WY rar Rey, trent nfal aoe ee Me rey ¥rrey postr . Ga Cee os Pe er ey" % : 7 i : ‘ : : 3 tA deed, D5 resey : Wire ee 4 . eee eaeneeaat a = =e } . ee Sens . re POT ENN ae heey Wwe Ane As i wwe, eViewy “ ¥ Crews ELT NN National Wuse™ LONDON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS. SOLD BY SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO., LD.; WHITTAKER AND CO.: BAILLIERE, PARIS: MACLACHLAN AND STEWART, EDINBURGH : HODGES, FIGGIS, AND CO., DUBLIN: AND ASHER, BERLIN, 1901. “Omnes res create sunt divine sapientiz et potentie testes, divitie felicitatis humane :—ex harum usu donitas Creatoris; ex pulchritudine sapientia Domini : ex ceconomidé in conservatione, proportione, renovatione, potentia majestatis elucet. Earum itaque indagatio ab hominibus sibi relictis semper sestimata ; a veré eruditis et sapientibus semper exculta; malé doctis et barbaris semper inimica fuit.”—Linnaus. “ Quel que soit le principe de la vie animale, il ne faut qu’ouvrir les yeux pour voir qu’elle est le chef-d'’ceuvre de la Toute-puissance, et le but auquel se rappor- tent toutes ses opérations.”—Bruckner, Théorie du Systéme Animal, Leyden, 1767. eles « 2 witaoe « « . Ohéeisylyvan powers Obey our summons; from their deepest dells The Dryads come, and throw their garlands wild And odorous branches at our feet; the Nymphs That press with nimble step the mountain-thyme And purple heath-flower come not empty-handed, But scatter round ten thousand forms minute Of velvet moss or lichen, torn from rock Or rifted oak or cavern deep: the Naiads too Quit their loved native stream, from whose smooth face They crop the lily, and each sedge and rush That drinks the rippling tide: the frozen poles, Where peril waits the bold adventurer’s tread, The burning sands of Borneo and Cayenne, All, all to us unlock their secret stores And pay their cheerful tribute. J. Tayror, Norwich, 1818, AUERK 4 TLAMMAM. : 7 - a = : , to 7 : ' 5 . : ‘ Ca é 1 a“ c%. we “ 1 At ; ar 7 et ; ; 1 ¢ Soe a / : . * - “é > ac di Us ” | CONTENTS OF VOL, VII. SEVENTH SERIES. ] NUMBER XXXVII. Page I. Diagnoses of new Fishes discovered by Mr. J. E. 8. Moore in Lakes Tanganyika and Kivu. By G. A. BouLenaer, F.RS. II. Rhynchotal Notes.—VIII. Zeteroptera: Fam. Coreide. By Seed eae) LAIN 08s "ays cesy (fa ysleera pokes eta p aie dee « sala Nel adedeaberaca Gees II. An Account of a Collection of Butterflies made by the Rey. K. St. Aubyn Rogers between Mombasa and the Forests of Taveta. By ArtHur G. Bouter, Ph.D., F.LS., F.Z.S., &c., Senior As- sisiant-Keeper, Zoological Department, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) IV. A Contribution to the History of Plagyodus (Steller). By Teas gn N ETI. Unb uno svetur tats heh sichabend adel ear ero cre Loft) ahialn Meus wi store V. Notes on Bats of the Genus Nyctinomus found in Africa, &e. ES eVect EISEDETAVVELNUT ON Geo A Seep ete cis Sylora mista iecane wis, esc ayaa wiecanarele & VI. On an undescribed Species of Hedgehog from Southern Arabia. By Dr. Joun Anperson, F.R.S., and W. E.pE Winton. VII. On a new Species of Bat from the Soudan. By W. E. pe \WHOSGR). ois a.o RGhatg 6 Gees Oat ene Neimrae AS e ee hort oan arto eRe eo VIII. Contributions from the N New Mexico Biological Station.— IX. On certain Genera of Bees. By T. D. A. and WiLMarrE P. (Coyenannanon = gamadancs 5S GEES Ee TLO DG 0 RAR cara ene IX. A Revision of the Genera of the ARANE® or Spiders with reference to their Type Species. By F. O. Pickarp CAMBRIDGE, Meee pete aUeuaiaeC ostcs clos a)c Shes 5 stole) a Wel breeteaerie’s ope anse Glass cateis « X. On the Anatomy of certain Agnathcus Pulmonate Mollusks. By Watrter FE, Cotuines, F.Z.8., Lecturer on Zoology and Com- parative Anatomy in the University ‘of Birmingham. (Plates I. & IL.) XE Descriptions of some new Species of HHeterocera. By Her- EPL EE Cems Peern OUay gravereraias'apcs Gals a) Aigteeues «8, hee cheval amarante eee apie 45 46 iv CONTENTS. Page XII. Descriptions of Four new African Freshwater Fishes. By GA. BOULENGER, HRS. ms. eesecotaen Brey or een steric 80 XII. On the Identity of Polytrema planum of Carter with P. miniaceum var. involva. By Freprrtck Cuapman, A.LS., F.R.MS. XIV. Remarks upon the Genus Rhysodes, with Descriptions of some new Oriental Species. By Gitpert J. ARROW 83 PY Wer ae eee Sa tt Tike) XV. Notes on Diptera from South Africa. By Miss GERTRUDE RicaRpo eT ae: ee ee re re se x oat eceees hee 89 XVI, Descriptions of Brazilian Coccide. By AvboLF HEMPEL, relatos razr aes cic ere cre Bey ince guoh steno sf elie @oMenN Sneveinte-arakoeet 110 XVII. Contributions from the New Mexics Biological Station.— X. Observations on Bees collected at Las Vegas, New Mexico, and in the adjacent Mountains. II. By T. D. A. CocKERELL ...... 125 New Books :—Recent Foraminifera. A Descriptive Catalogue of Specimens dredged by the U.S. Fish Commission Steamer ‘ Albatross.’ By James M, Fiint, M.D., U.S.N., &c., Smith- sonian Institution, U.S. National Museum.—A Treatise on Zoology. Edited by E. Ray Lanxestrr, M.A., F.R.S. Part IL, Pontera-and Ocdlentera 4. -42200c hee ess eaee eens 152, 155 Proceedings of the Geological Society ............... 0000005 134, 155 The Dates of Esper’s ‘Schmetterlinge,’ by C. Davies Sherborn, F.Z.S. &c., and B. B. Woodward, F.L.S. &e. ........ ae cuca 157 NUMBER XXXVIII. XVIII. On some Fossils of Wenlock Age from Mulde, near Klinteberg, Gotland. By FREDERICK CHAPMAN, AL.S., F. RMS with Notes by Prof. T. Ruprrr Jones and Dr. F. A. peer PP late UL): 5. See ale ancrt Sire ap menace weve Paes artes Ti outers eted. 141 XIX. On the Squirrels of the Seiwrus erythreus Group. By J.L. IBONHOPH BIA, ors. aéncite «nan Qiee eg earpinee as Olle tatiana eee 160 XX. On the Squirrels of the Sedwus Prevostii Group. By J. L. IBONHOUE Bi Ass aac. @. ach nics « dcineree eaten a tahacoanee rane ee 167 XXJ. New Mammals from Peru and Bolivia, with a List of those recorded from the Inambari River, Upper Madre de Dios. By OLp- LBD, (CHOMAS! Brg aux ied. os sete ote eer ata. TT ees 178 XXII. A new Free-tail Bat from the Lower Amazons. By OLDETELD UHOMAS: ds ahs ccsed meagre a a ee Aaa TR a 190 XXIII. Notice of a Species of Paludestrina new to the British Fauna. By EDGAR AG DSMIUDERGarstesocaamyerttatearcde mae oye tiere ae oak 191 CONTENTS. MF Lage XXIV. New South-American Setwri, Heteromysy Cavia, and Caluromys: Ey OLDFIELDYUHOMAS® © clac: o1c/s ites ae ci elton vas 192 XXV. An Account of a Collection of Butterflies obtained by Lord Delamere, chiefly at Munisu, near Mount Kenya. By Arruor G. dejo hp obty Hed oval DA. ch MA Ne A on Ae Siren, He eee Ame Mem dain OG hyp 197 XXVI. Description of a new Gecko from the Niger Delta. By Cie Ap es O MEN CEE Ei EUs Se nny 4 ot acer ination «faistoometl siete sede eseemiclelens 204 XXVII. The Musk-Rat of Santa Lucia (Antilles), By C. I. AO HS vg iNtay VACA TOE fai 7-5 sus, syacoloeebanstagatedeys. &.