Full text of "Transactions"

See other formats

8E68l 710

MUNIN

LOLI €

OLNOHOL JO ALISHAAIN|

UNV. GE
Taner

\ 7 “ wy
‘ Lede vipa"
ity Ove wha y

gh iy a

BINSING LIST DEC 1 5 1921.

’

ue s ‘

Ay iu ne ‘
c

at i

TRANSACTIONS OF THE
CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

PORATED A. D. 1799

VOLUME XVIII 1913-15

Publications

of Yale University

JVVV
S°4

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1914

Sita es yak | arc ¥

OFFICERS FOR 1913-14

President

His ExcreLLtency SIMEON E. BALDWIN.

Vice-President
Pror. ALEXANDER W. EVANS, : Pror. CLIVE DAY,
Pror. HANNS OERTEL.

Secretary

Dr. GEORGE F. EATON.

Treasurer

Mr. GEORGE PARMLY DAY.

Librarian

Mr. JOHN CHRISTOPHER SCHWAB.

Committee on Publication

Exc. S. E. BALDWIN, Chairman, Pror. A. W. EVANS,
Pror. A. S. COOK, Pror. CLIVE DAY,
Pror. E. 8S. DANA, Pror. H. OERTEL,

Pror. E. P. MORRIS, Mr. J. C. SCHWAB.

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from
University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/transactions18conn

CONTENTS

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, SEPT. 1, 1913, To AucG. 31, 1914

ArT. J.—ARACHNIDA OF NORTH AMERICA. By ALEXANDER

ART.

PETRUNKEVITCH

TIl.—GREEK DIMINUTIVE SUFFIX ISKO-IZ>KH. By WALTER
PETERSEN

TIl.—NeEw ENGLAND SPIDERS IDENTIFIED SINCE 1910. By
J. H. EMERTON

I1V.—LIrE AND WoRrRKS oF HenRY Kine. By LAWRENCE

MASON

V—ReEportT ON HEPATICAE. YALE PERUVIAN EXPEDITION,
1911. By ALEXANDER W. EVANS

VI.—APPENDICES TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK. By CLARENCE

R. WILLIAMS

PAGE

1-137

139-207

225-99

291-345

347-447

ri
ae
ul
> oy P-
iQ

AOOLTIONS TO THE LIBRARY

OF THE

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

By Girt AND EXCHANGE FROM SepT. 1, 1912, To Aue. 31, 1914.

ATIX-EN-PROVENCE.—Université.
Faculté des lettres. Annales. IV, 3-4. 1910.
Faculté de droit et des lettres. Annales. V, 1912.

ALBANY.—New York state museum.
Annual report. LXIV, 1910, I-II; LXV, 1911, I-IV.
ALTENBURG, S. A.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft des Osterlandes.
Mitteilungen. XV. 1912.

AMES, OAKES. Orchidaceae, vol. IV.

AMIENS.—Académie des sciences, des lettres et des arts.
Mémoires. LVIII-LIX. 1911-12.
Société Linnéenne du Nord de la France.
Bulletin. XX, 394-404. 1910-11.

AMSTERDAM.—K. Akademie van wetenschappen.
Jaarboek. 1911.
Section of sciences. Proceedings. XIV-XV.
Verhandelingen. Sectie I, XI, 3-6; Sectie II, XVII, 1-6.
Verslagen van de vergaderingen. Deel XX, 1, XXIT, 2. 1911-13.
Maatschappij tot nut van talgemeen.
Jaarboek. 1912-14.
Mededeelingen. XI, XII.
Publications. 100.
Rapport. 1913.
Vergadering. 1913-14.
Meteorologisch instituut.
Annuaire. 1911-12, A-B.
Mededeelingen en verhandelingen. CII, 13, 15-17.
Publications. 93, 96.

ANGERS.—Société Nationale @agriculture, sciences et arts.
Mémoires. Sér. V, T. XIV-XV. 1911-12.

VIII CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

ANTWERP.—Académie Royale d’archéologie de Belgique.
Annales.. Sér. Vi. LATE Tf TLarExaee V5 4.
Bulletin. 1912, 3-1913, 4; also 1908, 1.

AUGSBURG.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein fiir Schwaben und Neuburg.
Bericht. XII, 1913.

Base.t.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Verhandlungen. XXIII-XXIV.

BaTAviA.—Magnetisch en meteorologisch observatorium.
Seismological bulletin. Jan., Apr., June, 1912-Dee., 1913.
Observations. XXXI-XXXIII, 1908-11.
Observations at secondary stations. I, 1913.
Regenswaarnemingen. XXXII, 2; XXXIII, 2. 1910-11.

K. Natuwurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch-Indie.
Natuurkundig tijdschrift. LXX-LXXII.

BercGEN.—Musewm.

Aarbok. 1911, 3; 1912, 2; 1913, 1-2.
Aarsberetning. 1911.
Skrifters) Na Re, wba eudcgls

BERLIN.—K. Normal-Aichungs-Kommission.
Ubersicht. 1895-1911.

Denkschriften. 1882, 1900.
Universitat. K. Zoologisches Museum.

Bericht. 1911-12.

Mitteilungen. VI, 2-VII, 1. 1912-13.

BIRMINGHAM.—Natural History and Philosophical Society.
Annual Report. 1912-14.

List of Members. 1913-14.

Proceedings. XII, 5; XIII, 1.
Bocota.—Academia de Historia Nacional.

Boletin. I, 1-12. 1912.

Botocna.—R. Accademia delle scienze dell’ Istituto.
Rendiconto. Classe di scienze fisiche. N.S.,XV-XVI. 1910-12.
Classe di scienze morali. Ser. I, T. V-VI. 1911-12.
Memorie. Classe di scienze morali.
Sez. di scienze giuridiche, Ser. I, T. VI, 1; VII, 1.
Sez. di scienze storico-filologiche, Ser. I, T. VI, 1; VII, 1.

Bonn —Naturhistorischer Verein der preussischen Rheinlande und West-
falens.
Sitzungsbericht. 1911, 2-1913, 1.
Verhandlungen. LXVIII, 2-LXIX, 1; LXX, 1.
BorDEAUX.—Académie nationale des sciences, belles-lettres et arts.
Actes. Sér. III. Année LXX-LXXIII. 1908-11.
Commission météorologique de la Gironde.
Bulletin. 1910.
Société des sciences physiques et naturelles.
Procés-verbaux. 1910-12.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 IX

BorDEAUX.—NSociété Linnéenne.
Procés verbaux. LXVI, 1912.

Boston.—American academy of arts and sciences.
Proceedings. XLVII, 22; XLVIII, 8, 11-21; XLIX, 1-11;
LD, 1-3.
Museum of fine arts.
Bulletin. 58-70. 1912-14.
Society of natural history.
Proceedings. XXXIV. 13.

BRADFORD.—Scientific association.
Journal. III, 7-8. 1912.

BREMEN.—WMeteorologisches Observatorium.
Deutsches meteorologisches Jahrbuch. XXIII, 1912.
Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein.
Abhandlungen. XXI, 1-X XIII, 1, 1912-14.

BricHTon.—Brighton and Hove natural history and philosophical society.
Annual report and abstract of papers. 1912-13.

BRISBANE.—Royal Geographical society, Queensland branch.
Queensland geographical journal. N. S., XXVI-XXVII, 1910-12.
Queensland museum.
Memoirs. J[-II.

BrooKkLiyn.—/nstitute of arts and sciences.
Museum news. VIII, 1-8. 1912-13.
Year Book. XXIII-XXV. 1910-13.

Brunn.—WNaturforschender Verein.
Meteorologische Kommission. Bericht. XXVIII. 1912.
Verhandlungen. XLIX-LI.

BRuUNSWICK.—Verein fiir Naturwissenschaft.
Jahresbericht. XVII. 1912.

BRUSSELS.—Académie Royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaua-arts de
: Belgique.
Annuaire. LXXIX-LXXX, 1913-14.
Bulletin. Classe des sciences. 1912, 6-1914, 1.
Mémoires. Classe des sciences. Sér. II, T. III, 5-IV, 2.
Jardin botanique.
Bulletin. IV, 1.
Observatoire R. de Belgique.
Annales, Physique du globe. V, 3.
Annales astronomiques. XIV, 1.
Annuaire astronomique. 1914.
Annuaire météorologique. 1907.
Notices extraites des annuaires. 1873, 1874, 1876.
Société entomologique.
Annales. LVI-LVII.
‘Mémoires. XX-XXI. 1912.

bg CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

BRUSSELS.—Société R. Belge de géographie.
Bulletin. XXXVI, 2-XXXVIII, 1. 1912-14.
Société R. de botanique. y
Bulletin. Sér. II, T. XLIX, 1-4; LI, 1; LII, 2.
Société R. zoologique et malacologique.
Annales. XLVII. 1912. ‘
Société scientifique.
Annales. XXXVI, 3-4; XXXVII, 1-2. 1911-14.
Revue des questions scientifiques. XXII, 2-XXVI, 1. 1912-14.
Bryn Mawr college monographs. XI-XIII. Reprint Series. IX.
BUCHAREST.—Societate de sciinte.
Buletinul. XXI, 3-XXIII, 2. 1913-14.
BupaPest.—Magyar Tudomdényos akadémia.
Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Berichte aus Ungarn.
XXVI, 4; XXVII-XXIX.
Rapports sur les travaux. 1911-12.
Meteorolégiai és Féldmagnességi Intézet.
Jahrbuch. XXXVIII, 2-3; XXXIX, 1-4. - 1910-12.
Verzeichnis der . . . Biicher. IX. 1910.
Tudomany-eqyetem.
Acta. 1910-11, 2-1913, 2.
Almanach. 1911-13.
Series Praelectionum. 1911-13.
Tanrende. 1912-13, I-II. va
BuENos AtRES.—Museo Nacional.
Anales. T. XXIJI-XXIV.
Direccién general de estadistica.
Boletin mensual. 121-3. 1910.
Sociedad cientifica Argentina.
Anales. LXXIIT, 1; LXXVII, 2, 1912-14.
Sociedad quimica argentina.
Anales. J, 1-3. 1912-f3.
CaEN.—Société Linnéenne de Normandie.
Bulletin. Sér. VI, T. IfI-VI. 1908-13.
Mémoires. XXIV, 1-2. 1911-13.
CaLcuTtTa.—Asiatie society of Bengal.
Journal. LXXV, 1-2. Index to rare Mughal coins I-XV. The
same to Numismatic Suppl. I-XVI.
Journal and proceedings. WI, 12-IX, 6. Index to III, VI.
Memoir. III, 5-7.
Indian museum.
Annual Report. 1911-12, I-II. *
Bye-Laws, I.
Echinoderma, VIIJ-VIII.
Natural history section. Annual report. 1909-11.
Memoirs: TE, 33>2V, 2. 19s:
Records. VII, 5; VIII, 1-4.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XI

California academy of sciences.
Proceedings. Ser. IV, v. I, 289-430; III, 73-186.

CaMBRAI.—Société d’émulation.
Mémoires. LXV-LXVI, 2. 1912-13.
Philosophical society.
Transactions. XXI. 397-451.
University. Observatory.
Annual report. 1912-13.

CANADA.—Department of mines. Mines Branch.
Annual report on the mineral production of Canada. 1911.
Preliminary report. 1912.
Forestry branch.
Bulletin. 31, 33-36, 38-40, 42.
Circular. 7-10.
Geological Survey.
Maps. 1160, 1186, 1218, 1299.
Memoir. 13, 21, 23, 29K, 33, 37, 48.
Summary report. 1912.
Victoria Memorial musewm.
Bulletin. 1-2. 1913-14.
Canadian forestry association.
Report. 1906, 1911-13.
Canadian forestry convention.
Report. 1904-5, 1907-11.
Canadian forestry journal. VII, 1-4, 6; VIII, 1-4; IX, 1-X, 5. 1911-14.
Canadian railway club. Official proceedings. X, 6-9; XI, 1-5.

Care Town.—Royal society of South Africa.
Transactions. JIIJ-IV, 1. 1913-14.

CARACAS.—Accademia Nacional de la historia.

Boletin, Afio J. JI. 2-3. 1912.

Ramén Azpurtia, Biografias de hombres notables de Hispano-
América. I-IV.

Colleccién de documentos para la historia de la vida ptblica
del Libertador. I-XIV.

Museos nacionales.
Gaceta. I, 1-12; IT, 1. 1912-13.

CASSEL.—Verein fiir Naturkunde.
Abhandlungen und Berichte. XLI-XLVI; LIII.
Festschrift. 1911.

CATANIA.—Accademia Gioenia.
Bollettino delle sedute. N. S., 22-31. 1912-14.
Societa degli spettroscopisti Italiana.
Memoria. Ser. II, T. III, 1-5.
CEYLON.—Administration reports. ;
Part IV, Education, science, and art. Marine biology. Report.
1910-11.

XIf CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

CHALONS-SUR-SAONE.—NSociété @histoire et d’archéologie.
Catalogue des collections. Partie I.
Mémoires. Sér. II. IV, 1-2; V, 2. 1911.
CHELTENHAM.—Natural Science Society.
Proceedings. N.S. 1, 4-5. 1910-1911.
CHEMNITZ.—Naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft.
Bericht. XVIII. 1909-10.

CHERBOURG.—Société nationale des sciences naturelles et mathématiques.
Mémoires. XXXYVIIT.

Cuicaco.—Field Museum of natural history.
Publications. 159, 161-176.
John Crerar Library.
Annual report. XVIII-XIX. 1912-13.
Handbook. 1913.

CHRISTIANIA.—Universitet. Meteorologisko institut.
Jahrbuch. 1905-11.
Videnskabs-selskabet.
Forhandlinger. 1911-12.

CuuR.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft Graubiindens.
Jahresbericht. LIII-LIV. 1910-13.
CINCINNATI.—Lloyd library.
Bibliographical contributions. 9-15. 1913-14.
Bulletin. Botany Series. 15. Mycological series. 14, 38.
Mycological notes. 36-37.
Magazin for naturvidenskaberne. lL, 4-LI, 4.
Museum Association.
Annual exhibition of the Society of Western Artists. XVI.
OWE
Annual exhibition of American art. XI, XII, XV-XVIII,
XX-XXI. 1904-14.
Annual Report. XXIX, XXXI-XXXIITTI. 1909-14.
Society of natural history.
Journal. XXI, 3-4.
University.
Record. VIII, 4-IX, 3, 5, 7-10; X, 1-3.
University studies. Ser. II, Vol. VII, 3-VIII, 4. 1911-12.
CoLomBo.—Museum.
Spolia Zeylanica. WII, 25-28; 31-35.
CoLogNEe.—Coelner-Akademie fiir praktische Medizin.
Six reprints.

Colorado College.
Publications. Language series. II, 29. Science series. XII,
12. Social Seience series. IT, 4-8.
Colorado scientific society.
Proceedings. X, 203-414, 431-52.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 <I

Cororapo.—University of.
Bulletin. = XSi xen 4s) EX VE LA
Studies. IX, 4-XI, 1.
CoLtumMBusS.—Ohio state academy of science.
Proceedings. V, 10-VI, 2.
CopENHAGEN.—Conseil permanent et international pour Vexploration de
la mer.
Bulletin des résultats. 1902-5.
Bulletin trimestriel. 1905-11.
Bulletin hydrographique. 1910-12.
Bulletin statistique. I-VIT. 1903-10.
Mémoires. 1902-12.
Publications de circonstanee. 1, 2, 4-10, 12B-22, 24-66.
Rapports et procés-verbaux. I-XX.° 1902-14.
K. Danske videnskabernes selskab.
Skrifter. Naturvidenskabelig-mathematisk afdeling. R. 7, IX,
Dieexe Xe le
Naturhistoricke forening.
Videnskabelige meddelelser. LXIV-LXV. 1913.

Corpova (Argentina).—Academia Nacional Ciencias.
Boletin. XIX, 1. 1914.

CorK.—Historical and archaeological society.
Journal. Series II. Vol. XIX, 90-101. 1911-14.

CoruNA.—R. Academia Gallega.
Boletin. VII, 64-74, 76-84. 1912-14.
Diccionario gallego-castellano. 1-3. 1913.

Croypon.—MWicroscopical Club.
Proceedings and transactions. 1912-13.

Cusco.—Universidad.
Asociacion universitaria. La Sierra. Revista mensual. I, 2-4.
Memoria. Rector. 1910, 1911, 1913.
Revista universitaria. J, 2-4, 6-7.
Danzic.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Schriften. N. F. XIII, 2.

DAVENPORT.—Academy of sciences.
Proceedings. XIII, 1-46.

DENISON UNIVERSITY.—
Bulletin of the scientific laboratories. XVII, 203-373.

Derroir.—Museum of art.
Annual report. 1912-13.
iBullehmee Wile o- VL, 32) LON2- Ar

Dorpat.—Naturforscher-Gesellschaft.
Schriften. XXI.
‘Sitzungsbericht. XXI, 1-XXII, 2.

PY. CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

DRESDEN.

Naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft Isis.
Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen. Jan., 1912-June, 1913.
Verein fiir Brdkunde.
Jahres berichte. Gesamt-register. 1890-1901.
Mitteilungen. II, 5-8; also Kapte IV, V, X.
Dusiin.—Pharmaceutical society of Ireland.
Calendar. XXXVII-XXXVIII. 1913.
Royal Dublin society.
Economie proceedings. II, 5-7.
Scientific proceedings. N.S. XIII, 24-39; XIV, 1-16. 1911-12.
Royal Irish academy.
Proceedings. Clare Island survey. XXXI, 3. 15-19, 20, 25,
30-31, 33-34, 40-46, 48-50, 53, 55-59, 64.
Proceedings. Series A. XXX, 1-6; XXXII, 1.
Series B. XXXI,5; XXXII, 1-2. Series C. XXX, 1-15, 17-19.
Trinity College.
Hermathena. 38-39. 1912-13.
Geological society.
Transactions. X, 1.
Duranp, Tu. & Scuinz, Hans. Conspectus florae Africae. 1, 2, 1898; V,
1895.
Easton.—American chemical society.
American chemical journal. XLIX-L. 13S.
EpINBuRGH.—Royal physical society.
Proceedings. XVIII, 4-XIX, 5.
Royal society of Edinburgh.
Proceedings. XXXIII, 4-XXXIV, 1.
Transactions. XLVIII, 2-XLIX, 2.
Elisha Mitchel scientific society.
Journal. XXVIII, 3-XXIX, 4. 1912-14.
EmMpDEN.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Jahresbericht. XCVI-XCVII. 1911-12.
Errurt.—K. Akademie gemeinniitziger Wissenschaften.
Jahrbiicher. XXXVI-XXXIX. 1910-13.
FatmoutTu.—Royal Cornwall polytechnic society.
Annual report. LXXVIII.

FLORENCE.—Societa entomologica Italiana.
Bollettino. XLIII-XLIV. 1911-12.
Biblioteca nazionale centrale.
Bollettino. 141-163. 1912-14.
ForRTAIEZA (Brazil).—Academia Cearense.
Revista. XVII. 1912.
Instituto do Ceara.
Revista. XXV-XXVII.
FRANK¥YORD (Pa.).—Historical society.
Papers. II, 3.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XV

FRANKFURT A. M.—Deutsche malakozoologische Gesellschaft.
Nachrichtsblatt. XLIV, 3-XLVI, 3. 1912-14.
Senckenbergische naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Abhandlungen. XXXI, 2-4; XXXIV, 3-4.
Bericht. XLITII-XLIV, 1912-13.

FRANKFurT A. O.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein des Regierungs-bezirke.
Helios. XXVII. 1913.

FREIBURG I. B.—WNaturforschende Gesellschaft.
Bericht. XIX, 2-XXII, 1.

Frisoure.—Société Fribourgeoise de sciences naturelles.
Bulletin. XIX-XX. 1910-12.
Mémoires. Botanique, III, 2; Chimie, III, 3; Géologie et
géographie, VIII, 1; Mathematiyue et physique, Il; Physi-
ologie, hygiéne, bactériologie, I, 1-5.
Ganp.—Umversiteé.
Notices biographiques. I-II.
GENEVA. Société de physique et d’histoire naturelle.
Compte rendu. XXIX-XXX. 1912-13.
Mémoires. XXXVII, 3-XXXVIII, 1.
Institut national Genevois.
Bulletin. 21. 1910.
Mémoire. XL. 1913.

GenoAa—WMuseo civico di storia naturale.
Annali. Ser. III, T. V, 1911-13.

GrorcETOWN.—Royal agricultural and commercial society of British
Guiana.
Journals imberi. Ser--lls V. 15.35 EE, 125° Tt 1:

GiEssEeN.—Universitit.
113 dissertations.
Oberhessische Gesellschaft fiir Natur- und Heilkunde.
Bericht, Medizinische Abteilung. N. F. 6-8.

Giascow.—Natural History Society.
Glasgow Naturalist. IV, 3-VI, 2.
Royal philosophical society.
Proceedings. XLIII-XLIV. 1912-13.

GortEspore.—K. Vetenskaps— och vitterhets—Samhaelles.
Handlingar. Folj IV. H. XII-XIII. 1909-10.

G6rTINGEN.—K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
Mathematische Klasse. Nachrichten. 1913, 1-4.
Philologische Klasse. Nachrichten. 1912, 2-1913, 3; and bei-
heft.
Nachrichten. Geschiiftliche Mitteilungen. 1911, 1-1913, 1..

GRENOBLE.—U niversité.
Annales. XXXIII, 3-XXXVI, 1.

XVI CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

GUELPH.—Entomological society of Ontario.
Annual report. XLITI-XLIV. 1912-13.
Canadian entomologist. XLV, 9-XLVI, 7. 1913-14

HAARLEM.—Hollandsche maaschappij der wetenschappen.
Seri AS TL Be 3-45
Teylers Godgeleerd genootschap.
Verhandlingen. N. 8. XVIII.
Teyler’s stichting. Musée Teyler.
Archives. Sér. III. T. I.

HALIFAX.—Nova Scotian institute of science.
Proceedings and transactions. XIII, 2. 1911-12.
Nova Scotia. Department of Mines.
Reports. 1912-13.

Hatrte A. S.—Kais. Leopoldinisch-Carolinische deutsche Akademie der
Naturforscher.
Abhandlungen. XCVI, 3; XCVII, 10; XCVITII, 2.
Leopoldina. XLVII-XLVIII. 1911-12.
Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Abhandlung. N. F. 2.
Mitteilungen. JJ-III. 1912-13.

HampBurG.—Deutsche Seewarte.
Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie. XL,
9-XLIT, 7. a
Aus dem Archiv. XXXV, 1-2; . XXXVI, 1-3, 11. 1912-13.
Deutsches meteorologisches Jahrbucon. NXXIV-XXXY. 1911-12.
Jahresbericht. XXXV-XXXVI. 1912-13.
Nachtrag zum Katalog. III. 1912.
Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein.
Verhandlungen. XIX, 3-5; XX, 1.

HANNOVER.—Naturhistorische Gesellschaft.
Jahresbericht. XXVI, XXIX-LIV, LVIII-LXI.

Hartrorp.—Connecticut historical society.
Annual report. 1913-14.

Hartwic, Ernst. Katalog und Ephemeriden verdnderlicher sterne. 1911,
1912.

Harvard University—Museum of Comparative Zoology.

Annual report. 1911-13.

Bulletin. LIII, 10; LIV, 15-21; DV; 2; GVi, t;- LV, fa;
VG 6

Bulletin. Geology Ser. X. a

Memoirs. XXXVI; XL, 1-5; XLIV, 1-2; XLVI, 1.

Observatory.

Annals. LVI, 8; LXVII; LXIX, 2; LXXII, 4-7; LXXIIl, 1;

LXXIV; LXXV, 1-2; LXXVI, 1; LXXVIEF 1.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XVII

Harvard University.—Observatory.

Annual report. 1911-13.
Bulletin. 501-57.
Circular. 175-83.
Report of Visiting Committee. 52.

Hastings and St. Leonards natural history society.
Report for 1912-13.
Hastings and East Sussex naturalist. II, 1, 3.

HAvana.—Academia de ciencias medicas, fisicas y naturales.
Anales. XLIX-L, April, 1912-Oct., 1913.
Colegio de Belen.
Observaciones meteorologicas y magneticas. 1912.
Havre.—Société géologique de Normandie.
Bulletin. XXXII. 1911.

HELGOLAND.—K. Biologische Anstalt.
Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen. Abteilung Kiel.
BEL ,,..2'; 2EV
HELSINGFORS.—Finska vetenskaps-societeten.
Aette yee Vid 25) Xe, >, XT, 8-95; XLT, 1-2; XLIV,
1-2.4,.65, XLV, 1.
Bidrag till kiinnedom af Finlands natur och folk. LXIX;
ERO 3s EXT 59 EXXV ils: UXVI,.1-5;
Meteorologiska Centralanstalt. Meteorologisches Jahrbuch fiir
Hinnland. | VEl-VIM, 2; EXS 1; X, 15. XI, 2; Beilage, 1906.
Ofersigt af forhandlingar. LIV-LV.
Societas pro Fauna et Flora Finnica.
Acta. XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXVI. 1910-12.
Meddelanden. XXXVIII-XXXIX. 1910-13.
Hopart.—Royal society of Tasmania.
Papers and proceedings. 1912-13.

Hono.tuLu.—Bernice Pauahi Bishop museum of Polynesian ethnology &
natural history.
Occasional papers. VI, 1. 1913.
Sharp, D. Fauna Hawaiiensis. I, 6.

ILLinois.—State laboratory of natural history.
Bulletin. IX, 5-X, 4. 1912-14.
Inp1a.—Board of Scientific advice.
Annual report. 1911-13.
I. Department of agriculture.
Memoirs. Bacteriological series. JI, 1-2. Botanical series.
IV, 6-VI, 7. 1912-14.
Chemical series. II, 4-6; III, 1-5, 1912-14.
Entomological series. IV, 2-5; V, 1.
Report of progress of agriculture. 1911-15.
Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa. Report. 1911-13.

SVL CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

InpIA.—Geological Survey.

Memoirs. XXXVI, 3; XXXIX, 1-3; XL, 1-2; XLI; XLE Se

Memoirs. Palaeontologia Indica. Ser. XV. IV, 2-3, pl. XIX-
XCIII A; VI,.2, pl. I-V; N.S. TM, 1, pl. VEE; V; Tp
I-XIII.

Records. XII, 1-4; XLII, 1-3; XLIII, 1-4; SOLVE

Professional papers. 12-13.

Meteorological department.

Rainfall in India. XXI-XXII. 1911-1912.

Annual summary. 1911-12.

Memoirs. XXI, 3-8; XXII, 1-2.

Monthly Weather Review. April, 1912-Jan., 1914.

Report of administration. 1911-13.

Indiana Academy of Science.
Proceedings. 1911-12.
Iowa Academy of Sciences.
Proceedings. XIX-XX. 1912-13.
Iowa.—State University.
Laboratory of Natural History. Bulletin. VI, 4.
Studies in psychology. VI, 2.
Iraty.—R. Comitato geologico.
Bollettino. 1912, 1-4. 1913/14, 1.
Jassy.—Université. Z
Annales scientifiques. VI, 3-4; Wiki 2:
JersEY City, N. J.—Historical Society of Hudson County.
Papers. 8-9. 1913.
Johns Hopkins University.
Gireular. 1912, 8, 10; 1913, 1-4, 6-105) 191
KANSAS.—Academy of science.
Transactions. XXVI. 1913.
University.
Seience bulletin. VI, 2-7; VIII, 1-10.
Kasan.—Observatoire météorologique.
Bulletin. 1912-13.
Société physico-mathématique.
Bulletin. Sér. Il. T. XVIII, 1-4; XIX, 12.
Krev.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein fur Schleswig-Holstein.
Schriften. XV, 2.
K. Universitat.
Chronik. 1911-13.
Dissertations (314). =
Kirv.—Société des naturalistes.
Mémoires. XXII, 6-XXIII, 3.
KLAUSENBURG.—U niversité.
Annales. 1910-13.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XIX

KopsAIKANAL.—Observatory.
Annual report. 1912-13.
Bulletin. XXXVIII.

KONIGSBERG I. PR.—Physikalisch-dkonomische Gesellschaft.
Schriften. LII-LIII. 1911-12.

Krakow.—K. K. Sternwarte.
Meteorologische Beobachtungen. <Aug., 1912-June, 1914.
Resultate der meteorologischen, seismologischen und magne-
tischen Beobachtungen. 1912-13.
Kyoro—I. University.
College of Science and Engineering. Memoirs. III, 8-12;
veel -2 7 Ves 1-95) Vilglo:
La Prata.—Universidad.
Archivos de pedagogia y sciencias afinas. IX, 29-X, 36.
1912-13.

La RocHELLE.—Académie des belles lettres, sciences et arts, Section des
sciences naturelles. Flore de France. XIII. i911.
Société des sciences naturelles.
Annales. XIV. 1912.

LAUSANNE.—Société vaudoise des sciences naturelles.
Bulletin. 176-181.

Lreps.—Philosophical and literary society.
Report (14). 1868-1912.

Lerpezie.—Gesellschaft fiir Erdkunde.
Mitteilungen. 1904, 1911, 1912.
Naturforschende Gesellschaft.
Sitzungsbericht. 1911-13.
K. Séchsische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse. Berichte. LXIV,1-4. 1912.
Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen. II, IJt. 1914.

LeypEN.—Nederlandsche dierkundige Vereeniging.
Aanwinsten der Bibliotheek. 1912-13.
Tijdschrift. Ser. II, XI, 3-4.
LigEcGE.—Université.
Bibliothéque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres. I-II, IV-X,
XII-XTII, XVI-XX.
Société Royale des sciences.
Mémoires. Sér. III, T. IX. 1912.

Linz.—Museum Francisco-Carolinum.
Jahresbericht. 71-72.
Lispon.—Sociedade de geographia.
Boletim. XXX, 6-XXXII, 4. 1912-14.
Instituto de anatomia.
Archivo de anatomia. 1-2. 1912-14.

XX CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

LIVERPOOL.—Biological society.
Proceedings. XXVI-XXVII. 1911-13.

Lonpon.— Geological society.
Geological literature added to library. 1911.
Quarterly journal. 265-75. 1911-14.
Linnean society.

List. 1912-14.

Journal. Zoology. 211-216.

Proceedings. Session 124-125.

Patent Office library.

Library Series. 4. 1913.

Subject list of works on mineral industries, 2-3; on photo-
mechanical printing, Ca-CC; on the fine and graphic arts,
BM-BZ; on the silicate industries, CD-CK.

Subject lists. ZC-ZZ, 1911; YM-ZB, 1911; FO-FR, 1912;
WN-XN, 1912.

Roentgen society.
Journal. VIII, 33-X, 40. 1912-14.
R. Geographical society.
Geographical journal. XL, 3-XLIV, 1. 1912-14.
Geological society. e
Quarterly journal. 274-275.
Mathematical society.
Proceedings. XI, 4-XIII, 1-5. 1912-14.
R. Microscopical society.
Journal. 1912, 5-1914, 3.
Royal society.

Philosophical transactions, Series A. 488-513. Series B.
295-318. 1912-14.

Philosophical proceedings. Series A. 581-620. Series B.
LXXXIV, 581-599. 1912-14.

R. Photographic society of Great Britain.

Annual exhibition. LVII, LVIII. 1912-13.

Photographie journal. LIT, 7-LIV, 5. 1912-14.

South London entomological and natural history society.

Proceedings. 1912-14.

South-eastern union of scientific societies.

South-eastern naturalist. 1912.

LOUISIANA.—State museum.
Biennial report. III. 1910-12.

Lovuvain.—La Cellule.

XXVII, 1-XXVIII, 2. 1911-13. .
Lucca.—Accademia Lucchese di scienze, lettere ed artt.

Atti. XX, XXI, XXIII, XXVII-XXXII. Indici (1903).

LUENEBURG.—Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein.
Jahreshefte. XVITI-XIX. 1903-13.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XXT

Lunp.—K. Universitet.
Acta. VII-VIII. 1911-12.
Bibliothek, Arsberiittelse. 1911-12.
Académie des sciences, belles-lettres et arts.
Mémoires. Sér. III, T. XIII-XIV. 1914.

Lyons.—Bulletin historique du diocése de Lyon.
76-85. 1912-14.
Société des amis de ’Université.
Bulletin. XXV, 5-XXVII, 2. 1912-14.
Société @agriculture, sciences et industrie.
Annales. 1910-12.
Société Linnéenne.
Annales. LIX-LX. 1912-13.
Université.
Annales. Science-médecine. 31-36. Droit-lettres. 26-28.
Maprip.—R. Academia de ciencias exactas, fisicas y naturales,
Revista. X, 11-XII, 7. 1912-14.
R. Academia de la historia.
Boletin. LXI, 3/4-LXIV, 6. 1913-14.
Cortes de los antiguos reinos de Aragon y de Valencia y
Principado de Catalufia. XVI-XIX. 1912-14.
Memorial historico espafiol. XLVI. 1914.
Observatorio.
Anuario. 1913-14.

MAGDEBURG.—Museum fiir Natur- und Heimatkunde.
Abhandlungen und Berichte. II, 3.
Maine agricultural experiment station.
Bulletin. 201-228.

Matnz.—Stadtbibliothek.
Mainzer Zeitschrift. N. F. I-VII.

MANCHESTER (England) .—Geographical society.
Journal. XXVIII, 3-4. 1912.
Literary and philosophical society.
Memoirs and proceedings. LVI, 2-LVII, 3. 1911-13.
Oniversity.
Publications. Economic series, XIV, 1913; Educational series,
VII; English series, III-IV; Historical series, XIV-XIX;
Medical series, XIII.

MAniILA.—Philippine bureau of science.
Annual report. XII. 1913.

Marpsure.—Gesellschaft zur Beférderung der gesamten Naturwissenschaften.
Sitzungsberichte. 1912.

MELBOURNE.—Royal society of Victoria.
Proceedings. N.S., XXIV, 3-XXV, 2.
Transactions. 1910-13.

XAT CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

Metz.—Académie.
Mémoires. 88-93. 1908-12.

Mexico.—instituto geologico.

Boletin. 29-30. 1912-13.
Parergones. IV, 2-10.

Instituto medico nacional.
Anales. XII, 3-4. 1912-13.

Museo nacional de arqueologia, historia y etnologia.
Anales. IV, 1-12; V, 1-4.
Boletin. I, 2-II, 12.

Observatorio astronomico nacional.
Anuario. XXXII-XXXIII. 1912-13.
Boletin. 2-4.

Observatorio meteorologico-magnetico central.
Boletin. Mch., 1912—June, 1913.

Sociedad cientifica ,,Antonio Alzate™.
Memoria y Revista. XXX, 7-X XXIII, 10.

Sociedad nacional de historia naturale.
La Naturaleza. Ser. IIT, T. I, 4.

Michigan, University of. ;

Museum of zoology. Occasional papers. 1-4.
Pathological laboratory. Contributions. 5.

Physical laboratory. Contributions. 1. 1913.

Michigan academy of sciences.

Report. XIV-XV. 1912-13.

MIDDELBURG.—Zeeuwsch genootschap der wetenschappen.
Archief. 1912.

Mitan.—R. Istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere.
Rendiconti. Ser. II, XLV, 1-15; XLVI, 1-20.
Societa Italiana di scienze naturali e del Museo Civico.
PMnnee IIE SH EOOL ie
Minnesota geological and natural history survey.
Botanical series. Report. IX.
Botanical studies. IV, 3.
Plant studies. IV; I (3d ed.).
Zoological series. V.
University of.
Studies in chemistry. 1.
Studies in the physical sciences and mathematics. 2. 1914.
Missourl.—Botanical garden.
Annals. I, 1-2. 1914. -
Annual report. XXIII. 1912.
University of.
Bulletin. Astronomical series, 20-21. Engineering experiment
station series, III, 3; IV, 3-4. Science series, I, 5-9; II, 3.
Studies. II, 2.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XXIII

MopEena.—R. Accademia di scienze, lettere ed arti.
Memorie. Ser. III. T. X, 1.

Societa dei naturalisti.
Atti.. Rendiconti. Ser. IV. T. XIV. 1912.

Mons.—Société des sciences, des arts et des lettres du. Hainaut.
Mémoires et publications. LXIIT. 1912.

MontTana.—A gricultural college experiment station.
Annual report. XVIJI-XX. 1911-14.
Bulletin. 87-98.
Circular. 17-29, 31-33, 36-39.
University of.
Bulletins. 73-75, 77-81, 83-84, 87-88, 95, 97.
MOonTAUBAN.—Académie des sciences, belles-lettres et arts de Tarn-et-
Garonne.
iRecuenl- ser. Ly Xe Vil 19-12.
MONTEVIDEO.—O bservatorio nacional.
Boletin. 97-124. 1911-13.
Anuario estadistico.
IT, 2-3. 1907-08.
MONTPELLIER.—Académie des sciences et lettres.
Bulletin mensual. 1912, 6-1913, 5, 8-12; 1914, 15.
Mémoires. Section des lettres, Sér. I], T. IV, 4; V, 3. Section
de médecine, Sér. II, T. II, 3-4. Section des sciences, Sér. IT,
EAVES:
Moscow.—NSociété I. des naturalistes.
Bulletin. XXIV-XXVI. 1910-12.
K. Universitat.
Meteorologisches Observatorium. Beobachtungen. 1910-11.
MUnster, 1. W.—Westfdlischer Provinzial-Verein fiir Wissenschaft und
Kunst.
Jahresbericht. XL-XLI. 1911-13.
Municu.—K. Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen. XXVI, 5-6.
Jahrbuch. 1912.

Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse. Abhandlungen. XXV,
9-10; XXVI, 1-6; Suppl. Il, 7-9. Sitzungsberichte, 1912,
2-1913, 3.

Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse. Abhand-

lungen. XXVI, 3-5; XXVIII, %, 1912-13. Abhandlungen,
Sitzungsberichte. 1911, 1-1913, 8. Sitzungsberichte. 1911,
1-12.
Nancy.—Académie de Stanislas.
Mémoires. Sér. VI, T. 9-10. 1913-14.
NANTES.—Société des sciences naturelles de VOwest de la France.
Bulletin. Sér. III, T. II-III, 2. 1912-13.

XXIV CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

NApPLeS.—R. Accademia di scienze morali e politiche.
Atti. XLII. 1913.
Rendiconto. II. 1913.
R. Accademia delle scienze fisiche e matematiche.
Rendiconto. Ser. III. XVIII, 3-XIX, 5.
R. Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti.
Memorie. I-IJ. 1911-13.
Rendiconti. XXIV-XXVI.
R. Istituto dincoraggiamento.
Atti. Ser. VI. T. LXITI-LXIV. 1911-12.
Naturae Novitates. 1912, 15-1914, 10.
NEUCHATEL.—Société neuchateloise des sciences naturelles.
Bulletin. XXXIX-XL. 1911-13.
New Bricuton.—Staten Island Association of arts and sciences.
Proceedings. IV, 1-2.
Museum bulletin. 50-58; 61-63; 66; 68.
New YorkK.—Academy of sciences.
Annals. XXII, 1-319, 327-423; XXIII, 1-353.
American geographical society.
Bulletin. XLIV, 9-XLVI, 7. 1912-14.
American museum of natural history.
Anthropological papers. IX, 2; X, 1-3; XI, 1-6; XIII, l.
Bulletin. XXXI-XXXIJI. 1912-13.
Memoirs. XII, 2-3; N.S., I, 1-4. 1912-13.
Reports. XLIV-XLY. 1912-13.
Botanical garden.
Bulletin. 28-29. 1912-13.
Public library.
Bulletin. XVI, 7-XVII, 11. 1911-13.
Rockefeller institute for medical research.
Studies. XVI-XVIII.
Rockefeller sanitary commission for the eradication of hookworm
disease.
Publication. 7-8.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.—North of England institute of mining and
mechanical engineers.
Report. 1912-13.
Transactions. LXII, 6-LXXIV, 1. 1912-13.
Society of antiquaries.
Archaeologia Aeliana. IX, Ser. III.
Proceedings. Ser. III. V; VI, 4, 14-17.
NortH CAROLINA.—University.
Philological Club. Studies in philology. IX-XI. 1912-13.
NortH DaKkota.—Geological Survey.
Report. VI. 1912.
University.
Quarterly journal. II, 1-IV, 4. 1911-14.
NorTHAMPTON.—Northamptonshire natural history society and field club.
Journal. XVI, 129-XVII, 136. 1912-13.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XXV

Norwicu.—Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists society.
Transactions. IX, 4. 1912-13.
Notre DAME (Indiana).—American midland naturalist.
III, 1-10. 1913-14.
NUREMBERG.—Naturhistorische Gesellschaft.
Abhandlungen. XX, and Beilage.
Mitteilungen. 1909, 2; 1910, 1-2.
Oberlin College.
Laboratory bulletin. 7.
Library bulletin. I, 3.
Opressa.—L’observatoire météorologique et magnétique de Vuniversité
Impériale.
Annuaire. 1911-12.
Oxn10.— Geological survey.
Bulletin. Ser. IV, 14-17.

OKLAHOMA.—Geological Survey.

Bulletin. 9-11, 15-17.

Circular. 2-5.

State University.

Research bulletin. 3-4.
Oporto.—Academia polytechnica.

Annaes scientificos. VII, 2-IX, 2. 1912-14.
OxrorD.—University.

Observatory. Astrographic catalogue, VIII, 1. 1913.

Radcliffe Library. Catalogue of books added during 1912.

PAISLEY.—Philosophical institution.

Annual report. CIV-CV. 1912-13.

Coats observatory. Meteorological observations. 1909-11.
PALERMO.—NSocietd di scienze natwrali ed economiche.

Giornale. XXIX-XXX. 1912, 1914.

PaARIS.—A cadémie.
Conseil Rapports. 1911-13.
Ecole polytechnique.
Journal. Sér. II, 16-17.
Muséum Whistoire naturelle.
Bulletin. 1911, 5; 1912, 1-8; 1913, 1-7.
Laboratoire de phanérogamie. Notulae systematicae, par H.
Lecomte. II, 9-12.
Observatoire.
Rapport annuel, 1912-13.
Répertoire dart et Warchéologie. II-V. 1911-14.
Société zoologique de France.
Bulletin. XXXVI-XXXVIII.
Mémoires, XXIV-XXV. 1910-12.

PASADENA.—Throop polytechnic institute.
Bulletin. 57-59. 1913.

PENZANCE.—Royal Geological society.
Transactions. XIII. 1-9.

XXXVI CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

PERTH.—Department of mines, Western Australia.
Annual progress report. 1911-12.
Geological survey.
Bulletin. 41-47, 49-50.
Annual report. 1911-12.
Pervu.—Ministerio de Fomento.
Cuerpo de Ingenieros de Minas. Boletin. 75-80.
Prerucia.—Universitad. Facoltéi di medicina.
Annali. J-II. 1911-13.
PHILADELPHIA.—Academy of natural sciences.
Journal. 2d ser. XIV, 4-XVI, 1.
American Philosophical society.
Proceedings. LII, 206-213. 1912-14.
Franklin Institute.
Journal. Vol. 174, 3-178, 1. 1912-14.
Wagner free institute.
Annual announcement. 1912-13.
Transactions. VII, 2. 1913.

Pisa.—Societa Toscana di scienze naturali.
Atti, Memorie. XXVIII. 1912.
Processi verbali. XXI, 3-5; XXII, 1-4.
PITTSBURG.—Carnegie museum.
Memoirs») Shin. (2 ive
Publications. 72-74, 7
Carnegie institute.
Founder’s Day. XVII-XVIII. 1913-14.
Carnegie Library.
Annual Report. XV. 1912.
Western Pennsylvania engineers’ society.
Proceedings. XXVIII, 7-XXX, 2. 1912-14.

VI, 1-3.

PryMouTH.—MWarine biological association of the United Kingdom.
Publications. IX, 4; X, 1-2.
PotspAM.—A strophysikalisches Observatorium.
Publikationen. XXII, 66-XXIII, 69; Photographische Ilim
melskarte, VI. 1912.
PrAG.—Ceska spolecnost nauk.
Jahresbericht. 1912.
Sitzungsbericht. 1912.
Ceské spolecnosti entomolické.
Casopis. X, 3-4. 1913-14. ~
Deutscher naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischer Verein fiir Boéhmen.
Lotos. LIX. 1911.
K. K. Sternwarte.
Astronomische Beobachtungen. 1905-9.
PROVIDENCE.—Roger Williams park museum.
Bulletin. IIT, 6; FV, 1-6; V, 1-3, 5.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XXVII

QUEBEC.—Société de géographie.
Bulletin. VI, 4-6; VII, 2-4, 6; VIII, 1-3.
Ratispon.—Historischer Verein von Oberpfalz und Regensburg.
Verhandlungen. 1910-12.
Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein.
r Berichte. XIII. 1910-11.
Rica.—Naturforscher-V erein.
Korrespondenzblatt. LV-LVI. 1912-13.
Rio DE JANEIRO.—/nstituto Oswaldo Cruz.
Memoria. IV-VI, 1. 1912-14.
ROERMOND.—Prov. Genootschap voor Geschiedkundige Wetenschappen, Taal
en Kunst.
Limburg’s Jaarboek. XVIII, 1, 3-XX, 2.
Rome.—R. Accademia dei lincei.
Atti. Ser. V. Rendiconti. Classe de scienze fisiche, mate-
matiche e naturali. XXII, 1-XXIII, 11.
Atti. Rendiconto dell’ adunanza sollene. 1913, 2.
Accademia Pontifica dei nuovi lincei.
Atti. LXV, 1-LXVI, 7.
Societa italiana delle scienze.
Memorie di matematica e di fisica. Ser. III. T. XVII-XVIII.
Rostock.—N aturforschende Gesellschaft.
Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen. N. F. I-V.
Verein der Freunde der Naturgeschichte in Mecklenburg.
Archiv. LXVI, 1-LXVII, 2.
RoTHESAY.—Buteshire natural history society.
Transactions. I-IV. 1908-11.
RorreRDAM.—Bataafsch genootschap der proefondervinderlijke wijsbegeerte.
Nieuwe verhandelingen. 2de Reeks, Deel VII, 2.
Verslag. 1912.
St. GALLEN.—St. Gallische Naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft.
Jahrbuch. 1911-12.
St. Lovuis.—Academy of science.
Transactions. XX, 6-7; XXI, 1-4; XXII, 1-6.
Washington University.
maudies, 0, IF It 1.
St. PeTersBuRG.—Akademiia nauk.
Bulletin. Sér. VI. Classe physico-mathématique. 1913; 1914,
1-11.
Memoures, Ser..ViIt. Ler, 4-15; I-00l, 7, 9-12;. IV; 2-11;
Wee 00-9: Vin I-G, 8-10, 12; -ViI-VUIL;, X53, 45-X1D, 3,
5-X XIII, 4, 6-XXV, 2, 4-XXVI, 11, 13-XXXIX, 1. 1859-1892.
Sér. VIII. Classe historique-philologique. VIII, 15; XI, 1-5;
XII, 1. 1911-19138.
Classe physico-mathématique. XXV, 9-10; XXVI, 1-4; XXVII,
le? PXOXOVillee|-3i) EXOXD XS 1-3) 65. XEXOXE IES, = kOREIS 71-9
SeXy 1

XXVIII CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

Sr. PETERSBURG.—Akademiia nauk.
Mélanges Gréco-Romains. V-VI. 1888-94.
Mélanges physiques et chimiques. XIII, 2. 1893.
I. Botanic garden.
Hortus petropolitani. Acta. XXXI, 1-2; XXXII, 1.
Institut des mines de VImpératrice Catherine II.
Annales. IV, 1-5; V, 1.
Observatoire physique central Nicolas.
Publications. Sér. II. XVIII, 5-6; XX; XXIV; XVII, 3,
Suppl.
Comité géologique.
Bulletin. XXX, 6-XXXI, 8. 1911-12.
Mémoires. N.S. LVIII; LXII-LXV; LXIX; LXXII; LXXIV-
LXXVI; UXXVIII-LXXIX; LXXXI; LXXXVI.
Mineralogicheskoe obshchestvo.
Verhandlungen. Sér. II. VI; XIII; XLVI, 2-XLIX.
Russkoe geograficheskoe obshchestvo.
Bulletin. XLV-XLVII, 10; XLVIII, 1-5; XLIX, 1-3.
Rapport. 1910-11.
Schrenck, L. v., Maximoviez, C. J. & Schmidt, F.
Beitriige zur kenntnis des russischen Reichs. VIII. 1909.

SALEM.—Essex Institute.
Annual report. 1913-14. -
SANTIAGO DE CHILE.—Deutscher wissenschaftlicher Verein.
Verhandlungen. VI, 2-VII, 2.
Sociedad de fomento fabril.
Boletin. XXIX, 7-12; XXX, 2-XXXT, 5. 1913-14.
SAo PauLo.—Museu Paulista.
Sociedade scientifica.
Revista. VII. 1913.
Sapporo.—Tdhoku I. University.
College of agriculture. Journal. V, 1-9; VI, 1.
Science report. I, 3-5; II, 1-5; III, 1-3. Series II. VI, 1-5.
Mathematical journal. II, 2-V, 2.
Natural history society.
Transactions. III-V, 2.
SARAGOSSA.—Sociedad aragonesa de ciencias naturales.
Boletin. XII, 1-XIII, 1-6.
Sars, G. O.—Account of the crustacea of Norway. VI, 1-4.
SHREWSBURY.—Caradoe and Severn valley field club.
Record of bare facts. 22. 1912. >
Transactions. V, 4.
Srena.—Accademia dei fisiocratici.
Atti. Ser. V. Tid, 7ive0:
Sor1a.—U niversité.
Annuaire Faculté de droit. VII. 1910-11.
Faculté historico-philologique. 1910-11.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XXI

SoutH DaxKora.—Geological Survey.
Bulletin. 5. 1912.

SterrTin.—Entomologischer Verein.
Entomologische Zeitung. LXXIII, 1-LXXIV, 1. 1912-13.

StockHoLM.—K. Bibliotheket.
Handlingar. 30-32. 1907-9.
Troare-register. 1896-1905.
Arsberiittelse. 1912-13.
Entomologisk forening.
Entomologisk Tidskrift. XXXIII-XXXIV. 1912-13.
Forstliche Versuchsanstalt.
Meddelanden. VIII-X. 1908-10.
K. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademi.
Arsbok. 1912.
Arkiv fér botanik. XI-XIIT, 1.
Arkiv fér kemi, mineralogi och geologi. IV, 3-V, 2.
Arkiv fér matematik, astronomi och fysik. VII, 3-VIII, 2.
1911.
Arkiv fér zoologi. VII, 2-VIII, 1.
Nobelinstitut. Meddelanden. II, 1.
Les prix Nobel. 1909-11.
andimenr.. Se Vil, 2-115 7 XLV EL, 1-75) XEEX,) 1-105: -L,
1-5, 7-9.
Lefnadsteckingar. II, 2, 5.
Meteorologiska Iakttagelser i Sverige. LIII-LIV. 1911-12.
Sveriges offentliga bibliothek.
Accessions-katalog. 26-27. 1911-12.

StonE— North Staffordshire field club.
Annual report and transactions. XLVII-XLVIII. 1913-14.

STRASSBURG.—K. Universitat.
Sternwarte. Annalen. IV, 2. 1912.

Srurreart.—Verein fiir vaterlindische Naturkunde in Wirttemberg.
Jahreshefte. LXIX. 1913.

SypNEY.— Australian museum.
Memoir. IV, 17. 1913.
Records. VIII, 4; IX, 3-4; X, 1-6.
Report of the trustees. LVIII-LIX. 1913-14.
Special catalogue. No. I, vol. III, 5-1V, 1.

Linnean Society of New South Wales.
Proceedings. Nos. 145-146.
Royal society of New South Wales.
Journal and proceedings. XLV, 2-XLVI, 2; XLVII, 1-2.

TEDDINGTON.—National physical laboratory.
Collected researches. IX-X. 1913.
Report. 1912.

P.O. 4 CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

Texas.—University.
Bulletin. 236, 238, 246, 251, 255, 259-64, 267, 270, 275, 280,
287-8, 294, 298, 302, 307-8, 312, 316-17, 323, 335-6.
Trriis.—Physikalisches Observatorium.
Beobachtungen. 1905.

Toxyo.—Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Natur- und Vélkerkunde Ostasiens.
Mitteilungen. XIV, Suppl; XVa.
University.
Calendar. 1911-12.
College of agriculture. Journal. XXXIII, 2; XXXIV, 2;
XOXO 2550, 65, XOMOMVI, 3, 4:
College of engineering. Journal. V, 4-8.
College of science. Journal. XXVII, 15; XXVIII, 7; XXIX,
2; XXX, 1-2; XXXII 1-12; XX Ls oe eee
XXXVI, 1-2.
Medizinische Facultiit. Mitteilungen. X, 3-4; XI, 1-2; XII.
Toronto.—Canadian Institute.
Annual report. 1912-13.
Transactions. Nos. 22-23.
University.
Publications. Biological series, 9-14; Psychological series, 8-9;
Pathological series, 4; Physical series, 1-4.
TouLOUSE.—Académie des sciences, inscriptions et~belles-lettres.
Mémoires. Sér. 10. T. XI-XII.
Société Whistoire naturelle.
Bulletin. 1910, 1, 3-4; 1911, 1-4; 1913, 2-4.
Université.
Bibliothéque méridionale. Sér. II. T. XV.
Bulletin de ’enseignement secondaire. XXI, 1-X Ua:
Faculté des Sciences. Annales. Sér. III. T. II-III. 1910-11.
Observatoire. Commission météorologique. Bulletin. II, 4-5.
1909-10.
Trrest.—Osservatorio maritimo.
Rapporto annuale. 1908, 1909.
Tufts College. Studies. Scientific series. III, 3-4.
TROMSOE.—Museum.
Aarsberetning. 1910-11.
Aarshefter. XXXIII-XXXIV. 1910-11.

TRONDHEIM.—Norske videnskabers selskab.

Skrifter. 1911-12; also VI, VII, 2. 1870-71.
Turrn.—Universita. =

Musei di zoologia ed anatomia comparata. Bolletino. XXVII,

645-664.

Upsata.—Geologiska institution.

Bulletin. XII. 1913-14.

K. Vetenskaps societaten.
Nova acta. Ser. IV. T. 1-II, 2; Iff, 1, 6.

ADDITIONS TO THE LIBRARY, 1912-1914 XXXI

Urrecut.—Observatoire.
Prov, Utrechtsch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen.
Aanteekeningen van het Verhandelde. 1912-13.
Verslag van het Verhandelde. 1912-13.
VENICE.—R, Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti.
PAdi Ula EPOCH
VICENZA.—Accademia Olimpica.
Atti: IN: S. TIE 1911-125
VIENNA.—K. K. Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Erdbeben-Kommission. Mitteilungen. XXXIV-XLVI.
Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Anzeiger. XLIX-
L. 1912-138. Denkschriften. LXXXIII, LXXXVIII._ Sit-
zungsberichte. CXXI, Abt. I, 8-10, IIb, 8-10, III, 4-12;
CXXII, Abt. I, 1-7, Ila, 1-8, IIb, 1-8, III, 1-10; Register
XVII. 1907-11.
Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. CLV, 1,
3-5; G@bLVi, 1-CLVII, 3, 5; CLIX, 1-CLX, 4, 6-CLXI, 9.
K. K. Central-Anstalt fiir Meteorologie.
Jahrbuch. N. F. XLVII, 1910, & Anhang.
K. K. Geologische Reichsanstalt.
Jahrbuch. LXII, 2-LXIII, 3.
Verhandlungen. 1912, 6-1914, 18.
Naturhistorisches Hof-Museum.
Annalen. XXVI, 1-X XVII, 3.
Universitat.
Sternwarte. Annalen. XXIJ-XXII; XXIII, 1; XXV, 1.
Verein zur Verbreitung naturwissenschaftlicher Kenntnisse.
Sehriften. LIJI-LIII. 1911-13.
K. K. Zoologisch-botanische Gesellschaft.
Verhandlungen. LXII-LXIITI.
VIRGINIA.—U niversity.
Philosophical Society. Bulletin. Scientific series. I, 10-18.
Proceedings. 1911-12.
WARREN.—Academy.
Transactions. I, 4. 1910-11.
WASHINGTON.— Bureau of American ethnology.
Annual report. XXVIII. 1906-7.
Bulletin. 52-54, 56.
Department of agriculture.
Crop reporter. XV, 1-6.
Library. Bulletin. 76. Monthly Bulletin. III, 9-IV, 6.
Librarian’s report. 1912.
Geological survey.
Annual report. XXXIII-XXXIV. 1912-13.
Bulletins. 468-9; 472-3; 475-7; 479-97; 499-500; 506; 509;
513-21; 536; 538-9; 540; 543-8; 550-4; 556-8; 571;
574-5; 579; 580 ae; 581 a-b; 585.

XAT CONNECTICUT ACADEMY

WASHINGTON.—Geological survey.
Geologie atlas, folio. 183-90.
Professional papers. 71, 76-82, 85 a-d, 90 a.

Reports on the production of various minerals. I, 1-5;

1-13, 15-16, 19.
Water-supply and irrigation papers. 289-91; 300-4;
310s) 314-17; 3235 3275 do.
Library of Congress.
Report of Librarian. 1912-13.
Catalogue division. Class E-F. America. 2d ed.
National museum.
Annual report. 1912-13.
Bulletin. 71, II-IV; 79-81; 83-6.

National Herbarium. Contributions. XVI, 4-13; XVII, 1-5;

XVIII, 1-2.
Proceedings (extracts). 1949, 1956, 1960, 1964.
Proceedings. XLII-XLVI.
Naval observatory.
Publications. Ser. II. Vol. VIII.
Report of Superintendent. 1913.
National academy of sciences.
Memoir. X.
Smithsonian institution.
Annual report to Board of Regents. 1912.
Report of the Secretary. 1912-13.
Weather bureau. Department of agriculture.
Mount Weather observatory. Bulletin. V, 1-VI, 3.
Report of Chief. 1912-13.

WELLINGTON.—New Zealand institute.

Transactions and proceedings. N.S. XLIV-XLV. 1912-13.

Wesley College. Bulletin. VII, 1.
WIESBADEN.—Nassauischer Verein fiir Naturkunde.

Jahrbuch. LXV-LXVI. 1912-13.
WILKES-BARRE—Wyoming historical and geological society.

Proceedings and collections. XII-XIIT. 1911-14.
WIScoNSIN.—Geological and natural history survey.

Bulletin. 24.

Natural history society.

Bulletin. X, 1-4. 1913.
WorcrEsTER (Mass.).—American antiquarian society.

Proceedings. N.S. XXIII, 1-2; also 1812-49. 3
Wirzpurc.—Physikalisch-medicinische Gesellschaft.

Sitzungsberichte. 1911, 1-9; 1912, 1-7; 1913, 1-9.
ZiRicu.—Naturforschende Gesellschaft.

Vierteljahrsschrift. LVI, 4-LVIII, 4.

TRANSACTIONS OF THE

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

INCORPORATED A. D. 1799

VOLUME 48, PAGES 1-187 JUNE, 1943

A Monograph of the Terres-
trial Palaeozoic Arachnida
of North America

Be ANDER PETRUNKEVITCH, We D.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY AT YALE UNIVERSITY

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1913

- = fic, gee | ? Gee
. Bouts
*- eS Ty,
ee ¥

> .
= *
i

2
7

> :

WEIMAR! PRINTED BY R. WAGN

bad *

PROFESSOR CHARLES SCHUCHERT

THIS MONOGRAPH IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED

RHE AU EHOR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUKTION .
THE SYSTEM aah
PHYLOGENETIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARACHNIDA .
COMPARISON OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CARBONIFEROUS
ARACHNOLOGICAL FAUNA WITH THAT OF EUROPE AND
WITH THE RECENT FAUNA
SPECIAL PART : - 3 -
Phylum Arthropoda. Key to the classes
Class Arachnida. Key to the Orders
Order Scorpiones. : : ‘ :
List of Described Species of Scorpions ; :
Key to Genera of North American Carboniferous Scorpions
Description of North American Palaeozoic Scorpions
Order Pedipalpi . 5
List of Described Species af Pedipalpi : 5 :
Key to Genera of North American Carboniferous Pedipalpi
Description of North American Carboniferous Pedipalpi
Order Kustarachnae
Order Solifugae
Order Ricinulei
Order Araneae : : :
List of Described species of Araneae A :
Description of North American Carboniferous Araneae.
Order Anthracomarti .
List of Described Species of Anehtacomnarti : 2
Description of North American Carboniferous Anthracomarti
Order Opiliones
Order Haptopoda
Order Phalangiotarbi . :
List of Described species of EWaienpietacbi
Description of North American Species of Pialane ores
Key to the Genera of Phalangiotarbidae
Key to the Genera of Architarbidae

PAGE

Adelocaris
Anthracomartus
Anthracosiro
Aphantomartus
Archaeoctonus .
Archaeometa
Architarbus .
Areomartus .
Arthrolycosa

Brachylycosa
Brachypyge .

Curculioides .
Cyclophthalmus
Cyclotrogulus

Dinopilio .
Discotarbus .

Eobuthus .
Eocteniza .
Eoctonus .
Eopholcus
Eophrynus
Eoscorpius
Eotrogulus

Geralinura
Geralycosa
Geratarbus .
Graeophonus

Hemikreischeria
Hemiphrynus
Heterotarbus

Isobuthus .

LIST OF GENERA

. 98
94, 99
96

oo 2 = 288
114, 123
. 99, 101
86, 88

97
95

81
33
98

110
113, 120

87
1435417
59, 67

98
97
115

Kreischeria .
Kustarachne.

Maiocercus
Mazonia
Metatarbus
Microlabis

Nemastomoides

Opiliotarbus .

Palaeobuthus
Palaeomachus
Palaeophonus

Palaeopisthacanthus .

Perneria
Petrovicia
Phalangiotarbus

" Plesiosiro .

Pleurolycosa
Polyochera

Proscorpius .
Protolycosa .
Protophrynus
Protopilio

Protosolpuga
Pyritaranea .

Rakovnicia
Stenotrogulus

Telyphrynus.
Trigonomartus .
Trigonoscorpio .
Trigonotarbus

Vratislavia

98
ad

. ae
35, 54
113, 121
35

110
114, 131

33, 53
33
=<. (ve
35, 48
88

IA MONOGRAPH OF THE TERRESTRIAL PALAEO-
ZOIC ARACHNIDA OF NORTH AMERICA

By ALEXANDER PETRUNKEVITCH, Px.D.

Assistant Professor of Zoology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

INTRODUCTION

While European Carboniferous Arachnida have been made the
subject of careful study, the results of which are incorporated in
two extensive monographs, one by Fritsch in 1904 and the other by
Pocock in 1911, the North American forms have received little atten-
tion since the publication of Scudder’s researches. It is true that a
few new forms have been described recently, but no attempt has been
made to reinvestigate the whole subject. Moreover, as an extensive
knowledge of Arachnology and especially of the external morphology of
arachnids, is imperative for a correct interpretation of fossil remains,
there is nothing surprising in the fact that errors crept into the
diagnoses of Scudder and that these were repeated by Melander.
Another reason for such errors was the fact that Scudder’s and Melan-
dery’s specimens were not sufficiently cleaned of the white! mineral
which often entirely concealed the important characters. We find
the most striking examples of this in an unpublished specimen belong-
ing to the U. S. National Museum, which has been identified by
Scudder as Graeophonus carbonarius, while it is in fact a new species
of Anthracomartus, and in Kustarachne sulcata of Melander which
is a typical Curculioides. Naturally the diagnoses of the genera
themselves have likewise suffered from incomplete knowledge of the
type specimens. This is rather unfortunate, since it not only neces-
sitates a shifting of the American species from one genus to another,
but resulted also in a wrong application of some generic names for
European species, an unavoidable error on the part of the European
investigators who did not have an opportunity to examine the Ameri-

1 In some specimens it is calcium carbonate mixed with iron carbonate,
n others kaolin.

8 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

can types. I feel therefore quite sure that the European palaeon-
tologists and arachnologists will share with me the feeling of grati-
fication at the great opportunity which was afforded me through the
kindness of Professor Schuchert, to reéxamine and redescribe all
American types and to extend the investigation over many as yet
undescribed specimens. In view of my indebtedness to Professor
Schuchert, at whose suggestion I undertook the research, through
whose exertions the various collections were placed at my disposal,
and who throughout my studies has given me many valuable and
stimulating suggestions, it affords me great pleasure to dedicate this
monograph to him. My thanks are also due to the U. S. National
Museum, the University of Chicago, Harvard University, McGill
University, the University of Illinois, Mr. L. E. Daniels, and the
Peabody Museum of Yale University for permission to reinvestigate
their collections. I also acknowledge with thanks the kind per-
mission given to me by the Encyclopeadia Britannica Company to
reproduce two figures of Lipistius from the eleventh edition of the
Encyclopaedia, and by the University Press of Cambridge six figures
from Hansen & S6rensen’s monograph “On two Orders of Arach-
nida.” es

Every specimen was carefully cleaned under a binocular micro-
scope and the rock covering unexposed parts removed by means of
a needle and a small chisel. In some cases the chitin was found still
preserved and was examined under higher power. The removal of
the white mineral often covering the entire specimen and useful in the
detection of appendages concealed in the rock, was not difficult and
brought to light many important structures. More difficulties were
offered by the rock in which the specimens are imbedded and which
had to be removed in some cases to the depth of about */, of an inch.
The specimens which are best preserved are nearly all imbedded in
very hard nodules, a clay-iron stone, and required great care in hand-
ling. The softer rock surrounding other specimens showed all Signs
of decomposition and here the chiseling was easier but the preser-
vation of the specimens themselves, not so good. After careful study
under the binocular with the aid of artificial light which allows a
more perfect reflection of the rays from the exposed surfaces,-a draw-
ing of each specimen was made by measuring its parts and enlarging
them a given number of times. Thus all the text figures represent
the specimens more or less correctly as they appear under the micro-
scope. In many cases, however, both halves of the concretion show
superimposed imprints of the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the spe-
cimen and obscure the actual structure. In such cases the super-

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 9

imposed structures were omitted from the drawing and where possible,
each surface was drawn separately. Wherever this was necessary,
special reference to it will be found in the text; but to avoid the pos-
sible objection of misinterpretation or misconception, all specimens
drawn in text were photographed from the originals and are repro-
duced on the plates directly from the photographs. The photo-
graphing was done by Doctor R. S. Bassler of the U. S. National
Museum.

The net results of the present investigation are as follows: (I) IoI spe-:
cimens including all types were studied and found to belong to 42 spe-
cies distributed over 25 genera ; of these, 24 species and 13 genera are
new to science ; (2) the diagnoses of old genera are corrected in accor-
dance with the new data obtained from the study of the types and
of specimens which undoubtedly belong to the type species ; (3) the
genus Eoscorpius was found to be sound and is retained in the system ;
the genera Hadvachne Melander and Geraphrynus Scudder were found
to be synonyms of Arciitarbus Scudder ; (5) the type of Geraphrynus
carbonarius was found to be in every detail identical with the type
of Architarbus rotundatus, the former name being, therefore, a syno-
nym of the latter ; (6) a representative of the order Solifugae hitherto
unknown to Palaeontology has been found in Protosolpuga carbonaria
n. gen., n. sp.; (7) a new order Kustarachnae has been established for
the three species of Kustarachne.

THES SYSTEM

Although the class of Arachnida has received a good deal of
attention from zoologists and palaeontologists, there exists still
considerable divergence of opinion as to the essential characters
separating this class from the rest of the arthropods. The typical
forms such as scorpions and spiders have only 6 pairs of uniramous
appendages of which the first pair is praeoral. The segmentation
of the legs is also alike in the typical forms and shows the close re-
lation existing between them. This is also true of the Xiphosura
and Gigantostraca (Eurypterida) which are now usually placed in
the class of Arachnida.

Yet under the influence of parasitism this character becomes more
or less obliterated and we find only 4 pairs of appendages in the
family Eriophyidae among the Acari. On the other hand Pycno-
gonida which are often classed as an order of marine Arachnida, show

10 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

a variable number of appendages from 4 pairs in Pycnogonum littorale
to 8 pairs in Decalopoda. The order Tardigrada has also been con-
sidered to belong to the class Arachnida, as highly degenerate forms
descended from Acari. This view has recently been abandored on
good grounds, since the internal organization of these little inverte-
brates has little in common with either typical or aberrant forms.
It has been pointed out by different authors that a complete absence
of a meso- and metasoma and the opening of the sexual ducts into
the intestinal canal, has no homologon among Arachnida. It is true
that the abdomen has almost completely disappeared in the case of
Pycnogonids also, and that the sexual ducts in this group also open
in a way not similar to that in Arachnida. But the Pycnogonids
have, at least, segmented appendages, while the so called feet of the
Tardigrada are not segmented. But the absence of segmentation
may be due to the loss of it during the phylogenetic development just
as it has been lost in the abdomen of true spiders and ticks, where it
appears only in the embryonic development. Moreover, the legs of
some mites show a considerable tendency in the same direction of
reducing the normal number of segments and of obliterating the ex-
ternal signs of segmentation. The order of Pentastomida is also
frequently placed in the class of Arachnida. The four chitinous
hooks of the adult are homologized with the first and second pair
of appendages and derived from the two pairs of appendages of the
larval stage. The loss of the remaining four pairs is attributed to
the highly specialized parasitism of the Pentastomida. But if these
forms have ever developed from typical Arachnida, there is certainly
no evidence of their past history left either in the anatomy or the
embryology of the now living forms. It may be safer, therefore,
to derive both the Tardigrada and the Pentastomida directly from
primitive, annulated worms, and to regard them as separate phyla.

In the internal organization of Arachnida there are several struc-
tures in common to the majority of them, such as the coxal glands
for example, but the influence of parasitism extends to internal
characters as well as to external structures and has resulted in a
degeneration of many organs. Thus the characteristic organs of
respiration are wholly lacking in many mites and in other forms have
followed two different courses of development The division of the
body into a cephalothorax and an abdomen, also holds good only in
the case of typical Arachnida. In the Solifugae we find the cephalo-
thorax not yet completely fused, since the last three segments are
free ; in the Ricinulei there is a movable plate in front of the first
pair of appendages; in the Opiliones the body shows a tendency

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 11

toward a fusion of cephalothorax with abdomen and this is brought
to completion in the Acari.

In view of such difficulties in the way of building a system based
on comparative anatomy alone, Ray Lankester has made the attempt
to employ as main character of the class, the true segmentation
of the head. We must bear in mind that the viszble segmentation is
not always a correct criterion for the true segmentation and that seg-
ments may without difficulty be traced in the internal organization
of an animal when all evidence of their existence has been entirely.
obliterated from the chitinous exoskeleton; but even the internal!
organization of an adult arachnid may show no evidence of segmen-
tation while the embryological stages leave no doubt of its having
once existed.

Lankester divides the Euarthropoda which form his Grade C in
the subphylum Arthropoda of the phylum Appendiculata, into 5 clas-
ses: Diplopoda, Arachnida, Crustacea, Chilopoda and Hexapoda.
He derives them from a ““common ancestor resembling a Chaetopod
worm, but differing from it in having lost its chaetae and in having
a prosthomere! in front of the mouth (instead of prostomium only)
and a pair of hemignaths (mandibles) on the parapodia of the buccal
somite. The structure of the head in Arthropods presents three pro-
foundly separated grades of structure dependent upon the number
of prosthomeres which have been assimilated by the prae-oral region.”
His classification is as follows:

Phylum APPENDICULATA

Sub-phylum I. Rotifera
e II. Chaetopoda
a III. Arthropoda

Grade A. Hyparthropoda (Hypothetical forms)
,, B. Protarthropoda
Class Onychophora
,» C. Euarthropoda

Class 1. Diplopoda (Head monoprosthomerous, deutero-
gnathous)
,, 2. Arachnida (Head diprosthomerous, tritognathous)
>» 3. Crustacea: }
5, 4. Chilopoda | Head triprosthomerous, tetarto-
| gnathous
may. Hexapoda.)

* Prosthomeres are the segments in front of the mouth opening,

19 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

The second class or Arachnida are characterized by Lankester as
follows :

“Head diprosthomerous, tritognathous—that is to say, with two
prosthomeres, the first bearing typical eyes, the second a pair of
appendages reduced to a single ramus which is in more primitive forms
antenniform, in higher forms chelate or retrovert. The ancestral
stock was pantognathobasic—i. e. had a gnathobase or jaw process on
every parapodium. As many as six pairs of appendages following
the mouth may have an enlarged gnathobase actually functional as
a jaw or hemignath, but a ramus is well developed on each of these
appendages either as a simple walking leg, a palp or a chela. In the
more primitive forms the appendage of every post-oral somite has a
gnathobase and two rami; in higher specialized forms the gnatho-
bases may be atrophied in every appendage, even in the first post-
oral,

“The more primitive forms are anomomeristic ; the higher forms
nomomeristic, showing typically three groups or tagmata of six
somites each.

‘The genital apertures are placed on the first somite of the second
tagma or mesosoma. Their position is unknown in the more primi-
tive forms. The more primitive forms have branchial respiratory pro-
cesses developed on a ramus of each of the postoral appendages.
In higher specialized forms these branchial processes become first
of all limited to five segments of the mesosoma, then sunk beneath
the surface as pulmonary organs, and finally atrophied, their place
being taken by a well-developed tracheal system.

‘A character of great diagnostic value in the more primitive Arach-
nida is the tendency of the chitinous investment of the tergal surface
of the telson to unite during growth with that of the free somites
in front of it, so as to form a pygidial shield or posterior carapace,
often comprising as many as fifteen somites (Trilobites, Limulus).”

Sub-divisions of the class Arachnida according to Lankester:
Class ARACHNIDA —
Grade A. Anomomeristica
Sub-class Trilobitae
Orders. Not satisfactorily determined
Grade B. Nomomeristica
Sub-class I. Pantopoda
Order 1. Nymphonomorpha
,, 2. Ascorhynchomorpha
»» 3. Pycnogonomorpha

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 13

Sub-class II. Euarachnida
Grade a. Delobranchia, Lankester (vel Hadropneusta Pocock)
Order I. Xyphosura
,, 2. Gigantostraca
Grade b. Embolobranchia, Lankester (vel Aeropneustea
Pocock)
Section «. Pectinifera
Order 1. Scorpionidea
Sub-order a. Apoxypoda
i b. Dionychopoda
Section 8. Epectinata
Order 2. Pedipalpi
Sub-order a. Uropygi
Tribe x. Urotricha
a 2. bantanaes:
Sub-order b. Amblypygi
Order 3. Araneae
Sub-order a. Mesothelae
zs b. Opisthothelae
Tribe 1. Mygalomorphae
,, 2. Arachnomorphae
Order 4. Palpigradi (= Microtelyphonidae)
Order 5. Solifugae (= Mycetophorae)
Order 6. Pseudoscorpiones (= Chelonethi)
Sub-oider a. Panctenodactylii
2 b. Hemictenodactyli
Order 8. Opiliones
Sub-order a. Laniatores
Pe b. Palpatores
iy c. Anepignathi
Order 9. Rhynchostomi (= Acari)
Sub-order a. Notostigmata
Be b. Cryptostigmata

re c. Metastigmata
3 d. Prostigmata

5 e. Astigmata

ae f. Vermiformia

g. Tetrapoda
This pee Steation does not include some of the extinct orders
and involves several assumptions which possess as yet only the value
of more or less useful hypotheses. In his article on Arthropoda in the

14 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Lankester himself
writes.

“According to older views the increase in the number of somites
in front of the mouth would have been regarded as a case of inter-
calation by new somite-budding of new prae-oral somites in the
series. We are prohibited by a general consideration of metamerism
in the Arthropoda from adopting the hypothesis of intercalation of
somites. However strange it may seem, we have to suppose that one
by one in the course of long, historical evolution somites have passed
forwards and the mouth has passed backwards. In fact, we have to
suppose that the actual somite which in grades 1 and 2 bore the man-
dibles lost those mandibles, developed their rami as tactile organs,
and came to occupy a position in front of the mouth whilst its
previous jaw-bearing function was taken up by the next somite in
order, into which the oral aperture had passed. A similar history
must have been slowly brought about when this second mandibulate
somite in its turn became agnathous and passed in front of the mouth.
The mandibular parapodia may be supposed during the successive
stages of this history to have had, from the first, well-developed
rami (one or two) of a palp-like form, so that the change required
when the mouth passed away from them would merely consist in the
suppression of the gnathobase. The solid, palpless mandible such
as We now see in some Arthropoda is, necessarily, a late speciali-
zation. Moreover, it appears probable that the first somite never
had its parapodia modified as jaws, but became a prosthomere with
tactile appendages before parapodial jaws were developed at all,
or rather pari passu with their development on the second somite.”’

In discussing the validity of Lankester’s system which unquestion-
ably has much inits favor, we have to subject the following questions
to a careful scrutiny: (1) Do we possess any evidence that post-oral
somites (opisthomeres) have passed forward and become prostho-
meres ? (2) What evidence can be brought in support of the assertion
that both grades of Lankester’s class Arachnida have two prostho-
meres, while the Crustaceae, Chilopoda and Hexapoda have three
prosthomeres ? (3) Is it right to assume that the appendages of the
somites which passed in front of the mouth have changed their func-
tion as jaws to become tactile organs, or is the second alternative of
Lankester’s more correct, “that the buccal gnathobasic parapodia
(the mandibles) were in each of the three grades of prosthomerism
only developed after the recession of the mouth and the addition of
one, of two, or of three post-oral somites to the prae-oral region had
taken -lace.” ? (4) Is the segmentation of the head of fundamental,

Palaeozoic Arachmda of North America. 15

phylogenetic value and does it justify the expansion of the class to
include also the Trilobites and Pantopods ?

Numerous embryological studies have given an affirmative an-
swer to the first question. It has been shown by Heymons that in the
Chilognatha, of the three pairs of post-oral embryonic segments desig-
nated respectively as prae-antennal, antennal and prae-mandibular,
the second develops the antennae of the adult, the first forms transient
appendages, while the third disappears altogether at an early stage.
The fourth post-oral segment gives rise to the mandibles. In insects -
we have a somewhat similar condition, the antennae arising from the
second post-oral segment while the third segment gives origin to a
temporary, embryonic pair of appendages. The protencephalon, on
the other hand, representing the first, prae-oral segment, is divided
into three lobes, the first of which develops into the optic ganglion
while the second and third give rise to the brain proper. In the adult
insect the procerebral lobes of the brain give rise to the nerves of the
ocelli or simple eyes. The class Crustacea is somewhat different
from the two preceding ones. Here it is more or less customary to
regard the eyes as modified appendages of the first prae-oral segment
and this view has gained some support in the experiments of Herbst,
which show that in place of an amputated eye under circumstances
an antenna may develop. But it is far from being evident that
regeneration repeats past history. Double members may be produced
artificially in lower vertebrates by splitting the germ of the antetio1
or posterior leg and it is clear that they do not represent structures
which once existed but have been lost. Moreover, the early larva of
the lowest crustaceans, the so called Nauplius, has only three pairs
of appendages, aJl of which belong to post-oral somites. Of these
appendages the first pair becomes the antennules, the second the
antennae and the third remains post-oral and changes into the man-
dibles. The eyes of higher crustaceans develop later and occupy
a position in front of the antennules.

Among the recent Arachnida the spiders have been studied by
different investigators and their embryology is better known than
that of any other order. It is beyond any doubt that the cheliceral
segment appears originally as a post-oral metamerite and occupies
later the position in front of the mouth. There is, however, a great
divergence of opinion as to whether the eyes represent a separate
segment and whether they are homologues to the eyes of crustaceans
and insects. In a recent paper on the development of Ischnocolus,
Schimkewitsch writes :

16 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

,,.Das Nervensystem besteht auf diesem Stadium im Cephalothorax
aus Ganglien, welche in ihrem Inneren deutliche, noch nicht ver-
schlossene Héhlen aufweisen, und zwar aus dem unpaaren Nacken-
ganglion und einer Reihe von paarigen Ganglien: zwei Paaren
Scheitelganglien, zwei Paaren Augenganglien (das eine fiir die seit-.
lichen, das andere fiir die mittleren Augen) dem paarigen Cheliceren-
ganglion, dem paarigen Pedipalpenganglion, vier Paaren Beinganglien
und einem paarigen Abdominalganglion; im Hinterleibe dagegen
liegen drei Paare einzelner Ganglien und eine hintere ganglidse Masse,
welche aus mehreren Ganglien zusammengesetzt ist“ (S. 705).

With other words we have one single and five paired ganglia which
will make up the brain of the adult spider and furnish the nerves
for the prae-oral segments. The single ganglion may be compared to
the ganglionic mass in the prostomium of Polychetes but there seems
to be no good reason why the paired ganglia should not be considered
as forming five segments. Although Schimkewitsch does not men-
tion any ganglion for the rostrum (upper lip) the latter has been con-
sidered by Montgomery to represent in Theridium “‘a pair of true
prae-oral appendages, of which the rostral sacs constitute the coelom
and the cerebral ganglia the neuromeres.” He based his idea of the
segmentation of the head on the number of coelomic sacs and of paired
appendages and came therefore to the conclusion that spiders have
only two prae-oral segments, the rostral (the first) and the cheli-
ceral (the second). This conception seems to me to contain an error
since the rostrum lies behind and not in front of the chelicera. On
examining my own sections through young Lycosas and adult Pholcus
I find that the pair of nerves supplying the rostrum arises behind the
nerves of the chelicera and represents the last pair of nerves given
off by the supraoesophageal ganglionic mass or brain. At present
I am, however, unable to state whether these rostral nerves arise
merely from the lower lobes of the paired ganglion of the chelicera or
have their own pair of ganglia. The neuromeres of the brain are well
defined in young spiders, although of course not completely separated
as in embryonic stages. Do they represent separate segments? It
is hard to say. A typical segment is usually composed of severa!
meroms such as sceletal plates, myomeres, coelomic sacs, neuromeres
and a pair of appendages. In different regions of the body any one
of these meroms may be entirely eliminated or fused with a correspon-
ding merom of the adjoining metamere and there seems to be no good
reason why neuromeres should not be as important as coelomic
meroms. We may therefore say that, while it is certain that post-oral
somites have occupied a prae-oral position, there is no sufficient evi-

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 17
dence for the assertion that Arachnida and Diplopoda have only two
prosthomeres while the Crustacea, insects and Chilopoda have three.
It seems to me, on te contrary, that in Arachnida and insects more
than three prosthomeres went into the formation of the prac-oral
part of the head. The anterior middle eyes of Arachnida correspona
both in structure and nerve supply to the simple eyes of insects (ocelli)
and did not originally belong to the same. segment as the side eyes.
In the following tables I give for comparison the segmentation in
arthropods according to E. R. Lankester, and of the homologuos
organs of the head, as it appears from a comparative study of the
development and structure of the brain. I want to state, however,
that the second table is only a tentative one and that further research
will be necessary before the true segmentation of the head in arthro-
pods may be clearly understood.

TABLE I.
Segmentation of the head in different classes of arthropods according to
E, R. Lankester!

Segments | Diplopoda | Arachnida | Crustacea Chilopoda Hexapoda

I. | Eyes | Jeeves Eyes Eyes Eyes

a: Antennae Chelicera Antennules | Antennae Antennae

| 5. | Gnathochi- | 2 p. legs I Maxillae Maxillulae Maxillulae

Homologous structures in the head of some arthropods according to my
own interpretation

| Crustacea |Diplopoda| Chilopoda Hexapoda Araneae Limules

| Median |
| ganglion

| | I p. parietal

gangl.

| 2 p. parietal

| | gangl.

Ocelli Median eyes Median eyes

Eyes Eyes | Eyes Comp.eyes | Lateral ,, Lateral _,,

| Procerebrum

_ Antennules | Antennae Antennae Antennae | Olfactory org. |

| Antennae Intercalary Intercalary Chelicera Chelicera

1 This table was not taken from any of Lankester‘s writings, but
composed by me on the basis of his ideas.

Trans, Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 2 JUNE, 1913.

18 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

A definite answer to the third question cannot be given at the
present state of our knowledge. This much seems to be beyond
doubt, that appendages do change their function in pas.ing from
a post-oral to a prae-oral position. Thus the two anterior pairs of
appendages in the Nauplius of lower crustaceans serve as swimming
legs, while the homologous appendages in adult Malakostraca are
antenniform sense organs. On the other hand the chelicera of
arachnids are still usually functioning as mouth parts although
in somewhat different way owing to their position in front of the
upper lip. They have, however, lost their gnathobase which is still
present in the embryological stages.

From the foregoing it does not appear reasonable to use the true
segmentation of the head as basis for a classification of arthropods
before new embryological data are brought in support. The very
fact that the segmentation is of primal importance should caution
us against drawing conclusions from insufficient premises. The
classification which I give further on, is therefore based on characters
ascertainable even from palaeontological specimens although derived
mainly from the comparative anatomy of recent forms. As the diffe-
rent systems proposed by various investigators are to be found
in the recent monograph of Pocock, I refer the reader who is desirous
of becoming acquainted with them, to this monograph. The dis-
cussion of Pocock’s system will be found in connection with the
definition of each separate order.

Phylogenetic Development of the Arachnida.

Little may be said concerning the phylogenetic development of
arthropods. That they have developed from chaetopodous seg-
mented worms appears to be the only possible conjecture. But the
lines along which they developed are so different and the forms
so spezialized that the assumption of a polygenetic origin with
diverging and converging development seems to be more probable
than that of a gradual branching of a common ancestral stock. By
this I mean that the different classes of arthropods must have de-
veloped not from one ancestor, but at different times and from
different species of chaetopodous worms, and that this may be true
even for some orders of the same class.

