/ 



KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS IIANDLINGAH. HÄND. 13. N:() 5. 5 



It is pcrliaps necessary to indicate the meaning in which certain terms rolatin<; 

 to the position of the eyes are here employed, as a universally received tenninology 

 for tliis is as yet a desideratum. "i To indicate the direction in which a row of eyes 

 may be curved, I use the tenn curved foruuirds (procurva), when the concavity of sucli 

 row is directed forward or towards the inouth, and curved backwards (recurva), when 

 the concavity is backward or from the mouth. ') The curvature of the anterior row 



tbnned the basis of cvcry suliseciuent attciiipt dfsurviiig' of liotioc, to efTect a systcmatic iirraiigeuiciit of 

 tliis interesting ordev of aniiuals". Tliat some of tliesi; aiithors looked for tho distinctive featiirc of the 

 principal groiips of spiders in tlieir habits and the form of their wcbs, is true, but it does not provc that, 

 all (lid so. — Simon considers the suborders adopted by me as unnatural; other arachnologists, c. g. L 

 KocH (Die Arachii. Austral., p. 1), P.wesi, van H.\sselt, entertain a different opinion. That some of 

 these groups caunot be so sharply defined as \ve could wish, uo more proves that the grouping is un- 

 natural, than for instanee the circuinstance that it is irapessible to give a definition that holds good for 

 all Crustacea, proves that the Crnstacea are not a natural group. In the mean time I beg not to be 

 consiiiered as believing that my arrangement of the Order of Spiders is the best possible: without doubt, 

 as knowledge advances, it will require to be modified, and new suborders and families will have to bi- 

 added. The future will show whetlun' Simon's suborders are more natural, better defined and better (leno 

 minated than those adopted by me: on this I offer no opinion; niy present ol)jeet being only to eorrect 

 what the preceding remarks show to be an altogcther false idca of ray vievvs rcdative to tlic grounds for 

 the classification of spiders. 



Some other passages also in Simon's work here refei'red to, siiow that I have not beeii so fortunatc 

 as to make myself understood by that arachnologist. When, in his list of synonyms, be inserts a species 

 mentioned by me in Rem. on Syn., he confounds the name whieh I had given to the species, with that em- 

 ployed by the author on whom I was at the time commenting, and cites me after the name used by that 

 anthor (Conf. SiM., loc. cit., p. 116). It must also be the result of some misunderstanding of me, that 

 Simon says, p. 83, that the diagnosis I have given "On H)ur. Spid., p. 72" of the family Enyoidce "ne 

 peut guére s'appliquer aux autres types" of that family than the siugle genus Enyo. Cau it not also be 

 applied to some species of the genera Storena, Habronestes, Palwstina, Laches and Cydrela, and thus ot 

 all the Enyoid genera, except Simon's new genus Selamia/ The "diagnosis" here found fault witli is as 

 follows: "Mamillae inferiores reliquis multo longiores". Jnstead of this Simon says that the mamillae of tht^ 

 Enyoidoe are "toujours au nombre de quatre, et les deux plus grosses sont placées au dessous des petiies"; 

 but what is right in this deseription is not new, and what is new is not right. — Simon declares that hr 

 disapproves the systematic position I have assigued to his Theraphos<f (ad max. part. = Territelarue Thok.), 

 and considers it "absolument nécessaire de les isoler, soit h la tin, soit au commencement de la serie." As 

 I rcmarked On Eur. Spid., p. 41, I do not believe it possible (as Simon appears to do) to arrange, in a 

 natural mauner, either spiders or other animals in a siugle rectilinear series; that the "Theraphosie'" quite 

 as much deserve to be "isolated" as either Epeiroidie or Attoid», with which I began and ended ray list 

 of the spider-families, may, on the other hand, be readily admitted, and I have also, at p. 42 of ray 

 above-naraed work, arranged the names of the European spider-families in three series, radiatiiig from the 

 Tubitelarice as the lowest suborder of spiders, and terminating with the families Epeirotdte. Attoidw and 

 Theraphosoidw. That I have not in my general list of the suborders and families of spiders given the 

 Tlieraphosoidre the place which Simon considers them to deserve, comes of the circumstance that a row of 

 names has unfortunately only two ends. — The most liasty glance at p. 42 and the appended diagram 

 suffices to show that I do 7iot consider the Territelariae or "Theraphoste" as a connecting link between 

 Dysderoidce and Thomisoidce, but as an independent head-branch of the spider stern. When Simon says that 

 "it is not one of the smallest errors of my system" that I place his Theraphosae "betw^een the Dysderidn 

 and Thomisidw", he thus confounds my "system" with the order in which I have goue through and cata- 

 logued the European spider-families; but concerning the order of succession in that and similar cases 1 

 stated (p. 41), that it is of small consequence, "if only onc take eare in some other way to acconnt for 

 the natural relations which the various groups have to each other"; and that I venture to think I have 

 done conspicuously enough by the diagram referred to, and the discussion of each separate family, whereof 

 however Simon seeras not to have taken notice. 

 ') Some authors use these terms in an opposite signification; but it may easily be showu that this is not 

 right. If we bend a rod, f. iust., the concavity of the curvature is always on the side towards which the rod 

 is bent, whether it be fixed in the middle or at one of its ends. The rod could only be supposed to b> 

 bent so, as to have its convexity on the side towards which the curving motion took place, in case thi- 

 rod were fixed at both its ends; but then it would of course be impossible to bend it. 