¢ 5's) aks eceud SencVaus etsutadeuene vb. XXVIII. Deseriptions of Brazilian Cocecede. By ADoLpH Hrm- _ BET OM ball O Ora Zllaemeaier perteectote wercivenerescs chsh eckeasee torortetetettcey stevens 206 Proceedings of the Geological Society ........... 002s eceee 219, 220 NUMBER XXXIX. X XIX. The Coloration of Marine Animals. By W. C. M‘Iyrosu, Professor of Natural History in the University of St. Andrews .... 221 XXX. On new Species of Histeride and Notices of others. By G. Lewis, F.L.S. ~XXXI. The Lepidoptera-Phalene of the Bahamas. By Sir Grorce F. HAmpPson. Bart. 9.) (th ‘October; 1899; .a5g 9 Mombasa, 7th May, 11th June; ¢?, Inn Town, 2nd June, 1900. 16. Precis clelia, Cramer. 9, Taveta, 22nd August, 1899; ¢ 9, 4th and 16th January, 1900. 17. Precis boopis, Trimen. 3 3 $$, Mombasa, 6th to 8th May, 1900. 18. Protogoniomorpha nebulosa, Trimen. 3, Mombasa, 20th June, 1900. 19. Pyramets cardut, Linn. 3, Mombasa, 8th May, 1900. between Mombasa and the Forests of Tuveta. 25 20. Panopea exrpansa, Butler. (? Frere) town, 30th June, 1900. ip “T have only met with this twice, both in bad condition : mimics Amauris ochlea” (K, St. A. R.). 21. Euralia deceptor, Trimen. ?, Mombasa, 23rd June, 1909. “This is not common and is very like Amauris ochlea. I wish I could send you a better specimen” (K. St. A. £&.). 22. Euralia Wahlbergi, Wallgr. ? ¢, Rabai, 6th and 8th June, 1900. “This also seems rare ; it is a very close mimic of 4. domi- nicanus” (K. St. A. R.). 23. Hypolimnas misippus, Linn. ?, Mombasa, 20th April, 1900. 24. Hamanumida dedalus, Fabr. 3, Chaengomhe, 23rd April, 1900. “ Toes not seem common near coast, but much more so up-country 7’ (K. St. A. £.). 25. EHuphedra violacea, Butler. 3 36, Taveta, 11th November and 5th December, 1899. 26. Euphedra neophron, Hopft. ?, Chaengombe, 23rd April; ¢, Mombasa, 19th May ; 3, Rabai, 8th June, 1900. It is quite evident that this and £. violacea never occur together; it seems likely that the blue of freshly-caught E. neophron undergoes a chemical change with age and becomes green ; the colour of EL. violacea, however, appears to be permanent. 27. Euryphene senegalensis, Herr.-Sch. & S$ 2? 3, Rabai, 6th and 8th June, 1900. ‘“‘ uite common at Rabai” (K. St. A. R.). 28. Neptis agatha, Cramer. 3 ¢, Rabai, 7th and Lith June; g, Mombasa, 16th June, 1900. 26 Dr. A. G. Butler on Butterflies from 29. Eurytela dryope, Faby. 9, Mombasa, 27th June, 1900. 30. Hypanis ilthyia, Drury. &, Mombasa, 7th January; ¢, 30th June, 1900. 31. Acrea Jacksont, E. M. Sharpe. g, Taveta, 11th November, 1899. “This I have also taken commonly beyond Voi” CAowot.. And.) 32. Acrea serena, Fabr. (var. perrupta, Butler). 2 ¢, “Frere Town?,” 2nd June; Rabai, 6th June ; Mombasa, 7th July, 1900. “This is very common, but seems to vary a great deal” (Kin An fi). Strangely enough Mr. Rogers has sent us six females of this abundant species, all differing, but not one male. 83. Acrea lycta, Fabr. & (typical form), Taveta, 7th October, 1899. & (var. daira), Taveta, 9th September, 1899; 9, Mom- basa, 11th March, 1900. 34, Acrea onerata, Trimen. S, Taveta, 22nd August, 1899; § ?, Mombasa, 22nd June, “ Frere? Town,” 12th May, 1900. The male from Taveta is small, deep-coloured, and has the spotted black body of the ordinary female, yet the spots on the under surface do not differ ; it is probably the dry phase of the species. Mr. Rogers says of it—‘‘I have not seen this near the coast, but it is abundant the other side of Voi” ; of the typical form he says—‘“ Fairly common at Mombasa.” 35. Acrea natalica, Boisd. & &, Mombasa, 8th May; Rabai, 9th June, 1900. 36. Acraea anemosa, Hewits. 2, Mombasa, Ist February; g, 4th July; g, Rabai, 9th June, 1900. between Mombasa and the Forests of Taveta. 27 37. Acrea neobule, Doubl. ?, Mombasa, 15th February; 3, ‘ Frere?” Town, 17th February, 1900. 38. Acrea insignis, Dist. ?, Mombasa, 27th April, 1900. ‘“¢ This is the first specimen I have met with” (K. St. A. &.). 39. Acrea satis, Ward. 3, Rabai, 8th June; 9, Mombasa, 20th June, 1900. Of the female Mr. Rogers says :—“ I have not found this really common.” ‘The female is numbered 78, but the male 37, so that their specific identity seems not to have been recognized. 40, Acrea mombase, H.G. Smith. 2, Rabai, 9th June, 1900. “This is fairly common at Rabai, and occurs sometimes at Mombasa” (K. Sé. A. &.). Unfortunately Mr, Rogers only sent us one example ; it is a species not too well represented in the Museum series. 41. Pardopsis punctatissima, Boisd. Frere ?”? Town, 28th April, 1900. Lycenide. 42. Tingra amenaida, var. mombase, H. G. Smith. d, Rabai, 8th June, 1900. “This flies quite slowly; quite unlike a Blue” (XX. St. A. R.). 43. Lachnocnema bibulus, Fabr. 3, Taveta, 8th December, 1899; 2, Rabai, 8th June, 1900. Of the male Mr. Rogers writes :—“ This curious Blue is quite common in a district of ‘l’aveta called Mbondeni, where it flies rapidly backward and forward, and frequently settles.” Of the female he mentions having taken “a single specimen.” 44, Axvocerses harpax, Fabr.. 3, Rabai, 11th June; 9, Mombasa, 4th July, 1900. 28 Dr. A. G. Butler on Butterflies from Var. tHHoane, Waller. 