Until quite recently the origin of the scorpions presented, as it
seemed, the least difficulties. The segmentation of their body, the
shape and size of the cephalothorax, the number of appendages, the
presence of a simple telson, remind so strongly of Eurypterids that
their derivation from these aquatic arachnids appeared to be much

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 19

more than a mere hypothesis. One had only to imagine that such
eurypterids as Slimonia acuminata or Eusarcus scorpionis acquired
the habit of living in very shallow water and changed gradually
into scorpions. The only difficulty in the way of such change seemed
to lie in the difference of the respiratory organs of scorpions and
Eurypterids. But the ingenious explanation of the origin of lung-
books from gill-books through an insinking of the latter first brought
forward by Lankester and the subsequent observations of Brauer
on the embryos of scorpions tended to obviate even this difficulty...
The correctness of this interpretation is so apparent, that Lankester
has even ventured to express the hope of finding some day specimens
of Silurian scorpions which still led aquatic life and breathed by
means of gill-books. The absence of spiracles in the fossil Palaeo-
phonus, a negative character on which Lankester builds his hope,
may however be due merely to poor preservation. This seems to
be the more probable since none of the upper Carboniferous arachnids
of North America show the slightest trace of spiracles and yet there
cannot be any doubt as to their having led a terrestrial life. Fora
while I thought that perhaps the eurypterids themselves had already
internal gill-books of the lungbook type, with spiracles somewhat
similar to those of the scorpion, and connecting the gill cavity with
the outside. In that case nothing but a change in function would
be required to transform them into the lung-books as we find them
in recent scorpions. One could imagine that the insinking took place
in aquatic arachnids as a protection against injuries on the one hand
and angainst too rapid drying in case of temporary exposure to air on
the other hand. I tried to findsupport for my assumption not in the
absence of spiracles in remains of terrestrial arachnids, but in the
size and position of the gill-books in Eurypterids. Disregarding the
presence of gill-books in the second abdominal somite where in the
scorpion they are modified into combs, their size and position in the
following four somites correspond almost exactly with the size and
position of the lung-books. A mere impression of lamellae on the
concretion in the absence of an impression of spiracles could be
readily interpreted in either sence. Morever, the overlapping of the
gill-plates and still more the presence of narrow bands, of the same
width as the overlapping, in specimens with distended abdomen
reminded me strongly cf the conditions in modern scorpions where
the abdominal sclerites are connected with each other by means of
soft membrane. However, after some search for an explanation
Professor Schuchert was able to convince me that what I was in-
clined to interpret as overlapping sclerites of the abdominal wall

20 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

were in reality overlapping gill-plates which are slightly longer than
each segment and are connected with the body wall at the anterior
edge of each segment. At least on the longitudinal section of one
specimen of Eurypterus remipes one can see on the outside the heavier
outline of the gill-plate with the mould of the gill-book and at a little
distance from it inward a thin black line representing evidently the
body wall. The appearance of this line suggests that the ventral
body wall of the mesosoma in eurypterids was not chitinizea, but
thin and soft. Herein it resembles the ventral body wall of Palaeo-
zoic scorpions, which as I thy to show in the Special Part was most
likely thin and soft. But a derivation of they scorion’s lung-books
from such gill-books as those in Eurypterus seems highly improbable.
The line of attachment of the gill-plates in Euryfterus, as I have
mentioned above, is at the anterior edge of the somite, whereas the
spiracles of the scorpion are in the posterior half of the segment.
Before an insinking could have taken place, the gill-plate must have
first moved down along the surface of the somite, a condition not
known to occur in any of the described eurypterids. Another blow
to a theory of the origin of scorpions from eurypte1ids comes through
the beautiful work of Clarke and Ruedemann on the Eurypterida
of New York which was published while my present monograph
was still in the printing. In this exhaustive study of the rich material
obtained from different horizons the authors not only bring together
all that was known already about eurypterids, but widen and deepen our
knowledge of the group in many respects. Although they seem to
be in error when they refuse to homologize the sternum of the scor-
pion with the metastoma of the eurypterids and the chilaria of
Limulus, they show conclusively that eurypterids have in some
respects more similarities with limuloids than with scorpions. The
presence of five pairs of gills, the large operculum of the second ab-
dominal somite, the structure of the eyes, the large carapace and
smaller number of segments in embryonic stages are of especial im-
portance. The long prosoma and thin metasoma of scorpion embryos
are the most important characters separating them from eurypterids.
On the other hand the fusion of abdominal segments even in the
oldest limuloid, Protolimulus eriensis, from the Devonian-and the
absence of even partial fusion in eurypterids from the Cambrian to
the Permian suggests “that the limulids and eurypterids were prob-
ably separate in Precambric time.’’ It is interesting to mention
in this connection that according to our authors the eurypterids of
New York may be divided into four groups in regard to their mode
of lite and that the different deposits in which they are found show

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 24

that “while the earlier eurypterids were marine and their climacteric
fauna euryhaline; their later habit throughout the Devonic and
Carbonic led them finally into the fresh water.” The species which
is most interesting inasmuch as it shows a close resemblance to
scorpions, is Eusarcus scorpioms from the Silurian (Bertie waterlime)
quariies at Williamsville and Buffalo. Yet it does not seem reason-
able to imagine that Eusarcus is an ancestor of scorpions, first because
of the differences in structure and development mentioned above,
and then because of the occurrence in the same waterlime of a true
Silurian scorpion, Proscorpius osborm, which must have led a marine
life. Of the European eurypterids none resembles scorpions more
than Slimonia acuminata, yet in this case the same objection holds
true and true scorpions were there already represented by Palaeo-
phonus. There remains then the only alternative that the Xiphosura,
Eurypterida and scorpions developed independently and that the
great similarity between such forms as Slimonia, Eusarcus and
scorpions is due to convergence, as Thorell has already suggested.

The Haptopoda, Phalangiotarbi, Anthracomarti, Opiliones and
Acari show some remarkable similarities in structure and may have
had another common ancestor, but no Acari are known to have
occured in the Palaeozoic era and there are no connecting links
between either of these orders and the trilobites. The pseudo-
scorpions are not known to occur in the Palaeozoic. They show
only external similarity to scorpions and their origin cannot be
traced. In the number of abdominal segments and in the arrange-
ment of the coxae they resemble rather the Pedipalpi, but it would
be very hazardous to derive them from this group. The Solifugae
stand quite isolated. The Pedipalpi and Araneae have much in
common both in their external and internal organization, but their
origin is as dark as that of the preceding orders.

Great activity in the production of new arachnid forms must
have taken place at the end of the Devonian or the beginning
of the Lower Carboniferous period, since, the Coal Measures
or Pennsylvanian show already the majority of orders in full de-
velopment. All these forms have undoubtedly the structure of
terrestrial arachnids, although it is not impossible that some Anthra-
comarti and Phalangiotarbi led an aquatic life similar to that of
recent hydrachnids among the Acari. /fyvitsch has pointed out that
on the bodies of two Bohemian species of Promygale, which genus
according to Pocock is synonymous with Anthracomartus, are found
parasitical gastropods, Spivoglyphus, whereas all other arachnids
from the same region are free from them. This argument, however,

22 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

does not seem to me to be convincing. The specimen of Geralinura
gigantea in the possession of the U. S National Museum shows
a lamellibranch in the same concretion, yet there can be no doubt
that all species of Geralinura were terrestrial arachnids. As Pro-
fessor Schuchert has pointed out to me, the impression of marine
animals on the same concretion with arachnids is probably due to
the fact that the dead creatures were washed from the land into
the sea where they became fixed in the mud with the other brackish-
water remains. The more or less frequent occurrence of ferns in
the same concretion with arachnids is due to the same cause and
points to the fact that such species lived in a moist climate. We
may further conjecture that it was a hot climate, since the majority
of living forms of the same orders are mainly distributed throughout
the tropical and sub-tropical zones. It is true that the recent re-
presentatives of Pedipalpi and especially of Solifugae are more
characteristic of dry regions, many of them being even true desert
forms; yet on the one hand, a change in climate may have brought
about a change in habits, and on the other, species are known which
still prefer wet regions. Thus I have found a Solifugid and ambly-
pygous Pedipalpi under bark of decaying tree trunks on the western
coast of Chiapas where the yearly rainfall is very high and the countr
rich in tropical rain forests. Some species of scorpions and many
Theraphosid spiders are found in quantities in the lowest parts of
tropical jungles.

The similarity in structure between extinct forms and recent
ones suggests that the food must also have been similar, consisting
of land animals belonging to the arthropods, possibly some arthro-
stracous crustaceans, and more certainly Palaeodictyoptera, Proto-
blattoidea, and arachnids. The Anthracomarti and Phalangiotarbi
must have been preying on very small invertebrates since their
mandibles were so weak that no traces of them are left. It is not
impossible that some of them were phytophagous. The methods
of defense against enemies must also have been similar, since the
scorpions show a well-developed poison gland and the mandibles
of the Pedipalpi and Araneae were apparently of the same type
as those of recent forms. It might be supposed that the poison
apparatus developed for the purpose of killing the prey and not
for self defense, but the study of living arachnids show that they
avoid using their poison for that purpose. I have tried in vain to
find among the fossiles studied some evidence in regard to their
methods of reproduction. The distended abdomen of some scor-
pions and Pedipalpi is indicative of their being gravid females.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 23

Whether the scorpions of the late Palaeozoic were already vivi-
parous or still laying eggs, and whether the male spiders had their
copulatory apparatus in the palp as is the case with recent spiders
and those from the amber, can be determined only when more
favorably preserved material is found.

Comparison of the North American Upper Carboniferous Arachno-
logical Fauna with that of Europe and with the Recent Fauna.
In comparing extinct Arachnida of one fauna with those of another
we must remember that the most important generic and specific |
characters are often missing. To avoid unnecessary repetition
I shall give an illustration of the truth of this statement in the case
of the scorpions which by virtue of their size and the hardness of
their skeleton ought to present the least difficulties. One of the
most important not only specific, but generic characters is the
arrangement of the granules on the edge of the fingers of the pedi-
palp. None of the Carboniferous scorpions of Europe and North
America shows the slightest sign of these granules. Of course it
may be assumed that they did not have such granules, that the
granules are of more recent origin. But the similarity in other
characters makes such an assumption improbable. The very fact
that the pedipalp, bent in its normal position, presents the sides
of the fingers, is a sufficient cause to prevent us from seeing the
granules and would make it extremely difficult to obtain a mould
of them even in large recent forms. A character of great importance
in the systematics of recent scorpions is the presence of one or of
two spines in the articular membrane at the base of the last joint
of the legs. The recent family Scorpionidae has only one such
spme, while in the other five families there are at least two spines.
This character in recent forms is naturally combined with other
characters of importance, such as the shape of the sternum, the
structure of the comb and the number of side eyes. Anyone who
has had opportunity to study recent scorpions will agree with me
that the side eyes are visible only when the light falls on them under
a definite angle and cannot be distinguished from round granules
accompanying them when the light strikes them under another
angle It is nothing strange, then, that our knowledge of the side
eyes in Carboniferous scorpions is inaccurate and that this character
is not of great use. The sternum and the comb are sometimes
very well preserved, but in the great majority of cases the comb
is missing. To hope ever to find some of the finer specific cha-
racters such as the trichobothria, would be simply childish. What

24 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

is true of the scorpions is true to a still greater extent in some of the
other orders. Thus the genera and species of recent spiders are
based almost entirely on such characters, as will never be found
preserved in Carboniferous forms. What value then have the genera
and species of that extinct fauna? We may safely say that in the
majority of cases the species of Carboniferous arachnids would have the
value of generain arecent fauna. Many genera would be regarded
as families and some families as suborders. If therefore, basing our
judgment on the preserved characters, we should come to theconclusion
that a certain Carboniferous European species is identical with a
North American one, we would be judging from insufficient evidence.
Fortunately such cases do not exist and the Carboniferous species
of North America are clearly distinct from those of Europe.

Of the extinct orders the Haptopoda, represented by a single
species Plesiosiro madeley1, are known only from Europe, and the
Kustarachnae, represented by three species of a single genus, only
from North America. The orders Anthracomarti and ,Phalangio-
tarbi, both extinct, are represented in both countries. The order
Anthracomarti is much richer in Europe than in North America.
Its first family, Anthracomartidae, is represented there by 4 genera
with 12 species; of these the genus Anthracomartus is represented
in Europe by g species as against 2 species in North America. It
is the only genus of the family so far discovered in North American
deposits, and it is interesting to mention that neither of the two
species has been found at Mazon Creek, the A. trilobitus being a
common arachnid from Arkansas in strata somewhat older and
A. triangularis being represented by a single specimen from the
Joggins Mines in Nova Scotia from Leds younger than those of Mazon
Creek. The second family, Eophrynidae, is represented in Europe
by 13 genera with 16 species, in North America by 3 genera with
4 species. Of these the genera Aveomartus and Trigonomartus are
American, while the two species which I have placed under Pocock’s
genus Tvigonotarbus may in reality be representatives of a separate
genus. Among the Phalangiotarbi the family Heterotarbidae with
its single species Heterotarbus ovatus is known only from this country.
The family Phalangiotarbidae is represented in Europe by a single
genus and species, Phalangiotarbus subovalis, which does not occur
in North America, as against 3 genera with 4 species in this country.
The family Architarbidae is represented in North America, by the
genera Opiliotarbus and Architarbus, the first with 1, the second
with 3 species. In Europe it is represented by Architarbus alone,
of which there are known 5 species.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 25

Turning now our attention to the other orders represented both
in the Carboniferous and recent faunas, we must first of all exclude
from consideration the few very inadequately known forms of Opili-
ones. The presence of maxillary lobes in the coxae of recent Opili-
ones would speak for an old origin of this order, but for some reason
it is very poorly represented in the Carboniferous fauna, if indeed
the species described under it belongs to it The order Ricinulei
is at present entirely confined to Africa and Brazil. but is represented
in the Carboniferous of both Europe and North America. The car-,
boniferous genus Polyochera belongs apparently to the rcent family
Cryptostemmidae. One species is known from Europe and 2 from
Mazon Creek. The genus Curculioides belongs to the extinct family
Holotergidae, which represents a further development inasmuch as
the separate tergites are fused into one shield. It is represented by
a single species in Europe and 2 species in North America. The order
Solifugae is at present represented mainly in tropical and hot coun-
tries, but some species occur in the southern United States, going as
far north as Kansas, and some in South Russia and southern Europe
(Greece, Spain). The only Carboniferous species of this order is
from North America. The order Araneae or spiders is, perhaps with
the exception of the Acari, the richest among recent Arachnida. Of
its three sub-orders, the Arachnomorphae are spread all over the
world. The Theraphosae or Mygalomorphae, including all “taran-
tulas’” and trap-door spiders, are preéminently tropical, but some
species occur as far north as southern France in Europe and the Dis-
trict of Columbia in this country. The third suborder, or Mesothelae,
is almost wholly extinct. Only 2 recent species are known from
Pinang and Sumatra. This was the best represented sub-order
among the spiders of the Carboniferous period. It was much better
represented in Europe than here ; we have only I genus with 2 species,
whereas 5 genera containing 5 species have been decsribed from Europe
and 6 more European species have been probably incorrectly placed
under the American genus Arthrolycosa. No remains of the Mygalo-
morphae are known either from Europe or from North America.
Of the Arachnomorphae 3 species belonging to as many genera have
been described from Europe, but no representatives of this sub-order
have been found in North America, although the recent North
American spider fauna is richer than the European one. The order
Pedipalpi is at present restricted to hot and tropical countries. It is
totally absent in Europe, while 1 species of a whip scorpion and 2 spe-
cies of the sub-order Amblypygi are found in Texas, Florida, Arizona
and California. The sub-order Uropygi or whip scorpions are re-

26 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

presented in the North American Carboniferous fauna by the genus
Generalinura with 3 species. In England it is represented by f species,
G. britannica, and in Bohemia by G. bohemica. The real generic
characters used in the systematics of recent whip scorpions are not
preserved in the Carboniferous specimens, and the American species
may in reality belong to a different genus from the European ones.
The sub-order Amblypygi is represented in this country by 3 species
belonging to as many genera, one of which, namely Graeophonus,
has also a representative from England in G. anglicus. The order
Scorpiones is at present restricted to tropical and hot countries with
2 species, however, living as far north as the Karpathian mountains
and southern Germany, and several other species in southern Europe.
In the United States occur 22 species of scorpions, two of which go
as far north as Colorado, Utah, Nevada and Nebraska. Leaving out
of consideration Mazonia woodiana from Mazon Creek, a species
which may eventually prove to be not a true scorpion, the Carboni-
ferous scorpions may be divided into 3 families, at least one of which,
Isobuthidae, is distinct from all recent scorpions and therefore ex-
tinct. This family is represented in Europe by 3 species belonging
to 2 genera, and by a third with a single species in North America.
The family Cyclophthalmidae is represented in Europe by 3 genera
with 5 species. A fourth, rather uncertain genus is represented by
a single species in North America. The family Eoscorpionidae shows
many relations to recent Scorpionidae and Vejovidae and represents
probably two or three families thrown together for lack of distinctive
characters. The genus Microlabis with its single species, M. sternbergi
is known only from Europe. The genera Palaeopisthacanthus with
2 species and Trigonoscorpio with a single species are American. Of
the genus Eoscorpius 4 species occur in Europe and 4 in this country.

While any conjecture as to the direction in which the phylogenetic
development of arachnids took place in Europe and North America,
would be premature, the following conclusions seem to have suffi-
cient foundation in fact: (1) that the Carboniferous arachnological
fauna of North America is distinct from that of Europe and developed
along somewhat different lines, and (2) that both faunas have more
similarity with recent faunas of tropical countries, than with such of
the-same locality.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 27

SPECIAL Pita

PHYLUM ARTHROPODA

Invertebrates with a chitinous exoskeleton and usually segmented
appendages, with a prae-oral supraoesophageal brain composed of not
less than 2 pairs of ganglia, and a ventral chain of ganglia, which
shows different grades of concentration. Organs of respiration, when
present, in form of gill-books, lung-books, or tracheal tubes. Organs
of circulation, when present, never in the form of a closed system,
heart open at both ends, withside ostia. Excretoryorganseitherinform -
of modified nephridia or as malpygian tubes. Development direct or
indirect, in the latter case often with a complicated metamorphosis.

The phylum is composed of Io classes.

Key to the classes of the Phylum Arthropoda.
1. Two pairs of prae-oral appendages (behind the eyes)

Crustacea
+ one pair of prae-oral appendages (behind the eyes) 2

Pee epramGus. . ./:1. . +. +... . . » Trilobita
+ legs uniramous ; Pes
3. Segmentation of the bade homamenis ; oa
+ segmentation of the body heteromeric 5 Sie!

4. Head with 1 pair of post-oral appendages anaadteles sno? a

pair of papillae. Genital opening on penultimate segment.

Betawith 2 claws. ._+ Soe eotracheata

+ head with at least 2 pairs a Bost -oral appendages. Legs
mith t, 2 or 3 claws .. . ; eee ats 5

5. Head with 2 pairs of post-oral Panpeumaeee eee
short, not more than 7-jointed ... . ae. oe ee

+ head with more than 2 post-oral Bpead nes Antennae
long, with many joints ... . 7

6. Antennae simple. Tracheal enti a base of all ies,
Genital opening on third somite

Diplopoda

+ antennae with 4 basal joints, from the distal of which

arise 2 I-jointed branches, the external with 1 bristle,

the internal with 2 bristles. Respiratory organs absent.
Genital openings at base of 2d pair of legs

Pauropoda

7. Three pairs of post-oral appendages in the head. First

pair of legs modified as maxillipeds. Tracheal spiracles

numerous, never on the head. Genital opening on penulti-

Ge eeSeOMCNE oy ss) 5 5) ah ie, * ae, 2 Clnlopoda

Wi
a

Nephridia modified as coxal glands.

Alexander Petrunkevitch,

+ four pairs of post-oral appendages. No maxillipeds.
One pair of tracheal spiracles only, on the head. Geni-
tal openings on third somite . .’. . . . Symphyla

Abdomen rudimentary. Genital openings on the 2d joint of

legsof the 4th pair, or3dand4th,or2d, 3dand 4th. Number

of post-oral appendages 5—7 pairs . . . . Pycnogonida
+ abdomen not mer aor Genital opening never on
legs .

Head and fees Paces baceHise ‘Ceanaiie part with

I pair of post-oral appendages. Thoracic part with 4 pairs
of legs (the last 2 pairs absent in 1 family of Acari)

Arachnida

+ head not fused with thorax. Three pairs of post-oral

appendages in the head. Thorax with 3 pairs of legs

Hexapoda (Insecta)

CLASS ARACHNIDA

Arthropods with at least 3 prae-oral segments, with I pair of prae-
oral appendages modified as chelicera, with 5 pairs of postoral appen-
dages, the first of which is represented by the pedipalpi.
th at least 1 thoracic segment, usually with entire thorax, forming
cephalothorax. Genital opening on first somite of mesosoma.
Legs typically with 7, pedi-

palpi with 6 joints.

iS)

This class is composed of 15 orders.

Key to the Orders of Arachnida.
. Opisthosoma with an unsegmented telson om
+ Opisthosoma without a telson, sometimes with a seg-
mented whip

. Post-abdominal segments fuse ‘Abdomen mate a fee
genital operculum and 5 gill-books. Legs of the Ist, 2d,
and. 4a™pairchelate 7" es ~ o> 2%. © Saphosue

+ post-abdominal segments oe legs not chelate
. All post-oral eee with enathobsee! 5 pairs of
gill-bookses « aaeer . 3's SGipartostiaed
+ only the anterior 3 pairs aa post-oral appendages with
gnatho-bases. Pedipalpi chelate. 4 pairs of lung-books
Scorpiones
. In front of the cephalothorax a movable plate (cucullus)
Ricinulei

Head fused

IO.

I2,

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America.

+ cucullus absent .

. All segments of the ephalothars: fied eine.

+ two or three posterior segments of the eo
- free. Mandibles always chelate

. Only 2 posterior cephalothoracic segments ee Ab-

dominal segments 11, the last with a segmented whip

Palpigradi
+ three cephalothoracic segments free. Abdominal
segments 10. No whip ..... . . . Solifugae

. Abdomen with petiolus

+ abdomen broadly joined to the Go eee :

. Coxae of pedipalpi completely fused together, forming

a triangular plate. Pedipalpi chelate. Coxae of legs
radiating from the central sternum, equal in size. All
ieeeetomm and long .). ... ..-... Kustarachnae
+ Coxae of pedipalpi not (ea into one plate
Pedipalpi raptorial ; Ist pair of legs transformed into an
antenniform sense organ. No spinning organs
Pedipalpi
+ Pedipalpi pediform ; Ist pair of legs not transformed
into an antenniform sense organ. Spinning organs
PETAOTEN, Gey Se. es oelaneien, Moseteee ses Araneae
Pedipalpi powerful, chelate. Chelicera chelate. Spin-
ning glands in front or behind the genital openings, their
ducts opening on movable finger of chelicera
Pseudoscorpiones
+ Pedipalpi not chelate. Spinning glands absent
Abdomen not segmented (with exception of the sub-
order Notostigmata in which there are 4 dorsal abdominal
stigmata). Coxae of all legs devoid of maxillary lobes
Acati
+ abdomen clearly segmented
Coxae of the rst pair of legs and often also a the 2a anc
3d pair with maxillary lobes. Chelicera chelate. Ab-
domen composed of 10 segments, the roth being re-
presented by the operculum, but the number of visible ter-
gites and sternites is usually smaller, owing to a fusion of
the anterior segments with the cephalothorax
Opiliones
+ all coxae without maxillary processes
Tarsi and metatarsi of Ist pair of legs conv SHea We
a 7-jointed tactile organ, Abdomen composed of I1 seg-

7 LO

o Att

5 1

See Fe

30 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

ments, the 11th being represented by the operculum

situated on the ventral surface. . . . . . Haptopoda
+ first pair of legs pediform, not converted into a tac-
tile organ... 5 ee

14. Four, 5 or 6 aera iene | BAS very narrow.
Dorsal surface of abdomen never divided into longitudinal
heldse= ce -.. ». Phalangiotaca
+ anterior abdominal teveites not conspicuously narrow.

Dorsal surface of abdomen divided into 3 or 5 longi-
tudinal fields . . . . .°s. . . % . Antheacomane

ORDER-SCORPIONES

Head completely fused with thorax. Abdomen twelve-jointed,
the last five somites forming the so called cauda or post-abdomen,
considerably narrower than the anterior seven. Telson with a poison
gland and sting. Chelicera three-jointed, chelate. Pedipalpi six-
jointed, chelate, powerful. Coxae of first and second pair of legs
with maxillary lobes. Abdominal tergites’ and sternites heavily
chitinized, connected laterally with each other by means af a soft
chitinous cuticle capable of considerable distension. Post-abdominal
segments without such pleural membranes, their sternites and ter-
gites completely fused in each segment. First sternite represented
by the genital opercula, second sternite by the basal joint of the comb.
Four pairs of stigmata leading to lungbooks in third to sixth sternites,
one pair to each sternite. Anus without operculum, at the end of the
twelfth abdominal segment, ventral to the poison gland. Two middle
eyes and two to five pairs of side eyes on cephalothorax, some recent
species completely blind. All recent scorpions are viviparous.

The classification of recent scorpions is based entirely on external
characters, the most important being: the shape of the sternum, the
structure of the comb, the position of spines on legs, the shape and
sculpture of the pedipalpi, etc. These characters should naturally
be of the same importance for the classification of extinct scorpions.
Unfortunately it is not always possible to see all important characters.
in the same Palaeozoic specimen and the knowledge of the group
remains therefore incomplete. There are several genera based upon
specimens which do not show the most important structures. The
position of such genera in the system is naturally not certain. Some
species, too, have been placed under genera which they most resemble,
i. e., owing to their general resemblance to the type species and not
on account of their generic characters which unfortunately have not

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 81

been preserved. Such a method is certainly open to grave criticism,
but it is the only possible one. The text figures 1—4 showing the
external characters of recent scorpions will help the understanding
of the incomplete remains of Palaeozoic specimens.

The scorpions have been divided into two sub-orders, the dis-
tinguishing character being the presence or absence of two claws on
the walking legs.

Fig. 3

Bigs Ti. Bes 4.

Figure 1.—Opisthacanthus elatus (Gerv.), from the West Indies, ventral
surface of a gravid female. Figure 2.—Same, dorsal surface of cephalo-
thorax and anterior seven abdominal segments. Figure 3.—Centrurus

junceus (Herbst), from Cuba, end of tarsus with walking spine, two claws
and dorsal lobe. Figure 4.—Same, viewed from below to show the position
of the dorsal lobe.

LIST OF DESCRIBED SPECIES OF SCORPIONS
SUB-ORDER APOXYPODA. SILURIAN SCORPIONS
Tarsi terminating in a sharp point, without claws.
Family Palaeophonidae Thorell and Lindstrém
Genus Palaeophonus Th. and L. 1884.
Genotype P. nuncius Th. and L.

32 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

1. P. nuncius Th. and L., K. Svensk. Vet. Ak. Handl., Vol. 21, No. 9.
1884, pl: I. .Pocock, Q. J: M..S., 1902, p. 296: .- -Friisemageae
Arachn., 1904, p. 63, fig. 78.

From the Silurian (Wenlock) of Gotland.

. P. caledonicus Hunter, Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow, Vol. VIII,
1886, p. 169.. Id., Ibid., Vol. V, 1887, pp. 185—19x. Peach,
Nature, Vol. XX XI, 1885, p. 295.
= P.hunierr Pocock, Q. J..M.-S:, 10902, p. 291; pl: 19) 3 emteems

Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 63, fig. 79.

P. caledonicus Bather, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8), Vol. VIII, rorr,

peo70:

From the Silurian (Ludlow), of Scotland.

3. P. loudonensis Laurie, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., Vol. XXXIX,

1889, p. 576, pl. I fig. 1. Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 64, fig. 80.

Found in the Silurian of Scotland.
Genus Proscorpius Whitfield 1885.

Genotype and only species P. osborni Whitf., Bull. Am. Mus. Nat.
Hist., 1885, Vol. I, p. 181, pls. rg and 20. Clarke and Ruedmann,
Eurypterida of New York, 1912, Vol. I, p. 387, ff. 81—83, Vol. II, pl. 88.

From the Silurian (Cayugan series, Bertie formation), Water-
ville, N. Y.

SUB-ORDER DIONYCHOPODA
Scorpions with two claws at the end of each tarsus.

Pocock in his monograph proposes to divide this sub-order into
two groups: Lobosterni “with bilobed, posteriorly laminate sternal
plates on the opisthosoma and skeletal plates, whether belonging to
the fourth leg or not, on each side of the genital operculum,” and
Orthosterni, with plates similar to those in recent scorpions. To the
first belong the genera Eobuthus and Isobuthus, to the second C ycloph-
thalmus, Archaeoctonus, Anthracoscorpio, Muicrolabis and_ possibly
Palaeomachus. It seems to me, however, that the two groups of
Pocock are artificial inasmuch as the new genus Palaeobuthus des-
cribed below, although agreeing in the character of its sternites with
recent scorpions, is closely related to Eobuthus and Isobuthus in the
structure of the coxae. I propose therefore to divide the palaeozoic
Dionychopoda into families without reference to the shape of the
abdominal sternites.

Family Isobuthidae.
Late Palaeozoic scorpions in which the coxae of the fourth pair of
legs are abutting against the genital opercula. To this family belong

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 33

three genera, Isobuthus, Eobuthus and Palaeobuthus. They may be
distinguished as follows:
rt. Abdominal sternites with straight posterior edges. Sternum
triagonal Palaeobuthus n. gen. (see below).
Genotype P. distinctus n. sp., from Mazon Creek.
+ abdominal sternites with posterior edges curved, so that the
Eaenmites, appear: DIODEG, <; . Tauky a 20's d,s aett 2
2. Sternum rhomboidal ..... Genus Isobuthus Fritsch 1904
Genotype and only species I. kralupensis Th. and L., Kongl. |
Svensk. Akad., Vol. 21, No. 9, 1884, p. 17. Fritsch, Pal.
Beaean. 1904, p..70, fig. 88; pl. 10, figs. I—II.
Found in the Coal Measure of Kralup, Bohemia.
Secremum Oval -. .....'- Genus Eobuthus Fritsch 1904
Genotype EF. rakovnicensis Fritsch.
Described species :
1. E. rakovnicensis Fritsch (ad partem), Pal. Arachn., 1904,
p- 74, figs. 90, 92; pl. 8, figs. 1, 2. Pocock, Carb. Arachn.,
ager, p. 13.
Found in the Coal Measures (Noegerathienschiefer) of
Rakonitz, Bohemia.
2 —. holt: Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 14, fig. 1; pl. II, fig. 2.
From the Coal Measures of England.

Family Cyclophthalmidae.

Late Palaeozoic scorpions with normal arrangement of coxae, mid-
dle eyes not close to the anterior edge of the cephalothorax, hand
comparatively wide with short fingers and sternum “pear’’-shaped.

This family contains three genera from Europe and one from North
America.

Genus Cyclophthalmus Corda 1835.
Genotype C. senior Corda.

I. C. senior Corda, Verh. Ges. vaterl. Mus. Béhmen, 1835, p. 36.
Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 66, figs. 84—86; pl. 7, figs. 1-4;
pl. 8, figs. 3—5.

From the “ Steinkohlensandstein”’ of Bohemia.

2. C. euglyptus (Peach)

= Eoscorpius euglyptus Peach, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., Vol. XXX
1883, p. 402, pl. XXII.
C. euglyptus Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IgII, p. 19, fig. 4.
From the Lower Carboniferous (Cementstone) of Scotland.
Genus Palaeomachus Pocock IgII.
Genotype and only species P. anglicus (Woodward).
Trans. Conn Acap., Vol. XVIII. 3 June, 1913.

34 Alexander Petrunkevttch,

= Eoscorpius anglicus Woodward, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc.,
Vol. XXXII, 1876, p..58, pl. VIII, fig. 3

P. anglicus Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 16, fig. 2.

Bather, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8), Vol. VIII, 1911, p. 673, with fig.
From the Coal Measures of England.

Genus Archaeoctonus Pocock IgII.
Genotype A. glaber (Peach).
1. A. glaber (Peach).

= Eoscorpius glaber Peach (ad partim), Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb.,
Vol. XXX, 1883, pp. 398—400, pl. XXII, figs. 2—21.

A. glaber Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 17, fig. 3.
From the Lower Carboniferous of Scotland.

2. A. tuberculatus (Peach).

= Eoscorpius tuberculatus Peach, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., Vol.
XXX, 1883, p. 398, pl. XXIII, figs. 8—8h.

A. tuberculatus Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IgQII, p. 19.
From the Lower Carboniferous (Coal Measures, Calciferous) of
Scotland.

Eoctonus n. gen.

Genotype E. miniatus n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.

Family Eoscorpionidae.
Late Palaeozoic scorpions with normal arrangement of coxae,
middle eyes not close to the anterior edge of cephalothorax, hand
comparatively narrow with long fingers; pentagonal sternum.

The family contains four genera.

Genus Eoscorpius Meek and Worthen 1868.
Cephalothorax more or less rectangular, cauda normal.
Genotype E. carbonarius M. and W.

I. E. carbonarius M. and W., Amer. Jour. Sci. & Arts, (2), 1868,
Vol. XLV, p. 25. Id., Geol. Surv. Ill., Vol. III, 1868, p. 560 with fig.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.
2. E. sparthensis Baldwin and Sutcliffe, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc.,
Vol. LX, 1904, p. 396, fig. 2.
= Eubuthus rakovnicensis Fritsch (ad partem British specimen),
Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 74, fig. g1, pl. 12, figs. I—3.
= Anthracoscorpio sparthensis Pocock, Carb. Arachn., I9II, p. 20.
From the Coal Measures of England and Bohemia.
3. E. dunlopi (Pocock).
= Anthracoscorpio dunlopi Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IgII, p. 21,
fig. 5,opl) lj figs &

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 35

From the Upper Coal Measures of Scotland.
4. E. buthiformis (Pocock).
= Anthracoscorpio buthiformis Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IogII,
ep 24, tigs. 6—8 ; pl. 1, fig. 2; pl. Ly, figs x.
From the Coal Measures of England.
. (2) E. ornatus (Fritsch).
= Feistmantelia ornata Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 75, pl. XI,
fig. I—5.
From the Middle Permian (Lebach) of Bohemia.
6. E. typicus n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.
7. E. danielsi n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.
8. E. granulosus n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.

Genus Tyigonoscorpio n. gen.
Cephalothorax triangular, cauda rather weak.
Genotype and only species T. americanus n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.
Palaeopisthacanthus n. gen.
Cephalothorax trapezoidal, cauda very small.
Genotype P. schucherti n. sp.
1. P. schucherti n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.
2. P. mazonensis n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.
Genus Microlabis Corda 1839.
Cephalothorax trapezoidal, cauda not known, hand very weak.
Genotype and only species M. sternbergit Corda, Verh. bohm.
Ges. vaterl. Mus., 1839, pp. 14—18, pl. I. Fritsch, Pal. Arachn.,
1904, p. 69, fig. 87, pl. 9, figs. I—4.

Family Mazonidae.
Middle eyes close to anterior edge of cephalothorax. Structure of
pedipalpi and sternum not known.
Genus Mazonia Meek and Worthen 1868.
With the characters of the family.
Genotype and only species M. woodiana M. and W., Geol. Surv.
Il]., Vol. III, 1868, p. 563, with figs.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of North America.

36 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

KEY TO GENERA OF NORTH AMERICAN CARBONIFEROUS
SCORPIONS

1. Seventh abdominal tergite similar to the preceding ones, 8th
similar to the 7th of recent scorpions.
Mazonia
+ seventh abdominal tergite as in recent Se Post-
abdomen: with '5‘segments <-.7\->. 9. 2 Sue eee 2
. Coxae of 3d pair of legs abutting against the sternum, chose of
4th pair against the genital opercula.

Palaeobuthus
+ coxae of 3d and 4th pair of legs abutting against the sternum
(coxae of Trigonoscorpio and Eoctonus not known but
presumably of -this-type)' 2% <7 >... 2.
3. Cephalothorax triangular ; anterior border more fies 4 sate
narrower than the posterior one.

Trigonoscorpio
+ cephalothorax never as_narrow in front . . . . 2 eee
4. Post-abdomen very short and slim.
Palaeopisthacanthus
+. post-abdomen normal... = ©... «32. . =e
5. Hand short and wide, with short fingers.
Eoctonus
+ hand narrow, fingers very long.
Eoscorpius

DESCRIPTION OF NORTH AMERICAN PALAEOZOIC SCORPIONS

Family Eoscorpionidae.
Genus Eoscorpius Meek and Worthen.

New definition, Sternum pentagonal. Cephalothorax with more
or less parallel sides, never conspicuously narrowed in front. Mid-
dle eyes either removed from the anterior edge of the cephalothorax
at least '/3 its length, or if placed close to it then the edge itself
straight. Cauda normal. Hand narrow with very long fingers.

The type species, E. carbonarius, resembles very closely the Euro-
pean E. dunlopi (Pocock) and E. sparthensis Baldwin and Sutcliffe,
but is considerably smaller. Pocock rejects the genus Eoscorpius in
favor of Anthracoscorpio since the characters of the former are not
sufficiently known. A comparison of the type with E£. typicus and
E. damielsi shows, however, that these species are very closely related
to the type species, although sufficiently distinct not to be placed
under the same species. In fact, E. ¢ypicus could have been regarded

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 37

as a small variety of E. carbonarius if there were more gradations be-
. tween the two. As it is, both types being probably gravid females,
I thought it wiser to regard E. typicus as specifically distinct from
E. carbonarius. It may be objected that since the additional charac-
ters of the genus are derived from new species, the genus Anthraco-
scorpio should have precedence. But the characters of the latter
genus are also based on a defective specimen and were supplemented
later when new species were found. Besides, if we were to accept
Pocock’s definition of Anthracoscorpio, then Eoscorpius typicus would
certainly have to be placed under that genus and with it E. carbona-
rius, on account of its extreme similarity. The name Eoscorpius
has priority and should therefore not be changed.

The Palaeozoic scorpions of the genus Eoscorpius resemble most
some of the recent Vejovis.

Key to North American Species of Eoscorpius.

1. Cephalothorax as long as wide, or longer than wide. Eyes
removed from anterior edge. . . .°. 7 2
+ cephalothorax wider thanlong. Eyes slise: i ettcion he 3
2. Sixth abdominal tergite wider than Ist. Size about 90 mm.
E. carbonarius
+ firstabdominal tergite widerthan 6th. Size from 45 to65 mm.
E. typicus
3. Abdominal tergites smooth.
E. damelst
+ abdominal tergites with a transverse row of punctuated
depressions along their posterior border.
E. granulosus

Eoscorpius carbonarius Meek and Worthen.
Plate II, figure 6.

E. carbonarius Meek and Worthen, Amer. Jour. Sci. & Arts (2),
Vol. XLV, 1868, p. 25. Geol. Surv. Ill., Vol. III, 1868, p. 560
with fig.

The obverse of the type specimen in the Museum of the University
of Chicago, the reverse in the University of Illinois collection.

Careful examination of both halves of this important fossil con-
vinced me that the description of Meek and Worthen is quite correct
and that nothing of importance could be added to it. I therefore
quote it here with such abbreviations as seem to be advisable and
with the substitution of metric measurements for inches.

38 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

“The only specimen of this fossil yet known to us consists of a
cast and mould as revealed in splitting open a concretion. It shows
most of the cephalothorax and mandibles in somewhat crushed con-
dition, the dorsal side of the seven abdominal segments, and three
of those of the tail, allin place. Also four of the legs on one side and
one on the other, with one of the peculiar comb-like organs, . . . the
latter being detached and lying in the matrix near the side of the
abdomen.

‘“‘The cephalothorax seems to be subquadrangular in form, some-
what wider behind than long, the breadth being about 11.5 mm.
Unfortunately it is not in a condition to show the ocelli, nor can we
see whether or not its anterior edge is emarginate. It shows a minute
marginal line behind, from near which there originates a distinct
mesial furrow, which extends forward to near the middle, where it
is intersected by, or rather bifurcates into, two oblique furrows,
with the prominence for the mesial ocelli between them. Two other
rather deep lateral furrows extend, one on each side, from the pos-
terior end of the mesial one, obliquely outward, near the posterior
margin. The surface is ornamented with irregular scattering granu-
les, mostly upon the prominences between the furrows. The man-
dibles are stout, . . . but appear to be without teeth or serrations.
The movable finger is curved and sharp at the point. The legs are
rather stout, with most of the divisions long. Palpi unknown.

“The abdomen is a little more than twice the apparent length
of the cephalothorax, or about 23.0 mm. in length, and 15.2 mm. in
breadth. Its segments gradually increase in their antero-posterior
diameter, from the front one backward to the seventh, which is about
twice and a half as long as the sixth or largest of the others (being
g.0 mm. long, and 12.3 mm. wide), subtrigonal in form, with the
posterior angle broadly truncated for the attachment of the tail, and
the anterior lateral angles a little rounded. The six shorter abdominal
segments, especially the anterior ones, have their front margin more
or less sinuous along the middle, and their lateral extremities more or
less rounded. They all have the surface a little granular, the granules
being very small and arranged mainly along the posterior -margin.
The last, or subtrigonal one, also has on its posterior half, near the
middle, two longitudinal, parallel rows of minute pits or punctures.

‘Of the tail, only the anterior three segments are preserved in the
specimen. These show that it was rather stout, but as distinct from
the abdomen by its sudden contraction in breadth, and in the form
of its segments, as in the existing Scorpions. Its segments measure
as follows : first one, 6.5 mm. in length ,6.0 mm. in breadth ; second,

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 39

8.2 mm. in length, 5.5 mm. in breadth; third, 9.5 mm. in length,
4.5mm. in breadth. They are all oblong in form, more or less nearly
rectangular at their ends, and, as near as can be determined from a
flattened specimen, apparently provided above with three or more
longitudinal rows of granules, and some scattering ones.

“The single detached comb-like organ, seen lying in the matrix
on the left side of the abdomen, shows some eleven or twelve of the
little laminae or divisions, but apparently had more, as it is incom-
plete, at least at one end.” ;

It is unfortunate that both the cast and the mould show the dorsal
surface of the scorpion. In consequence nothing is known of the
shape of the sternum. The total size can also be only guessed and
is probably about 90 mm. The specimen was found by Mr. M.
Prendel on Mazon Creek, Illinois, in Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny)
strata.

Eoscorpius typicus n. sp.
Plate I, figures I—4; text figures 5—7.

This species is represented by four specimens. Two of these,
Nos. 37986 and 370987, are in the U. S. National Museum, and two,
Nos. 126 and 127 in the Peabody Museum of Yale University
No. 37986 of the U. S. National Museum I chose for the holotype.

The obverse of the nodule containing the type specimen (PI. I,
fig. 2) shows clearly the mandibles, cephalothorax, abdomen, first
three segments of the post-abdomen and parts of the right palpus and
legs. The reverse (PI. I, fig. 3) shows the complete right palpus, all
coxae, sternum, genital opercula, abdomen and four segments of the
post-abdomen ; also parts of the legs, as represented in text figure 6.
The cephalothorax is almost rectangular in shape, 5.5 mm. long,
5.5 mm. wide at posterior edge. Its posterior edge is quite straight,
the anterior one almost straight, with a scarcely perceptible emar-
gination. The antero-lateral angles are rounded and the lateral edges
distinctly emarginated. Two curved ridges run from the anterior
edge, uniting behind the eyes approximately in the middle of the cephalo-
thorax, whence a median ridge proceeds almost to the posterior edge,
forming here a small triangular field. A pair of curved ridges run
from the middle of the lateral edges obliquely toward the posterior edge
where they, too, join the triangular field. The median eyes have
apparently the shape of segment of a circle, but it is probable that the
segment represents only the socket and that the lens itself was round
or oval. No trace of side eyes could be detected, although the edges
of the cephalothorax are very distinct.

40 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Fig. 5. Fig. 6.
Figure 5.—Eoscorpius typicus n. sp., holotype, U.S.N.A. No. 37986,
9
dorsal surface.— Figure 6.—Same, ventral surface. X =
The abdomen is 16 mm. long. The ter-
aa ee, gites are separated from each other by a
‘ oe

me a ~] j i 7
CER Sia: considerable space which must have been
for LOOOPOO PPS V7

ABS occupied by the soft chitinous membrane the
Ay outlines of which are clearly visible on each
side; this speaks in favorof the assumption

Fig. 7 that the type specimen was a gravid female.

Fig. 7. Eoscorpiustypicus The third and fourth tergites are the widest,
n. sp., U. S. N. M. No. the width of the abdomen being in this region
37987, comb. X * 6.4mm. The length of the tergites increases
gradually from the first backward, the seventh

being the longest. It is wider than long, with a slightly procurved
anterior edge and sharpangles. Allabdominal tergites are with smooth
surface. The first post-abdominal or caudal segment is shorter and

wider than the second. It has three longitudinal ridges and two rows of

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 41

small, round depressions which evidently are the moulds of what
have been granules. The second has two longitudinal ridges and
two rows of depressions; the third two ridges and one row of
depressions. The genital opercula, representing the first abdominal
sternite, are round. The basal plates of the comb, representing
the second sternite, have the shape of segments of a circle with
the curve directed posteriorly. The next or third sternite (usually
called the first) is the longest. The lines between the sternites 3,
4 and 5 are straight, while the anterior edge of the seventh sternite
is slightly recurved. Superimposed over the sternites are visible
the tergites. There are two parallel rows of round depressions
extending over the posterior three-fourths of the seventh sternite.
The ventral surface of the caudal segments shows two longitudinal
sulci, to which is added in the first caudal segment a transverse
row of depressions and in the third a median longitudinal sulcus.

It may seem strange that the abdominal sternites are not separated
from each other like the tergites. One would naturally expect that
to be so, since this is the rulein recent scorpions. Two explanations
may be given to the fact, that the sternites of extinct scorpions are
not separated from each other by intersternal membranes. Either
the sternites were so long that they overlapped each other under
normal conditions in non-gravid females, or the ventral surface of
the abdominal segments was soft without hardened plates representing
sternites. In the first case we should expect to see double lines
separating each segment and that being so, that the anterior line would
represent the anterior edge of the posterior segment, while the posterior
line, the posterior edge of the anterior segment. I do not know
American Palaeozoic scorpions which would show such double lines
and assume therefore that the ventral surface of the third to sixth
abdominal segments was soft. It is different in the case of the se-
venth segment. This segment had evidently a strongly chitinized
sternite as evidenced by the presence of depressions, The pleura
may be seen on each side of the abdomen on the ventral surface of the
specimen superimpressed over the segments of the abdomen.

The sternum is pentagonal. The mandibles, preserved only on
the obverse of the nodule, are egg-shaped, chelate ; their basal joint
is lost. The coxa of the palpus is not visible, and of the trochanter
only the distal end is preserved. Femur is 5.5 mm. long, patella
5.5 mm. long and scarcely wider than the femur, tibia with finger
7.0 mm. long. The movable finger (the tarso-metatarsus) is almost
twice as long as the hand, if both are measured in the line of contact
of the two fingers.

42 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

The coxae of the first pair of legs meet in the middle line where they
apparently form maxillary lobes, the anterior ends of which are,
however, not preserved. The second coxae are short, wide and al-
most contiguous. If they ever had maxillary lobes they certainly
are not preserved. The third coxae are longer and thinner than the
second and separated from each other by the full width of the sternum
against which they are abutting. The fourth coxae are the weakest
of all. They are also abutting against the sternum.

Of the legs are preserved only more or less incomplete joints.
The femur of the second leg is 5.0 mm. long The chitin which was
preserved in many places has a uniform brown color. The comb
is not preserved The total size was probably about 45 mm.

The nodule No. 37987 of the U. S. National Museum (PI. I, fig. 4)
is broken in three pieces and the specimen itself is not complete. The
specimen must have been considerably larger, since the abdomen is
26 mm. long and the two post-abdominal segments (the only ones
preserved) 14.5 mm. But the general appearance ot the specimen,
the shape of the tergites, especially of the seventh, leave no doubt
that it belongs to the same species. Neither sternum, nor coxae are
preserved and the palpi are also missing. But the interest of the
specimen lies in the comb of one side, which is extraordinarily well
preserved on both obverse and reverse of the specimen (fig. 7). It
is very high at the base. The space between the supporting plates
and the teeth is occupied by apparently one long and broad, granu-
lated plate and a row of bead-like small plates. The number of teeth
is eighteen. Parts of the comb and of the abdomen were still covered
with chitin of the same color as in the preceding specimen.

Specimen No. 126 of the Peabody Museum (PI. I, fig. 1) belongs to
the same species. Only the reverse, however, is preserved, and the
ventral surface alone is visible. The palp, sternum, fourth coxae,
genital plates, basal plates of the comb, the abdominal sternites, and
the first post-abdominal segment, the only one preserved, have the
same structure as the type specimen. Of the remaining coxae only
parts are visible on the left side of the nodule, and the first, second
and third trochanters on the right. Comb and mandibles not
preserved.

Length of pedipalp: femur 7.0 mm., patella 9.6 mm., tibia with
finger 12.5 mm.

Specimen No. 127 of the Peabody Museum belongs also to this
species. The probable length of the specimen is 60—65 mm. The
specimen is badly depressed, the cephalothorax scarcely recognizable.
Length of abdomen from cephalothorax to first post-abdominal

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 43

segment, 21.0 mm. Length of the four preserved post-abdominal
segments, 23.0 mm.

Length of pedipalp: femur, 6,3 mm., patella, 6.3 mm., tibia with
finger II.7 mm.

All four specimens are from the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny)
of Mazon Creek, [llinois.

Eoscorpius danielsi n. sp.
Plate. IV; fig. 16.; text fig. 8.
The reverse of the nodule containing the type specimen is not in
existence. The obverse is in the collection of Mr. L. E. Daniels.

Figure 8.—Eoscorpius danielsi n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll. X =
It is a badly deformed specimen without palpi and cauda and with the
legs torn from the body and intercrossing each other to such an extent
that it is impossible to decide to which each remnant belongs.

The cephalothorax is preserved better than the rest, and is Ir mm.
long and 14 mm. wide at the posterior edge, which is slightly recurved.
Anteriorly the cephalothorax is somewhat narrower, the width in
the region of the alveolate areas being 10 mm. The anterior and the
side edges are straight, the angles rounded. A curved ridge runs on
each side close to the alveolate region, from the anterior edge back-
ward, gradually becoming lower and changing into a shallow sulcus,

44 Alexander Petrunkevitcn,

then turning more outward and rising again in shape of a low ridge
which joins the curved transverse ridge in the posterior end of the
cephalothorax. The surface carrying the alveolated area on each
side is more or less horizontal, but the surface inward from the lateral
curved ridges has a steep declivity toward the curved grooves which
begin on the sides of the ocular depression and meet in the median
line close to the transverse curved ridge. These grooves are out-
wardly accompanied by a row of small, round depressions. A heavy
ridge runs in the median line, gradually rising anteriorly and is highest
at the place where it forms a small fork. Immediately in front of
this fork lies the oval depression which represents evidently the mould
of the eye tubercle. It is very large, reaching anteriorly the edge of
the cephalothorax. Within the depression one may recognize a
triangular ridge and two pairs of oval depressions (one pair on each
side of the triangular ridge). These oval depressions look very much
like moulds of eyes. It is possible, however, that only the anterior
pair represents eyes, while the posterior pair is a mould of what may
have been chitinous granules.

The number of abdominal tergites cannot be counted owing to
the presence of transverse lines which represent probably artificial
folding of the skin. Moreover they are visible only on the left side
of the specimen, the right side being covered by wide plates which I
interpret as sternites. A proof of this interpretation I see in the
fact that the left side representing the tergites is concave, as in the
cephalothorax, while the plates on the right side are convex. All
abdominal plates are smooth. On the left side of the abdomen is
visible a part of a leg, four segments of which are complete. The
femur is 9 mm. long, the tibia 9 mm. and the metatarsus 6 mm.
The legs on the right side of the specimen represent a hopeless tangle.
One of them, however, is of extraordinary interest since it shows the
structure of the two last segments. We note one spine which was
probably in the articular membrane of the proximal tarsal joint.
The distal joint shows the impression of its ventral surface. One may
clearly distinguish a tubercle representing the walking spine, two long
claws, a median long, pointed dorsal lobe and two round.depressions
behind the tubercle. Another fragment of a leg, lying in front of the
one just mentioned and probably representing a tibia, shows a row of
punctuated depressions along its inner edge. On the left side of the
cephalothorax is a long lens-shaped body, probably the transverse
section of a leg. Immediately behind the posterior left corner of
the cephalothorax is a bean-shaped depression, perhaps also a trans-
verse section of a leg.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 45

The abdomen is torn in the middle, as shown in the text figure
and on the photograph. If straightened out, it would measure about
35 mm.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Eoscorpius granulosus n. sp.
Pistes i,.fe- 16; LE figss 71,12 text-fig. :d:

This species is represented by three specimens in the possession
of the Peabody Museum, labelled respectively as Nos. 128, 129 and 130.
I designate No. 128 as
the holo type, it being
the best preserved.
Only the obverse of
the nodule containing
the type specimen is
in existence (Pl. II,
ie teen text -fig. 0).
It shows the cephalo-
thorax with the median
eyes, abdomen, three
and a quarter segments
of the post-abdomen,
mandibles, left pedi-
palp anf fragments of
right pedipalp and of
two legs, one on each
side of the body.

The cephalothoraxis

: Fig. 9.
somewhat like that of Figure 9.—Eoscorpius granulosus n. sp., holotype,
the preceding species. Peabody Mus. No. 128. Nat. size.

It is 9.5 mm. long

and I2 mm. wide at posterior edge which is slightly recurved.
The oval eyes are almost their diameter from the anterior edge.
A median ridge runs from the edge of the semicircular decli-
vity anteriorly, dividing almost in the middle of the cephalothorax
and surrounding the depression representing the mould of the eye
tubercle. The anterior angles of the cephalothorax are quite rounded,
while the posterior ones are scarcely blunted. The abdomen is 30 mm.
long, the tergites considerably separated from each other showing that
the specimen was a gravid female. The length of the tergites increases
gradually backward, so that the first is the shortest and the seventh

46 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

the longest tergite. Along the posterior edge of each tergite and on
the sides of the seventh tergite runs a row of small, round punctuated
depressions. The combined length of the three post-abdominal] seg-
ments is 27 mm. Two rows of punctuated depressions, representing
the dorsal crests, are visible on the first and second post-abdominal
segments. The pedipalp is long and slender, hand with very long
fingers ; length of femur 15 mm., patella 15 mm., tibia with finger
23.0 mm. Length of movable finger 17.5 mm.

Specimen No. 130, showing also the dorsal side alone, is some-
what smaller; the cephalothorax measures 7.8 mm. in length and
11.0 mm. in width. It is badly deformed. Only six abdominal ter-
gites are preserved. The right pedipalp is complete and the length
of its joints is as follows: femur 7.5 mm., patella 6.4 mm., tibia with
finger 13.5mm. A few severed joints of three right and two left legs
are preserved, but it is not possible to identify them. It may be that
the specimen is a male or represents a different species, since the rela-
tive length of the palpal joints is difierent from that of the type
specimen. But the general appearance is much as in the type spe-
cimen and the preservation not sufficient to make of this specimen
a different species. “a

Specimen No. 129 (Pl. III, figs. 11, 12). The nodule containing
this specimen consists both of the obverse and the reverse, but the
latter is badly deformed. The obverse shows the cephalothorax
with the eyes, abdomen and one post-abdominal segment, mandibles
and parts of femora and tibiae of the legs. One complete pedipalp
is preserved on the reverse. The structure of the cephalothorax
which is 6.7 mm. long and 8.0 wide, is the same as in the type specimen.
The abdominal tergites increase gradually in length and have the same
sculpture as the type specimen. On the other hand the pedipalp is
more like that in specimen No. 130. The length of its segments is as
follows : femur 12.3 mm., patella 9.4 mm., tibia with finger 14.3 mm. ;
length or movable finger 9.2 mm.; length of abdomen 18.0 mm.
Unlike the two preceding specimens the rock in which this specimen
is imbedded shows no signs of decomposition and is exceedingly
hard.

All three specimens are from the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny)
of Mazon Creek, I]linois.

Trigonoscorpio n. gen.
This genus is characterized by the triangular shape of the cephalo-
thorax, comparatively thin and short tail the last segment of which
is 3°/4 as long as wide, and by the hand with long fingers. The state

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 47

of preservation of the only existing specimen makes it impossible
to recognize the shape of the sternum or the position of the coxae.
Genotype 7. americanus Nn. sp.

Trigonoscorpio americanus N. sp.
PlateslV, figs, 175,18 text fe. 10:

The nodule containing the type specimen consists of two parts,
but both show the same structure, so that we have before us a cast:
and mould of the dorsal surface.
The cephalothorax has an almost
triangular shape, being 5 mm.
wide at the posterior edge and
only 1.17mm. at the anterior edge.
Its length in the middle line is
4.8mm. Its shape is best under-
stood from the text figure Io.
The eye tubercle is close to the
anterior edge and carries two
oval eyes. Two sulci run from
the sides of the eye tubercle
backward uniting in a transverse
sulcus. Another shallow sulcus
runs transversely close to the
posterior edge. The abdomen
is 11.5mm. long. The first tergite

is the longest and the seventh
the shortest, being almost com-
pletely fused with the sixth. = ee
The post-abdomen is compara-
tively short andslim. Its fourth
segment is 2°/,, and its fifth 3°/,
times aslong as wide. The whole
body is very flat and smooth.
The right pedipalp is complete but for the middle of the femur the
ends of which are, however, well outlined. The femur is 5.7 mm.
long, patella 2. mm., tibia with finger 6.0 mm. Both mandibles
are well preserved. Of the legs one can see three pairs on the right
and four on the left, but none of them is complete. The complete
length of this specimen, which is in the collection of Mr. L. E. Daniels
of La Porte, Indiana, is about 25 mm. It was found in the Penn-
sylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Lllinois.

Fig. Io.
Figure 10.— Tvigonoscorpio americanus
n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll., dorsal

3
surface. iG

48 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Palaeopisthacanthus n. gen.
Sternum pentagonal. Hand with long fingers. Post-abdomen
very short and slender. Genotype P. schucherti n. sp.
Key to the Species of Palaeopisthacanthus.

Cephalothorax widest a little in front of posterior edge, and here
wider than long.

P. schucherti n. sp.
+ cephalothorax widest at posterior edge, slightly longer than wide

P. mazonensis n. sp.

Palaeopisthacanthus schucherti n. sp.
Plate Tl, figs: (8) (19> text chips ea, eo

The type specimen, the only one of the species in existence, is
in the collection of the Peabody Museum under the number 140.

BRD

fee

Bion sr: Fig.
Figure 11.—Palaeopisthacanthus schucherti n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus.

= - 4 } 5 4
No. 140, ventral surface. Figure 12.—Same,' dorsal surface. x =

1
It is an excellently preserved specimen, showing both the obverse
and reverse with great detail. The obverse shows both"mandibles
and palpi, the cephalothorax with the median eyes, the abdomen, the
fifth post-abdominal segment with poison gland and fragments of legs
to the left of the body; the reverse, both mandibles, one pedipalp,
sternum with coxae, genital opercula, abdomen and fragments of legs.

Total length about 16 mm. Cephalothorax 325 mm _ long, 4.25
mm. wide in the widest place, and 3.75 mm. wide at posterior edge,

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 49

2.2 mm. wide at anterior edge, which is straight like the posterior
and the side edges. All angles rounded. A median ridge runs
in the specimen from the posterior edge forward, soon dividing
and forming two curved ridges surrounding the eye tubercle and
ending in the anterior corners. Median eyes small, oval, about
1/; the length of the cephalothorax from the anterior edge. No
side eyes visible. The tergites of the abdomen gradually increasing
in length, the seventh being the longest. The anterior edge of the
fourth, fifth and sixth tergite has a sharp projection in the middle. -

The sternum is very large, distinctly pentagonal, with a recurved
posterior edge. Apparently both the first and second coxae have
maxillary lobes and the second pair is with its posterior edge abutting
against the sternum, so that the third and fourth pair are abutting
only against the side edges of the sternum, a condition completely
resembling the arrangement of coxae in recent scorpions, such as
Opisthacanthus. The genital opercula occupy the whole width of
the sternum and have the shape represented in text figure IT.

Of the post-abdomen or cauda is left only the last segment with
the poison gland, both impressed on the seventh abdominal tergite.
The tail was evidently bent sidewise and over the tergite when
the dead specimen was imbedded in the mud. From the size of the
last segment as well as from comparison with the cauda of P. mazo-
nensis it is evident that the tail was very small and slim and it seems
strange that the seventh tergite has such a wide posterior edge.
We must conclude that the cauda was connected with it by means
of a comparatively large soft membrane, a condition unlike anything
known in modern scorpions.

Both mandibles are preserved except for their basal joint and
are almost egg-shaped.

The palpi are characterized by a short patella and a hand with.
very long fingers, characteristic of the family. Femur 2.35 mm,
patella 1.75 mm., tibia with finger 6.65 mm. The length of the
movable finger is 5.0 mm.

Of the legs are left only the trochanters and femora of the second
and third pair and apparently a tibia of the fourth pair.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Palaeopisthacanthus mazonensis n. sp.
miate ti fie et text fies.. £3, LA
The type and only specimen of this species is in the collection
of the U. S. National Museum under the number 37977. The
Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 4 Jung, 1913.

50 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

obverse shows clearly the cephalothorax, abdomen, post-abdomen,
both palpi, one leg complete on the right and fragments of the cor-
responding leg on the left. The reverse is baldy deformed, yet
it is possible to recognize the coxae of the left side, sternum, genital
opercula and the basal joints of the comb.

Total length about 23 mm. Cephalothorax 6.6 mm. long and
6.3 mm. wide at posterior edge which is straight, and unlike the
preceding species represents the broadest part of the cephalothorax.
The anterior edge is somewhat procurved, the anterior angles rounded,

Figure13.— Palaeopistha-
canthus mazonensis N. Sp.,
holotype, U.S.N.M. No.
37977, dorsal surface.
Figure 14.—Same, ven-
tral surface showing the

3
sternum and coxae. 7

the posterior ones almost sharp. No eyes are visible. The abdomen
is 10.5 mm. long, the tergites gradually increasing in length from
the first to the seventh which is as long as the anterior four seg-
ments together. It has no distinct posterior edge, but the whole
segment has the form of a half oval. The pedipalpi are heavier
than in the preceding species Femur 5.0 mm., patella 5.0 mm.,
tibia with finger 9.0 mm. The length of the movable finger cannot
be ascertained. The only completely preserved leg belongs prob-
ably to the fourth pair and is 15.0 mm long. Of the post-abdomen
which is very short and thin, are preserved the last three segments
and the poison gland Like that of the preceding species it was
lying over the seventh abdominal tergite when the specimen baceme
imbedded in the mud. The segments are short and broad, the poison
gland with a curved stign.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 51

The arrangement of the coxae is different from that of the pre-
ceeding species. The first coxae alone show maxillary lobes which
are long, slightly curved and somewhat pointed at the distal end.
If the second coxae had any maxillary lobes there is no trace left
of them. The coxae themselves lie in front of the sternum. The
third coxae abut against the triangular part of the sternum, the
fourth against its sides. The sternum is distinctly pentagonal,
longer than wide, and comparatively small. The genital opercula
are circular. The basal joint of the comb consists of two semioval
plates. The sternites of the abdomen cannot be made out with
clearness. The whole body is smooth.

Found in the Pennsylvanic: (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Hhinois.

Family Cyclophthalmidae
Eoctonus n. gen.

Hand short and wide with almost straight, short fingers. Fifth
post-abdominal segment considerably longer than the preceding,
21/, times as long as high. Genotype EF. miniatus n. sp.

Owing to the poor preservating of the specimens this genus is
as badly characterized as the other three genera, all from Europe,
belonging to the same family. Eoctonus may be distinguished
from Palaeomachus and Archaeoctonus by the shape of the seventh
post-abdominal segment and the hand; from Cyclophthalmus by the
same characters as well as the shape of the cephalothorax. None
of the four genera, is however, sufficiently characterized to warrant
a safe position in the system and they have only relative value.

Eoctonus mimatus n. sp.
Plate Til, figs. 14, 15; text-dig. 15:

This species is represented by two specimens in the Peabody
Museum. I chose as the holotype the specimen numbered 131
and represented in Plate III, fig. 14. Although both halves of the
nodule containing this specimen are in existence, the dorsal surface
alone appears on both. It shows the complete body, both mandibles,
one pedipalp, part of the fingers of the other pedipalp, and the
trochanters and proximal parts of femora of four legs of the left
side. Total length 14.0 mm. Cephalothorax a little narrower in
front than behind, 1.7 mm. long and 1.5 mm. wide at posterior
edge. Abdomen 5.7 mm. long; post-abdomen, not including the
poison gland, 6.6 mm. The right pedipalp is 5.2 mm. long, its

52 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

femur is more slender and considerably longer than the patella.
The hand is as wide as the patella, the immovable finger compara-
tively short and almost straight. The median eyes are small, oval,
about 1/,; the length of the cephalothorax distant from the anterior
edge. Side eyes not present or at any rate not preserved. The
abdominal tergites increase in length from the first to the seventh
which is the longest. The second to sixth tergites have each a
median crest and the fifth and sixth have besides two short, curved

grooves, diverging posteriorly. The post-
F abdomen lies on its side and each segment
shows two deep grooves which correspond to
what have been in life the lateral crests.
The seventh post-abdominal segment is
slightly longer than the cephalothorax and
21/, times sa long as high. The poison gland
is small with a curved. sting and without
a spine.

Specimen No. 132, Plate III, fig. 15, is con-
siderably larger, but resembles in all details
the type specimen. Although the nodule
containing this specimen shows both the ob-
verse andreverse, yet the ventral surface is so
badly deformed, that no details of structure

Pig. 15. can be made out. Total length 21.2 mm.
Figure 15.—Eoctonus Cephalothorax 3.0 mm. long. Its correct
miniatus n. sp., holo- width cannot be ascertained. owing to the
type, Peabody Mus. fact that the specimen is considerably com-

No. 131. X = pressed longitudinally. Two oval eyes about
l/s the length of the cephalothorax distant
from the anterior edge. Abdomen7.3mm. long, post-abdomen 11.5 mm.
(not including the poison gland). Seventh post-abdominal segment
as long as the cephalothorax and 2!/, times longer than high. Right
pedipalp 12.5 mm. long, the hand somewhat slenderer than in
the type specimen. The fourth left coxa, the only one visible, is
abutting against the sternum, but the shape of the latter -cannot be
ascertained. The genital opercula are in the form of a transverse
figure co.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,

Illinois.

i ant.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 53

Family Isobuthidae.

Palaeobuthus n. gen.
Sternum triangular. Third coxae abutting against the sternum,
fourth against the ellipsoidal genital operculum. Abdominal ster-
nites with straight posterior edges. Genotype P. distinctus n. sp.

Palaeobuthus distinctus n. sp.
Plate To fig 5) text fis 16:

The nodule containing the type and only specimen of the species
and genus consists of two halves the one of which is so badly de-
formed that nothing can be made out
clearly. The obverse, however, is very
well preserved and shows the sternum,
genital operculum, comb, abdomen, four
and a third post-abdominal segments,
third and fourth pairs of coxae, and frag-
ments of legs. No traces of other appen-
dages are left, but for a part of the tibia
with finger of the right pedipalp on the
obverse, showing that the specimen had
a narrow hand with probably long fingers.

The sternum is small, triangular, with
aspine-like projection running between the
second pair of coxae. The genital oper-
culum is transversely ellipsoidal, wider
than the base of the sternum. Against it
are abutting the ends of the fourth coxae.
The comb is clearly defined, but the teeth Fig. 16.
do not show the lines between them and Figure 16.— Palaeobuthus dis-
thereforecannotbecounted. Theabdomen “”@/¥S 0. sp., holotype, Pea-

. : Mus. No. 7 l
is 22.0 mm. long from base of the genital pes ene oe ites

operculum to end of last sternite. The SLE Ca Aaa
second sternite is by far the longest. The posterior edge of all sternites is
entire, almost straight and not bilobed asin Eobuthus. The four post-
abdominal segments measure together 17.0 mm. Length of straight
line from genital operculum to base of hand 23.0 mm. Length of
visible fragment of hand with finger 5.5 mm., width of hand 1.8 mm.
Probable length of specimen 55 mm. The whole body is smooth.

No. 133 in the collection of the Peabody Museum.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

54 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Family Mazonidae.

A very little known family represented by one genus with one
species only. Middle eyes large, sitting on a tubercle close to anterior
edge of the cephalothorax. Post-abdomen, chelae, palpi and sternum
with coxae unknown.

Genus Mazonia Meek and Worthen 1868.

With the characters of the family.
Genotype and only species M. woodiana M. and W.

Mazonia woodiana Meek and Worthen.
Plate-RT fig-x13:

Mazonia woodiana Meek and Worthen, Geol. Surv. Ill., 1868,
Vol. III, p. 653 with figure. ;

The description of this unique specimen given by Meek and Wor-
then is sufficiently exact to be quoted here almost in full. But
their interpretation is at variance with Mine, and I will therefore
add my views below.

“The only specimen of the type of this proposed genus and species
yet known, is in a crushed condition, and of course shows but few of
its characters. Its cephalothorax is moderately convex, of a sub-
quadrangular form (its length being about 11.25 mm., and its breadth
10.5 mm.), with rounded anterior lateral margins, and the anterior
margin transversely truncated on each side of a small triangular
mesial projection. Its posterior lateral regions slope off abruptly
from an obscure ridge extending obliquely forward and outward,
from near the middle of the posterior margin, to a point near the
middle of each side, the sloping surface being marked by a few very
minute irregularly scattering granules. From near the posterior
margin, a mesial furrow extends forward, widening and deepening
rapidly to the front, where it occupies one-third of the entire breadth,
and is partly filled by the oculiferous prominence, which is the most
elevated part, and bears on each side a large eye. These mesial eyes
(the only ones known, or believed to exist) are circular, convex, about
I.75—2.00 mm. in diameter, and arranged for looking obliquely for-
ward, outward and upward. They are each surrounded by a ridge,
and so much elevated as to be seen almost entirely above the surface of
the cephalothorax on each side. No traces of lateral eyes can be seen
in the specimen, even by the aid of a magnifier, although the anterior
lateral margins (particularly on one side) are well preserved.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 55
“The abdomen measures about 33.65 mm. in length, and near
_13.7 mm. in breadth, as seen in its crushed condition. There appear
to be at least seven segments, with just space enough between the an-
terior, or seventh one seen, and the cephalothorax, for an eighth one.
Excepting the posterior one (which is ornamented on the central
region of the posterior half with small granules, some of which are
- arranged in longitudinal rows), these segments seem to be smooth.
The exact outline of the posterior segment is not clearly seen in the
specimen.... In clearing away the matrix, its posterior margin was
seen to be truncated, as if for the attachment of a stout tail, but
trying to work away more of the matrix, its margin was broken away
so that it does not now show the truncated edge so clearly as represen-
ted in the figure. Its lateral margins are somewhat flattened No
traces of the tail are preserved, the concretion being too small to have
included it.

“ Just in front of the cephalothorax, extending obliquely forward,
and outward to the right, a part of apparently one of the palpi is seen
in the matrix. Unfortunately, however, its terminal portion is
broken away. It seems to have been long and slender. At the inner
end, there appears to be but one, though there may be two, short
joints, and beyond these, there are two long slender ones.... An
obscure impression of a part of one of the legs is also seen farther
back, extending out from the right side.”

As will be seen from the above quotation, Meek and Worthen
suppose that the abdomen may have been composed of eight segments,
in which case, if Mazonia is a scorpion, the cauda must have been
only of four segments, since the number of segments in all known
scorpions is twelve. On examining the specimen I too came to
the conclusion that the last segment shows all semblance of the
seventh abdominal tergite of a normal scorpion. There is also
no doubt that behind the cephalothorax is a segment. It may
be clearly seen even on the photograph. The two alternativs
would be therefore that this segment represents the last thoracic
segment which remained free as is the case in Solifugae and
Palpigradi or the pregenital segment characteristic of embryos.
Neither of these alternatives, however, finds a support in the
structure of either extinct or recent scorpions. One could rather
conceive a scorpion with six abdominal and six caudal segments,
as that would be more in agreement with some Eurypterids
and Xiphosura. Perhaps Mazonia had after all no distinct sepa-
ration between abdomen and cauda, and the last four segments were
small. In that case it could be considered a transitional form be-

56 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

tween scorpions and Pedipalpi, not in the sense that Mazonia was an
ancestor of Pedipalpi, which it certainly was not, but that it represents
a tendency in the same direction of diminution in size of the last
segments.

To the description of Meek and Worthen may be added that in
front of the cephalothorax are visible the impressions of the first
joints of the mandibles, but it is not possible to decide whether the
mandibles were chelate or retroverte. Pocock thinks that a separate
group should be created for Mazonia, and I fully agree with him on
this point. But the specimen is too fragmentary for that purpose and
this is the reason why I have retained the genus Mazomnza in the order
of scorpions where it has been originally placed. The specimen was
found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.
At present it is in the collection of the University of [llinois, at
Urbana, Illinois.

Scudder has described two other specimens of Mazonia; the one
he calls M. acadica, the other Mazonia sp. (cf. Geol. Surv. Canada,
Vol. II, 1895, pp. 62—65, pl. V, figs. 4—g). I have carefully examined
both specimens but am not able to find sufficient characters to place
them among the arachnids. They represent what may have been an
arthropod, but nothing more definite can be said about them.

ORDER PEDIPALUPI

With the exception of the recent family Schizonotidae in which
the two last thoracic segments, fused together, are movably jointed
to the anterior part of the cephalothorax, the head is completely
fused with the thorax. The abdomen, composed of eleven to twelve
segments, is never broadly joined to the cephalothorax. The
chelicera always retroverte ; the pedipalpi powerful, raptorial, retro-
verte or chelate. The first pair of legs modified as tactile organs.
All five post-oral appendages with a patella. Two pairs of lungs

1 Kraepelin is certainly in errcr when he calls the patella of the pedipalp,
tibia, and the tibia, hand. The muscular system of the patella is charac-
teristic of this joint. But whereas in scorpions the chelate pedipalp hand
is formed by the tibia with its process as immovable finger and the tarso-
metatarsus as movable finger, the immovable finger of Pedipalpi is usually
formed by the process of the patella: There is often a line of separation
between the tarsus and metatarsus as shown in text figure 17.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 57

with stigmata at the posterior edge of the second and third abdominal
sternites. Genital opening between the second and third sternites.

———=—

5
A

S
Pew

Ns
\ x Vp ‘ i J
NS ——— Lo

Bieren7.

Figure 17.—Mastigoproctus giganteus, from Texas.

Recent forms probably all oviparous. Two median and in recent
forms three pairs of lateral eyes, sometimes totally blind. All
Pedipalpi are tropical or subtropicalforms. They lead a nocturnal
life, hiding during the day under rocks, alsoin dark places of human
dwellings. For the palaeontologist dealing often with imperfectly
preserved specimens, the position and structure of the coxae are

58 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

of great importance. In the sub-order Uropygi or whip scor-
pions the coxae of the pedipalpi are so large that they cover
completely the chelicera. Mo-
vably jointed to the anterior
part of the sternum they meet
in the middle line. Immediately
behind them are the coxae of
the second pair of legs, while
the considerably smaller first
coxae, widely separated from
CA each other, are situated in front
of the anterior distal corner of
the second at the sides of the

S\
Ae SKE palpal coxae. In the sub-order

Amblypygi the coxae of the
PLAC pedipalpi do. not meet in the
<a middle line, being separated from
a each other by the anterior part
of the sternum, while the weak

aaa) first coxae are so situated that

YY their sides are in contact with

v the distal part of both the palpal

Fig. 18. and second coxae. No other

Figure 18.—Tavrantula fuscimana, arachnids have anything similar
from Central America, a representa- to the arrangement of the coxae
tive of the suborder Amblypygi. in both sub-orders of Pedipalpi.

LIST OF DESCRIBED SRECIES JOB PEDIPAERE
Sub-Order Uropygi.

Cephalothorax longer than wide. Abdomen with a segmented
whip or a short style. Coxae of pedipalpi meeting in the middle line.

Pamily Thelyphonidae Lucas.!

Cephalothorax entire. Abdomen with a segmented whip.

1 Family Geralinuridae Scudder is a synonym of Theliphonidae., Its
definition was -based on specimens incorrectly described. Moreover it
includes the genus Graeophonus which belongs to the sub-order Amblypygi.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 59

Genus Geralinura Scudder! 1884.
Genotype G. carbonaria Scudder.

1. G. carbonaria Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Vol. XX, 1884,
p- 19. Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890, p. 455,
pl. 39, fig. (nec 3 and 4).

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Ilinois.

2. G. similis n. sp.

‘= G. carbonaria Scudder, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV,
1890, p. 455 ad partem, pl. 39, figs. 3 and 4 (nec fig. 1).
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny)of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

3. G. gigantea n. sp.

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Ulinois.

4. G. bohemica (Kusta).

= Telyphonus bohemicus Kusta, Sitz. k. béhm. Ges. d. Wiss.,
1884, p. 186, pl. I.

= G. bohemica Id., Ibid., 1888.

= G. scuddari Id., Ibid., 1888, p. 205, pl. fig. 5.

?= G. noctua Id., Ibid., p. 201, pl. fig. 6.

?= G. crassa Id., Ibid., 1888, p. 203.

= Protelyphonus bohemicus Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, pp. 59—62,
pl. 6, figs. r—8, text figs. 71—77.
From the Carboniferous (Noegerathienschiefer, Coal Measures)
near Rakonitz, Bohemia.

5. G. britannica Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 29, pl. I, fig. 3; pl. I,
ie 35 text ‘fig.’ 9.

From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.
Sub-Order Amblypygi.
Cephalothorax wider than iong. Coxae of pedipalpi not meeting
in middle line. Abdomen without a whip.

Family Tarantulidae Karsch.
With all the characters of the sub-order.
Genus Graeophonus Scudder 1890.
Genotype G. carbonarius Scudder.
1. G. carbonarius Scudder.

= L1bellula carbonaria Scudder, Can. Nat. (2), Vol. VIII, 1876,

p..88, fig. 1.
G. carbonarius Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890,
Pp: 454, pl. 40, figs. 2, 3, 6.

1 Protelyphonus Fritsch is a synonym of Geralinura.

60 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.
2. G. anglicus Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 32, pl. I, figs. 4—4d.
From the Coal Mesaures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.
Telyphrynus n. gen.
Genotype T. elongatus n. sp.
1. T. elongatus n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Protophrynus n. gen.
Genotype P. carbonarius n. sp.
1. P. carbonarius n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Ilinois.

KEY TO GENERA OF NORTH AMERICAN CARBONIFEROUS

PEDIPALPI
1. Cephalothorax longer than broad. Abdomen with a whip—Sub-
order Uropygi Geralinura.
+ Cephalothorax wider than long. Abdomen without a whip—
Sub-order Amblypygi. . . . Berg tN s pat See
2. Coxae of 3d and 4th pair of ee ued in a secon line, not
triangular. Eyes absent Telyphrynus.

+ coxae of 3d and 4th pair of legs converging toward a point 3
3. Abdomen with 7 visible tergites. Trochanters I-jointed. Four

eyes Protophrynus.
+ abdomen with Io tergites. Trochanters 2-jointed. Two eyes
Graeophonus.

DESCRIPTION OF NORTH AMERICAN CARBONIFEROUS
PEDIPALPI

Sub-Order Uropygi.
Family Thelyphonidae Lucas

Genus Geralinura Scudder.

(New definition.) Cephalothorax entire, longer than wide. Ster-
num composed of one piece. Abdomen with twelve segments.
Whip many jointed.

Key to North American Species of Geralinura.
1. No constriction between the cephalothorax and the first abdominal
tergite. Coxae of 4th pair of legs rectangular and contiguous
G. similis n. sp.
+ a distinct constriction between the cephalothorax and the Ist
abdominal tergite; abdomen anteriorly rounded. .... 2

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 61

2. Cephalothorax oval

G. carbonaria Scudder.

+ cephalothorax anteriorly truncated

G. gigantea n. sp.

Geralinura carbonaria Scudder.
Plate TV; figs!-20, 2a; text figs: uL0, 20.
G. carbonaria Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Vol. XX, 1884,
p. 19. Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890, p. 455, pl. 39,

fine. t.

Scudder’s description of this species is based on two specimens one
of which, specimen a, alone belongs to it and is therefore the type,

Specimen b is undoubtedly a
different species and forms the
type of G. similis n. sp.

The type specimen was
originally labelled 1754 a and
b, but is at present in the
collection of the U. S. National
Museum under the number
37985. Both the obverse and
the reverse are well preserved.
The obverse shows the cephalo-
thorax, abdomen, and frag-
ments of pedipalpi and legs ;
the reverse the sternum with
coxae and femora, abdomen,
and five segments of the whip.

The cephalothorax is oval,
4.03 mm. long; its greatest
width is about 1/, from poste-
rior edge and measures 3.0mm.
Eyes are absent. The ab-
domen is 11.8 mm. long, roun-
ded in front ; the total length

Fig. 19.

Fig. 20.

Figure 19.—Gevalinuva
cavbonaria Scudder, ho-
lotype a, U. S. N. M.
No. 37985 (1754a and b),

dorsal surface. XX 7
Figure 20.— Same, ster-

mbar, >< a

of the specimen to base of tail, 16.0 mm. The anterior ten
segments of the abdomen are subequal in length and their tergites
are considerably narrower than the width of the abdomen. The
eleventh and twelfth segments are somewhat longer than the pre-
ceding ones and considerably narrower, but there is no abrupt diffe-
rence in size, the abdomen narrowing posteriorly, but gradually.
The five segments of the whip measure together 4.06 mm. The

62 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

arrangement of all coxae is exactly the same as in G. similis, but the
sternum is somewhat different as will be readily understood from a
comparison of text figures 20 and 22. The femur of the third pair
of legs is 2.8 mm. long, that of the fourth 3.7 mm. (Scudder’s figures
include the trochanters). The whole body is smooth. Only one
specimen in existence.

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Geralinura similis n. sp.
Plate ‘IV; figs 19; "205 text ies cam pee.
= G. carbonaria Scudder, ad partem, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
Vol. IV, 1890, specimen b, pl. 39, figs. 3—4.

Fig. 21. Hip. 2222
Figure 21.—Geralinura similis n. sp., holotype b, U.S.N.M. No. 37985
(1754c), dorsal surface. Figure 22.—Same, ventral surface, showing the
2.5

arrangement of the coxae. X i =

As I have already pointed out, the type and only specimen of this.
species, at present in the collection of the U. S. National Museum,
is easily distinguished from G. carbonaria by the shape ot the cephalo-
thorax and abdomen, as well as by the sternum. Total length to
base of whip14mm. Cephalothorax 5.25 mm. long, 3.0 mm. wide at
posterior edge which is slightly recurved. Eyes absent. First ab-

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 63

dominal segment same width as cephalothorax, but the constriction
between cephalothorax and abdomen is well visible on the ventral
surface. Segmentation of abdomen indistinct, neither the tergites,
nor the sternites being preserved. Whip 10 mm. long. Pedipalpi
heavy, their coxae meeting in the median line, longer than wide, with
a distalinternal process. The trochanters wider than long, the femora
with a process at inner edge. The patellae curved, their distal end
possibly representing the immovable finger. Tibia and tarso-meta-
tarsi lost. The first coxae as in recent Thelyphonidae. The femora -
long and thin, the rest not preserved with exception of the proximal
end of the patellae. First femur 8.5 mm. long. Second femur much
thicker and only 1.75 mm. long. The sternum 3.00 mm. long, pointed
behind. The coxae of the second pair conical, those of the third pair
with parallel sides, diverging in front, contiguous at posterior end.
Coxae of fourth pair contiguous, rectangular. It is doubtful whether
the fourth leg is as thin as it appears, more probably it was as heavy
as the second and third, this being indicated by the width of the proxi-
mal fragment of the femur.

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Geralinura gigantea n. sp.
Plate V, figs. 23—25; text figs. 23—26.

The holotype of this species is in the collection of the U. S. National
Museum under the number 37976. The obverse shows the cephalo-
thorax, five segments of the abdomen, pedipalpi, chelicera and frag-
ments of legs; the reverse, the palpi, chelicera, coxae of all legs,
abdomen, almost complete first right leg and several joints of the
remaining legs. The whip is not preserved.

Total length 21.0 mm. The flat, excellently preserved cephalo-
thorax is 6.3 mm. long and 4.5 mm. wide ?/; from anterior edge,
1. €., in its widest place. Anteriorly the cephalothorax is truncated,
the posterior edge is very slightly recurved, almost straight and about
twice as wide as the anterior edge. Immediately behind the widest
place there is a conspicuous median ridge sloping posteriorly and
anteriorly where it goes over gradually into curved grooves running
towards the deep lateral grooves. The lateral grooves themselves
begin at anterior edge and run parallel to the sides of the cephalo-
thorax. They represent the moulds of the lateral crests as in recent
forms, and the enlarged portion of their posterior end may have been
the place where the lateral eyes were in the living specimen, but no
trace of the lenses is left. The middle eyes are oval, small, separated

64 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

from each other and from the anterior edge by about their diameter.
The mandibles or chelicera are unusually large, but only the basal
joint visible, so that it is not possible to decide whether the fang was
movable upward and downward as in recent forms, or inward and
outward as in true spiders. The former is, however, more probable
since it is the rule in all recent pedipalpi.

[\\

3. rf
Lae

Big: (23: Fig. 24.

Figure 23.—Geralinura gigantea n. sp., from the Upper Coal Measures,
Braidwood, Illniois, holotype, U.S.N.M. No. 37976, ventral surface,

: : 3
showing arrangement of coxae. Figure 24.—Same, dorsal surface. X i

The abdomen is rounded in front, gradually narrowing posteriorly.
The pleura are well visible and were soft and entire, the irregular
segmentation appearing in the specimen being due probably to arti-
ficial folding. The second to fifth abdominal tergites show clearly
the round attachment points of the dorso-ventral muscles, one pair
in each segment. On the ventral side one can see only ten sternites.
Of these the first, corresponding to the first and second segments,
is by far the largest and has a semicircular shape. The second sternite
has the shape of a segment, its posterior edge being procurved. Im-
pressed on it we see the bean-shaped genital opening. Only the an-
terior edge of the sternum is preserved and this is peculiar in its
structure inasmuch as it has articulation surfaces not only for the
pedipalpi, but also for the coxae of the first pair of legs. The pedi-

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 65

palpi are heavy and rather short and the immovable finger is formed
by the tibia and not by the patella. The coxae of the first pair of
legs are unusually heavy, the femur 7.3 mm. long, getting evenly
thinner toward its distal end. The patella is about as long as the
coxa. Whether the last visible joint represents only the tibia, or
whether some joints of the tactile organ form the end of it, is not
possible to decide. The second, third and fourth pair of legs were
short and stout and their coxae at even distances from each other.
The whole body is smooth.

In the same nodule is a marine lamellibranchiate.

Specimen No. 147 of the Peabody Museum. Plate V, fig. 25;
text figs. 25, 26. Paratype.

Total size 22.0 mm. Cephalothorax 5.65 mm. long, 4.3 mm. wide
in the widest place, has the same shape and structure as in the type
specimen. Middle eyes not
preserved. Mandibles visible
only on the obverse. Palpi
much heavier than in the
type specimen, their fingers
not preserved. The sternum
as in type, but the meta-
sternum clearly visible in
front of the first abdominal
sternite, separating the hind

Fig. 25. Fig. 206.
Figure 25.—Geralinura gigantea n. sp., paratype, Peabody Mus. No. 147,

ventral surface. Figure 26.—Same, dorsal surface, ts

1
coxae. The first abdominal sternite with a procurved posterior
edge. The second with both edges procurved, almost concentric.
At the posterior edge the impression of a semilunar genital opening.
The last three abdominal segments set off sharply from the preceding
segment, much as in recent whip scorpions. Of the legs only frag-

Trans. Conn. Acap., Wolke 2ey Pde 5 JUNE, 1913.

66 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

ments preserved as shown in text figure 25. Notwithstanding the
differences in the shape of the pedipalpi, of the coxae of the first pair
of legs and of the last three abdominal segments, the similarity in
size and structure between the cotype and type is so great, that Iam
rather inclined to attribute the differences to sexual dimorphism
than to make a separate species of the cotype.

Foundin the Pennsylvanic(Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Ilinois.

Sub-Order Amblypygi.
Family Tarantulidae Karsch.
Thelyphrynus n. gen.
Cephalothorax wider than long, bean-shaped. Eyes absent.
Coxae of third and fourth pair contiguous, not triangular. Genotype
IT. elongatus n. sp.

