56 
Psyche 
[June- September 
Chamberlin and Ivie apparently were unaware of the earlier ex- 
changes about the synonymies, for they neither referred to them nor 
listed them in their bibliography. Also they apparently did not con- 
sider the possibility of additional plates, letters and notes concerning 
the Abbot spiders, in other libraries. Such sources of evidence might 
have relevance in interpreting Abbot’s drawings, which must be con- 
sidered the types for the Walckenaer names. 
As recently as twenty years ago, some considered the discovery of 
an “older name” a matter to* be admired, and priority was frequently 
invoked to rationalize changing a name in widespread use. Today 
the attitude toward stability of names has changed, partly due to 
criticism of zoologists in fields other than taxonomy. Perplexed by 
the constant change of names, these other biologists leveled the charge 
that some taxonomists were spending more time in historical than in 
biological research. 
Two approaches to stability of names present themselves: Some 
taxonomists think that through priority, the supply of older names 
will eventually become exhausted; at the same time, strict priority 
leads nomenclature back to the oldest and most uncertain names. 
Other taxonomists favor established usage of the name as the basis 
of stability, though usage may be hard to define. 
The new (1961) Zoological code of Nomenclature combines the 
criteria of priority and usage through a statute of limitations. Also, 
and more important, the new code emphasizes in its Preamble the 
reason for its existence — to keep names stable — a reflection of the 
present needs of zoologists. The establishment of sweeping synonymies 
of the Walckenaer names based on Abbot’s drawings, so inconsistent 
with stability, should be questioned. 
A more acceptable treatment of the Walckenaer names was demon- 
strated by Bishop (1924), in his revision of the North American 
Pisauridae. By restricting himself to one family he was able to treat 
each nomenclatural problem individually and authoritatively, rather 
than all in one arbitrary sweep. The largest number of specimens, 
the greatest grasp of the literature, and the keenest understanding 
of the particular spider group were brought into each judgement. 
Our purpose, then, is to urge that spider students adopt the Walck- 
enaer synonymies proposed by Chamberlin and Ivie only after thor- 
ough study of the spider genera in question, including, in addition 
to a study of the Abbot drawings, investigation of usage of names, 
species problems, and distributions, giving due consideration to the 
basic principles of nomenclature : to stability and universality of names. 