3 3, Chaengombe, 23rd April; Rabai, 6th and 7th June ; Mombasa, 23rd June. Two examples of the variety are numbered (8), like the typical form, and two (180). A. harpax appears to be an extremely variable species, the fiery mahogany colouring of the primaries being somewhat reduced in var. perton, more so in var. Yoane, and wanting or nearly so in var. punicea. Similar variations occur in the males of A. amanga, examples from Abyssinia having the belt on the primaries narrowed and interrupted, whilst in British Central Africa it is usually cone-shaped, with a separate spot for the apex of the cone, and does not extend above the second median branch ; never- theless we have one normal male from Nyasaland. Another example is also numbered (180), and is doubtless a form of var. crwsus with the basal area of the primaries very black, so that the central reddish area represents a narrow and irregular tapering band, divided externally below the first median branch by a transversely oblique black bar ; this specimen was caught at Rabai on the 8th June. 45. Axiocerses amanga, Westw. of, “ Frere?” Town, 12th May ; Rabai, 8th June, 1900. Mr. Rogers numbers this (159), ae remarks as follows :— “T am afraid there is some confusion amongst these; (8) is common, (159) is not common, but occurs both at Rabai and here ; (180), if distinct ?, 1 think only occurs at Rabai.” Considering the variability of the primaries in both A. har- pax and A. amanga, it is not surprising that confusion should have arisen. I strongly suspect that A. mendeche from Mom- basa is only an example of A. amanga in which the belt on the primaries is bounded by vein 4, which I should imagine is the vein indicated in the description ; ; as a rule when this is the case the band is converted into a conical patch, but this appears not to be the case in the type of A. mendeche. 46. Argiolaus lalos, var., H. H. Druce. ? , Chaengombe, 23rd April, L900. The white patches on the upper surface are rather smaller, the red more vivid and rather more restricted on the second. aries: below, the red markings are deeper, the anal patch extending further inwards; the black markings stronger and only extending to the second median branch. I think this will prove to be only a well-nourished example of A. (alos. between Mombasa and the Forests of Taveta. 29 Mr. Rogers says that it “does not seem really common.” We do not possess the male, and should be very glad to get more females. 47. Stugeta Bowkert, Trimen, local form mombase. 3 6, Mombasa, 7th and 10th February; ¢, 19th May, 1900. These examples are larger and bluer than those from Natal ; the black on the primaries is also expanded, reducing the size of the white markings. On the under surface the ground- colour is chalky white, with hardly any grey suffusion, the dark markings are of a more rufescent brown varied with orange. As a local form I think this insect requires a distinctive name. 48. Hypolycena philippus, Fabr. $, Mombasa, 3rd January, 1900. Jam not sure that the African species are typical /Typo- lyceene. 49. Hypolycena pachalica, Butler. 3, Mombasa, 28th December, 1899. 50. Virachola antalus, Hopf. ? ¢, Taveta, 28th October, 1899; Rabai, 9th June, 1900. 51. Virachola dariaves, Hewits. 6, Chaengombe, 23rd April, 1900. Numbered (166) by Mr. Rogers, who, however, sends no note respecting it ; it is rare in collections here, and we should be glad to get more specimens ; we do not possess the female. 52. Spindasis victorie, Butler. &, Rabai, 11th June, 1900. “This is not uncommon at Rabai; occurs here, but seems to be replaced further inland by (138) ” (K. S¢. A. Tay: This is the first male example I have seen ; on the upper surface it is intermediate between S. natalensis and S. nyasse : on the under surface the primaries resemble those of S. nyasse, but on the secondaries the central band is united at an angle with that running from the abdominal margin; the subapical transverse band is abruptly widened on first subcostal branch, and runs nearly parallel to the central band, and the outer 30 Dr. A. G. Butler on Butterflies from submarginal band is much abbreviated and confined to the apical area: these are all characters to be found in the female also. Although it has been- questioned whether the three forms S. natalensis, nyasse, and victorie can be distinguished as species, I find that, so far as specimens hitherto received show, the differences are constant to locality. 53. Lycenesthes amarah, Lefebv. @ 9, Mombasa, 7th February and 3rd July; ¢,4thJuly, 1900. 54. Lyceenesthes Last’, H. G. Smith. S$, Chaengombe, 23rd April; ?, 11th June, 1900. This species (no. 163) is new to the Museum collection ; the female bears the number (55). 55. Lycenesthes Kerstent, Gerst. $3 2%, Taveta, 14th October, 25th November, and 4th and 8th December, 1899. The males are numbered (148) and the females (122). 56. Cacyreus lingeus, Cramer. 2 2, Mombasa, 14th and 27th June, 1900. 57. Castalius melena, ‘Trimen. @, Taveta, 12th August and 17th October, 1899. “J think I have only found this at Taveta, where it is common” (A. St. A. &.). wie We should be glad of more specimens of this species. 58. Tarucus telicanus, Lang. &, Taveta, 18th August, 1899; 9 9, Mombasa, 14th June and 20th July, 1900. 59. Azanus jesous, Guérin. &, Mombasa, 20th June, 1900. 60. Catochrysops peculiaris, Rogenh. 9, Mombasa, 12th July, 1900. A singularly white form of the female, belonging to the intermediate phase. Mr. Rogers observes that “ the female is much larger than the male, which is also duller and bluish between Mombasa and the Forests of Taveta. dl grey.” The male of this phase is quite unknown to me; it would seem to resemble typical C. peculiaris $ in size and C. hypoleucus 8 in colour. It is an interesting fact (if Tam correct in associating C. hypoleucus = gigantea with C. peculiaris) that the wet phase is tailed, but the intermediate and dry phases are without tails; yet in Chrysophanus thersamon we have a tailed form—C. omphale—and in a small Hveres obtained by the late Capt. E. Y. Watson in the Chin Hills the presence or absence of tails appeared to be quite unimportant, so that it seems to me quite likely that the tailed form of the wet season might easily be modified in this respect and the species lose its tails with the reduction in the size of its wings. 