Thelyphrynus elongatus n. sp.
Plate Vy fig. 26; text higs.27-.28:

Figure 27.— Thelyphrynus

elongatus n. sp., holotype,

Daniels coll., ventral sur-

face. Figure 28.—Same,
3

cephalothorax. X =

The type and only
specimen of this species,
showing only the re-
verse, 1s in the collection
of Mr. L. E. Daniels:
It shows the pedipalpi,
trochanters and femora
of the second pair of
legs, trochanters, fe-
mora and patellae of
the third pair, an almost
complete fourth leg,
faint impressions of the coxae. of the third and fourth pair, complete
abdomen and superimposed over the coxae the cephalothorax.

Bigs27.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 67

Total length without pedipalps 16 mm. Cephalothorax 4.1 mm.
long, 5.8 mm. wide in the widest place, with a median depression as
in text figure 28. Abdomen 9.6 mm. long; it consists of eleven seg-
ments and a short pygidium. The pleura is clearly segmented. The
pedipalpi are heavy and long. The first pair of legs is not preserved,
but presumably it was thin and long. The second femur is 5 mm.
long, the third 7mm. _ The fourth leg is much thinner than the third,
its femur is 5.6 mm. long, and the total length of this leg from the
base of the trochanter to the end of the last visible joint is 21 mm,
Whether the transverse lines represent the limits of joints it is not
possible to ascertain. The whole body is smooth.

The general appearance of this specimen reminds one much of
a true whip scorpion, but the shape of the cephalothorax is character-
istic of the sub-order Amblypygi and there are no signs of a whip,
although the abdomen is in an excellent state of preservation.

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Genus Graeophonus Scudder r18go.

New definition. Cephalothorax wider than long, reniform, with
one pair of eyes placed on an eye tubercle. Third and fourth pair of
coxae triangular, meeting in a median point. Trochanters two-
jointed. Abdominal tergites ten. Genotype G. carbonarius Scudder.

Graeophonus carbonarius (Scudder).
Plate V, figs. 27—29; text figs. 29—31.

= Libellula carbonaria Scudder, Can. ‘Nat., (2)3 Vol; VIE 1876;
p: oo, tig. I.

G. carbonarius Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890,
pe 454, pl. Ao, figs. 2, 3, 6.

Scudder drew the characters of this species from specimen No. 1762
of the Lacoe collection “ before it was recognized as the same species
as that described by many years ago from an abdomen alone, under
the name of Libellula carbonaria.”’ Since both specimens received the
same specific name and since the generic characters were first drawn
by Scudder from specimen No. 1762, moreover since this specimen is
the more complete one, it should have the value of the holotype.
We must remember that characters of extinct arachnids do not have
the same value as those of recent forms. It is probable that Libellula
carbonaria belongs to the same genus and species as Graeophonus
carbonarius, but the specimen is too incomplete to make it an ab-
solute certainty. I have carefully compared the type specimen of
Libellula carbonaria with the type specimen of Graeophonus carbonarius

68 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

and believe them to belong to the same species, as far as one
may judge from the abdomen alone. But in the systematics of
Amblypygi the abdomen is the least important part of the body
and may not have even generic value. I therefore regard as type
specimen No. 1762 of the Lacoe collection. The description of
Scudder is not correct. He describes the palpi as chelate, whereas
they are incomplete and consequently show no chela. He also
describes the second pair of legs as the first, but the first pair is

Fig. 209. ig. : Fig. 31.
Figure 29.—Graeophonus carbonarius holotype, U. S. N. M. No. 37969, dorsal
surface. - Figure 30.—Same, ventral surface. Figure 31.—Grvaeophonus car-
bonarius (Scudder), from the Upper Coal Measures, Joggins Mines, Nova Scotia,
specimen No. 37964 of the U. S. National Museum, dorsal surface. rs
lost altogether. The following description of the type is made
after the specimen has been cleaned from the kaolin which was
hiding from view many of its structures.

Total length 17.0 mm. Cephalothorax reniform, with a slight
projection in front of the eye tubercle, 5.66 mm. long in the middle
line and 7.0 mm. wide about ?/; from anterior edge. A median crest
extends from the middle of the cephalothorax to its posterior edge.
Two pairs of oblique, curved crests run from the sides of the cephalo-
thorax to the median crest. Eyes round, contiguous, on a round
tubercle (depression in the specimen being the mould of the tubercle)
close to anterior edge. Abdomen oval, without pygidium. On the
dorsal surface may be counted ten tergites, on the ventral eleven

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 69

sternites. The pleura is preserved only on the ventral surface and
is segmented. A deep, triangular depression extends from the an-
terior end of the abdomen to the middle of the second sternite, possibly
the result of deformation. Of the coxae only those of the third and
fourth pair are preserved. They are triangular and their apices meet
in a median point. The pedipalpi are heavy, their joints wider than
long. The tarso-metatarsus is lost, the tibia has a long internal process
which may have had the function of animmovable finger. The second
femur is 5.3 mm. long, the third 7.9 mm., the fourth (incomplete) |
4.8 mm. The trochanters of the legs (andpalpi ?) are two-jointed.

Specimen No 3085 in the collection of McGill University is the
type specimen of Libellula carbonaria. can add nothing to Scudder’s
description and refer the reader to his plate 40, figs. 2, 6.

Specimen No. 37964 of the U. S. National Museum from the
Joggins Mines, Nova Scotia, text figure 31, plate V, figure 29, belongs
probably to the same species.

The cephalothorax of this specimen is so badly deformed that it is
impossible to reconstruct its shape. The abdomen is excellently
preserved and is composed of ten segments. A pair of oval depres-
sions in each of the first six tergites represent the places of attach-
ment of the dorso-ventral muscles. Only fractions of two legs are
preserved and they show that the legs were fully as heavy as in the
type specimen. The abdomen is 9.3 mm. long and 5.7 mm. wide.

The type specimen is from the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny)
of Mazon Creek, Illinois; the type of Libellula carbonaria from the
Pennsylvanic (‘‘ Millstone Grit ’’) of Cape Breton; and specimen
No. 37964 from the Upper Coal Measures at Joggins Mines, Nova
Scotia.

Protophrynus n. gen.

Cephalothorax broader than long, reniform, with two pairs of eyes.
Trochanters normal, one-jointed. Abdomen with seven tergites.
Genotype P. carbonarius n. sp.

Protophrynus carbonarius n. sp.
Plate V1 figs: 30, 3% - text=figs. 32, 33-

The type and only specimen of this species is in the collection of
Mr. L. E. Daniels. Both the obverse and reverse are well preser-
ved. The flat cephalothorax is reniform with a wide projection in
front, 5 mm. long, 7 mm. wide. It has a median crest and lateral
crests radiating from it, being moulds of the longitudinal and thoracic
grooves. Two small, round median eyes close to anterior edge and two
larger, round, lateral eyes touching the sides of the projection. Abdomen

70 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

7mm. long, oval, withseven tergites. The coxae of the pedipalp small,
the pedipalpi not heavier than the second legs, Trochanters of all
appendages normal, one-jointed. The femora of the pedipalpi short
and stout. The other joints missing. Immediately behind the palps

Fig. 33.
Figure 32.— Protophrynus carbonarius n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll., dorsal
: : 3
surface. Figure 33.—Same, ventral surface. X an

one may see the faint impressions of the proximal part of the thin legs
of the first pair. Abdominal sternites eight. The legs must have
been very long, if judged by the length of the femora. Third femur
7.5 mm. long, fourth femur 7.8 mm. The whole body smooth
and flat.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 71

ORDER KUSTARACHNAE

Head completely fused with thorax. Abdomen segmented, pro-
bably with a pedicel. All coxae radiating from a central, small
sternum, probably immovable. Coxae of pedipalpi fused together
without a suture. Pedipalpichelate. Chelicera not known. Legs
thin and long. Eyes to the number of two, placed on a tubercle.

The above characters make it impossible to place the three species of
the only genus of this order under any otherorder. Pocock has pointed
out that Kustarachne sulcata Melander is a Curculioides and thinks
that the other species may also belong to the order Ricinulei. As will
be shown further below, Kustarachne sulcata is a Curculioides, but
K. tenuipes Scudder, K. extincta Melander and K. conica n. sp. have
nothing in common with either extinct or recent Ricinulei, while they
are very Closely realated to each other.

Genus Kustarachne Scudder 1890.
With the characters of the order. Genotype K. tenuipes Scudder.
Key to the Species of Kustarachne.

1. Abdomen with Io sternites K. extincta

Paeibomen with 7 stermites: . . 2. 2-8 6 2 ee BD
2. Abdomen conical without pygidium

K. conica
+ abdomen oval with a pygidinm
K. tenurpes.

Kustarachne tenuipes Scudder.
Blate Vib fies. 33+ 3453. texte figs: 345, 35.

K. tenuipes Scudder, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890,
p. 450, pl. 4o, fig. 7.

The type and only specimen of this species, originally labelled No.
1756 a and b is now in the collection of the U. S. National Museum
as No. 37967. Since Scudder’s description is incorrect owing to the
specimen not having been properly cleaned, the following description
should take its place.

Total length 11.5 mm. Cephalothorax with strongly recurved
posterior edge, rounded in front, quite flat, 3.0 mm. long in the median
line, 5.8 mm. wide between the posterior corners. About 1/3; the
length of the cephalothorax from its anterior edge is the mould of the
transversely ellipsoidal eye tubercle with two perfectly round eyes.
Chelicera missing. The coxae are all triangular, apparently immo-
vable, radiating from a small sternum. The coxae of the pedipalp
are completely fused together without a sign of a suture. The palpi
themselves are composed of only four segments, the last two forming

72 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

a distinct chela. The trochanters of the first and fourth leg, and
probably of all legs are two-jointed, the first joint rectangular, broader
than long, the second joint conical. The femora very long and thin.
The abdomen oval, the first sternite very large, triangular. The last
or seventh sternite the smallest, crescent-shaped. Behind it a short
pygidium and at alittle distance from the pygidium a fraction of either
a whip or of some joint of the last leg which in this case must have been

Fig. 36. Fig. 35.
Figure 34.—Kustavachne tenuipes Scudder, holotype, U. S. N.M. No. 37967,

ventral surface. Figure 35.—Same, cephalothorax. = Figure 36.— Kusta-

vachne conica 0. sp., holotype, Daniels coll., ventral surface. <

bent. The former alternative seems, however, to be more probable.
The pleurae entire. The abdominal tergites apparently similar in
number to the sternites, but not well defined.

Foundin the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Kustarachne comica n. sp.
Plate VI, fig. 35; text fig., 36.

The nodule containing the type and only specimen of this species
is in the collection of Mr. L. E. Daniels. The obverse is missing.
The reverse is very poorly preserved, owing to pronounced decompo-
sition of the rock. Nothing but the coxae and abdomen is visible.
Total size Io mm. Arrangement of coxae same as in K. tenurpes.
Abdomen composed of seven segments, without pygidium. The
first sternite triangular with a procurved posterior edge.

Foundin the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 73

Kustarachne extincta Melander.
(hext figs: (372s:

K. extincta Melander, Jour. Geol., Vol. XI, 1903, p. 182, pl. V,
feaegsepl: VII, fig. 5.

The type and only specimen is in the Walker collection of the Uni-
versity of Chicago, No. 9236. Careful cleaning of the specimen
showed that the description given by Melander
is not correct, and the following description
should be substituted.

Total Jength 15 mm. Cephalothorax with
a slightly recurved posterior edge, rounded
in front, 6.0 mm. long, 7.0 mm. wide. Two
contiguous, perfectly round eyes on a trans-
versely ellipsoidal tubercle a little in front of
the middle of the cephalothorax. Pedipalpi
(not counting the coxae) four-jointed, chelate.
Arrangement of coxae same as in K. tenuipes,
but the fused coxae of the pedipalpi with a
slightly angular anterior edge. Furst and pro-
bably all trochanters two-jointed, first joint
rectangular, second conical. First leg thin
and long other legs missing.

Abdomen oval, composed of

ten segments with two minute @&
segments behind the tenth rep

resenting possibly the first

Fig. 37. joints of a whip. Fig. 38.

ian

Figure 37.—Kustavachne extincta Mel., holotype, Univ. of Chicago -Mus.
2.75

No. 9236, ventral surface. Figure 38.—Same, cephalothorax. x i

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

ORDER SOLIFUGAE

Only the first segment of the thorax fused with the head, the last
three segments free. Abdomen composed of ten segments. Cheli-
cera chelate. Pedipalpi pediform. Trochanters of legs two-jointed.
Patella absent. Coxa and trochanter of fourth leg with a row of
malleoli on underside. Organs of respiration in form of tracheal
tubes. First pair of stigmata behind the coxae of the second pair
of legs, second pair on the second abdominal segment, third pair on

74 A lexander Petrunkevitch,

the third abdominal segment, and a single stigma on the fourth ab-
dominal segment in some species. Genital opening, protected by
two opercula, on the first ab-
dominal segment. Oviparous.
The recent Solifugids lead a
nocturnal life, feeding on insects.
They inhabit hot countries and
are preéminently desert forms,
although some species are found
in tropical rain regions. Until
now no representative of this
order has been found in any
of the geological periods. The
recent Solifugae are divided
into three families, but the
poor preservation of the only
Palaeozoic specimen prevents
me from placing it in any of
them.

Protosolpuga n. gen
Three posterior thoracic seg-
ments free. Chelicera chelate,
powerful. Pedipalpi pediform,

Figure 39.—Ammotrecha cubae (H.
Lucas), a recent solifugid. (From

Putnam, The Solifugidae of America, ;
1883). heavy. Second pair of legs

considerably thinner than the
others. Abdomen apparently composed of seven segments only.
Genotype P. carbonaria n. sp.

Protosolpuga carbonaria Nn. sp.
Plate VI, tig: 325 text sie, 40:

The type and only specimen of this interesting arachnid is in the
Peabody Museum, No. 155. Unfortunately it is in a very poor state
of preservation, the details being exceedingly difficult to see. The
lines separating the segments of the thorax and abdomen are very
faint. The obverse is fairly well discernible, but the reverse totally
useless, since the ventral surface was evidently softer and shows
superimposed over it the structures of the dorsal surface.

Total length with chelicera 24.0 mm.; abdomen 12 mm. long.
Chelicera heavy, chelate, their ends somewhat curved ; a row of small
punctuated depressions along their edge. The head much wider than

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 75

long. Eyes absent. Of the three free thoracic segments the ante-
rior one the shortest. Abdomen oval, broader behind than in front,
anteriorly truncated, poste-
riorly rounded. It seems
probable that the curved
lines belong to the ventral

surface and if the straight
lines alone are counted,
then the abdomen was
composed of seven seg-
ments only. The pedipalpi
both visible, the right one
showingevensegmentation.

They are heavier than the
legs and about 22 mm.
long, their joints subequal ff
in length with exception

of the terminal joint, which
is quite small, semilunar. Pose,
Of the remaining appen-

dages only fragments are
preserved. The second pair
of legs is considerably thin-
ner than the others, the
third leg was probably the Figure 40.—Pyvotosolpuga carbonaria n. sp.,
shortest if judged by the holotype, Peabody Mus. ae 155, dorsal sur-
comparative shortness of HE A Se
its femur.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Fig. 40.

ORDER RICINULEI

Arachnids with hard, granulated integument, with a plate or
cucullus in front of the cephalothorax and a broad abdomen com-
posed of nine segments witha pedicel and coupled to the cephalothorax
by means of a special apparatus. Of the abdominal tergites the
third to sixth are by far the largest, usually divided into three areas.
The first tergite, or pedicel, and the second tergite are not visible
when the abdomen occupies its normal position. The seventh to
ninth segments are very small, annular, and form a “tail”. Of
the sternites the first and second are small, semilunar, seldom visible

76 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

in the normal position of the abdomen. Chelicera two-jointed,
chelate. Pedipalpi chelate, composed of coxa, a two-jointed tro-
chanter, femur, tibia and tarsus, the latter forming with a process
of the tibia a small chela. All coxae contiguous, those of the an-
terior three pairs immovable, while the fourth pair is movable. Pa-
tella present in all legs. Trochanter of the first and second pair

Bigs ie

Tigure 41.—Cryptostemma karvschit H. and S., a recent representative of

the order Ricinulei from Kamerun and Congo; dorsal surface showing the

cucullus, cephalothorax, the 3d—6th abdominal tergites, the “‘tail’”’, and the

four pairs of legs. Between the trochanters of the 2d and 3d pair of legs one
may see a part of the pedipalpi, which are bent downward.

(From H. J. Hansen and W. Soérensen, On two Orders of Arachnida, 1904.)

of legs single, of the third and fourth pair two-jointed. First tarsus
one-jointed, second five-jointed, third four-jointed, fourth five-
jointed. In the male the third metatarsus and tarsus are modified,
representing probably an organ of copulation. Eyes absent. Geni-
tal opening between the first and second sternite. Organs of res-
piration in form of two tracheal tubes with a pair of spiracles on the
cephalothorax. Oviparous. Only few recent species known, all
from Africa and South America.

This order may be divided into two families. The family Cryp-
tostemidae Westwood, comprising all recent forms and the extinct

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 77

genus Polyochera, is characterized by the visible segmentation of
the abdomen. The family Holotergidae, new, contains the single

Fig. 43.

Figure 42.—Cryptocellus simonis H. and S., from Brazil; underside, showing
the cucullus (b), the coxae and trochanters, one pedipalp (the other is
removed), and the 3d (v3) and 4th abdominal sternites. Figure 43.—
Cryptostemma afzeliiThorell, from Africa (Sierra Leone) ; on the left an isolated
mandible; on the right the coxae of the 4 th pair of legs (c+), genital opening
{0), 1st abdominal sternite (v1), 2d sternite (v2), and 3d sternite (v3).
(From H. J. Hansen and W. Sorensen, On two Orders of Arachnida, 1904.)

extinct genus Curculioides and is characterized by the externally
unsegmented abdomen which was evidently protected by a heavy,
chitinous shield.

78 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Family Cryptostemmidae Westwood.
Abdominal tergites distinctly separate.
Genus Polyochera Scudder 1884
Tarsus of second leg fused with the metatarsus, forming one
joint. Genotype P. punctulata Scudder.
Key to the Species of Polyochera.
1. Abdominal] tergites of the 4th, 5th and 6th segments each marked
with 2 pairs of round impressions. Cucullus nearly as long as

wide P. alticeps
+ abdominal tergites divided into fields by 2 or 4 ies
lines. Cucullus much wider than long. . . . ae

2. No constriction between cephalothorax and abdament “Bode
punctulate. Abdominal tergites of the 4th, 5th and 6th segments
each divided into 5 fields by longitudinal lines

P. punctulata
+ a distinct constriction between cephalothorax and abdomen.
Body smooth. Abdominal tergites, including that of the 3d
segment, divided into 3 fields each by 2 parallel longitudinal
lines P. glabra

Polyochera alticeps Pocock

P. aliiceps Pocock, Carb. Arachn:, 191r, p. 40, pl-= TE tieesos
text fig. 14. From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley,
England.

Polyochera punctulata Scudder.
Plate VIII, figs. 41, 42; text figs. 44, 45

P. punctulata Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Vol. XX,
1884, p. 16. Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890, p. 444,
pl: 39, digs. 2, “6.

The nodule containing the type specimen, No. 1745 of the Lacoe
collection, at present No. 37971 of the U.S. National Museum,
shows both the obverse and reverse in an excellent state of pre-
servation. The description of Scudder not being quite correct, the
following should be substituted for it.

Total length 15.5 mm. Cucullus I.0 mm. long, 3.8 mm. wide.
Cephalothorax 4.7 mm. long, 5.5 mm. wide at posterior edge which
is procurved. Abdomen rounded behind; only the third to sixth
tergites visible, the segments composing the “ tail’’ missing. The
tergite of the third abdominal segment, the one adjoining the cephalo-
thorax, is the shortest ; the tergite of the sixth, or last visible seg-

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 79

ment, the longest. Chelicera and pedipalpi missing. All legs with
a patella. First leg somewhat thinner than the others. Trochanter
of the first and second pair of legs one-jointed, of the third and
fourth pair two-jointed. Last joint of second leg formed by a
tarso-metatarsus with two round pads and two long, curved claws
at the end. The following joints of the legs are preserved: First
pair: coxa, trochanter, femur, patella and tibia of both sides:
femur 3.0 mm. long. Second pair: coxa. trochanter, femur of :

Fig. 44.

Figure 44.— Polyochera punctulata Scudder, holotype, U. S.N.M. No. 37971,

dorsal surface. -

the left leg and a complete right leg; complete length 15.5 mm. ;
femur alone 5.5 mm. Third pair: coxa, two-jointed trochanter,
femur, patella and tibia of both sides: femur 3-0 mm. long in
middle line. Fourth leg: coxa, two-jointed trochanter, femur,
patella and tibia of both sides; femur 3.7 mm. long in middle line.

“ The front border of the cephalothorax is a little elevated, and
behind it, extending nearly to the middle, a very broad, very shallow,
transverse depression; there is also an equally slight but small
central depression, but all of these scarcely affect the extreme flat-
ness of the whole field which is shared also by the abdomen ; both
cephalothorax and abdomen are regularly and deeply punctate,

80 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

excepting on the brief first (= third, A. P.) abdominal segment
which is only punctate along its hinder edge” (Scudder, 18g0,
P- 444).

One pair of shorter, inner, and one pair of oblique, longer, outer
lines divide the second, third and fourth visible tergites into five
fields of which the middle one is the widest. Along the posterior
edge of the first, second and third visible tergites runs a row of
punctate depressions, much heavier than those covering the rest
of the body and the legs.

The reverse of the specimen shows clearly that the cucullus was
anteriorly bent downward, much as is the case in recent Ricunlei,
and appears in form of a punctate, trian-
gular plate. Behind it is an almost smooth
transverse area, probably the coxae of the
pedipalpi. The long and narrow coxae of
the first. pair of legs, and the triangular
coxae of the second pair are almost smooth,
those of the third and fourth pair punctate
like the dorsal surface of the abdomen.
Between the widely distant second coxae
is visible a dark plate with a narrow anterior
process separating the first coxae. This
plate is probably the anterior part of the
sternum, which is hidden posteriorly by
Figure 45.—Same, ven- the contiguous third and fourth coxae.
tral surface, showing Only three abdominal sternites are visible,
POxie andieieee ee MS belonging to the fourth, fifth and sixth

segments, with a row of deep round de-
pressions along the posterior edge of the first and second visible
sternite. Covering the edge of the abdominal sternites is the un-
segmented pleura, the lines simulating segmentation evidently due
to artificial folding.

A second specimen, in the collection of Mr. L. E. Daniels, is not
so well preserved as the type, yet shows sufficiently clearly all struc-
tures as to leave no doubt of it belonging to the same species. The
pleura in this specimen shows no artificial segmentation, but is
folded longitudinally. Total length 12.5 mm. Width of abdomen
6.0 mm.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 81

Polyochera glabra n. sp.
Plate VII, figs. 39, 40; text fig. 46.

U. S. National Museum No. 37981. Obverse shows the cucullus,
cephalothorax, abdomen and part of what is probably the second
and fourth leg. The reverse shows the
somewhat deformed coxae of which only
those of the third and fourth pair are
sufficiently clear to show that they have
the same arrangement as in P. punc-
tulata, the abdomen with an entire, not
segmented pleura and the fragments of
the same legs.

Total length 13.8mm. Cucullus 1.05
mm. long, 3.5 mm. wide. Cephalothorax
4.3 mm. long, 5.7 mm. wide, with
rounded corners and striaght posterior
and anterior edge. Between the oval
abdomen and the cephalothorax is a
deep groove. The tergites are divided
into three fields by longitudinal ridges.
Whole body smooth.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Fig. 46.
Figure 46.— Polyocheva glabra
n. sp., holotype, U. S. N. M
No. 37981, dorsal surface. X =

Holotergidae new family.
Abdomen covered with an entire shield, probably corresponding
to the third to sixth segments.
Genus Curculioides Buckland 1837.
With the characters of the family.
Key to the Species of Curculoides.
1. Abdominal shield with a median longitudinal ridge
C. scaber
+ abdominal shield without a median ridge
2. Cephalothorax wider than long

C. sulcatus
+ cephalothorax as wide as long
C. anstictt

Curculioides ansticii Buckland.

C. ansticii' Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise (ed. 2), Vol. II, 1837,
p. 76, pl. 46, fig. 1. Pocock, Carb. Arachn. IOLE,(p.-30, plz Wiis) yi
PERE TASS. 12, 13.

Found in the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

Trans. Conn.~Acap., Vol. XVIII. 6 Jone, 1913

82 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Curculioides scaber (Scudder).
Plate VII, figs.. 36,.37 > text. figs?-47, 48,
= Geratarbus scabvum Scudder, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
Vol. IV, 1890, p. 448, pl. 39, fig. 5.
The type and only specimen, No. 1765 ab of the Lacoe collection,
is at present in the collection of the U. S. National Museum under
the number 37965. Scudder has not sufficiently cleaned the spe-

Fig. 47.

Fig. 48.

Figure 47.—Curculioides scabey (Scudder), holotype, U.S. N. M. No. 37965,
dorsal surface. Figure 48.—Same, showing the whole specimen from the

ventral side. xX 7
cimen of the kaolin and some important structures have escaped his
attention.

Total length 15.0 mm. Cucullus 0.55 mm. long, 2.5 mm. wide.
The reverse shows that the cucullus was bent downward as in recent
Ricinulei, thus having two surfaces standing at right angles to each
other. Cephalothorax 5.0 mm. long, 5.25 mm. wide in the middle,
only 3.6 mm. wide at posterior edge, which is straight. The ab-
domen is oval, covered with one shield whith a longitudinal median
ridge. In the specimen the left side of the abdomen is longitudinally
folded, the fold being artificial, but the ridge is quite distinct. A heavy
fold separates the abdomen from the cephalothorax. The whole

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 83

dorsal surface is uniformly punctuate. The underside of the abdomen
also uniformly punctate, has a procurved line, in front of which, in the
triangle between the hind coxae, are two parallel ridges and a deep,
hemispherical depression, probably the genital opening.. All coxae
well preserved. Those of the first and second pair widely separate,
between them the sternum visible posteriorly as far as the posterior
end of the third coxae. Fourth coxae contiguous. Immediately be-
hind the ventral part of the cucullus is a large, almost round plate,
divided longitudinally in two by a median ridge. It is possible that
this plate represents the outer aspect of the chelicera. At thesides of this
plate are the coxae of the pedipalpi. Four joints of the left pedipalp
are visible, showing that the pedipalp was slender and that its tro-
chanter is two-jointed. Of the first pair of legs, which were con-
siderably thinner than the others and only little heavier than the
pedipalpi, are preserved both coxae and the trochanter, femur,
patella, tibia and metatarsus of the right leg. Of the second pair of
legs only the coxae and trochanters are preserved. Like that of the
first pair the trochanter is one-jointed, but extraordinarily large.
The legs of the third and fourth pair are almost complete, missing are
the metatarsi and tarsi. The femur of the first leg is short and stout
with a sharp apical process. The fourth femur is slender and long,
measuring 5.0 mm. The ventral surface is also uniformly punctuate
with the exception, however, of the parts minutely dotted on text
figure 48, which appear quite smooth.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Curculioides sulcatus (Melander).
Plate VII, fig. 38; text figs. 40, 50.

= Kustarachne sulcata Melander, Jour. Geol., Vol. XI, 1903, p. 181,
pleov, tie. 5, pl. VII, fig. 4.

The type and only specimen of this species, No. 9235, is in the
collection of the Walker Museum of the University of Chicago. The
nodule containing it consists both of the obverse and reverse, but the
whole specimen was heavily covered with kaolin, this being the reason
why Melander’s description is quite incorrect. Basing his opinion
on the similarity in the relative measurements of Curculioides sulcatus
and Kustarachne tenuipes, Pocock suggests in his Monograph that
“one shows the dorsal, and the other the ventral view of specimens
belonging to the same species.’’ This suggestion is excusable only in
view of the fact that Pocock had no occasion to examine the specimens
themselves and based his judgment on the incomplete and erroneous

84 : Alexander Petrunkevitch,

descriptions. The following description is drawn from the type
specimen after it had been cleaned of the kaolin and the legs exposed
as far as possible.

Total length 16.5 mm. Cucullus 1.15 mm. long, 3.0 mm. wide.
Cephalothorax 4.25 mm. long, 6.0mm. wide in posterior 1/3, 5.25 mm.
wide at posterior edge, which is straight. Abdomen with an entire
shield, folded in median line but not with a median longitudinal ridge,

Fig. 50.

Figure 49.—Curculioides sulcatus (Melander), holotype, Univ. of Chicago

Mus. No. 9235, ventral surface of abdomen. Figure 50.—Same, showing
2.

entire specimen from dorsal surface. x

folding being due to pressure. Behind the shield is visible a small
segment representing probably the seventh to ninth segments. Legs
very long and rather thin. The cucullus and legs minutely punctate,
the cephalothorax and abdominal shield coarsely punctate. The
tibia and metatarsus of the second leg and the terminal abdominal
joint smooth.

The ventral surface is not sufficiently well preserved to show the
arrangement of all coxae, but the third and fourth coxae are dis-
tinctly contiguous. In the anterior part of the abdomen there is a
strongly procurved fold represented by the two lines in text figure 49.

Foundin the Pennyslvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 85

ORDER ARANEAE

Head completely fused with thorax. Abdomen with pedicel, seg-
mented in the lowest forms, in all higher forms unsegmented. Che-
licera retroverte. Pedipalpi pediform, six-jointed, their coxa in
higher forms with a maxillarly lobe. Legs seven-jointed, movably
articulated to a sternum. Patella present in all legs and palpi.
Trochanters all one-jointed. Spinning glands in the abdomen with
numerous ducts opening on the spinnerets ; spinnerets always on the
abdomen, either in the middle of its ventral surface as in Liphistiidae,
or at the end, immediately in front of the anus. Respiratory organs
in form of two pairs of lungs in lower forms, or one pair of lungs and
a pair of tracheal tubes, in higher forms ; sometimes without lungs,
but with two pairs of tracheal tubes, or with one pair of lungs, but
without tracheal tubes. Spiracles in all cases on the ventral surface
of the abdomen. Genital opening in both sexes on the ventral sur-
face of the abdomen, not far from its anterior end. Sperm receptacles
in the female either connected with the uterus, or blind, often with
a complicated chitinous structure orepigynum. Organs of copulation
in the male on the pedipalpi, the terminal joint of which is specially
modified for this purpose. Usually eight eyes (sometimes six, four,
two or none) in two or three rows on the cephalothorax. Morphologi-
cally they represent two groups: one pair of median eyes with direct
retina and two groups of lateral eyes with invertedretina. All spiders
are Oviparous. They eat insects and other spiders. Their instincts
are highly developed and manifold. Some have burrowing habits,
others make snares, some are true vagabonds. With very few ex-
ceptions they lead terrestrial life, and those living under water or
between the tides are not really aquatic, since they use air for
breathing.

Key to the Sub-Orders of Araneae.

1. Abdomen segmented. Four pairs of spinnerets in the middle of
the abdomen on its ventral surface
Mesothelae
+ abdomen not segmented. Spinnerets immediately in front of
US OS eis al ee en or a eS Oo we Soe
2. Chelicera so articulated, that the fangs move parallel to the plane
of symmetry of the animal. Two pairs of lungs
Mygalomorphae
+ Chelicera so articulated, that the fangs move in a plane clearly
intersecting the plane of symmetry. One pair of lungs and one

86 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

pair of tracheal tubes, or tracheal tubes absent, or two pairs of
tracheal tubes and no lungs
Arachnomorphae

LIST OF DESCRIBED SPECIES OF ARANEAE
Sub-Order Mesothelae.

Abdomen segmented. Four pairs of spinnerets in the middle of
the abdomen on its ventral surface. Two pairs of lungs. Chelicera

hs 0) tan NG -
Vv ATT NSS “yy
fe Wi: ATTN N° ‘
"i a \\

Fig. 51.

Figure 51.— Liphistius desultoy Schiddte from Pinang; dorsal view. Figure 52.—
Same, ventral surface. (From Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed.)

so articulated that the fangs move in a plane parallel to the plane of
symmetry.

Family Arthrolycosidae Fritsch.

Genus Arthrolycosa Harger.
Genotype A. antiqua Harger.

1. Arthrolycosa antiqua Harger, Amer. Jour. Sci., (3), Vol. VII, 1874,
pp. 219—223. Beecher, Ibid., Vol. XXXVIII, 1889, p. 219—223,
figs. I—

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 87

2. Arthrolycosa danielsi n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
‘Illinois.
3. ?Arthrolycosa sp. Pocock, Carb. Arachn., Ig1I, p. 34, fig. Io.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.
Fritsch refers to the genus Arthrolycosa the following species from
Bohemia, which according to Pocock “ represent at least six genera.
and possibly as many families if the drawings are to be trusted.”’
1. A. carbonaria (Kusta)
= Scudderia carbonaria Kusta, Sitz. k. k. Gesell. d. Wiss., 1888,
pr 203.
A. carbonaria Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 6, pl. I, fig. 1, fig. 2,
Pext Ags. 2, 3.
@eagyords "ritsch, loc. cit., p..8, pl. 1, figs. 1, 2, text fig. 4.
Boa beecnert Fritsch, loc. cit., p. 9, pl. 1, figs. 3—5, text fig. 5.
4. A. lorenzi (Kusta)
Eolycosa lorenzi Kusta, Sitz. k. k. Gesell. d. Wiss , 1885.
bovenzt Fritsch, loc. cit., p. ro, pl. 2, figs. 2, 3; text fig. 6.
. (2) palaranea (Fritsch)
Palaranea borassifoliae Fritsch, Archiv. f. Landesf. v. Bohmen,
Moleth 1613; p.8; pl. It, figs 7.
A. (?) palaranea Id., Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. I1, text fig. 7.

Genus Protolycosa F. Romer.
Genotype P. anthracophyla Romer.
1. P. anthracophyla Romer, Jahrb. f. Min., 1866, p. 136, pl. III.
Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 12, pl. 13, fig. 14; text figs. 8—ro.
From the Coal Measures of Upper Silesia, Germany.

Genus Geralycosa Kusta.
Genotype G. fritschii Kusta.
1. G. fritschii Kusta, Sitz. k. k. Gesell. d. Wiss., 1888, p. 194, fig. T.
Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 14, pl. 3, fig. 1; text figs. r1—13.
From the Coal Measures of Rakonitz, Bohemia.

Genus Rakovnicia Kusta.
Genotype R. antiqua Kusta.
I. R. antiqua Kusta; Sitz. k. k. Gesell. d. Wiss., 1884, p. 400, pl. I.
fig. 3. Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 15, pl. 2, fig. 4; text fig. 15,
From the Coal Measures (Noegerathienschiefer) of Rakonitz,
Bohemia.

88 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Genus Perneria Fritsch.
Genotype and only species
1. P. salticoides (Fritsch)
= Arthrolycosa salticoides Fritsch, Fauna der Gaskokle, Vol. IV,
Igol, pl. 153, fig. Io.
P. salticoides Id., Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 22, text fig. 27.
From the Coal Measures of Nyran, Bohemia.

Genus Eocteniza Pocock.
Genotype and only species
1. E. silvicola Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 34, pl. 34, fig. 4.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

Sub-Order Arachnomorpha.
Genus Eopholcus Fritsch.
Genotype and only species
1. E. pedatus Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 22, text fig. 28.
From the Coal Measures of Nyran, Bohemia.

Genus Pyritaranea Fritsch.
Genotype and only species
1. P. tubifera Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, Vol. IV, 1go1, fig. 63.
Id, Pal: Arachns, 1904, .p:25;, text fig. ar
From the Coal Measures of Nyran, Bohemia.

Genus Archaeometa Pocock.
Genotype and only species
1. A. nephilina Pocock, Carb. Arach., 1911, p.«37, text fig. I1.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

DESCRIPTION OF NORTH AMERICAN CARBONIFEROUS ARANEAE
Sub-Order Mesothelae.
Genus Arthrolycosa Harger 1874.

New definition. Cephalothorax longer than wide. Eyes on a
tubercle. Genotype A. antique Harger. -

Key to Species of Arthrolycosa.
1. Femora of all legs shorter than cephalothorax. Eye tubercle not
in line with outer edge of cephalothorax
A. antiqua
+ femur of the first pair of legs almost as long as the cephalo-
thorax, the other femora longer than cephalothorax. Eye
tubercle touching anterior edge
A. danielst

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 89

Arthrolycosa antiqua Harger.
Plate VIII, figs. 43, 44; text figs. 53, 54.

A. antiqua Harger, Amer. Jour. Sci., (3), Vol. VII, 1874, pp.
219—223. Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., 1884, p. 15.
Beecher, Amer. Jour. Sci., (3), Vol. XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 219—223,
text figs. I—3.

Type specimen No. 161, Peabody Museum. The description of ©
this specimen given by Beecher in his excellent paper in 1889, while

Fig. 53.

Figure 53.—Arthrolycosa antiqua Harger, holotype, Peabody Mus. No. 161,
9

showing dorsal surface after the abdomen has been all exposed. X ag

it has considerably advanced our knowledge of the spider is incorrect
in some regards, since the specimen was not entirely exposed. Thus
he failed to notice that the terminal joints of the palpi are altogether
missing and that the abdomen is larger than it appears on his drawing.
I have carefully cleaned the entire nodule and am able to say that the
specimen is now completely exposed and appears as drawn in my text
figure 53, the dotted parts and the terminal joints of the palpi and
legs actually missing. The obverse alone shows the spider. The
reverse shows only fractions of legs, but no body.

Total length without mandibles 22.0mm. Cephalothorax 9.0 mm.
long, 8.0 mm. wide in the middle. All femora shorter than cephalo-
thorax.

90 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

The cephalothorax is rounded anteriorly, the posterior edge almost
straight. A deep, oval depression somewhat behind the middle
of the cephalothorax, and behind the depression a transverse ridge.
Eye tubercle transversely ellipsoidal, high, eyes not preserved. Ab-
domen composed of eight segments, oval, its right side somewhat
pressed out of shape and lower than the rest, yet clearly showing
segmentation. Since the spinnerets were probably on the ventral
surface as in Liphistius, the number of visible segments may not be

Fig. 54.
Figure 54.—Arthrolycosa antiqua Harger. No. 163, Peabody Museum,
1.5

showing the specimen as it appears on the nodule. X =a

thetrue number. Mandibles strong, conical, the fang not visible. Pedi-
palpi slender, their terminal joints missing. Legs heavy and long.
but only the right leg of the second pair complete. Femur 5.7 mm.
long, patella and tibia 9.5 mm. metatarsus 5.0 mm., tarsus 3.7 mm,
Fourth femur punctate.

It must be added that the specimen presents its actual dorSal sur-
face and not a mould of it, as is evident from the appearance of the
eye tubercle and oval dorsal depression.

Specimen No. 162 of the Peabody Museum (Plate VIII, fig. 43).
Like the type specimen, the dorsal surface is not a mould, but the
actual surface of the spider. Total length 14 mm. Cephalothorax
6.2 mm. long, the side margins obliterated so that the width cannot be

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 91

ascertained. The thoracic part is rather flat, but the cephalic part
elevated, highest at the eye tubercle, gradually sloping laterally and
posteriorly to the oval depression. Abdomen flat, oval, 6.0 mm. wide
in the middle. The segmentation not as clear as in the type specimen,
the lines being rather faint. Chelicera heavy and long. Of the legs
and palpi only fragments preserved.

Specimen No. 163, Peabody Museum. Text fig. 54.

A badly crushed specimen, probably belonging to this species. .
Only part of the abdomen, four right and two left legs preserved.
The abdomen is oval, six segments can be counted, the lines between
the segments quite distinct. First leg almost complete. Femur
6.5 mm. long, patella and tibia 9.3 mm., metatarsus 6.5 mm. with a
row of seven round depressions. Second leg: tibia alone 6.0 mm.,
metatarsus 6.03 mm., tarsus 2.8 mm. Both metatarsus and tarsus
with a row of round depressions of which the metatarsus has seven
and the tarsus four. Third leg: femur 7.3mm. Fourth leg: femur
8.5 mm., patella + tibia 10.0 mm., metatarsus 8.0 mm. The tibia
of the leg close to the abdomen (probably the fourth left leg) has a
row of eight round depressions.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Hlinois.

Arthrolycosa danielsi n. sp.
Plate VIII, figs. 45, 46; text figs. 55, 56.

The type and only specimen of this species is in the collection of
Mr. L. E. Daniels. It is much better preserved than either of the
three specimens of the preceding species. Total length, without
mandibles, 14.5mm. Cephalothorax flat, 5.6 mm. long, 5.0 mm. wide
in posterior 1/,, oval, with recurved posterior margin. Two small
tubercles in the middle of the cephalothorax, and radiating from
them four pairs of ridges. The transversely ellipsoidal depression,
the mould of the eye tubercle, touching the anterior margin. In it
are two pairs of oval depressions, moulds of the eye lenses. Abdomen
shows clearly six segments but, as in the preceding species, the true
number of abdominal segments was probably greater. Small, round,
punctate depressions probably mark the attachment places of the
dorso-ventral muscles. The chelicera strong, angular, prismatic with
a thickened inner edge. Of the pedipalpi only the coxae and trochan-
ters preserved, but it is impossible to say whether the coxae had a
maxillary lobe. Legs all in position, but all joints beyond the femur
missing. Coxae of first and second pair triangular. Trochanter

92 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

typical, one-jointed. First femur 5.2 mm. long, second 6.1 mm.,
third 6.9 mm., fourth 6.1 mm.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Fig. 55. Fig. 56.

Figure 55.—Avthvolycosa danielsi n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll., showing
the ventral surface of the specimen as it appears on the nodule. . Figure 56. —
@ Same, showing dorsal view of the body. xX a
ORDER ANTHRACOMARTI

Head completely fused with thorax. Abdomen segmented, the
anal operculum representing probably the eleventh abdominal seg-
ment. Dorsal surface of abdomen divided into three or five longi-
tudinal areas, the central] one formed by the tergites, the lateral ones
by the pleural sclerites. Chelicera not known. Pedipalpi pediform.
Legs seven-jointed, with movable coxae, apparently articulated to a
sternum.

Pocock, who made a careful study of this oder and has had more
species before him than are known to occur in North America, de-
scribes the morphology of the abdomen in his Monograph as follows :

‘“ Opisthosoma without appendages, movably jointed to the pro-
soma, but with its individual segme ts apparently welded together,
though the sutural lines persist. Seven tergal plates are always

Palaeozoic Arachmda of North America. 3

traceable on the dorsal side, the first of the seven (7. e. the seventh
counting forwards from the posterior end) being almost invariably
longer than those that succeed it ; each tergum is marked on each side
with a longitudinal sulcus or groove which separates a lateral lamina
from the median area of the tergum; sometimes there is a second
sulcus nearer the external margin than the one just mentioned ; hence
each tergum is divided into either three or five distinct areas according .
to the number of sulci. In front of the seventh tergum from the end,
either one ot more tergal sclerites may be traced; these are usually
not provided with lateral laminae and may be overlapped more or
less by the posterior border of the carapace ; they appear to represent
from one to three additional tergal plates undergoing excalation,
The last tergal plate on the dorsal side, that is to say the seventh, not
counting the variable number of anterior tergal plates just mentioned,
is the narrowest of the series ; but it is almost invariably provided with
an unpaired posteriorly-expanding median lamina, in addition to its
paired laminae, with which it forms a continuous series ; this lamina
is itself sometimes marked off by a transverse sulcus from the median
area of the tergum. This median lamina of the last tergum visible
from the dorsal side, overlaps the tergal element of the next succeeding
segment ; the tergum of this segment is fused with its sternal element
to constitute a subannuliform sclerite, near the center of which lies
a plate, the anal operculum, which is the tergal element of the last
segment. Thus ten tergal elements may be traced with certainly
in almost all genera, the last being the anal operculum and the first
the short tergal area that lies between the carapace and the@irst large
tergal plate of invariable occurrence, namely the seventh,from the
end on the dorsal side. i

“ The sternal elements of the opisthosoma appear to correspond
in number with the terga, except that, with the doubtful exception of
Eophrynus, there is no sternal plate to represent the tenth tergum
or anal operculum. Hence there are nine sternal plates in all, the
last being the ventral element of the plate surrounding the anal oper-
culum. The anterior sterna are variously modified and arranged
according to the genus, the arrangement in Anthracomartus being very
different from that of Eophrynus, the first, whether large as in the
former or small as in the latter, being probably the genital oper-
culum.”’

Not having sufficient material to make a study of the morphology
of the abdomen in Anthracomarti, I am not able to either accept or
criticize Pocock’s interpretation. One point, however, I cannot
leave without mention. If Pocock’s interpretation is correct and

94 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

the anal operculum normally appearing on the ventral surface of
the specimen represents the tergite of the last abdominal segment,
then the anal operculum is the tergite of the eleventh and not of the
tenth segment. This is clear from Pocock’s own text figures 29—31
and his assertion that in front of the first large tergite is at least one
segment partly covered by the cephalothorax.

Pocock recognized four families of Anthracomarti, basing his
classification on the shape of the pleural laminae and the presence of a
transverse sulcus on the cephalothorax. Neither of these characters
has in my opinion the value of a family character. We find in the
order of recent spiders widely different chitinized structures of the
abdomen in species belonging to the same genus and even in the two
sexes of the same species. A much better character seems to be the
number of pleural sclerites. I therefore recognize only two families.

The order of Anthracomarti consists entirely of extinct forms.

Key to the Families of Anthracomarti.
1. Pleural laminae subdivided

Anthracomiartidae

(= Anthracomartidae + Brachy-
pygidae Pocock)

+ pleural laminea entire

Eophrynidae

(= Eophrynidae + Anthracosiron-
idae Pocock)

LIST OF DESCRIBED SPECIES OF ANTHRACOMARTI.
Family Anthracomartidae.
Genus Anthracomartus Karsch.
Genotype—A. voelkelianus Karsch.

1. A. voelkelianus Karsch, Zeits. deutsch. geol. Gesell., Vol. XXXIV,
1882, p. 556. Haase, Beitrag z. Kenntniss d. foss. Arachn., Ibid.,
Vol. XLII, 1890, p. 645, pl. XXX, figs. 8,9. Fritsch, Pal. Arachn.
1904, p.. 40, text fig. 47.

From the Coal Measures of Silesia, Germany.

2. A. granulatus Fritsch, loc. cit., p. 40, text fig. 48.

From the Coal Measures of Silesia, Germany.

3. A. palatinus Ammon, Geogn. Jahresb., Vol. XIII, 1900, figs. I—4.
Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 41, text fig. 50.

From the Coal Measures of Palatinate (Pfalz), Germany.

4. A. krejcii Kusta, Sitz. k. b. Gesell. d. Wiss., 1883, p. 340, pl. I.
? = A. affinis Id., Ibid., 1885.

Io.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 95

meerejci Fritsch, Pal: Arachn., 1904, p36, pl. 4, fig. 1, text

mese4O, 41> p. 39, pl. 3, fig. 1; pl. 4, fig. 7; text fig. 45.

’ From the Coal Measures (Noegerathienschiefer) of Rakonitz,
Bohemia.

. A. minor Kusta, Sitz. k. b. Gesell. d. Wiss., 1885, p. 3, pl. fig. 1.

? = A. socius Id., Ibid., 1888, p. 203,:pl. fig. 4.
A. minor Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 38, pl. 4, figs. 4—7, text .
figs. 42—44; p. 39, text fig. 46.
From the Coal Measures (Noegerathienschiefer) of Rakonitz,
Bohemia.

. A. bohemicus (Fritsch).

= Promygale bohemica Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, Vol. IV, Igor,
p. 58, pl. 153, figs. 6—8 ; pl. 154, fig. 1. Id., Pal. Arachn., 1904,
p19; pl. 15, fig. 1, text fig. 20—22.

From the Carboniferous (Secundakohle) of Nyran, Bohemia.

. A. elegans (Fritsch)

= Promygale elegans Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, Vol. IV, rgor,
p- 61, text fig. 365. Id., Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 21, pl. 15, figs. 2—4
text fig. 26.

From the Carboniferous (Gaskohle) of Nyran, Bohemia.

. A. hindi Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 64, pl. III, fig. 3, text

figs. 30—32.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley and Dudley, England.

. A. priesti Pocock, loc. cit., p. 67, text figs. 33, 34.

From the Coal Measures of Coseley and Dudley, England.
A. trilobitus Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Vol. XX,
maeverp. 17. ‘Id, C. R. Sec. Ent. Belg., (3); 1885, p. 85. Id.
Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890, p. 451, pl. 39, figs.
7—I0.

From the Pennsylvanic (Up. Pittsville) of Fayetteville, Ar-

kansas.

A. tnangularis n. sp.
From the Joggins Mines, Nova Scotia.

Genus Brachypyge H. Woodward 1878.
Genotype and only species

B. carbonis Woodward, Geol. Mag., (2), Vol. V, 1878, pp. 433—436,
pl. XI. Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 42, text fig. 52. Pocock,
Carb. Arachn., IgII, p. 59, text fig. 28.

From the Coal Measures of Mons, Belgium.

96 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Genus Maiocercus Pocock IoII.
Genotype and only species
1. M. celticus (Pocock)
= Eophrynus carbonis Howard and Thomas, Cardiff Nat. Hist.
Soc., Vol. XXVIII, 1896, p. 52, figs. a, b.
= Brachypyge celtica Pocock, Geol. Mag., (4), Vol. IX, 1902,
p. 488, fig. 2a. Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 4%, text figs
M. celticus Pocock, Carb. Arachn., I9II, p. 60, text fig. 20.
From the Coal Measures of Ty’nybedw, Rhondda Valley, South
Wales.
Genus Eotrogulus Thevenin rgot.
Genotype and only species
1. E. fayolt Thevenin, Bull. Soc. France, 1901, p. 607. Fritsch, Pal.
Arachn., 1904, p. 43, text fig. 55.
From the Coal Measures of Commentry, France.

Famlly Eophrynidae. —
Genus Anthracosire Pocock 1903.
Genotype A. woodwardi Pocock.

1. A. woodwardi Pocock, Geol. Mag., (4), Vol. X, 1903, pp. 246—250,
405—408.
= A. latipes Gill, Nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb., Durham, Vol. III,
19090, pp. 510—522, pl. XIII.

A. woodwardi Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 43, text fig. 53.
Pocock, Carb. Arachn. IgII, p. 70, text figs. 35, 36.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, Sparth and Crowcook,
England.

2. A. fritscht Pocock, Geol. Mag., (4), Vol. X, 1903, pp. 405—408, fig.
Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 43, text fig. 54. Pocock, Carb.
ArachhisstOrt, 1p. 73, text tie. 37.

From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

Genus Pleurolycosa Fritsch 1904.
Genotype and only species
1. P. prolifera (Fritsch)

= Arthrolycosa prolifera Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, Vol. IV, 1901,

pO, ‘pliit53; digsiet es:

P. prolifera Id., Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 23, text fig. 29.
(Position of both genus and species uncertain).
From the Coal Measures (Gaskohle) of Bohemia.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 97

Genus Brachylycosa Fritsch 1901.
Genotype and only species
1. B. carcionides (Fritsch)
= Arthrolycosa carcinoides Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, Vol. IV,
Hor, p. 62, text fig. 367.
B. carcinoides Id., Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 24, fig. 30.
(Position of both genus and species uncertain).

From the Coal Measures (Gaskohle) of Nyran, Bohemia.

Genus Hemiphrynus Fritsch root.
Genotype—H. longipes Fritsch
1. H. longipes Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, Vol. IV, rgor, p. 57. Id.,
Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 17, text fig. 17.
From the Coal Measures (Gaskohle) of Nyran, Bohemia.
2. H. hofmanni Fritsch, Fauna d. Gaskohle, Vol. IV, rgor, p. 58. Id.,
Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 18, text figs. 18, 19.
From the Coal Measures (Gaskohle) of Bohemia.

Genus Vratislavia Fritsch 1904.
Genotype and only species
1. V. silesiaca (F. Romer)
= Archlitarbus silesiacus F. Romer, Jahresb. schles. Gesell. Bres-
lau 1878, pp. 54—55.
V. silesiaca Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 44, pl. 13, figs. 5, 6,
text fig. 56.
From the Coal Measures near Glatz, Silesia, Germany.

Genus Eophrynus Woodward 1871.
Genotype and only species
I. E. prestvict (Buckland)
= Curculiodes prestvict Buckland, Bridgewater Treatise (2d ed.),
Wot IT, 1837, p. 76.
E. prestvict Woodward, Geol. Mag., (2), Vol. VIII, 1871, p. 86,
pi Xf Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 46, pl: 14, figs. 3, 4, text
figs. 57—60. Pocock, Carb. Arachn., Ig9II, p. 77, text fig. 339.
From the Coal Measures of Shropshire and Coseley, England.

Genus Stenotrogulus Fritsch 1904.
Genotype and only species
I. S. salmii.(Stur)
= Eophrynus salmiu Stur, Die Culmflora, 1877, p. V, text fig.
S. salmu Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 48, pl. 14, fig. 2, text
fig. 62.
From the Coal Measures of Mahrisch Ostrau, Silesia, Germany.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 7 JuNE, 1913.

98 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Genus Cyclotrogulus Fritsch 1904.
Genotype and only species
1. C. sturit (Haase)
= Eophrynus sturi Haase, Beitrage z. Kenntniss d. foss. Arachn.,
1890, p. 642.
C. sturtt Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 49, pl. 14, fig. I.
From the Coal Measures of Mahrisch Ostrau, Silesia, Germany.
Genus Kreischeria Geinitz 1882.
Genotype K. wiedei Geinitz.

I. K. wiedet Geinitz, Zeits. d. geol. Gesell., Vol. XXXIV, 1882, p. 238,
pl. XIV. Haase, Ibid., Vol. XLII, 1890, p. 642, pl. XXX, fig. 6.
Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 50, text figs. 63, 64.

From the Coal Measures (Sigillaria zone) of Zwickau, Germany.

2. K. verrucosa Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IgII, p. 78, text fig. 40, pl. III,
figs 357

From the Coal Measures of South Wales.
Genus Hemtkretscheria Fritsch 1904.
Genotype and only species a

1. H. geinitzi (Thevenin)
= Kreischeria geinitzi Thevenin, Proc. Verb. Soc. d’Hist. Nat.
d’Autun, Vol. XV, 1902, p. 195.
= H. thevenini Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 51, text figs. 65
A.—C.

From the Coal Measures (Westphalian) of Valenciennes, France.
Genus Petrovicia Fritsch 1904.
Genotype and only species

1. P. proditoria Fritsch
= Eophrynus n. sp. Kusta, Sitz. k. b. Gesell. Wiss., 1885, p. 7.
= Anthracomartus sp. Id., Ibid., 1888, p. 207.

P. proditoria Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 52, pl. 5, figs. I, 2,
text figs. 66 A,B; 67, 68.
Genus Adelocaris Packard 1880.
Genotype and only species
1. A. peruvianus Packard, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 1889, p. 209-
(Position of genus very doubtful).
From Peru.
Genus Tvigonotarbus Pocock IogII.
Genotype JT. johnsoni Pocock.

1. I. johnsoni Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 74, pl. III, fig. 4,
text figs 38.

From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 99

2. I. schucherti n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
- [linois.
3- LT. carbonarius n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.
Genus Aphantomartus Pocock IQII.
Genotype and only species
I. A. areolatus Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IgII, peor pl: able fig. 6,
text fig. 41.
From the Coal Measures of South Wales.

Areomartus new genus
Genotype and only species
I. A. ovatus n. sp.
From the Carboniferous of Fayette Co., West Virginia.

Irigonomartus n. gen.
Genotype and only species
I. T. pustulatus (Scudder)

= Anthracomartus pustulatus Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts

Ser, Vol. XX, 1884, p. 18. Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,

Vol. IV, 1890, p. 452, pl. 40; figs. 5; 8.

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

It is probable that the arachnid from Bohemia, described by
Fritsch under the name of Promygale rotundata (Pal. Arachn., 1904,
Pp. 20, text figs. 23-25) also belongs to the family Eophrynidae
of this order. .

DESCRIPTION OF NORTH AMERICAN CARBONIFEROUS
ANTHRACOMARTI

Family Anthracomartidae.

Genus Anthrvacomartus Karsch (Pocock rg1I).
Pleural laminae divided, not emarginate. Abdomen rounded.
Pedipalpi pediform. Genotype A. voelkelianus Karsch.

Key to North American Species of Anthracomartus.

I. Cephalothorax almost rectangular, wider than long
A. trilobitus
+ Cephalothorax triangular A. triangularis

100 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Anthracomartus trilobitus Scudder.
Plate XI, fig. 60, text fig. 57.

A. tirilobitus Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Vol. XX,
1884, p. 17. Id., C. R. Soc. Ent. Belgique, (3), 1885, p. 85, with
fig. Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890, p. 451,
pl. 39, figs. 7—1rO0.

Altogether twenty-two specimens, all from the same locality.
Of these eighteen in the U. S. National Museum and four, including
the type, No. 136, in the Museum of
Comparative Zoology at Harvard Uni-
versity. None of the specimens shows
either the ventral surface or legs, so that
our knowledge of the species is based
entirely on the characters of the cephalo-
thorax and the dorsal surface of the ab-
domen. All are on dark grey carbon-
aceous shale, together with ferns. Al-
though their size differs, all specimens
have the same structure and same pro-
portions. All appear punctate or granu-
late. As for the anal operculum, it must
‘be stated that it is missing in some of
the specimens and present in others,
Figure 57.—Anthvacomar- thus giving confirmation to the assump-
tus trilobitus Scudder, from _ tion, that it was pressed through the
the Pennsylvanic (Upper body from the ventral to the dorsal sur-

Pottsvil y - :
; le) near Fayette. face. The posterior edge of the cephalo-
ville, Arkansas, U. S.N. M. :
SA OTeE thorax is always strongly procurved.
No. 1753d (Lacoe collec- ; ee > : :
4 Behind it is the first abdominal tergite,
On) ae —
1 partly covered by the cephalothorax and

devoid of pleural laminae. The anal
operculum appears perfectly round, imprinted on the eighth ab-
dominal tergite. Measurements of type specimen: cephalothorax,
5.25 mm. long; 7.5 mm. wide; total length, 15.0 mm. =
Specimen No. 1753 d of the Lacoe collection in the U. S. National
Museum. Length of cephalothorax in median line, 4.0 mm. ; width,
6.5 mm. Length of abdomen in median line, 9.3 mm.; width in
the region of the sixth tergite, 8,3 mm.
Found in the Upper Pottsville series, near Fayetteville, Wa-
shington County, Arkansas.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America.

101

Anthracomartus triangularis n. sp.
Plate XI, fies Gr text tig: : 56:

The type and only specimen
of this species, No. 37968 of the
U. S. National Museum, shows like
the preceding species only the
dorsal surface on the obverse and
its mould on the reverse. The
specimen is black, but in some
places the black color is gone so
that it appears mottled with yellow.
On the same rock are impressions
of ferns. The body is much flatter
than in A. ¢trilobitus. Total size
18.6 mm. Cephalothorax distinctly
triangular, 6.5 mm. long, 7.5 mm.
wide at posterior edge. Maximum
width of abdomen 11.3mm._ Lines
of separation heavy, black. The
first tergite completely covered by
the cephalothorax. An interesting
feature represents the shape of the
seventh and eighth (sixth and se-
venth visible) tergites.

Found in the Upper Coal Measures
of Joggins Mines, Nova Scotia.

Fig, 58.
Figure 58.—Anthvacomartus trian-

gularis n. sp., from the Upper

Coal Measures, Joggins Mines,
Nova Scotia, holotype, U. S. N. M.
No. 37968, dorsal surface. X a

Family Eophrynidae.
Key to North American Genera of Eophrynidae.
1. Cephalothorax triangular, elevated in the middle, sloping gradually

in all directions, not sculptured
+ Cephalothorax sculptured .

2. Cephalothorax triangnlar, wider than long, its surface divided
Abdominal tergites 9

into hexagonal fields.

Trigonotarbus Pocock
2

Areomartus n. gen.

+ Cephalothorax triangular, longer than wide, with a median

longitudinal crest in its posterior half.

Abdominal tergites 8
Trigonomartus n. gen.

Areomartus n. gen.

With the characters given in the key. Genotype A. ovatus n. sp.

102 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Areomartus ovatus n. sp.
Plate X, fig. 58; text fig. 59.

The type and only specimen of this
species is in the U. S. National Museum
under No. 1196. Only the obverse is
in existence and that shows the cephalo-
thorax with abdomen and three joints
of one leg.

Total length 9.75 mm. Cephalothorax
remarkably small for the size of the ab-
domen, 2.5 mm. long, 3.25 mm. wide,
beautifully triangular with scarceiy curved
margins and the surface divided into
hexagonal areas which appear as slight
depressions. Pleurae entire. Nine tergites

Fig. 59. _ can be counted with the anal operculum
Figure 59. — Areomartus impressed on the ninth. The fragment
ovatus n. sp., from the of the leg, which probably belonged to
Pennsylvanic(Lower Kana- the fourth pair, shows that the legs
wha), Cottonhill, West Vir- were short and stout.
ginia, holotype, U. S. N. M. Found in the Pennsylvanic (lower
IIe SSIES SO EES ne dor- Kanawha), Cotton Hill, Fayette County,

sal surface. X 7 West Virginia.

Trigonomartus n. gen.

Cephalothorax triangular with a median crest in the posterior
half, covered with irregular polygonal depressions. Visible abdom-
inal tergites eight. Sternum very large. Posterior coxae by far
the heaviest and much closer together than the preceding pair.
Eyes absent. Genotype 7. pustulatus (Scudder).

Trigonomartus pustulatus (Scudder)
Plate IX, figs. 47-51; text figs. 60—62.

= Anthracomartus pustulatus Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts
Sci., Vol. XX, 1884, p. 18. Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
Vol. IV, 1890, p. 452, pl. 40, figs. 5, 8.

This species is represented by three excellently preserved speci-
mens. The holotype, No. 1752 of the Lacoe collection, is in the
U.S. National Museum under No. 37984. The second specimen

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 103

is in the Peabody Museum, No. 168, and is frem Bucks cral pit at
Marris, Illinois. The third and best is in the collection of Mr. L. E.
Daniels. All specimens are from the same region, are almost of the
same size and agree completely in the details of structure.

Type specimen, Plate IX, figs. 47, 48. Total length 15.0 mm.
Cephalothorax, length 6.0 mm. ; it is somewhat pressed out of shape
and the width given by Scudder as 7.0 mm. is excessive.

Fig. 61.

Figure 60.— Tvigonomartus pustulatus (Scudder), specimen in the collection
of Mr. L. E. Daniels, dorsal view of body. Figure 61.—Same, reverse,
showing the whole specimen as it appears on the nodule. X +. Figure 62.—
Hind leg of the specimen from the Pennsylvanic, Morris, Illinois, Peabody

Museum No. 168. xX =

Specimen in the Peabody Museum, No. 168. Total length 16.3 mm.
Of interest is the right hind leg represented in text figure 62. It is
preserved not as a mould, but is actually the petrified limb. Lying
on the side, it shows the shape and thickness of the coxa, represented
by the inner fine lines on the figure. The trochanter has an unusual
shape, its dorsal surface being much longer than the ventral one,
o that this joint is articulated with the femur in a manner similar

104 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

to the patella of spiders, with this difference, however, that it is
the distal end of the trochanter.

Specimen in the Daniels collection. Plate IX, figs. 49, 50; text
figs. 60, 61. Total length 16.5 mm. Cephalothorax 7.0 mm. long,
its probable width 5.1 mm. It has a distinct triangular shape,
and together with the abdomen and lims, represents the mould
of the actual specimen. This interpretation may seem strange to
one who examines the obverse alone, since the specimen on the
obverse stands out bodily to a considerable height and gives the im-
pression of a petrified specimen. But a comparison with the reverse
of the same specimen shows at once what has happened to this
as to the other two specimens. Under pressure of the drying mud
the dorsal surface of the abdomen of the specimen caught in it was
pressed in until it became concave instead of remaining convex,
coming in contact with the ventral surface. Why this happened
to the dorsal surface and not to the ventral one, is not clear, but
presumably the dorsal surface was less chitinized and therefore
softer. The cephalothorax being much harder, kept more or less
its shape, and what appears on it as the median crest was in rea-
lity a deep groove. The irregular, polygonal depressions appearing
as such both on the abdomen and cephalothorax were evidently
thickened areas of the chitin and formed in life low elevations.
The abdomen covers in the specimen the posterior edge of the
cephalothorax. Consequently we may assume that it had in life
a segment anterior to the first visible tergite, consequently, if the
anal operculum represents the last tergite the abdomen must have
been composed of eleven segments as in Anthracomartus. The plate
surrounding the anal operculum represents the fused tergite and
sternite of the tenth segment and since in front of this plate may
be counted only seven sternites, the first visible sternite which
has the shape of a triangle correponds to the first, second and third
abdominal segments. The dorsal surface of the abdomen was
a little displaced laterally and shows on the left the sternites. Bear-
ing all this in mind we may give the following description of the
specimen as it must have appeared in life.

Cephalothorax triangular, high, covered with irregular poly-
gonal thickenings. A deep transverse groove in the middle, another
a little in front of it and a third close to the posterior margin which
is covered by the abdomen. Two almost parallel grooves run from
the anterior t ansverse groove to the anterior end of the cephalo-
thorax. Two oblique ridges run from the sides of the anterior
groove backward uniting a little in front of the median transverse

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 105

groove. A median longitudinal groove runs from this point back-
ward to the posterior margin. Eyes absent. Abdomen sphaeroidal,
longer than wide, and wider than high, with the anal operculum
placed ventrally and surrounded by a plate composed of the fused
tergite and sternite of the tenth segment. Dorsal surface of ab-
domen covered with irregular polygonal thickenings similar to those
of the cephalothorax, ventral surface smooth. Two deep grooves
separate the tergites from the sclerites of the pleura in all segments
except the tenth and eleventh and probably the first.

Ther sternum is very large, being 3.3 mm. long and 2.4 mm.
wide between the coxae of the second and third pair of legs. It is
truncated in front, has tree pairs of lateral projections and a
posterior bifid lobe. Legs robust and moderately long, patella
completely fused with tibia, tarsi longer than metatarsi. Length
of legs in order 4312.

Two structures visible on the reverse require special mention.
They are: a beak-like median process directed backward, and two
oval deeply punctate areas. The first may be the end of the cephalo-
thorax turned downward. Another interpretation would be that
this process represents the chelicera. The punctate oval areas -
undoubtedly are parts of the pedipalpi, perhaps a stridulatory
organ on the coxae.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Trigonomartus woodruffi (Scudder).
Plate AX, fig. 52.
= Anthracomartus woodruffi Scudder, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv.,
MGeelor 1893, p. 9, pl. I, figs:

The type and only specimen of this species is a mere fragment of the
dorsal surface of the abdomen. From its likeness with the preceding
species I have placed it in the same genus, since it certainly does not
belong to the genus Anthracomartus. The surface of the tergites is

considerably smoother than in 7. pustulatus and the abdomen much
flatter.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (? Pottsville), of Rhode Island.

Genus Tvigonotarbus Pocock IgII.
Cephalothorax triangular, elevated in the middle, sloping gradually
in all directions, not sculptured. Legs with patella. Anal operculum
ventral in position. Genotype T. johnsoni Pocock.

106 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Key to the Species of Trigonotarbus.

1. Coxae of pedipalpi contiguous in median line almost their entire
length. Coxae of first pair of legs touching each other
T. schucherti n. sp.

+ Coxae of pedipalpi not contiguous their entire length, coxae of
first pair of legs separated by the sternum’ © = . 5.2 eee

2. The segment surrounding the anal operculum wider than long.
Abdominal sternites moderately recurved
T. carbonarius n. sp.

+ Segment surrounding the anal operculum much longer than
wide. Three adjoining abdominal sternites strongly recurved
T. jonnsont.

Trigonotarbus schucherti n. sp.
Plate XX; fies= 53, 54, text: figs 163.704.

The type and only specimen of this species iS in the collection of
Peabody Museum under No. 169. The reverse shows an almost
complete specimen. The obverse shows besides the dorsal sur-
face the superimposed impression of the reverse. This is especi-
ally clear if one examines the position of the anal operculum.
On the ventral surface it is median in position, whereas on the
obverse it is lateral, showing that the two surfaces were laterally
dislocated. |

Total length 19.0 mm. Cephalothorax triangular, with slightly
recurved posterior edge and curved sides, produced anteriorly into a
blunt lobe ; length in median line 7.5 mm., width at posterior edge
7.0 mm. ; high, gradually sloping in all directions. Abdomen oval.
Pleural sclerites not subdivided. Visible on the dorsal surface are
eight tergites. Anal operculum ventral in position. The plate sur-
rounding it is considerably wider than long, representing probably
the fused sternite and tergite of the tenth segment. In front of it are
seven sternites with moderately recurved edges. In two places the
sternites were evidently separated from each other by the pressure
of the drying mud in which the specimen was imbedded, exposing the
anterior margin of the sternites of the fourth and sixth segments
(second and fourth visible sternites). Sternum long and narrow,
reaching to base of first coxae, with lateral projections between each
consecutive pair of coxae and a narrow process separating the fourth
coxae. Coxae of pedipalpi triangular, contiguous their entire length
with exception of a small distal space. Chelicera missing. Pedipalpi

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 107

pediform, slender, 9.0 mm. long, with subequal joints. Of the first
pair of legs only the trochanter, femur and fraction of the patella
preserved. In the second and third pair of legs is missing the meta-
tarsus and tarsus. Left fourth leg complete, 19.2 mm. long. Patella

Fig. 63.
figure 63.— Tvigo-
votarbus schucherti n.
p., holotype, Pea-
ody Mus. No. 169,
lorsal surface of
ephalothorax and

abdomen.

Fig. 64.

Figure 64.—Same, reverse as it appears on nodule.

present amalllegs. Femur I, 2.3 mm.; II, 3.0 mm.; III, 4.0 mm.;
IV, 5.1 mm. Tarsus of fourth leg shorter than metatarsus.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Trigonotarbus carbonarius n. sp.
Plate X, fig. 55; text fig. 65.
The type and only specimen of this species is in the U. S. National
Museum under No. 37978. The obverse is missing.
Total size 15.5 mm. Abdomen 10.0 mm. long, 8.0 mm. wide in
middle. The small coxae of the pedipalpi touch each other only at

108 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

their proximal end. Between them two triangular plates, probably
chelicera. Sternum long and narrow, with three pairs of lateral
processes, an anterior median, trifid lobe and a posterior bifid lobe.
Trochanters one-jointed. Pedipalpi missing. Faint impressions of
the third left and second and third right legs. Femur of fourth pair
of legs 4.6 mm. long. Anal operculum round. The segment sur-
rounding it much wider than long. Abdominal sternites recurved,

Fig. 65.

Figure 65.— Trigonotarbus carbonarius n. sp., holotype, -U. S. N M. No.

37978, ventral surface as it appears on the nodule. X =

eight in number. Abdomen almost hemispherical in a transverse
section, probably spherical in life.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

ORDER OPILIONES >

Head completely fused with thorax. Abdomen broadly joined
with cephalothorax, composed of ten segments ; the anal operculum
placed ventrally represents the tergite of the tenth segment.
One pair of eyes, sometimes eyes absent. Chelicera three-jointed,
chelate, Pedipalpi pediform. Trochanter usually one-jointed.
Patella present in all legs. Coxae of first pair of legs and often of the
second and third with maxillary lobes. Respiratory organs in the
form of tracheal tubes with one pair of spiracles either on the second

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 109

ventral segment, or behind the fourth coxae. In the family Phalan-
gioidae the position of the spiracles is varying, in some species there is
a spiracle on each tibia. Genital organs opening with a penis or
ovipositor on the first abdominal sternite. Oviparous.

Fig. 66.

Figure 66. — Stylocellus beccarvii Thorell, from Sumatra ; male viewed from above.
(From Hansen and Sérensen, On two Orders of Arachnida, 1904.)

This order shows close relation to Haptopoda and Phalangiotarbi.
To facilitate the understanding of the species belonging to the last
named order, I reproduce here two figures showing the skeletal struc-
tures of an Opilionid belonging to the family Sironoidae of the sub-
order Cyphophthalmi.

To this order belong probably the following Carboniferous arachnids
from Europe:

110 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Genus Nemastomoides Thevenin 1902.

I. N. elaveris Thev., Bull. Soc. Geol.
France, (4), Vol. I, 1902, p. 609,
pl. XIII, fig. 2. ‘Fritsehyaeae
Arachn., 1904, p. 29, text fig. 34
Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IgII,
p: 83, text figss42-

From the Coal Measures of
Commentry, France, and Ellis-
muir, Scotland.

Genus Dinopilio Fritsch 1904.
1. D. gigas Fritsch, Pal. Arachn.,

1904, p. 30, pl. 5, figs. 3—5, text

fig. 35.

From the Coal Measures of
Rakonitz, Bohemia.

I refer also to this order the two
Fig. 67. imperfectly preserved specimens
from North America, representing
Th., Same, ventralsurface. (From two new species of the new genus
Hansen and Sérensen, On two 7votopilio, although (they earemtan

Orders of Arachnida, 1904.) from being typical Opilionids.

Figure 67,—Stylocellus beccari

Protopilio n. gen.
Coxae of all legs without maxillary lobes, those of the fourth pair
fully twice as long as first coxae. Sternum oval. Trochanters one-
jointed. Legs long and slender. Genotype P. longipes n. sp.

Protopilio longipes n. sp.
Plate X, fig. 57; ‘text fig. 68.

The type and only specimen of this species, No. 171 of the Peabody
Museum, unfortunately presents onboth hal ves of the nodule the
ventral surface alone. It is therefore impossible to say anything about
the cephalothorax and the abdominal tergites. If judged by the ap-
pearance of the ventral surface, the abdomen is broadly joined to the
cephalothorax. The number of visible sternites is nine. The first
sternite is small, triangular. The second sternite is by far the largest
with a recurved anterior edge. The following two sternites are al-
most as long as the second. The remaining sternites are very short,
with parallel edges with exception of the ninth whichis triangular. Ster-

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 111

num oval. In front of it two heavy chelicera, evidently bent down-
ward, so that their distal end reaches the sternum. At the sides of the
chelicera are the coxae of the pedipalpi. The coxae of the legs are
radiating from the sternum. The fourth coxae are fully twice as
long as the first. All trochanters are one-jointed. Of the legs are
preserved only the femora of the second right and fourth left leg.
They are very long and slender and from their appearance it is prob-

—_

Fig. 68. Fig. 69.
' Figure 68.— Protopilio longipes n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus. No. 171,
ventral surface. Figure 69.— Protopilio depressus n. sp., holotype, U.S. N. M.

No 37974, ventral surface.- X =

able that all legs were long and slender. The whole body is quite
flat. Total size with chelicera 10.5 mm.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek
Illinois.

Protopilio depressus n. sp.
Plate =X, fig: 56: -text fig.” Go:

A very imperfectly preserved specimen in the U. S. National
Museum under No. 37974. The nodule presents both the obverse and
reverse, but the detail . of the structures cannot beseen. Abdomen
chipped off'at its extreme end. Probable length of the body 24.5 mm.
Width of abdomen on the level of the posterior edge of the second
sternite 10.0mm. In the anterior part of the abdomen several heavy
transverse folds which make the counting of sternites in this region
very uncertain. Beginning with the fourth sternite represented in

412 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

text figure 69, the demarcation lines are quite clear, but beyond the
seventh sternite they become faint. Probable number of sternites
eleven. Coxae visible only at their distalends. Sternum obliterated.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

: ORDER HAPTOPODA.

Head completely fused with thorax. Abdomen broadly joined with
cephalothorax, composed of eleven segments. Pedipalpi short, pedi-
form. Terminal segment of the first pair of legs seven-jointed, modi-
fied into a tactile organ. Coxae without maxillary lobes.

This order is so closely related to the Phalangiotarbi, that it seems
to have been more reasonable to place the only genus and species
known in a separate family under the latter order. “The segmentation
of the first tarsus is about the only character of importance sepa-
rating the two Orders. Yet we must not forget that in the order
of Solifugids for example the tarsus shoes a different number of
joints in closely related genera. That the seven-jointed tarsus of
Plesiosivo madeleyi is a tactile organ is a hypothesis which can be
neither substantiated nor disproved. However, since I have not
seen any specimen of the only known species, I have retained
Pocock’s order and refer the reader for details to his Monograph.

Family Plesiosironidae.
Genus Plesiosivo Pocock IoII.

1. P. madeleyi Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 44, pl. I, fig. 5, text
figs. 15, 16.
Found in the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

ORDER PHALANGIOTARBI

Head completely fused with thorax. Abdomen broadly joined
to the cephalothorax. Pleurae soft, without sclerites, not segmented.
Several anterior abdominal tergites very short, with a thickened pos-
terior edge. Chelicera not known. Pedipalpi short, pediform.
Coxae without maxillary lobes. All trochanters one-jointed. Patella
always developed. Anus subapical or ventral in position, closed by an
operculum. Abdomen composed of ten to twelve segments. Eyes,
when present, in the number of two on the cephalothorax.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 113

Key to the Families of Phalangiotarbi.

1. Third and 4th pair of coxae elongated, meeting in the median line.
First pair of legs slender and long

Heterotarbidae
+ All coxae triangular. All legs short and stout ..... 2
2. Coxae of first pair of legs contiguous throughout their entire length
Architarbidae

+ Coxae of first pair of legs contiguous only at their proximal end.
Between them are the coxae of the pedipalpi
Phalangiotarbidae.

LIST OF DESCRIBED SPECIES OF PHALANGIOTARBI
Family Phalangiotarbidae.

Genus Phalangiotarbus Haase 1890.
1. P. subovalis (H. Woodward)
= Archlitarbus subovalis H. Woodward, Geol. Mag. Vol. [X, 1872,
paces pl..LX, fig: x.
P. subovalis Haase, Zeits. d. g. Gesell., Vol. XLII, 1890, pp. 638,
650, pl. XXX, fig. 3.
= Architarbus subovalis Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 35, text
fig. 30.
P. subovalis Pocock, Carb. Arachn., 1911, p. 46, text fig. 17.
From the Coal Measures of Lancashire, England.

Genus Geratarbus Scudder 1890.
I. G. acoei Scudder, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 1890,
p: 448, pl. 40, fig. 11.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.
2. G. minutus Nn. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.
Discotarbus n. gen.
. D, deplanatus n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Metatarbus n. gen.
1. M. triangularis n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 8 JuNE, 1913.

is)

[o.6)

4 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Family Architarbidae.
Genus Architarbus Scudder 1868.

. A. rotundatus Scudder, Geol. Surv. Illinois, Vol. III, 1868, p. 568,

fig. 4.
= Geraphrynus carbonarius Scudder, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci.,
Vol. XX, 1884, p. 16. Id., Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV,
1890, p. 446, pl. 40; figs. 1, 9; 10; 12.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

. A. horribilis (Melander)

= Hadrachne horribilis Melander, Journ. Geol., Vol. XI, 1903,
Pp: t80;-pli Vo fig ot sapl= VL ieee:
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

. A. angulatus (Pocock)

= Geraphrynus angulatus Pocock, Carb. Arachn., IQII, p. 49,
pl. Wi eite:<2) text fies 310; 20:
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near ‘Dudley, England.

. A. hindi (Pocock)

= Geraphrynus hindi Pocock, loc. cit., p. 51, text figs. 20, 21.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

. A. eggintont (Pocock)

= Geraphrynus eggintoni Pocock, loc. cit., p. 53, text figs. 24, 25.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.
A. torpedo (Pocock)
= Geraphrynus torpedo Pocock, loc. cit., p. 54, text figs. 26, 27;
pl? Lhe fie ta:
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

. A. angustus (Pocock)

= Geraphrynus angustus Pocock, loc. cit. p. 55.
From the Coal Measures of Coseley, near Dudley, England.

. A. minor n. sp.

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon-Creek,
Illinois.

Genus Opiliotarbus Pocock IgIo.

. O. elongatus (Scudder)

= Architarbus elongatus Scudder, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
Vol. IV, 1890, p. 449, pl. 40, fig. 4.

= Geraphrynus elongatus Fritsch, Pal. Arachn., 1904, p. 33, text
fee 'so

O. elongatus Pocock, Geol. Mag., (V), Vol. VII, 1910, p. 511.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 115

From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
_ Illinois.

Family Heterotarbidae.

Heterotarbus n. gen.
1. H. ovatus n. sp.
From the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

DESCRIPTION OF NORTH AMERICAN SPECIES OF
PHALANGIOTARBI.,

Heterotarbidae n. family.

Coxae of first pair of legs separated by the coxae of the pedipalpi.
Coxae of the third and fourth pair of legs elongated meeting in the
median line. First pair of legs long and slender, the other legs short
and stout. Chelicera small, chelate. Pedipalpi not known, their
trochanter large. Cephalothorax triangular. Abdominal tergites
ten, the first five much shorter and typical of the order.

Heterotarbus n. gen.
With the characters of the family. Genotype H. ovatus n. sp.

Heterotarbus ovatus n. sp.
Plate XX, fig. 59; text fig: «7o:

The type and only specimen of this interesting species is in the
collection of Mr. L. E. Daniels. The dorsal and ventral surface are
superimposed both on the obverse and reverse of the nodule. The
demarcation lines between the sternites being considerably fainter
than those between the tergites, especially in the anterior region of
the abdomen where the narrow tergites have a thickened poster or
edge, the sternites cannot be counted safely. The first sternite is the
only one clearly visible and is large and distinctly triangular. For the
same reason the posterior edge of the cephalothorax is not clearly
defined.

Total length probably 14.0 mm., but the end of the abdomen is
broken off, so that the actual length cannot be given. Cephalothorax
triangular, 7.3 mm. wide in the region of the first tergite ; its probable
length 4.8 mm. The anterior five abdominal tergites very short,
the first and second slightly procurved, the third with a straight pos-
terior edge, the fourth and fifth slightly recurved. Each of these ter-
gites has a median ridge. The following tergites are much longer,

116 ; Alexander Petrunkevitch,

straight. The tenth tergite was probably the last. On the edges of
the abdomen are visible the pleurae. They are not segmented, and
were probably soft. Chelicera very small, turned downward, with a
line dividing them half-way into two parts probably representing the
fingers of achela. At the sides of the chelicera are visible the troch-
anters of the pedipalpi separating the legs of the first pair. The
outlines of the coxae of the
first pair cannot be traced
all the way backward. The
coxae of the second pair
are triangular and widely
separate. The coxae of
the third and fourth pair
are very long, contiguous,
meeting in a median line.
Alltrochanters one-jointed.
Trochanter of the first part
of legs conical, the others
rectangular. The first leg
is slender and long, its femur
measures 3.85 mm., patella
2.66 mm. tibia 7.8 mm.,
metatarsus 2.7 mm., tarsus
missing. Second leg is the
shortest ; it is heavy, its
femur and patella of the
Fig. 70. same length, tibia some-
Figure 70.— Hetevotarbus ovatus n. sp., holo- what shorter, metatarsus
type, Daniels coll., dorsal surface, with the Shorter than the width of
coxae and chelicera superimposed on the the patella, tarsus conical.
cephalothorax. X = The third leg is heavier
and longer than the second,
but its three distal joints are missing. The fourth leg is still
heavier and longer, but only trochanter and part of femur preserved.
The whole body is smooth.

The species is of great interest since it combines characters of two
orders : Opiliones and Phalangiotarbi. The arrangement of the coxae
and the chelate chelicera remind of the former, while the segmentation
of the abdomen is typical of the latter.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Palaeozoic Avachnida of North America. 147

Family Phalangiotarbidae.

New definition. Coxae of pedipalpi wedged in between the coxae
of the first pair of legs, narrow and long, contiguous throughout their
entire length. Sternum oval or elongated, with the coxae of the legs
radiating from it and increasing in length from the first to the fourth.
Trochanters of the first and second leg always one-jointed. Patella
developed. Legs allshort and stout. Abdominal tergites, not count-
ing the ventrally placed operculum anale, ten. The first five or four
tergites very short with heavily thickened posterior edge appearing
in the specimens as a deep groove. Genital opening on the first
sternite. Pleurae soft, not segmented.

Key to the Genera of Phalangiotarbidae.

1. Posterior edge of the cephalothorax straight or very slightly
procurved. The first 5 abdominal tergites straight or almost

SIGS re Sefer B87
+ posterior edge of ate Eeplolomerss Sronety procarved! The
first 2 or 3 tergites strongly procurved ..... eS

2. Coxae of the Ist pair of legs completely separated by file: coxae
of the pedipalpi. Coxae of the 4th pair far apart
Phalangiotarbus
+ Coxae of the Ist pair of legs contiguous at their base. Coxae
of the 4th pair approximated
Geratarbus
3. Abdomen disc-shaped, quite flat. Posterior corners of the cephalo-
thorax angular
Discotarbus
+ Abdomen oval. Posterior corners of the cephalothorax rounded |
Metatarbus.
Genus Geratarbus Scudder.

New definition. Coxae of pedipalpi wedge-shaped, coxae of first
pair of legs contiguous at base. Posterior edge of cephalothorax al-
most or quite straight. Anterior five abdominal tergites straight, the
following very slightly recurved. Sternum oval. Abdominal stern-
ites divided into three fields by longitudinal lines. Genotype
G. lacoei Scudder.

Key to the Species of Geratarbus.
1. Cephalothorax with parallel sides and broad anterior edge
G. lacoei
+ Cephalothorax with rounded sides converging anteriorly to a
sharp point
G. minutus.

118 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Geratarbus lacoei Scudder.
Plate XI; fig. 08 5. text taas 71 72:

G. lacoei Scudder, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, 18g0,
p. 448, pl. 40, fig. II.

The type and only specimen of this species, No. 1765 of the Lacoe
collection, is in the U. S. National Museum under No. 37966. The
obverse shows the dorsal surface with the impressions of the coxae
superimposed over the cephalothorax, the reverse shows the ventral
surface clear ; but abdominal sternites are totally obliterated on both

Fig. 71. Big. G2:

Figure 71.—Geratarbus lacoei Scud., holotype, U. S. N. M. No. 37966, dor-

: P 4
sal surface. Figure 72.—Same, ventral surface. T

the obverse and reverse. The description given by Scudder is in-
correct in many points, he having omitted to clean the kaolin off
the specimen.

Total length 10.5 mm. Cephalothorax 3.6 mm. long, 4.2 mm. wide.
Its posterior edge very slightly procurved, almost straight. The sides
are parallel, the anterior corners rounded. The anterior edge pre-
sents a broad projection in the middle with sloping sides and trun-
cated front. Immediately behind this projection is a more or less
triangular depression with rounded angles and emarginate sides, re-
presenting probably the eye tubercle. Abdomen oval. The anal
operculum appears on both the ventral and dorsal surfaces, but must
have been ventral in position. Of the ten tergites, the anterior five
are short, with heavily thickened posterior edge, typical of the order.
The pleura is not segmented and was evidently soft. Chelicera

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 119

missing ; of the pedipalpi preserved only the coxae which are wedge-
shaped and apparently completely fused together, forming one trian-
gular plate. Sternum small, oval. Radiating from it are the trian-
gular coxae of the legs. The first coxae are contiguous at their base
(apex of the triangle) ; the fourth coxae are 11/, times as long as the
first. The first sternite, the only one visible, is large, triangular.
Trochanters one-jointed. The third left leg is complete, its femur
and patella with an anterior apical process. The second leg shows
similar processes in the same joints and in the tibia ; its metatarsus
and tarsus are missing. The joints of the fourth leg are without the
apical process, metatarsus and tarsus also missing. The body is
smooth, the legs are coarsely and distinctly punctate.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Geratarbus minutus n. sp.
Plate So fig: 69); text figs,.73, 74.

