF GENERA AND SPECIES, 135 
his information, nor anywhere alluded thereto in his published descriptions 
of spiders. I replied to this criticism,’ vindicating the value of the Abbot 
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 
slo and brief memoranda with Walckenaer’s published descriptions, 
aned Be and made colored copies from tracings of most of the Orbitelarize.” 
This work done, I submitted the whole to Mr. R. I. Pococke of 
the Kensington Museum, who kindly went over the saine, 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. 
Result This is done with sincere regret, as the well known names of 
Con- : : : ee 
Hentz are embodied in all my previous publications, and the 
firmed. ; : : : 
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 synonoma, 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.” 
2My 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. 