61. Catochrysops asopus, Hopft. 2, Mombasa, 23rd June, 1900. This example bore no collector’s number; it may, perhaps, have been confounded with the female of the next species. 62. Catochrysops osiris, Hopff. 3 3 % %, Mombasa, 30th December, 1899; 16th January and 17th February, 1900. 63. Chilades trochilus, Freyer. 3 ¢, Mombasa, 8th March, 1900. 64. Cuptdopsis jobates, Uopff. 9, Taveta, 14th July; 6 ¢ 2? 2, Mombasa, 28th and d0th December, 1899, and 3rd January, 1900. 65. Nacaduba sichela, Wallgr. ? 9, Mombasa, 16th and 20th June, 1900. “7 do not think this is common here” (A. St. A. £.). 66. Zizera knysna, ‘Vrimen. & &, Mombasa, 16th June and 4th July, 1900. Numbered respectively (15) and (85), but they are only small and large examples. Papilionide. 67. Mylothris agathina, Cramer. 3 2, Mombasa, 12th May; ¢, 7th July, 1900. 32 Dr. A. G. Butler on Butterflies from 68. Terias brenda, Doubl. 3g, Taveta, 4th December, 1899. 69. Teracolus calats, Cramer. 2, Mombasa, 27th June, 1900. 70. Teracolus Rothschild’, HK. M. Sharpe. & &, Mombasa, 23rd June and 7th July, 1900. ‘“‘T have only found this quite close to the sea, generally quite on the shore, where it is often common” (K. St. A. 2.). It is new to the Museum collection. 71. Teracolus imperator, Butler. @, Mombasa, 30th January; g, 12th July, 1900. he male is numbered (10) and the female (80). 72. Teracolus evarne, Klug. ?, Mombasa, 20th June; ¢, 12th July, 1900. ‘he male is numbered (4) and the female (61). 73. Teracolus isaura, Lucas. &, Mombasa, 30th December, 1899. ‘his is a more southern habitat than I should have ex- pected for 7’, ésaura, which is a true northern form, found in Egypt, the White Nile, and Abyssinia. 74. Teracolus gavisa, Wallgr. ?, Rabai, 9th June, 1900. Mr. Rogers says that this was obtained at Rabai only. 75. Teracolus callidia, H. G. Smith. Ochreous type.— ?, Taveta, 12th August; ¢, 29th No- vember, 1899. Crimson type.— 2, Mombasa, 28th December, 1900. Said to be “ common beyond Voi, not at Mombasa.” The specimens from 'Taveta are of the intermediate phase, that from Mombasa of the wet phase; the male is numbered (119), the females (2) and (2 var.). 76. Teracolus leo, Butler. Intermediate phase.— ?, Taveta, 28th July, 1899. Dry phase.— g, 4th August; ?, 28th October, 1899. between Mombasa and the Forests of Taveta. 33 > Beyond Vor” (Ae"Sz. A. hh.) The more specimens of this species we receive the more convincingly is it proved that all the characters which distin- guish it from the Arabian 7’ halimede are constant and absolutely reliable. 77. Teracolus auriyineus, Butler. 6 6, Taveta, 19th August, 1899. “Common beyond Voi, not at Taveta” (K. St. A. &.). 78. Teracolus catachrysops, Butler. 3, Mombasa, 14th June, 1900. The males of this well-marked species have come to hand tolerably frequently of late years; but the females seem to be rarer, more especially the white variety. Mr. Rogers numbers this insect (183), but makes no remark about it, from which fact I should judge that it cannot be rare at Mombasa. I should be very glad to get more examples, especially females. 79. Catopsiha florella, Fabr. ?, Mombasa, 11th June; ¢, 7th July, 1900. 80. Glutophrissa contracta, Butler. 9, Chaengombe, 23rd April; ¢, Mombasa, 16th June, 1900. The male is numbered (97), the female (100). 81. Herpenia eriphia, Godart. 9, Taveta, 26th July, 1900. ‘This is fairly common here, but much more so further up country” (KX. St. A. &.). 82. Hronta dilatata, Butler. 3, Mombasa, 23rd February, 1900. 83. Papilio corinneus, Bertol. ¢ , Mombasa, 19th May, 1900. 84. Papilio similis, Cramer. gd, Chaengombe, 23rd April, 1900. 85. Papilio philonoe, Ward. &, Mombasa, 27th June, 1900. We are badly in want of good examples of this species. Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 7. Vol. vii, 3 34 Butterflies from between Mombasa and Taveta. 86. Papilio constantinus, Ward. &, Chaengombe, 23rd April, 1900. “‘T have never found this common, though widely distri- buted (A.St. A. i). 87. Papilio nireus, Linn. 3, Rabai, 7th June, 1900. 88. Papilio merope, Cramer. &, Rabai, 8th June, 1900. “Difficult to get in good condition” (K. St. A. R.). Hesperiida. 89. Tagiades flesus, Fabr. 3, Mombasa, 16th June, 1900. 90. Pyrgus dromus, Plétz. Rabai, 7th June; Mombasa, 7th July. 91. Parosmodes icteria, Mab. Rabai, 6th June, 1900. “ Only seen at Rabai” (K. St. A. B.). 92. Acleros placidus, Plotz. Rabai, 8th June, 1900. This is very nearly related to A. Mackenii; indeed it would not surprise me to find that with a good series it would be impossible to separate them. 93, Andronymus philander, Hopf. Rabai, 9th June, 1900. 94. Kedestes Wallengrenti, Trimen. Rabai, 6th and 9th June, 1900. “Only seen at Rabai” (K. St. A. R.). 95. Baoris lugens, Hopft. Mombasa, 20th June and 4th July, 1900. 96. Parnara mathias, Fabr. 3 ¢, “Frere?” Town, 2nd and 30th June, 1900. The male is numbered (182), the female (170). A Contribution to the History of Plagyodus. 35 97. Ceratrichia? stellata, Mab. 3, Rabai, 7th June, 1900. It has been suggested by Dr. Holland that my C. punctu- lata may be a variety of this species; but [ think, if he could compare the two, he would alter this, [ will not say opinton—for he does not speak with decision,—but perhaps view would be the word to use. C. punctulata is a more robust species, without chequered but with spotted fringes, and with no ochreous colouring below ; the spots on the under surface are chalky white without dark borders and the veins are whitish. IV.—A Contribution to the History of Plagyodus (Steller). By Dr. A. GUNTHER, F.R.S. In the March number of this Journal for 1867 I showed that the remarkable oceanic fish which Lowe described in 1833 under the name of Alepisaurus had already been known to Steller (ca. 1745), who named it Plagyodus. Steller gave a perfectly recoguizable description of it, which was pub- lished by Pallas in vol. il. of the ¢ Zoographia Rosso- Asiatica’ (1811) *. However, even Steller was not the first observer who has obtained and taken notice of this interesting type. William Funnell, who served as mate on Captain Dampier’s Expe- dition into the South Seas in the years 1703-4, gives a description and figure of it in his account of that enterprise (‘A Voyage round the World’: London, 1707. 