There are altogether six specimens of this species in the Peabody
Museum. Their numbers are 176 (type), and 177—181.

All are approximately of the same size, their length varying from
g.1to10.6mm. Some are of course better preserved than others, yet
all show the same structure. No. 176 being the best preserved spe-
cimen, I chose it for holotype.

Body flat. Total length 9.1 mm. Cephalothorax 3.1 mm. long,
3.5 mm. wide at posterior edge which is perfectly straight. The sides
of the cephalothorax are rounded, converging in front to a sharp point.
Its surface perfectly smooth; eyes absent. The anal operculum
round, impressed on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces. Ab-
dominal tergites ten. The anterior five short, with heavily thick-
ened posterior edge and a median ridge, straight. The following
tergites longer, slightly recurved. Pleura not segmented, forming a
heavy ridge alongside the abdomen on its ventral surface, anteriorly
chipped off exposing the ends of the sternites. Five abdominal stern-
ites in front of the last sternite divided by two longitudinal lines into
three fields. The triangular area between the hind coxae with an
almost round genital operculum divided by a transverse line. Cheli-
cera missing. Coxae of pedipalpi wedge-shaped, contiguous throughout
their length. Sternum large, longer than wide, with three pairs of
lateral projections and a median posterior lobe separating the hind
coxae. All coxae with rounded base. Coxae of first pair twice as
short as those of the fourth pair, contiguous at base. Trochanters
one-jointed. Legs short, but not as heavy as in G. /acoei, femora and

120 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

patellae without apical process. Text figure 74 shows all legs as
they appear on the reverse. The majority of specimens have only
fragments of legs. Dorsal
surface of abdomen appe-
aring also on the reverse.
Abdomen smooth. Legs
and distal ends of coxae
distinctly punctate.
Found in the Pennsy]l-
vanic (Lower Allegheny)
of Mazon Creek, Illinois.

Discotarbus n. gen.

Cephalothorax triangular
with strongly procurved
posterior edge and curved
sides.~ Posterior corners
angular. Abdomen round
and very wide ; of the five
short tergites with heavily
thickened posterior edge,
the first three are procur-
ved, the fourth and fifth
straight. The sixth ter-
gite is short, but without
thickened edge. Sternum long, divided into three areas of which
the middle one is hexagonal and the other two pentagonal. Body
very flat. Genotype D. deplanatus n. sp.

Fig. 73.
Figure 73.—Geratarbus minutus n. sp., holo-
type, Peabody Mus. No. 176, dorsal view
of cephalothorax and abdomen. Figure

74.— Same, ventral surface with legs. X =

Discotarbus deplanatus n. sp.
Plate XII, fig. 10; text figs. 75, 76.

Two specimens, Nos. 174 and 175, in the Peabody Museum. The
first is twice as small as the second, but better preserved. Since
the larger specimen shows the same structure there is no reason for
separating it into another species. I choose the smaller specimen,
No. 174, as holotype.

Type specimen. Total length 11.25 mm. Cephalothorax 4.5 mm.
long, 5.I2 mm. wide between the posterior corners. Posterior edge
strongly procurved. Sides curved. Eyes absent. Five anterior
tergites very short, with heavily thickened posterior edge. First,
second and third tergites procurved; fourth, fifth and sixth straight;

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 124

the others recurved. The sixth tergite somewhat longer than the
preceding, but its posterior edge not thickened. Anal operculum round,
impressed clearly on the dorsal surface ; the reverse does not show it
because the end of the abdomen is chipped off. Sternites not visible,
the tergites appearing as clearly on the ventral surface as on the dor-
sal, only reversed, 7. e. what appears as a groove on the dorsal
surface has a counterpart in a ridge on the ventral surface.
Only the first sternite is clearly visible, small, triangular.

Bist) 75. Fig. 76.
Figure 75.—Ditscotarbus deplanatus n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus. No. 174,
showing the cephalothorax and abdomen. Figure 76.—Same, ventral sur-

faces ox <

Sternum long, divided into three areas of which the middle one is
hexagonal, the other two pentagonal. Coxae of pedipalpi wedge-
shaped, contiguous throughout their entire length. Coxae of first
pair contiguous at base. Coxae of fourth pair of legs 1?/, as long as
those of the first pair. Trochanters one-jointed. Legs short. Pa-
tella of first leg longer than femur. Patella and femur of third leg
with a distal posterior process. Whole body quite flat and smooth,
apparently covered with a thin layer of graphite.

Total size of specimen No. 175, 23.5 mm. Cephalothorax 9.0 mm.
long, II1.0 mm. wide between the posterior corners.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Ilhnois.

Metatarbus n. gen.

Cephalothorax triangular, with posterior corners rounded. Pos-
terior edge procurved. Eyes absent. Only four anterior abdominal

{22 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

segments with a heavily thickened posterior edge. The first, second,
and third tergites procurved, the fourth with a procurved anterior
and recurved posterior edge. The following tergites slightly recurved.
Sternum elongated, divided into three areas of which the middle one
is hexagonal and the two others pentagonal. Abdomen oval, with ten
tergites and seven sternites. Genotype M. triangularis n. sp.

Metatarbus triangularis n. sp.
Plate Xl; figs. 66; °67 > text mes. 7 7 ge:
The type specimen of this species is in the Peabody Museum,
No. 182. It is somewhat deformed, so that the left half is narrower

Fig. 77.
Figure 77.— Metatarbus triangularis n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus. No. 182,
3

dorsal surface. Figure 78.—Some, ventral surface. X =

than the right half, but otherwise well preserved. Total length
17.5 mm. Cephalothorax triangular, posterior edge procurved, pos-
terior corners rounded, sides curved. Length in median line 7.5 mm.
Maximum width 8.0 mm. Eyes absent. Abdominal tergites ten.
Only four anterior tergites short and with heavily thickened posterior
edge. First, second and third tergites procurved, fourth with a
procurved anterior and recurved posterior edge. The following ter-
gites slightly recurved. Sternites seven. The first sternite trian-
gular. Two converging lines divide the ventral surface of the ab-
domen into three fields. Anus round, ventral in position, its oper-
culum impressed on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces. Sternum
long, divided into three areas of which the middle one is hexagonal,

Palaeozcic Arachnida of North America. 125

the other two pentagonal. Coxae of pedipalpi wedge-shaped, con-
tiguous throughout their entire length. Coxae of first pair contiguous
at base. Coxae of fourth pair more than twice as long as those of
first pair. Trochanters one-jointed. Of the legs preserved only the
femora of the second, third and fourth leg. Pleura not segmented,
probably soft, appearing as heavy ridge at one side of the abdomen.
Body quite smooth.

Specimen in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard Uni-
versity, not numbered, but accompanied by a label which reads:
Libellula carbonaria Scudder, AAAS, Vol. XXIV, B, 1875. In every
respect similar to the type specimen, but not as well preserved. Of
the cephalothorax preserved the proximal end only. Length of
abdomen 9.2 mm.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Family Architarbidae.

(New definition.) Cephalothorax broadly joined to the abdomen.
Pedipalpi short, pediform. Coxae of first pair of legs contiguous
throughout their entire length. Eyes, when present, in the number
of two, on the cephalothorax. Anal operculum ventral in position.
Abdominal tergites nine to eleven, the anterior five or six much
shorter than the following, with a heavily thickened posterior edge,
typical of the order. Abdominal sternites seven or eight. Pleura
not segmented, soft.

Key to the Genera of Architarbidae.

1. Cephalothorax produced posteriorly, with curved sides con-
verging to a point. Five or 6 anterior tergites distinctly pro-
curved. Sternum well developed

Architarbus
+ Cephalothorax with a straight posterior edge, broadly rounded
in front. Anterior abdominal tergites straight. Sternum re-
duced to a line
Opiliotarbus.

Genus Architarbus! Scudder 1868.

New definition. Cephalothorax produced posteriorly or at least
with a very strongly procurved posterior edge. Anteriorly it is

1 Geraphrynus is a synonym of Architaybus. See Introduction and the
description of Architarbus rotundatus.

{24 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

drawn out to a sharp point, almost having the appearance of a spine.
Anterior five or six tergites procurved, with heavily thickened pos-
terior edge. Pedipalpi short, pediform. Sternum long, divided into
three areas of which the middle one is hexagonal, the other two
pentagonal. Ventral surface of abdomen divided into three fields by
two longitudinal lines. Genotype A. votundatus Scudder.

Key to North American Species of Architarbus.
1. Cephalothorax shghtly produced posteriorly. Size very large
A. horribilis
+ cephalothorax produced posteriorly into a long lobe. Size
mitch’ smaller. .-.. 2. sass 4 es <oes meee eee
. Anterior 6 tergites very short in the middle. Abdomen broadly
rounded

A. minor n. sp.

+ 4th, 5th and 6th tergites not conspicuously short in middle,
with almost parallel edges. Abdomen oval, widest in front
A. rotundatus.

The specimens of Architarbus, like all other Phalangiotarbi, have
certain peculiarities of structure which one must bear in mind to
avoid false interpretation. Both surfaces are usually superimposed,
the ventral over the dorsal on the obverse and the dorsal over the
ventral on the reverse. What is a ridge on the obverse appears as
a groove on the reverse. This and the fact that the demarcation
lines between the tergites and sternites do not coincide, help to recognize
the structures belonging to the dorsal surface from those belonging
to the ventral. Even Pocock seems not to have escaped an error in
drawing the tergites divided by two longitudinal lines into three fields
in some of his species. These lines belong undoubtedly to the ventral
surface. Thus in some specimens of A. votundatus, where a super-
imposition of the surfaces for some reason did not take place, the lines
appear only on the ventral surface. The anal operculum is always
better visible on the dorsal surface than on the ventral where it be-
longs. The reason for this may be sought in an internal ring-shaped
thickening of the opercular edge, or still more probably in an internal
thickening of the wall of the anus itself. The anus itself being placed
ventrally, the internal ring-shaped thickening would naturally be
better visible on the dorsal surface after the two surfaces came in
contact with each other under the pressure of the drying mud in
which the specimen was imbedded.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 125

Architarbus rotundatus Scudder.
Plate VII, figs. 74—79, 81—83; text figs. 79, 80.

A. rotundatus Scudder, Geol. Surv. Illinois, Vol. III, 1868, p. 568.

= Geraphrynus carbonarius Idem, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
£600, p. 446, pl. 40, figs. I, 9, I0, 12.

A. rotundatus Melander, Jour. Geol., Vol. XI, 1903, p. 181, pl. V,
fee pl VII, fig.-2.

= Geraphrynus carbonarius Idem, Ibid., p. 181, pl. V, fig. 3;
peevaid. fig. 3.

There are altogether seventeen more or less well preserved spe-
cimens of this species distributed as follows:

One specimen, No. 1116, the type specimen of A. votundatus, in
the collection of the University of Illinois.

Nine specimens, Nos. 1116, 37961, 37962, 37979, 37980, of which
several are under the same numbers, in the collection of the U. S.
National Museum. Of these No. 37961 was originally No. 1701 ab
of the Lacoe collection and is the type of Geraphrynus carbonarius.

Two specimens in the Daniels collection.

Two specimens in the Walker Museum of the University of Chicago.
Of these Nr. 9234 was identified by Melander as A. votundatus, and
No. 9233 as Geraphrynus carbonarius.

Three specimens, Nos. 185, 186, 187 in the collection of the Peabody
Museum of Yale University.

All specimens come from the same locality and have the same
structure, although their size varies from 12 to 24mm. Hansen and
Sorensen are decidedly wrong when they suggest that the three
specimens of Geraphrynus carbonarius represented by Scudder in plate
40, figs. I, 10, and 12 “ belong to at least two different genera, per-
haps even to different families or orders ”’ (p. 139). Scudder has cor-
rectly recognized the specimens as belonging to the same species and
if he had cleaned the type specimen of A. rotundatus of the heavy
layer of kaolin with which it was covered he would have undoubtedly
recognized the identity of his two types.

A photograph of the type specimen of Architarbus rotundatus after
I have carefully cleaned it, is given on plate XII, fig. 74. Pho-
tographs of the obverse and reverse of the type specimen of Gera-
phrynus carbonarius are given on plate XIII, fig. 80. There is no
difference whatever in the proportions or the details of structure. The
first is 20.0 mm. long, the second 19.0 mm. Specimen No. 37979 of
the U. S. National Museum is reproduced on plate XII, fig. 72. It
is 12.0 mm. long. The better specimen in the Daniels collection is

126 Alexander Petrunkeviich,

reproduced on plate XII, fig. 73. Both specimens of the University
of Chicago are in an excellent state of preservation. Specimen
No. 9233 is reproduced on plate XIII, fig. 76 and 77. It shows only
few traces of the anterior tergites superimposed over the sternites,
especially visible on the right edge of the abdomen. Specimen
No. 9234 is reproduced on plate XII, fig. 75. The apparently larger
width of its abdomen is due to greater flattening under pressure of the
drying mud, and consequently both surfaces
f are Clearly superimposed. This specimen mea-
sures 24.0 mm. The best preserved specimen
is the one in the Peabody Museum, No. 185,
reproduced on plate XIII, figs. 78, 79. Un-
fortunately the photographs did not come out
as well as they should. This specimen was
very little compressed dorsoventrally ; conse-
quently the obverse shows only the dorsal sur-
face, while on the revers eare visible the im-
pressions of the abdominal anterior tergites
on the sides only of the abdomen. Omitting
further discussion of other specimens I shall
now give a detailed description of the last
mentioned.
Fig. 79. Specimen No. 185 of the Peabody Museum.
Fig. 79.--Architar- Total length 21.75 mm. Cephalothorax 12.7
bus votundatus Scud- mm. long in middle line, 9.1 mm. wide. It
der, specimenNo.185 has rounded latero-posterior corners and is
of the Peabody Mu- bosteriorly produced into a median lobe with
seum ; dorsal surface — Younded end and concave sides. Anteriorly
the cephalothorax forms a sharp spine-like pro-
jection. The cephalothorax is high, sloping
gradually to the sides and front. Two small,
round eyes, 3.25 mm. from anterior end, about double their diameter
apart. The posterior lobe of the cephalothorax reaches as far as
the anterior edge of the third tergite. It is impossible to decide
whether the first and second tergites are each composed of two scle-
rites, or whether the lobe of the cephalothorax merely covers the
short median part of these tergites. The following four tergites
are short, but with more or less parallel procurved edges. The
posterior edge of all six tergites is heavily thickened and appears
in the specimen as a deep groove. The demarcation lines between
the following four tergites are also clearly visible, but appear in the
specimen as narrow, low ridges, which proves that the edge of these

of cephalothorax

and abdomen. ae

Palaeozoic Avachnida of North America. {7

segments was not thickened. The pleura appears as a heavy ridge
along the sides of the abdomen. In life it must have been soft
and not segmented, the cross lines being due to folding. In places
the pleura is chipped off and under it is exposed the edge of the ab-
domen. The anus is visible on both the reverse and obverse. In

Figure 80.—Architavbus votundatus Scudder, specimen No. 185 ventral! sur-
face as it appears on the nodule with this difference, that the left fourth leg

in the specimen is curved inwardly and lies under the abdomen. X a

the latter it appears in the tenth tergite close to the pleura, and
is surrounded by a heavy wall. The surface leaves no doubt that
the anus was protected by a round operculum, placed ventrally.
The cephalothorax is smooth, but the abdominal tergites are
clearly punctate.

The number of sternites is apparently only seven The first
sternite is very large, triangular, smooth. It has a deep transverse
groove representing probably the mould of a ridge or movable plate

128 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

protecting the genital opening. Behind this groove is another
transverse depression of singular form, extending across the whole
sternite and represented in the text figure. The meaning of this
structure is not at all clear. It may be part of the external genital
apparatus, or the cover of the organs of respiration, or it may have
had both functions. The following five sternites are divided into
three fields by two longitudinal lines, appearing in the specimen
as very low ridges. These sternites and the last or seventh are
clearly punctate.

The chelicera are missing. The pedipalpi are very short, pedi-
form, only three last joints visible. The sternum is long and typi-
cally composed of three areas of which the middle one is hexagonal
and the other two pentagonal. The coxae are triangular, with
rounded base (apex of the triangle). The coxae of the first pair
of legs are contiguous throughout their entire length, produced
anteriorly into a sharp process. Whether this process represents
a maxillary lobe is very difficult to decide, since there is no evidence
to either prove or disprove the assumption that these coxae are
immovable. The coxae of the fourth pair are not quite twice as
long as those of the first. All coxae are smooth with exception
of their distal end which is punctate. Legs all preserved. Those
of the left side complete but for the tarsus. The fourth left leg
is, however, in reality bent under the abdomen where it lies on one
surface with a fern. The first right leg is quite complete, wihle
the other legs of the right side are broken off at the patella-tibia
articulation line. The trochanters are one-jointed. Patella shorter
than femur. The tarsus of the first leg is two-jointed, and so was
probably the tarsus of all legs. The legs are in order 4321. First
leg 14.0 mm., second (without last tarsal joint) 15.75 mm., third
(same way) 17.0 mm., fourth (same way) 19.25 mm. Length of
fourth femur 5.5 mm.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Architarbus minor n. sp. .
Plate XIII, figs. 81, 82; text figs. 81, 82.

The type and only specimen of this species is in the Peabody
Museum, No. 189. The dorsal and ventral surface are superimposed
on both the obverse and reverse of the nodule, but the structures
are quite clear. Total length 15.0 mm. Cephalothorax 10.0 mm.
long in the median line, 6.6 mm. wide. Posteriorly it is produced
into a lobe rounded at its end and with concave sides. Anteriorly

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. (29

the cephalothorax forms a long, pointed process. The eyes are
very small, almost four times their diameter apart. The six an-
terior tergites have a rather peculiar shape, being strongly pro-
curved, very short in the middle and much longer at the sides.
Their posterior edge is heavily thickened. The lobe of the cephalo-
thorax extends as far as the anterior edge of the second tergite.
The demarcation lines between the last four tergites are light, but

Fig. 81. Hig. 82.
Figure 81.—Architavbus minor n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus. No. 189,
dorsal view of cephalothorax and abdomen. Figure 82.—Same, ventral
4

surface. X ar

clear. Anal opercle appears on both surfaces. The abdominal
sternites very much like those in the preceding species, but the
converging lines divide the last sternite also. Instead of a trans-
verse groove, a triangular depression in the first sternite. Sternum
typical. The coxae of the first pair of legs with a very pronounced
apical process. Pedipalpi small, pediform, only three terminal
joints visible. Trochanters one-jointed. Of the legs the left third
is alone preserved. The patella of this leg is longer than the femur.
The tarsus is apparently one-jointed.

Abdomen and legs punctate above and below. The greater part
of the cephalothorax smooth, but a punctate area occupies the
space between the eyes, extending backward to the middle of the
cephalothorax and reaching anteriorly its end.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 9 JuNE, 1913.

150 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,

Illinois.
Architarbus horribilis (Melander).
Plate XII, fig. 71; text figs. 83, 84.

= Hadrachne horribilis Melander, Jour. Geol., Vol. XI, 1903,
p86. pk Vches a cpl Vill hier i

The type and only specimen of this species, No. 9232 of the
Walker Museum of the University of Chicago, presents only the

Fig. 83. Fig. 84.
Figure 83.—Ayrchitarbus horvibilis (Melander), holotype, Univ. of Chicago
Mus. No. 9232, dorsal surface showing cephalothorax and abdomen.
Figure 84.—Same, showing the ventral surface. Both surfaces appear in
the specimen superimposed, and since the reverse is missing the sternites

oe 1.5
are not visible. - x =

obverse with the ventral surface superimposed on the dorsal.” Partly
owing to this, partly to the fact that the specimen was not suffi-
ciently cleaned, the description of Melander is incorrect in several
respects. Moreover, he committed the same error as Scudder in
two instances, by assuming the legs of the first pair to be the
pedipalpi.

Total length 38.0 mm. Cephalothorax 18.3 mm. long in middle
line, 16.3 mm. wide at posterior corners which are not rounded,

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 134

but form an angle with the strongly procurved posterior edge. The
sides of the cephalothorax converge anteriorly to a sharp point,
forming an almost spine-like projection. The whole surface of the
cephalothorax is smooth. Eyes apparently absent. Six anterior
tergites with heavily thickened posterior edge. Behind the sixth
tergite are visible only two lines, but it seems probable that the
abdomen had ten tergites and that the line separating the ninth
from the tenth tergite became obliterated. Anal operculum not
visible. Sternum badly deformed but apparently typical. Pedipalpi
small, pediform, only the terminal three joints visible. Coxae of
the first pair of legs contiguous throughout their entire length, with
an internal distal lobe. Trochanters one-jointed. The trochanter
of the second leg appears to be two-jointed, but the distal joint
represents apparently the soft membrane connecting the trochanter
with the femur and distended because the leg lies on its dorsal
surface. Tarsus of first leg two-jointed.. Patella longer than femur.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny) of Mazon Creek,
Illinois.

Genus Ofiliotarbus Pocock 1900.

New definition. Cephalothorax with a straight posterior edge,
perfectly rounded anteriorly. Anterior six tergites very short,
straight, with a heavily thickened posterior edge. Number of ter-
gites eleven. Sternum very narrow, almost reduced to a narrow
ridge. Number of sternites seven. Anal operculum ventral. Coxae
of the first pair of legs contiguous throughout their entire length,
without internal apical process. Trochanter of the first and second
pair of legs one-jointed, of the third and fourth pair two-jointed.
Eyes absent. Genotype O. elongatus (Scudder).

Opiliotarbus elongatus (Scudder).
Plate XI, figs. 62—65; text figs. 85—88.

= Architarbus elongatus Scudder, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,
Wal LV, 1890, p. 449, pl. 4o, fig. 4.

O. elongatus Pocock, Geol. Mag., (V), Vol. VII, 1910, p. 511.

Two specimens in the collection of the U. S. National Museum.
Specimen No. 37975 from Mazon Creek is not as well preserved
as the type specimen; but the end of the abdomen is not broken
off and the details of the structure are sufficiently clear. The
proportions of the body are somewhat different from the type, but
not sufficient, in my mind, to constitute a different species. The
text figures being carefully drawn to scale reveal no tangible

132 Alexander Petrunkevitch,

difference. Total size 12.17 mm. Cephalothorax 4.0 mm. long,
5.6 mm. wide at posterior edge. Trochanter of the third and fourth

Figure 85.—Opiliotarbus elongatus (Scudder), U. S. N. M. No. 37975, dorsal
surface. Figure 86.—Same, ventral surface. Figure 87.—Opiliotarbus elon-

gatus, from the Pennsylvanic (Lower Allegheny), Braidwood, Illinois,
holotype, U. S. N. M. No. 37970, dorsal surface. Figure 88.—Same, ventral
4

surface.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 133

leg two-jointed. Specimen No. 37970 was originally No. 1702 of
the Lacoe collection. It is Scudder’s type and is indeed ex-
cellently preserved but for the end of the abdomen which is missing
in the observe. Total size 15.3 mm. Cephalothorax 4.5 mm. long,
5-6 mm. wide at posterior edge which is so little procurved that
it appaars almost to be straight. Anteriorly the cephalothorax
is broadly rounded. Eyes absent. Six anterior tergites practi-
cally straight, with heavily thickened posterior edge, very short.
The following tergites much longer, slightly recurved. Since the
other specimen has eleven tergites is it fair to assume that the type
had also eleven tergites. The number of sternites seven, the first
sternite triangular, large. Chelicera and pedipalpi missing. Coxae
of the first pair of legs contiguous throughout their length, without
internal apical process. Sternum reduced to a narrow ridge. Pleura
probably soft, not segmented. Anal operculum round, ventral
in position. Body quite smooth. The “ moderately coarse punc-
tuation’’ mentioned by Scudder was due to extraneous matter
which was cleaned without difficulty.

Found in the Pennsylvanic (Lover Allegheny) of Braidwood,
Illinois.

Fig.

Shier ee

17.

18.

EXPLANATION OF PLATES

Correct size of specimens given in the text.

Plate ve

Eoscorpius typicus n. sp., Peabody Mus. No. 126.
Eoscorpiust ypicus n. sp., holotype, U. S. N. M. No. 37986,
obverse.

Eoscorpius typicus n. sp., same, reverse.

Eoscorpius typicus n. sp., U.S. N.M. No. 37987, comb.
Palaeobuthus n. gen. distinctus n. sp., holotype, Peabody
Mus. No. 133, reverse.

Plate II

Eoscorpius carbonarius M. & W., Univ. of Illinois coll.,
obverse. Holotype. ta

Palaeopisthacanthus n. gen. mazonensis n. sp., holotype,
U.S. N.M. No. 37977, cbverse.

Palaeopisthacanthus n. gen. schucherti n. sp., holotype,
Peabody Mus. No. 140, obverse.

Palaeopisthacanthus n. gen. schucherti n. sp., same, reverse.
Eoscorpius granulosus n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus. No.
128, obverse.

Plate III.

Eoscorpius granulosus n. sp., Peabody Mus. No. 129, re-
verse.

Eoscorpius granulosus n. sp., same, obverse.

Mazonia woodiana M. & W., holotype, Univ. of Illinois coll.
Eoctonus n. gen., miniatus n. sp. holotype, Peabody Mus.
No. 131, obverse.

Eoctonus ni. gen. miniatus n. sp., Peabody Mus. No. 132,
obverse.

Plate IV.
Eoscorpius danielsi n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll., obverse.
Trigonoscorpio n. gen. americanus n. sp., holotype, Da-
niels coll., obverse.
Trigonoscorpio n. gen. americanus Nn. sp., same, reverse

Fig.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.
25.

20.

27.

28.
29.

30.

coe
32.

33-

“34.

35:

36.

37:

38.

3Y-

40.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 135

Geralinura similis n. sp., holotype, U. S. N. M. No. 37985
(1754 c), obverse.

Geralinura similis n. sp., same, reverse.

Geralinura carbonaria Scud., holotype, U.S.N.M. No.
37985 (1754a and b), obverse.

Geralinura carbonaria Scud., same, reverse.

Plate V.

Geralinura gigantea n. sp., holotype, U.S.N.M. No.
37976, obverse.

Geralinura gigantea n. sp., same, reverse.

Geralinura gigantea n. sp., paratype, Peabody Mus. No.
147, reverse.

Thelyphrynus n. gen. elongatus n. sp., holotype, Daniels
coll.
Graeophonus carbonarius (Scud.), holotype, U. S. N. M. No.
No. 37969, obverse.

Graeophonus carbonarius (Scud.), same, reverse.
Graeophonus carbonarius (Scud.), U.S.N.M. No. 37964,
obverse.

Plate VI.

Protophrynus n. gen. carbonarius n. sp., holotype, Daniels
coll., obverse.

Protophrynus n. gen. carbonarius n. sp., same, reverse.
Protosolpuga n. gen. carbonaria n. sp., holotype, Peabody
Mus. No. 155, obverse.

Kustarachne tenuipes Scud., holotype, U.S.N.M. No. 37967,
reverse.

Kustarachne tenuipes Scud., same, obverse.

Kustarachne conica n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll., reverse.

Plate VII.

Curculioides scaber (Scud.), holotype, U.S. N. M. No.
37965, reverse.

Curculioides scaber (Scud.), same, obverse.

Curculioides sulcatus (Mel.), holotype, Univ. of Chicago
No. 9235, obverse.

Polyochera glabra n. sp., holotype, U. S. N. M. No. 37981,
obverse...

Polyochera glabra n. sp., same, reverse.

Fig. 47.

Fig. 53.

Fig. 60.

Alexander Petrunkevitch,

Plate VIII.

Polyochera punctulata Scud., holotype, U.S.N.M. No.
37971, obverse.

Polyochera punctulata Scud., same, reverse.

Arthrolycosa antiqua Harger, Peabody Mus. No. 162, ob-
verse.

Arthrolycosa antigua Harger, holotype, Peabody Mus. No.
161, obverse.

Arthrolycosa damelsit n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll., ob-
verse.

Arthrolycosa danielsi n. sp., Same, reverse.

Plate IX.

Trigonomartus pustulatus (Scud.), holotype, U.S. N. M.
No. 37984, obverse. :
Trigonomartus pustulatus ( .), same, reverse.
Trigonomartus pustulatus (Scud.), Daniels coll., obverse.
Trigonomartus pustulatus (Scud.), same, reverse.
Trigonomartus pustulatus ( )

obverse.

Trigonomartus woodruffi (Scud.), holotype, Brown Univ.
coll.

Plate
Trigonotarbus schucherti n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus.
No. 169, reverse.
Trigonotarbus schucherti n. sp., same, obverse.
Trigonotarbus carbonarius n. sp., holotype, U.S. N. M.
No. 37978, reverse.
Protopilio n. gen. depressus n. sp., holotype, U.S. N. M.
No. 37974, reverse.
Protopilio n. gen. longipes n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus.
No. 171, reverse.
Areomartus n. gen. ovatus n. sp., holotype, U. S. Nv M. No.
1196, obverse.
Heterotarbus n. gen. ovatus n. sp., holotype, Daniels coll.,.
obverse.

Plate XI.
Anthracomartus trilobitus Scud., U.S.N.M., Lacoe coll-
No. 1753d, obverse.

Fig. 61.

Fig.

70.

82.

Palaeozoic Arachnida of North America. 157

Anthracomarthus triangularis n. sp., holotype, U.S. N. M.
No. 37968, obverse.

Opiliotarbus elongatus (Scud.), U.S.N.M. No. 3790, re-
verse.
Opiliotarbus elongatus (Scud.), same, obverse.
Opiliotarbus elongatus (Scud.), holotype, U S.N.M. No.
37970, reverse.

Opiliotarbus elongatus (Scud.), same, obverse.

Metatarbus n. gen. triangularis n. sp., holotype, Peabody
Mus. No. 182, reverse.

Metatarbus n. gen. triangularis n. sp., same, obverse.
Geratarbus lacoei Scud., holotype, U.S. N. M. No. 37966,
obverse.

Geratarbus minutus n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus. No. 176,
obverse and reverse.

Plate XII.

Discotarbus n. gen. deplanatus n. sp., holotype, Peabody
Mus. No. 174, obverse.

Architarbus horribilis (Mel.), holotype, Univ. of Chicago
coll. No. 9322, obverse.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., U.S. N. M. No. 37979, ob-
verse.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., Daniels coll., reverse.
Architarbus rotundatus Scud., holotype, Univ. of Illinois
coll. No. 1116.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., Univ. of Chicago coll. No.
9234, reverse.

Plate XIII.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., Univ. of Chicago No. 9233,
reverse.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., same, obverse.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., Peabody Mus. No. 185, re-
verse.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., same, obverse.

Architarbus rotundatus Scud., holotype of Geraphrynus
carbonarius Scud., U.S.N.M. No. 37961 (Lacoe coll.
No. 1701 ab), obverse and reverse.

Architarbus minor n. sp., holotype, Peabody Mus. No. 189,
reverse.

Architarbus minor n. sp., same, obverse.

-
3 z my =o
ri » a5 At » ie ed
ae: - et Pv
“3 =
: = = re ie
on "5 —2 Oo : fe
~ i < a Aa _—
.. -
-
——

~— > pW hecin i 4 -_+ o
-s her.
* ef
-- ‘my- os
¢ Ca
OE TS gees ea
4 4 =% a? _27 =
Hehe gh FAS SSS Se
. we
= ~ : ; =
I *577 ye?
2 & Pane eg Ope en
-
. . 4
- = i.
4
.
*
7 _ Fe
= md *
- a
». « z
7 .
> ; 2
-_— -< —_ ¢ : a
re ols. oat ie = §--

; “4 - t ae
Fo, Bae age Se
aa x _

“=
oi, 4
—

“i 4
os
“3
.
—
;, — ©

»
—,
7
eae &
aah Oy:
-_—
Zz
7

page eee

an $e Lae 4

<a Cmdwg wo cked

=
ee
:
.",
ts
:
aa
we '
me)
« a _ “g ws

RAR. a> sa a ten

> a ei Ear

ni
FT ~
~%. - ews 3.9 ~

Pies Ve a
;

THs
abet Pit

“SES

WERK"
: Ae

ifat eV
f *
‘ Swe

Seay ed

CLs ree ;

tr?

Wes

SANS,

bux Sects sR

. ‘ ae =? af ad > (+ 7
sD Pe elcerere ion pyre tae! ae ; * :

oth ta?

PIL + pee ng

pine
rset ge ee ah

Ses
=a".

wi
my

TR LE
aie

Bae

tay

“a

hes

Sy
"
. :

ay
~

Ta Ny

TRANSACTIONS OF THE

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

INCORPORATED A. D. 1799

VOLUME 18, PAGES 139-207 SEPTEMBER, 1943

The Greek Diminutive
Suffix -[SKO- -[SKkH-

WARE RAPEVERSEN

BETHANY COLLEGE, LINDSBORG, KAS., U.S.A.

YVALESUNIVERSPLY, PRESS
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1913

II.—THE GREEK DIMINUTIVE SUFFIX -IXKO- -DXKH-

I. ITS RELATION TO THE SAME SUFFIX OF OTHER LANGUAGES.

I. The diminutive suffix -toxo- -toxy-, whatever we may say of
its ultimate origin, was fully developed in all its principal meanings.
at the earliest periods of the Greek language as known to us.
Though not found in Homer, it does not follow that its develop-
ment was post-Homeric, nor are we justified in saying that its
origin was later than ‘‘diminutive” -tov for this reason. Its ab-
sence in Homer is explained by the Aeolic ground-work of the poems,
the suffix apparently not being found in any of the Aeolic documents,
while in the other dialects it appears in the very earliest sources,
e. g. in Aleman for the Doric, and Hipponax and Herodotus for
the Ionic.t Since these earliest occurrences show fully developed
‘diminutive ’’ meanings, it follows that almost the whole semantic
development has taken place in pre-literary times, and the problem
before us is to determine in what relation these resulting meanings
stand to the meanings of the same suffix in other languages and
the parent language.

2. That -toxo- is an Indo-European suffix,? and not a purely
Greek conglutination, is made evident by the large number of
languages which have it in some use or other. Even if we omit
the Balto-Slavic -iszka- -rszka-, which may possibly be a Germanic
borrowing,® there are left to compare with the Greek both a few
Latin adjectives like priscus < *pri-iscus and mariscus, the Keltic
proper names like Taurisci, and the many Germanic adjectives in
-iska-, e. g. Goth. piudisks, so that I. E. -isko- occurs in at least
four, more probably five language branches.

3. But although the suffix itself is thus certainly Indo-European,
it is quite uncertain just what its meaning was, or whether it formed
derivatives only from adjectives or also from substantives or whether
it was itself an adjective or substantive suffix or both, since the
languages in which it occurs vary widely in these respects. Thus
in Greek and Keltic it forms only substantives, in the Germanic

1 On -toxo- in the Aeolic and the earliest Lyric poetry see p. 201 f. of
the writer’s Greek Diminutives in -toy, Weimar igto, cited after this by
the abbreviation ‘‘ Gr. Dims.”’

2 Cf. Brugmann, Gr. 2. 1”. 501 ff.

3 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit. 502.

142 Walter Petersen,

and Lithuanian only adjectives, in the Latin and the Slavic lan-
guages both adjectives and substantives. In Greek the primitive:
is likewise almost always a substantive, probably also in the Keltic,
in Latin the few extant examples come from adjective primitives,*
e. g. mariscus : mas, while in Germanic derivatives from both sub-
stantive and adjective primitives occur, though the former pre-
dominate. From the latter we have e. g. O. H. G. altisc: alt,
English reddish: red. As to the meaning of the suffix the lan-
guages again diverge widely, the differences largely following from
those preceding. In Greek -tcxo-, to anticipate results somewhat,
expresses similarity and forms substantives with deteriorative, di-
minutive, and hypocoristic meanings. In Latin the three native
examples quoted by Brugmann all show the meaning “having the
nature of’’: priscus < *pri-iscus ‘of a nature belonging to for-
merly,’ i. e. “ primitive,’ mariscus ‘ of a male nature,’ ‘ masculine,’
lentiscus (: lentus) ‘of a tough nature,’ a name Of the mastic-tree,
referring to the toughness of its resin. In the Keltic we find e. g.
Tavptoxot, a people ‘ coming from the mountains,’ ? and other names
of peoples as well as neuter geographical’ names like Viviscum,
which though largely obscure as to their motive of formation, yet
probably showed the same suffixal meanings as the similar Ger-
manic words. In the latter branch the meaning was originally
‘of the nature of,’ ‘like,’ ‘coming from,’? but the suffix gradu-
ally extended its sphere so as to allow other meanings, e. g. “ be-
longing to’ in locutions like the German “ die erzieherischen Miss-
griffe.’”4 In the Lithuanian® the usage is like the Germanic,
while in the Slavic® languages these same adjectival meanings
occur as well as substantives classified as deterioratives and ampli-
ficatives, particularly in the Polish. A further difference is found
between the Greek and Slavic, which both show ‘ diminutive’ mean-

1 From the adverb *pri, however, is derived priscus.

2 Cf. Pape s. v.

3 Cf. Wilmanns, Deutsch. Gram. 2. 468; Brugmann, loc. cit. When
these two scholars mention appurtenance (‘‘ Zugehérigkeit ’’) as béing among
the primary meanings of the suffix they seem to refer to such words as Goth.
judaiwisks, which, though originally conceived as ‘ having the nature of or
coming from the Jews,’ may also have been thought of as ‘ belonging to
the Jews or Judea.’ We have indeed the roots of the meaning of appur-
tenance, but want of unambiguous cases in the Gothic at least shows that
it was not as yet consciously felt.

4 Cf. Wilmanns, op. cit. 469. 5 Cf. Leskien, Bild. d. Nom. 372.

6 Cf. Beli¢é, Arch. f. sl. Phil. 23. 179 ff. ?

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -v6z0- -vozy-. 143

ings, in as much as the Slavic words are neuters, while the Greek
ones follow the gender of their primitives.

4. In order to determine the relation of these widely divergent
uses it will be necessary to come to an understanding as to the
origin of -isko-, and then we may draw conclusions as to the
earliest stratum of usages. We may divide the various attempts
to solve this problem into two groups. In the first place some
earlier scholars, recognizing the fact that the designation of likeness
was the principal characteristic of -isko-, and that the “ diminutive’
meanings could easily be developed from this, sought to find some
word suggesting the meaning ‘like’ from which the suffix could
have arisen. Pott, Etym. Forsch. 2. 881, and Benfey, W. L. 1.
235, suggested the Skt. root iks ‘to see’ ‘to view’ as its origin,
though the short i of the suffix as upposed to the long one of
iks 1 would now be regarded as definitely disposing of that deri-
vation. The further comparison of Gr. cixw,2 which had a di-
gamma, will moreover harmonize neither with the suffix -isko- nor
the Skt. iks, and etxm and the latter furthermore disagree in
their vocalism, since iks is a reduplicative formation to the root
aks* which appears only with o as root-vowel, while the Greek
word belongs to the vowel series i/ei/oi. Somewhat similar is
the statement of Schweizer, KZ. 3. 383: “das gr. -ioxog, auch
-tyog ist samt den tibrigen oder abgetrennt von ihnen als verbal
“darin sehend, dhnlich’ zu erklaren, und mit inchoativem -ozw
auf Skt. aksh zuriickzufiihren.”’ The i for Skt. a, however, would
make this as impossible as the comparison of -iks.

5. According to Bopp, Vgl. Gr. § 952, who is followed by
Schwabe, De Dim. Graec. et Lat. 50, -isko- is a simple suffix and
the s is added for euphony’s sake. This theory, of course, now-
adays scarcely requires mention, since we are not so ready as Bopp
to assume euphonic insertions without knowing their cause or origin.
For phonetic reasons also Vondrak’s derivation of Slav. -isko-, Vgl. Sl.
Gr. 1. 468 f., is to be discountenanced. He assumes that it is a con-
glutination of -isto- (with original long 1) and -ko-, i. e. < -ist-ko-.
We would not, however, expect the o of -isto- to be dropped be-
fore a consonant. Moreover, Vondrak takes the -isto- to mean

1 What Benfey, op. cit. 234 f., has to say concerning the relation of the
quantities, is admittedly a mere conjecture.

2 Really two series of words are here confounded: eizw ‘I yield’ and
eixay ‘image’ gorxa ‘I am like.’ The latter were of course in mind.
Cf Prellwitz s. v. eizw and eixdy.

3 Cf. Uhlenbeck, Etym. Worterb. s. v. iksate.

144 Walter Petersen,

‘provided with,’ and this is contrary to the use of -isko-, which
does not seem to have that meaning.

6. Much more probable from every point of view than any
derivation so far mentioned is the one first advanced by Leo
Meyer, KZ. 6. 381 f., and adopted e. g. by Brugmann, Gr. 2. r?.
503. According to this theory -isko- is a conglutinate the last part
of which is the common I. E. -ko- suffix, while the first is the
comparative suffix, the weak grade to the strong -ies- -ios-,? which
is also found in the superlative suffix Skt. -ista- Gr. -1ete- Goth.
-ista-. As to Vondrak’s contention that for the Slavic -isko- the
long i beside -ssko- is an objection, Belic, Arch. f. sl. Ph. 23. 179,
has shown how the i could be derived from contraction of an 5
of the stem and the s of the suffix -ssko-, and could then be
extended by analogy. Vondrak’s second objection that the mean-
ing of the Slavic suffix is against connection with Gr. -toxo- is also
of course not meant to affect the Gr. suffix itself nor I. E. -isko-,
nor is it serious even for Slav. -isko- when Brugmann’s explanation
of the semantic development is more closely scrutinized.

7. According to the latter (1. c.) we are to start from the use
of the comparative degree in adverbs in the sense ‘coming rel-
atively close to the condition designated by the adjective,’ e. g.
Germanic *alpiz ‘approximately old.’ Adding to this the common
I. E. adjectival suffix -ko-,3 no change of meaning except return to
adjectival function would result, and O. H. G. altisc would have also
been originally ‘rather old.’ This being the case, -isko- would easily
be felt as a unity and abstracted as a single suffix. After this was
once done, it was easy to form derivatives from substantives with
the same suffix, e. g. Goth. mannisks: manna. In Greek, on the
other hand, the derivative adjectives were themselves substantivized,
veavionxoe originally formed from *vexvé¢g ‘ young,’ meaning “rather
young,’ was referred to vexvixe after first having been substantiv-
ce as ‘he who is rather JO anes so became adiminutive to it.

1 Vondrak, however, ona derive from it upon nies and words
like bidiSté ‘ Peitschenstiel’ : bié ‘ Peitsche.’

2 A support for the contention that the -is- of -isko- is derived from the
comparative -ies- -ios- is found in the habits of sandhi of Gr. -coxo-. When
e. g. heavy suffixes like -ev- in cugogevs disappear completely in the formation
of diminutives like gugopiozos (cf. § 12), the most rational explanation
seems to be that -coxo- has retained to a limited extent the habits of the
comparative suffix, which, being originally a primary suffix, was added to
the root instead of the nominal stem. Cf. Brugmann, Gr. 2. 1%. 656.

3 Cf, (Brusmann, Gros2eres sen.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -v6xzo- -tox7-. 145

8. According to Brugmann, then, the oldest use of the suffix
was to form adjectives from adjectives with the meaning ‘ap-
proximating the condition designated by the primitive.’ If -is- is
really the comparative suffix there is no doubt that the primitive
must have originally been an adjective, and that the force of the
suffix must have been as described. At first sight, however, the
statement that the earliest stratum of words in -isko- must have
come from adjective primitives seems to be in contradiction to
the state of affairs in the actual languages, since only in the Latin
and the Germanic certain adjective primitives are found, and in
the Latin the whole category comprises only three words, while
in the Germanic words like O. H. G. altisc are really very rare
compared to the large number formed from substantive primitives.
But we must bear in mind that of the three language groups in
which the suffix is frequent, each has followed its own line of
development, the Greek usage (diminutives) is widely different
from the Germanic (adjectives of likeness and descent), while the
Slavic again partakes of the nature of both, and moreover, borrow-
ing of some uses from the Germanic is suspected.! Probably,
therefore, the productivity of the suffix is due to causes affecting
these individual language groups, while the parent language was
rather on the stage of the Latin, i. e. it had only a few words ?
ending in the suffix, and these entirely or predominatingly derived
from adjectives.

9. I should, however, take exception to Brugmann’s statement
that the conglutinate in the beginning formed only adjectives.’
Though the -is- must have been added to an adjective primitive,
yet the -ko- was from I. E. times a substantival* as well as an
adjectival suffix. Consequently Lat. lentiscus ‘mastic tree’ was
not necessarily an original adjective, but was from the beginning
a thing which was ‘rather tough,’ and Gr. veavioxeg could from
the beginning have been ‘he who is rather young’ (: *vexvdéc) as
well as have been ‘rather young’ and secondarily substantivized.
We should therefore really extend Brugmann’s statement to the
effect that -isko- in I. E. times formed substantives as well as

1 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit. 502.

2 Just: what these were is totally uncertain. There is not a single word
in -isko- which occurs in several language groups, and thus would allow us to
assume I.E. origin.

Op. cit. 503.

4 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit 669; for the Skt. Whitney, Skt. Gram. 1222.

146 Walter Petersen,

adjectives in which it designated an approximation to a state or
quality designated by a primitive adjective.

to. The extension of the use of the suffix -isko- to form deriva-
tives from substantives could take place after it was felt as a
single suffix.t On the one hand there might be an adjective and
a substantive coexisting from one and the same stem as possible
primitives, e. g. *vexvég and veavine, and vexvioxoc, though formed
from the adjective could be referred to the latter ; or perhaps some
word like the proper name “Ayoioxz, an epithet of Athena, origi-
nally derived from an adjective, in this case éygto¢ ‘ field-like’
‘wild,’ could be referred to a noun, e. g. avobs ‘field,’ and xu-
“Moxos, originally a synonym to xJxdto¢g, could have been referred
to zJxdoc, etc. There are, however, very few if any cases where
the derivation from such an adjective is more natural than from
a substantive, and yet both are possible, and we may assume that
the chief cause of the transfer of the suffix to the substantive
primitives was semantic syncretism. When e. g. an I. E. adjective
like O. H. G. altisc meant ‘rather old’ (§ 7), -isko- was identical
in meaning with -ko- in words like Skt. babhru-ka-s ‘ brownish’
i. e. ‘rather brown,’ or veavionxog ‘ he who is rather young’ would
have an -isko- exactly like the -ko- of Skt. rohitaka- (: rdhita-s
‘red ’) ‘that which is rather red,’ the name of a certain tree.”
Since -ko- was also widely used to form derivatives from substan-
tives, -isko- followed with ease.

II. Partially by the same process of syncretism -isko- took on
to itself widely divergent meanings in the different languages, but
at the same time it could on its own accord pass through a se-
mantic development which was much like that of -ko-, which itself
started from the meaning ‘ belonging to the category of’ ‘ being
like,’ and in some languages, e. g. Skt., ended by having a large
variety of meanings. Consequently we may often not be sure
whether a certain use was influenced by simple -ko- or not, nor is
a common usage in different languages by itself a guarantee of
common origin. Thus -isko- may be deteriorative in Greek,. Slavic,
and Germanic, but the Greek deterioratives, like the other ‘di-
minutives,’ seem to be due to syncretism with -ko-, since their gender,
like that of the -ko- diminutives,4 follows that of the primitive,
while the Slavic neuters must be due to a secondary development

1 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit. 503.

2 Cf. Edgerton, JAOS. 31.118.

8 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit. 503 f.; Edgerton, JAOS. 31. 96f.
4 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit. 669.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -voxo- -voxy-. 147

from the adjectives through the meaning ‘like, but not equivalent
to,1 since the neuter gender of diminutives argues their origin from
substantivized adjectives. The German deterioratives like kindisch
and weibisch again have no connection with either the Greek or
Slavic, but are of demonstrably late origin,? and must have been
patterned after words like ‘ bauerisch,’ in which the deteriorative
element comes from the primitive. Similarly the meaning ‘coming
from,’ which is productive in Germanic and Slavic adjectives, and
might be conceived as due to syncretism with -ko-, is explained by
Brugmann, Gr. 2. I?. 666, as a new independent development in
words like O. H. G. irdisc, originally ‘of an earthly nature,’ but
in many combinations easily conceived as ‘coming from the earth.’
It is the concern of the grammar of the different languages to
determine the relation of their own usage to the I. E. original,
and we may henceforth confine ourselves to the problem of the
origin of the Greek uses.

Il. ITS SANDHI, ACCENT, AND GENDER.

12. About the combination of -tox0- -toxy- with the stem-finals
little need be said. Practically the whole thing can be summarized
in one statement: The final two syllables of any combination ot
stem-suffix and -toxo- -toxy- result in -toxo- -toxy- with short 1,5 as
is shown by the fact that the accentuation of the masculines is
always -toxoc, whereas a contraction of -t-toxo¢g > -toxo¢ would have
been revealed by the circumflex accent in the nominative and ac.
Cusative, e. g. -ioxoc. The suffix, then, was ordinarily added to
consonant stems : ‘AvSpioxog : avde-, yyvionog: yy, perountoxy : ust
0XE, TOdtoxos : m0d-. The stem-finals o, y/&, 1, to, 1%, <10,° v, ev were
dropped or elided before -1cx0-7 : avSowntoxos : &vOowmOs, Aexaviony :

1 So Belic, Arch. f. sl. Phil. 23. 151. 2 Cf. Brugmann, l. c.

3 Cf. Wilmanns, op. cit. 469. 4 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit. 683.

5 That e. g. -coxo- almost never contracts with a stem-vowel to form
-éloxo- is mentioned by Choeroboscus Anec. Ox. 2. 268 ovdémote 1d ox &v
ovAAnwer ovta Eyovor thy et Jipdoyyor moonyouvutryyy, ywois urads deems xa
tabtns augiBadhoutrngs * oiov, Hoaxheioxos “Houxzieioxos * maoadeiyuata dé tadte *
Baathioxos* wetoaxioxos. Similarly Herodian 2. 445. 19.

8 -wto- on the other hand seems to have lost only the vo, but not the
« : “Eopaioxos :“Eoucios, “Hocisxos :“Hoaios. For “Ioavicxos (probably not :
Eienvaios) cf. § 105.

? For the probable cause of this see note to § 6.

148 Walter Petersen,

Aencvy, Sepptonog : Séopue, prstoaxtoxos : pretodxtov, oixtoxy : olxte, xe
Aonov : yéretov, myltoxog : mijyus,. Pactdtonos : Bucrdetc, auwoptonog :
awoopetc. The o stems followed the analogy of the vowel stems,
since the loss of the co in the majority of forms and the subse-
quent contraction of vowels caused their suffix to be no longer
felt as the stem-final : therefore : GOEhionov : GMeAus, oxedtonov :
Gxéhos, psdtoxov : pehog. -w- stems on the other hand seem to
have retained their » and added -toxo- of two full syllables:

omtoxoc : owe. In several instances consonant suffixes were also
dropped : xudtoxy? (by haplology for *xudtntoxy ?) : 252, and regularly
-15-, €. g. cavioxy : cavic, nxomtoxog : xomic. We may assume that
words like Aexavioxn : Aexavy, but with Aexavic existing alongside,
sometimes caused the word in -toxe- to be referred to the primitive
in -t¢, and the others followed by analogy. The reason for the prefer-
ence of the short form lay in the vane ee of awkward forms like *xo-
mdioxoc. More obscure is towtoxos : tptuvoc, though possibly the word
in -tvo- could have dropped the zo by aan gy to words in -t8-. For
Koufepvioxog : xuBeovytyg see note to § 103 Ar Finally there are
several cases of the dropping of an n suffix before -toxe-. So cer-
tainly the Plautine Olympiscus and Lampadiscus, which act as
living ‘diminutives’ to Olympio and Lampadio (§ 102.) Prob-
ably also Mevicxog : Mévov. The cause for this again may have
been the existence of a collateral form with an n suffix alongside
of the real primitive without it, e. g. the existence of Ilxoeuévwv
beside Ilxouévice, so that Ilapuevicxog could be referred to the
former instead of the latter. Similarly [loStcxo¢g : [lé90¢ could be
referred to Ilof{wy, and cause by analogy Auyxadtoxo¢ : Aauradiov,
etc. Yet in view of the fact that all of these words are proper
names it seems more probable that our suffix has taken upon it-
self the function of forming ‘“‘ Kosenamen”’ or shortened forms of
proper names. Cf. Brugmann, Gr. 2. I?. 119. Certain of this we
are for two compound names the last component of which is al-
most entirely suppressed before the -toxo-: Ilxoutoxo¢g : Uaxpuéverv
and Ilavtadtexos : Havtadéwv. See § 105. -

1 On the other hand uvioxos : wis, Fuioxos : Fvos, where the v is part of the
root. Influence of other words in -ioxo- prevented the contraction of w > 7.
Sioxn in Hesychius, however.

2 Janson, De Graeci Sermonis Dem. in isxos 6, assumes *xvAn as prim-
itive, though that it hardly necessary.

8 These words were certainly not syncopated, as is assumed by Janson,
op. cit. 4, for yAavioxor.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -v6x0- -vxn-. 149

13. That the accent of -1cx0- -toxy- is invariably on the penult
has been something of a mystery in view of the fact that neither
the quantity of the ultima, which is short in the masculine and
neuter, nor the ending -oxo- demands that accentuation.! More-
over, the -is-, being the weak form of the strong -ies-, must cer-
tainly have been unaccented originally. Of no importance is the
analogy of éy#,? which when in composition with ye retracts. its
accent to the first syllable (¢ymye not *éyye) ; for the contrast of
éusye shows that it is due to the Attic ‘law of the properispo-
mena (2 A= became < —_ =), for which cf. Vendryes, Mem.
13. 218ff. But by all means the accentuation of the 1 must be
secondary and due to a development within the Greek itself.

14. As to its cause, Allinson, A. J. of Ph. 12. 53, 56, maintains
that the language had a tendency to accent the penult of dimin-
utives, and that this could be the only reason why -toxo- was so
accented. Similarly Hatzidakis, Glotta 1. 124, declares that the
diminutives in -foxo-, having a variable gender, were patterned
after those in -JA0¢, -thos, and -tyo¢, which also had two genders,
and that in all of these cases the diminutive meaning had some-
thing to do with the accentuation of the suffixes. If, however,
such a tendency really existed, it must itself be explained, for it
is certainly neither anything inherent in the nature of a diminutive
nor an I. E. tendency, and a further difficulty lies in the fact that the
only larger body of diminutives which is regular in the application
of this rule comprises these words in -foxo-, which are most difficult
to explain, while -1ov is not so accented under all circumstances,®
and the other categories comprise only small groups, largely dia-
lectical at that, and hardly fit to give rise to a large pan-Hellenic
category. It will therefore be better to search for a common cause
which can explain -toxo- as well as -¥)o-, -tAo-, and -fyo-. And
this seems to me to lie in the influence of the feminine on the
masculine and neuter, an influence which could, of course, not be
found in the invariably neuter -1ov. While therefore there was no
force to change z6dt0v to *xodtov, a word like psoantoxog ‘lad,’
even if originally accented *yctoxxtoxoc, would be perpetually as-
sociated with the feminine peoxxioxy ‘lass,’ whose accent could
not go back as far as the antepenult because of the long ultima,
and consequently the accent had a tendency to become leveled.
Since the feminine was precluded from being assimilated to the

1 Cf, Hatzidakis, Glotta 1. 124.
=-Cé& Allison, A: J: of Ph. 12. 56.
S3Cf, Gr. Dims, ro) if.

150 Walter Petersen,

masculine because of the long ultima, the change took place in
the reverse direction. It must be borne in mind too that only a
few cases were affected: the nom. sing. perpaxtoxoc, the acc. peroo-
ztoxov, and the nom. pl. psroxxtoxor, while the long ultima of all the
other cases, e. g. the gen. sing. wetpaxtoxov, caused the masc. and
fem. to agree from the beginning. Similarly apx7Jdo¢g could have
followed *xexzddn, etc. After the masculine had followed the fem-
inine, the neuter in -toxev in turn followed the masculine. For
-icxo- this tendency might also have been helped by primitives in
-i¢, e. g. nomtoxog after xozic, though it does not seem that this
could have been of great importance.

15. The question whether the old accentuation of -1ox0- has left
any traces in the Greek language may be answered in the nega-
tive. The only possible case of an appellative with the accent on
either the ultima or propenultima is yéoxev (Hipp. ap. Erotian.
p- 137 Klein), but the fact that the text is suspected also for other
reasons should not make us place too much faith in it. On the
other hand it would certainly be conceivable Ahat a word which
had lost completely all association with any primitive (it designated
a kind of pot, see § 41 A) should have resisted the tendency to
change the accent to the penult, since it was by all means not
felt as a diminutive. Other examples of irregular accentuation of
the suffix are all non-Greek proper names, which therefore do not
concern us. I might mention the Thracian river ‘Aozioxéc,! the
Dacian river Tiftoxe¢, the Dacian town Tigtoxov, the Parthian town
Di)cxov.

16. The gender of words in -tox0-, which may be either mascu-
line, feminine, or neuter, like that of the I. E. -ko- and -lo- di-
minutives, followed the gender of their primitives?: 6 6GeXoxee :
6 dferdc, 6 veavionoc : 6 veaviac, H mapdevionyn : h mapdévoc, h xoptoxy :
1 x60n, fh otxtony : h oixta, TO wedtoxov : 7d wéhoc, TO cauPaAtoxoy : TO
cay.Gahov. When, however, we count the extant words in the suffix
we find that the masculines are overwhelmingly predominant,® the
feminines are much less frequent, and the neuters are exceedingly
rare. In round numbers there are found considerably over two
hundred masculines, about forty feminines, and only about a dozen
neuters.

17. This preponderance of the masculine is not due to any extended
tendency to form masc. derivatives in -toxeg from fem. and neut.

1 Also in the form “Aotyoxes.
2 Cf. Brugmann, op. cit. 669 f.
3 Cf. Schwabe, De Dem. Graec. et Lat. 50.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -vox0- -6zy-. 151

primitives (cf. § 22ff.), but seems rather to be attributed to the
accident that most of the groups in which the suffix became pro-
ductive largely consisted of derivatives from masc. primitives.
After that gender had once become dominant new feminine and
neuter formations no longer seemed familiar, and this in turn re-
acted to make the masculine more dominant still. As far as the
neuter is concerned the competition of words in -tov was a par-
ticular reason for avoiding the -1cxov. Sometimes this resulted in
forming -toztov! rather than -toxov, at other times it meant that
of the two principal possible diminutives the one in -tov was
formed rather than the one in -toxov.

18. The extreme rarity of the neuters led some scholars to deny
their existence altogether.2, When an indisputable form like the
plural aoxegioxx occurred they spoke of a metaplastic plural, and
otherwise they assumed a corrupt text and substituted forms in
-toxtoy (e. g. pedtoxtov Alcm. 65) or -toxo¢g (cov cavdadtoxov Ar. Ran.
406). That they were mistaken, however, is shown by six forms
which can not be interpreted otherwise than as neuters except by
the above devices. One of these is Doric, namely the above men-
tioned pedioxov, and five Ionic : aoxeotoxx and capBadtoxax, acc. pl.,
Hipponax ; xawaGtoxn, acc. pl., Herondas ; oxdyvioxov, nom. sing.,
Insc. Samos 346-345 B. C.; coehoxov, nom. sing., loc. cit. Prob-
ably also yé)toxev (Hippocrates), but the irregular accent and sus-
picions of corruption of the text make it dubious.? In the Attic
dialect there are no certain examples, but two highly probable ones,
in the first place zoctoxov, Alexis frg. 3. 472, where Porson con-
jectured to1wdrcv xpetoxov instead of towmoroxpetoxov, but what-
ever reading we adopt, the following neuter adjective tégev makes
it easier to take the word as a neuter than as a masculine.
Equally probable is cavdaitoxov, Ar. Ran. 406, in the verse xan
ebteAcin T65e TO cuvdadtoxov. The mscs. have the unmetrical zévde
zov cavdudtoxov. Bentley conjectured tév te cavduAtoxov, but Blass
better as above, which differs from the textus receptus only by
the omission of the two v’s, i. e. much less than Bentley’s con-
jecture, and at the same time does not assume a masculine deriv-
ative from a neuter primitive which would otherwise be hard to

PCi Gi Dims, 252 f-

2 So e. g. Schwabe, I. c.; Janson, op. cit. 3 f., De Graec. Serm. Nom. Dim.
et Ampl. 65; Leo Meyer, KZ. 6. 381.

3 See note to yéduoxov § 41 A.

4 L. and Sc. e. g. give the words as masculine, while Meineke, in order to
avoid the neuter in -coxov, would substitute xgéloxtor.

152 Walter Petersen,

explain. The existence of all of these forms in -1cxov should make
us dubious about invariably counting as masculines those forms
from neuter primitives of which the gender can not be determined.
Thus the acc. sing. Aextoxov (: 76 Xéx0¢) in the Ionian Hippocrates
and the gen. pl. cxyGadtonwy (: c&uSxAov) in Herondas are certainly
neuter rather than masculine, probably also the dual Cuyiexw in an
inscription from Eleusis,1 though the fact that there are no certain
examples of the neuter in Attic would make any conclusion doubt-
ful, as are also the following forms in literature : yoy attonats (: yop.
ua) Jo. Laur. De Magistr. Reip. Rom. 2. 4, mteptoxors (: xtep6v)
Babr. 118. 5, oxeAtoxow (: 76 oxédoc) Ar. Eccl. 1167.

Ig. The residue of certain or probable masculine derivatives from
feminine or neuter primitives is exceedingly small, and no larger
proportionately than aberrations of gender in other directions. All
of these changes, moreover, can be explained as caused by the
same forces and will be treated to-gether.

20. When it was stated that the gender of words in -1cx0- followed
that of the primitive several classes of exceptions were ignored.
In the first place it is evident that names of persons must follow
the natural gender regardless of the gender of their primitives.
While 76 pstexxtov could itself be neuter because that was the
regular gender for substantivized adjectives of all kinds, and there
was no corresponding masculine form to be had, yet from this
word could come only perpaxtoxog, not *yeroaxtoxoy, since a form in
-.gx0- grammatically characterized as masculine was available. This
applies particularly to proper names,” the gender of which depends
altogether on the sex of the person to whom they are applied.
Thus from 6 Adxog comes indeed Avxzioxog when a man is desig-
nated, but Avxiox% for a woman, from 6 &yed¢ comes “Aypioxx, an
epithet of the goddess Athena, from the neuter 76 pédog Medtoxoc,
from 76 pteov Muptoxos.

21. Moreover, when the derivative is not a living ‘diminutive,’
being either faded or with a suffix expressing likeness or perhaps
appurtenance from the beginning, the derivative would not be in
as close touch with its primitive as with its congeneric words, and
would consequently be disposed to follow the gender of the latter.
Thus xoztoxo¢g ‘a pastille’ followed the gender of the congeneric
spoytoxoc and xuxAtoxog rather than of its primitive 4 xozt¢ “ chopper,’
daa xavvabioxoy ‘a shoe made of hemp’ followed capGadtoxov (: 76
ou. pahov) ) rather than its primitive u) ARNOLLLE. Congeneric attrac-

1 Cf. the editor’s ‘note Arch. Eph. 1899 D- 184.
2 Cf. Janson, op. cit. 68.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -vox0- vo0zy-. 153

tion would, however, not be limited to such cases, but even where,
as in ‘diminutives,’ primitive and derivative are in closer connec-
tion it might take place, so e. g. doxeptoxov diminutive of aoxnéox
a kind of shoe, neuter instead of feminine because of 76 cauaDt-
oxov. Moreover, this shift of gender must not necessarily be caused
by another word in -toxe-, though such words would be most
closely associated, but any other word could do the same. Par-
ticularly often the genus influenced the Species: a uuioxy ‘a small
sea-muscle’: 6 Ue after xOy YN or teAAtvy, Potoxog “a tassel or knob

shaped like a pomegranate’: 7 66a after Sucavos ‘tassel.’ Also

the proper names Aogioxo¢: to Séou after 6 « seastee ‘beach,’ *Ep-
, are ¢ 4 c U4 «

yioun : 76 govov after n nOde or 7 TOAtyvy ‘city, and perhaps Za-

Moxos : 7) Can after 6 motayd¢ ‘river.’ Below I group all cases of

attraction of gender to-gether, classifying according to the direction

in which the gender was influenced.

22. A. Masculines from feminine primitives. sae: “a boss’

c , Ar Zo , c
%) Gontc, after dotpayadtoxes (cf. Hes. sub oc&Aapa), Sepploxos a
(small?) leather covering or coat’: 7 Sdéegig after yutwvioxog or

sountoxoc, Zadtoxog (name of a river) if: 7 ane (cf. § 95 n.) after
6 motawd¢ ‘river,’ xonioxog ‘a pastille’: 7 xontc Age ooytoxog and
nuxMonoc, Aomadioxog ‘a flat dish or plate’: 7 Aonmé&e after TVOXt-
oxo¢, pnvicxos ‘crescent’: y pyvy and ceAnvioxog ‘crescent’: 7
cehyvyn after 6 xtxdoc or xuxdtoxoc, fotoxoc: 7 Adu (§ 21), prob-
ably also zapuywvioxog ‘a carpenter's square’: 7 Ywvia after names
of tools like pz Oy Atexos, otuAtoxos, and topvicxec. Perhaps originally
also 6 cwdmvicxog ‘a garment made of fine cloth’: 7 otvdwv after
yizmvionxes. In its only occurrence, however, cwdwvicxos is used
with a feminine adjective (§ 69), probably a secondary develop-
ment due to the reverse influence of 4 civdwv.

23. B. Feminines from masculine primitives. wutoxn: 0 v.d¢ (§ 21),
Teixodioxy (name of a village): 6 tptmovg after 4 xwpym.

24. C. Masculines from neuter primitives. puoionog (a surgical
instrument) : 76 ypaugelov after the same group as Taparyovionos
(§ 22), Aoptcxog (name of a beach): 76 Sdéov after 6 atyiddc,
Outoxog ‘a censer’: 76 Sto¢ after many names of vessels, e. g.
nadionos and xotvAtoxos, xapuioxog “a nut-like vessel’: tO xd&puov,
like Sutoxoc, xevtpionog ‘a kind of fish’: 70 xévtpov after names
of fish like yduvutoxoc, dedouwioxos, and KEG Tpivionas, Aypvionas *

1 Cf. Brugmann, Gr. 2. 2. 92.

2 The acc. sing. Ajuvio[xor] in the Attic inscription of Ditt.? 633. 25 is prob-
ably masculine because the word is otherwise certainly masculine, e. g.
the acc. pl. Anuvioxovg in Hesychius.

154 Walter Petersen,

‘a woolen band or riband’ if: *Anpviev (cf. diAypwov) after ove-
gavioxoc, Auwvioxog ‘fine linen’: 76 Atvov! after *6 owdavioxog (§ 22)
or yitwvioxos, payaptoxog “ Megarian pottery’: 7& Md&yapa = Mé-
yapa after mvantoxog etc., mapafortoxog : 7d nmap&Bodov if ‘little
images’ probably followed avdeuxvticxog or the generic 6 t5no¢, but
if ‘ projection’ rather aotpayadioxo¢g etc. toumavionog ‘a borer’:
7 tpUmavov? after the same group as xapaywvioxes (§ 22). If
oxetonog ‘little leg’ (§ 18) is right instead of oxeXoxov (: TO
oxéhoc), it was influenced by zodtcxec.

25. D. Feminines from neuter primitives. “Epyicxn (name of a
town) : t& gpya after vj) 6A or moAtyvn, Sutoxn ‘a censer’: TO
Seg after xotuAtoxn, xvAtoxy, Aexavioxy, OSotoxy, or oradtory.

26. E. Neuters from feminine primitives. doxepionov : 7, noxdom
and xawatexov : 1 xdvweftc, both designating shoes, after cauBa-
ALonov. :

27. It will thus be seen that all cases of aberration of gender
from that of the primitive can be explained without assuming a
tendency of masculines to take the place of feminines and neuters.
In addition to the principles applied above # may be that the
existence of a double primitive or a primitive with uncertain gender
sometimes was a contributing factor to causing aberration of the
derivative, though there is no evidence that it was strong enough
by itself. Thus the fact that oSvicxo¢ could be referred to 7, gbSote
as well as 6 o%é1¢ may have helped in the formation of xomtoxog :
f xont¢. Sometimes such departures from the rule are only appar-
ent, being due to our connecting with the wrong word as primi-
tive. Thus oixtcxy belongs to fh oixia, not to 6 otxoc, ondyvicnov
to 76 oxAnviov, not 6 oxi, oteouvioxy to oteoavy, Not 6 otémavos,
évioxy to 7 dvoc, not 6 dvoc.

28. If words in -1cxo- were ever derived from adjectives (if not
substantivized),? the gender of the derivative will of course depend
altogether on congeneric words. xovdtoxo¢g ‘a scoop-shaped surgeon’s
knife’: xct,o¢ ‘hollow’ followed some names of tools, e. g. po-
yMoxog, convioxos, or topvioxog. In view of the fact, however, that
this is the only appellative which can plausibly be derived from
a real adjective primitive, it may be safer to assume that it has
come frome a substantivized form which has been lost.

1 Possibly the rare and late 6 Aivog is the real primitive.
2 The primitive may be the feminine tovmeyn.
3 So e. g. vaotioxos | vaatos (sc. mAaxovs) ‘a cheese-cake ’ (§ 79).

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -v6z0- -oxz7-. 155

lll. -J2KO- AS A SUFFIX OF SIMILARITY OR APPROXIMATE IDENTITY.

29. According to § 8ff. the earliest use of -isko- was to form
words in which it designated an approximation to astate or quality
designated by a primitive adjective. After the suffix was used
also to form derivatives from substantives it would of course
designate an approximation to the nature of the primitive sub-
stantive, i. e. it would represent the derivative as like but not
quite like the primitive, a use which though not found precisely
in the same form in substantives of other languages than the
Greek, yet bears a close resemblance to the prevailing meaning of
the Germanic and Balto-Slavic adjectives with substantive prim-
itives, e. g. Goth. barnisks ‘child-like’ : barn ‘ child,’ funisks ‘fiery’:
funins (gen.) ‘ fire,’ Lith. dafigiszkas ‘heavenly’: dangus ‘ heaven,’
bérniszkas “servantlike’: bérnas. Moreover, since this use, as well
as the other uses of -isko-, was influenced by simple -ko-, we may
compare Skt. substantives in -ka- which is exactly like Gr. -1cx0-,
e. g. culaka-1 ‘top of a column’: cula- ‘crest,’ chattraka-m 1
‘mushroom’: chattra-m ‘parasol.’ For Gr. -tox0- this remained
the most characteristic use, one which is not only found in a larger
number of words than any other, but often clings to words with
deteriorative or diminutive meaning (cf. § 45f., 56). I may
mention as examples of this meaning: yyvicxoc: yy, ‘ that which
is like a goose’ i. e. the end of a ship’s stern turned up like a
goose’s neck, coteptoxog : dove, ‘that which is like a star,’ an
ornament or knob of a helmet or flower, pyvicxos : pjvy, something
‘like a moon, but not a real one,’ ‘a crescent.’

30. This use of -icxe- must have existed at all periods of the
language, but was most frequent in post-Classical times. There
are, however, quite a number of certain examples from the Attic
age. That none are found in the pre-Attic literature (epic and
lyric poets) is explained partially by their dialect (§ 1), par-
tially by their subject matter, since lyric poetry would be the very
last place where one would expect words which, like most of those
below, designated things belonging to the realm of technology.
That not one of the ten words in -1cx0- of this earlier age show
this use may therefore well be laid to the accident of transmis-
sion. Conversely, the greater number of post-Classical words of
this type is partly due to the existence of technical writers from
these periods, and authors like Hero, Galen, and Pollux are re-

* Cf. Edgerton, JAOS. 31.114.
Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. ibe SEPTEMBER, 1913.

156 Walter Petersen,

sponsible for the preservation of quite a number. Yet after all
there seems to have been a growth of this use of the suffix in
the Alexandrian and Roman ages, a growth which apparently is
commensurate with the decline of its ‘ diminutive’ uses, and this
explains its cause. In the Lyric age -toxe- was the ‘ diminutive’
suffix, and -1ov had not yet developed, while in the Alexandrian
age -tov was the ‘diminutive’ suffix par excellence, and left to
-tcxo- its most characteristic function of designating similarity,
which correspondingly increased. The Attic period represents a
transition: ‘ diminutives’ were still frequent, but the other function
Was gaining ground.

31. Of the two factors present in the notion of similarity, that
of likeness in some respects and unlikeness in others,! the latter
was undoubtedly the most important psychological factor for -toxe-
originally, if its origin was correctly described, since mere ap-
proximate identity was what the comparative degree emphasized.
This emphasis is found e. g. in uxvioxeg ‘crescent,’ ‘not a real i. e.
full moon,’ in contrast to pyyy ‘moon,’ BaorAtoxes : Baotede, ‘not
a real king,’ ‘a mere kingling,’ because king of a small country,
mavdtoxy : méic, ‘not a real child, but only approximately one,’ be-
cause too old, ‘a young girl,’ ywtwvioxeg : yuzev, ‘not a real tunic ’
because too short, ‘a short coat.’ The suffix, however, is not
confined to these cases any more than -tov; cf. e. g. odpavionos :
ovpavec, ‘that which is like the sky,’ ‘the roof of the mouth,’ or
évioxoc : Ovec, ‘that wich is like an ass,’ ‘a windlass,’ in which a
point of similarity in contrast to general dissimilarity is emphasized.

32. That -icxo- was actually interpreted as implying similarity
rather than as a diminutive suffix is of course most evident when
the derivative designates an object of the same or larger size than
the primitive, e. g. ogyxtoxog: cong, a large piece of wood shaped
like a wasp’s tail, yyvioxoc : yy, the end of a ship’s stern turned
up like a goose’s neck, zaidicxy ‘a young girl’: 1 mot ‘ child,’
‘little girl,’ ayxwvioxog ‘joint’ in a piece of wood one and one
half ell wide : zyxwv ‘elbow.’ Such words show what the inter-
pretation originally was for odexvicxo¢g ‘roof of mouth ’ soveavéc
‘heaven,’ trxtoxo¢ a certain ornament for the head : tzzo¢ ‘ horse,’
tpoytoxo¢g ‘a small ball of soap,’ ‘lozenge’ : tpoyé¢ ‘ wheel,’ dvioxog
‘a sea-fish of the cod kind’ : évog ‘ass,’ etc. Yet after the dimin-
utive use had once been developed the notion of small size might
appear uppermost in some words of this kind, and when the prim-

1 Cf. Gr. Dims. 08 ff.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -voxo- -v0xy-. 157

itive may itself be used in a metaphorical or extended sense
diminutives are altogether indistinguishable from these words. Thus
is %Zovioxoc, ‘an axle’ of certain machines, merely a ‘little axle,’
or ‘that which is like an axle,’ with the primitive conceived as
designating only the axle of a wagon? Is wuioxy formed from
ule ‘sea-muscle’ as a diminutive, or was the original meaning
‘mouse’ in mind, so that it was ‘like a mouse?’ Or is aomsdioxyn,
“a little image of a shield’ of gold or onyx, ‘that which is like
a shield’ or ‘a little shield,’ the latter being possible because such
an image might by an extension of the primitive itself be called
aonic ? In this way these words shade imperceptibly into the
diminutives, though they scarccly are the ones that gave rise to
the latter use.!

33. In a few words -1cx0- seems to shade into a possessive mean-
ing, only apparently so, however, since there are no clear cases.
doteptoxos : dovyo, ‘an aster,’ is that which is ‘like a star,’ not
that which ‘has a star,’ and xevtgtoxoe : xévtpov, a certain fish, is
that which is ‘like a prick,’ not that which ‘has a prick.’ They
are simply cases of naming complex phenomena by a striking
feature, without necessarily selecting one which applies to the
phenomenon as a whole.

34. Sometimes an extension of the use of the primitive without
formal characterization causes it to become partially equivalent
to a derivative in -toxo- meaning ‘like’ the primitive. From this
' partial identity can come complete identity of meaning by semantic
syncretism : zadioxo¢ “voting-urn ’ became ‘wine-jar’ = xado¢,
because the latter may itself be used of voting-urns just like the
derivative, which was originally ‘that which is like a wine-jar.’
Such cases of equivalence easily cause other derivatives in -tox0-
to be made by analogy, without their ever having been different
from their primitives.

The collection of examples will be subdivided according to con-
generic groups.

1. Names of Persons.

35. Baordioxos : Pacthed¢, one who is ‘like a king, but not a real
one, a king of a small country, therefore on border line of de-
teriorative use. Polyb. 3. 44. 5 clonyaye tod Bauovdtonovg tods mept
MeyAov. Certainly without contempt when used of the first person

InGi Gr. Dims, ro ff,

158 Walter Petersen,

in CIG. 5072 Eye Lixm Basidtonog! NovBadav xa Grov sav Atord-
Tov... 672 syevovéuny Baovdtox[oc]. mardioxy : x, moitc, probably she
who is ‘approximately a child, but not quite’ because too old,?
originally ‘a young girl,’ ‘maiden.’ Cf. Phryn. 239 (Lobeck)
TaLotony * TOTO emi tio Dep pamanvne ot viv twOdaow of SE apyoiton ent
cig verwidoc, cig anxohovSyzéov. In this original meaning Ar. Ach.
1148 xadeddew Meta mardtoxnyg? dpouoTaTM<. Xen. An. 4. 3. II xa-
vtdoley .. . YéoovtTe ve xo yuvollxx xo matdioxnac. Even of a young
wife Plut. Cic. 41. Usually specialized to ‘servant’ or ‘ prostitute.’
The former probably is to be compared with the similar use of
Engl. ‘ girl,’ and is not a faded hypocorism, since * og in the
meaning ‘servant’ as presupposed is late and rare. zadioxy as
‘servant’ e. g. Lys. frg. 51; Isae. 6. 19, 8. 35 Et 38 (Sc. Exéxty-
70) avdednoda wioboopotvta nat Sto Deounatvag xo mordtoxyy. Also
Insc. Delph. CB. 2001. 4, 2071. 4. The meaning ‘ prostitute ’ e. g.
Her. 1. 93; Din. 1. 23; Ath. 437 F xpd¢ tae Syuootacg siover mou-

Stoxug xdix9G0m¢. This specialization may be due either to the in-

‘

fluence of the deterioratives or hypocoristic words in the suffix.
meudtozxoc* : 6 méic, he who is ‘ approximately achild, but not quite,’ *

a youth,’ ‘lad’ (cf. zadicxy). The passage which best shows its
eae is Xen. Hell. 5. 4. 32 Gove pévror matic te Mv not naLdtoxog
KOOL POV TavTxe TH nae Toray Stevéhecs, yahendv etvar ToLrodTov avdoa
anoxtiwvivat. The position between zoi¢ and 7%éyv in a series in
which the emphasis is on remaining good all through life shows
that an intermediate age is meant, so that za:Stoxos is virtually equiv-

alent to petodxtov or our ‘lad.’ Ar. Eccl. 1146 Kondeiv yépoveta,

1 One can hardly make much of the passage. It is doubtful whether the
the Nubian ‘ kingling ’ knew the emotional value of the Greek word he used.

2 If matdioxog and maidioxn were formed with the notion ‘ too old or too
large to be properly called child ’’ they contain the roots of an amplificative
meaning. This is, however, not at all certain; for comparison of the German
‘das junge Madchen’ Engl. ‘ young girl’ shows that there may have been a
real diminutive idea, in as much as e. g. a girl may have been conceived of as
being young not in comparison with other girls, but with the age of normal
adult women.

8 With a hypocoristic shade, cf. § 81.

4 That maidioxos is so much rarer than mawdioxn seems to be due to the fact
that for a youth who had reached manhood it was customary to use véavies or
veavioxos, while the feminine matdioxy did service for that age as well as the
younger one of the wetoegé. Wackernagel at first (Glotta 2. 6 ff.) maintained
that madtoxos, where found in Attic, was a Laconism, but later (Glotta 2. 315)
retracted in view of its occurrence in Aristophanes.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -toxo- -voxy-. 159

ustoantov, matSicxov is rather puzzling, for it looks like a similar
series in which zadicoxog would be a younger boy than perpaxnioy,
yet even if so there is no need of assuming that it was synonymous
with xai¢ or even designated particularly small boys. In Herondas
3. 30 madSionog seems to designate a rather young lad, and in
Philox. 1. 2 anahag naudionos ev doyueéa zpoyéw gépwv there is no
hint as to his size.

For a number of proper names in which -toxe- is a suffix of
similarity see § roof.

2. Names of Animals.

36. Most of these form a closely associated group of words desig-
nating kinds of fish.

A. Names of fish. These are closely associated with other names
of food-articles in which -toxo- is hypocoristic in the sense ‘ de-
licious ’ (§ 62 f., 79), and such a force may here often have been
united with the notion of similarity (e. g. the first example of
yhauutoxoc). The latter is the prime motive of formation when
the primitive does not designate the same fish as the derivative.
Examples : faothioxos : Gaovhed¢, a certain sea-fish which is ‘ king-
like.’ Opp. H. 1. 129. ydAavztozxoc probably a fish ‘ like the y)«d-
zo¢, but not the same,’ a different species.1 Both are named from
their color. Philem. frg. 4. 27 (1. 21); Arched. frg. 4. 436 (here
with secondary diminutive meaning, see § 72); Baton frg. 4. 502
(1. 16) ; Damox. frg. 4. 530 (1. 18). fwrioxog : “Iwve, a fish which
is luxuriant ‘like an Jonian.’ Archestr. ap. Ath. 328 C Xoedcogeuyv
&& "Eyésou voy miova wh maocdeune, “Ov xetvor xaAgovaw imvionov. xa-
motoxos : x4n00¢, a fish ‘like a boar,’ because of a grunting noise.
Ap. Athen. 355 F. xevreioxoc : xévzpov, a fish ‘like a sharp point,’
i. e. a prickly one. Theophr. frg. 171. 9. Aevzioxoc? probably a
fish ‘ like the i<dx0c, but not the same,’ ‘the white mullet.’ Hices.
ap. Ath. 306E. dvyviozoc: dbyvocg, a fish ‘like a torch,’ cf. Luc.
V. H. 2. 30 xa, tySd¢ 88 etye moddods, tods piv Sadcic mooccorndtxGs,
TOds dE winpods avoonk TETUPWLEVOLS, éxdhouv 3& adtodS Avyvioxouc.
Cvioxos : Gvog, a fish ‘like the ass’ (cf. Lat. asellus), a sea-fish of
the gadus or cod kind. Dorio ap. Ath. 118C. Perhaps started
from the use of the primitive itself to designate a fish. Cf. Ath.
315 F Siagéce: 3’ Gvog dvicxev. doyéoxoc a fish ‘like the deed, but

1 If primitive and derivative are identical all examples are originally
hypocoristic, belonging to § 79.
2 Cf. yhavxioxos. Hardly directly from the adjective. Cf. Janson, op. cit. 65.

160 Walter Petersen,

not the same,’ for it is given as a synonym of xy, by Pancrat.
ap. Ath.305D. toaytozoc: coxyoc, a sea-fish ‘like a goat.’ Marcell.
Sid = 723:

B. Miscellaneous. Pacthiozoc: uovhed¢. a) a ‘king-like’ serpent,
named thus because of a diadem-like spot on the head, as explained
by Plin. 8. 21..33. LXX Ps. 90. 13. b) a “king-like® birdie
golden-crested wren (cf. the Germ. Zaunkénig), perhaps conceived
as ‘little king.’ Aesop. ap. Plut. 2. 806E 6 Atownzou Bacrdtoxos
em THY Wmv TOD HeToD xowrodete. xowwaxioxos ‘a young pig’:
noone ‘a pile of stones,’ because of its shapelesness (?) or for
some obscure reason.) Antiph. frg. 3. 125 Koudde ye pinede xpo-
wantonos obtoct Dadrabyvec. Avxioxos : A0xoc, ‘not a real wolf,’ but
only half a one, a half-breed between wolf and dog. Cf. Isid.
Orig. 12. 2 lycisci dicuntur canes nati ex lupis et canibus, cum
forte inter se miscentur. pvioxos wvioxy: pos, an animal ‘like a
mouse, a kind of small sea-muscle. The latter perhaps a cimin-
utive, cf. Diph. ap. Ath. 90 D at 3& putoxna tov woody odo pwxed-
cepa. jwutoxog is found Marcell. Sid. 38.

3. Parts of the Body.

37. Pwmiozoc: Pwude, ‘that which is like as altar,’ a part of a
tooth. Poll. 2. 93 zmv pévtor pudmy TO pev pds TH ouput Bau.oxov
nahorow. MAtovvotozxoc ‘ that which is like Dionysus,’ certain bony
excrescences on the temple, “‘ because the poets called Bacchus
horned.” Galen. 19. 443 (Kiithn). éywrioxoc : 2yivoc, ‘ that which is
like a pot,’ a part of the ear. Poll. 2. 86 7 38 wept TH xubéArn xnor-
26ang (sc. TOD Otd¢) eywioxos. oAutoxoc ‘hollow of tooth’: 6Ay0¢
‘mortar.’ Poll. 2. 93 t@v wévtor pudray ... XXAOUOL ... THE ... ROLAOTH TAS
dAutonovg. ovoarioxoc ‘roof of mouth’: odeavég ‘heaven.’ Arist.
Probl. 33. 14. 963a 2; Ath. 315 D.

4. Names of Plants.

38. woregioxoc : &ovvp, a plant ‘ like a star,’ an aster. Theophr.
H. P. 4.12. 2. éBioxoc : iBtc, a plant ‘like an ibis ’ (?).2- Diosc.
3. 163. Movauioxog ‘ cotton-tree’: Ilptauoc, Gloss. Mgvamioxos a
plant ‘like Iotamog’ = gouodviov, of which Diosc. 3. 144 totopeitron

1 Possibly the primitive was itself used of a young pig, and xowuaxioxog
would then be a diminutive.

* The fact that €@ioxos is the spelling in Galen and Suidas makes this
etymology more than doubtful, and suggests an unknown foreign source.
Cf. Janson, De Graeci Sermonis Dem. in toxog 5.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -wxo- -toxy-. 161

Bb Gc nai cig chy ysion Anodsiow vy fila epeliZer mode appodiorm.
Doubtful is doaxioxos : &euxog, a certain leguminous plant. Cf. Gal.
19. 85 (Kiihn) dpaxida¢- muptvevg apa axpantonouc, eidog Oonotou dé
octv 6 d&oaxoc. There is no clue whether primitive and derivative
designate the same or different species; if the latter, apantoxoc

belongs here.
5. Statues and Dedicatory Images.

39. Since the primitive may itself be used of a statue or image
without formal characterization, the derivative may be a diminutive
if it designates a small statue, and no sharp line of distinction
can be drawn. There is certainly no idea of small size in the first
example of [lavicxoc.

