337 



assumption of a variety with the abdomen and cephalothorax of a 

 greenish colour, also evidently refers to T. ruricola, for in T. terricola 

 the colour probably never approximates to green. (Latreille, loc. 

 cit. , begins the description of his L. ruricola, which he considers 

 identical with /.. agretyea Walck., thus: "L. virescenti-brunneo- 

 livida" etc.). L. agretyea Walck. ought on this account, it appears 

 to me, to be cited in the first place under T. ruricola: and even 

 though Walckenaer probably confounded T. terricola with it under the 

 name of L. agretyea, we are not justified under such circumstances 

 in giving the name agretyea to T. terricola, as Blackwall has done. 

 "Agretyea" is moreover so extremely barbarous a word — it is prob- 

 ably derived from dygevTixdc (skilful in hunting), but ought then to be 

 written agrettbica — , that it should for that reason alone be rejected. 



C. Koch, like Blackwall, considers L. agretyea Walck. as sy- 

 nonymous with T. terricola, and does not take it up among the sy- 

 nonyms of T. ruricola. Blackwall on the other hand cites L. cam- 

 pestris Walck. under T. ruricola, and calls this species /,. eampestris. 

 L. eampestris Walck. does not however appear to me referable with 

 any tolerable degree of certainty either to T. ruricola or to T. ter- 

 ricola; for Walckenaer distinctly states in three separate places (Faune 

 Franc., Arachn., pp. 20 and 29; Ins. Apt., I, p. 310), that L. eam- 

 pestris differs from L. agretyea by, among other things, the colour 

 and form of the cocoon, which is said to be "d'un vert bleuatre, 

 quelquefois tirant sur le jaune", and "tonjours aplati". In both T. ru- 

 ricola and T. terricola the cocoon, as is well known, is always white 

 aud globular. It seems also improbable, that Walckenaer should 

 take up under his L. agretyea not only T. ruricola C. Koch but 

 also T. trabalis id. or T. terricola (vid. Ins. Apt, II, p. 451), if he 

 had himself described them as separate species and called one of 

 them L. eampestris. If Walckenaer's statement regarding the form 

 and colour of the cocoon in his eampestris should be a mistake, 

 which it is not easy to suppose or explain, it seems to me that 

 eampestris Walck. ought rather to be identified with T. terricola, 

 than with T. ruricola, to which it is referred by Blackwall, for it 

 is stated to be smaller than "L agretyea", and the colour is not said 

 to have any shade of green. In the mean time, as opinions on the 

 subject of L. eampestris differ so widely, and as the cocoon in this 

 species has, according to Walckenaer, a form totally different from 

 that which it has in T. terricola, I consider that I canuot for this 

 last-mentioned spider accept the Walkenaerian specific name eampestris. 