8°). He says on page 6 :—‘‘ On October the 22d (being in the Lati- tude of 6 d. 36 m. N. and Longitude from London W. about 19 d. 57 m.) we caught four fish; a Shark, a Dolphin, a Jelly-fish and an Old-wife.” He then proceeds to describe these fishes, the passage referring to the Jelly-fish (p. 8) running as follows :—‘ The Jelly-fish (see fig. III.) was about fourteen inches long, and about 2 inches deep; with a * Messrs. Jordan and Evermann (Fish. N. & M. Amer. i. p. 594) call it “a brief description”; it occupies a page of this journal, and, what is more, it is very much to the point. I have no desire to discuss the question whether Plagyodus, which in due form was introduced into zoolo- gical literature by Pallas, should supersede Maxillary palpi S=joInted. 0. ¥..ies0 00 seo aps Protanthidium, nov, Maxillary palpi 2-jointed............ EET Anthidium, Fabr. PROTANTHIDIUM, gen. nov. Type P. steloides (Megachile steloides, Bingham), of which Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 7. Vol. vii. 4. 50 T. D. A. and W. P. Cockerell on Bees. we have a male from the Khasia Hills, India, sent by Mr. Sladen. The face is yellow below the antenne ; scutel- lum prominent and bilobate; abdomen marked on apical segments with yellow. This has the mouth-parts nearly as in Megachile, but the ornaments of an Anthidium. It appears to be the most primitive of the Anthidine. ANTHIDIUM, Fabr. Here falls A. manitcatum and such American species as A. Portere and A. maculosum. Diantuiptiuy, Ck. This was described as a subgenus, but it should probably be regarded as a genus. Its type is D. curvatum (Anthidium curvatum, Smith), and D. parvum (Anthidium parvum, Cress.) 1s quite congeneric. The little group of D. gilense (CkIl.), D. Hhrhorni (CkIl.), D. notatum (Latr.), D. perpleaum (Smith), and D. strigatum (Panz.) *, all described under Anthidium, is possibly of sub- generic value, and in respect to its labial palpi falls more or less between Anthidium and Mianthidium. LD. gilense, in particular, falls with Anthid/um if its mouth alone is regarded, and so far presents an argument against the generic status of Dianthidium. The following measurements of the first two joints of the labial palpi are in w :— ; 650, (2) 870. 720, (2) 760. (2 D, strigatum in) 1) 1) 720, (2) 1220: 1) 1) 1) D. gilense D. parvum D. perpictum A. manicatum. Ai Portere .. ' ( 650, (2) 1200. 1300, (2) 1320. 1200, (2) 1000. a i The nesting-habits of Dianthidium and Anthidium seem not to be the same; compare J). consimile (Hut. News, 1896, p. 25) with Anthidium manicatum and A. parosele. PARANTHIDIUM, subgen. nov. Type Dianthidium perpictum (Anthidium perpictum, Ckll.). This has the primitive character of 3-jointed maxillary palpi, but the venation of Dianthidium. East Las Vegas, New Mexicu, U.S.A., October 29, 1900, * We have this species from Marseilles, France, sent by M. Ernest André. It seems that, according to the law of priority, it ought to be called D, minus (Apis maculata, var. minor, Rossi, 1790), A Revision of the Genera of the Aranez. 51 IX.—A Revision of the Genera of the ARANEX or Spiders with reference to their Type Species. By F. O. Pickarp Campripa@s, B.A. Iv might have been supposed that with Thorell’s work on the genera of European Spiders, in which the types have been selected, written in 1869-70, and with Simon’s splendid volumes on the genera of the world, with the types also selected, appearing at intervals from 1892 onwards, that any revision would be unnecessary, and would simply mean doing over again work already admirably accomplished. In the first place, it must be pointed out, however, that neither of these two authors was apparently aware that the types of twenty-nine genera had been definitely selected by Latreille in 1810. They are selected at the end of his work ‘Consid. gén. Nat. Ord. Crust., Arachn. et Insectes,’ in the “Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert de type.” Itis true that the types are selected under the French form of the generic name, but since both the Latin and French forms are given in the earlier systematic part of the same work, there cannot be the slightest doubt as to what is the signification of the names and what particular group the selected type represents. Thorell, too, allowed himself sometimes to be influenced by what authors themselves would have wished with regard to their published names and species, forgetting that when a name has once been published it becomes public property and the author has no further rights over it. He, for instance, in the case of Micromata, Latreille, says that a certain species, accentuata, “ got in by mistake” and must therefore be ignored. On those principles there is nothing to prevent any author making the same assertion of any species or any number of them originally referred to any genus. Thorell, moreover, has in some cases been content with deciding that such and such genera are synonyms of others, and has therefore refrained from selecting the types. Since, however, genera dropped in haste are apt to be later on restored at leisure, it is very important to know what are the type species which represent them, whether they are eventually to stand or not. He does not, however, come to any conclusion without giving his reasons very fully, and thus it becomes much easier to revise his work and bring it up to date. The same remarks apply also to some extent to Simon’s work. He, too, set out apparently with some definite principles, 4® 52 Mr. F. O. P. Cambridge—d Revision but his courage seems occasionally to have failed him, for he has not always applied those principles consistently throughout. Curiously enough, too, he ignores his own selections of types made in many cases in ‘ Les Arachnides de France.’ On page 799 of his Hist. Nat. Ar. ii. 1895, he admits that Latreille limited the genus Araneus (Aranea) to three species, and also his right to do so by quoting Article 35 of the International Congress of Zoology in 1889 (Paris) and 1892 (Moscow) to that effect ; but he promptly selects as the type of Araneus a species which was not included in this limitation, namely anyulatus, Clerck. So, too, in the case of the genus Lycosa, he takes as the type a species, turentula, Rossi, which was not originally included in the genus under this or any other name. Simon, moreover, very rarely gives reasons for his selec- tions of types; so that one is forced either to accept his decisions as it were ex cathedra or to ignore them altogether. But the days of the authority whose ipse dixit is final and above question or criticism have passed away ; and since the work cannot be altogether ignored, the whole of the ground must be reinvestigated to prove whether his selections are sound or otherwise. These criticisms are offered in no way with a view of underrating the splendid efforts of both horell and Simon to introduce something like order into the chaos of nomen- clature, but simply as a justification for this work of revision. It must be made quite clear that, as with a group of species, so with the name attached to that group and pub- lished, no one, not even the original author himself, has a right to make any alteration in it. It cannot matter, for scientific purposes, whether a name be spelt, for instance, Micromata ov Micrommata, any more than it matters to students in the future whether the spider usually known as Anyphena accentuata be known as Micromata accentuata, as it must be, since it happens to be the type of the genus Micromata. If an arbitrary method be followed, and every method must be arbitrary at some point, at least let it be applied consistently. Any other attempts, involving philosophical considerations as to what this or that author would have preferred, simply open up further possibilities of confusion, no two men agreeing as to how far this sympathy should be extended, leading on to endless disputation over minor details. Whereas if it be agreed to show no sympathy at of the Genera of the Aranee. 53 all, then the disputation is at least confined to the inter- pretation of the strict letter of the law of priority. The original spelling, therefore, of each name is given in every case in this revision; for although it is true that Micromata may oftend the classical eye, just as the asso- ciations also gathered round certain names are swept away and feelings wounded by any alteration in the nomenclature, still something must be sacrificed for the sake of uniformity, and it is better to sacrifice feelings, which are transient, than to tamper with printed facts, which will, at any rate, outlive authors, sentiments, and associations. The object held in view, then, is to ascertain what is the type species of every group which has ever received a name, and briefly to give the reasons why such a species must be regarded as the type. No attempt is here made to determine whether this or that generic group ought to be maintained or not, but simply to settle what, if a genus is maintained, must be the type Species representing that genus, exclusive of any other species. This attitude naturally involves the following of some definite system, which shall be consistently applied throughout and no deviation from it admitted on any consideration whatever. The Principles of Elimination. The system followed in the determination of types where no type has been definitely selected is known as that of “ Elimination,’ by which the last species left in, of those originally included in the genus when first published, becomes the type, supposing the group to be broken up into other genera by the author himself or by subsequent authors. If, however, the author himself or another author has definitely selected a type for the genus, either from all those originally included or from the two or more species left in, the species thus selected is regarded as the type, whether it be the oldest species or not. On no account can a species not originally included in the group become the type of the genus, even though added subsequently by the author him- self or definitely selected by that author as the type. Species are often eliminated by “ ¢mplication” in other genera. For instance, supposing three species were originally referred to a certain generic name and an author subsequently founds a genus upon another species not originally included but afterwards found to be congenertc with one of the ori- ginal: this original species is then regarded as removed from 54 Mr. F. O. P. Cambridge—A Revision the original generic group to that to which it belongs by implication. On no account must all the species be removed from the title originally given to them; one at least must be left in, which in that case becomes the type. Where a generic name has been preoccupied, the loss of the name does not lessen the value of the group selected, so that a type may be selected for that group and another name given to it. These are the main features of the process, and I here give an instance to show more clearly how it works out in practice. For instance, the name Bombastes is given to a group of three species A, B, and C, which are the only ones originally included under that name by the author of it. The question is, which species must we regard as the type ? There are two processes by which the type can be deter- mined, either (i) by definite selection or (ii) by elimination. And both processes may be utilized in a selection. Under the first process (a) the author himself may select A, B, or C as the type; or (4) ancther author may select A, B, or C as the type; and the species so selected must be regarded as the type and no other. No author, of course, not even the originator of the genus himself, can definitely select as the type a species already removed either definitely or by im- plication under another generic name. If he has done so, his selection becomes null and void, because he had no power or right to make such a selection. Under