A. Images of gods. °Amoddwviozos a statue of “Anéd\wv. Ath.
636 F. Mavicxog an image of IIév. Clem. Al. 53 cia, 38 xa ado
Sudiv elxdvec, Ilavionor, swig xo yuuvo xdpon xo octupor usSdovtes.
For Cicero De nat. deor. 3. 17 see § 88. Sarvoioxog an image
of a satyr. Ath. 200 D Lactuptoxos nevtamnyus.*

B. Images of Animals. immioxoc: trnog, ‘an image of a horse.’
Insc. Sam. Hoffm. 3. 169. 41 (346/5 B.C.) tanmtonog yadnotg. mav-
Snotoxos: xévine, ‘an image of a panther.’ Hero Autom.
3. 3, 4. I. woayioxos: to&yos, ‘an image of a he-goat.’ Insc. Del.
Mich. 833. 24 (279 B.C.) toxytoxor ypuoct cotaror.

C. Images of things. comdioxn: konic, ‘an image of a shield.’
CIA. 2. 751 Aa 8 domad(tloxnas yovodc. Insc. Del. Mich. 833. 25, 34;
Ditt?. 588. 32 domdioxar dvdywor AA. xdevrjeioxos : xdwrie, ‘an
image of a couch.’ Insc. Sam. Hoffm. 3. 169. 48. medion: 7édx,
‘an image of a chain.’ Insc. Boeot. IGS. 2420. 27 yetpinédug xq
nedtaonas [do}youptuc, bind seig Soayuy. orepavioxos: ovépauvoc, “an
image of a wreath or crown.’ Insc. Del. Mich. 833. 51 ovequvioxor
yovact Sdo, ddxy Soayuatl- THER. atégauvoc ypucotic... ddnty Soaypor-
HNAAAAFFF.2. Insc. Cos Ditt?. 734. 122.

6. Articles of Dress and Ornament.

40. aomdioxn : conic, a ‘shield-shaped’ ornament. Hes. domodt-
OnOL*...TEpIeoT|S xbou.0s Oxhore EotKure. oTEQLOXOS : dovyo, a ‘ star-
J = Ud 5 lp c
shaped’ ornament. Diod. Ig. 34. yamuwarioxov: yau.%,a gamma-

shaped’ ornament. Joan. Laur. De magist. reip. Rom. 2. 4 yiz@or

1 Though the image was five ells long, it might yet have been a diminutive
in contrast to the dwdéexénnyvs MAiovvoos mentioned before.

2 The contrast in weight between the otépavog and the orepavioxos shows
that diminutive interpretation is right for this passage.

162 Walter Petersen,

feuacic yapp.ationxots dvahenoyymuévers. izt7eioxoc : txnog, a ‘ horse-
like’ ornament for the head. Crat. Jun. frg. 3. 376 (2). yvioxos:
uyvy, an ornament ‘like the moon,’ i. e. a crescent-shaped orna-
ment for the neck. LXX Isai. 3. 18. Of a covering to protect
the head of statues Ar. Av. 1114. o€Ayvioxoc: cedivy, a ‘moon-
like’ ornament, i. e. an ivory crescent on the boots of the Roman
senators. Jo. Laur. Mens. p: 1. 10, De mapgistg 925135.)
crescent-shaped amulet in Hes. reoyioxoc: tpoyé¢, an ear-ring, be-
cause ‘like a wheel.’ LXX Ezek. 16. 12. yerwvioxog: yz, ‘not
a real tunic, but only like one,’ because shorter. Ar. Av. 946;
Antiphan. irg.. 3. 17 (3) ; Xen. An.5. 4. 13 ;/ Denn. 19. 197 7G
754. 12 (349/4 B. C).

7. Vases, Vessels, Baskets.

4r. Of the considerable number of words of this group? the
large majority is of obscure suffixal meaning, and often we can
not tell whether primitive and derivative designated the same or
different kinds of vessels, or whether the derivative was a dimin-
utive. As to those cases where primitive and derivative are equiv-
alent we can be sure that there is no fading of the notion ‘be-
longing to the category of, since there is no plausible example
of such a meaning of -toxo- being actually alive. We must rather
assume that the few words in which the suffix designated simi-
larity and which subsequently became equivalent to their primi-
tives caused others to follow by analogy. Thus éytwtoxog ‘a pot ’
was something ‘like a sea-urchin’s shell,’ but the primitive éyivo¢
could also be used of such a vessel, and with this meaning in
mind primitive and derivative seemed equivalent, so that they
could cause by analogy otauvionxog = ovapvog. In view of the
uncertainty of the relation of primitive and derivative in so many
words I divide the material into two groups: A) -toxe- probably
designates similarity ; B) there is no evidence that primitive and
derivative differed, though I would by no means affirm in every
case that they did not differ. i

A. -10z0- implies similarity. &yuvioxog : éyivog (see above). Poll.
IO. 95 mentions it with éyivo¢g among t& tod paystoov oxevy.
Svudaxtoxoc: SShunoc, that which is ‘like a bag or sack,’ a bread-
net or basket. Crat. frg. 2. 237 (1. 6); Ar. frg. 2. 1046 (37), 1165

(6) "Ener? ani codbov Tne thy onvptdx Anfdv Kot Sudantonov xo v0

1 Cf. Gr. Dims. o1 ff. for a similar group of names of vessels in.-toy.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -toxo- -voxy-. 163

véya Badeverov.1 xadioxoc: xadog (see § 34). Ar. Vesp. 321;
Bysetg37 ; Dem. 57. 13°; CIA: 2. 678 B 27 (370-366 B: C.): - 2a-
ovioxoc : xxovov, a ‘nut-like’ vessel. LXX Ex. 25. 33. xorvdioxos
a cup ‘like a xétvdo¢, but not the same,’ because it has only
one handle. Poll. 6. 96 76 3& povwtov xotuAtones MvoudteTo. x0-
cuAtonog designates a peculiar type of vessel, and thus contains
the notion of similarity, also in Hes. xovvAtoxog* xourvypioxes @
Yoavror ot plota ... twig TH pOvwta ToTHoM. tadagloxos: Té-
ago, a silver vessel shaped ‘ fike a basket.’ Theocr. 15. 113 Ilag
3 anaret x&iror TEQuaAayysvor sv THAxplonots "Apyupéors. _xEAsoxor :
yéhevov, probably a vessel shaped ‘like a tortoise shell.’ Hipp. ap.
Erotian. p. 137 (Klein) yéhoxov - TpIRA Lov.?

B. -vox0- has no appreciable meaning. Spontoxog ‘ basket’ (Hes.)
probably = *deozic,3 the primitive being accidentally not quotable.
xadtoxos = néBoe! | Wine jar.’ “Ar. frg. 2. 1176 (2) ; Cratin. frg. 2.
127 ; Strattis frg. 2.771 (1). xadadioxoc = xahadog ‘a vase-shaped
basket.’ Ar. Lys. 535, 579, Thesm. 822 ; Eupol. frg. 2. 520 (35); xoa-
Tyotox0s = (?) xpathp. Hes.s. v. xotvAtoxog, see sub A. xvdioxy =
nwUME ‘cup.’ Poll. 6. 95, 10. 66. Aexavioxn = exavyn ‘dish, pot,
pan. Ar. ap. Poll. 6. 86; if Porson’s conjecture is correct also
Telecl. frg. 2. 362. Aéexioxov = 76 déxog ‘dish, plate.’ Hipp. ap.
Poll. 10. 87. domadiozxos probably = hoxK%e ‘ plate,’ though possibly
a deteriorative. Schol. Ar. Vesp. 968. Aovryotoxos = (?) Aoutho
“bath-tub.’ Gloss. mutiozoc = midog ‘jar. Plut. Camill. 20,
where [l:Stcxwv is an uncertain conjecture for ziSwv. ovaurioxos
= otapvosg ‘wine-jar.’ Poll. 7.162. tadagioxos = tx)\xoo¢ ‘ basket.’
Arist. Probl. 20. 14. 924 b 11; Anth. P. 6.174. vdotoxy = bdpta
‘Water-pitcher.’ Ath. 438 F xai xac& tig. negate adtod bdetoxyy
bmp S00 yous Eyoucuv® nayéog poov xatayvdFvar éxédsucev. LXX
4 Regg. 2. 20; Hes. ddpicxy- d8plelia. gpeadionn = (?) oredy ‘a
broad flat vessel.’ Schol. Ar. Ran. 1360.

To the above can be added a word for ‘ basket’ found in Hes.

1 Here #udaxioxos can not be a diminutive because the context suggests
a large quantity.

* The passage is suspected, and a lacuna has been assumed in order to
get yédoxov to be equivalent to yedloxtoy ‘a little cough.’

3 Though ultimately related to the verb doémeww it is better to assume a
lost primitive than that doomioxos is in reality a verbal formation, as does
Janson op. cit. 4. No verb form with o grade seems to be in existence.

4 This equivalence is due to semantic syncretism, cf. § 34.

5 In this example possibly ‘ like a water-pitcher ’ because put to a differ-
ent use.

164 Walter Petersen,

in a variety of forms: Sgtc[c|é¢* gooude. cuptonos - aey'yetev or
Thextov, cig G atxx aufcddover. tivic 38 botoxov. doloxog: xdewoc.

Whatever the origin of this undoubtedly foreign word,} the forms
in -1oxo- were due to the attraction of other words in the same
suffix designating baskets.

8. Architectural and Technological Words.?

42. &Baxtoxos : ¢8ak, that which is ‘like a slab or board,’
(small) stone for inlaying in mosaic work. Moschio ap. Ath. 207 C.
ayzxwvioxos : ayxov, that which is ‘like an elbow,’ something having
an angle, e. g. tenons or door-hinges. Hero Spir. 228f.; LXX
Ex. 26.17; Suid. “Ayxovionog: oxetn tyw.wpytind. a&orioxos : dZmv,
that which is ‘like an axle, but not a real one,’ if the primitive
is thought of as designating an axle of a wagon, its most frequent
use. If not, &&ovicxog is a diminutive. Hero Spir. 220; Hes.
duntonog h ph syoucx aovicxov? tooyahta, tpeFjua SE udvov. cozt-
diozos : Konic, a boss, because ‘like a shield.’ Schol. E 743 o&hor
ol naTA TO pero <Tig Tepineondatag aomdtonor. Hes. domdtoxor-
ae ubdous én dxootc THEOL. GOTEQLOXOS : doth, the boss or knob
of a helmet, pecases: like a star.’ Eustath. 424. 5. coreayahi-
Ox0C : dotpnyanhos, that which is ‘ like the vertebrae ora die.’ a)a
part of a wine-cooler. Poll. 6. 99 08 phy éyer (sc. 6 buxeyo) muo-
wévan GAR See eN NON S b) bosses or discs of metal on the
hemes Hes. oc&hapa - eas 6 én cii¢ mepixsoadatac. Ba-
ToayiGxos: pépog tL sig uibaoag Hes.: Batoayos ‘frog.’ Bopioxoc :
Gwy.6¢, that which is ‘like an altar, but not a real one,’ a model
of an altar, though perhaps a diminutive. Hero Spir. I9I. yea-
giozos : youosiov, a surgical instrument ‘like a pencil.’ Hes. dsggi-
ozxos : digooc, something ‘like a war-chariot,’ but not the same, a
racing-chariot. Since the latter is lighter than the war-chariot, it
might be considered as a diminutive. Ar. Nub. 31 Toete pot
(sc. ypgog EGa ps) Stgetoxon xa cpoyciv “Auuvia. Cuyioxoy : Cuyév,
that which is ‘like a yoke,’ explained by the editor’s note to an
Eleusinian inscription in ‘Agy. Eg. 1899 p. 188 n. 9, 10: vincula
metalli firmitatis aut ornamenti causa cingentia cistas ligneas. za-
Aaptoxos : xxa.0¢, that which is ‘like a reed.’ a) an instrument
for dressing the hair. Theod. Prodr. p. 437. b) a branch of a

1 Janson, op. cit. 5, would make these words Aeolic, but if nothing else
the fact quotes § 1 would make this impossible.

2 Not repeating, of course, those of 6 and 7.

8 Codd. eovisxor.

The Greek Dinunutive Suffix -v0xo- -v6xy-. 165

candle-stick. LXX Ex. 25. 31 ff. xavdioxzoc : xavdd¢, that which is
‘like the stalk of a plant.’ a) a branch of a candle-stick. Joseph.
Be: 7- 5. 5.. b) a silver tube. - Diod.. Excerpt. 521.) 10. xgov-
viozos : xpovves, that which is ‘like a spring,’ the cock or top e. g.
of the clepsydra. Schol. Luc. Pisc. 28; Hero Spir. 178. xvadi-
oxos: x)a90c, that which is ‘ like a cup or hollow,’ mentioned among
surgical instruments in Cod. Laur. 74. 2, see Herm. 38. 282. It
designates the hollow side of a probe in Galen. 19. 122 pdng
Th TAkteL* TH xvadionw tis Godarumiis pxjdyc. xvxdioxos: xbxdos,
that which is ‘like a circle or wheel.’ a) a ring to pass the reins
through. Galen. 3. 321. b) a circular astronomical instrument.
Ptol. Almag. Halm. t. I p. 46. 21 ff. Avxioxoc : dbnosg ‘ wolf’; rea-
son for name obscure. Hes. s. v., see aovioxog. unvioxos : piv,
that which is ‘like the moon’ i. e. crescent-shaped. a) a part of
the rudder according to Hes. 7% yaduau.acta tov mydadtwv. b) metal
crescents. CIA. 2. 678 B 48 (378-366 B. C.) pyvionor yadnot IIL.
woyAtoxos : .6yho¢, an instrument ‘like a lever,’ a certain surgical
instrument. Hipp. Art. 830. Seems to be equivalent to its prim-
itive in Ar. ap. Poll. ro. 147, probably because of semantic
syncretism. vatoxoc : va6¢, that which is ‘like a temple, but not
a real one, a shrine or a chapel. Strabo 637; Joseph. H. J. 8.
8. 4; Hero Spir. Igt. 6f8ediozoc : 68eX6¢ is puzzling because in
their most frequent use the two words coincide from the beginning :
6fedtoxos is merely ‘a spit,’ with no clear reference to small size,
in Ar. Ach. 1007 (@épe code dfedioxous, tva dvaneip cas xlyAus),
Vesp. 354, 364, Av. 359, 388, 672; Sotad. frg. 3. 585 (x. Io) ;
Anaxipp. frg. 4. 465 (1); Xen. Hell. 3. 3. 7; Arist. Mirab. 63.
835 a 18, Pol. 7. 2. 1324b 19. Probably this identity is due to
prehistoric syncretism (cf. § 34). In the following uses 68e)i-
onxo¢ was conceived as ‘like a spit’: a) the leg of a compass.
Ar Nub. 178. b) a sword-blade. Polyb. 6. 23. 7. c) iron
head of a Roman pilum. Dion. H. 5. 46. d) an iron or copper
coin stamped with a spit. Plut. Lys. 17, Fab. 27. e) an obe-
lisk. CIG. 1838 b 14, from Corcyra. olzéoxoc : cixoc, that which
is ‘like a house.’ a) a bird-cage. Ar. frg. 2. 1119 (8, 9), I129
(10). b) peel or shell of seeds or nuts. Arist. De Plant. 1. 5. 820 b
Io. c) a little model of a house or cage in Insc. Del. Ditt?.
588. 31 (ab. 180 B. C.) Conrdépre doyuod I év otxtoxwr Eudtven.
odutoxos ‘socket or hinge of door’ : 60g ‘mortar’. Sext. Emp.
M. 10. 54. dvioxos: 6vog, that which is ‘like an ass.’ a) a wind-
Jass or crane. Hipp. Fract. 761, its handle id. Art. 834. b) a

, 5 2 , , .
saw. Hes. évioxog* textovinds motwv. ovoavioxos : odpavéc, that which

166 Walter Petersen,

s ‘like the sky,’ the vaulted ceiling of a room or top of a can-
opy-? Phylarch. ap. Ath. 539 E ; Plut. Alex. 37, Phoc. 33. mea-
oupodiozos : mupaBoXov, perhaps something ‘ edge-like,’ a projection.
CIA. 2. 678 B 79 xapaBortoxa: vijg cevoa[x]¥xAov All. Movazcioxzos :
IIetuxo¢g, a part of a surgical instrument. Oribas. 128 Mai. zug-
yloxoc : zUeyos, that which is ‘like a tower.’ a) a burial-vault.
Insc. Lyc. CIG. 4207. 13, 4212: b) a casket. “Artemid> 7a7e
c) probably a tower-like part of a ship in Sext. Emp. M. 9. 78,
7. 102 (L. & Sc. have ‘casket).’ fot%oxoc : 66x, a knob or tassel
shaped ‘like a pomegranate. LXX Ex. 28. 29; Joseph, A. J.
3. 7-43; Suid. orvdéozoc? : ottdoc, that which is ‘like a pillar.’

a) a staff or rod. Hipp. Mochl. 865; Strabo 164 Gcov xodiiiov 74
Shoe émbenévac otuAtoxov. Insc. Del. Mich. 833. ror (279 B. C.).
b) a part of a surgical instrument. Oribas. 128 Mai. c) a mast
to carry a sail at the stern. Eustath. 1039. 38. oyyxioxos : cong,
that which is ‘like a wasp or its tail.’ a) a pointed stick or
stake. Ar. Plut. 301 Méyav AaGovtes fyuévov coyxtoxov. b) roof-
timbers or rafters. Polyb. 5. 89. 6 E60 x ao sxnodexamyyovs Ewes
Outamyyous sig conxtoxwv Adyov puta. Insc. Att. Ditt®. 537. 71
(346 B. C.); CIA. 2. 835 c-l 12 (320-317 B. C.). c) a projecting
stone over the entrance door (?). Arist. frg. 420. 1548 a 16.
ows. SOMES. : warty, that which is ‘ like a channel or pipe,’ explained
by Schol. © 402 cwdyvionovg: Aéyer BS tas Acyousvag adoryyac, at
Bee zobdg TAoKaoUg FH sig AE xataxAstovtat al mepOva.
Tooxioz0s : se0y6¢, that which is ‘like a wheel or hoop,’ a metal
ball let fall to mark time. Jo. Laur. De Mag. 2. 16. yvioxoc :
yqv, that which is ‘like a goose.’ a) the end of a ship's stern,
because turned up like a goose’s neck. Luc. V. H. 2. 41, Nav.
5; Suid. s. v. b) a handle of a mixing-bowl shaped like a goose’s
neck. Insc. Del. Ditt.? 588. 156, 159.

g. Miscellaneous.

43. dotioxos: &ezog something ‘like a loaf’ of bread, a pill.
Diosc. 2. 203. éoréoioxos : Ho77, a mark ‘likea star,’ an asterisk(-x:).
Eustath. 599. 34; as a metrical sign Hephaest. p. 137. wyutoxoc :
Gwu.d¢, something shaped ‘like an altar,’ a mathematical solid of
three unequal dimensions. Hero Def. 114 Lonvioxosg SE got 7d

1 It must have been by an extension of this meaning that ovgavioxos is
used of the Corona Australis, a constellation of the southern hemisphere,
in Schol. Arat. 397. The ‘ crown’ evidently seemed like a canopy.

2 Possibly a diminutive in the meanings a and b.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.ox0- -.oxy-. 167

EYOv avin KAAyAotg TO ve piinog xa TO TAKTOS nal TH Babos, cIvES
d= xa Pwyionov xahodow 76 toLrcdTov oyFu0. xadadioxos ‘a certain
kind of dance’: x«)«%0¢ ‘ basket.’ The point of similarity is ob-
scure. Perhaps, however, the name is merely a metonymy of xz-
adtoxos = xxdaboc, in as much as baskets might have been used
in the dance, whence the name. Apollophan. ap. Ath. 467 F ;
Men. ap. Hes. s. v. zomioxoc ‘a pastille’ of frankincense from the
yew tree : xontc ‘chopper, cleaver, sting of scorpion, etc.,’ because
of its cone-like shape ? Diosc. I. 82. zorvdioxos : x67vX0¢, that which
is ‘like a cup.’ a) a kind of cake. Ath. 647B; Hes. b) a pit
used for sacrificing to the earth. Hes. xovuAtoxog-... B6Bp0¢ cig bv
<6 otiu.oc TOY TH Yi Suovévwv evéBaddov. xvxdloxoc : xJxhog, any-
thing ‘circular.’ a) a small round cake. Galen. 12. 276; Diosc.
2.105 (of wax). b) around spot. Clyt. ap. Ath. 655 D. jwyvioxn :
pyvy “moon. Hes. pyvicxyv: byéva. névarha. jwnvioxoc: why»,
‘not a full moon, but only like it,’ the half moon, a crescent.
Carnut. N. D. 34. 231 mexAvyjomtan piv acy (sc. tH oedyvy) 6 pyvi-
Cx0e, G0 mexAdfjowmta, 8 6 xbxhog. Otherwise of something ‘like a
half-moon,’ 1. e. crescent-shaped. a) a crescent-shaped figure.
Arist. Sophist. Elench. 11. 171 b 15, 172a 3. b) crescent-shaped
spots of light. Arist. Probl. 15. 11. gi12b 14. c) a crescent-shaped
line of battle. Polyb. 3. 115. 5. mnyloxoc: xiyve, an ‘ arm-like’
piece of wood as to length, defined by Suidas as fuAdguov myyvoilov.
ognvioxos : cory, that which is ‘ wedge-shaped.’ a) a wedge-shaped
bandage. Paul Aeg. 6. 4. b) a mathematical solid of three un-
equal dimensions. Nicom. Ar. 2. 6; Hero Def. 114, see Bmptoxos.
tooxloxos : zpoyé¢, that which is ‘like a wheel or circle,’ a ball of
soap, pastille, lozenge. Arist. Mirab. 19. 831 b 27; Theophr. H.
P. g. 9. I, 3; Diosc. 2. 105. gdtotioxoc : oS61¢, that which is ‘ like
a cake.’ a)a pill. Hipp. 621. 2, 673. 9. b) = its primitive in the
meaning ‘cake.’1 Erotian. p. 134 Klein.

IV. -[XKO- AS A DETERIORATIVE SUFFIX.

44. The deteriorative use of Greek -1cx0- is paralleled by the
Slavic use of the suffix in neuters like Pol. drzewsko ‘ wretched
tree, or in Germanic adjectives like Germ. kindisch Engl. childish,
but the differences between these languages force the conclusion
upon us that all three groups developed this meaning independently
(§ 11). Gr. -tcxe- must either have developed its deteriorative

1 Either by syncretism or originally hypocoristic (§ 79).

168 Walter Petersen,

use within itself or more probably by semantic syncretism with
I. E. -ko-, which has this function e. g. in Skt. usriké-s ‘ miserable
bullock,’ rajaki-s ‘ worthless kingling,’ or in Lith. kuindkas ‘nag,’
Slov. kravaca ‘wretched cow,’ travaca ‘poor grass,’ extended by
-lo- in Lat., e. g. sermunculus ‘ wretched talk, babbling.’

45. Though the fact that the three genders of -1cxo- are a qual-
ity which it has in common with I. E. -ko- makes it seem prob-
able to me that syncretism of the two suffixes caused the deteri-
orative use of the Greek, yet there are a number of words which
are on the border line between this meaning and its use to des-
ignate similarity. This, however, does not necessarily argue an
independent development from the latter, but these transition
types themselves may have been transmitted from -ko- by the
same assimilation of meanings, and they would consequently be
rather an indication of how the simple suffix became deteriora-
tive.

46. These transition types were words in which -10x0- was added
with the idea of mere similarity as opposed to complete identity,
and with the consequent notion that the primitive would really
be inapplicable, but the point of comparison involved or implied
was itself some point of inferiority of the derivative to the prim-
itive. Thus atyioxoc: at was an animal ‘like a goat, but not a
real one,’ because castrated. Cf. Hes. alyioxov: atya éxtoptav,
where there was no doubt as to the judgment of inferiority in-
volved. In the same way Paordioxzoc (§ 35) : Bucvdedc as ‘king of
a small country,’ therefore ‘not a real king,’ i. e. not worth the
name, was on the border line of the deteriorative use. Similarly
GacvAtoxog is used of one who was too homely to deserve the name
‘king’ in Ath. 566 A yuvawnds adv xadijg gatvouévys,
aloyp&s nat mAovotac, oo améxdwev exit thy TAovotav, Cyutdoat tode
Epdpoug adtév, emaAéyovtas St. BacrAtoxovug avtt Bactiémv 7x Larcover
yewdy mooaoettat. Also doamerioxos (Luc. Fugit. 38) : dpanétye,
“one who is like a fugitive, but not a real one,’ because unsuccess-
ful, therefore ‘a poor excuse for a fugitive.’ Perhaps also reayi-
Gx0cs : toayo¢, applied to a lame goat in Hes. (yw ywdov tpxyt-
onov* Tada etdog map& Tapavetivorc), belongs here,” in as much as
its lameness caused the conception ‘ not a complete goat, but only
like one.’ In all these cases it is to be noticed that the deteri-

20
<)
©

ht © j
R
uy
o
o

1 The fact that all of the apparent pattern types were post-Classical makes
it improbable that they were the real patterns.
2 On the other hand it may be hypocoristic, cf. § 83.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -oxo- -v6oxy-. 169

orative meaning has been brought in without the interposition of
any diminutive element.

47. Sometimes, however, the deteriorative idea may be derived
from that of small size, so certainly in the use of avSemntexos
‘wretched little manikin’ in Eur. Cycl. 316 (§ 53), where the
Cyclops thus addresses Odysseus in contrast to his own size and
power, but with a contempt which is the result of the appreciation
of this difference. At other times the contempt is derived from
the hypocoristic use of the suffix, e. g. when a hypocorism is
applied ironically. So mévoaxioxy ‘dear little maid’ is addressed
in derision to an old woman in Ar. Plut. 963. Similarly oxadioxy, :
oniés in Anacr. 21. 13 cxadtoxny ereqauvtivay gopet Tuvardiv adcwe.
The umbrella is viewed with contempt because of its being for
men a reprehensible luxury, an originally hypocoristic idea. Cf. Gr.
Dims. § 152.

48. The fully developed deteriorative notion, no matter of what
Origin, does not really always consist of contempt, but the emotion
may be hate or anger.1 Rarely so in Greek. In -toxo- I find
xadtoxos : xad0¢ ‘ Wine-jar’ in Crat. frg. 2. 122 (8) ouvtpibw yao
abTod tods yous Kat tod xadtonove cuynepavvicw onodHv Kat tarda
Tove ayysia th mept tov nétov, Kodd 6&0Bagov otvypdv ett xexvi-
cevat. Similarly veavioxoc § 53 (2d ex.).

49. The deteriorative use of -tcxo- never seems to have had
great productivity. I can quote only twenty one words of all
periods, mostly from Classical writers, for -tov later encroached
(§ 30). Its beginning, however, antedates the transmission,
since oxadioxy occurs in the Lyric poet Anacreon and other ex-
amples come from Old Comedy.

1. The Deteriorative represents an Object as being Despicable
in Comparison with the Normal of its Class.

50. The deteriorative meaning which develops directly from the
notion of similarity as shown § 46, which is probably at the
root of most of the deterioratives, since it is due 1o the shorter
cut from the older meaning, must originally represent an object
as being despicable in comparison with the normal of its class.
Thus Seuneticxog ‘a poor excuse for a fugitive,’ “an unsuccessful
fugitive,’ because ‘not a real fugitive, but only like one,’ falls
below the normal of the class fugitive because of its quality of

1 Such words are called imprecatory diminutives by Edgerton, JAOS.
3r. 138 f.

170 Walter Petersen,

want of success. As time went on and the deteriorative element
completely displaced the notion of similarity, we find e. g. avSow-
nioxog ‘contemptible fellow’ without the notion that aSomnn¢
would really be inapplicable.

51. Collection of Examples. cdvdowmicxos: avoownos, ‘a con-
temptible or insignificant man.’ Ar. Pax 751 Odxz iduitae avoow-
nioxovs xmpmdav od8 yuvalnac, “AAX “Hoaxdéoue doyty tw Eywv colon
usytovous éxeyetoct. Plato Resp. 6.495 C a&hhor avOowntoxor.. .éx Tov
csyvev éxmdaow sig Thy othocogiav. id. Phaedr. 243 A ceyviverdou
OS Ti Gvte, et doo iSownionoue wae sanathicavts sO Sdoxurhoecov éyv
autos. PSouxodioxos : Bourddoe, title of Theocr. 20, referring toa
Mice ae herdsman. zadiszoc : x%50¢, ‘ hateful wine-jar,’ see

§ 48. juayergiozos : payeisog ‘cook.’ Ath. 292 E dog comethe
aseyeiplonce, [LELONZLOXOS : cua 1.‘ youth.” Alex: <rg) 34a?
(x. 8) Xewov 6 pwerpaxtoxog éortl tole OtAoic. vEeavioxog : vexving
“young man.’ Ar. Av. 1362 (ironically hypocoristic) La ¥
veavion’, 00 naxiic brojooua. ... od yao Tov B UsV TATEOO pa CORTE.
Xen. An. 2. I. 13 (ironical) «A& orhocdgm pev Eoinxe, w veavions, XO

Aéyers obx ayaoiva. id. Apol. 31 6 veavioxog febeis lve oUTE vuxTOS

=
y)

‘

‘ i

TE tae jae mivey. id. Cyr. ¥ 2. 27 o8 od TOD veavionou
j ’ Teomou xaThnyopets ; Aeschin. I.
171 paaies 0¢ BEB Go~aves ones Bie elo & THY ovotav. mIvaxtoxos :
nivaé, “ filthy trencher or plate.’ Ar. Plut. 813 tod¢ de xiwoxtoxous
zode canoods Tods iySunoods d&pyupots nkpecd body. id. frg. 2. 1160
(7) Ilwvaxtoxov anuoov tySunodv. GIEORUORAS éyjzme ‘orator,’ an
ironical address 4a Gell. 17. 20. 4 ‘ heus,’ inquit, ‘ tu, rhetorisce.’
oavdadiozxoyv : c&vSahov, ‘ worthless sandal,’ because torn. Ar. Ran.
405 0 yco naTeoytow usv én yédwt Kan edtedcia T63e 76 cavda-
) lonov Koa 70 pan06. ovvoovioxn ‘cheap or worthless ctvdwv.’ Plut.
1, 340 D év edtedet owdoviorn.

2. The Deteriorative represents an Object as belonging
to a Despicable Class, or Refers to the Class itself.

52. This was possible just as soon as the original notion ‘like
but not quite the same’ had completely given way to the notion
of contempt.2 When e. g. was formed avSewxtoxe¢ “ contemptible

1 If weroaxioxos goes back to pre-literary times, when uweieaé may have
designated boys as well as girls, the latter might have been the primitive.
Cie Gra Dimst a0;

2 For those deterioratives which developed from diminutive or hypo-
coristic meaning (§ 47) this was possible from the beginning.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.oxo0- -toxy-. 174

man’ without the idea that &Spwre¢ was inapplicable, the same
word could as well be applied in a situation in which all mankind
appeared contemptible in contrast to superior beings. Similarly
duooptoxog in § 53 is a deteriorative to adpwogedg ‘jar’ because
any jars are contemptible in comparison with great public works
and ornaments.

53. Collection of Examples. augogicxos (§ 52). Dem. 22. 76

, 2) EH > > x s x ~ ¥ s
nryar abdavat adTe eee «ah piv tév Ecyov A pvqpy, TH Se
ee)

Tov dvadndcov tav ex exstvorg otabévtwy co x&Ahoc, moomdAce
7aDe 6 naphevav otoal vewoorxor, 0x Au.ooptonot 30 odde youat
aécrapes 2) tpeic, Xyouc sxdocmn piv, ke, Gtav cor Soxt, od n&dw
youbers xataymvetew. avtowmiozos : dv opmnoc ‘man.’ Combined
with or secondary to the diminutive meaning in Eur. Cycl. 316,
where the Cyclops addresses Odysseus ‘O xActv0¢, avoountons, tots
Goocis Se6c. It is to be noticed, however, that the chief point of
comparison seems to be wisdom rather than size. yeammarioxos :
yeauuateic “secretary, a much despised class. Herodian 2. 859.
22, without context. xdemzioxos: xdénzu¢ ‘ thief.’ Eupol. ap. Poll.
8. 34 tov BE xAénTyv elxorg av xa herdGhov 1 @¢ Kdrodte. xvve-
oxog: x0wy ‘Cynic.’ Luc. Pisc. 45. ies ustoaxtov “ lad,
youth. aerlato. Resp: ae 539 B ot pstountonor, 6tav TO moGtov Oyo
Yevovrat, ws Tae adbcols HOTHY/OOVTH, ee QOREO THUAKKLE
<® Shnew te xo onackttew tH AOym tobe TAnotov Hel. veavioxos :
veaviac ‘youth.’ Ar. Ach. 680 C Wisc yéoovtag kvdpus Bu Badvees &¢
yous Vnd veavionwy dite xxvayehiobon Sytoomv. id. Equ. 731 81e oe
<Untou.n Mb tovtoul xal THv veavioxoy (‘ hateful youre ’). id. Nub.
1053 taUT aotl static axciva, “A véiv veavioxwy del dL hugoas Aahobv-
cov Iijpes to Badavetov mort, xevag Se THC nahalorpas. OLZz10%0S :
olxog ‘ chamber or room. Dem. 18. 97 népaug pév 1 Onucw ay-
Bewnors goct tod Ptov Bewvartos, nv av otxlonm tig abtov nadeiogac
anpH. 7erwaxioxos : miveZ ‘trencher.’ Plato Com. frg. 2. 656 (I
KatéraGov “Emuokong te nat Dopuiorog Taek tot Bacrdéme nAciovx
Bapodoxypacc, "Oz Ev Bacco Xpvoa KO Tivantonove apyueods. oxradioxy:

X ‘

onae 2 “umbrella.” See § 47.

3. Secondary Deterioratives.

54. If a word whose -toxo- was added with a sense different
from the deteriorative or one which did not differ from its primi-

1 So Cod. Falckenb., others «Aémtiotator.
2 I have assumed that the meaning ‘ umbrella ” is accidentally not quot-
able for oxedés rather than that oxidédevoy is the primitive.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 12 SepremBer, 1913.

172 Walter Petersen,

tive at all got placed in a situation which implied contempt for
the thing designated, particularly if some deteriorative adjective
like gaSdo¢ or some other deteriorative in -1ox0- was in the neigh-
borhood, it could be reinterpreted as a deteriorative,! at least for
the time being. Thus yAuuxtoxo¢g seems to be the ordinary des-
ignation for a certain fish, having been formed with the notion
of similarity (§ 36 A), but may have been felt as a deteriorative
in Philem. frg. 4. 27 (1. 21) Ei 8° 2aBov doting oxctpov x tie
"Actinis TAauxtonov, & Zed citeo, } °E “Apyousg xdnpov, .. . Anavtes of
ouyévees ayévovt dy Ssot. Perhaps wardéoxy in the meaning ‘pros-
titute ’’ (§ 35) was another word in which the deteriorative mean-
ing came in secondarily. MWavioxoc ‘ an image of Ila’ is placed
in a contemptible situation in Clem. Al. 53 (§ 39 A). yermvioxoc :
yizév (§ 40) may have been felt as a deteriorative Apollod. frg.
4. 453 Lyrotdv yitwvionov ww aévdéduxae and Aeschin. I. 131 ef yde
cig cov te noua tatta yavion meptehduevog xa tobe poonods
yitwvionous .. . dSotn sig taE yEloue Ta SiKnoTar, cluon dv adtodg ...

> ~ y > nN yv . oat > Os
ARON TAL ELTE avdpoc eLTe YUVALKGS elhnoncy SOUNTA.
on

V. -IXZKO- AS A DIMINUTIVE SUFFIX.

55. Ihe diminutive use of Gr. -1oxo- has a parallel only in some
Slavic dialects, e. g. Slov. jarisce ‘a lamb a year old,’ or repisce
‘little turnip.’ According to Belic, Arch. f. sl. Phil. 23. 179, how-
ever, this use is developed from the deteriorative within the Slavic
itself, and consequently has no direct connection with Gr. -tox0-.
The latter must therefore have developed independently from the
use of the suffix to designate similarity, or arose by semantic
syncretism with I. E. -ko-, which forms occasional diminutives in
several groups, e.g in Skt. putraka-s ‘ little son,’ kundika ‘little
pot, or in O. Blg. synsks ‘little son,’ kamenscs ‘little stone,’
often in conglutinates like Latin -culo- in homunculus ‘ manikin,’
Germanic -linga- in O. Icel. gaeslingr Engl. gosling, or Lith. -uka-s
in parszukas ‘little pig.’ -

56. If diminutive -toxe- developed by syncretism with -ko-, the
transition types were inherited by the conglutinate along with the
other types of usages,” and we therefore still find traces of the
way in which the notion of small size developed from similarity,
no matter when. As with -1ov the transition took place in words

myCf. (Gr. Dims: 127/41:
2 CE Shag.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.6x0- -voxn-. 173

which designate an object as being ‘like but not the same as the
primitive ’ because the latter included in its meaning the idea of
a certain size, and to anything that fell below this normal it could
not properly be applied. Thus «Ade, like our ‘ flute,’ was used
only of the larger kinds of wind instruments of that type, while
a smaller one of the same kind was addtoxoc ‘ not a real flute but
merely like it,’ with which we may compare our use of ‘ piccolo,’
an entirely different stem. Similarly vatoxog ‘a shrine’ was ‘some-
thing like a temple, but not a real one,’ but might be thought of
as ‘little temple.’ xzeotpwioxog was evidently ‘not a real xeor¢ivoc
(a kind of fish), because it was the smaller species (§ 62 Aa).
mveotoxov, applied to feathers of a very young bird, may have been
thought of as ‘not a real feather yet,’ since they are soft and
down-like. In all such cases a shift of attitude as to what was
the proper application of the primitive, particularly in the trans-
mission from speaker to hearer, caused the diminutive interpreta-
tion to become complete. If to a hearer «JAé¢ should designate
such an instrument of any size, he could not interpret adAtoxo¢
otherwise than ‘a little flute.’ Perhaps also certain words designat-
ing the young of animals! could have been felt the same way,
e. g. deAguwioxosg ‘a little or young dolphin’ was ‘ not a real dol-
phin yet,’ because too small to be called by that name if we think of
it as applying to an animal of normal size. Cf. also civioxesg ‘ young
wine, ‘scarcely wine as yet, because not sufficiently fermented.
In these two words the diminutive idea was rather ‘ young’ than
“small,’ in otvioxzog exclusively so.

57. As long as there was any trace of the original notion of
similarity a diminutive could refer to an object only as being
smaller than the normal of its class, since the notion that the
primitive was really not applicable involved the isolation of the
derivative, as it were, from the great mass of objects to which the
primitive could refer, e. g. xzvepicxov, applied to the first downy
feathers of a young bird, by the notion ‘too small to be really
called a feather’ implied that the normal feather was larger than
the one designated by xzegtcxov. Just as soon, however, as this
original notion had taded, when e. g. addtoxog was merely “a little
flute,’ and not something ‘like a flute,’ the diminutive ending
might as .well be applied when the primitive was conceived as
designating a small class, and the individual or individuals referred
to were thought of as small or young merely by comparison with

1 Cf. Brugmann, Gr. 2. 17. 504.

174 Walter Petersen,

other classes, either because the class referred to falls far below
the average size of objects, e. g. &otveptoxog ‘a little star’ because
a star appears like a mere dot, or because the class is contrasted
with other. definite classes. So e. g. pstoaxtoxog ‘a young lad,’ by
contrast to adults, or oxwrodtexes ‘a little low bed’ in contrast
to larger beds, and perhaps ozeovStexeg ‘a little sparrow’ in con-
trast to larger birds.

58. The diminutive use of -toxe-, though more productive than
the deteriorative, can scarcely be said to have been as characteristic
as its use to denote similarity, and there are scarcely more than
half as many appellatives in which the idea of small size is prob-
ably dominant. These belong to all periods, however, and already
Hipponax has a number of certain diminutives in -toxe-, while
others belong to the later Classical and post-Classical periods.

59. As to the variety of ‘diminutive’ shadings, there is a differ-
ence between -toxe- and -1ov in as much as the former is applied
only to words of the most concrete kind, i. e. words representing
visible or tangible objects of a distinct individuality. * There is
no example of a word in -toxo- designating a small quantity, as
e. g. in -tov oxupxtov ‘a little piece of flesh,’ no word applying
purely to the realm of sound, as gmviov ‘a slender sound,’ no
diminutive of a primarily abstract word, like (nytev “a little cough-
ing fit,’ dovartiov ‘a little song,’ or Swrevydtiov ‘a little piece of
flattery.’

60. Within the narrower sphere of the use of -toxe- thus de-
scribed it is very much like -1ov, and the two suffixes no doubt
influenced each other in their finer shades of meaning. And aside
from this the nature of the primitive to which -tozo- is applied
caused similar modifications as for -vov, and the pattern types,
even though dating back to I. E. -ko-, must have brought with
them other ideas besides small size, e. g. youth. Thus z7eot-
oxov (§ 56) was something that was not only too small, but also
too young and too soft and downy to really deserve the name
‘feather.’ These finer shades will be largely brought out by dis-
tributing the diminutives into congeneric groups, to whith I shall
subordinate the really more fundamental difference between di-
minutives designating an individual as small compared to the
normal of its class (designated A under each congeneric group) and
diminutives designating an object as belonging to a small class
(designated B).

1 The same can be said of the suffix in all of its uses. There are no ab-
stracts nor collectives nor words designating quantity. Cf. Janson, op. cit.19.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -6x0- -0xy-. 175

I. Names of Persons.

61. The idea of small size is sometimes accompanied or supplanted
by that of youth, e. g. in petpaxtoxog ‘a young lad,’ veavioxog ‘a
(young) youth.’ This is partly due do secondary association of
youth with small size, since the two qualities usually vary anal-
ogously in case of living beings, partly to pattern types which
designated a person or animal as too young to be designated by
the primitive

A. dxohovdioxos : &xéovS0¢, said to be ‘a little attendant’ i. e.
“foot-boy’ in Ath. 550A. Cf. however Kaibel’s note, who would
substitute 7 xogduAtoxov or something like it for a&xoovS{oxov, which
is certainly unintelligible in the context. Caxooioxoc : Cé&nopos, ‘a
little attendant,’ very doubtful in Aglaias Byz. in Rev. de Phil.
(2CAG)O2. I, -p. 17 Vv. 23.

B. xwgahioxos : xwpxdov, ‘a (little) lad.’ Phot. xmpadtonov: tO
perpaxtov. Kofjtec. The same word as title of a comedy of Epi-
lycus. érgaxioxos : wspaxov, ‘a (young) lad.’ Alex. frg. 3. 400
O deonérys obpos mept Adyous yép mote Atétpube perpantonos dv nat
grAccogediv “ExéSevo. Plato Phaedr. 237B fv obtw 3h mote, wsXAov
de vetpantonoc, UxAn xaddc.1 veavioxoc: veavinc, ‘a (young) youth.’
Since the word merely emphasizes the youth of the whole class
there is usually no tangible distinction between it and its prim-
itive. Dinoloch. firg. 4; Aesch. (Neavioxo: as title of a drama) ;
Herod. 3. 53, 4. 149, 5. 13; Thuc. 8. 69. 4; Eupol. frg. 2. 565 (51);
Plato Resp. 2. 375A; Arist. Pol. 5. 4. 1303 b 21 ytyvovtou ev odv
al ot&oELE OD Tepl pinp&v aAX ex pimpéiv, otaorkCover 38 zepl Usya-
hov....yetéBahe yuo f nodteta ax S00 veavionwv 2 ctacimckvtmy, év
Tole apyaic Ovtwy, neg Zomtinhy aitiav. mardagioxos : Tawdaptov, ‘a
little boy,’ used by Schol. Ar. Thesm. 291 to explain roodaAtonoc.
maoveviony : rupSévoc, ‘a (young) virgin,’ though mentioned only
by the grammarian Arcad. 107. 15, because of the analogy of
vexvioxoc probably belongs here, though possibly to A. moodadi-
ozx0¢: mO6c9mv, both comic words for ‘ little boy.’ The diminutive
in Ar. Thesm. 291, where the scholiast explains by nawdaptoxoc.
The conglutinate -«Atoxog by analogy to xmpaAtoxog (§ 109).

2. Names of Animals.

62. The notion of youth is combined with small size just as in
names of persons, but scarcely that of descent, e. g. SeAguwtonos

1 Here with an hypocoristic element.
* Perhaps here with a secondary deteriorative shade.

176 Walter Petersen,

‘a little or young dolphin’ can scarcely have been thought of as
‘coming from a dolphin’ because -tox0- does not show the meaning
‘descended from’ in certain cases. Moreover, the fact that young
animals when used as food are more tender and delicious than
old ones, led to these accessory notions, which may become dom-
inant, as e. g. in ynvioxoc, used of roast goose. To take care
of this difference I subdivide both A and B: a) the animal is
not conceived as food, b) it is so conceived.

Aa. cdextogioxos : aéxtg, ‘a little cock.’ Aesop. Fab. 369 ;
Babr. ap. Suid. Tavaypoitor adextoptonor. of payytal nat Suuinot ae
dvOownor. BeéBovog: a&dextoctoxwy jv payy Tovorypaiov, Otis gaow
elvan Guuov wore dedguwioxos : dehotc, ‘a little or young
dolphin.’ Arist. H. A. g. 48. 631 a 17 deXowtoxov pixodov tedvy-
6TH... OmOvEovTES XOL LET soptlovne (sc. ot S00 Sedgivec). xeorourt-
oxoc ‘a little xeo et) (fish).’ Clearch. ap. Ath. 332 C toog éoth
(sc. 6 e&cxovtoc) tolg maparyradivaug xeotowloxorg: cdto. 3 stow
OATASARNTUAOL ULKALOTH TO pTKO<. nopaxkoxos - x6eaé, probably ‘a
little or young raven.’ Only Herodian 2. 445. 18.

Ab. xamoliozoc: xanpo¢, ‘a tender (little) boar.’ Crobylus frg.
4. 567 (2) Aicyuvénevov Trap xanptoxov oxatooeyou.t yyvioxos :
yw, ‘a delicious (little) goose.’ Eubul. frg. 3. 211 (I. 3) tote 88
yewatws ma&dor Aveonapaxta. Sep yyvioxmy péry.

Ba. dodayooicxos * yovotdiov panpdv Hes. Cf. Ath. 139 B Svover 3

no tode yarabyvods dobayoptoxovge. I assume that the primitive
doSauyoouce* was used in the same sense and is accidentally not
quotable, so that -toxe- would be used as in yotpicxo¢g below.
Oteovdioxos: steovS6¢, ‘a (little) sparrow.’ Theod. Prodr. Carmen
in Andronicum Comn. v. 125.8

Bb. yoroioxoc ‘a delicious (little) porker. Insc. Andan. Ditt?.
653. 68 (or B.C.) Eom 38 & Bet napgyew xpd TOD Heyervon TOV

UUETHOLOY * dovas S00 Asuxoue, ... XOLOV sVYOOvV, xAL... yolotoxous Tosh:

—
°o

(ap {O) oS)
Rv
<
(ee)
go)
i>
ra
oO
-
uy

3. Plants or Parts of Plants.

63. The accessory elements of youth and tenderness or delicacy
may be present just as with animals, only that in the extant
examples the plant is not necessarily conceived as an article of

1 A conjecture of Porson for xai moloxovg xatapayov.

2 The derivation of 09Payooac itself does not concern us here.

3 The passage is not accessible to me, and the word is placed here only
because this would seem the most probable use.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.6x0- -wx7-. 177

food, but the idea of delicacy is derived from small size also in
other situations.

A. fodBioxocs : BodGd¢, ‘a little bulbus.’ Anth. P. 11. 35. x«a-
hewioxos. xé)uyoc, ‘a little stalk.’ Ar. Ach. 1034 X08 dd por
OTHAKYU.OV slpyivnc Eva “Eg voy xahautonov évotédatov toutovi. xAa-
diozocs : xde3oc, ‘soft little twig.’ Anacreont. 18. 4 ‘Anxrue ¥
eostcs yuizasc Makaxotatm xadiono.

B. zvzaroloxos ‘ delicate (little) nimanons,” a kind of marsh plant.
Alcm. 38 papy i

yOS a pe ola mols matode: Axo én? dvin xaBatvery
. TH nunaiplone

4. Geographical Words.

64. A. avidwrioxos : aiddyv, ‘a little valley. Theophr. H. P. 9.
7.1 “O 8 x&Anwog yivetar xa 6 aycivos SnepBaAAovt, vov AtBavov
setae) to te AtGrvou nat &AAov civde OpovE winood gv 7H adrwvioxnw
TOUT. Atmevioxos : Away, probably ‘a little harbor.’ Gloss. 7o-
Tamtoxoc : movuy.6¢, ‘a little river.’ Strabo 515. é0toxo¢ : p60¢, ‘a
little stream.’ IGSI. 352. I. 16ff. (after establishment of Roman
rule).

5. Ornaments.

65. Whether the two following words belong here as referring
to a class, whether e. g. GaxtuAtoxos is really ‘a little ring,’ is
uncertain, since -1oxo¢ may be due to syncretism with -tov, which
is used in a number of similar words without trace of diminutive
meaning.? :

B. daxtrviioxos : Sax7hdo, ‘a (little) ring.’ Insc. Boeot. (Lebadea),
see Herwerden Lex. s. v. oguioxoc: 6gu.9¢, ‘a (little) necklace or
collar. Chares ap. Ath. 83 D xacacnevaZove. 3 2% adcéiv (sc. tév
wapyaoutayv) doutoxoug te xa dédix. Hes. dputonor- mepitoayyAror

, a ¢ a , a a
KOGOL ‘Yuvoinctor. 7 pavidxyc. 7 meptdéonrm. xdoww. FH da-
*TOMOL.

6. Vases, Vessels, Boxes.

66. A. zorvdioxyn : xotdAn, ‘alittle cup.’ Pherecr. frg. 2. 282 (3)
B. et Ado... . Thy xoTvAtonyy; A. pydapiig Mixody ye. mevaxioxos :
mivaé, ‘a little plate or trencher.’ Epigen. frg. 3. 537 (1) Hiv’ &o-
yetot Xedwovetwv wer’ dAtyov oxhypéy adpog Ilwoxtoxog. Lynceus
frg. 4. 433 (1. 6) mapéOyxe mivann yao péyov, “Hyovtx pinpods névte
muvaxtonovg év of. Probably also Insc. Del. Mich. 833. 126. goo-
futoxos : oopu.6¢, ‘a little basket.’ Plato Lys. 206 E jptiafov doton-

yahorg maprdAAots, 8x Yooutoxwy civélv coompobuevot. According to

1 Cf. Gr. Dims. 96 f.

178 Walter Petersen,

E. M. 798. 52 there seems to be no diminutive force in the word :
Dopptonor xarhadtonor. mAenta ayyeia.

B. xotvdtoxocs: xétvdog, ‘a little cup.’ Ar. frg. 2. r105 Myde
atebw xoTUALOKOY.

7. Other Technological and Architectural Words.

67. A. dévdoravtioxos : avdpras, ‘a little statue.’ Plut. Thes. 20
S00 BE puxpods avdpiavticnoug tSpdcncdar. CIA. 2. 678 B 70, 78
(378—366 B. C.); Insc. Del. Michel 833. 60 dvdoravtioxog youcods |
oxéhog odSE yetox symv, 6Axy Soaypot DEI. avddoxoc : adddg. a)
‘a small reed or pipe.’ Theogn. 241 Kat ce odv addAtoxotor At-
yuoddyyors véow d&vdpec ... Atcovtat. Soph. frg. zor Duck yap od
GULKOCLOL adALonots a, ARG &yotas pdcatcr wopBerag a&tep. Dionys.
A. R. 7. 72: 5 &pyainots sean aes AKOMGKOLS Payee w. Poll. 4. 76 ps-
HOGS TUE AVALoKOS Youd xa Deuvytucny owviy aorstc. b) ‘a little tube.’
Arist. frg. 424. 1548b 8 dbijgor 3é elor yadhnot addtoxov Eyovom év
7H péow. conidtoxn : donte, ‘a little shield.’ Hes. domdioxag- meA-
THoLM. oxouTHELA. dodioxoc: Sédoc, ‘a little device for deceiving,’
‘a dagger. Hes. #dtoxoc: iAog, ‘a little nail.’ Ar. ap. Phot.
iAloxov Tov wincdv Hhov Agiotooavyg. xsovioxoc : ximv, ‘a little pil-
lar) -Ath sr © oy ee tov Dodvov) TEpleLoTynEooy TéoonoEs xLOVvE-
onot AdondAAytor yovuoct, 80 Gv StetétaTo twdacrov moti hov TOpou-
pop. Joseph: VA. J. 682" 3° “6: nvhuvdotaxos - nUAtvdeos, ‘a little
cylinder.’ Insc. Del. Mich. 833. 48 xvdAwdptoxoe yeuserber0, KOTO
Tog. otxioxy: otxia, ‘asmall house.’ Dem. 48. 13.2 maooadtoxos :
m&ocahoc; ‘a little nail or peg.’ Hipp. 671. 6; Galen. Lex. expl.
TATOUMOKW* TH opunpé nacokhn Sroxptotixic. Polyb. ap. Suid. s.
Vv. tdtov: ingore $¢ yxp wdic kymyetor tHv innwyv Tacoahtonous pinpods
annovyxotes. Particularly of a peg or pin in a musical instrument:
Schol. Ar. Vesp. 574 x6AAomeg AéyovtTa, of macoadtonor tig xOxpac
sig o0¢ anodecuodvta: ai vevoat. Cf. also E. M. 525. 31. convionos :
opty, ‘a little wedge.’ Herond. 7. 22 } mtépvn “Ophd’ 6mm mérn-
ye yore apyvionots "HEnotimta mica. Moschop. and Proculus ad
eis. Op. 427 duxémyye 38 convwdev 31% twwv coyvionxwyv. owdyvioxos :
cw ty, ‘a little pipe.’ Hero Spir. 222. orodioxos : tetrove, prob-
ably ‘a little tripod.’ CIA. 2. 766. 17; Insc. Boeot. CIG. 1570 b
15 toeimodtexov, dx HAAAAT HFEF. cooxtoxos : oe ‘a. little
wheel.’ Arist. Mech. oe a 25.

B. ydioxoc : tog, ‘a (little) nail.’ Ar. ap. Poll. 10. 61 tov yap

1 Perhaps with the notion ‘ not a real pillar.’
2 oixioxny as cited by Pollux, otherwise oixiar.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -voxo- -v6xy-. 179

HAov xa HAtcnov! év “Howmow “Agiotogdvng xéxdyne. macoadioxos :
m&oonhos, ‘a (little) nail or peg,’ cesignates the same object as
its primitive in Hero Autom. 2. 5.1 oxiuzodioxos : oxiurove. The
primitive itself designates a small couch or low bed, the dimin-
utive being used in contrast to higher and larger beds. Synes. 23 D
sod yOapahode oxnwrodtoxnove Oxhadiag ext tHv Ouov avariOéyevor.
Nicetas Chon. Annal. p. 155A. “Ext cwog petedpov oxwimodioxon.
ogediozxoy : oéhuc, ‘a (little or low) foot-stool,’ probably in con-
trast to chairs. Insc. Sam. Hoffm. 3. 169. 50.

8. Miscellaneous.

68. A. cerioxoc : He70 0g, a ‘little loaf.’ Schol. Ar. Pax 1196 pixgot
detioxot. Ath. 139 A G¢ (sc. 6 guatxtAdoc) gotw dotionos Byxotd: naoa-
Thies. twavrioxoc: tw.ac, ‘soft little strap’ of a shoe. Herond. 6.
71 ot 8 tuavettonor “Eow’, ody’ tudvtec. ofvioxocs : oivoc, ‘ young wine,’
with personification a CEE. frg. 2. I17 (3) fv tdy Mevdedov "Bove"

uy? &

KOTiOs Oivionay, ERETHL XL AXOAOVOEL xaxt one Oip! OS ETHOS KHL

-
oS

hevnds. 0’ otoet tetx ; Eubul. frg. 3. 265 (8) Olvionos od xéT1-
og. mLAtoxos : 7 atho 06, “prleglshe a little felt cap.’ 2 Diosc. 3. 4
avon Aevxe otovel mAtonouc. mAoxauloxoc : TAéxxy.oc, probably ‘ (soft
little) tresses... Theod. Prodr. Epigr. p. 114.3 mzvegioxoy : ntepév
‘a little feather.’ Babr. 118.5 veoootiv... Odmm nteptoxors mopouecic
éravoobvtmy. oxédtoxov : oxédoc, ‘ a light little leg.’ Ar. Eccl. 1167
nol THode viv Anyapas Toiv oxedtoxow tov bududv.

B. aovegioxos : &ovhe, ‘a (little) star.’ Call. frg. 94 tie &u.ccéng

. otaduncacia Tode doteptoxous.

g. Modifications of the Diminutive Meaning.

6g. Of the various associated and accessory diminutive meanings
as well as of those that have been inherited from certain pattern
types the notions of youth, deliciousness, and tenderness or de-
licacy were mentioned § O61ff. Not very different from the
latter are those words in which -toxo- means ‘soft, delicate, lux-
urious, or elegant,’ a notion which on the one hand may come
from small size or youth, e. g. in xtegicxov (§ 68) ‘a soft, downy,
little feather,’ where softness is naturally associated with the small
size of the first feathers of a young bird. Sometimes, again, these

1 Though the derivatives are equivalent to their primitives this does
not necessarily make them diminutives referring to a class, since they may
be due to congeneric attraction by some other word.

2 If ‘a little piece of felt’ it would be the only exception to § 59.

3 Uncertain. The passage is not accessible to me.

180 Walter Petersen,

ideas may proceed from the hypocoristic use of the suffix, since
endearment and beauty and elegance are often associated. Other
examples of this meaning follow. iuwavriozos ‘a soft little strap’
(§ 68). oauBadioxoy ‘neat (little) sandal.’ Herond. 7. 125 [v-
volines, Ty synte xhtéowv yostyy "H cauGadionov 7 & naz’ olntav Eh-
new Eidicde. o1vdovioxoc ‘delicate ctv8mv (a kind of cloth). Insc.
Sam. Hoffm. 3. 169. 25 swdovicxog onoyeyoopyevr. OTEPAVLGXOS :
ovepavos, * betas little wreath.’ Amnacr. 54 “En 3 égpdow cedivev
OTEOAVLCKO ¢ Ogpevor, Anacreont. 40. 5 Vesuovionoue ¥ baxtvOowv
Kao wuoimaéiac. ib. 42. 15 “Podivoro. oteoavionots Iexuxx-
ouévosg yooevow. Probably oregavioxy : cceoavn, mentioned without
context by Theognost. Can. IIo. 5, was used just like otegavioxos.
Probably also the late Auvioxos : 76 2ivov ‘linen,’ explained Eustath.
IIOI broxoprotinaig TO AcmT6TATOV Afvov.

70. In oxedioxoy (§ 68 A) we find the idea of lightness of foot
dominating and perhaps supplanting that of small size. The former
is of course conditioned on the latter and therefore closely asso-
ciated. #

71. The use of diminutives to represent an object as small when
asking for it, so as to minimize the favor,! is found in four words
in -19x0- : xaAnptoxog ‘a little stalk’ (§ 63 A)?; aoxegioxor :
aoxéoa ‘a winter shoe for inside’ ; cau Badicxoy : cxuGxhov ‘sandal’;
and xvzaooloxoc : xbmacowg ‘a short frock or coat.’ The last three
are all found in Hipponax 18. Ad¢ xroiivav “‘Inmdvant. no xuTao-
ctoxov Kat cauBadtiona xdonsptonx nat youcot Lrarijons séyjxovtm Tob-

, ld
veQOU TOLYOU.

to. Secondary Diminutives.

72. Sometimes a word in -1cx0-, though of non diminutive origin,
may be placed in such a situation, particularly if in the neighbor-
hood of another diminutive or an adjective meaning ‘small,’ that
its own suffix suggests small size also. If such a word in -toxo-
differs from the primitive in meaning, the notion of small size
would be an addition to the sense, e. g. yAxuxtoxoc, used of a
certain fish with the idea ‘like’ its primitive (§ 36 A), may
suggest by its suffix the notion of a small thing in Arched. frg.
4. 436 (2. 1) Apaypév toréiv yauxtoxov ‘a mere yhxuxioxog for three
drachmas!’ Similarly yetwvioxoc ‘not a real yizdv, but only like
it’ ($ 40), ‘a short frock,’ could have been felt also as dimin-

1 Cf. Gr. Dims. 163.
2 In this case indirectly. The stalk is represented as small because it
will contain only a small quantity of the desired peace.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -voxo- -v6zy-. 1814

utive in Antiphan. frg. 3. 17 Asuxn yhavic, ads yitmvicnog xahdc,
ThtSiov axaxdov (with the notion of elegance, see § 69). Plato
Legg. 12.954 A yuuvig 7 yttwvioxov (merely a y.) Eywv a&woros.
Dem. 21. 216 wixood yuuvov év 7H yrtwvioxm yevéobor. When on
the other hand the derivative does not differ from the primitive
at all, the former on reinterpretation becomes a diminutive pure
and simple. So ofediozog = 60226¢ ‘spit’ is felt as a diminutive
in Insc. Del. Mich. 833. 128 6Ge2Xtoxor usxoot AAAT.
' ' ‘

11. Faded Diminutives.

73. The ideas of small size, youth, etc. can fade in two ways.
When the diminutive refers to an individual as compared to a
class it takes place if a word originally formed with the notion of
small size uppermost and yet designating something looked upon
as different from the primitive is no longer analyzed, as if e. g.
novioxos ‘a little pillar’ would no longer be referred to its primi-
tive ziwv, but would come to be recognized as an altogether dif-
ferent architectural concept. In the nature of the case such words
can not be separated from others formed with the notion of simi-
larity uppermost (§ 32), or from the pattern types of the di-
minutives (§ 56). In all three instances the result is the same:
the derivative designates a smaller object looked upon as different
from the primitive, and the idea ‘little’ may be absent.

74. When the diminutive refers to a class, fading takes place
very easily because in want of strong indications of contrast of
size between the diminutive and another class the hearer will often
not follow the speaker when the latter uses such a diminutive.
Most of the words given above as referring to a class will illustrate.
Méloaziozos : pero%xtov, diminutive because any lad is young com-
pared to an adult, is not felt as a diminutive e. g. in Plato Theag.
122 C, where without contempt and apparently without endear-
ment a youth present at the conversation is referred to as 6 pt-
puxtonxog odto¢. veavioxoc becomes a synonym of veaving ‘ youth’
as early as Herodotus, and later is almost never used with con-
scious diminutive force, and Aeschines does not use the primitive
at all. Cf. also Poll. 2. 4, where veuvicxog also supplants vexviac:
H tetaowy (Sc. TAxta) vexvioxoc. A good example of the use of the
word without ‘diminutive’ clements is Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 23 mauouy-
yethavees veavionors of 2déxovv adctoig Donctivarvor ctvar...napayeveodan.
If gdioxoc (§ 67 B): Fog ‘nail’ was a diminutive, its force
faded in the same way, similarly maooadtozxos (§ 67 B). Direct
proof of fading we have in ogesioxoy = oéhxuz ‘ foot-stool’

182 Walter Petersen,

(§ 67 B).1 It is found in a catalogue: 48 xdwrnptoxoc, 50 “Hom
oyEMtonoy, 52 payaoolyny.

VI. -IXKO- AS A HYPOCORISTIC SUFFIX.

75. Like most diminutive suffixes -tgx0- shows various hypocoristic
shades of meaning which are often intimately associated with the
notion of small size, but may take its place. In a suffix whose
‘diminutive ’ meaning developed from similarity there seems to be
no probable way by which the notion ‘ neat,’ ‘ pretty,’ or ‘dear’
could be derived from anything except ‘small.’ We can hardly
assume that the idea was originally ‘too neat or pretty or dear
for the primitive to be applicable.’? On the other hand apprecia-
tion of delicacy and endearment for children and young animals
are so common that these hypocoristic shades may easily attach
themselves to any expression referring to their small size or youth.
This secondary derivation of hypocoristic notions from small size
is not only characteristic of -toxo-, be it that it“has passed through
this development independently, or that it has inherited all the
types by syncretism with -ko-, but the same is true of the latter
itself. In this way is to be explained the almost total ab-
sence of the use of Skt. -ka- to express endearment in the Veda,’
there being only three examples in the Rigveda, and there prob-
ably combined with the notion of small size, if indeed that be
not the only idea. At that early age endearment was scarcely as
yet consciously connected with the suffix.

76. The various hypocoristic words in -toxo- can be divided into
several groups according to the exact shade of meaning and origin.
In § 62 was mentioned the notion of deliciousness of articles of
food, derived from youth in names of animals and plants. This
use became productive in words where no idea of youth could
ever have been present, e. g. auxntioxog ‘a fine milk-cake.’ Quite
similar is the use of a ‘diminutive’ suffix in the meaning ‘ deli-
cate, elegant, luxurious,’ etc., the origin of which is discussed
§ 69. These meanings shade so gradually from the diminutive

1 Tf it refers to the class, but possibly it designates a particularly little
foot-stool.

2 The closest approach to such a development would be azegioxoy (§ 68 f.),
perhaps a feather which was ‘ too soft for the name.’ It must be borne in
mind, however, that this is not yet really a hypocorism, since there is no
evidence of any emotion connected with the idea.

3 Cf. Edgerton, JAOS. 31. 131 ff.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.oxo- -v0xy-. 183

to the hypocoristic that there is no possibility and in fact no
desirability of an exact separation. In the same category would
also come the use of -toxo- in dee : pédosg, “elegant or
beautiful (little) song,’ in Alem. 65 “Q¢ apie tO narov psedtonov.

77. Endearment on the other hand is usually prominent in hypo-
corisms of names of persons and animals, e. g. deonotioxo¢g 1 ‘ dear
master,’ xopioxy ‘dear maiden,’ sometimes in names of parts of
the body of persons thought of with endearment. But since ‘en-
dearment is often coupled with the notion of certain admired
qualities like beauty, there again is no sharp line of distinction
between this meaning and the one of the last paragraph, i. e. the
idea of beauty is often present and may be dominant in any ‘di-
minutive ’ like the above named xoptoxy.

78. The various hypocoristic uses of -1cx0- were fully developed
when the suffix first appeared in literature. From Alcman of the
seventh century we have pedtoxov just quoted and xoutoxe “ lovely
hair.’ In Attic xoptexy e. g. occurs in the Comic poet Plato and
deonotioxos in Euripides. The flourishing period for this use seems
to have been the Classical period even more than for the deteri-
oratives and diminutives. In Alexandrian times there are new words
with the notion of endearment to be found: Latuetoxes, ovdtoxoc,
modtoxos, and perhaps teaytoxos, but after that I have found only
two new hypocoristic words, which, however, are both faded and
used exactly like their primitives, belonging to the category of
articles of food: zAnxouvttoxog “flat-cake’ and tuptoxog ‘ cheese.’

1. The suffix expresses Daintiness.

79. Those words in which the idea of small size can be present,
e. g. names of animals and plants, were mentioned § 62f.
There remain such as are totally independent of the idea ‘small,’
e. g. a little cake is not a bit more delicious than a large one.

Collection of Examples. cuyrioxog: aye ‘milk-cake.’ Telecl.
frg. 2. 362. “Onto 38 xfyAou pet duntionwy cig tov ocouy sicené-
zoveo. vJoraxtoxa ‘a kind of cake’: Octdaé.2 Alem. 20 Sodaxt-
Gnas Te xOL noLBavWTHS. xoElOxXOY : xO doce * meat. Alex. frg. 3. 472
(4) Torwdrov xpstonov aoretov? mavu bie ctov. wacioxy : pa % ‘cake
of aad Ar. mae 1105 “Eya S& polionus ye eo: Ale évag Kant

1 Here ae without notion of smallsize. It refers to the giant Cyclops.

* #oideé occurs only in the meaning ‘lettuce,’ but probably designated
a cake in the dialect of Aleman. Cf. the Attic Fowuxtoxn, which also had both
meanings, as is stated by Hes. s. v.

gat G5 OW 3

184 Walter Petersen,

sodbov Ontdv (sc. opt). ib. 1166 [dod géom cor Thvde paCioxny syd.
yaottoxos : vaot6sg (sc. mAxxoc) ‘cheese-cake.’ Pherecr. frg. 2. 316
(l. 7). “Axd tév 88 tey&v dyetol Botodwv pete vaotioxwy mohuTUpMY
Oystetvcovtm.. seveaxiozos : mivaé, ‘a delicious trencher,’ by metonymy,
referring to its contents. Pherecr. frg. 2. 300 Lyedtde¢ 8’ GAdnvyu.or
Tiyctovy taxncowtavor Ext mvantoxotc. mdaxovvrioxos : rAanode ‘ flat-
cake.’ E. M. 533. 22 Kat aA ot vindivess sAcuBavov mAanxouvtionous 1
TupaunodvtTas H onoxprotvtas. tueloxos: tupd¢ ‘cheese.’ Ael. N. A.
8. 5 nal aottorg pavtedovtat tives nat xooxtvorg xa tuptonxots.t

2. The suffix expresses Endearment.

80. Endearment is most pronounced and mere appreciation of
beauty least so when the person is addressed directly, i. e. when
the vocative case is used. So deomorioxoc : deonoz7y¢ ‘master.’
Eur. Cycl. 267 ‘Artis oo @ xaddotov © KuxAdmov,-"@ Seonotione,
Un te o s€0dav sym Hévowor yphpata. mwevoaxioxy : patpacs ‘girl,’
ironically in Ar. Plut. 963 (§ 47). véavioxog: veaving ‘young
man’ in Ar. Thesm. 134 Kai o’ ® veavioy’ dove et... 2oéodan Botro-
ua. Larueloxocs : La&tupec, as a term of endearment of a shepherd
lass to her lover in Theocr. 27.3 Mn xavya, catuptons,” xevov 6 otra
réyoucw. ib. 49 Tt féletg catuptone ; grdioxos: wthog ‘friend.’ Teles
ap. Stob. 516. 19 Eye por 0x6, w ordtone,? ypagew cig o& mOOTPEMTIKOV.

81. Persons are spoken of with endearment in the third person,
largely with the idea of beauty mingled, in the following cases :
xooioxy : x6en ‘maiden.’ Plato Com. frg. 2. 638 (I. 12) Addods 3’
Eyouck wg xoptoxy, Kaouxov pédog tt MeAtZetat toig oupndtate. Timocl.
frg. 3. 607 “Ocov tO pstaed pete noplonns i pera Xooutdmys TyHyv
vinta now.dodar, PaSat. xooloxoc: x6p0¢ ‘youth,’ used to denote
any supposed person, just like the Engl. Johnny, must have been
hypocoristic in origin. Arist. De part. An. I. 4. 644a 25, Phys.
4. II. 21gb 21. werpaxioxy : signe ‘ maiden, lass.’ Ar. Ran. 411
UELOAALOKNS... KO KA’ edMPOGMTOVD. fweroaxiozos : srpcxtov ‘lad.’ Plato
Phaedr. 237 B pstountonog prru xaos. veavioxoc: vexving ‘young
man.’ Lys. 32. Ig tva tode pév vexvioxous die 76 peyedo ees ouppopiaby

2Aefjonte.t Plato Symp. 211 D xat& youotoy te xal eodiitva xal tode

1 Faded.

2 Since used in a teasing way there is also a deteriorative element.

3 Addressed to Themison the king of Cyprus.

4 In situations like this one I still believe (cf. Gr. Dims. 178 f.) that pity
is merely the occasion for the expression of endearment, and that it is scarcely
proper to make a category ‘ diminutives of pity,’ as is done by Edgerton,
PAGS] 31-7132"

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -v6z0- -voxn-. 185

nahOdS THLdHS Te xual veavionove. id. Resp. 2. 375A Oiler obv tt...
Siawgpew QUow yewvatou oxvAnnos sig ouAnnyy veavionou sdyevotc ; id.
Theag. 122 D vt xaddv Gvoux 7c veavionw; Insc. Epid. Ditt?. 802.
118 (3d cent. B. C.) veavioxov sdxpent tap. popoav. madioxy: 4
moc “girl.” Ar. Ach. 1148 xadevdew Meta nardioxyng! dpasatarys.
TawLox0s : 6 TiC eboyd ‘servant.’ Philoxen. I. 2 &mahdg xodt-
on0g év Hoyucéa mpOy6w Qsowy enéysuev.

82. There are two hypocoristic words in -toxo- designating parts
of the body, in both of which the EO of beauty is prominent.
zolozxa: x6u% ‘hair.’ Alcm. Parth. ror & 3 emizouy EavOe% nxoutonn.
meodtoxos : move ‘ foot.’ ne 2854 OLS, “Howes & OW) ws mGdov
Eol TOs xaAvIC TOdtoxolg “Hdtwxe. Herond. 7. 94 O8 cor dSfd3wow
h aya) Toyn, Képdeav, bape rodtoxmv dy [l6fo. te xhowtes bat-
ovow; ib. 113 Dép’ HdSe tov rodtoxov.

83. Endearment for animals seems to be expressed by the two
following words: xvvioxy: f xJwv ‘bitch.’ Ar. Ran. 1360 “Aya
Bs Atutuwa noc “Apteuro naked Tao xuvionac? gyouc’ sAbétm Are
Sopov Tavtay%. toayloxos: tox%yo¢ ‘he-goat.’ Theocr. 5. 141
Qpwacceo THon tpaytoxwy Niv ayéAx, a call upon the goats to
help celebrate a victory. Possibly the coaytoxeg of § 46 is a
childish hypocorism, though I incline tow ard deteriorative inter-
pretation. In Anth. P. 9. 317 toexytoxo¢g is probably equivalent to
its primitive.

84. In one instance we have a hypocorism in -toxe- used with
enallage, i. e. the endearment expressed by the suffix seems not
to be directed to the object designated by the word itself, but to
something in the context. This is Wegdalozas teopag ‘hawk’ i

Ar. Av. 1112 Kav haydvtes dpytdtov sid’ condoar BosanodS Tt, OB
tepaxtoxoy &¢ tTH> yelpuc Sulv Sacopev. The birds are coaxing for
the support of the audience: “If you have been chosen by lot
for a little office and you wish to filch a little something, we

will give you a nice little hawk into your hands.”

VII. APPARENT CASES OF OTHER MEANINGS.

85. Semantic syncretism with -ko-, which may have been in-
fluential in Germanic adjectives (§ II) to give -isko- meanings
like ‘coming from,’ ‘ belonging to,’ has had no further influence
on Gr. -tox0- than perhaps to assist in the development of ‘di-

1 If madioxn here designates a servant the hypocoristic element is secon-
dary.
2 The scholiast says: xuvioxag* avti tov tas xvvac.

186 Walter Petersen,

minutive ’’ meanings. The latter uses along with its use to desig-
nate similarity are the only ones that can be found in the Classical
period, but since -ko- in Greek was not a living ‘diminutive’
suffix nor often a suffix of similarity, there rarely was any con-
tact with -1ox0-, and further syncretism of the two suffixes was
out of the question. Any spread of the latter to meanings more
remote from its original one must be due to different causes, either
syncretism with Greek -ov or congeneric association or both.

86. That, however, such meanings as ‘ belonging to,’ ‘ coming
from,’ ‘made of’ were ever consciously connected with the suffix
is not at all probable. The vague feeling of equivalence of -tov,
which certainly had all of these adjectival meanings in addition
to its ‘diminutive ’ uses, caused certain words of analogical rela-
tion between primitive and derivative to be formed by -1ox0- if a
certain pattern in -1ov existed, or one word in -tox9- brought forth
another one which was synonymous or belonged to the same con-
generic group even though the new word did not show a mean-
ing previously found in the suffix. But there is no case where
the freedom of forming new words with suffixal meanings outside
of the limits just mentioned shows that these adjectival meanings
were actually felt. I arrange the words in question then accord-
ing to the apparent meaning of the suffix, though it will be clear
that the cause of its addition was something else than a feeling
for such meanings.

87. In the first place there are quite a number of words in
-t¢z0- which are indisputably equivalent to their primitives, aside
from the names of vessels mentioned § 41. It might be supposed
that all of these, like a number of similar words in -tov, went back
to the meaning ‘ belonging to the category of,’ that e. g. Aexavioxy
was a vessel ‘ belonging to the category of Aexavy,’ ‘a vessel of
the plate kind.’ But there is no evidence whatever for a feeling
for such usage at any stage of the language, and these words are
due to congeneric attraction, following other words in which -tox0-
implied similarity or faded diminutives. Similarly the following
words : dégeéoxog (CIA. 2. 678 B 73) dego[t|oxor ill (378-366 B. C.)

way
seems to be equivalent to Séop1¢ ‘ leather covering or coat,’ and if
so, it followed yitwvicxog (§ 40) in its ending as well as gender,
as did also tosuioxosc = 6 toturtoc. Cf. Hes. zowionov > tuocttov.
"Aorévdior. Anuvioxoc ‘a kind of fillet,’ seems to have been in-
fluenced in its ending and gender by the congeneric oveouvioxos
‘wreath or crown.’ Its primitive, however, is not found, but we

may refer it to a *Ayuvtev on the basis of SiAvuvoyv, or else to
1. iy

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.6x0- -v6xy-. 187

*)quvn. In either case the loss of the primitive shows that it
could not have been felt as a diminutive. It occurs e. g. in Hes.
Anpvicnovs - cag cawiag Luoaxodoror. Polyb. 18. 29. 12 otepdvoug
émiopimtouvTss xal Anuvioxovg. Also in an Attic inscription Ditt?.
633. 25 (4th cent. B. C.). As a noose for birds Ath. 200 C, and
as a surgical bandage Heracl. ap. Galen. and Paul. Aeg. 6. 24.
omdnvicxoy = ordayviov ‘ bandage’ was in turn influenced by 24-
yvioxoc in its last use, i. e. if the later appearance of the latter is
due to accident. ozdnvicxov is found in Hipp. 467. 42 and the
Samian inscription of Hoffm. 3. 169. 24f. croovioxos ‘a pair of
compasses ’ = zéevo¢. Cf. Philo in Math. Vett. p. 53. 4. This word
and tovzavioxoc (Martyrium in Actis SS. Maji vol. 4, p. 624)
“borer ’ == covxavey evidently followed certain names of tools of
§ 42, which were largely equivalent to their primitives, e. g.
poyAtoxos or Oedtcxos. oroofavioxoc* zetmovg Hes. is obscure be-
cause no primitive is found, yet it must have followed tounodtoxes
(§ 67). We do not know whether *o7zeofavéc,) which is 6 be as-
sumed as primitive, was a substantive of the same meaning or an
adjective. Finally there are two words in -tcox0- designating cham-
bers which are equivalent to their primitives : xovrwyioxzoc (Artemid.
4. 46; Anna Comn. 361 A; Schol. Z 316 Sednwoc, 6 got vuuornds
nortovionss) = xoizwv, and otztoxoc (Herodian 7. 9 sicedSdv p.dvoc
Eig Tov olxtoxov o> SY xadevdiowv) = oixoc. The cause was prob-
ably syncretism with -10v through the synonym dmucrov, in which
-tov however had the meaning ‘belonging to’ the house (dy).
Since cizo¢, like 3éy.x, could also mean ‘ house’ as well as ‘cham-
ber,’ there was an analogical relation between primitive and de-
rivative in dwugcov: dHy« and oiztoxog: oinoc, while xortwvioxos
followed the latter.

88. Apparent cases of the meaning ‘ belonging to’ are the follow-
ing : Eee ioxos (Giles: p. 111 f. Mai.) ‘a truss for inguinal her-
nia’: Gov~ov ‘inguen,’ ‘that which belongs to me inguen ’ ; y@or-
Ox0S (Marcell. Sid. 33) an unknown fish: yapo¢ ‘a sauce made of
brine and small fish,’ ‘that which is used for or belongs to the
brine sauce’; Svioxzy (LXX 1. Macc. 1. 22) and Jvioxoc (Joseph.
A. J. 3. 6. 8): Seg ‘ incense,’ ‘ that which is connected with or used
for incense’ ; Maviozoc (Cic. De nat. deor. 3. 17. 43) ‘ an attendant
of Ile,’ ‘he who belongs to Pan.’ For the second, third, and
fourth the influence of congeneric attraction is clear enough : yaot-
oxo¢ followed names of fish like yAxvxtoxog (§ 36 A), and Sutoxy

1 Janson, op. cit. 5, thinks the whole word is foreign, as may well be.
Ci. iBioxog (§ 38 and note).

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 13 SEPTEMBER, 1913.

188s Walter Petersen,

-o¢ other names of vessels like xoctvAtoxn or xotvAtoxog (§ 41).
As to fovfmviexog we may assume influence of words meaning
bandages, e. g. Ayuvioxoc, assisted by syncretism with -tov. The
form in -tcxo- would gain currency because fovbHvev was already
preempted by being the name of a plant acting as a remedy to
the (fovfev, also with the idea of appurtenance. Ilxvicxec, finally,
may have been some one ‘like Pan, but not a real one,’ or a
‘little Pan.’

89. The apparent meaning ‘coming from’ is found in weyaoioxos:
mivantoxoc Hes.: *Mayapx 1? — Méyapa, payaotoxog seeming to be
‘that which comes from Megara,’ i. e. ‘ Megarian pottery,’ and is
equivalent to peyupixoe xéoauoc. The patterns again were the
many names of vessels in -toxo- (§ 41).

go. In two examples our suffix seems to mean ‘ made of,’ both
in Herondas, and therefore earlier than the preceding : zavvapioxoy
(7. 58) ‘a kind of shoe’: xa&wafre ‘hemp,’ ‘that which is made
of hemp,’ and oaviozy (4. 62) ‘tablet for painting’ ?: cavig ‘ board,
plank,’ ‘ that which is made of boards or planks.’ But since the
primitive of the latter is itself found in the meaning of ‘ tablet,’
it is probable that it was thus conceived in the formation of the
derivative, which therefore was either ‘ that which is like a cxyie,’
or was equivalent to it, following related words like mwaxtoxnoe
(§ 41). The latter itself, which might be thought of as ‘ that
which is made of flat-wood (ztvzé)’ is certainly a deteriorative
(§ 53) and diminutive ($ 66) of ztvxé when itself meaning
‘platter.’ If, however, it attracted cuvicxy, it was also used just
like xivaé and mvaxov of a tablet for painting, and that meaning
is accidentally not quotable. It was caused by semantic syncretism
with the -1ov word. xavaGiexov on the other hand was attracted
by aoxepioxov or ouuGadtoxov, both designating shoes (§ 71). It
is possible, however, that the real primitive was xavw«Grov, which
itself designates a hempen shoe, and then there would be equiva-
lence of primitive and derivative.

gi. In one word -toxo- appears as a compound forming suffix :
maouywvtozxos “ a carpenter’s square’ (LX.X): maga ‘ alongsrde’ and
yovia ‘angle,’ ‘that which is alongside of the angle.’ The re-
sponsible congeneric word was some name of a tool like poy)toxoc
(§ 42), toumavioxeg (§ 67), or topvicxog (§ 87). The same group,
more particularly the surgeons’ tools, caused zodiozog (Hes.)

1 With the vowel assimilation in *Meycoe < Méyaoe cf. udya«gov (Men.)
< wéyaoov, and Aaxdyn < jfexayvyn. See Brugmann, Gr. Gr*. 84.

* So Crusius and Meister ad loc.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -voxo- -voxr-. 189

= x0tho¢g exxoret¢ “a hollow i. e. scoop-shaped knife’ for surgical
purposes. The primitive is the adjective xcithoc.

g2. There is left the one word avSetexo¢ 1 in which -tcxo- might
be thought of as a suffix of possession, in as much as it might be
“that which is provided with flowers,’ a certain umbelliferous plant.
Cf. Hes. avictonov: Adyavov éyov avbog oe avySov. One would
expect a primitive *xvSoov or *avOyo, but none is known to have
existed, and moreover, the earlier form (in Sappho and the Comic
poets Cratinus and Pherecrates) was %vScusxov. This shows that the
avOotoxoc of Poll. 6. 106 as well as avO-ctoxtov of Hesychius was remod-
elled from the old form in -vozev, and that we therefore need not
look for any real meaning of -tox0-.

93. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows. Apparent
cases of all meanings except ‘diminutive’ uses and the designation
of similarity are later than the Classical period, and never were
consciously attributed to the suffix. Words which seem to show
these meanings are all due do congeneric attraction or to the sub-
stitution of -1ox0- for -1ov because of the general feeling of equiv-
alence of the two suffixes. None of these uses gained any pro-
ductivity whatsoever so as to show that a feeling for them really
existed. A number of words in -toz0-, however, from the Classical
period on, did not differ from their primitives.

VIII. PROPER NAMES IN -/2K0O-.

94. I have reserved for a particular chapter the proper names in
-toxo- because they present distinct peculiarities of their own apart
from the appellatives, and because they form a congeneric group
whose relationship is much more important than the different ways
in which the suffix modifies the primitive.

g5. I am referring, however, principally to the personal names ;
for the geographical names are rare and largely uncertain. Many
of them are merely foreign names which happen to have been
used by Greek writers, and these of course can not concern us
directly. Thus the Keltic names like Lxogdicxor (Strabo), Tauei-
oxo. (St. B.), and Tevetcxe: (Strabo) do not interest us except as
they bear on I. E. -isko- (§ 2f.), neither do the Italic Dadtoner
and ®x)toxov, nor various names of towns and rivers in Asia Mi-
nor and near the Danube, e. g. Zadtoxo¢g ? (Ptol.) a river in Paph-

1 Words which end in -coxo- which is not wholly suffixal do not concern
us. So dioxos (Janson, op. cit. 4) and gloxog (ib. 5).

* Pape translates ‘ Schierenbeck,’ referring to ¢¢4n, which is uncertain
because we are not sure of the Greek origin of the name.

190 Walter Petersen,

lagonia, (“)xaetoxo¢ (Arist., Ael.) a river of the Budini in Scythia,
IIcet1cxov (Ptol.) a city of the Iazyges Metanastae, Lexoteuona
(Procop.) a city in Moesia, also Kaoteuoxa in Theophylactus, Tev-
eptoxot (Ptol.) a people in Dacia, TiG:oxx (Ptol.) a city in Moesia
Inferior, TiGioxo¢ (Ptol.) a tributary of the Danube, Tig:oxev (Ptol.)
a city in Dacia, Toouceroxa (Ptol.) a city in lower Moesia. All of
these words were either taken from foreign languages including
the suffix, or they ended in such a way as to suggest the Gr.
-1gx0-, and were remodelled accordingly.

96. Geographical names from ai proper I have found only
two, in the first place in St. B. Tpimodioxog xa Torrodtoxor’ xadum
ais Meyaptdoc. Aéyeton ot Taman The reason for the name
is given Paus. 1. 43. 8 zotxodx 38 dodusvov pepe ww éxédevev (sc. 7
ITuStx <ov KéporGov) éx cod tepod, xan ae ay cxmeoy © ol OéoovT, 6
TOLTOUS, Soe Aré)wvog cixodouTour vadv xa adTOv OiniiouL... xo
Tonedionovg nouny év7adoa oixijoou. It is thus séen that the ae
-1ox0- had nothing to do with the fact that the word is a geograph-
ical name, but the whole word was transferred to the city by
association. Certainly of Greek origin was aoe Ixxovetoxog (St. B.)
an island off Caria. Its primitive is tzzov = ‘ horse-tail,’ and the
suffix no doubt expressed similarity.

97. From Macedonia and Thrace, however, I have found seven
geographical names in -toz0-, partly Greek words without doubt,
partly native. The variety of the relations between primitive and
derivative indicates that the suffix had lost all content except the
feeling that it was a suffix for forming geographical names. Thus
we find two derivatives from adjective primitives : “EXevS<otoxes
(Theag. ap. St. B.) : édsdSepog ‘free,’ a city in Macedonia, and
Beottoxoy (Strabo, Ptol.) a mountain of Macedonia: géeztoto¢ * best,’
Greek © corresponding to Macedonian §.1 The meaning ‘ belong-
ing to’ apparently in the Macedonian place name Booyitoxse or
Bopptoxog (Thuc. 4. 103): Goéu.c¢ ‘ roaring,’ ‘ that which is situated
near the roaring’ river at the outlet of a lake. Similarly Aoptoxog
(Her. 7. 59): S6ov, “that which is situated near the trees,’ a
Thracian plain with a fortified place, also "Epyicxy (Aeschin. 3. 82):
goya ‘fields,’ ‘ that which is situated near the fields,’ a place in
Thrace, and Muottoxy? (Aeschin. 3. 82) : pwevo¢, ‘that which is
situated near the myrtles,’ also a place in Thrace. The suffix of
the last three words could also be interpreted as ‘ provided with.’

1 Cf. Hirt, Die Indogermanen 149; Hoffmann, Die Makedonen 232.
2 Mvotioxn may be a deteriorative of Muetyvov (Dem. 18.27). In Aes-
chines \/vetioxn would then have been influenced by the neighboring “Eoyioxn.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -vox0- -t6zn-. 191

Finally there are Dapioxe¢ (Ptol. 3. 12. 22; Strabo 7. 330) a Ma-
cedonian city : Mac. 7& yd&oow (?) ‘rods,’ and ‘Aptioxé¢ (Herod. 4.
g2) a tributary to the Helios river in Thrace, which Pape trans-
lates ‘ Riemel,’ but which probably also is not a Greek word at
all, as can be seen particularly from its accent. The comparative
productivity of these words in Macedonia and Thrace was evidently
a local peculiarity ; probably e. g. the Macedonian language had
words of its own like Beovtcxov,t in which the Greeks of those
regions recognized their own suffix -tsx%0- and formed other really
Greek place names like ’EXevSeptcxog by analogy. By all means,
then, the meanings ‘ belonging io’ etc. in these words can not be
used for establishing the semantic history of Greek -tcx0-.

98. When we come to the personal names in -toxo-, we find a
rather large productivity—I have found a hundred, mostly in
Pape’s lexicon and Collitz-Bechtel—a productivity which begins
as early as Herodotus and Thucydides. The absence of these
names from the Lyric poets is probably accidental, since the
suffix occurs repeatedly in appellatives in the same poets, though
it may be that their productivity did not become large till the
end of the fifth cent. B. C.

gg. The large majority of these names show the two principle
uses of -1ox0-, that of expressing similarity and the diminutive-
hypocoristic use. If there ever were any deterioratives among
them, they became hypocoristic by being humorously applied to
little children, e. g. Avuztoxog ‘Wolfy’ may have contained the
notion of reprehensible greediness, but when given to a baby it
was used good-humoredly and affectionately. The border line
between the diminutives and those words in which the suffix was
an exponent of similarity was far from accurate. Since permanent
names are usually given shortly after birth, i. e. to very small
children, most of the following proper names could sometimes also
have been felt as diminutives, e. g. Apvioxo¢ could be ‘ little lamb’
as well as ‘lamb-like.’ Since, however, the use of -tox0- to des-
ignate similarity is its oldest use, and as familiar at all times as
the ‘diminutive’ uses, we may assume that these proper names
were at least partly felt as showing this meaning, and that the
notion of small size was often in the background.

1 The variants Aotnoxés and Taproxcs for “Aoticzos and Tagioxos indicate
that the suffix was not quite the same as Gr. -tozo-, but was adapted.

192 Walter Petersen,

I. -toxo- expresses Similarity.

roo. The name contains some metaphor, which seizes upon some
particular quality or qualities common to a person and e. g. an
animal or plant. These names were either nick-names, as at Sparta
Kovioxog ‘Doggy’ was another name for Zevét3au0¢ (Herod. 6.
71), and could then be given at any time of life, so that the di-
minutive idea could be totally absent, or oftener they were per-
manent names from the beginning. The latter must have largely
developed from the former,! since nick-names have a tendency to
become permanently attached to individuals, and later are trans-
ferred to other individuals in a conventional way. Thus the above
Kovioxog is the permanent name of a Lacedaemonian in Xen. An.
7. I. 13. Wherever a metaphor contains an element of censure,
as in Axvioxx or Axyue ‘ hare’ (because cowardly), we must assume
that the word was originally a nick-name and then lost its de-
teriorative element ; for one would hardly give his own child a
derogatory name except in a humorous way.

tor. The different words may be classified according to the na-
ture of the primitive, 1. e. according to the object compared.

A. The primitive is the name of an animal Aovioxos: kovéc
(gen.) ‘lamb.’ From Elis in Paus. 6.16. 7. Botozxa@: 1 God¢ ‘ cow.
Corinth Anth. P. 7. 493. Botozoc: 6 Bote ‘ox.’ Thessaly Xen.
An. 5. 8. 23, CB. 345. 51, 79 (about 214 B. C.) ; Boeotia CIG. 1570 ;
Epirus CB. 1349. 7. Kvvioxa: 7% xdwv ‘bitch.’ Sparta Xen. Ag.
9. 6 (a sister of Agesilaos); Sicily Theocr. 14. 8. Kvviozos: 6 xiv
‘dog.’ Sybaris CB. 1653 (as Quvic?ec); Sparta (§ 100) ; Man-
tinea Paus. 6. 14. 11; Smyrna CB. 5616. 42 (about 300 B. C.).
Aayioxua: Auy6¢ ‘hare.’ Strattis irg. 2. 764 thy Anytoxav Thy “Ico-
noaszoug maAAaxtv. Also Lys. ap. Ath. 592 E. Aeovrioxos : Xéwv
‘lion.’ Acarnania CB. 1389. 15; Cos CB. 3624c¢ 57 (third or sec-
ond cent. B. C.); Rhodes CB. 3762. 9; Heraclea CB. 4629. I.
183 (end of fourth cent.) ; Messene in Sicily Paus. 6. 2. roff. ;
Smyrna Mion. 3. 196, 218; Samos Mion. 6. 409 ; Halicarnassus
CB. 5727 a 17 (end of fifth cent. B. C.). Avxioxa: % dbxo¢ ‘wolf.’

1 Cf. Bechtel, Att. Frauennamen 99.

* Animals naturally offer the best field of comparison. The lion’s strength,
the slenderness of the deer, the fidelity of the dog would e. g. be qualities which
would appeal in the giving of aname. Cf. Bechtel, op. cit. 87: ‘‘Das weiche
Haar, der zarte Flaum, die zierliche Gestalt, die anmutigen Bewegungen
kleiner Tiere ergdtzen das Auge und schmeicheln der streichelnden Hand —
was Wunder, da8 man geliebte Wesen aus der menschlichen Gesellschaft mit
ihnen verglich.”’

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -v6z0- -voxy-. 193

Triteae in Phocis CB. 1730. 3 (173-172 B. C.). Avxtoxoc: 6 d-
“0g ‘wolf.’ Boeotia CB. 379. 7, 713 a 17; Acarnania CB. 1379.
4; Aetolia CB. 1428 i 4 ; Epirus CIG. 1802 ; Cephaliania CB. 2566.
65)(227 or 2268. C.); Delphi CB. 1743. 14, 1767. 8 (170—156
B. C.) ; Ambrysos CB. 2147. gf. (147—100 B. C.) ; Amphissa CB.
1984. 12 (193-192 B. C.); Tarentum CB. 4626; Messene Paus.
4.9. 5; Sicily CB. 5221. 1. 2 (Tauromenium), 5244 c (Syracuse) ;
Athens Xen. Hell. 1. 7. 13. Mvioxoc : pi¢ ‘mouse.’ Thasos CIG.
8518. 3. II ; a metic at Calymna CB. 3590. 17; also Anth. P. 12.
59 ff. NeSoiozoc : veGod¢ ‘fawn.’ From an Illyrian island Mion.
3. 338. Mavdyjoioxoc : ré&vGno ‘panther.’ Sparta CIG. 1278. 16.
Haodckiczxy : napdxd¢ ‘ leopard.’ Plautus Casina. Savolozos : ox3-
eo¢ ‘lizard.’ CIG. 4. 6868. ‘Tavoioxos: calipog ‘bull.’ Amphissa
CB. 2139. 8 (189-188 B. C.); Calymna CB. 3590. 62 (about 205
peer, Athens CLG: 126. 24: Cyzicus Plin. 33) 12) 55.. 156.
Toayicxos : toxyog ‘he-goat.’ Tarentum Pol. 8. 29, 30; Crete
Plut. Arax. 29. ®ovvioxocs: optvn ‘toad.’1 Thessaly CB. 326.
3: 32; Boeotia CB. 830; Achaea Xen. An. 7. 2. I.

B. The primitive is a plant name. The point of comparison
seems to be slenderness, neatness, and growth. Cf. Bechtel, op.
cit. 100. “Aumehioxn : &unedog ‘vine. Plaut. Rud. 220 ff. Ka-
hapiozos : xahuyos ‘reed.’ Pisidia CIG. 3. 4366w 26.

C. The primitive is the name of a thing. °Aotregioxos: dort
‘star.. Samos CB. 5704. 8 (third or second cent. B. C.). Evoi-
oxo¢ : eioo¢ ‘ wool,’ ‘Wooly.’ Metapontium Jambl. v. Pythag. 36.
Myyviozos : piv ‘moon.’ Pisidia CIG. 3. 4367A 7; also Plut. 2.
348 F. Mugioxoc : pteov ‘ointment.’ Athens CIG. 276. 25; Sar-
matia ib. 2130. 28, 37 (time of emperor Tiberias). Woguiozoc? :
gopu.¢ ‘basket.’ Epirus CB. 1359. 7.

2. -toxo- with Diminutive-hypocoristic Meaning.

102. Since almost all of these names are permanent names, the
diminutive-hypocoristic origin of the category is on the whole
rather a matter of inference than of immediate observation. The
diminutive meaning is indeed certain for “Hoazdioxoc, which is
applied to the infant Heracles as title of a poem of Theocritus,
and hypocoristic meaning is probably found in Sarveioxos as an
alternate for Lécvee¢g in Mosch. 6. 4, though possibly with a de-
teriorative shade. Certainly hypocoristic is the Plautine Lampadis-

1 Color seems to be the point of comparison.
* Probably conceived of as ‘ carrier.’ Cf. the German name ‘ Korb’ in
Freytag’s Die Journalisten.

194 Walter Petersen,

cus, Which is once used for Lampadio Cist. 544 Audire vocem visa
sum ante aedis modo Mei Lampadisci servi. Still better Olympio
is once affectionately addressed as Olympiscus in Plaut. Cas. 739
obsecro te, Olympisce mi, mi pater, mi patrone. We may further
surmise that those permanent names in -toxe- which were derived
from other names were diminutives, the child being originally
thought of as ‘little father’ or little mother.’ If the father’s name
was Aicyio¢, what was more appropriate than to call the infant
son ‘little Aeschylus’ or AicyvAtoxog ? An example of the son’s
name as a diminutive of the father’s is Herond. 2. 76 ya x&nnog
"Hy yor StovpBeae ya mathe LicupGetoxog. In the same way Mevi-
cxoe was son of Mévwv in the Thessalian inscription CB. 345. 56,
and the Cephallanian Avxioxeg was son of Adjzog CB. 2564. OT.
And again when we read Aégwy Acovctcxov in an inscription from
Acarnania CB. 1389. I5, we may wonder whether according to the
custom of naming a baby after its grandfather the father of Leon-
tiscus was not in turn named Leon, whence the son’s name ‘little
Leon.’ The fact that a name thus given clings to the person after
he grows to the same size as his father accounts for the fading
of the diminutive notion. Hypocorism, however, could be con-
nected with the suffix at any time even though the name was a
permanent one.

103. The primitive of a diminutive designating a person must
of course in every case itself designate a person, but we may sub-
divide according to whether the primitive designates the person
as having a certain occupation or profession, or is a personal
appellative of a different kind, or an ethnicon, or is itself a per-
manent personal name.

A. The primitive designates a man as belonging to an occupation
or profession. If the father e. g. was a fuller, the baby could be
named ‘little fuller.” Pvagioxos : yvagei¢ ‘fuller.’ Insc. e0utoxoc :
Seoustc ‘runner.’ Thessaly CB. 326. 3. 15; Attica Ephem. Arch.
2.n. 1898. K. *Iavionos : *iaved¢ ‘ physician ’ (cf. tatve 1 “to heal.).’
Son of Asclepius Schol. Ar. Plut. zor; king of Sicyon Paus. 2.
6. 6. Kufeovioxos? : xuBepvirys ‘pilot.’ A Lycian Herod. 7. 98.

B. The primitive is a personal appellative of a different kind.
The reasons for the diminutives are self-explanatory : a child could

1 Certainly not by syncope from °/Jaaviexes, as Janson, op. cit. 6. The
son of Asclepius has to do with healing.

2 The form is puzzling. Either Kugeovioxos is to be compared with teeuioxos
(§ 12) instead of *recuctioxos, or the primitive is really xdfegvos (Greg. Naz.),
whose late appearance would then be accidental.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -wwx0- -.oxn-. 195

be called ‘little king’ if son of a king,! or ‘little father,’ ‘little
boy, ‘little man,’ etc. *Avdoioxocs: avip ‘man.’ Telos CB. 3488c
4; Sicily CB. 5219. 1. 46, 203, 246 (Tauromenium) ; Athens CIG.
168 b; Naxos Ath. 78C; a Macedonian king Paus. 7. 13. I.
-Avtowmnioxos : &vSownog ‘man’. Tarentum CB. 4616. 2. ro (end
of fourth or third cent. B. C.). Baosdionos : Saorhet¢ ‘king.’ Suid. ;
Anth. P. 1. 11 (Christian period). ‘“Howioxoc: fews ‘hero.’ Attica
A. Rangab. 2. n. 1384. Kooioxog: xéo0¢ ‘ youth.’ Skepsis Plato
Ep. 6. 323 A; also Strabo 608 ; Alciphr. 3. 33. Mareoioxt: yarn
‘mother.’ CIG. 4. 6913. 2f. Navioxoc : vévog ‘fellow.’ On Samian
coins Mion. 3. 284. MMadtoxy ‘Girlie’: h motc. Attica CIA. 2. 3.
4051. Marmioxos : nang ‘papa,’ Schol. Dionys. de myst. theol. 1. 1.
Hatoioxos : nuvho ‘father.’ On a coin from Priene Mion. 3. 187.
Dihionos : othog ‘ friend.’ Thessaly CB. 345. 81 (about 214 B. C.) ;
Boeotia CB. 2563. 51 (272 B. C.) ; Thelpusa in Arcadia CB. 2628.
I (230-220 B. C.); Phthiotis CB. 1461. 1. 60; Delphi CB. 1963.
more2 B: C.); Coreyra Ath. 198 B, ©; Aegina Diog. Laert. 6.
2eie7, £0, 12; Cos’ CB. 3706. 7. 14, 8.66, 69 (end of third cent.
B. C.) ; Rhodes CB. 3791. 490 (ab. 70 B. C.), 306. 2; Carpathus
CB. 4322a 14, 20 (beginning of second cent. B. C.) ; Tarentum
GB 4626 (300-272 B. C.);’ Messene CB. 2566. 12 (227 or 226
B. C.); Cyrene CB. 4846. 4 (68 or 73 A. D.); Sicily CB. 5210.
I. 58 (Tauromenium), 5244 a (Syracuse) ; an Athenian poet of the
Middle Comedy ap. Suid. ; Eretria CB. 5312. 23 (308-304 B. C.);
Thasos CB. 5478b gf., 5484. 10; Tenos CB. 5492. 58; Erythrae
CB. 5692 a 16 (soon after 278 B. C.); Miletus Hes. s. v.; Abydus
Mens Hell. 7. x. 27.

C. The primitive 1s an ethnicon. Some of these were doubtless
nicknames given in later life, e. g. a slave from Syria might be
called Lugicxo¢ in preference to his real name, which would be
unfamiliar to Greek ears. Evfotoxoc : EdGoed¢ ‘Euboean.’ Chae-
ronea IGS. I. 3391. 6 per’ KdBotonev aoye. Oerradioxos : MOsttadO¢
“Thessalian.’ Thebes Arist. Rhet. 2. 23. 1398b 4. Xvoioxa: Lox
‘Syrian.’ Thessalonica CIG. 2. 1982. Xveloxos : Lbeog ‘ Syrian.’
Megar. Chersonesus CB. 3086. 11 (third or second cent. B. C.) ;
a slave name Anaxipp. frg. 4. 466 and Ter. Eun. 772. Another
Syrian Tzetzes Hist. 9. 503, 505. Woayzioxos : Doxyxnoc ‘ Frank.’
Anon. de fig. in Rhet. Graec. ed. Spengel t. 3 p. 172.

D. The primitive is itself a permanent personal name, e. g. Ave-
Monog “a little Apheles.’ Atoyvétoxoc : Aicythos. Corcyra CIG.
1852. ‘Adtoxoc :"Adetc. Hes. Agremioxzos : Apteytic “Aotéumy. Sic-

1 Possibly with the notion of similarity: ‘‘a royal boy.”

196 Walter Petersen,

ily (Centoripa) CB. 5248. 4 [’Ap](z)eptoxes. Aopadioxzos : “Acodhng
‘Acodheog.! Eretria CB. 5313. 158 (third cent.B.C.). Avdiozos : Adee.
Paus. 2.31.6. Agedtozos : “Avé\ng. Boeotia CB. 429.7. Tooyort-
oxa: Vopyov. Thessaly (Larissa) CB. 356. 2. 4atozoc : A%oc. Phalar.
Ep. 31. Atuioxocs: Adusc.2 Messene Paus. 6. 2. 10. “Eowaiozos :
“Eopoiiog. Boeotia CB. 586; Attica CIG. 180. 11; Alex. frg. 3.
433 (4). Evgavioxoc: Edodvyg. Rhodes CB. 3758. 1, 3789. 2 (sec-
ond cent. B.C.), etc. Evgearvioxos?: Etgouving (Suid.). Rhodes
CB. 3778. 4. Evgoovioxoc: Etopmv. Boeotia CB. 553. 25. Zo-
mvoloxos: Zamveo¢. Heraclea CB. 4629. I. 97 (end of fourth cent.
B. C.); Tauromenium in Sicily CB. 5219. I. 66, 121. ‘“Hoaioxos:
“Hoong. Egypt Isid. 107, 112, Suid. QOeogudioxos : Osdordac.
Rhodes Pol. 16. 2-9. Jamuioxoc*4: “Ixyoc. Boeotia CB. 468. Kod-
dupioxos : KodSGag (Smyrna Mion. 3. 217). Plaut. Poen. Kgati-
oxoc: Kedeye. Tarentum CB. 4616. 2. 5 (end of -fourth or third
cent. B.C.). Aauiozn: Acusx. Samos Diosc. 7. 166. Aamioxoc:
Aapiag Acutoc. Boeotia Keil Insc. Boeot. 44 b; Epirus CB. 1353.
5; Acarnania CB. 1389. 11; Argos Amphil. GB. 2530. 5 (230-200
B. C.) ; Corcyra CB. 3207. 4, 10; doubtful for Crete CB. 4944. 8;
Samos Plato Ep. 7. 350B. Aapzoioxos: Aayxooc. Herondas 3.
57 ff. Aemriviozoc: Aexzivng. Antiphan. ap. Ath. 641 F. Avpi-
oxoc: At@x¢ (Suid.). Thessaly (Phthiotis) CB. 1461. 1. 38. Av-
ocvioxos: Aveaviag = Avoaving. Eretria CB. 5331. Mevioxos: Mé-
vig Mévwv. Thessaly CB. 345. 56 (about 214 B. C.); Boeotia CB.
749; Delphi CB. 1931. 5 (about 100 B.C.) ; Calchedon CB. 3054.
10; Sicily CB. 5720. 2. 74; Athens Plut. 2. 747 B; on Dyrrachian
and Phrygian coins Mion. 2. 41, 4. 300. Muyrvoxoc ®: Mivng. Chal-
cis Plato Com. frg. 2. 668 (3). MWavioxoc: Ilav. Egypt Pap. Taur.
I. 1. 7, CIG. 3. 4893. 27, 4969. Mavradioxos: Ilavzxdémvy (Tenos
CB. 5492. 95). Thasos CB. 5473 b 10 (fourth cent. B. C.). Hao-
u(ev)ioxos &: Haxouévwov Ilaxougviog. Thessaly CB. 326. I. 13, 345. 50
(about 214 B.C.) ; Boeotia CB. 485. 26 (223-197 B. C.) ; Calymna
CB. 3567. 3; Cos CB. 3706. 3. 54 ff. etc. (end of third cent. B. C.);

1 Occurs in the same inscription as the diminutive.

2 Aus rather than Aauies or Aéucos is the primitive because it occurs in
the Doric inscriptions, particularly in Messene, from which the name 4guioxos
came.

3 Cf Bechtel, BB. 21. 228.

* Some would read 4autoxos.

5 Spelled Mvyvioxos in the passage cited. With one y Arist. Poet. 26.
1461b 36.

6 The form I/cguioxos is found Iambl. v. Pyth. 267. Cf. § 105.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.oxo0- -voxzy-. ey

Rhodes CB. 3791. 415 (about 70 B.C.) ; Corcyra CIG. 2. 1881;
Athens Dem. 56. 5; Samothrace CIG. 2157; Erythrae CB. 5692 ¢c
35 (third cent. B. C.); Byzantium CB. 705. 25; a Metapontinan
philosopher Ath. 614 A. Haratxioxos : Vacatures Watoxtwv. Herond.
4. 63. MModtozoc: od%e~ (Il. 17. 575). Insc. ap. Aschick Bospora-
nisches Reich 1. MHodiozoc: Il6So¢. Sarmatia CIG. 2. 2130. 64.
Zatvoelozos: Lazveo¢. Probably a slave-name from Thera CB. 4699.
14 (end of third cent. B. C.) Lac|uptcxev. Suioxos: Livog -wv.
Sicily (Tauromenium) IGSI. 421. lar. vovuBoioxos: LiovpGode.
Herond. 2. 76. LNogoxdrdioxy : Lowoxdic. Plaut. Pers. Swepoortoxos :
Yooowv. Calymna CB. 3590. 27; Athens Plato Euthydem. 297 E.
Tehioxos: Tédyg. Thuria CB. 4679. 6 (third or second cent.
B. C.). @avioxoc: Dévog.‘ Plaut. Most. Woovioxoc!: Dodvo¢
(Od. 2. 386, 4. 648). Boeotia CB. 476. 45.

E. To the words of D should doubtless be added a number of
names which can not be referred to any actually existing prim-
itive, but which nevertheless have the appearance of being derived
from other names. Leaving out of account /éorriozos (Insc. Hypat.
n. 195 b, Curt. Insc. Att. 12, p. 32), which Keil plausibly explains
as a mistake for Acovtioxoc, there is O/riozos (Abacaenum in Sic-
ily CB. 5208), ‘Puiozoc (Boeotia CB. 707. 2), and Modvpadiozos
(Plaut. ap. Varro L. L. 6. 73). Though the exact forms of the
primitives can not be determined, they must have been something
like *OAtiac, *Pdioc, and *[loAvB&dn¢.

F. Some of words classified above as derived from appellatives
may in reality also belong to D if the same primitive is in use
as a proper name, or at least one so like it as to have the same
basis of derivation. Thus the names Acovticxog, Avxztoxos, Lavot-
oxo¢, Dovvicxoc, and Mooutcxos, instead of being ‘like a lion, wolf,
lizard, toad, and basket’ respectively (§ ror), could have been
derived from the proper names Aégmwv, Astzog (§ 102), Lavotxe,
Dodvoe or Dovvimv, Ddouos or Ddouse or Pooutmy. Similarly Aoo-
pionos and Kufeovicxog (A), instead of being ‘little runner’ and
‘little pilot,’ could have come from Apgoyet¢ and Kufeovizns; Nz-
viexos and Ilunxtcxog (B), instead of being ‘little fellow’ and ‘little
papa,’ could be referred to the proper names N&vo¢ and Ilénxx¢ or
Ilande or Ilaxtuc. Since we have no idea when and how these
words .were first formed no certain decision for the individual
word could be reached.

1 That a child should be given the diminutive of a Homeric name is per-
fectly intelligible. It is not necessary, therefore, to assume that Poovioxos
stands for Ev]ppovioxos, as Keil supposes.

198 Walter Petersen,

104. Feminines in -1cxy4 are sometimes formed as a counterpart
to a previously existing masculine in -tox0¢, without being directly
traceable to a feminine name as primitive. So Adioxy} (Plaut.
Cist.) is probably patterned after the masculine “AXoxog : “AXedc ;
Mevioxy (Cos CB. 3706. 1. 18, 3. 63, 7. 36) after Mevioxog: Mévys
or Mévoyv ; Evgoovioxa (Lipara CB. 3552) after Edgpovicxocg: Edoomv;
possibly also Aauioxy after Aautoxog instead of : 1 Acusx, Botox
after Botoxog instead of: 4 (ode, etc.

ro5. As a successor to I. E. -ko- -toxo- could probably take upon
itself the function of forming ‘‘ Kosenamen,” i. e. shortened forms
of compound proper names of which only one member, usually
the first, was used in full, whereas the other was suppressed en-
tirely or nearly so. Even if this function was not due to syn-
cretism with prehistoric -ko- or -lo-, it could easily develop in the
Greek language itself by a shift of grouping of etymologically
related names. Thus Aauyioxeg, which was a diminutive of Adgur¢
or Auutae, could be referred to the compound Axuozeaty¢ or Ac-
woxortos or Anoxic, particularly since Aduue and Axpine were them-
selves “ Kosenamen ”’ of these same compounds. Similarly Aauroetoxoc
might be ‘‘ Kosename”’ of Axyxpdu.ayes or Axynooxdije instead of be-
ing a diminutive of Adunpoc, Mevioxog e. g. of Mevézevoc -xog instead
of: Mévng Mévenv, HodSionog of Hodcveu.c¢e Hodcéoxye¢ instead of : Modie,
Davionoc of D&vizxoc instead of : D&vog -tac. Also a number of words
listed above as coming from appellatives might have been formed or
secondarily felt as ‘‘ Kosenamen,” e. g. ’Avdptoxog ? of ‘Avdpoxpatye etc.
instead of being ‘little man,’ Agoptoxog of Apouoxdrtig -xAetdyg in-
stead of ‘little runner,’ Avztcxog of Avxcdeyo¢e etc. instead of
‘Wolfy,’ Myvioxog of Myvédot0¢ -dwe0¢ instead of : pyvy ‘ moon,’
Hlazetoxo¢g of IlatpoxA7i¢ etc. instead of being ‘little father,’ DvAt-
oxog Of Dihimzog Dihoxpaeye instead of ‘little friend.’ Since a
number of names from similar or identical stems usually existed
alongside of each other we can not, however, often tell whether
an individual word was a “‘ Kosename”’ or not. But that -toxo- was
at least occasionally used in their formation is shown by several
words in which the addition of the suffix is accompanied by such
mutilation of the stem of the primitives that it can not possibly
be explained by the rules of sandhi (cf. § 12). These are I[lay-
tadtonog: Ilavtadgwy and Ilaputoxog: Ilaouévoy (§ 103 D). Di-
rectly formed from a compound stem is also the Boeotian *Jeavi-

1 For the inorganic h of the Latin form Halisca cf. Stolz, Lat. Gram.‘ 128;
Sommer, Handb. d. lat. Laut- u. Formenl. 217.
2 This word e. g. is considered a ‘‘ Kosename”’ by Fick-Bechtel.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -.6zo0- -t6x7-. 199

ozxoc (CB. 708), which can not come from Eioyvate¢, which would
have given *loxvatoxes (cf. § 12 third note), but must be “ Kose-
name’ of some word like Etofweros.

3. Apparent cases of other meanings of -toxo-.

106. Other apparent meanings of -toxo- than that of expressing
similarity and the ‘ diminutive ’ meanings are still rarer in proper
names than in appellatives ($ 85 ff.), and may with great prob-
ability be denied altogether. It would indeed be possible to
assume that Aautoxoe and Aautoxy were conceived as ‘he (or she)
who has a (large) gullet (A&%uo¢),’ instead of being derived from
Adysog Anuiac and Acusa, or that Ilodicxo¢g was ‘ he who has (big)
feet’ instead of a diminutive of Ilod%¢, were it not for the fact
that there are no proper names where the assumption of the
possessive meaning of our suffix is a necessary one. In the same
Way we might assume that the meaning of appurtenance was
present in Ko))vGtoxoc, the name of a steward, as ‘he who has
to do with the coin (x6)dvGo¢),’ instead of being a diminutive of
the proper name KoA\sGx¢, and that the Boeotian ‘Ipavicxog meant
“ belonging to peace (siovvy) ’ rather than that it was a ““ Kosename”’
of “lpéuazoc, were it not that the overwhelming preponderance of
diminutives should make us classify the ambiguous examples as
probably belonging there. There are indeed a few words where
appurtenance seems at first sight the necessary meaning of the
suffix : Ayoioxa (Lycophr. 1152): xyod¢,1 ‘ she who belongs to the
fields,’ an epithet of the goddess Athena; Mediozocs (Anth. P. 6.
82) : ugdoc, ‘he who is concerned with the melody,’ the name of
a fluteblower; Taziozoc (Nil. Ep. 3. 75) ‘he who belongs either
to the town Téxa or Té&mn’; ‘Eoyioxoc (Harp. s. v. "Epytoxn) : te
eey%, perhaps ‘ he who is concerned with the fields.’ For the last-
mentioned, however, it is clear that the person designated is a
mere hero eponymous, and that his name is therefore a retrograde
derivative of the name of the town ’Epyioxn, which he was re-
puted to have founded. As to the other three, their isolated po-
sition would incline me to the view that they come from names
which are accidentally not quotable,” e. g. *,Ayoia or *Tamog. On
the other hand it is conceivable that the suffix secondarily de-

= =e ——-+ ee —

1 If “Ayoioxa were an old word it might have come from the adjective
ayows. Cf. § 10.

2 Perhaps Mesioxos was derived from Médwy or Méhog (: uéhw ‘to bea
care to’), and was secondarily connected with uéhos.

200 Walter Petersen,

veloped the notion of appurtenance in some way like the following.
Kod)uGicexos, though derived from the proper name Ko)iGac, the
name of a steward, might be referred to the appellative xo\AuGo¢
“small coin’ as ‘he who has to do with the coin,’ and other
words might follow by analogy.

I0o7. One name in -tozxo- seems to de derived from an adjective
primitive : “ESdoutoxoc (Andros CIG. 2. 2349¢ 3 add.): dou0¢
‘seventh.’ If so, it followed the analogy of names like Agedtoxoe,
Edgcovicxes, Aauuxptexoc, and Lwepovicxes, which, though derived
from the proper names “Agédn¢, Edggmv, Acuxooc, and Lagowy,
could as well be referred to the adjectives aoéhng, edopwv, Aau-
mpdc, and cwypwy respectively. Since, however, “EGSdoutoxo¢ would
thus stand altogether alone among proper names as to its deri-
vation, and since there is only one appellative which with any
degree of probability is derived from an adjective (§ 28), it is
more probable that the primitive adjective was itself used as a
proper name which happens not to have been transmitted.

ro8. I have necessarily ignored altogether a number of names
in -toxo- of non-Greek origin, since these have no value for Greek
semantics. Such are the Persian Ogioxoc (Ctes. 40 b 3) and Hagi-
oxac (Plut. Artox. 12), and Sxogdicxog (App. Illyr. 2), the son of
Paeon after whom the Keltic Lxcgdicxc. are said to have been
named.

IX. THE DIALECTIC DISTRIBUTION OF WORDS IN TEKS

10g. For a detailed dialectic history of the suffix there is in-
sufficient material. The appellatives are of such sporadic occur-
rence in the dialect inscriptions that almost nothing can be made
of them, and the proper names, while fairly numerous on the
whole, yet yield such a small number for the dialect of each lo-
cality that negative evidence, to say the least, is precarious. The
principal conclusion we can draw from the distribution of these
comparatively few forms over most of the dialects is that,-with
the exception of the Aeolic (§ 1), probably every Greek dialect
knew them, and that the pre-Hellenic origin of the suffix is thus
again confirmed (§ 2). There are indeed other dialects than the
Aeolic in which -toxe- has not been found in inscriptions, but the
evidence is insufficient to make actual absence of the suffix even
probable. That I have found no names of persons in -toxo- from
Aeniania, Cyprus, and Pamphilia is explained by the scarcity of
inscriptions from these regions as well as from the comparatively

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -v6z0- -coxy-. 201

small amount of contact of their people with the rest of Greece,
a fact which accounts for their being rarely mentioned in Greek
literature, and for the consequent rarity of all kinds of names of
persons from those localities. I have also found no inscriptional
evidence of names in -1oz0- from Crete and Achaea, but the occur-
rence in literature of one such name from Crete and another from
Achaea shows that their absence from inscriptions is accidental.
That the comparatively large amount of material from Crete should
not have yielded even one certain name in -toxo- is due to the
nature of the inscriptions—they are largely of legal contents and
do not contain long lists of proper names like e. g. the Thessalian
inscription CB. 345.

110. It is self-evident that certain names in -toxo-, like other
names also, were peculiar to or at least particularly popular in
certain localities. Thus Ilapuevioncs, while common to many differ-
ent dialects, was particularly favored at Cos, where it occurs twenty
times in inscriptions. When moreover Etgavioxe¢g occurs in five
different Rhodian inscriptions, and once at Delphi (CB. 2581. 218),
but there the name of a Rhodian, we can be certain that it was a
purely Rhodian name. Similarly the fact that Mevicxy is the
name of three different individuals at Cos, but is not found any-
where else, makes it probable that is was confined to Cos. Also
some of the aut Aeyoueve were no doubt actually limited to the
places where they are found, but it is unsafe to draw conclusions
in the individual case.

111. In the want, then, of sufficient evidence to trace the his-
tory of the suffix in the dialects, I shall give a table of the words
actually found, making no distinction whether a person designated
as coming from a certain locality is mentioned in an inscription
from the same or a different locality or in literature—what is
important is merely the place from which the person’s name came.
These names will merely be mentioned—for details consult the re-
ferences in the index—under the heading of the larger geograph-
ical units to which they belong, e. g. they are classified merely
as Boeotian instead of Theban, Thespian, etc.

I. Arcado-Cyprian. A) Arcadian: WiAtcxoc. B) Cyprian:
none.

II. North-east Greek. A) Aeolian: none. 8B) Thessalian: Boi-
ox06, Topyovioxa, Acoutoxos, Mevioxoc, IInpuevionoc, Drdtoxoc, Dovvi-
oxos. C) Boeotian: ‘Agedioxos, Botoxos, “Eouaionoc, HdBotcxoc,
Edgpovicnoc, Osvtadionos, lnutonoc, Anutonoc, Avxtoxoc, Mevicoxos,
Happevionac, “Putoxos, Didicnoc, Deovionoc, Dovvioxoc.

202 Walter Petersen,

III. North-west Greek. A) Group I. 1) Epirus : Batoxoc, Auptoxos,
Avztoxos, Dogutoxos. 2) Acarnania: Aautoxoc, Acovtioxoc, Auxtoxoe,
3) Aetolia: Avxtoxocg. 4) Phthiotis: AvGtoxoc, Didone. 5) Ceph-
allania: Avxztoxog. B) Group II. 1) Locris: Avztoxos, Tauotonos.
2) Phocis : Avxtoxa, Avxtoxoc, Mevioxoc, @Drdtoxog. 3) Achaea and
its colonies: Cuvicfe¢g (Sybaris), Dovvicxeg (Achaea). D) Elean :
‘Apvionos.

IV. Doric. A) Laconian and Heraclean. 1) Laconia: Kovioxg,
Kovioxos, [lavO-nptoxos. 2) Tarentum: AvSowntoxoc, Koattonoc, Toa-
yioxoc, Didtoxog. 3) Heraclea: Zwzrugtoxoc, Acovtioxos. B) Messe-
nian : Agutoxos, Kuvioxoc, Avutoxoc, TsAtoxog (Thuria). C) Megarian:
Mevioxog (Calchedon), Ilapuevicneg (Byzantium), Luptoxos (Chersone-
sus). -D) Corinthian. 1) Corinth: Boiox%. 2) Sicyon: ‘lavicxes.
3) Corcyra : Aicyudtoxoc, Aaptoxoc, Ilxpuevioxocg, Didtoxog. E) Argol-
ic. 1) Argos: none. 2) Aegina: @iAtcxo¢. F) Rhodian. 1) Rho-
des : Edgavioxos, Edgoavioxes, Ocogrdtoxoc, Asovttoxoc, Ilapusvionoc,
@rdtcxog. 2) Carpathus : DrAtoxog. 3) Telos: ‘Avdptcxog. G) Coan
and Calymnian. 1) Cos: Acovticnoc, Mevioxn, Hapuevionoc, DrAt-
oxog. 2) Calymna: Ilaopevicxec, Lwgoovicxog, Tauptcxoc. H) The
dialect of Cnidus etc. : Etgpoviexx (Lipara). I) Theran and Me-
lian : @udtoxog (Cyrene). J) Cretan: Aautoxog (?), Toaytoxoc. K)

Sut

Asovetonoc, Auxtonoc, “OdActoxoc, Drdtoxoc.

V. Ionic. A) East Ionic. 1) Smyrna: Kuvioxoc, Acovttonog. 2)
Erythrae : Ilapuevioxoc, @rdtcxog. 3) Priene : Ilactptoxog. 4) Mile-
tus: Dvtonecg. 5) Halicarnassus: Acovticxog. 6) Samos ; ‘Aoveot-
ono, Aaptoxn, Acoveioxos, Navioxoc. 7) Samothrace : Ilappevioxcc.
8) Cyzicus: Tauptoxes. 9) Abydus: Wrdtoxoc. B) The dialect of
the Cyclades. 1) Tenos: ®vAtoxo¢. 2) Naxos: ‘Avdptoxos. 3) Tha-
sos: Motoxoc, Ilavtadtoxos, Drdtcxes. C) Euboean: ‘Aooadtoxoc,
Avpavioxeg, Muv(v)ioxos, Drdtoxos.

X. -[XKO- IN CONGLUTINATES.

112. There are none with -1oxe- as last component except -«)-
toxoc, in noodadtoxoc: zécdwv, which is explained § 61 as pat-
terned after xmpxdtonos : xmpcArov.

113. With -1cxo- as first component we find a number of con-
glutinates in -1ov and its compounds. The only one which has

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -toxo- -vox7-. 203

any productivity is -toxtov, for which cf. Gr. Dims. in -vov 251 ff.1
One can hardly say that a conglutinate -tcxaprov is to be abs-
tracted from vexvioxxorov or natdtoxcptoy, or -toxddorov from veavicxt-
devov, which are rather simple diminutives in -éovov and -vdprov from
non-diminutives and faded diminutives in -tonxo-. -toxfdrov, however,
occurs in Stephaniscidium, which is used as a hypocorism for
Stephanium in Plaut. Stich. 740: te expetimus, Stephaniscidium,
mel meum. Whether there was an intermediate *Ytegavioxy, or
whether -toxtd:ov is an actual conglutinate, and if so, whence it
originated, we cannot decide from the material on hand.

1 To the words there given should be added two more without an inter
mediate form in -toxo-: yuvatxiozxtor (Hes.) ‘a little or young woman or
girl’: yuvy, ‘ woman’; €Aeqavtioxcor (Ael. H. A. 8. 27) ‘a little elephant ’:
éAépas. Also two more with forms in -coxo-: matdioxcoy (Hes.) ‘ a little girl’:
mawdioxn ; tormodioxov (= avFodxiov) AB. 404. 19 (: totmodioxos), in which
-cov is an exponent of similarity.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 14 SEPTEMBER, 1913.

aBantonos 42
aynwvicns 32, 42
"Ayptox® I0, 20, 106
aiytonoc 46
Aicyvdtoxog 102,103D
anohovitoxocg 61 A
ahextoptoxog 62 A
‘Adtoxy, 104
"A2oxoe 103 D
ayayrionos 76,°79
‘Apaeniony IorB
Au.oaptonoc Ons Gr2:
52 f.
avdpravettona
* Avdetoxoc
105
avootoxtov g2
avootoxog 92

¢24,67A
12. 103.5;

avOownionog 2, 47,
51 ff.

> ,

AvOowntexeg 103 B

aEovicnos 32, 42
"Anoddoviones 39 A
aoaxtonos 38

‘Apvionog gg, IoIA
> ,
Aoteuioxog 103 D

ottoxog 43, 688A

AOUATLOV 59
4a amdtoxy, 32, 39C, 40
KOMOdiGKOS 22, 42

INDEX

aoteptonog 29, 33, 38,
AO, 42 1:57, 568 B

“Acteptaxog Lor C

HOTOKYAMGKOS 22, 24,
42

‘Acgadioxes 103 D

adAtonxog 56f., 67A
Aditexog 103 D

addhovionss 64

“Agenionos 103 D, 107

Baordtoxos
36, 46
Baothicxog 103 B
Batonytoxog 42
Beotioxev 97
Puytov 59
Botox% ror A, 104
Botoxoc I0T A
BorStoxoc 63 A
Booptonog 97
Govswvicxoc 88
BouxoAtoxog 51
Bootonos 97

fQ la
Yomtonog 37, 42

1, Se Sy,

yavuu.ationoy 18, 40
yaptoxoc 88
Taptoxoc (-nonde

ie i
rhavxtoxoe 24, 360A,
ni =

54, 72, 88
Tvaotexos 103A
Dooyoviexx 103 D
yeupparionos 53
yeugionos 24, 42
yovoxioxtoy 113 n.

Aaicxos 103 D
SaxtuAtoxos 65
Acuicxos 103 D, 105
SeAguwioxoc 24, 56, 62
Acovtionxog 103 E
Seppioxes 12, 22, 87
deonotionos 77, 80
Avovucionos 37
Sioxosg g2 nN.
Siogtenas 42
Sortcxos 67 A
Aoptoxnog 21, 24, 97
Spanetionos 46

Apopioxoc103 A,F, 105

Spomtoxoc 41 B
Sopatiov 87

“EGSouicxog 107

Hipfoxas ror C

Sheba 97
Acgavtiontoy 113 Nn.

‘Tete 21, 25.2073
106

“Epytoxos 106
ou.otonos 12n.,103D

EtBotcxes 103 C

EXeavicxos 103 D, 110

Edgpovioxo¢g 103D, 107

Canoptoxoc 61 A
ZLadtonog 21 f., 95
Cuytoxov 18, 42
Zwruetoxog 103 D

The numbers refer to the paragraphs.

The occurrence of names in

S$ 111 is not listed here, since the dialectic distribution of the individual
names can be seen much better from the references to Chapter VIII.

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -vox0- -16z7-.

nMonos 67, 74
“Hoationog 12 n., 103 D
“Hoandtoxos (-<toxoc)
12 n., 102
“Howioxog 12, 103 B

@zogrdioxos 103 D
Osttarionoe 103 C
DowWaxtoxe 79
Spidaé 7Qn.

Qutioxy 25, 88
Sutoxoc I2n.,
Svony I2n.

GwmevyX%tiov 59

24, 88

“lauicxog 103 D
*lavioxog 103 A
iBioxog 38

tepantonos 84
tuavtionxos 68 A, 69
immtoxog 32, 39 B, 40
‘Innovptonoe 96

*loavioxog 12n., 105 f.

imvioxos 36 A

HKOLGNOS 24, 34, 4I,
48, 51

nahadionos 41 B, 43
nrahatoxos 42,63 A,7I
Kadaptoxos I01 B
nawaBtornov 18, 21, 26,
go
namptonos 30A, 62
Kaptoxog 95
napvioxos 24, 41 A
KAVMGKOE 42
a 24, 33, 30A
wioxos 24, 62
movionoe Then
xhadioxog 63 A
HAETTIONOS 53
xuvryplonos Ze soe
nornonod 28, gl
nowtwvionos 87
Kod)uftonos
106
nou.ior% 78, 82

103 D,

“xomtoxeg 12, i, rts
27, 43
nooantonos 62
xoptoxyn 16, 77f., 81
noptoxoc 81
Koptoxog 103 B
notvAtoxy 25, 66 A, 88
notuAtonog 24, 41 A,
43, 66 B, 88
Kaderoxx 95
nxoatyotoxog 41 B
Koattoxog 103 D -
xostoxov (-tov) 18, 79
noouvionos 42
nomp.antoxos 36 B
nuadioxog 42
KuBeovicxog 103 A, F
nurMonog 10, 21 f., 42f.

nudwdoetonog 67 A
xvALoXxY), I2, 25, 41 B

Koviox% Ior A
xvvioxy 83

XUVLGKOS 53
Kouvioxoe I00, Tor A
nuTatetoxog 63 B

XUTAG ee aii

Aayioxé 00, 101A

anavy 8g n.

Aaptoxn 103 D, 104,
106

Aaptoxog 103 D, 106

Aapradtionog 12, 102
Aaunotenxog 103 D,
105, 107

exaviony 12,25, 41 B,
87

dextonoy 18, 41B

Acovttoxos Ior A, 102,
103 F

Agr Tiviono¢ 103 D

euntonog 30A

oqpvionoc 24, 87
pevionoc 64

a
i
uw
Xt wisnoc 24, 69

205

oradtoxog 22, 41B
Aovutyptoxog 41 B
AvBtoxog 103 D
Avzion® 20, Ior A
Auxtoxos 30B, 42
Avxzioxog 20,99. 101A,
102, 103 F, 105
Avoaviexeg 103 D .
Auyvionxes 360A

uayaotoxos 24. 8g
uayaoov 8g n.
uayetotonos 51
pactonn, 79
Mazepioxx 103 B
Uslonxtov 20
Weloaxtoxy 12,14, 47,
80 f.

Me
Mevioxy, 104, IIO
M ee 102, ross
eS
uyvioxy 43 f
urvioxosg 22,
40, 42 f.
Myvioxog Tor C, 105
UoyAtoxos 22, 28, 42,
87, QI
UuUtory 21, 23, 32, 36B
uutoxos I2n., 360B
Moitoxoc IorA
Mov(v)toxeg 103 D
Mugioxog 20, ror C
Muetioxy 97

255 31:

VaLGKOS 42, 56
Navioxog 103 B, F
vaotionos 28n., 79
VEAVLOKAPLOV II3
veavionos 7,9f., 16, 48,
51. 53, 61, 74, 8o f.
VEAVIGKUSOLOY II3
NeGotoxog Ior A

206

dGeAtoxnog 16, 42,72,87
oixtoxy 12, 16,27,67A
ointonog 42, 53. 87
oixog 87

civionoc 56, O8 A

2, ~ , —~
O)ttoxog 103 E
eu ie

vioxog 31f., 36A, 42
oobayootonos 62

6)
>] ,
13)
>

Tarsaotonros 61 B
THDLOXKOLOY I13
mardtoxy 31 f., 35. 54,
8I
[ladtoxy 103 B
TaLdtoxtov I13 n.
mardtionog 35, SI
mavonotexes 39 B
Tlavonotoxog Tor A
Ilavicxos 39 A. 54. 88,
103 D
Havradtoxoc 12, 103D,
105
[laxtcxog 103 B, F
mapaponionas 24, 42
TALAYWVIGKOS 22,24,91
Hacdadtoxy Ior A
maodeviony 16, 61 B

Iaptoxae 108

[laou.(ev)toxag 12,
103" Dy 165)" 120

[laectisxov 95
macountexoc 67, 74
IIatantoxoe 103 D
Ilavetoxog 103 B
xedtoxy 39 C
mhylonog 12, 43
TMOLTROS

TALGKO

TUWVAKLOY TVAE QO

Walter Petersen,

TWANLGKOS 22, 24, 51,
53. 66A, 79, 90
Thanouvtionos 78 f.
TAcnaptoxos 68 A
TOdtGnog 12, 24, 78, 82
[lodtexc¢ 103 D, 105 f.
IloStexeg 12, 103 D
IloAvBadicxo¢e 103 E
mocbantoxos 61 B, 112
TotTaptoxce 64
ITovatoxoe 38
Hlovantonxog 38, 42
mzeotoncy 18, 56 f., 60.
68 A, 75n.

nuprlonos 42
ae a IMIS 4

THUaALonay (GavdxAt-
oxov) 16, 18, 21, 26,
51, 69. 71

cavioxy 12, gO

oxOnLY 59

NAL :
Latuptonog 39 A; 78,
80; 102, r03 D

Lavetoxo¢g 101 A, 103 F
Lexatierona g5
Gehnvicn0g 22, 40

oxehionoy 12, 18, 24,
68 A, 70
onndiont, 47, 49, 53
oxnw.nodtonee 57, 67B
Lnopdtenes 108
Sxnopdtoxnet g5, 108
Yowoxddioxy 103 D
onAnvicxoy 27, 87
orapvicxoc 41

otegaviony, 27, 69
Lreouvontd:ov 113
ote~avionse 24, 39C,
69, 87
otpobavicxoc 87
azpoutiones 57, 62
OtUAtonOg 22, 42

ovenoxnoy 12, 18,67B. |
74

GONKLGKOS 32, 42
convioxse 28, 43,67A
cwAyvicnoe 42, 67A
Ywogpovioxo¢g 103D,107
Tahaptoxce 41
Tauntoxnoc 106

euptonot 95
Tifroxa 95
Tiftoxoe 15, 95
Tigtoxev 15, 95
sopvionss 22, 28, 87,91
spaytoxos 36 A, 39B,
46, 78, 83
Toxytoxog ror A
spuntoxnog 12, 22, 87,
103A. n.
Townodioxy 23, 96
Tpimodtoxtoy I13 Ni.
somodioxog 67 A
Terzodioxse (-o1) 96
ToLmbodoxpetonag 18
Teopacronx 95
zpoytoxos 21 f.,32, 40,
A2 f., 67A
tpuravionoc 24, 87, OI
suptonxog 78 Ff.

25. 41B
¢ 41
¢ 41

The Greek Diminutive Suffix -toxo- -v0xzy-. 207

Dartionor 95 | goputoxog 66A | ynvioxog 12, 29, 32,
Dakionov 95 | oe pylonoc ror C, 103F 42, 62

otAtoxos 78, 80 yeAtoxov 12, 15, 18, |

Oiitoxog 103 B, 105 AIA

‘an ree .
* ~ — s a ay
4 << _ : a 7
: — et ee
ree ARREST ,
iad a4

iy 4 coed. _ <—
SY Ohi te pe tol saa

(p een te Maer 0o ages To ‘a
A Scie ¥ a

, > thint? ieee: fF T4023
Aa ' in

am = Se
~
s
~
|
a
-
x
aa ;
~>
2 is
- ' 7 hy .
a oe

TRANSACTIONS OF THE

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

INCORPORATED A. D. 1799

VOLUME 18, PAGES 209-224 OCTOBER, 1943

New England Spiders

Identified since 1g10

J. H. EMERTON

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1913

New ENGLAND SPIDERS IDENTIFIED SINCE 1910

BY J. H. Emerton.

The following paper is a continuation of those published at various
times in these Transactions and mentions 23 species of spiders
found or identified since the printing of my “ New Spiders from New
England ” in Trans. Conn. Acad. June 1911, eighteen of which are
new. Twelve of these are described from only one or two specimens
some of which have been a long time undescribed in my collection.
Among the others Epeira Emertoni, Glyptocranium cornigerum and
Lycosa funerea are well known a little farther south and Cercidia
prominens is a European species previously noted from Franconia
by N. Banks. Ent. News, 1894. Among the new species Lopho-
carenum bicarinatum has a peculiar form of the head and L. coriaceum
has an unusual development of the hard parts of the abdomen.
Bathyphantes furcatus is a very distinct species from the Sand-
wich Mountains and B. duplicatus from Mt. Katahdin is the nearest
relative to the little known B. subalpina Em. Trans. Conn. Accad.
1882. Ulesanis serrata is described from an imperfect specimen and
its relations are uncertain as are those of Areoncus littoralis and
Dipoena pallida.

Theridium maxillare. new

3 mm. long. Cephalothorax and legs pale yellow, the abdomen
whiter than in the other species of Theridtum. The cephalothorax
has three narrow longitudinal black lines. The abdomen has a wide
white stripe in the middle, deeply notched at the sides and not, as in
most species, narrowed toward the front. The white area is broken by
translucent lines following in the middle the line of the dorsal circu-
lating vessel. The crenate edge of this area is marked by a dark line
made up of black spots of irregular size which extend down the sides
of the abdomen with one larger spot to each lobe of the middle stripe.
The legs are faintly ringed with brown at the end of each joint and
in the middle of tibia and metatarsus. The sternum is pale in the
middle and brown behind and at the sides. The labium is also brown.
The base of the maxillae extends sidewise as a blunt tooth under the
coxa of the first leg. The palpal organ has the basal process large
and sickle-shaped, with a sharp point extending outward and for-
ward nearly to the end of the palpus. The tube crosses obliquely
under the basal process and is supported at the end by a short but
complicated appendage. Figs. 1 & rc. PI. I.

One male only from low bushes in the large sphagnum bog at
Southwest Harbor, Mt. Desert, Me., July I, 1909.

Theridium cinereum. new

This species is represented by one male only from Wellesley, Mass.
It resembles in size and proportions T. murarium. As in that species,
the front legs are moderately long, not as long as in montanum and
sexpunctatum. The markings are different from the other species.
The cephalothorax is pale, with a small dark marking in the saniddle,
widened toward the front but not extending as far as the eyes. At
the sides the cephalothorax is edged with dark. The abdomen
is dark gray with the middle band broken into four pairs of whitish
curved marks, almost separated from each other. On the under side
the sternum is pale, without markings, and the abdomen is pale,
with gray spots around the spinnerets and the lung openings. The
legs are pale, without rings or spots, and only slightly darker toward
the tips and toward the ends of the joints. The male palpi are short

J. H. Emerton, New England Spiders Identified since 1910. 213

and resemble most nearly those of 7. murar1um. There is a con-
spicuous dark spine near the outer and upper edge of the tarsus,
and the tube is partly hidden between this and a soft pale appendage
in the middle of the palpal organ. Figs. 2, 2a, 2b. PI. I.

Dipoena buccalis, Keyserling, Spinn. Americas, 1886.
Dipoena buccalis, Banks, Nearctic Spiders, 1910.

An immature female is 2 mm. long with the abdomen nearly spheri-
cal and the cephalothorax as high as it is wide, highest just beyond
the eyes. In front, the head is concave so that the front middle
_ eyes, which are much the largest, project forward. The cephalo-
thorax is gray, lighter in the middle of the head. The abdomen is
pale, marked with gray in a narrow middle stripe and several pairs
of transverse spots. The sternum is gray and the under side of the
abdomen pale. The legs have the coxa and base of femur pale and
the end of femur and patella dark gray; there is also a gray spot on
the end of the tibia and less distinctly on the end of the metatarsus.

Rew Haven, Conn. Figs. 3, 3b. PI. I.

Dipoena pallida. new

2mm. long. Pale with a faint gray middle line on the cephalo-
thorax and gray spots in three rows on the front half of the abdomen.
The height of the head is half the length of the cephalothorax. The
front middle eyes extend their diameter in front of the head and are
one-half larger than the upper middle eyes. The sternum is as wide
as long, and rounded behind. The legs are of moderate length,
the first pair only a little longer than the fourth. The male palpi
are short, and the palpal organ small and simple. Figs.4b, 4c. PI. I.

One male only from Buttonwoods, near Providence, R. I.

Ulesanis serrata. new

1.5 mm. long, light yellow brown without markings. The abdomen
with a hard spot that covers the upper surface and hard pieces around
the pedicel and around the spinnerets as in several Ceratinella. The
head is much elongated forward, carrying the front middle eyes which
are of the same size as the upper middle pair. The cephalothorax
is high, but the head is not much elevated. The sternum is as wide
as long, and behind, between the fourth coxae, it is half as wide as
at the widest part. The maxillae are wide at the base and narrow
toward the points. The palpi are broken off apparently before the
spider was caught. The first legs are a little thicker than the others

214 J. H. Emerton,

and have on the under side of the femur a single row of small spines,
eight on one side and nine on the other. Figs. 5, 5a, 5b. Pl. I.

A single male with the palpi broken off, from New Haven,
Conn.

Areoncus littoralis. new

1.5 mm. long, pale and dull in color, without markings except a
trace of transverse light spots on the gray of the abdomen. The
cephalothorax is wide in front and the head is slightly elevated and
extended forward in a rounded point beyond the mandibles. The
eyes are spread wide apart, the lateral pairs nearly to the sides of the
head. The upper middle eyes are their diameter apart. The front
middle pair are the smallest and almost touch each other on the front
of the head. Below the eyes the front of the head is covered with
scattered hairs that turn upward. The male palpi are short, the
tarsus rounded and the tibia widened a little at the end with only
a short flat tooth on the upper side. Figs. 6, 6a, 6b. PI. I.

Lyme, Conn., Oct. 8, in straw on the edge ef the salt marsh.

Lophocarenum hartlandianum. new

1.5 mm. long, pale brown, the males generally darker than females.
Head of male slightly elevated with grooves at the sides distinctly
marked by black lines. Just behind the eyes are pits extending
inward from the grooves and distinctly visible through the skin as
dark markings. The dark lines over the grooves extend forward and
unite with black spots behind the lateral pairs of eyes. The male
palpi are large and conspicuous, the tibia is twice as long as the patella
and is widened at the end where it extends over the tarsus. On the
upper side toward the outer corner are two teeth, the inner one recur-
ved and sharp. The tarsus is folded over in a sharp ridge and is
narrowed toward the end as seen from above Fig.7a. The tube of
the palpal organ is long and slender, and makes two turns under the
tarsus, resting against the ridge on the upper side of the tarsus with
the tip between the two teeth on the tibia. Fig. 7. Pl. f.

The female has no peculiar markings. The epigynum shows a
distinct middle lobe with the spermathecae showing through the skin
at each side of it.

Hartland, Vt. under dead leaves in moist ground, July, Igrr.
Three Mile Island, Lake Winnepesaukee, N. H., May, Igrt.

Lophocarenum bicarinatum. new
1.5 mm. long, dark gray. The head of the male is wide and slightly

New England Spiders Identified since 1910. 215

elevated, the highest part being just behind the eyes. Halfway
between the lateral and middle eyes are two ridges that converge
a little backward and extend nearly the whole length of the head and
in front curve downward toward the lateraleyes. Between the upper
middle eyes and these ridges are hairs in a single row turning outward.
The front of the head below the eyes is rounded and projects only
slightly beyond the front middle eyes. If the head is turned down
the projection below the eyes disappears and the rows of hairs at the
sides of the upper middle eyes become more distinct.

The malepalpi have the tibia the same length as the patella, a little
widened at the end, with a pointed process on the upper side slightly
curved downward at the tip. The parts of the palpal organ are small
and simple. Figs. 8, 8a. Pl. I.

Two males only under leaves in the woods on Mt. Whiteface, N. H.,
mage. ©; IQII.

Lophocarenum sylvaticum. new

2 mm. long, light brown, the legs paler and brighter yellow. In
the male there is a well-defined hump on top of the head, carrying
the upper middle eyes, and with a deep groove on each side as in the
head of L. cuneatum. The front of the head below the eyes extends
forward in a blunt point beyond the mandibles. The male palpi
have the tibia widened at the end and extending in a blunt point over
the tarsus.

The female is the same size and color as the male. The epigynum
has the usual middle lobe and the spermathecae show through the
skin each side of it. Figs. 9, 9a, gb. Pl. I.

Several males and females from under leaves on Mt. Whiteface,
Meet Aug. 9, LOI.

Lophocarenum coriaceum. new

2 mm. long, dark brown, the legs and palpi a little lighter. The
cephalothorax is widest behind and narrows forward with the head
and eye area smaller than usual. The abruptly elevated hump
carrying the upper middle eyes is narrowed toward the front as in L.
crenatum and the front of the head is more nearly vertical than in most
species. Fig. roa. Pl. 1. The lower part of the face belowthe eyes
extends forward over the mandibles. The male palpi are short and
small. The tibia extends forward in a wide lobe over the tarsus
somewhat as in crenatum and latum. Fig. 10b. The abdomen has
an oval hard plate that half covers the dorsal surface. Another hard

216 J. H. Emerton,

plate covers the ventral side and extends far enough to be seen from
above on the sides and in front. Fig. 10. These hard plates are
rough and covered like the softer areas with fine scattered hairs.
The sternum is hard and rough and extends upward between the legs
as it does in L. crenatum.

One male only from Danbury, Conn., July 19, 1912.

Tmeticus multidentatus. new

This species resembles 7°. tridentatus and T. trilobatus, but is smaller
than either, measuring little over 1.5 mm. in length. The mandibles
are strongly toothed on the front with one large tooth on the inner
side and a row of five on the outer side, the lower one very small and
the one next above the largest of the row. Fig. 1. The male palpi
are long as in the related species. The patella has a slight spur on the
under side at the end. The tibia is much widened and covers the
base of the tarsus above and below and the upper projection has a
complicated and characteristic shape consisting of a rounded lobe
divided by a middle ridge around which it is partly folded. Figs. 1,
Da, Srp, set. ple

Brandon, Vt., Uncanoonuc Mt., N. H., Monponsett, Mass.

Tmeticus thoracicus. new

1.5 mm. long, legs and palpi pale, cephalothorax and abdomen both
dark gray without markings. Cephalothorax wide behind and
narrowed to the eyes in front. The male palpi have the tibia short
and much widened toward the end. On the upper side the tibia
extends in a long point over the tarsus and on the inner side is a shorter
point less than half as long. The mandibles have no tooth on the
front, .lies2) 22) 2 bso Pl

Mt. Mansfield, Vt., July ro, rorr.

Tmeticus simplex. new

1.5 mm. long, entirely pale without any markings. Cephalothorax
moderately wide and the head but little narrowed. Mandibks with
a tooth in front near the end. Male palpi with the tibia short and
wide two short teeth on the upper side of nearly equal length.
Figs. 3, 3a, Sie bls on:

Middleboro, Mass., Oct. 10, 1909, under leaves.

Microneta rotunda. new
2 mm. long, light yellow brown with the abdomen a little darker
and grayer. The cephalothorax is nearly as wide and as long as in

New England Spiders Identified since 1gr0. 247

M. denticulata. The male palpi are short, the patella and tibia each
as-wide as long, and without processes. The tarsus is rounded and
does not show the usual spur at the base. The tarsal hook is short
and stout and curved in a half circle, ending in a point. A sharp
ridge extends along the outer side of the hook about half way from
the base, and then follows the middle line of the point. On the outer
side of the hook where it begins to narrow toward the point is a small
mimi. | gs..4,.4a. Pl. IL:

‘One male from Mt. Moosilauke at a height of 2000 ft. under leaves,
May 29, Igiz2.

Microneta rectangulata. new

2 mm. long, light orange brown with dark gray abdomen. The
mandibles are thickened at the base as in M. viaria, and narrow
at the tip with a small tooth on the front just below the thickened
part. The palpi have the tarsus comparatively narrow with a very
small spur at the base. The tarsal hook is bent at a right angle,
the outer portion thickened at the corner, but ending in a thin, wide
mewerics. 5. 5a, 5b. Pl: HH.

Readville, Mass., on a fence in the autumn flight, Nov. 5, Igir.

Bathyphantes duplicatus. new

3 mm. long. Cephalothorax and legs dull yellow without any
definite markings except incomplete rings on the ends and middle of
the joints of the legs. The abdomen is dark, nearly covered by trans-
verse gray marks united in the middle over the front half. The
male palpi have the tarsus longer than wide and as seen from above,
narrow at the base where are two processes, one short and round on
the outer side, and a longer and more slender one on the inner side.
The tarsal hook is large and complicated and curved in a half circle.
At its base it is narrow and has a row of stiff hairs and nearest the
end of the tibia is a wide short irregular tooth. The more solid part
of the end of the hook is widened and irregularly forked and under
it is a thinner and translucent branch which extends in an irregular
point beyond the forked end. Figs. 6,6a,6b. Pl. II. The Mt.
Washington specimen has all the processes of the tarsus and tarsal
hook smaller than the one from Katahdin.

Mt. Katahdin, Me., 2000 ft., July 6, r9t0._ Mt. Washington, on
the Raymond path, Aug. 2, 1912.

218 J. H. Emerton,

Bathyphantes furcatus. new

3 or4mm.long. Cephalothorax 1.5 mm., pale with gray markings.
The cephalothorax has a square spot in the middle, running into
an indistinct median line about half the length of the cephalothorax.
The abdomen is marked with a broken middle line with several
pairs of irregular and somewhat broken branches connecting with
dark stripes below the middle of each side. The legs are faintly ringed
with gray at the ends and middle of the joints. The epigynum pro-
jects one-fourth the length of the abdomen. The male palpi have
the tarsus half longer than wide. The process at the base of the tar-
sus is unusually large and turns upward in asharp point. Figs. 7b, 7c.
The tarsal hook is wide and short, curved inward at the end and with
two short teeth on the outer edge. On the outer side of the palpal
organ is a long slender appendage with a shorter slender branch at
about ithe*middle:: Pigs b, 7c: “PIS It.

Passaconaway, N. H. summit, in moss in bogs at 3000 ft. elevation.
Mt. Mansfield, Vt.

Bathyphantes recurvatus. new

3 mm. long. Cephalothorax and iegs pale without any markings.
Abdomen with dark gray transverse marks partly connected with
a median line at the front end. The male palpi have the tarsus
rounded and not much longer than wide, the process near the base
is slender and pointed and turned outward toward the tarsal hook.
The tarsal hook is wide and long with the point rounded and dark
colored and turned upward toward the end of the tarsus. At the
inner side of the hook is a sharp tooth similar in shape to the one at
the base of the tarsus. Fig. 8. Pl. II.

Gore Mountain, Norton, Vt., Aug. 6, 1912. One male.

Epeira emertoni Banks, Nearctic Spiders, Journ. N. Y, Entomolog-

ical Society, 1904.

Female 6 mm. long, colors dull pale yellow with brown markings
resembling in color as well as size E. prompta and without the bright
yellow of E. trivittata. The abdomen, however, is not raised behind
as in prompta, but is oval like ¢vivittata. The middle folium does not
extend to the front of the abdomen; it has a dark edge with white
outside of it, and a dark middle stripe also bordered with white.
The depth of color varies. In some individuals it is dark brown
with the middle markings obscured as in the figure, and in some the
folium is pale and lighter than the sides of the abdomen. The under

New England Spiders Identified since 1910. 219

side of the abdomen has a dark median stripe in which is a long light
spot. Thesternumisdark. The first legs are one-fourth longer than
the second in both sexes. The finger of the epigynum is pale, long
and pointed.

The male is smaller than the female, my specimen about half as
large. The second tibia is a little thicker than the first but has the
usual spines and is not modified in shape. Figs. 9, 9a, 9b. PI. IT.

Buttonwoods near Providence, R. I., in low bushes, June 20,
1912. Described by Banks from Sea Cliff, Long Island, N. Y.

Glyptocranium cornigerum, Hentz,
Ordgarius cornigerum, McCook, American Spiders, Vol. 3, 1894.

Male 1.5 mm. long. Cephalothorax low in front, rising backward
to a pair of forked spines a little behind the middle. The upper
middle eyes are raised on low ridges and the sides of the cephalo-
thorax are slightly roughened and ridged around the base of the spines.
The abdomen is wider than long, and nearly as high as wide, with two
rounded tubercles in front and several pairs of round opaque and
slightly depressed spots. The legs have no peculiar modifications
and the spines are slender and indistinguishable from the hairs.
In alcohol the cephalothorax and legs are orange brown and the ab-
domen pale yellow. Figs. 10, roa. PI. II.

The male palpi are short and simple. The tarsus has a small
hook and the palpal organ a small and straight tube and a stronger
terminal hook, both a little darkened in color.

Ponemah, Milford, N. H., Aug. 1912, Miss E. B. Bryant.

Cercidia prominens.

This well-known European species mentioned by Banks from
Franconia, N. H., 1904, has been again found at North Woodstock,
Rees in Torr by Dr. Wm. H. Fox.

The largest of these specimens are 5 mm. long and resemble in
general the genus Singa. The color in the lighter parts is pale dull
yellow and it is marked with dark brown and black. The legs are
ringed with brown at the ends of the joints and in the middle of the
tibia and metatarsus, and the cephalothorax has brown spots at the
sides and behind the eyes. The abdomen has several pairs of dark
transverse markings composed of finer black and brown spots. The
front end of the abdomen has a blunt point which extends over the
thorax and on each side of this point is a row of four or five black
spines. The back of the abdomen is two-thirds covered by an oval

220 J.H. Emerton, New England Spiders Identified since 1910.

thickened spot a little more opaque than the rest of the skin, and
toward the front roughened. On the under side the sternum is dark
and the abdomen is dark with two light stripes. This species should
be looked for among the White Mountains and northward. Figs.
re tas ees Ee

Clubiona latifrons. new

6mm.long. Pale, only slightly darker on the head and mandibles.
The head is wide, nearly as wide across the eyes as the widest part of
the cephalothorax. Fig.12b. Pl.I1. The mandibles are long and stout
in both sexes and have on the inner side three large teeth above the
claw and two below it. Fig. 12. The male palpi have the tarsus
and palpal organ small. The tibia resembles that of C. rubra, with
two short processes parallel to each other on the outer side. The
epigynum also resembles that of C. rubra. ;

Plum Island, Ipswich, Mass., September. Dighton, Mass., Sep-

tember.
al

Lycosa funerea Hentz.
Allocosa funerea Banks. N. Y. Ent. Soc. rg04.

A young female of this southern species has been found at
Lyme, Conn. among the straw along the shore.

Ba Be eae

1 Theridium maxillare, dorsal markings. Ia ventral markings
Ib, Ic, male palpus.
2 Theridium cinereum, dorsal markings. 2a, 2b male palpus.
3 Dipoena buccalis, cephalothorax from above 3a cephalothorax
from the side. 3b markings of abdomen.
4 Dipoena pallida, dorsal markings. 4a sternum and mouth parts.
4b male palpi. 4c side of cephalothorax.
5 Ulesanis serrata. 5a sternum and maxillaé. 5b cephalothorax
from above.
6, 6a, 6b Areoncus littoralis.
7 Lophocarenum hartlandianum, head and male palpi. 7a male
palpus from the side.
8 Lophocarenum bicarinatum, head and palpi of male. 8a head
tipped forward. 8b, 8c end of palpus.
9 Lophocarenum sylvaticum, cephalothorax from the side. ga head
and palpi of male. 9b, gc male palpus.
10 Lophocarenum coriaceum, back of male. Ioa side of cephalo-
thorax. rob palpus of male.

Oo,
PEATE |, am

/ ot
{ Gi
Wye

V6 ar

it” Marea se

PLATE li

Tmeticus multidentatus, mandibles and palpus of male. Ia, rb
male palpus.

Tmeticus thoracicus, male palpus from above. 2a palpus, outer
side. 2b palpus, inner side.

Tmeticus simplex, male palpus from above. 3a, 3b male palpus
outer side.

Microneta rotunda. 4, 4a male palpus.

Microneta rectangulata, cephalothorax and mandibles. 5a front
of mandibles. 5b male palpus.

Bathyphantes duplicatus, base of tarsus and tarsal hook, 6a tarsus
and hook from above. 6b tarsus of male palpus from Mt.
Katahdin. 6c tarsus of male palpus from Mt. Washington.

Bathyphantes furcatus, dorsal markings of female. 7a side of
female. 7b, 7c male palpus.

Bathyphantes recurvatus, male palpus.

Epeira emertoni, female. ga male with legs I and II. gb palpus
of male.

Glyptocranum cornigerum, back of male. roa male palpus.

Cercidia prominens, back of female.

Clubiona latifrons, mandibles and palpus of male. 12a side of
palpus. 12b front of head and eyes.

Lycosa funerea, young female.

ve"

Beda ead

a J al

TRANSACTIONS OF THE

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

INCORPORATED A. D. 1799

VOLUME 18, PAGES 225-289 NOVEMBER 19413

The Life and Works
of Henry King, D.D.

LAWRENCE MASON, Ph.D.

INSTRUCTOR IN ENGLISH IN YALE UNIVERSITY

VACE UNVERSIVY PRESS
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1913

DEDICATED,
IN GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION,

AMC Soak Gosr
BARC: ANDIESS. C:

WEIMAR: PRINTED BY R. WAGNER SOHN.

IV.— THE LIFE AND WORKS OF HENRY KING, D.D.
By Lawrence Mason, Ph.D.

BIOGRAPHY.
I. ANCESTRY AND PARENTAGE.

Henry King was sprung from distinguished forebears. He claimed
descent from the ancient Saxon kings of Devonshire, and though
Wood rather ridiculed this idea,! the Herald’s College did not question
the family’s right to the use of the appropriate armorial bearings.?
However this may be, the eminence of Henry King’s ancestors in
the sixteenth century was considerable. For a great-grand-uncle,
Robert, was last Abbot of Osney and first Bishop of Oxford.? A grand-
father, Philip, was ‘“‘sometimes page to Henry the VIIIth.’? Inter-
marriage with families of title or estate was common.*_ And perhaps
the most notable among the many prominent scions of the race,
namely, Henry King’s own father, now remains for more extended
mention.

John King, one of Philip’s twelve children,? was born in or about
the year 1559® at Worminghall or Wormenhale, “commonly called
Wornal,’”’ in Buckinghamshire. Proceeding from Westminster
School to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1576, he there in due course of
time accumulated the various degrees of B. A. (1579), M. A. (1582),
B.D. (1591), and D.D. (1601 or 1602), as well as becoming Proctor
of the University (1589) and Dean of Christ Church (1605) and then
for four years (1607—1610) Vice-Chancellor of the University,8—truly

¥ “Athenae Oxonienses,’”’ ed. Bliss, 1815, II, 774, 775.

2 “ Poems and Psalms, by Henry King,”’ ed. Hannah, 1843, ii and footnote.

3 “The Church History of Britain,” by Thomas Fuller, ed. Brewer, 1845,
V, 499.

4“ Athen. Oxon.,’”’ II. 294; Hannah, op. cit., iii and Appendix A.

5 Hannah, Ibid.

6 Tf he died in 1621, aged 62, as Wood says; “‘Athen. Oxon.,” II, 296.

* Wood, Ibid.

& Basti Oxon.,” ed: Bliss, I, 212, 221, 257, 292, 248, 320, 324, 333, 337;
“Alumni Westmonasterienses,”’ new ed., 1852, pp. 53, 54. His election to
the Deanery was a marked honor, for he seems to have been called to Christ
Church by popular demand in a special petition to King James signed by
thirty-two representative undergraduates ; in this petition he was described
as “clarissimum lumen Anglicanae ecclesiae” (‘‘Athen. Oxon.,’”’ IT, 295).

228 Lawrence Mason,

an honorable career. In his undergraduate days an important event
may have taken place which supplies a connecting link ignored by
his biographers, for it may well have been at college that John
King’s descent, person, or abilities first recommended him to John
Piers, Dean of Christ Church from 1570 to 1576.1 Piers, becoming
Bishop of Rochester (1576), of Salisbury (1577), and Archbishop
of York (1588), presently made King his domestic chaplain and in
1590 installed him as archdeacon of Nottingham. In 1590 or 1591
King married Joan, “daughter of Hen. Freeman of Staffordshire,’’?
and this quaint little epigram on the occasion is perhaps worthy of
extraction from Malone MS. 19, p. 98, in the Bodleian:

“Verses gave to Dr. King @& his wife whose name was
ffreeman at Ye Marriage dinnr.

A ffreeman yet noe man
A Kinge, yet noe Queene,

A wife & yet a mayde,

The like was never seene.’’
a

Now King was no less a favorite at Court than at his University. For
after the death of Archbishop Piers, he became chaplain to Sir
Thomas Egerton. Lord Keepe: of the Great Seal, and then chaplain
in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth, and later to James. Various rector-
ages and prebends were bestowed upon him by his influential patrons,
and several livings sine cura were within his gift. In fact, his means
must have been so considerable,* in view of the inheritance from
Bishop Robert King as well,® that much fruitless conjecture has been
expended upon the question of what became of the fortune ;* per-

1 “Alum. West.,”” pp. 11,54.

2 “ Athen. Oxon.,”’ III, 839; but the funeral certificate reads ‘“‘of Henley
in the county of Oxford,’’ as quoted by Hannah, xci.

3 "Alum. West.,” 54.

4 Godwin, ‘‘ Catalogue of the Bishops of England,
royal appraisal of the Bishopric of London as 1119]. 8s. 4d. >

5 Fuller, op. cit., 499.

6 This paragraph from Manningham’s Diary (ed. Bruce, 1868, p. 79)
seems worth including in full, as it has apparently escaped the notice of John
King’s biographers. It shows that the diminution of his resources was due
to no disregard of the temporalities on his part, and gives other interesting
information about him. The entry occurs on fol. 58 of the MS. and is dated
3 Nov. 1602: ‘‘Mr. Gardner of Furnivales Inne told howe that Mr. King,
preacher at St. Androes in Holborne, being earnestly intreated to make a
sermon at the funerale of a gent. of their house, because the gent. desyred
he should be requested, made noe better nor other aunswer, but told

”

1615, p. 106, gives the

Life and Works of Henry King. 229

haps John King’s patrimony, as one of many shares, was not so great
as supposed, while the necessity for educating his own large family,
for maintaining the state befitting his honorable position in life,
and for contributing to his Church, his University, and his sovereign,!
might well account for the very moderate though comfortable circum-
stances in which we find Henry King placed.

John King’s. promotion in the Church was as rapid as was his
academic elevation. It culminated in his consecration as Bishop of
London, September 8, 1611.2, Apparently, though this has not been
pointed out heretofore, nothing but his early death, ten years later,
as compared with the greater longevity of George Abbot® and Tobias
Matthew, kept him from succeeding one of those two divines as
Archbishop of Canterbury or Archbishop of York; for Le Neve’s
statistics® seem to show that especially at this time the Bishopric
of London was the stepping-stone to an archiepiscopal see, and this
translation would have been particularly likely in the case of a prelate
enjoying so much popular and ecclesiastical esteem and royal favor
as did John King. This fair record is marred by only one possible
stain, and this blot doubtless seemed a very meritorious action to
his contemporaries and so must be leniently dealt with to-day. For
it was John King who “principally managed”’ the ecclesiastical
prosecution of Bartholomew Legate which led to the latter’s being

them plainly he was not beholding to that house nor anie of the Innes
of Chauncery, and therefore would not. He is greived it seemes because
the gents. of the Innes come and take up roomes in his churche, and pay not,
as other his parishioners doe. He is so highly esteemed of his auditors, that
when he went to Oxeford”’ (“perhaps on his proceeding D. D., which he did
in this year, 1602’’— Bruce's note) “‘they made a purse for his charges, and
at his return rode forth to meete him, and brought him into town with ring-
ing, etc.’’—Another unnoticed reference to John King at this particular
date is to be found in John Chamberlain’s ‘‘Letters during the Reign of
Elizabeth,’”’ Camden Society, 1861, pp. 143 and 149, with an amusing account
of this commencement at Oxford, ‘‘very famous, for plentie of doctors,
...; for store of venison, whereof Dr. Kinge had 27 buckes for his part;....
for the exceeding assemblie of gentles, but specially for the great confluence
of cutpurses, whereof ensued many losses and shrewd turnes,”’ etc.

1 Cf. Henry King’s Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p.-289, inf.;
“Alum. West.,” 54; Fuller, 501; and “‘History of St. Paul’s Cathedral,’ by
Sir W. Dugdale, 2d ed., 1716, 140.

2 Le Neve’s ‘‘Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae,’ ed. Hardy, 1854, II, 303.

2 NG MW AG:

4 Ibid. III, 116.

& Tord. 1, 20—31; Il, 292—304; III, 112—116.

230 Lawrence Mason,

burned at the stake in Smithfield, in 1612, for maintaining certain
Arian heresies.!. This cruel rigor is perhaps atoned for, in modern
eyes, by the courageous firmness with which King opposed the divorce
of Lady Frances Howard from the Earl of Essex, in 1613, despite
the royal and political pressure brought to bear on the commissioners
in that trial.2. Nor did he fall short in fulfilling the religious obli-
gations of his high office, but “was so frequent, that unless hindered
by want of health, he omitted no Sunday whereon he did not visit
some pulpit in London or near it.”3

It was as a preacher that John King was perhaps most highly
praised by his contemporaries. He was appointed by the royal
council to preach the funeral sermon over Elizabeth and the wel-
coming sermon to James. Honored by being summoned to the Hamp-
ton Court Conference, in 1604,4 he was doubly honored by being
afterwards selected, with three others, to preach before the Scotch
Clergy, in 1606.5. King James “commonly called him ‘the King of
preachers.” And Sir Edward Coke would say of him, ‘he was the
best speaker in Star Chamber in his time.’’’® These, with other
similar testimonials that might be cited, lead us to the conclusion
that John King must have been singularly gifted in oral delivery and
pulpit presence or magnetism, for his printed sermons seem cold
and uninspired even after all due historical allowances have been
made; they are certainly well-constructed and learned, with occasional
passages of a rather formal and studied eloquence, but while they are
distinctly above the average of the various seventeenth century

1 Fuller, op. cit., V, 418—423; Fuller openly applauds and exults, as in
this passage: ‘‘ Bishop King gravelleth him with a place of Scripture (John
xvii, 5). This text, I say, was so seasonably alleged, so plainly expounded,
so pathetically enforced, by the eloquence and gravity of that bishop,
(qualities wherein he excelled,) that it gave marvellous satisfaction to a
multitude of people there present,” etc. ‘‘See here it is neither the pain
nor the place, but only the cause makes a martyr... Never did a scare-
fire at midnight summon more hands to quench it, than this at noon-day
did eyes to behold it.”

2 Fuller, op. cit., V, 431, 432; ‘‘History of England, 1603—1660,” by F.
C. Montague, 1907, 63, 64; ‘‘Progresses of James I,’”’ by John Nichols, 1828,
II, 726, where the statement in the text, ‘‘The Archbishop of Canterbury
was at the Marriage, but not the Bishop of London,” is thus supplemented
in the foot-note: ‘‘ These two Prelates, Dr. Abbot and Dr. King, to their
immortal honour, had been the chief opposers of the shameless divorce.”

3 Fuller, op. cit., V. 500. 4 Ibid., p. 266.

5 Nichols, op. cit., II, 96, 97. 6 Fuller, op. cit., V, 499.

Life and Works of Henry King. 231

pamphlet sermons examined in connection with the present in-
vestigation, they simply are not comparable in absolute value with
the great literary orations of John Donne and other real masters
of the form at that time.

Bishop John King died March 30, 1621, after more than fourteen
years? of suffering from stone in the reins and bladder, ‘‘and was
buried in the South-Isle, over against the Quire, in the Cathedral
Church of S. Paul, under a flat Marble, and had a long Epitaph
inscrib’d in a Table hanging by,’’? “with the simple word ‘ Resurgam’
on his gravestone.””* A very moving account of his last days will
be found in his eldest son’s sermon preached nine months later in
answer to the “‘aspersion as false as foul . . . that at this death he was
reconciled to the church of Rome.”® This absurd charge, “suffi-
ciently confuted by those eye and ear witnesses present at his pious
departure,’ ® has its only suspicion of probability lent to it by the
alarmed and abusive and over-elaborate denials it has evoked from
all Anglican biographers and historians of this period. The sermon
just mentioned,’ with its accompanying legal retractation of the
libel by the libeller, should have settled and dismissed the matter
forever. Bishop John King’s fair fame is unimpeached, nowadays,
and he left a record that none of his sons equalled; for Grosart’s
statement, “‘his sons grew into a fame that over-shadowed his own,’ 8

1 Since all King’s biographers, from Wood down, have been at great
pains to catalogue such of his sermons as are mentioned or extant anywhere,
it may be worth while to record two hitherto unnoticed London sermons
of his as very copiously taken down by John Manningham: (1) Oct. 24,
1602, at Paul’s Cross, on 2 Peter II, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; and (2) Mar. 27, 1603,
at White Hall, on Luke XI, 14 et seq.—Manningham’s Diary, ed. Bruce,
64—72, 149—153.

2 “Athen. Oxon.,’”’ II, 295, footnote 6.

3 “Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense,’’ by R. Newcourt,
iO, 1 29;

4 “Alum. West.,”’ 54; cf. Henry King’s elegy on his father, with reference
to this ““simple word’’; and cf. Bibliog., pp. 280, 283, for notice of this
“long Epitaph inscrib’d in a Table.”

5 Fuller, op. cit., V, 500.

8 Ibid.

* Cf. Bibliog., p. 275, inf. Cf. also the second sentence of Henry King’s
“Epistle Dedicatory’’ in his “‘Exposition upon the Lords Prayer,’’ 1628:
“something was done to disprove that (since confessed) scandall, touching
my Father’s Revolt from his Religion.”

8 “Lectures upon Jonah,” by John King, in ‘‘ Nichol’s Series of Commen-
taries,’”’ 1864, with biographical introduction by A. B. Grosart, p. xii;

”

232 Lawrence Mason,

is wildly untrue of their own life-times and is beginning to be true
in part only with the growing recognition of Henry King’s right to a
place in English literature and literary history.

II. EDUCATION AND EARLY LIFE.

Henry King, the eldest son of Bishop John King, “was born in
the same house and chamber at Wornal, in Bucks, wherein his fether
had received his first breath,t in the month of January [1592], and
was baptized there on the 16th of the said month [; he was] educated
partly in grammar learning in the free-school at Thame in Oxfordsh.
and partly in the college school at Westminster.”? From West-
minster he followed his father to Christ Church, Oxford, mattri-
culating Jan. 20, 1609, and took the same four degrees: B.A., in
1611 ; M.A., in 1614; B.D. and D.D., in 1625. Among Henry King’s
fellow-scholars at Westminster were Robert Herrick (if Mr. A. H.
Bullen’s conjecture be correct: ‘Dict. Nat. Biog.”’, XXVI, 253),
George Herbert, William Strode, Wiliam Cartwright, and Thomas
Randolph, but the great Camden, who had taught his father,> was
no longer a master there; and later, among the “many afterwards
eminent men in attendance, as students, or [as candidates] for ad-
vanced degrees,” at Christ Church during his undergraduate days,
Grosart mentions John Williams, afterwards archbishop and lord
chancellor, Edward Littleton, Brian Duppa, Christopher Wren,
John Hales, Williams Strode, and John Donne.® Inspiration and
competition in abundance were therefore afforded King by both
institutions, as well as a perhaps not less important or influential
element, namely the warm friendship of at least two of these not-
ables—Brian Duppa and John Donne. He does not appear to have

on pp. x and xi Dr. Grosart gives an account of King’s death, with lengthy
extracts from his son’s sermon in defence of him, and adds a brief biblio-
graphy of “‘authorities pro and con’’ in the matter of the alleged apostasy.
Chalmers (‘‘ Gen. Biog. Dict.’”’, XIX, 357) refers readers to Dodd’s ‘““Church
History,” I, for a full discussion of this question.

1 “A Local coincidence not commonly to be parrelelled.’’— Harl. MS. 1625,
fol) 115:

2 “Athen. Oxon.,” III, 839.