the second process, where no type has been defi- nitely selected, one or two, but not ad/, of these species may be removed and placed under another generic name by any other author, thus “ breaking up” the original genus and “limiting” the generic name to one, or two, species; the last species left in being the type. If B andC are removed, A is left in and must be regarded as the type; if A and C are removed, B remains as the type; if A and B are removed, C is left as the type. If A be removed alone, then B or C can become the type either by definite selection or by a further removal of one of them. If B or C be removed, then the same remark applies to A, C or A, B respectively. The species left in are sometimes termed the ‘ res¢dual species.” It will be evident that the settlement 1s comparatively easy when any definite selection of the type has been made soon after the founding of the genus; but the matter becomes much more complicated when the genus, perhaps involving of the Genera of the Aranex. 55 twenty or thirty species originally, has been split up and subdivided again and again by consecutive authors. A further element of difficulty of course appears when the authors breaking up an original genus have not correctly identified the species withdrawn. Literature. In preparing this revision of the genera of the Aranee all the pre-Latreillean literature, from Clerck in 1757 and onwards, has been carefully examined, in case any genera may have been established which might have escaped the researches of Dr. T. Thorell and others. C. Clerck was the first to apply the Linnean binomial system systematically in Arachnology ; and although his work ‘ Aranei Suecici’ was published the year before Linneus’s 10th edition of the ‘Systema,’ it is generally regarded as valid, since he was well acquainted with Linnzus, attended his lectures, and adopted his system. This author, however, made use of only one generic name, Araneus, and all his species are included under this title. Neither Linneus, Fabricius, Geoffroy, De Geer, nor Meyer made any alteration in this respect; and it was not until 1802 that Latreille, in bis Hist. Nat. des Fourmis, p. 345, quoted two genera, Mygale and Aranea. The original genus Araneus, however, was not broken up by Latreille until L804, in Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. xxiv. ; and it is with this work that the whole question of generic names and the selection of types must naturally begin. Walckenaer published his ‘ Faune Parisienne, Insectes,’ tom. 1., Paris, in 1802, but includes all his species under Aranea., This first instalment of revisional notes includes, with the exception of Araneus, only the generic names published from 1802-1804. In 1810 Latreille definitely selected types for a reat many of his own genera and for some of Walckenaer’s ; and it will be useful to give a brief notice of the works published by both Latreille and Walckenaer between those dates, which might have any possible weight in the settle- ment of the question of names and types. 1802. P. A. Larre1tte.—Hist. Nat. des Fourmis: p. 345, G. i. My- gale, including A. avicularia, cementaria, and Sauvagest ; p. 347, G. ii. Aranea, followed by a number of species, but without in any way limiting the genus as he afterwards does in 1804. 56 Mr. F. O. P. Cambridge—A Revision 1802. C. A. WatckENnaER. — Faune Parisienne, Insectes, tom. ii. (Paris). The generic name Aranea is accepted throughout for all species not referred to Mygale, but names (Tubiformes &e.) are given to various groups. 1804. P. A. LATREILLE.—Hist. des Insectes, vol. vii.; An. Rev. xii. The author characterizes the genus Mygale and the various families of spiders, which are all referred to under the generic name Aranea. 1804. P. A. Larrertye.—Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. xxiv. In this work the genus Araneus is first limited to three species, and other genera are founded upon the residue, many of the generic groups coinciding with Walckenaer’s divisions in the Faun. Par. 1805. C. A. WatckEenarr.—Tableau des Aranéides. The author here limits some of Latreille’s genera and founds others of his own. The genera are characterized, but there is no definite selection of any type, except indirectly where only a single species is quoted. 1806. C. A. WaLckEenArr.—Hist. Nat. des Aranéides. Contains a description of various species with coloured illustrations, but the genera are not designedly limited nor are any types selected. The generic names are those used in the ‘ Tableau.’ 1806. P. A. Larrrinrite. — Genera Crust. et Insectorum, iconibus exemplisque plurimis explicata. Gnaphosa is made a synonym of Drassus (p. 86), but the author does not select any types and the species are merely given as examples without intention of definitely limiting the genera. 1810. P. A. Larreritte.—Considérations générales sur Nat. Ordre Crust., Arach. et Insectes, p. 428: “Table des genres avec Vindication de lespéce qui leur sert de type.” In this work Latreille selects types for twenty-nine genera. In his work on European spiders Thorell must have overlooked this selection of types. The genera are characterized under Latinized names, and at the end of the work the types selected under the same names in a French form. MycatLe, Latreille, 1802, Hist. Nat. des Fourmis, p. 345 (nom. preocc. Cuvier, 1799). Three species were originally included in this genus— (1) A. avicularia, (2) cementaria, (3) Sauvagesit. ‘The first was sclected as the type of the genus in 1810 by Latreille. The name Mygale had, however, been preoccupied by Cuvier in the table opposite page 496 of his ‘ Anatomie Com- narée,’ in the same form Mygale, not Myogale. Thorell evidently overlooked the limitation of this genus by Latreille in 1802, for on page 1638 of his Europ. Spid. he ascribes the genus to Walckenaer, Faun. Par, 1802. Type, Mygale avicularta (Linn.), 1758. of the Genera of the Aranee. 