3 “Alum. West.,”’ p: 77.

4 “ Robert Herrick : Contribution 4 l’Etude de la Poésie Lyrique en Angle-
terre au Dix-Septiéme Siécle,’’ par Floris Delattre, Paris, 1912, p. 21.

Ss Dict. Naty Bios? Vill. 279:

6 Grosart, op. cit., viii, ix.

Life and Works of Henry King. 233

been conspicuously successful in academic pursuits, in one tield at
least, for two of his younger brothers attained an honor which he did
not achieve: John, who entered Christ Church and took all four
degrees at the same time with him, became Public Orator of the Uni-
versity In 1622,1 and was succeeded in that position by Philip, the
youngest brother, in 1625.2, Mention of this small failure seems to
have been avoided by Henry King’s biographers, but its statement,
where facts are so scarce at best, seems worth while inasmuch as it
casts little discredit and considerable light upon his development
at this time.

“When he was young he delighted much in the studies of music
and poetry,’ says Wood, “which, with his wit and fancy, made his
conversation much accepted” ;? and ‘The Publishers” of his volume
of poems, in their prefatory remarks, also call those productions
“ Juvemilia (most of them the issues of [his] youthful Muse).” This
account of Henry King’s youth, therefore, seems to be reliable enough ;
and certainly, blitheness of heart and verse was but natural in a
young man with so fair a prospect in life opening before him. For
it must not be forgotten that while he was a student at Christ Church
his father was Dean of that College and Vice-Chancellor (i. e., actually
president, for the Chancellor was merely an honorary officer) of the
University, and then became Bishop of London with still greater
opportunities to ensure a successful career for hisson. This brighter,
happier side of Henry King’s nature is the more pleasant to contem-
plate, in view of the absence of any such graces in most of his pub-
lished work; but perhaps the very gaiety of his life at this time may
help to account for his failure to be elected Public Orator.*

Though, as will presently be seen, King’s residence at Oxford must
have terminated shortly after his taking his Master’s degree, and
though his private affairs and his ecclesiastical duties might well have
occupied all his thoughts and leisure, he did not forget his Alma Mater
but loyally rallied his poetical powers to her aid when a humiliating
misfortune befell her. The jealous rivalry between Oxford and

1 “Alum. West.,” p. 78.

2 Hannah, xcvi; ‘‘Fasti Oxon.,”’ II, 89, and cf. note 4, inf.

3 “Athen. Oxon.,”’ III, 839; based on Fuller’s ‘‘Worthies of Bucks,” ed.
Nuttall, 1840, I, p. 202.

# Nichols, op. cit., IV, 1109, has this footnote: ‘‘He [ Phil. Kinge] became
Orator of the University (as his brother Henry, of whom in p. 1051, had
been); ” but on p. 1051 and p. 930 (to which it in turn refers), the Public
Orator is correctly given as John King.

234 Lawrence Mason,

Cambridge was at this time perhaps particularly bitter,! and the
competition for royal favor and patronage was the bitterest point
in the contention. In 1615 King James had visited Cambridge
twice, the second time expressly to witness another performance of
the play with which he had been entertained on the occasion of his
first visit, namely ““Ignoramus,”’ by George Ruggle, fellow and tutor
of Clare Hall.2_ The fame of this piece and the pamphleteering battle
long waged over its satirical attack upon lawyers and Puritans
spurred on the partisans of Oxford to a special effort in order to di-
minish the prestige of their rivals and win some laurels for themselves.
Accordingly, it was determined to make a special excursion to Wood-
stock in order to present Barten (or Barton) Holyday’s comedy called
‘“Technogamia: or, The Marriages of the Arts” before the King
and court, Aug. 26, 1621.3 The play had met with only moderate
success at its first hearing, February 13, 1618, in Christ Church hall ;
and though the author revised it* for its second performance, it
nevertheless so bored the King that after the second act he attempted
to leave and was with difficulty prevailed upow to sit out the play,
“least the young men should be discouraged.”’® Such an opportunity
was not to be passed over in silence by the foes of Oxford, and number-
less mocking epigrams and taunting satires immediately sprang into
active circulation. The most popular of these squibs, in a new form,
occurs in MS. on a small slip of paper inserted to face p. 22 in the
British Museum copy of King’s poems catalogued under shelf-number
I1,623.aa.26.,6 and may be given here as a sample of what King
undertook to answer in his impassioned and (for a dignitary in an
established church) outspoken lines ‘‘To his Friends of Christ Church
upon the mislike of the Marriage of the Arts acted at Woodstock” :

“At Christ Church Marriage, play’d before the King,
His Majesty did make an Offering.

An Offering! He offered what, I pray ?
He offered—twice or thrice to go away.”

1 Cf., e. g., “Annals of Oxford,” by J. €: Jeatireson, 1871, Chapter:
* Many accounts of play, author, and furore caused, have been written ;
the brief summary in “‘ Dict. Nat. Biog.,’”’ xlix, 392—3, is perhaps most widely

accessible.
3 “Athen. Oxon.,’”’ IID, 522.
4 “making some foolish alterations in it,’’—‘‘Athen. Oxon.,” ibid.
5 Ibid.
6

Cf. Bibliog., p. 264, inf.

Life and Works of Henry King. 235

King’s indignant response in defence of his Alma Mater is very credi-
table to him from several different standpoints ;4 and followed as
it is, in the editio princeps, by the interesting group of doubtfully
autobiographical poems, it may well serve to close his educational
period and introduce the next division of this sketch of his history.

Ill. PRIVATE LIFE: HUSBAND, FATHER, FRIEND, AND POET.

Fuller and Wood make no mention of Henry King’s wife ; Bayle?
and Lipscomb? assign him his son’s wife, Anne Russell. King him-
self did not mention her name in any of his extant poems, letters,
or sermons. Hannah# was the first to bring her name to light, as
the reward for painstaking researches,® and a brief statement of his
results will therefore summarize all hitherto available information
about this marriage. Henry King, then, married Anne Berkeley, eldest
daughter and heiress to Robert Berkeley, Esq., who was the son of
Sir Maurice Berkeley (Standard Bearer to Henry VIII, Edward VI,
and Elizabeth), of Somerset and of Boycourt (or Boycote), Kent.
Hannah infers that the marriage took place about 1617, after King
had vacated his studentship at Oxford and moved to London, and that
by 1624 at the very latest Anne Berkeley King had died and been
buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral. John, the eldest son of this marriage,
died in infancy ; the second child was also a son, and was given the
same name; the third, a daughter christened Anne, was born in
February, 1621 ; and the fourth, a son named after his father, was
born, as Hannah conjectures, in 1622 or 1623. Furthermore, inas-
much as John and Henry both lived to maturity, while their father
early penned a mournful elegy “On two Children dying of one Disease,
and buried in one Grave,’’ Hannah very naturally surmised the birth
of another child ; for it appears from lines 11 and 12 of the elegy that
the two children here lamented survived their mother, and con-

1 One cause for King’s anger was injured family pride, if Hannah be
correct in stating that two of his “‘younger brothers, William and Philip,
were among the Actors of Holiday’s unlucky Comedy.’’—p. x, footnote ;
but Hannah’s presumable source (Nichols, op. cit., IV, 1108—g,) identifies
only “Ds. Phil. Kinge’’ as Bishop John King’s son, giving no account of
ees, Gul. King.”

2 *“General Dictionary,” 1739, VI, 528.

3 “Hist. and Antiq. of Bucks,” 1847, I, 585.

4 Op. cit., xii—xv and Appendix A.

5 The MSS. brought to light in connection with the prosecution of the
present work would have settled the question, had not Hannah already
arrived at the correct conclusion. Cf. pp. 283, 284, inf.

236 Lawrence Mason,

sequently the first-born son John! could not have been referred to
in it.

It now remains to supplement Hannah’s facts and confirm or
replace some of his inferences and hypotheses, by means of informa-
tion found in certain MSS. which escaped his investigation. In
Appendix A is printed part of a 140-line poem by Thomas Goffe,
entitled ““An Elegie upon ye death of Mris. Anne Berkley, wife to
Mr. Henry King,’’? preserved (unfortunately without date) in Rawl.
MS. D. 308, ff. 172—173v, in the Bodleian. Thomas Goffe had
been at Westminster and Christ Church for many years with Henry
King, and, though a professed “‘enemy to the female sex,”® might
well have attempted to enter into his friend’s feelings and mourn his
loss of such a model wife ; moreover, Goffe says in line 118 that he
offers this tribute ‘‘As my last homage to my deerest freind,” as if
he had known Anne Berkeley personally. So there. seems to be no
reason for rejecting the testimony of this piece, especially as one of
its doubtful points is corroborated by the preceding elegy. From
it, then, we learn (line 13, page 284) that three sons survived their
mother; this substantiates Hannah’s surmise as to the fifth child,
and tells us that it was a boy, and this information is corroborated by
line 24, page 284, ‘““An Epitaph” on Anne Berkeley by Henry King’s
brother, John. Evidently, neither Goffe nor John King paid much
attention to the existence of little Anne, but that was commonly
the practise in those times; sons were counted, daughters ignored.
In Collinson,® e. g., no mention is made of Anne’s mother, even
though a large estate passed with her out of the Berkeley family.
Furthermore, we learn from Goffe’s elegy (lines 15—18) that two
sons had died before their mother ; this brings the total number of
Henry King’s family up to six,—not an improbably large figure,
in view of his father’s nine and his grandfather’s twelve. And,
finally, we learn from Goffe’s elegy (lines 1—8) some facts (for the
statement would have been absurd or even offensive, unless reasonably
accurate) which enable us to offer some hypotheses in regard to the

— = = — — so ae

1 Touchingly grieved for in a separate elegy included among the Additional
Poems Hitherto Unprinted, in the ed. of King’s poetry to be published by
the Yale Press.

2 pp. 284—5, inf.

3 “Athen. Oxon.,’’ II, 463; Wood tells with much gusto the story of his
betrayal into marriage with ‘‘a meer Xanthippe”’ and his consequent early
death, ‘‘heart-broken’’; but Wood’s malicious, satirical habits cast some
doubt on such stories.

4 Pp. 283, int. 5 “Hist. and Antiq. of Somerset,’ 1791, III, 280, 281.

Life and Works of Henry King. 237

missing dates of these births, as well as of those of the marriage and
of Anne Berkeley’s death. The one fixed date is that of the birth
of little Anne King, for Bishop John King’s funeral certificate!
states that she was five weeks old when that license was issued,
and therefore must have been born in the last week of February,
1621. Following out Goffe’s suggestion, now, we may infer that
the son John who lived to grow up must have been born in January,
1620, say, or at the end of 1619 (for the funeral certificate gives his
age as, roughly, a year and a half, in early April, 1621); the first-
born son John, who died in infancy, would have been born, then,
about the end of 1618; and the marriage would have taken place
early in 1618, or towards the end of 1617. Starting with Anne’s
birth, again, in late February, 1621, we may suppose that the fourth
child, Henry, was born in March or April, 1622 ;? that the fifth child,
also a son—perhaps the second who died before the mother,—was
born in May or June, 1623; and that the sixth and last, also a son—
perhaps one of the “‘two Children dying of one Disease”’ after their
mother’s death,—was born in July or August, 1624. It seems
fairly reasonable, next, to assign Anne Berkeley’s death to the last
half of 1624; for she died of a ‘‘Feaver,’® and was buried in St.
Paul’s,* and neither of these statements could well have been made
if she had died in London in 1625, for that would practically mean
dying of the plague.® Moreover, in 1625, Henry King was in Oxford,
taking his D.D. and avoiding the plague,*—and incidentally, in all
probability, bearing the news of his wife’s recent death to Goffe’s
sympathetic ears ; and finally, she could not have died in this plague-
interval, or surely her husband would have made some reference to
his loss when he resumed his interrupted series of sermons on the
Lord’s Prayer in London,’ or in his ‘“‘Act Sunday’”’ Sermon at Ox-
ford, in July, 1625.8

1 Hannah, xci, xcii,

2 He died Feb. 21, 1660, in the 46th year of his age; i. e., he was not quite
47-—Hannah, xciii.

3 As her husband’s beautiful elegy shows. 4 Hannah, xv.

5 “In 1625 is the third great London plague with 35,417 deaths—though
the year 1624 was remarkably exempt, and 1626 nearly so.”’ Encyc. Brit.,
XIth ed., xxi, 695.

6 Cf. Bibliog., p. 278, N. 1, inf.

? Ibid., notice the unconcerned, impersonal tone of his resumption:
“though the Contagion which lately dispersed us, hath diminished many
of those hearers,’”’ etc.—‘‘ Exposition on the Lords Prayer,’’ 1628, p. 243.

8 Bibliog., p. 275.

238 Lawrence Mason,

The first poem in Appendix A is one of several by John King
on his sister-in-law’s death. For instance, in Harl. MS. 6917, ff.
89Vv—90, occurs a 36-line piece signed “Dr. John King,” and entitled
‘““A letter to his most loving brother H: K: upon the death of his
Late Wife’”’;—it is a very poor performance, marred by wretched
conceits, as the opening quatrain will clearly show:

“When other poets veines are done

Snt Giles my muse bids me halt on,

and if my verses have some hobs,

thinke I have used not feete, but sobs.” .

This effusion is followed immediately by two pieces, the second
of which is also signed “Dr. John King,” with these titles: “‘Upon
a Ringe bequeathed as a Legacy from my loved sister! Mrs. A: K:”
and “‘Upon the Candle-stick she gave mee.’ These various pieces
possess but little poetical value, but with Goffe’s tributes, they help to
show that Anne Berkeley King was fully worthy of the beautiful
lines to her memory inscribed by her bereaved husband, perhaps
his highest achievement in poetry.

Now, the question arises, was Henry King loyal to her memory,
or did he write about, woo, or perhaps even win, a second wife ?
It all depends upon four of his poems: are they authentically auto-
biographical, or are they mere “‘dramatic lyrics’”’ in which King
deals imaginatively with fashionable subjects and attitudes? “The
Surrender’? and “The short Wooing” might possibly have been
written to Anne Berkeley, in the earlier stages of Henry King’s
courtship; but “St. Valentines day” is obviously the salutation
of a widower to the lady who has consented to share his lot, and
if King wrote the lines they present a very puzzling problem. Second
marriages were frequent in this family : his sister Anne married twice,
and her first and second husbands were both widowers ; his sister
Elizabeth and niece Elizabeth Holt both married twice; and his
wife’s grandfather, Sir Maurice Berkeley, also remarried.3- But
Henry King’s ample and beautiful vindication (if any be needed)

1 As his sister Anne long survived him (Hannah, cil, cil), he must refer
here to his sister-in-law, Anne Berkeley King; so Henry King twice refers
in his Will (Hannah, cxi) to his brother-in-law, Edward Holt, as “‘my (de-
ceased) Brother, Edward Holt, esquire.”

? Hannah, in omitting this poem from his selection, and in failing to
consider the question at all, seems almost guilty of shirking a responsibility.

3 Hannah, xcviii—ciii; Collinson, op. cit., p. 280.

Life and Works of Henry King. 239
is to be found in the fine, sane lines of his own poem, “‘ The Legacy,”
apparently addressed to Anne Berkeley during their married life.
The only positive bit of evidence (if it can be deemed such) to support
this theory of King’s second marriage is a passage in a hitherto
unprinted poem which can only doubtfully be assigned to King
(viz. lines 40 and 41, page 286) ; note the wording here: she is never
called “thy mother,” but only “thy Sires wife” ; and note the tone
of lines 40—40: there is no love mentioned, but merely the idea of
helpmate and safeguard, an idea perfectly in accord with the sober
common-sense of “St. Valentines day”’ ; and finally, note the date,
1630.1. The total absence of any other mention of the event is not
especially significant, for evidence as to the details of the first mar-
riage and of all the private life of Henry King is exceedingly scanty.
A further objection, in the fact that the printer-editors of the edztio
princeps did not place “St. Valentines day”’ with the obviously
autobiographical poems is also lacking in weight ; for the arrangement
of the volume is far from thoroughly systematic, evidently, and then
too the poem was placed with a considerable group of quasi-auto-
biographical pieces immediately after an indubitably personal poem,
and finally the piratical printers? may well have been ignorant of
an episode twenty-five years old? in their author’s private life. As for
the clause in his Will (Hannah cxi), “to her who was soe nearly
related to my most deare and never to bee forgotten Wife,” the ab-
sence of any surviving relatives of this other wife would make such lang-
uage perfectly natural and proper. On the whole, then, it seems quite
as likely that Henry King did marry again as that he did not do so.4

1 It is, of course, impossible that Anne Berkeley could have been alive in
1630, or much if any later than 1624, in fact; for Henry King says of her,
in “The Exequy,”’ that she was “‘scarce’’ 24 when she died, and so even if
she died in 1624 she would have been only 17 or 18 when she married.
Furthermore, the 1630 here presumably stands for 1631.

* Their own preface confesses the unauthorized character of the venture.

3 This would give 1632 as the approximate date of the second Mistress
Henry King’s demise ; if she existed at all, she probably did not have many
years of married life, or some mention of her would have come down to us.
At least, the shorter her life, the easier it is to understand the absence of
such méntion.

4 It is to be remembered that even in the case of a far better known seven-
teenth century writer, no less famous and familiar a figure than Izaak Walton,
in fact, doubt on the question of his second marriage was not dispelled until
very recently ; cf. Keble’s ed. of ‘‘ Hooker’s Complete Works,” 1851, I, foot-
note 2, page 61; Nicholas’ Walton, 2d ed., 1860, page v, etc.

240 Lawrence Mason,

Henry King’s various places of residence thus far noted or implied
have been Wornal, Bucks, his birth-place ; presumably Nottingham,
Yorks, and possibly Berkshire,? where his younger brothers were
born ; Thame, Oxfordshire, and Westminster School, London, follow-
ed by Oxford, his several stages of education; after 1614, when
he took his M.A., “‘a house belonging to his Father, near St. Paul’s
Church Yard,” London ;? and Oxford again, in 1625, to avoid the
plague. As his sermons seem to have been delivered in London,*
it may safely be assumed that his connection with St. Paul’s and
with the royal household kept him chiefly in London in spite of his
various ecclesiastical preferments elsewhere, to be noted presently,®
until his elevation to the see of Chichester transferred his residence
to Sussex at the opening of the year 1642. Here he passed less than
eleven months, when the siege and capture of Chichester by the
Parliamentarians, Dec. 29, 1642,° dispossessed him until the Restora-
tion, and then Chichester became his residence again for the last nine
years of this life, 1660-1669. The period of his exile from his bish-
opric, 1643—1660, is very difficult to account for. Wood and
Fuller lend nothing to Walker’s statement, which is as follows :7
“When the rebellion broke out, he was most Barbarously Treated
by them [i. e., the Puritans]; nor was he suffered to live quietly
at his Friend’s House (for sometime at least) when they could dis-
cover him. During the Usurpation he lived most with Sir Richard
Hobart (his Brother-in-law) at Langly in Bucks; and, if I am not
mis-informed, was in a manner Sustained by his Charity. He lived
sometime with his Family, and some other Relations, at the Lady
Salter’s near Eaton ; where Mr. Hales Officiated as Chaplain, according
to the Orders of the Church, but was soon forbid by the Parliament.”
This is piacacally all that has hitherto been known about this period
in King’s life,’ if we except what may be inferred from his own
writings ; but this information ‘still casts little light on the years

4 On Oxon LE aS = Hannan Vv.

ST Ibids t. 4 Cf. Bibliog., pp. 275 et seq.

5 p. 249, inf.; note that even the Deanery of Rochester, received in
1638, does not prevent Letter II (p. 288, inf.) from being written in London,
1639, or Sermon 6 (Bibliog., p. 277) from being delivered ‘‘at Paul’s,” in 1640.

6 ‘Victoria History of Sussex,” I, 522.

7 “Sufferings of the Clergy,” 1714, Part II, p. 11.

8 Hannah, lii—lix, enlarges on these details but adds nothing of importance.

9 Cf. the elegies on Edward Holt, Sir Charles Lucas, and King Charles I;
the Preface to his metrical rendering of the Psalms, also, with his letter to
Archbishop Usher on that occasion, gives some further indication of his
whereabouts and occupations about 1651.

Life and Works of Henry King. 241

before 1649 or 1650. For the exactitude of Walker’s language here
seems to have been unappreciated or misunderstood, heretofore.
He clearly means that during the Rebellion, or Civil Wars, King was
hunted from his friends’ houses! and driven into hiding in various
more or less remote regions; while during the Usurpation, or after
the Commonwealth had been established and things had become
settled once more, (or, as Wood puts it, “‘after episcopacy was silenced
by the long parliament’’), he passed ‘‘most”’ of the time with Sir
Richard Hobart and later with Lady Salter. So evidently it is for
the first few years after 16437 that information has been lacking ;
and information covering those years can now be furnished.

An unpleasant page in Bishop Henry King’s biography is involved
and must be written. Documents apparently in the form of a legal
deposition are preserved in the Bodleian (Rawl. MS. D. 1361, fol.
389 et seq.), bringing against his eldest son, John, a charge of seduction
in the case of the youngest daughter, “E.,” of a certain “‘Mr. O.”
(Onslow ?), of “A.” in “S.” about June 1, 1646. The documents
are all on the plaintiff's side and hence leave us in ignorance of what
Henry King said in his son’s defence ; consequently he should not be
too hastily condemned. But the charge is circumstantial and, in
its first form, convincing ; if it is true to the facts, Henry King as well as
his son must have acted a very discreditable part in the affair. The
elder King is alleged to have wrung his hands and lamented exceed-
ingly, when informed of the matter, and at first to have urged his
son to confess all and make all possible reparation ; later, to have at-
tempted to negotiate financially with ‘“‘Mr. O.’; and finally to
have “roundly” denied the whole charge, challenged the plaintiff
to produce evidence, and counseled his son to ignore the affair and
go forward with his courtship of a certain noble damsel whom he
had long been wooing. Some injudicious additions to “Mr. O.’s”’
earlier straightforward account, doubtless introduced with a view
to furnishing specific proof of the younger King’s baseness, rather
weaken the plaintiff’s case in later statements ; but no record of the
outcome of the suit, if the case was ever brought to trial, has been
preserved. This episode is chiefly or only valuable as supplying

1 For ‘‘ Friend’s House”’ can mean nothing else; cf. citation from Walker’s
MS., p. 242, Note 1, inf.

2 Immediately after the capture of Chichester, Dec. 29, 1642, Bishop King
was confined to his Episcopal Palace there and was later transferred to a
London prison for a short period. — ‘‘Castles and Mansions of Western
Sussex,’ by D- G. C. Elwes, 1876, p. 60.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. i NovempBer 1913.

242 Lawrence Mason,

information of Henry King’s whereabouts at this time. For we
learn that King, after “being by ordinance of Parliamt put out of
that diocesse [Chichester] nigh 4 yeares since, took up his abode in
the pish [parish] of A. in the County of S., together with one Mris
Holt then a widow [his eldest sister, Elizabeth], and his two sonnes,
[John and Henry; and her three daughters], and divers servants”’ ;
this statement accounts for the period in King’s life from 1643 on-
ward to Nov. 2, 1646, when a meeting was appointed at the house
of one “Mr. Richard Onslow,” evidently not the plaintiff but probably
a relative, in ““Aldbury.”+ But shortly after this, the King and Holt
families must have sought quieter quarters (and perhaps thus con-
fessed their guilt) for in the last document in the series we find “Mr.
O.” deposing, under date of “February 20° 164°/,, Saterday,’
that he has sent his “‘sonne Georg” to communicate with “the Bp.
of Chichester”’ at “‘Blacksware in Hartfordsheer.” So here the un-
happy incident closes; it is unpleasant, but contributes materially
toward filling the gap in our knowledge of his life between 1643 and

1 The identity of “A.” or “‘Aldbury”’ in the county of “S.” is not so ob-
scure as a glance at the Gazetteer might lead one to suppose ; for in the “ Vic-
toria Hist. of Surrey,’ 1911, III, 72, we find mention of a parish called
Aldebury in the XIVth century, Aldbury in the XVIIIth century, and
Albury to-day; and on page 74 of the same work this sentence appears:
“‘Sir Richard Onslow and his son Arthur seem to have had some claim on
the manor (Weston Manor, in Albury) from 1644 to 1677.’’ But the matter
is settled definitely by this note of Walker’s, presumably the “‘raw material’”
for his notice in his ‘“‘Sufferings of the Clergy’’ (quoted above, p. 240):
“Dr. King, Bp of Chichester rector of Petworth, given him by the King to
be held in Commendam, was most barbarously treated by the Parliament ;
Turn’d out of both his Livings, succeeded in the latter, by yt Grand Villain
Chaynell, he was not suffered to enjoy himself quietly at his freinds Houses ;
but escaping one night privatly to the parish of Sheer near Guilford in Surry,
he there liv’daretir’d life with one of his acquaince by whose Charity he was
maintain’d’”’ (MS. J. Walker, c. 3, fol. 378v.) The parishes of Shere and Albury
intermingled, until recently, and are five or six miles east and a little south
of Guildford in western Surrey, dicectly north of Petworth and Chichester in
Sussex. The reason for King’s choice of Albury fora place of refuge may have
been the fact that the Duncombe family had large holdings there in the seven-
teenth century (cf.‘‘Vict. Hist. Surrey,” III, 73—77), and Letter 2in Appendix B
contains a reference to King’s ‘‘Cosen Duncumbe”’ (cousin through inter-
marriage between the Duncombes and Conquests, according to Hannah;
xXxxviii, N.). The reason for his choice of ‘‘ Blacksware in Hartfordsheer,”’ at
his next removal, may perhaps be found in this sentence from the “ Hist.
Antiq. Herts,” 1826, I, 413: Blakesware “‘is a fair Seat erected in this Parish

Life and Works of Henry King. 243

1650. And, of course, it will not escape observation that a new point
has also been added to our knowledge of the period from 1650 to
1660 ; for Letter 1 in Appendix B,! hitherto unnoticed by his bio-
graphers, furnishes evidence that early in 1657 King was back in
his native county, Buckinghamshire, some distance south of his
birthplace. ;
First as the eldest son of the Bishop of London, and afterwards on
his own merits, Henry King came to be associated on a friendly footing
with some very notable men of this century, and a good measure of
his worth is afforded by the esteem in which they held him. The
Lady Salter mentioned above, who afforded him such kind shelter
in his extremity, was, according to Bishop Kennet,? “sister if I
mistake not to Dr. Duppa,”’ and Brian Duppa was an early friend of
King’s, at Westminster and Oxford,? as we have seen, as well as his
predecessor in the see of Chichester; King preached a fine funeral
sermon over his remains, at his death in 1662.4 The most illustrious
of King’s friends was the great Donne, “‘ordain’d both Deacon and
Priest, by Dr. John King, Bishop of London” ;* Izaak Walton’s.
“Life of Donne”’ gives several interesting particulars of this friendship,
including the important fact of Henry King’s having been John

about 3 miles distant from the town (i. e., Ware, in the hundred of Braughin ;
cf. Note 6, p. 246, inf.) towards the East, which did belong to the Family of
_ the Hangers, from whom it came to John King, Gent.,”’ in the first half of
the seventeenth century. ‘‘ Vict. Hist. Herts.,“‘ 1912, III, 389, col. I, sub-
stantiates this statement. A further possible connecting-link in associating
King with Hertfordshire might well be his friendship with Sir John Monson,
or Mounson (cf. Bibliog., p. 270 N. 1, inf.), for “‘ Through his wife, (Sir John)
became possessed in 1645 of the manor of Broxbourne in Herts, which was:
the seat of the family for many years”’ (Dict. Nat. Biog.,’’ xxxvili, 196).
Broxbourne is in southeasternmost Hertfordshire, about six miles from
Blakesware ; and the “Hist. Antiq. Herts,’’ I, 566—7, supplies these hints.
as to the connections between the King and Monson families: “‘The church
of Broxbourne is appropriated to the peculiar use of the Bishop of London...
Sir Thomas Mounson was created Baronet, 1611; his son Sir John M. was.
invested Knight of the Bath at the Coronation of Charles I.” In 1647,
Henry King and Sir John Monson were probably in “‘quiet retirement’”
in Herts, where King would have had the opportunity mentioned by Monson.
in his Dedication of looking over the latter’s MSS.

p- 287, inf.

“Collections,” III: Lansd. MS. 986, fol. 76, in the British Museum..
SAtlom: Wiest. c0073.

Cf. Bibliog., p. 278, inf.; also p. 251, inf.

Newcourt, “‘Repert. Eccles. Lond.,” I, 51.

ao fF © NY

244 Lawrence Mason,

Done’s “ most faithful friend and executor.”+ With Walton himself
King could boast a friendship of forty years’ standing, in 1664, as
an invaluable letter? shows; this letter, too long for insertion here
gives many new details about King’s life, in particular the part he
played in the preservation of the last three Books of Hooker’s “Ec-
clesiastical Polity,” and should be consulted in connection with this
sketch of his life, together with the other letters in Appendix B.
Several other friendships were commemorated by King in particular
poems,® and so may be left to his own accounts.

Verse-writing was one of the accomplishments of the finished gen-
tleman, at this time, and consequently Bishop John King? and all
five sons® figure in various Oxford collections of verse (usually in
Latin or Greek) in their day. Next to Henry, John seems to have
written most frequently in English verse, as we have seen above,®
and as the ascription of “My Midnight Meditation’’* to him shows.
But Philip, the youngest, is no mean contender for recognition here,
for the whole editio princeps of Henry’s poems-was once assigned to
him,’ Wood notes a comniendatory poem from his pen included
among similar effusions by “‘Benj. Johnson, Mich. Drayton, etc.,”’®
and a fine elegy signed “‘ Phill: King: ”’ has been preserved in two
MSS. in the British Museum.!° There is, however, some ground for
doubt as to the identity of the particular Philip King reponsible for
the last two items, inasmuch as Wood! lists five other gentlemen
of this name, in addition to Bishop John King’s son, and all associated
with Christ Church or Oxford at this same period! Whichever Philip
King wrote the elegy seems to have had Henry King’s “Exequy”’
in mind, or before him; and, in general, there is a distinct family
likeness in the verse-productions of the several brothers, to be ac-

1 Sir H. Nicholas’ easily accessible ed. of Walton should be consulted for
various details of King’s friendships with Donne, Walton, Spenser, etc.
2 This letter has not been reprinted in Appendix B because it is so easily
accessible in any good edition or biography of Walton. ~
3 E. g., the poems on Ben Jonson, Blount, and Sandys.
“Alum. West.,”’ 54.
““Alum. West.,” 77, 78; Hannah, x, footnote.
Ch p- 1230. supe
A brief meditative poem, of no very great merit, included in the editio

712 OO

princeps of Henry King’s poems.
8 Cf. Bibliog., p. 265, inf.
9 “Athen. Oxon.,” II, 435.
10 Addit. MS. 25,707, ff. 79gv—81, and Harl. MS. 6917, ff. 28—29v.
Basti ©xon-s: welie nO:

Life and Works of Henry King. 245

counted for partly by the prevailing fashions of the day and partly by
the likelihood that the eldest brother’s work would serve as model
for the younger to imitate.

Henry King’s little volume of verse seems to have failed of winning
contemporary appreciation, for the original edition was twice re-
issued with a new title-page in a vain attempt to dispose of the un-
sold copies ;1 but it would be unjust to argue from this that the volume
possesses little merit, for in the first place Vaughan’s “Silex Scin-
tillans’”’ underwent precisely the same experience (the unsold sheets
of the 1650 printing having been re-issued in 1655, with a new title-
page), and in the second place immediate popularity is of course
no criterion of absolute value. Furthermore this contemporaneous
neglect was only apparent, not actual, as the following facts show:
King’s gratulatory or elegiac occasional pieces were given the place
of honor in the various volumes in which they originally appeared ; *
there are extant almost countless copies of various single poems
by him in the innumerable MS. collections and commonplace books
of the day,? and thus he enjoyed a very considerable circulation
regardless of the fate of the piratical printed publication ; and fin-
ally there are some grounds for believing that this twice re-issued
original edition may not have been the only printed collection of
his poems, after all.4| These facts, hitherto unnoticed or unconsidered,
seem to show that Henry King was highly esteemed as an author, in
many quarters, and that he hit the taste of his time truly enough
to be considered a satisfactory representative of the minor poets
of the period.

Under the year 1669 this entry appears in the Register of Burials,
at Chichester: ““The Reverend Father in God Henry King Lord

1 Cf. Bibliog., p. 263, inf.; also 266.

2 Cf. “‘Jonsonus Virbius,’”’ 1638, ps 165) Donneis! = Poems,” 1633) 1635,
1639, etc.; ‘“The Swedish Intelligencer,’ 1633, poetical appendix to the
Third Part; and George Sandys’ ‘‘Paraphrase upon the Divine Poems,”’
1638, prefixed pages of commendatory verse.

3 It may be stated further that, in addition to the MS. volumes noticed
below in the Bibliography, Harl. MS. 6917 is practically another such collec-
tion, for over 20 of King’s poems appear in it, together with many others by
or about his family. Other MSS. almost as markedly given up to King’s
work are Addit. MSS. 25, 303 and 25, 707, and perhaps Sloane MS. 1446, —
all in the British Museum.

4 Cf. Bibliog., p. 267, inf.

5 Cf., e. g., Howell’s “‘ Familiar Letters,” ed. Jacobs, 1892, Il, 408, under
date of 3. Feb., 1637.

246 Lawrence Mason,

Bishop of Chichester departed this life September the thirtieth and
was solemnly interred October y® 8.”1 He had survived his four
younger brothers and two at least of his sisters,? as’ well as his wife
and five of his six children,? while his remaining son died fifteen
months after him. Hannah was mistaken, however, in his assump-
tion “that we cannot carry the history of his family far beyond the
Bishop of Chichester himself,’ for a correspondent in ‘“‘Notes and
Queries”’ says that “the Vicar of Brighton has furnished the pedigree
of Bishop Henry King down to the present date,’’® i.e., 1875, and
the present writer in January, I912, met at Chichester a Mr. Free-
land who claimed connection by marriage with surviving descend-
ants of the Bishop. Henry King’s fair name and fame have been
impeached in but one particular, which will be discussed in the follow-
ing section; otherwise, Wood, Walton, Walker, and Fuller have
nothing but praise for him, as “‘‘the epitome of all honours, virtues,
and generous nobleness,’ and a person never to be forgotten by his
tenants, and by the poor.’’* Despite the somewhat forbidding cast
of feature and expression evidenced by his portrait, which hangs in
the old Lecture Room, Christ Church, Oxford, there seems to be no
ground for doubting the generous character of the man: his bene-
factions in behalf of Christ Church® and the poor of Worminghall®

1 Hannah, lxxvii, where it is pointed out that Wood’s date ‘“‘the first day
of Octob.” (Athen. Oxon.,” III, 841), is simply a mistranslation of the
Monumental Inscription, ‘“‘Prid. Kalendas Octobris.’’ These Monumental
Inscriptions seem to have been strangely troublesome to the early biogra-
phers, for Welch (‘‘Alum. West.,” 77) quotes approvingly, “‘Major John
King,’”’ as a suitable translation of “‘natu major Johannes King”’!

2 “Athen. Oxon.,” II, 633; Hannah, xciii—ciii.

3 p. 237, sup; Hannah, Ixxvii, lxxviii.

4 Hannah, 2b7d. 5 xxix.

6 “N. & Q.,” 5th Series, IV, 370; cf. also ‘‘N. & Q.,”’ 1st Series, III, 368—9,
on Bishop John King’s sermon ‘“‘on behalfe of Paule’s Church,” signed
‘Richard John King.’’ Moreover, a kind correspondent (Mr. W. L. King
of Ware, Herts) has recently forwarded information that John King, D.D.,
Master of the Charter House, d. 1738, ‘‘had a brother Major King, whose
daughter Mary became 3rd wife of Sir Francis Dashwood (Lipscombe Hist.
Bucks 222). Elizth Dashwood, niece of the aforesaid Sir Francis,
married Andrew Archer of Umberslade, Warc., and at Umberslade was a
King family using the Bishop’s arms.”

7 «Athen. Oxon.,” III, 841.

8 “Athen. Oxon.,” II, 775; ‘‘Memorials of Oxford,” by J. Ingram, 1837,
I, 7-8.

9 “Hist. and Antiq. Bucks,” by Lipscomb, I, 582—3.

Life and Works of Henry King. 247

were considerable, while Elwes seems to think it incumbent on him
to explain why so munificent a donor should have failed to exercise
‘his bounty in the case of Chichester Cathedral, and signs of personal
efforts in the interests of friends and dependents are not infrequent.?
With a difficult position to fill, in very troublous times, he seems to
have acquitted himself worthily, on the whole, and to deserve a
reasonable amount of the eulogy inscribed on his monument:
“Natalium splendore illustris, Pietate, Doctrina & Virtutibus illus-
trior.’* ‘‘He was buried on the South-side of the Choir, near the
Communion Table, belonging to the Cathedral Church of Chichester,’ 4
but his monument, after being twice moved in recent years, now stands
in the North Transept at some distance from the grave where his
remains lie interred.°

One further question of some interest arises in connection with
the King family, in the seventeenth century, and that is the possible
relationship of Edward King,® the subject of Milton’s ‘“Lycidas.”
But in the first place, no Edward appears in the King genealogies
given by Hannah‘ and Lipscomb,® and in the second place the ori-
ginal memorial volume to Edward King as well as modern investi-
gation® shows that his connections were Irish exclusively. A more
serious difficulty arises in regard to the poem signed “Hen. King,”
in the memorial volume. Masson?! unhesitatingly calls the author
“one of the brothers o1 the deceased,” but gives no authority for the
statement ; Hunter felt the uncertainty more keenly, and wrote:
“There being two Henry Kings contemporazies and both writers of

1 ““His own fortunes were probably at too low an ebb to permit him to
undertake its restoration,” i. e. after 1660.—‘“‘ Castles, Mansions, and Manors
of Western Sussex,” by D. G. C. Elwes, 1876, p. 60.

2 Walton’s ‘‘ Life of Donne”’; ‘‘Athen. Oxon.,”’ IV, 518; ‘‘ Fasti Oxon.,”’
II, 214; Letters mentioned in Bibliog., p. 281, inf.

3 Walker, op. cit., Part II, 12.

4 Newcourt, op. cit., p. 92.

> Personal observation of the writer, and conversations with the organist
of the Cathedral, in January, 1912; according to Walcott, ‘‘Memorials of
Chichester,’’ 1865, p. 50, it then stood in the Processional Path at the back
of the Reredos.

6 Examples of Edward King’s Latin verse may be seen in Nichols’ ‘‘ Select
Poems,” 1781, VII, 76—85.

7 Ixxxiii, Ixxxvi.

8 p. 585.

9 Masson’s ‘“‘ Milton,” 1890, I, 187—192.

10 Thid., 192.

248 Lawrence Mason,

verse, a doubt may sometimes arise what belongs to each of them ;
as for instance, which of them wrote the Verses in Jonsonus Virbius.’’4
In view of Bishop Henry King’s connection with Oxford, the Court,”
and Duppa;* Jonson’s connection with Oxford* and the Court ;
and Duppa’s connection with “ Jonsonus Virbius,’’® it seems only
reasonable to ignore Hunter’s doubt and to assign these “‘ Verses’’
to the Bishop. In the case of the other lines, the facts and prob-
abilities are these: in the Bodleian copy of the exceedingly rare
little memorial pamphlet,® the poem signed “‘Hen. King”’ stands first,
as if the writer were chief mourner, and contains these lines:

. . though we
Small sprigs or branches of the self-same tree
Suffer the worst, since He the fairest arm
Is torn away by an unluckie storm.” (lines 79—82)

Now Bishop Henry King could not have been chief mourner, even
if he knew Edward King at all—which there is no reason for be-
lieving ; nor are the lines quoted applicable to him in any way ; nor
was there anything in his situation at this date-to lead to his being
associated with a Cambridge memorial volume. There seems to be
no reasonable ground, then, for including this effusion even among the
“Doubtful Poems” of Bishop Henry King, nor can the slightest
association with “Lycidas”’ be claimed for him.

IV. PUBLIC CAREER, SERMONS, AND RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.

So many details in the life of Henry King have been given above
that his various honors and offices may now be summarized in briefest
outline. As his Academic degrees have already been mentioned,’

1 Hunter’s invaluable MS. ‘‘Chorus Vatum”’ in the British Museum, vol.
int fol, 2805 cia also). vols ii; fol. 2: 2ICi ps 240) nt.

S(Chp-s24g. (Sup: 4°©Fasti Oxon.,7 1) 302:

> He was, of course, responsible for its publication. Cf. Howell’s “Fa-
miliar Letters,” ed. Jacobs, I, 332.

6 ““Obsequies to the memorie of Mr. Edward King, Anno Dom. 1638
(Device) printed by Th. Buck, and R. Daniel, printers to the Universitie
of Cambridge, 1638.’ The contribution under discussion has the general
title for its caption and contains 122 lines, beginning on page Tt, sig. F2, and
occupying 3°/, pages, being exceeded in length, in fact, only by ‘‘ Lycidas,”’
which fills the last six pages. In the accompanying volume of Latin and
Greek elegies there are some Latin lines by Henry King, the responsibility
for which must be fixed upon the author of the English elegy under dis-
cussion.

1p. 232) sup:

Life and Works of Henry King. 249

only his preferments in the Church and at Court remain to be listed.
He became successively chaplain to King James I, canon residentiary
of St. Paul’s (1615), archdeacon of Colchester (1617), canon of Christ
Church (1623), chaplain in ordinary to King Charles I, dean of Ro-
chester, (1638), and Bishop of Chichester (1642 ; consecrated, Feb.7).?
He held in addition the sinecure rectories of Petworth and Fulham?

Considerable though these offices and honors are, they still fail
to make out Henry King as the equal of his father.4 For in God-
win’s list of the twenty-one sees of the Province of Canterbury,”
London stands first, Chichester twelfth. Among the five bishoprics
to be filled, in 1641, Chichester always stands fourth.6 While many
Bishops of Chichester have been advanced to more desirable sees,
none has ever been translated directly to the Archbishopric of Canter-
bury or York.? And finally, Hannah shows® (without, however,
drawing the unfavorable inference which seems unavoidable) that
even for this relatively unimportant see King was only a substitute
or second-best, appointed late and consecrated some months after
the first of the five vacancies had been filled ; and even so, if Fuller
is to be trusted, King owed his selection in large part to the merits
of his “‘ pious and popular father.’’® In short, we must ascribe Henry
King’s inclusion in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica,
XIth Edition, while his father is excluded, not to any supereminence
over John King in their life-times,! but solely to the volume of poems
which has been the occasion of the present undertaking.

When subjected to comparison with his father in another respect,
Henry “Sas does not fare so Desbe and Soames ental this is the

1 Clarendon (Hist. of the Fpepeione Ole Paes 1888, ve I, Book IV,
p- 401) calls King ‘‘Dean of Litchfield’’; but this is mere inadvertence,
presumably, for King’s name does not appear among the Deans of Lichfield
listed by Le Neve (I, 563).

2 “Alum. West.,” 77; ‘‘Athen. Oxon.,”’ III, 839. [Hannah (xxxix) shows
that the date of consecration was Feb. 6, 1642.]

3 “Alum. West.,” ibid. <Cf. pp. 227 and 231, sup.

> “Catalogue of the Bishops of England since the first planting of Christian
Religion,’”’ etc., London, 1615.

6 Fuller’s ‘‘Church History,” VI, 236; Clarendon’s “History of the Re-
bellion,’”’ I, 401; etc.

7 Le Neve, I, 238—55. 8 xli—xlvi. 9 Fuller, ibid.

10 Both had various books dedicated to them, so that no satisfactory test
is afforded thereby. Cf. Madan’s ‘‘ Early Oxford Press,’ 1895, pp. 78, 88
and 90; “Athen. Oxon.,” I, 761; Il, 295 n.; III, 923; “‘Fasti Oxon.,” Ii,
214; “N. & Q.,”’ 2d Series, IX, 432, 492; Brydges’ “Censura Literaria,”’
nOo7s LIT, 272:

250 Lawrence Mason,

point on which John King was most highly praised. The opening
clause of Wood’s summary, adapted from Fuller, has been given
above,! and the citation may now be completed: “‘When he was
elder, he [Henry King] applied himself to oratory and philosophy,
and in his reduced age fixed on divinity ; in which faculty he became
eminent, as his sermons partly shew, which remained fresh in the
minds of his auditors many years after his death.”2 While King’s
reference to his “‘course in study”’ in Letter 1, below,® perhaps justifies
the statement about his application to philosophy, the relegation
of ‘“‘divinity”’ to his old age is absurd, for a letter quoted by Nichols#
shows that his first sermon was delivered in 1617, before he was 26
years old, and the Bibliography of his theological works is an added
overwhelming refutation.> The verdict passed on his first sermon
was this: “He did reasonably well, but nothing extraordinary,
nor near his father, being rather slow of utterance, and orator parum
vehemens.’® This criticism supplies another explanation for his
failure to be appointed Public Orator of the University during his
college career,’ and indicates that his abilities were slow in maturing.
But if he did not equal his father in pulpit effectiveness, in the judg-
ment of his contemporaries (though Wood says that he “became a
most florid preacher’’’), at least posterity will to some extent justify
Fuller’s encomium by preferring Henry King’s sermons to John
King’s, considered as literary productions. The son is less ponderous,
more incisive, more vital, though the two are very closely alike in
style, in method, and in attitude.

In support of Henry King’s pretensions as preacher, a few notable
passages may be instanced. In the sermon vindicating his father’s
orthodoxy (Nov. 25, 1621), there is a fine passage on p. 9, beginning:
“The words of dying men are precious even to strangers ; but when
the voyce of one we love, cals to us from the death-bed,” etc. Other
fine portions of the same sermon are the paragraph on Persecution
by slander, pp. 45—7 ; the two paragraphs of transition to the sub-
ject of his personal loss, p. 49; and the restrained but moving des-
cription of his father’s last hours, pp. 62—73, with the admirably
dignified and appealing peroration, pp. 74—77. Nor are there
wanting happy touches in detail, such as—’’ We are but Impes and

1 p. 233, footnote 3.

2 At the close Wood greatly moderates the extravagant laudation of the
good Fuller, who asserts that King’s sermons “will report him to all poste-
rity.”

3 Appendix B, p. 287. 4 Op: eit. 411, 445; 5 pp. 275—77, inf.

8 Nichols, ibid. 7 p. 223, sup. 8 “Athen. Oxon.,” III, 839.

Life and Works of Henry King. 251

Zanies, in respect of those that lived in the Primitive Church” ;
or—‘‘No more have those once glorious dayes, now any difference
in our memory or esteeme. They lie promiscuously raked up in
the dust of time, without any monument set over them, to tell they
once were : no Rubrick, or capitall letter inserted, to distinguish them
from the common heape of dayes piled up in the Almanacke.”” Again,
in his Lenten Sermon at Whitehall (Mar. 3, 1626), pp. 11—13, the
paragraph on the testimony of creation to the truth that the hand
that made it is divine, is rather a splendid “‘purple patch.” Again,
in his Spital Sermon (Easter Monday, 1626), pp. 2—5, there is a
striking paragraph on “He,” beginning: “It is no flat or low ex-
pression to discipher God by a Pronoune rather than a Name, but
the most eminent forme of speech that may be.’ His Inauguration
Anniversary sermon (Mar. 27, 1640) is analyzed below," and his fun-
eral sermon over Bishop Duppa (Apr. 24, 1662) has been commen-
ded above? and is quoted below.? So, finally, but one more need be
mentioned, as a specimen of his latest work, namely the Anniversary
sermon in commemoration of King Charles’ martyrdom (Jan. 30,
1665). Now it was apparently mandatory, well into the Eighteenth
Century, that this subject be treated every year on this date, in every
pulpit,4 and hence it is not to be wondered at that all natural and
proper ideas or expressions were soon exhausted and nothing re-
mained except repetition or exaggeration ; but Henry King’s sermon
is free from these blemishes, and in depth, power, and conviction is far
above the hollow rhetorical extravagances or dull commonplaces of
the various other sermons on this subject examined for purposes of
comparison.® In general it must of course be frankly admitted that
he is not capable of supreme flights of oratory; but at his best he
is dignified and impressive, frequently trenchant, and at intervals
soberly eloquent.

eaps 250.

2p. 243, sup.; this sermon shows marked distinction and forceful
solemnity throughout, quite in the “‘grand manner,’’ with at least one passage
(on the “‘ Pretiousness”’ of Death) in a really exalted strain of true though
formal eloquence. It was preached ‘‘to the great content of the auditory.”
ieathen, Oxon... EET, 543): Oe EO, Abi

4 An examination of numerous collections of Sermons, in the Bodleian,
for the period 1660—1730, leads to this conclusion.

5 Pepys, ed. H. B. Wheatley, 1892, makes the following spiteful comment
on this sermon, under date of Mar. 12, 1665; ‘“‘I sat down and read over
the Bishop of Chichester’s sermon upon the anniversary of the King’s death,
much cried up, but, methinks, what a mean sermon.” This sermon contains

252 Lawrence Mason,

King’s sermons are doubly important to any student of his life
because of the light they cast on the vexed question of his religious
opinions, the one blot on his record which must if possible be re-
moved before his biography can be fairly closed ; for a last comparison
with his father is suggested by the charge of heterodoxy also brought
against Henry King, also posthumously, but unhappily not refuted
by filial piety in this case. The trouble seems to have been started,
or, at least, first stated, by Anthony a Wood, in his closing remarks
about Henry King :! ‘““What remains to be observ’d of this prelate
is, that he was always puritanically affected, and therefore to please
the puritans he was promoted to the see of Chichester . . . That
being not removed to a better see [i. e., after the Restoration], be-
came discontented, as I have heard, and a favorer thereupon of the
presbyterians in his diocese.”’ This charge alone does not carry much
weight (though it has been repeated by practically every biographer
since its first appearance),2 for Wood’s malicious and scandalous
thrusts have considerably discredited his great work,? even from the
very first.4 Walker, who incorporated Wood’s-charges into his own
text® (though with a kind of reservation, already cited in another
connection,® and to be mentioned again presently), was thus rebuked
by some friendly critic who was apparently reading his proof for
him :? ‘Tho’ there be an air of impartiality throughout your whole

the curious fling at the blind Milton, on p. 34:—‘‘One of them [i. e., one of
the ‘‘infamous Raylours, whom the Proud Faction kept in pay’’], and
indeed the most Malicious in the Pack, who calls himself Iconoclastes, so
shamelessly rails, That as St. Paul said to Simon Magnus, so might I to him,
Thou art in the Gall of Bitterness: And as the Apostle charged Elymas the
Sorcerer for Mischief and perverting the Truth; so it is very memorable This
Wretch had the fate of Elymas, Stvook with Blindness to his Death.” It is
also interesting as emphasizing Henry King’s firm belief in the royal au-
thorship of ‘““Eikon Basilike.” © Athens (©xons,.s dude wom.

2 Hannah (1, footnote) very neatly shows how Wood himself contradicts
his own charge; for he speaks (‘‘Athen. Oxon.,’’ III, 703) of Cheynell’s
succession to ‘‘the rich parsonage of Petworth in Sussex, in the place of an
honest and loyal doctor ejected thence.’’ This “‘honest and loyal doctor”’
was the supposedly ‘“‘puritanically affected’? Henry King!

3 E. g., “Dict. Nat. Biog.,”’ Ixii, 351; ‘“Wood was himself fond of severe
reflections, and all through his work had adopted reckless charges and
criticisms from spiteful correspondents’’; and cf. pp. 350, 351, pas.

4 “Wood’s Life and Times,”’ ed. A. Clark, 1894, III, 365—496; also “‘Fasti
Oxons 15s 7.0 Nee 5 Op. cit; ily rx, sak 6 p. 240, sup.

7 “Dr. John Walker and ‘ The Sufferings of the Clergy,’”’ by G. B. Tatham,
Igtt, 248.

Life and Works of Henry King. 253

work, which is very becoming an Historian, yet, methinks, you carry
the matter too far sometimes both in being over severe to your Friends
& too favourable to your enemies. Sometimes you appear too
severe to your Friends, as pticularly, . . . in your Reflections on
Bp. King (Chichester), . . . and some others. I know not what
obligation you are under to discover the Infirmities of these, who
were some of them very good & great men. And perhaps all the
grounds you have for reflecting on some of them, may be some
foolish stories told by An. Wood, whose Cynical temper prompted
him to say the worst he could of Every Body, for which he has been
so often & so justly condemned.”’ So, some twenty-two years after
the appearance of Wood’s charge, here is a vigorous protest against
according it any weight,—or, at least, an interesting impeachment
of Wood’s authority in general. However, this slander, if slander
it was, was deeply rooted and persistent, for the present writer found
the tradition flourishing in Chichester, in January, 1912, where a
venerable verger, encountered in the Cathedral, vouchsafed the in-
formation that Bishop Henry King, still remembered as “the Bishop
during the siege,” had been strongly in sympathy with the Puritans
and Puritanism, and yet was very severely handled by the Puritans
after the capture of Chichester. So a brief examination of facts
and documents on both sides must be undertaken.

Some few points in King’s life seem to justify the charge, at first
sight. On one occasion in Parliament it was expressly asserted that
“there can be no superstition proved upon the Bishop of Chichester,” !
as if he were notoriously low church in his views. And a bit of
evidence in support of the contention that the general parliamentary
or Puritan opinion of him was favorable is perhaps the fact that he was
not included in Col. John White’s scurrilous black-list entitled ‘‘ The
First Century of Scandalous, Malignant Priests.... Or, A Narration
of the Causes for which the Parliament hath Ordered the Seques-
tration of the Benefices of several Ministers,’ published Nov. 10,
1643. Again, there is a possible taint of Puritanism in some of his
poetry.2 Further, he was, it is quite true, promoted to the Bish-
opric at a most dangerous juncture when a compromise candidate
was the only safe appointee, one “generally beloved by all disengaged
people,” as Fuller phrases it.2 And finally, and this is the one really

1 “Sussex Archaeological Collections,’’ 1852, V, 50.

2 Cf. ‘Being waked out of my sleep by a snuff of Candle,” ‘Sic Vita,”
“My Midnight Meditation,’ and ‘‘The Dirge.”

3 “‘Worthies,’”’ I, 202.

254 Lawrence Mason,

damaging point against him, he assuredly was not advanced to a
more desirable see, at the Restoration,! whereas his successor,
Peter Gunning, was translated in 1674 to the see of Ely, “with a
particular acknowledgment from his majesty of his steadiness to the
church, having kept up the face thereof in the worst of times.” *
The last point remains inexplicable and unanswerable, so far as
available informations goes, unless we are gratuitously to suppose a
personal enmity between King and William Juxon, Bishop of Lon-
don and in 1660 Archbishop of Canterbury ;? but after the other three
points in support of the charge of Puritanism have been offset, it
is believed that sufficient positive evidence can be brought forward to
establish King’s orthodoxy even in the teeth of this single unanswered
objection. As for the first point, then, King’s low-church reputa-
tion did not save him, and neither his repeated special petition nor
the terms agreed upon with Sir W. Waller previously to the surrender
of Chichester could alter “the ordinance of sequestration’’ passed
upon him, June 6, 1643.4. And here should be quoted Walker's
quasi-reservation or protest, mentioned above, for he adopted Wood’s
charge,—‘Though he was always Esteemed to be Puritanically
Affected, and was Promoted to this Bishoprick to please that Party,”
—with this irreconcilable qualification: ‘‘yet when the Rebellion
broke out, he was most Barbarously treated by them ; nor was he
suffered to live quietly,” etc.; and this qualification has been repeated
with the charge, by practically all the biographers.® This barbarous
maltreatment has been so commonly reported as to need but little
emphasis here : witness his Will,6 his Letter to Mr. Bysshe,’ and Wal-

PS Hhis lis eet ominous, because Tone who twice mgt have
favored King (at his delayed appointment, in 1641—2 [Hannah, xli], and at
the Restoration) and each time apparently disapproved, was a special pro-
tege of Laud’s (‘‘Athen. Oxon.,’”’ IV, 818).

2""Athen. Oxon... LV, 143:

3 Le Neve, I, 27. King’s relations with Juxon’s successor, Gilbert Shel-
don, do not seem to have been altogether pleasant: cf. Letters 3 and 4,
Appendix B, and Letters mentioned in Bibliog., p. 280, inf.

4 ““Sussex Arch. Ccll.,”’ 257d.

5 Cf. statement of verger, in I912; p. 253, Sup.

6 “Later supplyes of competence . . . . were allmost totally consumed
[by] Publick calamitie or private iniurie suffered in these days of discention.”’
‘““My bookes, being now a small remainder of a large liberary taken from
me at Chichester, contrary to the conditon and contracte of the Generall
and Counsell of warre, at the taking of that Cittie.’’ ‘‘ During my misfor-
tunes since the losse of all I had at Chichester.’’ Etc.—Hannah, cvili—cxiv,

7 Appendix B, Letter 1.

Life and Works of Henry King. 255-

ker’s conjecture as to his having been supported by charity ;! and
consult any detailed account of the siege and capture of Chichester.?
The negative testimony, of King’s exclusion from Col. John White’s.
“Century of Malignant Priests,’* is overborne by the virulent
attacks of that rabid Puritan, John Vicars: “ Bishop King, as bad
as the worst” ;4 “Dr. King also, then Bishop of Chichester (a proud
Prelate, as all the rest are, and a most pragmaticall Malignant against
the Parliament, as all his cater-capt companions also are).”’* As
for King’s poetry, there is plenty of orthodox ecclesiasticism there ;
the two elegies on King Charles are just two long and fiery condem-
nations of the Puritans. And finally, if, in his promotion to a Bish-
opric in 1641—2, there was need of avoiding the giving of offence to
parliamentarians and Puritans, surely there was at least equal need
of appointing a man whose loyalty to the tottering Church and
Monarchy could be relied upon; Hannah’ quotes the evidence
demonstrating the validity of this hypothesis, but fails to draw the
inference, in this excerpt from a Letter from King Charles to William
Juxon, Bishop of London, relative to the five appointees for the
vacant Bishoprics: “‘I have altered somewhat frome my former
thoughts, to satisfie the tymes, & yet I hope that I have not disserved
my selfe in my elections.”’ Henry King’s appointment as chaplain
to King Charles as well as to King James,® his preferments in the
-Church,® the royal bestowal of Petworth upon him after his con-
secration as Bishop,” his dedication of his “‘ Exposition upon the Lords
Prayer,’ ™ and his two elegies on King Charles, all go to show that he
stood high in his royal master’s favor and was deservedly ‘‘one of
those persons of unblemished reputation that his majesty, tho’ late,
promoted to that honourable office.” !”

Aside from these fairly satisfactory evidences of orthodoxy, six
further positive indications remain to be noted. (1) Sir John Mon-
son, who “suffered much for his loyalty” (“Fasti Oxon.”, II, 40)
during the Civil War, dedicated to Henry King his “ Antidote against

1 pp. 240, and 242 Note 1, sup.

2 “ Sussex Arch. Coll.,” V, 43—51 ; XX XI, 205—8; ‘‘Victoria Hist, Sussex,”’
522:

3 Note that this was only ‘The First Century’’: others were to have
followed.

4 “England’s Worthies,”’ 1845, p. 78.

> “ Jehovah-Jireh,’’ 1644, p. 239.

6 The lines to Sandys and the Lucas-Lisle elegy are equally unequivocal.

7? xiii, xliii. 8 p. 249, sup. 9 Ibid.

10 Hannah, xlix, 1. 1 Bibliog., p.277,inf. 18 ‘‘Athen. Oxon.,” III, 830.

256 Lawrence Mason,

the Errors of Opinions of Many in their Days, concerning some of the
highest and chiefest Duties of Religion, viz. Adoration, Almes, Fasting
and Prayer,” 1647 (republished 1661—2). That this work was anti-
Puritan in tone is avouched by Monson’s whole life (for though some
of his publications savor more of toleration than of sectarian partisan-
ship, still Laud spoke very well of him; cf. Laud’s “Works,” 1857,
VI, 82, and VII, 225; furthermore, he was severely handled by the
Puritans) and especially by the fact that it was published anony-
mously and dedicated by means of a private monogram, only. (Cf.
p. 242, footnote I, sup., and p. 270, inf.). (2) King’s favorite
patristic authority was ‘“‘Nazianzen,”’ or Gregory of Nazianzus, one
of the four great Fathers of the Eastern Church. Now this Gregory’s
chief claim to greatness lies in his defence of Athanasianism and the
Nicene Creed against Arianism,’ at Constantinople about the year
380,? and in his famous five discourses on the Trinity directed espe-
cially against the Eunomians and Macedonians.? Surely this par-
ticular Father would be one of the first to commend himself to an
enthusiastic Church of England man, and one of the last to appeal
to a Puritan. (3) The friendship and repeated commendations of
Izaak Walton would hardly have been accorded to one weak in the
faith. (4) First through his intimacy with Bishop Duppa and then
by the exiled Charles II’s own appointment, he played an important
part in some efforts made to prevent the threatened extinction of
episcopacy or rupture of the apostolic succession, as the following
quotations from pp. 41—43 of his funeral sermon over Brian Dippa,
in 1662, show; and though he testifies in his own behalf here, the
public nature of the occasion made it absolutely impossible for him
to attempt any mis-statement or deception: “He [Duppa] was
alwaies so faithfull to God in the service of His Church wherein He
liv’d, that He never receded from His first Principles in any slackness
either towards Hir Doctrine or Hir Discipline. Insomuch that His
Sacred Majesty desirous to preserve the Succession of His English
Church, & sensible of His Bishops Decay, Most whereof were Dead,
& Those Few who remaind not likely to last long, was pleas’d to
commit this Trust principally to His Solicitation. In discharge
whereof how industrious He was, some who yet live know, and none
better than My self, who was His only associate in several travels
undertaken to bring it to effect.

1 Cf. pp. 229—30, sup.
eee Oso Cy deriolly Ibm ins} y IEE oyey-t-
3 Encyclo, Brit.) 2club Ede och 5 63¢

Life and Works of Henry King. 257

“° Tis true, divers waies were propounded, yet all found dangerous,
Under the Inquisition we then liv’d, both to the Undertakers and the
Actors.

“His Majesty therefore at last thought of a safer & more certain
Expedient, to call over to Him Two of the remayning Bishops, who
joyned to a worthy Praelate residing with Him in His Exile might
Canonically Consecrate some of Those eminently deserving Divines
who then attended Him ; Thus Preserving the Order in a Few, untill
God gave opportunity to fill up the other Vacancies.

“This desire was by a trusty Messenger sent over by His Majesty
communicated only to Five ; whereof (I shall not Magnifie my Office
to say) My self was One, who in the integrity of my Conscience can
profess that in the willing acceptance of this Summons I never
declin’d any hazard when I might doe the King my Master or the
Church Service. But great Age and greater Infirmity denying the
concurrence of any One of the Rest (though otherwise most ready)
that designe fell: And God hath in the Miraculous Restoration of
His Sacred Majesty Restor’d the Church to that Luster wherein
(blessed be His Name) you now see it.

“He in whose presence I here stand bears me record, I mention
not these Circumstances to any other End than my Soveraign’s
Honour ; For it is not fit so meritorious an Act should be conceal’d
and smothered, but that all might take notice how Carefull He was
to Preserve and Support the Church, at that Time when in His Exil’d
condition He could not well Support Himself.’”’ This was dangerous
service, with no prospect of reward, and none but a staunch Anglican
would have undertaken it. Furthermore, Hannah (lxiii) records
the fact that in 1657 King actually ordained a minister, despite the
Protectorate’s enactment forbidding it. (5) Henry King’s Will,
dated July 14, 1653, and probated in the same form at his death in
1669, would naturally express his solemn conviction stated as in the
sight of God when all concern for this world had been laid aside;
and yet in 1653, when Puritanism was flourishing without any
conceivable likelihood of overthrow, this was what he set down of his
religious beliefs :1 ‘I was bred up in the reformed Protestant Church
of England,” wherein, as by his vouchsafed goodnes I was an vnworthy

1 Taken from Hannah’s copy of the certified transcript, cviii, cix.

* The almost bigoted orthodoxy of John King must have affected his
son, and traces of influence are not wanting. Nazianzen was a favorite with
the elder King (cf. Manningham’s Diary, 71, and Nichol’s Commentaries,
321); his ecclesiasticism is the pattern for his son’s (Nichol, 327 ff.) ; and

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 18 Novemper 1913.

258 Lawrence Mason,

minister, and after, through the benignitie of my most royall Master,
King Charles the First, advanced to the highest order in the Church
of Chichester, soe I professe my selfe to dye a sincere member of the
English Church, confessing in my last breath, that shee, as well for
the purity of her doctrine as the decencie of her ceremonies and dis-
cipline, in neither of which suffered any Tainte for those malignant
extreames of Popery or Puritanisme, was the most Orthodox, and,
untill these unfortunate tymes darkened her lustre, the happiest
Church that, since the Apostles dayes, the Christian world hath
knowne.”’ Now there was no reason for his making any such dec-
laration unless he strongly believed it. For his own sake and for
his heirs’ sakes, it would have been far more politic simply to avoid
any mention of religion at all so long as he could not conscientiously
profess Presbyterianism. The same sort of testimony is afforded
by the last paragraph of the Preface to his version of the Psalms.
(6) Finally, his sermons betray no trace of Puritan doctrine. Here,
if anywhere, he might be expected to reveal the opinions which he
is supposed to have cherished, but nowhere is he other than vehemently
hostile to Puritanism. At two Periods in his life, especially, has he
been taxed with heterodoxy, (a) after the Restoration, when his
discontent over his failure to receive promotion was alleged as reasoli
for his disaffection, and (b) shortly before his elevation to the see of
Chichester, when his selection was alleged to have been due to his
Puritanical leanings. But, on the contrary, these are the facts:
(a) In the sermon on Duppa, 1662, he vigorously denounced the
Puritans, pp. Ig—21, 26—28, while on p. 13 this sentence appears :
“Indeed the World is now in it’s Dotage Creepled and Bed-rid, In
the last and worst Age: So that had it not some few sound Crutches
to support it, some few Pillars [i. e., loyal Bishops] not eaten in by
the vices of the Time, nor Canker’d by those Opinions which madly
fly about, not only to the disfiguring our Churches Decency and
Order, but the shaking and undermining even Her Fundamental
Truths, It could not subsist.’’ His Visitation Sermon, Oct. 8, 1662,
is one long plea for seemliness and the proprieties ; in Church services
and in questions of faith or doctrine, “ Let all things be done decently
and in order,” is his repeated exhortation. So there is no shadow of
justification for Wood’s charge, here. The paragraph on Milton,
also, shows no sympathy for Puritans in 1665.1 (b) The charge based
on his supposed attitude before his election to the Bishopric is equally
groundless, as is proved by the following synopsis of his Inauguration

several of Henry King’s most vigorously pro-Anglican poems show indebted-
ness to John King’s sermons. 1 °Ch pp. 25%, "N.7S; AaB:

Life and Works of Henry King. 259

Anniversary sermon. delivered March 27. 1640; this is the sermon
which Hannah was unable! to find a copy of, and his regret was very
proper, for had he been able to examine this sermon he must have
arrived at the conclusion here asserted, that it definitely overthrows
and nullifies Wood’s often-quoted charge. It may be briefly summar-
ized as follows: pp. I—Io, an extreme, almost violent, vindication
of the Divine Right of Kings—with incidental thrusts at Papists
and Nonconformists ; II1—I9, a vigorous justification of absolute
Monarchy ; 20-29, an energetic assertion of a King’s superiority
to both Papacy and Presbytery, with praise of an Established National
Church whose head is the King ; 29—38, a glorification of a King’s
duties and powers, as against the peoplc’s rights—with some harsh
words for Knox, Puritanism, and Jesuitism ;* 38—41, a vivid picture
of the evils of rebellion and anarchy, “‘whiles they goe about to whelme
the Kingdome over the King” and “Everyman did what was good
in his own eyes”’ (these pages, like many others in this sermon, were
singularly prophetic) ; 42—59, a eulogy of Charles I as the wise head
of the Church, dispenser of Justice, rebuilder of St. Paul’s, founder
of the Royal Navy, and noble example of piety—with excursus,
44—47, on the purity and true Apostolic succession of the English
Church. To tax the author of this sermon with Puritanical leanings
is a mere meaningless absurdity ; for if he was so consummate a hypo-
crite and liar as to cherish Presbyterian beliefs in spite of his language
here, how could he ever have betrayed those beliefs in such a way
as to make them “generally”’ known ?

To sum up, then, an examination of all the evidence produces so
overwhelming a sense of probability as to amount to absolute certitude
that Henry King was perfectly and literally orthodox. His sermons,
his religious verse, and his life unite in proving him a staunch up-
holder of Anglican doctrine. His instinct was all for system, estab-
lishment, orthodoxy. He was a sound adherent of organization—
exalting the Letter above the Spirit, assent above conviction—one
whose religion was ecclesiasticism: the Church qua Institution, the
Bible gua Clerical Code of Law. In short, so far was he from any
taint of nonconformity that it is almost just to say of him that he
was more a Churchman than a Christian.

This sketch of Henry King’s biography clearly shows that no
extravagant claims can be made on his behalf. He was not one

app. klix, CxEV..
2 On p. 34 occurs this pithy declaration: ‘The Schismatick is a Thorne
in the sides of the Church, the factious a Thistle in the State.’’

260 Lawrence Mason,

of the dominating personalities of his age. But his associations
with greater men, such as Donne, Walton, and Hooker, his relation to
‘“‘Fikon Basilike” and the preservation of Episcopacy, together with
the light which his experiences cast upon the inner history of these
stirring times, make him a figure not to be overlooked by any student
of the period. His chief interest and importance to-day, however,
are undoubtedly due to his literary productions; he is admirably
fitted to stand as the representative of the little known but number-
less and characteristic minor writers of the seventeenth century,
and it is from this point of view that the accompanying somewhat
detailed Bibliography has been prepared and is herewith presented.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF HENRY KING’S WRITINGS
Part onE: MANUSCRIPTS.

I. COLLECTED POEMS’ «

1. Malone MS. 22, in the Bodleian. This is a well preserved little
volume, in fine clear script. King’s poems fill ff. 4-45v; on fol. 1,
in a later hand, are various ascriptions to ‘Dr: H: King”; ff. 2v
and 46 contain nonsense and doggerel fragments, in different hands ;
and scattered throughout are curious comments apparently written
by the early suffragist who defiantly subscribed her name, “Eliz.
Dottin Her Book,”’ immediately beneath her departed husband’s (?)
“Henry Dottin His Book,’ on fol. 3. The doggerel on fol. 2v is
violently anti-matrimonial, and those of the comments that are not
fatuous banalities have an unctuous feminist tone. The comments
are written in French, by one quite ignorant of the language, who
seemingly culled the words from a Glossary one by one with total
disregard for syntax and inflection. For instance, after the Epigram
at the botton of fol. 31v.,! is written this edifying sentiment: “La
femme qui voudriez aimez Elle ne scauriez dire que Elle-aimez” ;
while after the next two poems are inscribed these illuminating
comments: ‘‘Nous [query: sc. “‘ne . . . pas” ?] devez croyez tout
qui nous entendré,” and, ““‘un Chanson pour un L’amour que peut
le trover.”’—This MS. volume contains fifty-six of the seventy-three

1 “T would not in my love too soone prevaile :
An easy Conquest makes the purchase stale.”’
— After Petronius’ ‘‘ Satyricon,” Cap. 15.

Life and Works of Henry King. 261

poems included in the editio princeps, and five new poems or new
versions. It is evidently an early compilation, for no piece is in-
cluded that can be dated after 1633, and some of the pieces are evi-
dently earlier versions of the finished poems printed in 1657.

2. ““A MS. copy in the possession of Mr. Pickering,” or “the larger
MS. volume.” This is the MS. with which Hannah collated his
Edition of King’s poems, in 1843. If Hannah’s account ot it is correct
and complete, it contained sixty of the seventy-three poems printed
in 1657, one of the four added in 1664, and six others as well as a MS.
sermon (cf. p. 283, inf.). This collection is certainly later than the
Malone MS. vol., for it includes several poems that can be definitely
dated in 1637 or later ; the latest of all was added in a different hand,
according to Hannah (1xi, footnote), and so need not affect the earlier
date of the rest. Certain poems belonging in the 1640’s, however, are
missing, and there are the same early versions of certain others ; so,
though later in date than the Malone MS. vol., this collection too must
have been made some fifteen years before the editio princeps appear-
ed. This invaluable MS. has disappeared ; and its recovery seems
hopeless, for the exhaustive efforts that have been made to bring it to
light have proved vain. This laborious investigation produced only
one promising result ; for, finally, an appeal in “N. & Q.”, XIS., v.V,
p- 468, brought a response in XI S., v. VI, p. 32, which gave an appa-
rently hopeful clue: a MS. volume of King’s poems, there described,
was said to have been sold at Sotheby’s rooms Dec. 9g, 1900. Two
letters to Sotheby produced the curt statement that the catalogue
of sales at that period is in the British Museum. A _ professional
copyist looked up the catalogue and found that Dec. 9, Ig00, was a
Sunday, and researches under Dec. 9 in other years yielded no return.
So this tantalizing clue has proved to be worthless, and the status quo
has been resumed with a second appeal to ‘“N. & Q.”, published XI S.,
mv LT, “p. 189.

3. “King (Henry) ? (15911669) Poems written between 1610
and 1646, beautifully written MS. (166 pp.) bound in blue morocco
extra, joints and g. e., small 4to. 1646. 75 pieces: 2 on Bishop John
Kong.” This is the description in “N.-& Q.,” XI S., v. VI, p.-32.-
It cannot refer to the particular MS. volume sought for as set forth
above, originally owned by Pickering and used by Hannah, for that
contained only 67 pieces, according to Hannah’s account ; and surely
so careful an editor as Hannah would not have passed over, without
mention, at least two poems not elsewhere preserved (for the edztio
princeps contained only 73 pieces), one of them being a new poem
about Henry King’s father.

262 Lawrence Mason,

4. (2) It is quite possible that James Howell referred to a fourth
collection, in the extract from his letter, referred to on p. 245, sup. ;
but the point is not susceptible of investigation.

As stated above (Biog., p. 245, N. 3), some other codices might
almost be included here ; but, on the whole, it seems best to consider
them in the following Class.

Il. SINGLE POEMS OR SMALL GROUPS.

Inasmuch as this bibliographical sketch is concerned only with
Henry King’s own writings, and not with the writings of others
about him, no attempt has been made to tabulate here all the MSS.
consulted or cited in the course of the present work. Thus, for exam-
ple, no mention has been made of the “‘ Historical MSS. Commission
Reports,’ Hunter’s MS. “Chorus Vatum,”’ or Bishop Kennet’s
MS. collections. The following is simply a list of-the various MSS.
containing versions of one or more of King’s poems :+

A. The Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Ashmole MSS. 36; 38.

Malone MSS. 16; 2r.

Rawlinson MSS. D. 90* ; D. 317; D. 398; D. 912; D. 1092; F226;
F. 84; F. 160; F. 206; F. 213*; Misc. 699*. [MSS. marked
by an asterisk contain one or more of the Doubtful Poems, only ;
i. e., poems where King’s authorship is possible or probable,
but not reasonably certain.] :

Tanner MS. 465*.

B. The Library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
C. C. C., Oxon., MSS: clxxvi: 285 cccxxyiii "66 and go:

C. The British Museum, London.

Additional MSS. 6931; 11,811; 15,227; 17,062; 18,220* ; 19,268 ;
21,433; 22,118 22,582; 22,588; 22,602; 22,0035 s25neeen
25,303; 25,707; 27,408; 30,982; 33,998; 37,717.

Burney MS. 390.

Egerton MSS. 923; 2013; 2421* ; 2603* ; 2725.

Harleian MSS. 351I; 3910; 6057; 6917; 6918 ; 6931.

Lansdowne MS. 777.

Sloane MSS. 542; 1446; 1792; 2142*.

1 Certain MS. Letters, which should properly be listed among the MSS..,
have been included in Part Two of this Bibliography for the sake of the
convenience of considering all King’s Letters in a single group; consequently,
Part One deals with his Poems alone. (Cf. Note 2, p. 280).

Life and Works of Henry King. 263

Part two: PRINTED BOOKS.
I. ENGLISH POEMS.

1. “An Elegy Upon the most Incomparable K. Charls the I.
Persecuted by two Implacable Factions, Imprisoned by the One,
And Murthered by the Other, January 30th 1648.’ 20 pp.. The
poem was subsequently reprinted in small octavo form and bound
up with the other additional Elegies in the 1664 re-issue. Low ndes
(‘‘Bibl. Manual,’ 1860, 1273) mentions the sale of a copy of this
small quarto pamphlet.

2 A DEEPE GROANE FETCH D AT the FUNERALL of
that incomparable and Glorious Monarch, CHARLES the First,
King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, &. On whose Sacred
Person was acted that execrable, horrid & prodigious Murther,
by a trayterous Crew and bloudy Combination at Westminster,
January the 30. 1648. (Motto). Written by D. H. K. (Device).
Printed in the Yeare, M.DC. XL. IX.” This poem enjoyed three
printings in 1649, the second being ascribed to “I. B.” and the third
being anonymous. The proof of King’s authorship (which Hannah
was very reluctant to admit, cxxvii) depends upon Wood’s unqualified
attribution, upon the numerous contemporaneous MS. ascriptions,
and above all upon the internal evidence of style and of parallelism
with King’s other poems and his Sermons. Several copies of the
various editions are preserved in the Bodleian and the British Museum.

3. “POEMS, ELEGIES, PARADOXES, and SONNETS. Lon-
don, Printed by J. G. for Rich: Marriot and Hen: Herringman,
and sold in St. Dunstans Church-yard Fileet-street, and at the New-
Exchange. 1657.”

The other two title pages, substituted when the unsold copies were
later re-issued,” are as follows:

“POEMS, ELEGIES, PARADOXES, And SONETS. (Device)
London, Printed for Henry Herringman, and are to be sold at the
Anchor in the lower-walk in the New Exchange. 1664.”

“Ben Johnson’s POEMS, ELEGIES, PARADOXES, AND
SONNETS. (Device). London; Printed, and Sold by the Book-
sellers of London and Westminster, 1700.”

The devices of the last two and the marginal figured borders of
all three, are different ; and to the copies beating the 1664 title page,

1 Dates on the title | pages, etc., have been avesenved in their printed form,
when a direct quotation of the original has been given; otherwise the O. S.
reckoning has been modernized, throughout the present work.

SCE, p. 245:

264 Lawrence Mason,

thirty-eight pages of Additional Elegies are affixed. Otherwise, in
all essential matters, all copies are identically the same throughout.

The origina] volume of King’s poems was so “very rare’’ a century
ago that Bliss thought it worth while to add a specimen from it to
Wood’s account of Henry King ;! naturally, the book is not less rare
to-day, and therefore a brief census of the copies examined in the
course of the present investigation may not be unacceptable.

(a) With the 1657 title-page ; in the Bodleian Library, at Oxford ;
shelf-number, Arb. 8° A 16 BS. On the title-page is written in
contemporaneous MS., “by Phil: King vid. p. 83.” [On page 83
occur the lines ““To my Sister Anne King.’’] This copy is in good
condition.

(b) With the 1664 title-page; in the Bodleian; shelf-number,
Malone 443. ‘“‘Edmond Malone” appears in MS. on the fly-leaf, and
several textual emendations in MS. occur throughout the book.
This is a poor copy : the printing on many pages (especially among the
additional Elegies) is badly askew, the ink is badly blotted or blurred
on several pages, corners are missing, etc. ~~

(d) With the 1657 title-page ; in the Library of the British Museum,
in London ; shelf-number, 1076 b. 13. On the title-page these words
are written, in early attempted black-letter script: “by, Dr. Henry
King.”” There are several MS. comments scattered through the
volume. This is an exceedingly poor copy: it is much damaged by
water throughout, both covers are loose, the pagination is hopelessly
awry, and many pages are missing.

(e) With the 1657 title-page; in the British Museum ; shelf-number,
E. 1656. The volume is bound up with Howell’s ‘‘Som Sober In-
spections made unto the . . . Late-long Parlement,” etc., 1655.2 This
is a perfect copy, except for certain depredations in the lower margin
committed by book-worms ; but in no case is the text injured.

(f) With the 1664 title-page ; in the British Museum ; shelf-number,
1I,623.aa.26. Many interesting and valuable MS. notes are included
in this copy ; aside from a lengthy investigation of the identity of the
anonymous author, which finally concludes in favor of Henry King,
the following are the most striking items: the inscription “Ann
Howe King”’ at the top of the second fly-leaf, verso, with this comment

1 “Athen. Oxon.,”’ ed. Bliss, 1815, III, 842—3.
2 Sidney Lee gives only two dates for this work, viz. first publication in
1653 and re-issue in 1660. (‘‘Dict. Nat. Biog.” xxviii, 111.)

Life and Works of Henry King. 265

below it in a different hand, “I purchased this Book of Dan. Prime
Oxon, it was from the collection of L. Chedworth’s ancestors, who were
related to the Kings, & the above Ladies name appears in very many
of those Books.’ This copy is beautifully bound (by C. Lewis, as
a MS. note informs us), and is in perfect condition.

(g) With the 1664 title-page ; in the Library of Yale University,
in New Haven; shelf-number, In K582 657b. This copy is in good
condition, except for the fact that several marginal printed scholia
are defective where the leaves have been evenly cut for binding.

(h) With the 1664 title-page ; in the possession of the present writer.
This copy contains the bookplate of Francis Edward Freeland ;} it
is in perfect condition, except for the loss of the first blank fly-leaf.

(i) With the 1700 title-page ; in the Library of Columbia University,
in New York; shelf-number, B823 K58. There are a few MS. notes
on the title-page and elsewhere, such as the inscription, “See Westn
Book Election 1608’; this is obviously a reference to Welch’s “‘ Alumni
Westmonasterienses,” p.77. This copy is handsomely bound, and is
in perfect condition except for some clipping of the marginal sidenotes.

Three important questions remain to be considered in connection
with this edition : the first, in regard to the authorship of the volume,
has long since been satisfactorily settled; the second, in regard to
the significance of the three different title-pages and dates, is here
for the first time fully discussed and demonstrably settled: while
the third, in regard to editions other than any now extant, has hereto-
fore received little or no attention.

First, in regard to the authorship, Wood’s doubts were soon dis-
missed,” and since his time no one of any importance has ascribed the
volume to Philip King.? The printing of several of the poems
over Henry King’s signature in various collections before 1657,4
together with the testimony of Howell’s letter® and various MS.
ascriptions, as well as the argument based on his signed Sermons,®
puts the matter beyond the need of any further investigation.’

1 Presumably the “F. E. Freeland, Esq., of Chichester, who favored’
Hannah “with many useful communications’? (Hannah’s Preface, iv), and
who was related to the Mr. William Freeland whom the present writer inter-
viewed in Chichester, in Ig912.

2 “ Hist. et Antiq. Univ. Oxon.,” 1674, 281; ‘“‘Athen. Oxon.,”’ 1692, II, 308.

aSCt ops 244: SCE p. 245, Note 2, sup:

SCE ps 245. Ne 53. Sup: S-Ci-p: 253 Ne 3, int,

? This, of course, refers to the authorship of the volumeas a whole. Prob-
lems in connection with the authorship of various single poems require
special treatment.

266 Lawrence Mason,

The attribution to Jonson is equally futile and more absurd, in view
of the poems entitled “‘To my Sister Anne King” and ‘‘To my dead
friend Ben: Johnson.’’!

Secondly, in regard to the question as to whether these three dif-
ferent title-pages and dates represent one edition or three, the evidence
is again conclusive. To begin with, one copy has been described
(Bibl. Anglo-Poetica,”’ 183) in which, by a careless oversight, the
1657 title-page was not removed when the spurious 1700 sheet was
inserted. Moreover, the prefatory address from “‘The Publishers to
the Author” continues to be signed by the same printers, regardless
of the altered announcements on the 1664 and 1700 title-pages.
Furthermore, the same typographical errors occur in all (e. g., two
pages numbered 139, but none 137; “‘lad”’ for “laid,”’ p. 32, line rr),
even the slips noted in the original list of “Errata” (and the mis-
print in that very list itself) remaining uncorrected. And finally,
a very minute collation has been made for the present undertaking,
with somewhat peculiar results. More than fifty slight mechanical
irregularities have been noted, such as the following : “‘sh’’ below the
lme in “‘Prentiship,’ 4, line 12; “s’’*below the line in ~Dheams?
21, line 3; defective alignment and comma in “loves,” 25, line II;
blot in “ill,” 28, line 15; defective spacing in “your,” 31, line 16;
defective “i’’ in “Ship,” title at top of 49; “I’’ above thesimemn
“Ts,” 94, line I ; period missing at end of 141, line 18, etc. In these
points all copies agree, regardless of their title-page. But the follow-
ing differences occur, each copy being referred to by the letter
assigned to it in the list printed on pages 264—265, above: in
the numbering of page 26, the 6 is above the 2 in (a), below in (g)
and (i) ; in the catchword “But,” at the bottom of page 39, the “t”
is below the line in (a) and (g), above in (i) ; the “r”’ in “Through,”
72, line 12, is invisible in (a), gone save for a dot in (g), but faintly
present in (i) ; the “‘st’”’ in ““most,”’ 73, line 19, is slightly blotted in
(a), clear in (g) and badly blotted in (i) ; the numbering of page 113
is perfect in (a) and (i), but represented by a single figure I in (g) ;
the ‘1’ in ‘‘shall,” 135, line 21, is above the line in (a) and (i), below
in (g); etc. Furthermore, just as many differences will be found
between (g) and (h), i. e. between two copies bearing the same title-
page, as between (g) and (a) or (g) and (i); e. g., “ill,” 28, line 15, is
blotted in (g), unblotted in (h) ; ““ With,” the catch-word at the bottom

1 For an account of this ‘‘clumsy”’ and “‘stupid’’ attempt at deception,
cf. ““Censura Literaria,’”’ 1807, V, 50, or ‘‘ Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica,”’ 1815,
183.

Life and Works of Henry King. 267

of 141, is blotted in (h), unblotted in (g) ; “nd” in “ And,” catch-word
at the bottom of 43, defective in (g), perfect in (h) ; “st” in “most”’
73, line 19, blotted in (h), unblotted in (g) ; numbering of page 113
defective in (g), perfect in (h); etc., etc. In general, the differences
are trifling ones—dependent upon the chances of ink and paper and
hand-presses, while the identities are striking and conclusive—ex-
plicable only on the assumption of a single edition. Minute variations
of this sort have been commented upon by Professor George P. Baker
in an article on “‘Some Bibliographical Puzzles in Elizabethan Quar-
tos,” printed among the Papers of the Bibliographical Society of
America, Vol. IV, 1910; he there argues for the recognition of the
existence not only of distinct Versions within a single Edition, but
also of individual sub-Versions within a single Version, due to the
varying degrees of care with which different compositors replaced
defective type. All this may well be true, but it certainly does not
follow from some of the evidence which he submits: e. g. “charge,
comma very faint in C, D: trace only, A: absent, B”’; “Bag. The
stop is faint in A: hardly a trace, C: no trace, B, D.”’ The more
natural and probable inference to be drawn from such data, and
from the similarly minute variations just recorded above, surely
is that the printing presses of those days were far from perfect and
hence the copies of a single Version might well exhibit such slight
differences as these owing to the mere looseness of the mechanical
operation. At any rate, neither separate Editions nor distinct
Versions can be claimed for Henry King’s volume of poems, on the
basis of such evidence.