57 Atypus, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat. xxiv. p. 133. Only one species is included originally, A. subterranea, Roemer, Gen. Ins. tab. xxx. fig. 2, which Latreille identified by mistake as belonging to this genus. Type, Atypus Sultzeri, Latreille, 1804. Erropon, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. xxiv. p. 134. The only species mentioned originally has no name assigned to it:—“ Araignée inédite de la Nouvelle-Holl.” In 1806 Latreille, Gen. Crust. Ins. p. 85, quotes Missu- lena, Wlk., as a synonym of Eriodon, and gives a single species—‘‘ Species i. occatorius.’ In 1810 he definitely selects Misulena occatoria, Walck., as the type of the genus. Type, Eriodon occatorium (Walckenaer), 1805. Dyspera, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. p. 134, col. 1, line 11. Three species are quoted originally under this genus, re- ferred to by Latreille as “ Les Claustraliformes”’ of Walck- enaer, who further quotes the species Aranea punctoria, Villers. The three species are: —1. A. erythryna, Walck. ; 2. A. Hombergu, Scop. Ent. Carn. p. 403; 3. A. pune- toria, Villers. On page 47 of the ‘Tableau’ Walckenaer limits Dysdera to one species, D. erythryna, Walck., which was also defi- nitely selected by Latreille as the type in 1810. Further, also, A. punctoria, Villers, Caroli Linnei Ento- mologia, t. iv. p. 128, pl. xi. fig. 9, is a Chiracanthium, as Simon states in his Ar. Fr. tom. iv. p. 247, and was removed to that genus by implication in 1837 by C. L. Koch. A. Hom- bergit, Scop., was referred to the genus arpactes by Temple- ton in 1834. ype, Dysdera erythryna (Walck.), 1802. SEGESTRIA, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. xxiv. p. 134, col. 1, line 16. The spiders which Latreille refers to this genus are those mentioned by Walckenaer, Faun. Par. 1802, p. 222, under “Les Tubiformes.” (1) Aranea senoculata, Fabr., (2) A. perfida, Walck. (florentina, Rossi, Fauna Etrusca, pl. xix. fig. 3). The same two species are mentioned under Segestria by Walck. Tableau, 1805, p. 48, and A. florentina, Rossi, was 58 Mr. F. O. P. Cambridge—A Revision selected by Latreille in 1810 as the type of the genus (Consid. gén. Nat. Ord. p. 423). The name florentina has priority over perfida. Type, Segestria florentina (Rossi), 1790. ARGYRONETA, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. xxiv. p. 134, col. 1, line 22. A single species only is quoted under this name, included in Walckenaer’s “ Nayades,” Faun. Par. p. 233. Type, Argyroneta aquatica (Clerck), 1757. GnaPuosa, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. xxiv. p. 134, col. 1, line 31. Four species were originally included, being those com- prised in Walckenaer’s “ Celluliformes,” Faun. Par. p. 220, 1802 :—(1) A. nocturna, Linn.; (2) A. luctfuga, Walck., Sch. Icon. pl. 101. fig. 7; (3) A. lapidosa, Walck. ; (4) A. fulgens. The genus was first split up by Walckenaer himself in 1805, who withdrew A. nocturna, Linn., A. ucifuga, Walek., and A. fulgens, Walck., under Drassus, ‘Tableau, p. 45, leaving A. lagidosa, Walck. This being the last left in becomes the type. It is not possible under these circum- stances toregard Drassus, Walck., as a synonym of Gnaphosa, Latr., as Simon does (Hist. Nat. Ar. 2, 1. p. 383, 1893), nor can the type of the latter be duczfuga, as there selected. Type, Gnaphosa lapidosa (Walck.), 1802. CLuBIONA, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. xxiv. p. 134, col. 1, line 39. Seven species were originally included, being those re- ferred by Walckenaer to the “ Cameriformes,” Faun. Par. p- 217 (1802) :—(1) Aranea atroz, De Geer; (2) A. ama- rantha; (3) A.aloma, Albin, pl. x. fig. 48; (4) A. erratica, Albin, pl. xvii. fig. 82, p. 26; (5) A. epimelas; (6) A. holo- sericea, De Geer, vil. p. 266, pl. xv. fig. 138; (7) A. nuérix. Walckenaer does not remove any of these species in the ‘Tableau,’ and the genus was first broken up by C. L. Koch in 1837, who withdrew A. atrov, De Geer, as the type of Amaurobius, and, in 1839, A. nutriv, Walck.=punctorium, Villers; and erratica, Walck., under Chiracanthium, the last by implication. In 1810 Latreille selected A. /olosericea, Linn., as the type, a species which he obviously concluded to be identical of the Genera of the Aranex. 59 with the holosericea, De Geer, quoted by Walckenaer, for De Geer gives holosericea, Linn., as a synonym of the species figured by himself. So that Latreille’s action is in reality a selection of species (6) as the type, with a correctional reference to the earliest author of the name holosericea. Both Thorell and Simon, however, have come to the con- clusion that the species figured by De Geer is not holosericea, Linn., but that De Geer’s species =phragmitis, C. Koch, and Linneus’s =pallidula, Clerck. This conclusion, however, cannot affect Latreille’s selection; it merely settles that phragmitis, C. Koch, is the type, and not pallidula, Clerck, as selected by Simon (Hist. Nat. Ar, Ivea, P- So, 1097). Type, Clubiona holoserica, De Geer=phragmitis, C. L. Koch. TEGENARIA, Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. xxiv. p. 134, col. 1, line 49. Five species were originally included, namely “ Les Tapi- formes,” Walck. Faun. Par. p. 215 :— (1) Aranea domestica, Fabr. p. 412.21; Clerck, p. 76, pl. ii. fig. 9; (2) A.civilis; (3) A. agrestis, Albin; (4) A. murina; (5) A. labirinthica, Fabr. p. 417. 34; Sch. Icon. pl. xix. fig. 8; Albin, pl. xvi. fig. 33. A. labirinthica was taken out under Forehead Tulous. “sie sarn se wee Se. e. bhutanensis. O°. Forehead TufOus 4 uses: wns «aie Se, e. erythogaster (summer), On the Squirrels of the Sciurus Prevostii Group. 167 ce?, Tail black. e*, Annulations on hairsof back broad. Se. e. erythogaster (winter). d*, Annulationson hairsof backnarrow. Se. e. punctatissimus. b', Tail-hairs with fulvous tips. a*, Underparts uniformly coloured .... Se. thavwanensis Roberti. b*. Underparts with grizzled median Wire etastenegePateny tstevs 8 S.6 «side x cyetags. = whe Se, t. centralis. B. Underparts same colour asthe back .... Sc. t. typicus. C. Underparts vinaceous (vinaceous rufous, Tidyway). a’, Underparts uniformly coloured. Groat ack DYOMMISN Gai aisesioneced dere: Se. castaneoventris typicus. OA AC Kio Tevaste Ms