Thirdly, the question as to whether there were ever any other
editions of King’s poems, no longer extant, or at least no longer
generally known, deserves more attention than it has yet received,
for the existence of such editions would go far toward proving that
Henry King was not so totally unappreciated and neglected in his
own day as his later biographers and critics have been prone to as-
sume.! There are three pieces of evidence here: (I) the statement
of the Publishers about “‘the present attempts of others” and “their
false copies of these Poems”’; (II) Park’s statement (‘‘Cens. Lit.’’,
V, 51) corroborated by Lowndes (“Bibliographer’s Manual,’ Bohn’s
ed., 1864, III, 1273), to the effect that ““To some copies of bishop
King’s poems are affixed elegies on his death”’ ; and (III) this specific
statement, hitherto unnoticed, by one of the MS. annotators in copy

i Cf, -p. 245, Sup.

268 Lawrence Mason,

(f) listed above :! “I have had anor [another] Edit. of this Book,
in wh there are neither Paradoxes or Sonets.’’ While various theories
may be advanced to explain away these statements, taken singly, it
is here contended that taken together they fairly establish a reason-
able possibility that some edition of King’s poems has been printed,
other than any now generally known to exist.?

4. “POEMS and PSALMS by Henry King D D sometime lord
bishop of chichester edited by Rev J Hannah BA fellow of lincoln
college MDCCCXLIII Oxford : Francis Macpherson London : William
Pickering.” iv + cxxx + 223 pp. This is the standard critical
edition of King’s work, so far as it goes, and will always remain a
noble monument to its editor’s scholarship and an invaluable assist-
ance to the student in its field. Unfortunately, it is not complete ;
and Hannah’s promise on the first page of his Preface, “the re-
mainder of these Poems must be left for a separate volume, which
will be published without delay,” was never fulfilled. It is perhaps
worth noting that this was the second time that King had been
balked of a promised complete editing, for Park explains (‘‘Cens.
Lit.”’, V, 51) that he refrains from copious quotation “as an entire
republication is intended by Mr. Gilchrist.”” A third such intention,
as yet unfulfilled, is Professor Saintsbury’s (““Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit.,”
rg11, VII, 467). Hannah’s edition is out of print to-day and is not
easily to be obtained.4

1 pp. 264—5,; this MS. scholiast shows himself, in other notes, too well
versed in matters bibliographical to be dismissed as a mere irresponsible
blunderer.

2 Wood (‘‘Athen. Oxon.,’”’ III, 841) makes this further statement about
English poetry by King: ‘‘ Dr. Henry King hath compos’d several anthems,
one of which, for the time of Lent, beginning thus, Hearken O God, &c. was
composed to music by Dr. John Wilson, gentleman of his majesty’s chappel.”’
This “‘anthem”’ appears on p. 139 of ‘‘Poems, Elegies, Paradoxes, and
Sonets.”” Consequently, the others of these ‘‘several anthems”’ were prob-
ably included in the same volume (e. g., at p. 147); or else, Wood was re-
ferring to the additions to King’s psalter (p. 270, inf.) among. which
this ‘“‘ Hearken O God”’ first appeared, or to the paraphrases of Psalms CX XIV
and CXXX appended to the stricter versions in his psalter. But there is,
perhaps, a bare possibility that there really were ‘‘several’’ other “‘anthems”’
by Henry King which have disappeared with this mysterious other edition.

3 Grosart (op. cit., p. v) somewhat querulously calls Hannah’s work an
“erudite but provokingly fragmentary edition of a true poet.”

4 Of the present writer’s three copies, one, which has been deposited in
the Library of Yale University, bears this autograph presentation inscrip-
tion: ‘“‘Rev. M. Pattison with the editors’ thanks.”

Life and Works of Henry King. 269

5. ‘‘The Exequy and Other Poems, by Henry King, D.D.”’ Published
by Thomas B. Mosher, Portland, Maine, in ““The Bibelot”’ for March,
1897, Vol. III, No. 3, IV + 26 pp. But ten poems are included,
with a reprint of Hannah’s nine extra stanzas on the model of “Sic
Vita”’ and the previously unnoticed variant from “ Britannia’s Pasto-
rals.””’ Small 4to, in paper covers.

6. “JOHN DONNE Selected Poems HENRY KING Elegies, etc.
IZAAK WALTON Verse-Remains.” Published by J. R. Tutin,
Cottingham near Hull, in “The Orinda Booklets,” V, 1904. 63 pp.,
16 of which are devoted to King; 12 poems are included. Small
8vo, bound in paper or cloth.

Il. METRICAL VERSION OF THE PSALMS.

1. ‘‘The Psalmes of David from the New Translation of the Bible,
Turned into Meter. To be sung after the Old Tunes used in ye Chur-
ches. Sing Unto the Lord a New Song Psal: 96: 1. London printed
by Ed: Griffin. 1651.” This title-page, finely engraved by Vaugh-
an, was supplemented in the original edition by a second printed
title-page to this effect: ““The Psalmes of David, From The New
Translation of the Bible Turned into Meter: To be Sung after the
Old Tunes used in the Churches. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. In Bap-
tismo.! “H dadyodia ch” 7 Sexton, cig exdvOev buvwding moooturov.
Psalmorum Cantillatio, cum qua accipieris, illius Hymnodiae prae-
ludium, &c. Hippolyt. Episcop. Orat. de Consummat. Mundi, ex
versione Jo. Pici. Temporibus Antichristi Psalmorum decantatio
cessabit. London, Printed by Ed. Griffin,.and are to be sold by
Humphrey Moseley, at the Princes Armes in St. Pauls Church-yard.
1651.”’ On the back of this sheet appears the formal sanction of the
licenser: “Jan. the 7th 1650. Imprimatur. John Downame.
Allowed of by the Company of Stationers.” Preface, 3 unpaged
leaves ; text 2372 pp.; followed by three additional unpaged leaves,
containing several hymn-tunes, and a list of errata, entitled : ““Some
Errours of the Presse are thus amended.” 12 mo.

In the British Museum copy (shelf-number, E. 1280) and the two
Bodleian copies (8° F. 2. Th. B.S. [where, incidentally, the engraved
title-page faces the other, instead of merely preceding it], and 8° P.
28. Th. Seld.) the pagination is strangely awry in this sequence:

1 Not “‘Baptisma,’’ as Hannah prints it.
2 The statement in ‘‘ Bibl. Anglo-Poetica,” p. 446, assigning to this edi-
tion ‘‘pp. 302”’ is a mystery—if it be not a blunder.

270 Lawrence Mason,

168, 169, 166, 167, 172, 173, 170, 171, 176, 177, 174, 175, 180, 181, 178,
179, 184, 185, 182, 183, 188, 189, 186, 187, 192, 193, etc. Regardless
of this confusion, however, the text runs right along, in proper order ;
even the page-headings are undisturbed. The only slip is at the
bottom of p. 181, where the catch-word is given as “ Psal. cii”” when
it should be “Psal. xcvii.”” This error, however, is not due to the
faulty pagination, inasmuch as on no page would such a catch-word
be correct ; for Psalme cii begins in the middle of a page, viz. 188.
At p. 107, the page-heading is printed “ Psalme xli”’ instead of “ Psalme
xi.” In addition to overlooking these various peculiarities, Hannah
failed to notice that there are two versions not only of Psalme cxxx,
but also of Psalme cxxiv. The Preface was signed only by a mono-
gram, during King’s lifetime ; but this idiograph seems to have been
a recognized means of idemtification with Henry King, for it appears
in some of his autograph letters and in several MS. copies of various
single poems, and a book was dedicated to him by means of it,! even.
This British Museum copy is bound in calf, and on the cover is stamp-
ediineilt- ““Gitt of G. Til.” “

As in the case of his “Poems, Elegies, Paradoxes, and Sonnets,”
so heie too, after a few years Henry King’s work received a new title-
page and certain supplementary poems, and was then re-issued as
a new edition. The third title-page (which is found between the two
others, in the copy catalogued 3434. b. 13. in the British Museum)
duplicates the second, except for the following additions or emen-
dations : “‘Unto which are newly added the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed,
the Ten Commandments, with some other Ancient Hymnes. . .
London, Printed by S. G. and are to be sold by Humphrey Moseley
at the Princes Armes in St. Pauls Church-yard. 1654.’ Among
the “other Ancient Hymnes”’ thus included is a piece subsequently re-
printed among the poems in the 1657 volume, on pp. 139—40, namely
the above-mentioned? “anthem” beginning, “‘Hearken O God.”
The hymn-tunes also are supplemented, as well as somewhat changed
in order and title; and a new table of “Errata” is added which to
some extent enlarges and improves upon the earlier list, but to a greater
extent falls short : for some of the “‘Errours’’ formerly noted are now
disregarded, while none have been corrected in the text. The text,
in fact, is unaltered throughout : the faulty pagination between pages
169 and 192, and the other defects described above, remain in the
same condition. So the volume, like the ‘‘1664”’ and “‘1700”’ copies

1 Cf. “N. & Q:” 2d Series, [X, 388; 432, 4925 — Basti Oxon, ia:
4i> and ci. pp 242, Niet 255,250, supe
29Ch p. 268, Nvwoyesupe

Life and Works of Henry King. 271

of the “Poems”’, is obviously a re-issue, not a new edition. The
British Museum copy is nicely bound in dull claret-colored leather,
with marbled fly-leaves, and bears the book-plate of “Henry Francis
Lyte”’ ; there are some MS. notes by different hands attributing the
volume to Henry King. The various different title-pages, lists of
Errata, and extra leaves appear in various unhappy combinations
in various copies.
2. A genuine Second Edition appeared in 1671; Henry King’s
name appears in full on the title-page and at the end of the Preface.
The two 1651 and the 1654 title-pages are not included, and there
is now a frontispiece! presumably due to Playford, since he used it for
many others of his publications, viz.: David, in royal robes, seated,
with crown and harp and upturned eyes, shone upon by rays in-
scribed “‘Gloria Deo’’: the whole being entitled, “Cantate Domino
Cantict Nouvm Psal 95.’’ But one version (the second) is given of
Psalm cxxiv, and but one (the first) of Psalm cxxx. The pagination
is correct where it was defective in the earlier printing, but new errors
appear in the numbering of page Io and in this garbled sequence :
2249225, 200, 210, 220, 221, 222, °223,-224, 225. Consequently,
though the last page of the text is numbered 232 and Hannah gives
that as the total number of pages included, there are really 240 pages
in the text of the Psalms here.2 Again, the headings of Psalms
and Pages are correct where they were faulty before, but new errors
of the same sort appear on pp. 36, 71, 90, 91, 216, and 223. The
Errata noted before are corrected in this printing, but several new
slips appear. This Edition, however, is not so poor a piece of work
as Hannah asserts ;# on the whole, it is an improvement on the other.
It is now an octavo. In the British Museum copy (catalogued 3433.
b. 20), seven Errata are corrected in ink in the text and recorded in
pencil on the rear fly-leaf. Finally, on the half-page below Henry
King’s signature at the end of the Preface, the following announce-
ment is printed: “‘Advertisement. There is published newly a book

1 Unknown to Hannah; his several inaccuracies in describing this edition
seem to be due to the fact that he himself never saw a copy (as is implied
in his statement on p. cxxx and in his footnote to p. 215) but had to rely upon
the Lambeth Palace Librarian’s report on the copy in the Archbishop’s
collection ; this copy (catalogued 94. I. 31) happens to be imperfect, further-
more, for the front cover and frontispiece are missing.

2 The number given in ‘Bibl. Ang.-Poet.,”
includes the Preface and the additional leaves containing ‘‘Hymns of the
Church.”

2 CXXX.

viz. ““pp. 246’’, evidently

272 Lawrence Mason,

Entituled Psalms and Hymns to Solome Musick in Four parts upon
the common tunes Used in Parish Churches, wherein is a perfect
Direction to! the Use of this excellent Translation of Bishop King :
which Book is to be Sold by John Playford at his Shop in the Temple.”
The volume thus advertised Hannah was unable to find ;? Professor
G. H. Palmer, of Harvard University, also sought it in vain, as will
presently appear; and as it not only is exceedingly rare, but also
really constitutes a third edition of Henry King’s psalter (at least, a
partial edition or selection), it seems worthy of somewhat detailed
description :

3. ‘Psalms & Hymns in Solemn Musick of Foure Parts On the Com-
mon Tunes to the PSALMS in Metre: Used in Parish Churdjes.
Also Six HYMNS for One Voyce to the ORGAN Zor God is King of
allihe Garth, Sing ye Praises with Understanding, Psal. 47.7. By
John Playford. (Device: miniature of frontispiece described above, ®
set in a musical border or margin.) London, Printed by W. Godbid
for J. Playford, at his Shop in the Inner-Temple. 1671.” The title-
page is preceded by ‘‘A Hymn on the Divine Use of Musick,” un-
signed, and followed by Playford’s Dedication “To the Reverend,
Learned and Pious William Sancroft, Doctor in Divinity, and Dean
of St. Pauls London:” On the three following (unnumbered) pages
is printed ‘The Preface,” in which traces of King’s own “Preface” 4
and of Fuller® are evident. The last two paragraphs here alone con-
cern us: “Many have attempted 1t [1. e. rendering the Psalms] by their
more refin'd translations, but as yet none of them received tnto publick
use; amongst which, Two lately published, viz. one by the Right Reverend
Pious and Learned Dr. Henry King Late Lord Bishop of Chichester,
(whose memory, as obliged, I ever Honour.) The other by that worthy
Gentleman, Mr. Miles Smith. yet Living: Both these Translations of
the Psalms into Metre, for Elegancy of Stile, Smoothness of Language,
and sutableness to the Musical Tunes, far excell the former ; and it were
to be wished, that one of these Translations, (if Authority thought fit,)
might be allowed and used in our Churches : And this may be easily done,
It being the custom at this time for the Clerk to read every Lite to the

”

1 Not ‘‘for,’”” as Hannah prints it.
2 cxxix, footnote; his conjecture there is not borne out by the facts, for
this volume does not contain the “‘ Penitential Hymne”’ or either version of
Psalm CXXX.

Slips ilk.

4 Containing strictures upon Sternhold and Hopkins, with some discussion
of scriptural translation in general.

5 “‘Church Hist.,’’ ed. Brewer, 1845, IV, 72—4.

Life and Works of Henry King. 273

People before it is Sung ; who may without any disturbance, Inform the
Congregation. that according to a more refin’d Translation, they are to
sing such a Psalm, the Common Tunes agreeing exactly to these as they
did to the old.

Wherefore some few Psalms out of these two Translations I have
made use of in this Book; and some other excellent Translations of
several Psalms which were never printed till now. To those which are
Bishop Kings there is H.K. Those of My. Smiths, M.S. Those with
G.H. are supposed to be Mr. George Herberts:1 Most of the Hymns
were Collected out of an unknown (but no doubt a Pious and Religious)
Author.’ Then, after four (unnumbered) pages devoted to “A Table”’
of first-lines and tunes, follow 97 pages of Psalms and Hymns,
both words and music. The signature ““H. K.” is appended to the
following : “Te Deum,” “Magnificate,”’ ““The Lords Prayer,’ “The
Ten Commandements,” and Psalms 57, 16, 12,143, 26, 63, 84, 95, 47,
98, 118, 34, 121, 146, 150; these are not collected in one group but
appear at intervals throughout the book in the order given. Finally,
the book closes with two (unnumbered) pages of Index, and a last
page containing a Canon for the first verse of Psalm 115, announce-
ments of four of Playford’s publications, an “‘ Advertisement,”
and a Device or Colophon. If the date and contents of this book did
not prove it to be the one referred to in the “‘Advertisement”’ at the
end of the “Preface” in the Second Edition of King’s “ Psalms,’
this new “‘ Advertisement’’ would settle the question, for it is a cross-
reference to that Edition, reading as follows: ‘There is now in the
Press, and will be finished within a few weeks, That excellent Trans-
lation of the whole Book of Psalms into Metre, to be Sung to the Com-
mon Tunes in Parish Churches, By the Right Reverend Father in
God Henry Late Lord Bishop of Chichester; And are Sold by John
Playford at his Shop in the Temple.” The British Museum copy
(catalogued K. I. I. 19) was a presentation copy, for this inscription
appears on the fly-leaf : ‘To the Rt Hon?! Francis North his Majesties
Solicitor Generall This is humbly presented By John Playford’’;
and on the reverse of the title-page is the bookplate of “The Right

1 Professor G. H. Palmer, in his elaborate edition of George Herbert
(1905 ; III, 406— 419) prints from Grosart (“ Fuller Worthies Library : George
Herbert,” 1874, II, 30—42), for he himself had not been able to consult the
book, the five Psalms and the Gloria marked with the initials ‘‘ G. H.’’ Grosart
is somewhat inaccurate in his transcription of title-page and preface, and
Professor Palmer is of course unable to correct him.

2 pp. 271-272, sup.

Trans. Conn. Acapv., Vol. XVIII. Ute) Novemper 1913

274 Lawrence Mason,

Hon Francis North Baron of Guilford 1703.” The volume is
a thin folio.

There is a tempting opportinity to claim a “fourth” edition, for
Henry King ; but the evidence is so slight that bare possibility, and
not probability, is all that can be maintained. The facts are these :
Playford, in his ““The Whole Book of the Psalms: with the usual
Hymns and Spiritual Songs. ... London... . 1677’! (British
Museum copy, catalogued M.C. 6; Library of the Archbishop at
Lambeth, 75 B. 12), inserts on the last half-page of the “Table,”
at the end, notices of five ‘Books of Divine Musick, lately Printed,
and sold by John Playford at his shop near the Temple-Church.”’
The fourth of these five ““Books’’ is thus announced : “A New and
Excellent Translation of the Psalms into Metre, by the Right Reverend
Dr. Henry King late Lord Bishop of Chichester, according to the
Measures of the Common Metre, fit to be sung to’all our Common
Tunes, designed for the Publick Use of the Church, and the Private
Use of Families. In Octavo. Price bound 2s.’”’ This announce-
ment does not appear in later editions of ‘‘The Whole Book of the
Psalms,’’? but it suffices to raise and leave unanswered the question
as to whether it is merely an advertisement of the Second Edition,
“lately printed,’’ or the title-page of a new edition printed between
1671 and 1677. The only real bit of evidence in support of the latter
hypothesis is the word ‘‘Octavo,” for while the Second Edition has
been described above as an octavo (on the authority of the British
Museum Catalogue for 1890), the book is called a duodecimo on page
183 of “Bibliotheca Anglo-Poetica” (1815) ; unhappily, the present
writer made no note on this point in his own examination of specimens
of the Second Edition, and there are of course two (often conflicting)
bibliographial methods commonly employed in this connection :
a book may be called 8vo, 12mo, etc., on the basis of the biblio-

1 In his preliminary ‘‘Advertisement’’ and “Preface,” Playford drew
freely on King and Fuller again,—with the usual lack of acknowledgment.
The frontispiece is the same, except that the plate has been framed with
the music and Latin words of the ‘‘ Gloria in Excelsis,”’ “‘ Gloria Patri,’’ and
two Psalms. King’s versions of the Lord’s Prayer, Creed, and Ten Com-
mandments are included, but the text of the Psalms is that of Sternhold
and Hopkins, with some emendations.

2 E. g., a 1692 printing, wherein the Preface borrows still more from
King’s, and a 1700 printing, which simply reproduces the 1692 volume ;
the work was very popular, for the British Museum Catalogue includes
fifteen editions (or, at least, fifteen differently dated title-pages) within
60 years.

Life and Works of Henry King. 275

grapher’s general impression of its size and appearance, or it may be
more technically rated on the basis of the actual folding of the
leaves. In the present case, it seems likely that Playford and the
British Museum cataloguer used the technical method while the com-
piler of “Bibl. Ang-Poet.’’ used the impressionistic, and that all three
were referring to one and the same volume, viz. the Second Edition
of King’s ““Psalms.”” So, on the whole, the existence of a “‘fourth”’
edition may be considered to be barely possible, but not at all probable.

Ill. SERMONS.

rt. ““A Sermon Preached at Pauls Crosse, the 25. of November.
1621. Vpon occasion of that false and scandalous Report (lately
Printed) touching the supposed Apostasie of the right Reverend
Father in God, John King, late Lord Bishop of London. By Henry
King, his eldest Sonne. Whereunto is annexed the Examination,
and Answere of Thomas Preston, P. taken before my Lords Grace
of Canterbury, touching this Scandall.1_ Published by Authority.
At London, Imprinted by Felix Kyngston, for William Barret.
162r.”’ Dedication ‘‘To the Most Excellent and Illustrious Prince,
‘Charles, Prince of Wales,” two leaves. Text, John xv. 20. Sermon,
477 pp. Address “To the Reader,” 3 pp. “The Examination of
Thomas Preston, taken . . . Decemb. 20. 1621,” 5 pp. Finally, on
the last page, a short list of ‘Faults escaped in some Copies.’’?
[Bodleian, 4° A. 27. Th. B.S., and a second copy 49 K. 1. Th.; Lambeth
Palace, I00 G 25.]

2. ““Two Sermons. Upon the Act Sunday, being the roth of
Tuly. 1625. Delivered at St. Maries in Oxford. Psal. 133. 1.
Behold how good, and how pleasant tt 1s, for brethren to dwell together
im unitie. [The Arms of the University.] Oxford, Printed by I. L.
and W. T. for William Turner. Anno Dom. 1625.” Next follows
another title-page ;—‘‘ David’s Enlargement. The Morning Sermon
on the Act Sunday. Preached by Henry King, Inceptor in Divinity,

1 “Tn some copies, this clause is wanting in the title-page.’’—Hannah,
cxxiv. The present writer has seen none such.

2 In the description of these eleven Sermons (except in the case of the
2d ed. of the fifth, which he mishandles, the sixth, which he could not find,
and the 2d ed. of the seventh, of whose existence he was ignorant), Hannah’s
account has been closely followed, corrected by collation with one at least
of the copies consulted by the present writer; the shelf-numbers of these
copies have been added in brackets, with the name of the Libraries owning
them.

276 Lawrence Mason,

one of his Maiesties Chaplaines in Ordinary. Psal. 18. 36. Thou
hast enlarged my steps under mee, that my feet did not slip.” Text,
Psal. 32.5. The Sermon occupies 33 pages.—We have next a third
title-page ; ““Davids Strait. The Afternoones Sermon upon the Act
Sunday. Delivered by John King, Inceptor in Divinity, one of
the Praebendaries of Christ-church, in Oxford. Psal. 71. 20. Thou
which hast shewed me great, and sore troubles, shalt quicken mee againe
&c.”” The text is II Sam. 24.14. Sermon, pp. 43. [The pagi-
nation in this Sermon is faulty. Bodleian, 4° I 12. Th.]

3. “A Sermon of Deliverance. Preached at the Spittle on Easter
Monday, 1626. Upon Entreatie of the Lord Maior and Aldermen.
Published by Authoritie. And Dedicated to the Citie of London.
By Henry King D.D. One of his Maiesties Chaplaines in Ordinarie.
London, Printed by Iohn Haviland, for Iohn Marriot. 1626.”
Text, Psal. 9r. 3. Sermon, 80 pages. (Bodleian, Sermons (II),
and g Pamph. 979 (10).]

4. “Two Sermons Preached at White-Hall in Lent, March. 3. 1625.
And Februarie 20. 1626. By Henry King, D.D. One of his Maiesties
Chaplaines in Ordinarie. London, Printed by John Haviland, 1627.”
Dedication to King Charles, one leaf.—Text of first Sermon, Eccles.
12. 1. It fills 45 pages. Then a second title-page for the second
Sermon (on Psal. 55.6) which fills 34 pages. [Bodleian, Mar. 831 ;
Boston Public Library, 7450. 68 (8).]

5. ‘An Exposition upon The Lords Prayer. Delivered in certaine
Sermons, in the Cathedrall church of S. Paul. By Henry King
Archdeacon of Colchester, and Residentiary of the same Church.
Hieron. Epist. ad Laetam. Ovationi Lectio, lection succedat oratio:
breve videbitur tempus quod tantis operum varietatibus occwpatur.
London, Printed by John Haviland, and are to be sold by John
Partridge in Pauls Church-yard, at the signe of the Sunne. 1628.”
Dedication to King Charles, and Errata, two leaves. Then 365
pages. [Bodleian, 4° L. 35. Th.; Yale University Library, 28. 39,
an imperfect copy.] 3

The title-page of the Second Edition! differs in typography,
arrangement of details, and device; but the wording is the same,
except for the addition of the information, “The Second Impression,”
in the centre of the page, and this new printer’s notice substituted
for the old one: “LONDON, Printed by Anne Griffin. 1634.” The

1 Hannah is singularly inaccurate and inadequate in his account of this

volume.

Life and Works of Henry King. 277

Dedication! remains the same, but the list of “Errata’’ disappears
even though several of the slips remain uncorrected and some new
ones (especially in the page-headings) are introduced. The pages are
a little larger, but the number of lines in a page remains the same,
viz. twenty-five. The volume is extended to 373 pages by reason
of the insertion of new matter (unimportant elaborations, at pp.
corresponding to 74, 76, 77, and 80 in the First Edition) and the be-
ginning of each new division on a new page (whereas, in the First
Edition, each new division follows immediately after its predecessor,
with no waste of space). [Bodleian, 49 K. 24. Th.; and a copy is
in the possession of the present writer.]

6. “A SERMON PREACHED At St PAULS March 27. 1640.
BEING THE ANNIVERSARY of His MAJESTIES HAPPY
INAUGURATION TO HIS CROWNE. By HENRY KING,
Deane of Rochester, and Residentiary of St Pauls: One of His Majes-
ties Chaplaines in Ordinary. (Device, same as in the Second Edition
of the “Exposition,” viz. a flaming heart.) LONDON, Printed by
Edward Griffin. 1640.’" 59 pp., 4°. Text, Jer. z.10. [Bodleian,
Sermons 147 (this was evidently a presentation copy, for this legend
in MS. appears on the fly-leaf: ‘Dr. Bennet. Ex dono Authoris.’’) |

7. “A Sermon Preached at White-Hall On the 29th of May, Being
the Happy Day of His Majesties Inauguration and Birth. By Henry
L. Bp. of Chichester. Published by his Majesties Command. @. R.
London, Printed for Henry Herringman and are to be sold at his
Shop in the Lower Walk in the New Exchange. 1661.” Text,
Ezek. 21.27. Sermon, 36 pages. [Bodleian, Pamph. 113; British
Museum, 4466. e. 42.; Lambeth Palace, 44 E 4 (15)—Unknown to

1 The Dedication is interesting enough to be worthy of representation
here by a few sentences: “‘To the Sacred Maiestie of My Soveraigne Lord
and Master, King Charles. Most gracious Sir ; Though I have had two Masters,
I never had but one Patron. When by the direction of your Maiesties
Blessed Father, my first Royall Master, somewhat was done to disprove
that (since confessed) scandall, touching my Fathers Revolt from his Religion,
I then addressed my selfe to Your Princely protection, which You so lib-
erally afforded, . . . I confesse, this weake testimony of my service in Gods
Church, tooke life from the Example of Your Glorious Fathers worke (I
meane that excellent Meditation of his upon this Prayer) and my purpose
was to have dedicated it unto Him, as an humble acknowledgement of the
many gracious encouragements which I received from his owne mouth, in
the times of my Attendance on Him.”

2 This is the Sermon that Hannah failed to find; for a synopsis of it cf.

Pp- 259, Sup.

278 Lawrence Mason,

Hannah, a Second Edition of this Sermon was published in Tyne)
octavo ; Bodleian, G. Pamph. 1036 (109).]

8. “A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the R’ Reverend Father
in God Bryan, Lord Bp. of Winchester. At the Abby Church in
Westminster. April 24. 1662. By Henry L. Bp. of Chichester.
London, Printed for Henry Herringman, and are to be sold at his
Shop in the Lower Walk in the New Exchange. 1662.” Text, Psal.
116.15. Sermon, 44 pp. [Bodleian, Pamph. 110, 118; Lambeth
Palace, 44 D 12 (9).]

g. “ Articles of Visitation and Enquiry Concerning Matters Ecclesias-
tical: Exhibited To the Ministers. Church-Wardens, and Side-men
of every Parish within the Diocess of Chichester. In the first Epis-
copal Visitation of the Right Reverend Father in God Henry by
Divine Providence Lord Bishop of Chichester. London, Printed for
Henry Herrmgman. M. DC. LXII.” 14 pages,. in black letter.
[Bodleian, B. 7. 9. Linc.]

ro. ““A Sermon Preached at Lewis in the Diocess of Chichester,
by the Lord B? of Chichester, At His Visitation Held there, Octob. 8.
1662. London, Printed for Henry Herringman, and are to be sold
at his Shop in the Lower Walk of the New-Exchange. 1663.” Text,
Tit. 2.1. Sermon, 44 pages. [Bodleian, Sermons, 11; Lambeth
Palace, 77 H 6 (17).]

m1. ““A Sermon Preached the 30th of January at White-Hall,
1664. Being the Anniversary Commemoration of K. CHARLS
THE I, Martyr’d on that Day. By Henry King Lord Bishop of
Chichester. Printed by His MAJESTIES Command. LONDON,
Printed for Henry Herringman, and are to be Sold at his Shop in the
Lower Walk of the New-Exchange. 1665.’ ‘Text, II Chron. 35. 24,
25. Sermon, 43 pages. [Bodleian, Mar. 827; Lambeth Palace 44
D 12 (rt); New York Public Library, CI p. v. 103, No. 13.]

All these items, with the exception of no. g and the second editions
of 5 and 7, were first briefly listed by King’s earliest bibliographer,
Anthony a Wood.! Aside from these, various other Sermons by

1 “Athen. Oxon.,’”’ III. 839—841. Wood gives a brief title but no des-
cription of these pamphlet Sermons (all 4to, except the 2d ed. of 7), and
consequently fails to notice the interruption which gives two dates to 5.
So this paragraph should be quoted from the section dealing with the clause,
“Thy Kingdom come”’ (1st ed., to1—2, 2d ed., 104—5) : ‘‘ Methinkes I should
not goe on in this subject, and not allow Him, a roome in it; nor can we effec-
tually pray for the comming of Christs Kingdome, and not first, give Him
thanks for the comming home of our owne. Indeed our Kingdome shifted

Life and Works of Henry King. 279

King are referred to, but no record of the publication of any other
has been found by the present investigator.

IV. LATIN AND GREEK VERSE.

Wood mentions no examples of this class, while Hannah ? lists the
following : Latin verses in the [Oxford] collections on Prince Henry’s
death [1612] (Sig. Gz) ; on Bodley’s death [1613] (pp. 65—70) ; on
the Marriage of the Princess Elizabeth [1613] (Sig. K3) ; in Iacobi Ara
[1617] (Sig. E); in Annae Funebria Sacra [1619] (6 pages, ending on
Sig. R); and in Parentalia Iacob{1],® 1625 (Sig. 14); together with
Greek verses in the Collection on the Marriage of the Princess Elizabeth
(Sig. P3). To these items a few others can now be added: “In

place, our Iland swam from us and made an Inroad upon the Continent,
where awhile it stucke. Yea, our Hearts travelled from us, bound on a
voyage in which all our Hopes were adventured.’”’ In the margin beside
the text is this note in the First Edition, ‘‘The Prince his returne from
Spaine,”’ and this in the Second, ‘‘Prince Charles his returne from Spaine.
Oct. 6. 1623.’’ The reference is, of course, to the curious expedition of
Charles and Buckingham to Madrid, in furtherance of the projected Spanish
marriage (cf. Gardiner, ch. xliii—xlv), and consequently this date fixes the
period of King’s delivery of the first part of his ““Exposition.’’ The evidence
of the interruption occurs on pp. 242—3, Ist ed., and 247, 2d ed., in this
statement—which also shows that this series was delivered at intervals and
not on consecutive Sundays—: “‘I must confesse my selfe indebted for the
handling of this Text, betwixt the first part whereof & this hath passed so
large a time, that it is now become a stale Arrerage. And though the Con-
tagion which lately dispersed us, hath diminished many of those hearers
unto whom I was a Debtor, I am ready to discharge it to you, being desirous
to pursue my first intent (though some times by other service interrupted)
of going thorow the severall Petitions of this Prayer.’’ The reference here
is obviously to the London plague of 1625 ; that King avoided the pestilence
is shown by his proceeding B. D. and D. D. at Oxford on the 19th of May,
1625 (‘‘Fasti Oxon.,’’ II, 423), and by the dates and places of delivery of
Sermons 2 and 3.

1 Cf. p. 250 sup. ; also Letter 4, p.289, Appendix B; and Pepys’ “‘‘ Diary,”
ed. Wheatley, under July 8, 1660: ‘“‘The Bishop of Chichester preached be-
fore the King, and made a great flattering sermon, which I did not like that
Clergy should meddle with matters of state’’; and under Mar. 8, 1662; ‘“‘I
walked thither (i. e., to Whitehall) and heard Dr. King, Bishop of Chichester,
make a good and eloquent sermon upon these words, ‘ They that sow in tears
shall reap in joy.’”’

2 cxxili; his list has been slightly emended in the present work.
3 Hannah prints Iacobo; and omits the bracketed dates, throughout.

280 Lawrence Mason,

obitum sanctissimt viri Di. Dris. Spenser,” etc., 1614 ;1 6 Latin Epi-
grams, and r Greek Epigram, written to his Father, “Reverendo
admodum Christo patri, Johanni Episcopo Londinensi, Patri meo
benignissimo,” undated, in Rawl. MS. D. 398, ff. 243—244Vv, in the
Bodleian ;2 and a Latin “Epitaphium” for Bishop John King,
apparently in Henry King’s autograph, in Rawl. MS. D 398, fol. 195.3

V: LETTERS.

Wood mentions only two items in this class, the letter to Usher#
and the letter to Walton ;> Hannah adds only one more, the brief
note to Mr. Powell included in Appendix B, below. Of the items
which can now be added, three are given, in full or in part, in Appendix
B, and the others may be listed as follows: (4) a letter to Gilbert
Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, dated Feb. 21, 1666, at Chichester,
refusing to institute Francis Chaloner to the rectory of St. John’s,
Lewes (in Tan. MS., xly, fol. 64, in the Bodleian) ; (5) and (6) two

i Ras IS ce i =

1 Fourteen elegiac distichs (accompanied by a verse translation of all
but the last) found in the Bodleian, Rawl. MS. D. 912, fol. 305.

2 These items, with some of those in the next Class, properly belong among
the MSS. in Part One of this Bibliography ; but it seemed more convenient
and sensible to group them here with the rest of their Class.

3 In the MS. this ‘“‘Epitaphium”’ bears, on the reverse of the single torn
sheet, the fragmentary address, “‘To the Righ/M=? Henrie K/these,’’ and*so
was apparently submitted to someone else for approval, or was later found
and returned by someone else, for ihe address is ina different hand. Now
this ‘‘Epitaphium” is a duplicate, or probably the original, of the third part
of the inscription on the memorial ‘‘ Table” or tablet by John King’s grave ;
it differs from the carved version in only one particular—the reading “‘La-

pida”’ for ‘“‘lapidum’’, in the second line. ‘“‘ Lapida’’ makes better sense
but worse metre. In the MS. the second chronogram is complete, while
the first chronogram, the Anagram, and the text (Philip. I, 1, 2) are
represented only by fragments. The fact that Henry King wrote the
‘“Epitaphium’’ (and a careful study of the several letters undoubtedly
written by Henry King has perhaps qualified the present writer to rec-
ognize his chirography elsewhere) makes it possible that he also at least had
a share in the composition of the two longer inscriptions (Cf. p. 283,
inf.)—It should be stated that the whole ‘‘Table,’”’ with all the various in-
scriptions, is reproduced in full on p. 73 of Dugdale’s “‘ History of St. Paul’s
Cathedral,’’ London, 1716.

4 Originally printed as Letter cclxv in Richard Parr’s “Life of .... Usher,
Late Lord Arch-Bishop of Armagh,” etc., p. 567.

5 Too readily accessible in various editions and biographies of Hooker
and Walton to need reprinting here.

Life and Works of Henry King. 281

letters to the same, dated July 23 and Aug. 16, 1668, in behalf of
Thomas Wilkinson, vicar of Waltham St. Lawrence, urgently se-
conding his petition for a dispensation to hold the vicarage of Ickles-
ham (in Tan. MS. xliv, ff. 20 and 24).

VI. SPURIOUS OR DOUBTFUL WORKS.

Here may be briefly listed eight poems which will be printed in
full and their authenticity discussed in the ed. of King’s poems
to be published by the Yale Press; the first four are probably King’s
work, the last four probably not: ‘““A Contemplation upon Flowers,”’
“The Complaint,’ “On his Shadow,” “Wishes to my sonne John,
for this new and all succeeding yeares: Jan. 1. 1630,” “An Elegy
upon ye Kg of Swedens Death (1632), “On Sir Walter Raleigh.
by w. R.” “Doctor King his Farewell to the world,” and “Sleepe,
Pretious Ashes, in thy sacred Urne.’’?

W. C. Hazlitt has this entry at page 488 of his “ Handbook to the
Popular, Poetical, and Dramatic Literature of Great Britain,” Lon-
don, 1867: “Psalmi Aliquot Davidici in metrum Latinum traducti.
Cum Adiectione Decem Psalmorum ad notas suas Musicas (ut in
Anglicana Versione) compositorum. In usum Academiae, Oxoniae,
Excudebat Joannes Lichfield, Almae Academiae Typographus.
Anno Dom. 1630. Sm. 8vo 16 leaves.” He adds a list of the
authors, among whom “ King”’ appears ; and according to the General
Index, this King was Henry King. Now, inasmuch as the British
Museum copy (the title-page of which bears the MS. endorsement,
“Hic est liber Jo: Euelyni 1639” ; shelf-number, 3434. b. 38) shows
no dedication or preface and no Table of Authors, while the Psalms
(all in Latin) in the text are unsigned, Hazlitt’s unsupported assertion
is not enough to prove Henry King’s authorship, for Hazlitt is very
inaccurate in some other references to the King family.

Thomas Warton, in his ‘‘History of English Poetry,” ed. Price,
1840, III, 232, ascribes to ““Dr. Henry King, son of King bishop of
London,” a little volume called “The Surfeit. To A BC. London,
Printed for Edw. Dod, at the Gun in Ivy-Lane. 1656.” pp. 82.

1 Other poems (which must be classified as Doubtful here, because the
writer has been unable to verify the reference) are alluded to in this citation :
“In a book of William Slatyer’s elegies, dated 1619, are a ‘sonnet’ and
several other poems by Henry King, with the initials H. K. as signature.”” The
only work with this date by Slatyer inthe British Museum (shelf number, 1070.
1.1.) is called ‘‘ Pandionium Melos,” and consists of elegies and epitaphs on the
death of Queen Anne of Denmark, all apparently written by Slatyer himselt.

282 Lawrence Mason,

Warton’s assertion is unsupported and hasnot been generally accepted.
Hannah (xcvii) follows Malone in assigning the book to Henry King’s
youngest brother, Philip. The Bodleian copies, 8% C. 139 Linc.,
and Malone 497, are catalogued under the name of Philip Kinder or
Kynder, whose authorship one H. A. Evans is said to have demon-
strated in the ““Academy”’ for June, 1902.1 At any rate, there seems
to be no reasonable ground for believing that Henry King wrote
the piece.

A more serious attempt to augment Henry King’s bibliography
unjustifiably is the following entry in the catalogue of the British
Museum, under Henry King’s name: ““A Sermon Preached Before
the Kings Most Excellent Majesty at Oxford, by H. K. D. D. Oxford,
Printed for W. Web. 1643.” One copy of this sermon (shelf-number,
4474. d.) has the date “Mar. 16, 1642” substituted in early MS. for
“1643.”" A second edition (shelf-number, 4474. d. 85; same title-
page, except for addition of text, Psalm ci, 1, and this new publisher’s
announcement: “First Printed at Oxford for W. Web, and now
reprinted at London for G. T. and are to be sold in the old Baily,
1643.’’) is also credited to Henry King, in the catalogue of the British
Museum.? Unfortunately for the validity of this ascription, a second
copy of the First Edition (shelf-number, E. 93. (13).) is twice attri-
buted to Henry Killigrew elsewhere in the catalogue,—under “‘K.,
H.” and “Killigrew, Henry.” Hazlitt (‘‘Bibl. Coll. and Notes,”
4th Series, 1903, 213), without question or explanation, places it
among Henry King’s works, and to that extent supports the British
Museum’s first ascription. The Bodleian copy, however, is not
catalogued under Henry King’s name, and Wood did not assign it
to him. Moreover, Henry King, created Bishop of Chichester on
Feb. 6, 1642, would hardly have omitted his Episcopal rank from the
title-page and would hardly have been in Oxford during the first
weeks or months of his tenure of office (if ““ March 16, 1642”’ be correct,
or approximately so). Internal evidence is conclusively against the
assumption of King’s authorship : the homiletic method, the format,’
and the style are totally different from King’s ; the writer uses“ Isai’”’
as an abbreviation of “Isaiah,” where King always uses “Esai.”’

1 The present writer has been unable to verify this reference, and includes
it merely for the sake of what it may be worth to other investigators.
Cf, ‘“‘Shakspere Allusion-Book,’’ ed. by J. Munro, 1909, II, 65.

* This may be true no longer, for the present writer convinced the autho-
rities of the error, and a correction was promised in both cases.

3 Due, doubtless, to the new printer; but why should King have changed
his printers ?

Life and Works of Henry King. 283

or ‘‘Esay.”’ ; and there is a total absence of parallels to King’s poems,
whereas King’s genuine sermons are replete with obvious echoes or
sources of his poetry.

A MS. Sermon preached at the funeral of the Countess of Leinster,
who was buried July 3, 1657, is included in the larger MS. volume of
King’s poems, but in a different hand; and Hannah somewhat
reluctantly shows? that it cannot have been produced by Henry
King.

The two long Latin inscriptions on ie “Table” or marble slab
set up beside Bishop John King’s grave? might perhaps be claimed
for Henry King, inasmuch as his authorship of the accompanying
“Epitaphium”’ has been fairly well established above (p. 280, Note 3) ;
at any rate, it is reasonable to suppose that the eldest son had a
hand in composing these tributes, even if he did not produce every
line himself. Unfortunately they seem to be marked by bad Latin
and worse taste.

Finally, a professional copyist in London has transcribed this
note: “Catalogue of Western MSS. in Trin. Coll. Camb. By
M. R. James. 4 vols. (last, 1904). Letters by King, Bp. H., 699,
45.” These Letters are classified as ‘Doubtful’? merely because
the present writer has been unable to verify the reference and so
cannot absolutely guarantee their genuineness.

APPENDIX A.
An Epitaph:

Reade, twas a Berkley: birth, and bloud-are knowne

from Ancestours, the rest were all her owne

Rich, faire, and young; rare lines of grace to fall

upon one center: that unites them all:

all goods of body, fortune, and behinde

the chiefe endowments of a heavenly minde ;

These glorious stiles she made should be his glory

from whom they came; and all her life a story

her Trewant sexe might reade, and imitate,

whom she 2 CRs in eae as in fate; 10

2 SE his ist is, of course, ites further argument for Henry King’ s having
been the author of ‘‘Poems, Elegies, Paradoxes, and Sonets,’’ referred to
in Note 6, p. 265, sup.

Zeist slixs= 203. 237i pe a231,.sup:

284 Lawrence Mason,

each course she rann through, was a patterne sett
some coppyed vertue from her to begett ;
Childe, mother, friend, and wife, these states she past
proved her obedient, tender, sweet, and Chaste ;
15 Her Consort was, as was her soule Divine;
what greater Titles wooed her might repine,
she would devote herselfe to bee his bride.
whose calling wean’d her from all pomps and pride ;
But shee first wean’d herselfe, then chose that state,
20 a married Moniall orderd by her mate:
shee thought that thus much neerer heaven shee gott
by singling out a Guide from Levies Lott ;
There she a better Trinity enioyes
Leaves him for’s paines a Triade of her boyes,
25 goe now fond dames, and say here lyes interrd.
one that her soule ’fore all the world preferrd.

tae

An Elegie upon y® death of M”* Anne Berkley, wife to M” Henry King.

Hir Genial bed, enrich’t w* chastitie,
Was crown’d w* triumphes of fertilitie.
Children were sure, & frequent: eury year
By a new darling was seal’d currant here.
5 Hir Births were Almanakes ; & shee y® Root,
Prognosticated seasons by hir Fruit.
Thrice happy mother! who, w“out y® sunn,
Numbring hir blessings, knew y® year was done.
But now, these Mathematikes being lost,
10 Our seasons fail, our reckonings still are crost:
Now, since additions of new yeares wee lack,
Wee must bid our Astronomie looke back:
Where yet, three stars appear, three lovely Boyes ;
(Heav’n might have stil’d them still, their Mothers ioyes ;)
15 Two ran before to God, but pure & young;
Heav’ns mercy striving to p'vent their tongue:
They, they are gone; & now triumphant sing
Seraphike Carols to their glorious King.
But these poore litle ones, must mourne in blackes,
20 And wear vnknowne, bought sorrowes, on their backes ;
Till they grow vp to greifes; & hand in hand
Att once learne, how to weepe, & vnderstand :

Life and Works of Henry King. 285

Till they may say, ’Tis time: wee are of yeares,

To challenge our Inheritance of Teares.

Lend to those Orphanes, or lay out an Ey, 25
Some tender soul, till they can pay, & cry.

Yet stay. This shrine doth all those eys disdaine,
That cheat all funeralls, w® a forced raine
Eyes ready, that (like watermills for graines)
Can ebb, & flow, according to their gaines, 30
That rent out moysture, to each wealthy grave,
Where heires their pounds, freinds may their scruples have.
Vanish such easy shewres; w some full feast
Engendring, are lay’d vp, till they are prest
To serve att Funeralls: such greifes weep rheumes, 35
And for true sighs, vent onely stomach fumes.

Wishes to my sonne John, for this new, and all succeeding yeares:
SGiiai=2 5030.

If wishes may enrich my Boy,

my Jack, that art thy fathers Joy,
they shall be showr’d upon thy head
as thick as manna, Angells bread ;

And bread I wish thee, this short word
will furnish both thy backe and boord ;
not fortunatus purse, or Capp,

nor danaes gold-repienisht Lapp

can more supply thee; but content

is a large patrimony, sent to
from him who did thy soule infuse,

maist thou this best endowment use

in any state; thy structure is

I see compleate ; A frontispice

promising faire; may it nere bee 5
Like Jesuites volumes, where we see

Vertues, and Saints adorne the front,

doctrines of deuills follow on’t:

may a pure soule inhabite still

this, well mixt clay; and a streight will 20
By act by Reason, that by grace;

May Gemms of price maintaine their place

unr

286 Lawrence Mason,

in such a Caskett: For that list
Chast Turkois, sober Amethist,

25 that sacred breast plate still surround,
Urim, and Thummim be there found,
which for thy wearing I designe
that in thee Kinge and priest may Joyne:
As ’twas thy Grandsires choice, and mine

30 maist thou attaine John the diuine
chiefe of thy Titles; though Contempt
now brand the Clergie; bee exempt
I euer wish thee, from each vice
that may that Calling scandalize:

35 Let not thy tongue with court oyle flow,
nor supple language lay thee low
for thy preferment: make Gods cause
thy pulpits taske, not thine applause ;
maist thou both preach by line, and life ;

40 That thou liue well and Chaste, a wife
I wish thee, such as is thy sires,

a lawfull helpe ’gainst lustfull fires ;
And though promotions often frowne
on mareyed browes, yet lye not downe

45 in single bawdry ; impure monkes
that banish wedlock, license punkes ;
Peace I doe wish thee from those warres
which Gowne-men talke out at the Barres
some times a yeare; I wish thee peace

50 of Conscience, Country, and encrease
in all that best of men commends,
favour with God, good men thy friends ;
Last, for a lasting legacy
I this bequeath, when thou shalt dye

55 Heauens monarch blesse mine eyes, to see
my wishes crowned, in crowning thee.

1 This poem appears (unsigned) on ff. ro1v, 102, Harl. MS. 6917 (cf. Biog.,
245, N.3). If one of two details be emended, this piece may be unhesitat-
ingly assigned to King: we should read either “‘ Jan. 1, 1622 (or 3, or 4),”
in the title, or else ‘‘such as was thy Sires,’’. at line 41, p. 286. With either
of these alterations, the internal evidence would establish King’s authorship
beyond question. The other alternative is the hypothesis broached in the
Biog., pp. 238—239, that this poem is correct and authentic as it stands, and

Life and Works of Henry King. 287

APPENDIX B.
Letter 1

D'. Henry King, Bishop of Chichester, to Edw*. Bysshe, Esq.
Hitcham neere Maydenhead,
Jan. 22, 1656.
Worthy St,

According to y' desire (w“ to me is a command) on Mr. Dugdale’s
motion, I searched all the Papers I had left, to find some Notes long
since taken, concerning the Church of S* Paul. But through the
barbarous usuage of a wretched Committee at Chichester, I was not
only depriv’d of those, amongst severall collections of higher moment,
but denyed my owne Private Papers, w°" had bene the moniments
of my course in study through all my life.

These few scribled notions,? recalled to my memory, I have enclosed,
w perhaps may prove as unusefull, as uneasy to be read. From
w? meane test you may please to conclude how forwardly and wt"
what alacrity I wold serve you, did any faire occasion point out the
way. At my last being in London, for a day or two, I was to wait
on you, who (as y™ servant told mee) were abroad. I w* him left
my service, to y'self and worthy Lady, w I now againe tender
to yee both ; w® an acknowledgment of y' many undeserved favours,
especially that excellent Book, bestowed upon

cr
Your most faithfull and affectionate servant,

Hen. CHICHESTER.

the reference in 286, 41, concerns his second wife, mot Anne Berkeley. The
whole passage, 286, 40—46, certainly suggests the unromantic, utilitarian
kind of marriage which has already been inferred from other indications.
In this case, ‘“The Anniverse’’ must have been written only a very short
time before the second wedding; but, of course, “‘1630”’ in the title of the
present poem really means ‘‘1631”’.

1 Reprinted from pp. 317—8 of ‘‘ The Life, Diary, and Correspondence of
Sir William Dugdale, Knight .... Edited by William Hamper, Esq.....

Hondone: . 5%.) 1827’.

2 “An account of the repairs of the Cathedral in the times of James I.

and Charles I. amplified and used by Dugdale in his History of St. Paul’s,
p. 134” (footnote to p. 318, in Hamper’s “‘ Life,”’ etc. of Dugdale). In the
1716 ed. of Dugdale’s work this account fills pp. 137—145, Henry King’s
name appearing on pp. 138 and 141.

288 Lawrence Mason,

I beseech you remember my respects to Mr. Dugdale, whose in-
genuity and industry is to be much valued. If, w' the mention
of my Father buryed in the South Ile of the Church, you judge it
fit to insert that of my Father’s Great Uncle, Robert King, being
consonant to that of my Father, in the Survay of London, and
without imputation of vanity; I have a sequestred Person’s mite
to offer Mr. Dugdale, when he decyphers my Father’s Grave-stone.

To my much honour’d Friend Edward Bish Esquire, at the Office
of Armes, a little below the Doctors Commons. Present this.

Letter 2.1
Si.

Out of the apprehension of many kind favours, all w‘ were
crowned in y" last most friendly preposition, give mee leave to make
this acknowledgment and render y" my thankes. I know verbal
restitutions hold no proportion w® reall courtesyes, yet untill I may
be capable to serve y" in the last, y" must accept this pledge of my
affection. I was not unmindfull of y™ message to my Cosen Dun-
cumbe. Had St Rob’ Heathe kept his resolution, w“ failed, you
showld have understood more of a willingness to embrace y" motion.
St my deceased brother possessed a faire roome in y* opinion. If
y" please to allow mee his successour, I shall study wayes to declare
myself y™ affectionate frend and Servant, Hen: King.

London, Dec. 13, 1639.
My service to Mrs. Powell and all y™.
To my noble and much esteemed [Seal]
Friend
Mr. Powell at Fostell
Present this.

1 Hannah makes the following statements about this letter (xxxvili) :
““The conclusion of the following letter, which is now first published from
the original (in the possession of Mr. Pickering), undoubtedly bears reference
to his (i. e., Henry King’s brother, John) death; but I regret to say that it
is the only allusion contained in it which I am able to explain. If, as seems
very probable, ‘Fostell’ is an abbreviation for ‘Forest-Hill,’ the person
to whom it is addressed will be Richard Powell, (the father-in-law of Milton).”
On ‘“‘Cosen Duncumbe,” cf. Footnote 1, p. 242, sup. Sir Robert Heath’s
devout little autobiography (pub. by the Philobiblon Society, “‘ Bibliogra-
phical and Historical Miscellanies,’’ Vol. I, 1854) casts no light on Henry
King’s allusion. It is at least a peculiar coincidence, however, that the letter
(dated Aug. 30, 1649) affixed to this memoir in the original MS., written
apparently by a body-servant, private secretary, or humble friend of Heath’s,
should be signed ‘‘ David Powell.”

Life and Works of Henry King. 289

Letter 3.

(Henry King, Bishop of Chichester, to Gilbert Sheldon, Archbishop
of Canterbury ; April 23, 1666.]

.... When Y‘ Grace propownded my subscription to the Former
Aid [an appeal from Charles II, as appears from an earlier statement
in the letter], I willingly gave a Thousand Pounds w® is the Full
Revenew of my Bishoprick. Besides I gave 2001]. towards the
Redemption of Captives from Algiers. I shall now w* all alacrity
subscribe 5001. w“" is the half of my yearly in-come. And rather
than so Gratious a Maisters occasions shall suffer, I will put Myself
& Family to Boardwages and contribute what I thence save...

Letter 4.?

To the Most Reverend Father, Gilbert Lord Archbishopp of Canter-
bury His Grace— humbly present—
May it please your Grace!

Your letter of Jan: 25 intimates, that I am commanded to Preach
before His Majesty, the 28th of February next. Y‘ Grace likewise
requires that I should signify my obedience in undertaking it. I shall
(by the help of God) prepare Myself for that service, And Then
also render to Yourself that observance w is due from

My Lord!
Y' Graces most humble seruant

Hen: Chichester.
From Chichester.
Febr: 3: 1668.

1 This excerpt is taken from Tanner MS. xlvy, fol. 73.

* Taken from Tanner MS. xliv, fol. 80. This letter was written less than
eight months before Henry King’s death. No record of the Sermon men-
tioned survives.

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
TRANSACTIONS, VOL. XVIII.
PETRUNKEVITCH, ALEXANDER, Arachnida of North America. $1.40

pp. 1-137. (June, 1943.)

PETERSEN, WaLTER, Greek diminutive suffix TEKO-[EKH. 75
pp. 139-207. (Sept., 1913.)

Emerton, J. H., New England spiders identified since 1910. .25
pp. 209-224. (In the press.)

=I
Oo

Mason, Lawrence, Life and works of Henry King.
pp. 225-289. (Nov., 1913.)

Evans, A. W., Report on Hepatice, Yale Peruvian Expedition,
1911. (In the press.)

TRANSACTIONS OF THE

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

INCORPORATED A. D. 1799

VOLUME 18, PAGES 291-345 APRIL, 1944

Hepaticae: Yale
Peruvian Expedition of 1911

ALEXANDER W. EVANS, Ph.D.,

EATON PROFESSOR OF BOTANY IN THE SHEFFIELD SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY

TALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1914

”

banaue dae smh a

"Perit A Ceres ee oe

: nate Se «4 pe _ ~~
- mcs re
st ha en ’ =e
mJ ¥
Se enna ea ca eee ase

& 3
ee He 4 -0Eme at aS

at Ae noni: 278) oe ince

Preeti a ae ae Ae
Ric? 2 pean qahR wae

» \
é

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION : ‘ : 2 ; : : : : . 295
SPECIAL PART. ‘ ‘ : : : ; E : : . 298
Marchantiaceae : : : ‘ , : : : 5 . 298
Plagiochasma . : 5 : : . : : : . 298
Marchantia ' ; : : : ; : 4 ; . 299
Metzgeriaceae . j : é : ‘ : : : : . 299
Metzgeria . : : ‘ A : é j ‘ é . 299
Jungermanniaceae . s 5 . 3 : ‘ : 5 . 3802
Plagiochila . : : 3 : : 2 : . A . 302
Lophocolea : : . : : : : é : 5» alls:
Radula : ; : ; : ‘ : E : : Se cilia)
Porella ‘ : : : } : ; : : : . 314
Microlejeunea . : ; . ‘ , : - : S eran:
Taxilejeunea 3 : : : : : : : : . 315
Dicranolejeunea . ; : : : i , , : . 316
Brachiolejeunea . : : : ; : 5 : . 3825
Marchesinia ; : : : : : : 5 : . 326
Omphalanthus . - ’ : : . ee er : a 4320
Frullania . . é : : : . 326

INDEX TO GENERA AND SPECIES . : : : - . 3845

V.—HEPATICAE: YALE PERUVIAN EXPEDITION
OF “161
By ALEXANDER W. Evans, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1911, under the direction of
Professor Hiram Bingham, carried on extensive explorations in the
southeastern part of Peru. Although the main purpose of the Ex-
pedition was the accumulation of data on the Geology and Archeology
of the region, collections of invertebrate animals and of plants were
made by Professor Harry Ward Foote, one of the members of the
party. Instead of attempting to collect indiscriminately he wisely
restricted his attention to a few definite groups, and the group of
the Hepaticae was among those selected. The material of this group
comprises thirty-five packets, several of which contain an admixture
of two or more species. Thirty-one species in all, representing
fourteen genera, are in a condition to be identified. The specimens
came from seven different localities, namely: Cuzco (one species),
Huadquifia (three), Lucma (five), Ollantaytambo (two), San Miguel
(sixteen), Santa Ana (nine), and Urubamba (one). The following
information about these localities has been furnished by Professor
Foote. Cuzco, Ollantaytambo, Santa Ana, and Urubamba are all
well-known towns, the last three being situated on the Urubamba
River, which flows in a general northwesterly direction. Cuzco is
a few miles distant from the river and nearer its source. San Miguel
is a small district twenty or twenty-five miles below Ollantaytambo
and is not to be confused with the town of San Miguel in the north-
western part of Peru; Huadquiiia is a large estate lying a few miles
below San Miguel; while Lucma is a town on the Vilcabamba River,
a small branch of the Urubamba entering from the west a few miles
south of Santa Ana. Cuzco, at an elevation of 11,500 feet, is well
above the forest line, although a single species of tree was observed
there.. Urubamba, Ollantaytambo, and Lucma, at _ elevations
varying from 7,000 to 9,500 feet, are also above the true forest line,
in spite of the fact that several species of trees are of occasional
occurrence. San Miguel, Huadquijfia, and Santa Ana, at elevations
varying from 3,000 to 6,000 feet are all in a region which is either
forested now or has been in former times. The primary growth

296 Alexander W. Evans,

contains a large proportion of trees, but the secondary growth con-
tains few trees and many bushes. There seems to be little tendency
for the original species to reappear after deforestation, even if the
land is left completely uncultivated. The entire region explored
has a long dry season and suffers from lack of water.

The hepatic flora of the Andes, except at very high altitudes, is
rich and varied. It includes some of the largest and most conspic-
uous of the leafy forms, a great many smaller and less striking spe-
cies, and a fair proportion of thallose representatives. The number
of endemic genera is exceedingly small, Myriocolea Spruce (with one
species), M ytilopsis Spruce (also with one species), and Stephaniella
Jack (with two species) being the only ones known at the present
time. Most of the Andean species belong to large and widely distrib-
uted genera, such as Plagiochila, Radula, Porella, and Frullania.
The Lejeuneae, also, as in most tropical regions, ate numerous and
diverse. Certain genera, such as Gymnomitrium, Marsupella, Lopho-
zta, and Scapania, which are so richly developed in the arctic and
alpine districts north of the tropics, are either absent altogether
or very sparingly represented. In the present collection there are
three thallose species (one Plagiochasma, one Marchantia, and one
Metzgeria), nine Plagiochilae, five Frullaniae, and nine members
of the Lejeuneae. The remaining five species belong to the genera
Lophocolea, Radula, and Porella. Six of the species are apparently
undescribed ; the others include a number of widely distributed species
and a somewhat smaller number confined to the Andes. The geo-
graphical distribution will be more fully considered in connection
with the individual species. The type-specimens of the new species
will be deposited in the herbarium of the writer at New Haven,
Connecticut.

Several important works dealing wholly or in part with the Hep-
aticae of the mountainous portions of Mexico, Central America, and
South America, have been published, although nothing has yet
appeared which deals exclusively with the Hepaticae of Peru. The
following works have been of especial service in the study of Pro-
fessor Foote’s material, although numerous shorter papers have of
course been consulted:

Monracne, C. Florula Boliviensis. In d’Orbigny, A., Voyage dans
Amérique Méridionale. ‘7: 1—119, pl. 1-3. 1839. The Hepaticae
treated in this work were, for the most part, collected by Alcide
d’Orbigny during the years 1826—1833, in various parts of South
America. Among the species discussed forty-five came from Bolivia,
ten of which at that time were supposed to be endemic. Seven

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rorz. 297

of the Bolivian species are figured. The Florula is the first important
contribution to our knowledge of Andean Hepaticae and is even now
indispensable to the student.

GorttscuE, C. M., LiInpDENBERG, J.B.G., AND NEES von EsEnBECK, C. G.
Synopsis Hepaticarum. Hamburg, 1844—1847. This is the first
general account of the Hepaticae of the world and includes numerous
species from various parts of the Andes.

GortscHe, C. M. De Mexikanske Levermosser. Kongl. Danske
Vidensk. Selsk. Skrift. V. Naturv. og Math. Afdel. 6: 97—380,
pl. 1-20. 1863. This important work is based on the collections
of F. Liebmann, made in various parts of Mexico but mostly in
mountainous regions. About two hundred species are described,
quite a number of which range beyond Mexico into Central and
South America. Most of the plates, which are of a high degree of
excellence, are devoted to the large and difficult genus Plagtochila.

GortscHe, C. M. Hepaticae. In Triana, J., & Planchon, J. E.,
Prodromus Florae Novo-Granatensis. Ann. des Sci. Nat. Bot. V.1:
95—198, £l.17—29. 1864. Most of the species enumerated in this work
were collected by Alexander Lindig, during the years 1859—1861,
in the province of Bogota and in other parts of Colombia. With two
exceptions the species figured belong to the genus Plagiochila.

Spruce, R. Hepaticae of the Amazon and of the Andes of Peru and
Ecuador. Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 15: xi + 588, #/. 1-22. 1884
—1885. This remarkable volume must always remain a model for
the student of taxonomic hepaticology. It is particularly valuable
for its account of the Lejeuneae. The work is based on collections
made by its author during the years 1849—1862. The species figured
are selected from the various subdivisions of the Hepaticae.

Spruce, R. Hepaticae Bolivianae. Mem. Torrey Club1: 113—140.
1890. The collections forming the basis for this article were made
by H. H. Rusby in eastern Bolivia.

Jack, J. B., AnD StepHant, F. Hepaticae Wallisianae. Hedwigia 81:
11—27, pl. 14. 1892. The Hepaticae enumerated in this paper were
collected by Gustav Wallis, between the years 1860 and 1878, some
of them in the Philippines but the majority in Colombia and Peru.

STepHANI, F. Species Hepaticarum. 1898—1914. The latest work
dealing with the Hepaticae of the world. Four large volumes have
already appeared and the fifth, which will probably be the last,
is in course of publication. The work is issued under the auspices
of the Herbier Boissier at Geneva, the earlier parts having been
printed in their Bulletin and Mémoires and the later parts as aCom-
plément to the Bulletin.

298 Alexander W. Evans,

SPECIAL PART
MARCHANTIACEAE

I. Plagiochasma Lehm. & Lindenb.
1. Plagiochasma chlorocarpum (Nees & Mont.) Mont.

Reboulia chlorocarpa Nees & Mont. Ann. des Sc. Nat. Bot. II. 5:
70. 1836.

Plagiochasma chlorocarpum Mont. Fl. Boliv.; d’Orbigny, Voy.
dans l’Amér. Mérid. 72: 59. 1839.

Rupinia chlorocarpa Trevis. Mem. R. Ist. Lomb. III. 4: 437. 1877.
_ On earth, Ollantaytambo, 9,000 feet, July 31, 1911.

The species of Plagiochasma are in need of considerable study
before they can be considered well understood. The determination
of the present specimens, therefore, must be regarded as provisional,
more especially as the few capsules present are not in good condition.
P. chlorocarpum is one of the species characterized by minute epider-
mal pores. The type material was collected by Bertero, in Chile, in
1828, and the species has been reported also in Gay’s collections
from the same country. Apparently no other stations have been
recorded. Soon after the publication of P. chlorocarpum a second
species of the genus, likewise based on specimens collected by Bertero
in Chile, was proposed by Bischoff under the name P. validum.1_ This
species, which is recognized as valid by the authors of the Synopsis
Hepaticarum and also, much more recently, by Stephani, has been
reported from Bolivia as well as from Chile. Two Bolivian stations
have been recorded: Sorata, Mandon, by Stephani,” and the vicinity
of Mapiri, Bang, by Rusby.? If the descriptions given by Stephani
of these two species are carefully compared no essential differences be-
tween them are apparent, and it is possible that P. validum represents
a synonym of P. chlorocarpum. Unfortunately the question can not
be settled at the present time, although the writer has examined a
specimen of Bischoff’s plant in the herbarium of the British Museum
and has also seen Bang’s specimens in the herbarium of the New
York Botanical Garden. The latter are apparently the same as those
listed above from Peru, but the Bischoff specimen is sterile and so
fragmentary that no definite conclusion can be drawn from it.

1 Handb. Bot. Term. und Systemk. 2: 56. pl. 56, f. 2753. 1842.
2 Bull. de l’Herb. Boissier 6: 785. 1808.
3 Mem. Torrey Club 6: 129. 1896.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgrt. 299

The close relationship between P. chlorocarpum and P. peruvianum
Nees & Mont. has already been commented upon by Montagne.}
-P.chlorocarpum may be distinguished, however, by its dioicous in-
florescence and by its lack of apical innovations, the branching being
either by forking or by means of lateral adventive shoots. In
P. peruvianum the inflorescence is monoicous and apical innovations
are frequently seen. The original material of P. peruvianum was
collected by d’Orbigny in Bolivia and not in Peru, and no additional
collections have been reported.

Il. Marchantia L.

2. Marchantia lamellosa Hampe & Gottsche

Marchantia lamellosa Hampe & Gottsche; G. L. & N. Syn. Hep. 527.
1846.

On a dry earth bank, Cuzco, 11,500 feet, July 6, 1911.

The present specimens include two gemmiparous plants only and
are referred to M. lamellosa on account of the conspicuous scales,
which are deep purplish black in color and almost cover the ventral
surface. Unfortunately the absence of sexual branches and of
sporophytes makes a positive determination impossible. M./lamellosa
was based on material collected by Moritz in Colombia. It has
recently been recorded from Ecuador by Stephani, but apparently
no other stations are at present known.

MEPZGERIACEAE

Ill. Metzgeria Raddi

3. Metzgeria scyphigera sp. nov.

On apple wood, Urubamba, 9,500 feet, July 17, 1911. The same
species was collected by Barnes & Land at La Cima, Mexico, in lava
fields (but on wood), at an altitude of 9,800 feet, on October 14, 1908,
specimens received from W. G. Farlow. The Peruvian material
may be designated the type.

Yellowish green, sometimes tinged with blue, growing in depressed mats:
thallus when normally developed prostrate, repeatedly dichotomous, well-
developed branches about 1 mm. wide, mostly 0.9—1.5 mm. long between

1 Fl. Boliv.; d’Orbigny, Voy. dans l’Amér. Mérid. 77: 60. 1839.

300

Alexander W. Evans,

the forks, plane or slightly convex along the margins; costa bounded both
above and below by two rows of cells; wings mostly fifteen to twenty cells
wide, the cells thin-walled but with very minute trigones and occasional
intermediate thickenings, averaging about 40 X 30u and about 30u along

Figure I.—METZGERIA SCYPHIGERA
Evans

A. Tip of a gemmiparous thallus,

oe 40. B. Gemma at time of

separation, X 60. The figures

were drawn from the _ type
specimen.

‘slime-papillae),

the margins; hairs restricted to the
margin and to the ventral surface of both
wings and costa; marginal hairs some-
times abundant, sometimes very scanty,
straight or nearly so, mostly 100—120 uw
in length; alar surface hairs and costal
hairs similar but a little longer, the
surface hairs never abundant and often
absent altogether: inflorescence dioi-
cous: Q branch (known only from the
type specimen) obcordate, orbicular-
obovate, about 0.15 mm. long, bearing
a few straight marginal and surface
hairs: G branches (known only from the
Mexican specimens) sparingly produced,
globose, about 0.3 mm. long, usually
smooth throughout: gemmae numerous,
marginal, usually borne on more or less
ascending and tapering branches, limited
in growth and destitute of hairs (except
orbicular or oblong-
orbicular, about 0.15 mm. wide, concave,
about six cells across, bearing a few
rudimentary marginal slightly
displaced to the concave surface,
cell thick throughout and witha poorly
defined stalk. (Fig. 1.)

As pointed out by the writer a
few years ago the gemmae in the
genus Metzgeria! often yield char-
acters of specific value, and some-
times make it possible to distinguish
between closely related species. In

cilia
one

M. scyphigera the gemmae are among the simplest that have been

described.

In their development they agree in all essential respects

with the marginal gemmae of M. furcata (L.) Dumort., M. myriopoda
Lindb., and M. oligotricha Evans, a marginal cell becoming directly

the mother cell of a gemma without undergoing a preliminary division.

1 Vegetative Reproduction
f. 1—16. 10910.

in Metzgeria.

Ann. Bot. 24:

271I—303.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rorz. 301

A gemma at maturity consists of a circular or slightly elongated
plate of cells with a single apical cell and a short and often indistinct
stalk composed of two cells (Fig. 1, B). It is further characterized
by being distinctly concave and by bearing a few rudimentary mar-
ginal hairs, slightly displaced to the concave surface.

The germination of a gemma is very similar to that described for
other species. The concave surface becomes attached to the sub-
stratum by means of the rudimentary hairs, which grow out into
short rhizoids. The apical cell of the gemma then resumes its divi-
sions and gives rise to a flat strap-shaped thallus, which is at first no
wider than the gemma but which gradually becomes wider and differ-
entiates a costa. In rare cases the young plant undergoes a branch-
ing by an apparent dichotomy before the costa makes its appearance.
It is often quite impossible to determine where the gemma ends and
the young thallus begins, but sometimes there is a constriction at
the junction between the two. In some cases new marginal gemmae
arise, either on the original gemma itself or on the young thallus
while still in an undifferentiated condition.

The gemmiparous branches (Fig. 1, A) tend to differ more or less
from normal branches. They not only curve away from the sub-
stratum but totally lack hairs on both wings and costa. At the same
time the wings grow narrower and narrower until they may be only
three or four cells wide. With this tapering of a branch its growth
soon comes to anend. These modifications resemble somewhat those
found in the gemmiparous branches of M. fruticulosa (Dicks.) Evans,
but apparently they never pass beyond the stages described and never
reach the striking conditions sometimes seen in M. fruticulosa, where
the branch may lose its wings altogether and become reduced to a
radial costa bounded by cortical cells and growing at right angles
to the substratum. Whether these apparent differences are actual
or merely due to an insufficient supply of the new species can hardly
be answered at the present time.

In his Species Hepaticarum Stephani! describes two dioicous South
American species in which the scattered marginal hairs occur singly.
They agree further with M. scyphigera in the costa, which is bounded
both above and below by two rows of marginal cells and w hich bears
hairs on its lower surface. One of these species is M.chilensis Steph..,
of Chile and New Zealand, and the other is M. aurantiaca Steph.,
of Brazil. In M. chilensis, however, the thallus is almost revolute,
the pene are smooth on the lower surface, the cells measure 54 X 36m,

1 Bull. de ’ Herb. Boissier 7: 937, 938. 1899.

302 Alexander W. Evans,

and there are no trigones. In M. aurantiaca the wings bear scattered
hairs as in M. scyphigera, but the thallus is strongly convex, the
wings are only twelve cells wide, and there are no trigones. Stephani
makes no mention of gemmae in any of his descriptions.

JUNGERMANNIACEAE

IV. Plagiochila Dumort.

The genus Plagiochila is one of the largest genera of Hepaticae,
nearly eight hundred species being recognized by Stephani in his re-
cent monograph.! With but few exceptions these species are trop-
ical, and many of them seem to be exceedingly local in their distrib-
ution. In spite of their considerable size the species are extremely
difficult to determine, the differential characters being often based
on the type of branching present, the shape of the leaves, the number
and peculiarities of their teeth, the size of the leaf-cells, and the nature
of the local thickenings in their walls. The bracts and perianths
also yield characters of importance, but the determination of speci-
mens must often be made without the assistance of these organs;
in fact they are known in comparatively few species. It will be seen
at once that most of the differential characters used are subject to
more or less variation, and this of course adds appreciably to the
difficulties of gaining a correct comprehension of the species. The
present collection contains nine Plagiochilae in sufficient quantity
to warrant determination; five of these are referred to described
species, and the others are proposed as new. It is to be hoped that
this course will not add to the confusion already prevalent in the genus.

4. Plagiochila alternans Lindenb. & Gottsche

Plagiochila alternans Lindenb. & Gottsche; G. L. & N. Syn. Hep.
648. 1847. -

On earth, San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 1911; on a damp
rock, Lucma, 7,000 feet, August 7, 19141.

Plagiochila alternans was originally described from specimens collec-
ted by Liebmann in the province of Oaxaca, Mexico. It was after-
wards reported by Spruce from Bolivia, Rusby, and Costa Rica,
Hyde, and by Stephani from Venezuela, Funck. The Peruvian
specimens agree closely with the published descriptions and also

1 Bull. de ’Herb. Boissier II]. 2—6. 1902—1906.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rort. 303

with Gottsche’s! figures, except that the teeth on the leaves are more
numerous, numbering from sixty to eighty on robust leaves instead
of from twenty-five to forty. This is apparently due to the unusual
development of the plants and is hardly sufficient to justify their
separation as a distinct species. The present specimens bear a strik-
ing resemblance to large forms of P. asplenioides (L.) Dumort. and
especially to the variety major; in the common northern species,
however, trigones are always present in the leaf-cells and the teeth
are shorter and less spine-like.

5. Plagiochila andicola Mont. & Gottsche

Plagiochila andicola Mont. & Gottsche; Montagne, Ann. des Sc.
Ber. 1V..6: 187. 1856.

On live wood, San Miguel, 6,000 feet, July 24, 1911.

The sterile type material of P. andicola was collected by Jameson
at Quito, Ecuador, and apparently no other stations have been re-
corded. The present specimens agree with the published descriptions
except in two particulars, the plants being a little less robust and the
leaf-cells showing slightly larger measurements. According to the
descriptions the stems are 7—15 cm. long, the apical leaf-cells measure
18 w, and the basal cells average 36 x 27 w. In the Peruvian plants
the most robust stems are only 4 cm. long, the apical leaf-cells average
about 25 w, while the basal cells are about 45 « 28 w. These differ-
ences, however, are slight and the measurements compared are variable,
so that they afford no adequate basis for a specific separation.

Most of the Peruvian plants are sterile or reproduce by abundant
propagula of the usual type. But a few show male inflorescences,
which sometimes occur at the base of a branch and sometimes at or
near the middle. In other words the male branch always produces
normal leaves beyond the perigonial bracts. The latter, in the few
cases observed, are in about six pairs and are closely imbricated.
Instead of spreading obliquely, as do the normal leaves, they are sub-
erect and only the apical portion is more or less squarrose. As in
all typical species of Plagiochila the antical basal portion is strongly
inflated and delicate in texture. The rest of the bract approaches
a normal leaf in texture, except that the cells are a little smaller
(averaging about 16 w in the apical portion), and the thickenings
of the walls are less pronounced. When a well-developed bract is
spread out it is seen to be broadly ovate and strongly unsymmetrical

1 Mex. Leverm. pi. 7. 1863.

304 Alexander W. Evans,

on account of the dilated basal portion. It measures about 1 x 0.9
mm., and the three to five blunt teeth are restricted to the apical
region. Two or three antheridia are found in the axil of each bract.

Closely related to P. andicola, as Gottsche notes, is the Mexican
P. truncata Gottsche,! originally described from specimens collec-
ted by Liebmann in the Sempoaltepec region and afterwards found
by other collectors. In this species the apices of the leaves tend
to be truncate, although in some of Gottsche’s figures this condition
is not pronounced, and the teeth are longer and sharper than in
P. andicola. In P. subconveluta Gottsche”, another Mexican spe-
cies known only from a single specimen found by an unknown collec-
tor, the leaves are much like those in P. andicola and P. truncata,
but the postical bases are not dilated in such a way that they
forms crests.

6. Plagiochila Binghamiae sp. nov.

On rocks, Huadquiiia, 5,000 feet, July 30, 1911. Named in honor
of Mrs. Alfreda Mitchell Bingham, a patroness of the Expedition.

Yellowish or brownish green, not glossy, growing in loose mats: stems
mostly 2—3 cm. long and 0.3 mm. in diameter, more or less rigid, ascending,
simple or with an occasional branch, the branches obliquely spreading, almost
invariably intercalary, similar to the stem but often with somewhat smaller
leaves: leaves alternate, contiguous or loosely imbricated, widely spreading
(at an angle of about 75 degrees), somewhat convex, ovate, I.5—2.4 mm.
long, 0.9—1.2 mm. wide, narrowly decurrent both antically and postically,
antical margin somewhat revolute toward the base, slightly incurved to
slightly outcurved, entire, postical margin more or less involute in decurrent
portion and for a variable distance beyond, sometimes as far as the middle,
outwardly curved but not dilated at the base, entire or with a single tooth
in the outer part, apex broad and rounded with three or four scattered teeth,
the latter irregular, mostly four or five in all, usually three or four cells long
and three or four cells wide at the base, abruptly pointed ; leaf-cells averag-
ing 17u in the apical region, 28 X 19m in the middle, and 32 X 23u at the
base, walls thin but with distinct triangular trigones, one or two of the sides
usually bulging, intermediate thickenings few, oval, thickenings often con-
fluent, especially toward the base and along the margin; cuticle smooth:
underleaves minute, about 0.1 X 0.07 mm., deeply cleft almost to the base
into two to four cilia: propagula numerous, with small leaves: remaining
parts not seen. Fig. 2.

Although most of the branches in this species are intercalary
a terminal branch is occasionally produced and is of considerable

1 Mex. Leverm. 127. pl. 10. f. 1—4. 1863.
2 Mex. Leverm. 120. pl. 3, f.1—10. 1863.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1911. 305

theoretical interest. Apparently here, as in so many species of Plagio-
chila, terminal branches have been supplanted by intercalary branches,
and the appearance of a terminal branch is to be looked upon as a
reversion. It is perhaps associated with a vigorous growth and a
retention of ajuvenile condition,

much as in the cases described

by the writer under Cephalozia
bicuspidata (L.) Dumort. and

Lophocolea heterophylla (Schrad.)

Dumort.? A

Closely related to P. Bing- ['\
hamiae is a sterile Ecuador plant
B

collected by Spruce and described C)

by him under the name P. hypan- c=

tva In this species terminal PS ~

branches although infrequent are Sea

the rule rather than the excep- Figure 2.—PLAGIOCHILA BINGHAMIAE
tion. The leaves are similar in Evans

form to those of P. Binghamiae A. Leaf, dissected from the stem,
but the teeth, especially those X17. B, Cells from the middle of a
in the apical region, are longer leaf, X 300. C. Tooth from near the
gudesharper. The leaf-cells are 2P°* of 4 leat, X 300., The figures
characterized by less robust were drawn from the type specimen.
thickenings. In P. patentissima

Steph.,? a Peruvian species collected by Lechler at St. Gavan and
known to the writer from description only, the leaves bear from
eleven to thirteen spines, those near the apex being especially large
and acuminate. It differs further from P. Bighamiae in the size of
the leaf-cells, those in the middle of the leaf measuring 54 x 27 uu
and those at the apex 36 X 27 wu.

7. Plagiochila chinantlana Gottsche

Plagiochila chiantlana Gottsche, Mex. Leverm. 12. pl. 5, f. 1—7. 1863.

San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 1911.

The Peruvian material agrees pretty closely with the specimens
collected by Pringle at Patzcuaro, Mexico, and distributed by Under-
wood and Cook in their Hepaticae Americanae, No. 110. The species
was first collected in the province of Oaxaca, Mexico, by Liebmann.
According to Spruce it has been found also by Cross at San Sebastiano,
Colombia, but Stephani does not record its occurrence outside of Mexico.

t Ann. Bot. 26: 33. 1912. 2 Hep. Amaz. et And. 465. 1885.
3 Bull. de l’Herb. Boissier II. 2: 877. 1902.

306 Alexander W. Evans,

8. Plagiochila flavescens Gottsche

Plagiochila Guilleniniana 8 flavescens G. L. & N. Syn. Hep. 644.
1847.

Plagiochila flavescens Gottsche, Mex. Leverm. 148. fl. 7, f. 1—3.
1863.

On live wood, Lucma, 7,000 feet, August 7, 1911.

Originally collected by Liecbmann in the province of Oaxaca, Mex-
ico, and later reported by Jack and Stephani from either Colombia
or Peru, in their account of Wallis’s Hepaticae.1 The determination
of the material from Lucma is based on the figures and description of
Gottsche. The plants bear a strong resemblance to P. Guilleminiana
Mont., a species listed below, but are somewhat more robust. The
leaves, Moreover, are relatively broader, the dilated portion at the
postical base being very conspicuous and forming striking crests.
The leaves measure about 4 mm. in length (including the dilated por-
tions) and about 3 mm. in width. Leafy propagula are present in
abundance.

9. Plagiochila Footei sp. nov.

San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 1911. Named in honor
of Professor Harry Ward Foote, the collector.

Pale green, varying to brownish green, not glossy, growing in loose tufts:
stems mostly 3—6 cm. long and 0.35 mm. in diameter, more or less rigid,
simple or sparingly branched, the branches all intercalary, similar to the
stem but sometimes with somewhat smaller leaves: leaves subopposite,
distant to subimbricated, obliquely spreading (at an angle of about 45 de-
grees), strongly convex, broadly ovate, about 2 mm. long and 1.6 mm. wide,
narrowly decurrent both antically and postically, the antical margin extend-
ing a little farther backward than the postical, antical margin slightly revo-
lute toward the base, straight or somewhat outwardly curved, entire, postical
margin strongly outwardly curved from the narrow decurrent portions,
sharply dentate-ciliate, apex rounded with more crowded teeth than the
postical margin; total number of teeth mostly twelve to fifteen, unequal,
acuminate, mostly three to six cells long and one to four cells broad at the
base ; leaf-cells plane, averaging 22 u at the apical margin, 35 X 30 w in the
middle, and 50 X 25 u at the base, walls thin but with minute triangular
trigones with concave sides; cuticle smooth: remaining parts not seen.
(Fig. 3.)

Although at first sight the leaves in this new species appear exactly
opposite, closer inspection shows that the decurrent bases on one side
of the stem extend a little farther backwards than those on the other,
and this is true both antically and postically. The line of insertion

1 Hedwigia $1: 14. 1892.

. Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgrt. 307

here, as in allied species, is strongly and narrowly arched, and this
peculiarity, associated with the convexity of the leaves, gives the
plants a very characteristic appearance. As the leaves become
dry they appear more and more revolute and spread from the axis at
almost a right angle. When moist they spread more obliquely and
show a strong tendency to come into contact postically.

Two South American species are closely related to P. Footet. One
is P. oresitropha Spruce,! collected by Spruce in the Andes of Peru
and by Rusby in Bolivia, and the other is P. mapiriensis Spruce,?

AS lB

tr 7

; ane
c

Figure 3.—PLAGIOCHILA FooTel Evans
A. Leaf, dissected from the stem, X 17. B. Cells from the middle of
a leaf, X 225. C. Tooth from the postical margin of a leaf, X 225. The
figures were drawn from the type specimen.

collected by Rusby in Bolivia. According to Stephani P. mapiriensis
is merely a form of the widely distributed P. rutians Lindenb., but
Spruce’s description would indicate that he had another species be-
fore him. In P. oresitropha the general appearance is much the same
as in P. Footei, the leaves being nearly opposite and spreading widely
from the stem. Yet the species is somewhat more robust, and the
leaves are larger and closer together. Spruce gives as measurements
for the leaves a length of 2.5—3.25 mm. and a width of 2—2.75 mm.,
the ratio of width to length being a little higher than in P. Footev.
The leaves show further differences in their teeth and in their cell
structure. In P. oresitropha the antical margin bears five or six
scattered teeth, only the basal portion being entire, while the teeth
on the postical and apical margins are more crowded than in the new
species. In fact the whole number of teeth on a leaf is approximately

1 Hep. Amaz. et And. 467. 1885.
2 Mem. Torrey Club 1: 131. 1890.

Trans. Conn.’ Aoan., Vol. XVIII. 21 ApriL, 1914.

308 Alexander W. Evans,

forty. The leaf-cells differ but little in size in the two species, but
the thickenings in the wall are much more pronounced in P. oresi-
tvopha; the trigones have bulging sides and are often elongated at the
angles, there are numerous intermediate thickenings (sometimes two
on a long lateral wall), and there is more or less coalescence between
the thickenings. In P. Footet, as noted in the description, the trigones
have concave sides, and it may be added that intermediate thickenings
are practically lacking and that coalescence apparently never occurs.
In P. mapiriensis, known to the writer from description only, the
leaves are relatively longer than in P. Foote:, measuring about 2.5 mm.
in length and only 1.1—1.4 mm. in width, and the cells are smaller,
averaging only 29 w in diameter ; in other respects the two species
seem to be closely allied, the number of marginal teeth in P. mapirien-
sis varying from eight to fifteen.

10. Plagiochila Guilleminiana Mont.

Plagiochila Guilleminiana Mont.; Lindenberg, Monogr. Hepat. Gen.
Plagiochilae 152. pl. 33, f. 1-4. 1842.

Plagiochila Haeckeriana Lindenb. & Gottsche ; G. L. & N. Syn. Hep.
644. 1847.

Plagiochila oreocharis Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et And. 498. 1884.

Plagiochila rhizophila Spruce, 1. c. 495. 1884.

On live wood, Santa Ana, 3,000 feet, August 4, 1941.

The synonymy given above is taken from Stephani’s Species Hepa-
ticarum.1_ Accepted in this broad sense the species is variable and
has a wide distribution. It was based on two Brazilian specimens,
one collected by Raddi and the other by Guillemin, and was soon
afterwards reported from Mexico in the collections of Liebmann.
The type-locality of P. Haeckeriana is not given definitely by its
authors but was apparently somewhere in the Andes, while P. oreo-
charis and P. rhizophila were based on material collected by Spruce,
the first in Peru and the second in Ecuador. According to Stephani
P. Guilleminiana has been found also in Guatemala by Wurr and in
Colombia by Lindig.

In the present specimens the stems are about 6 cm. long and are
simply pinnate, the branches being few and irregular and apparently
all of the Frullania type.2_ The female inflorescences are borne on
the tips of some of these branches. The leaves (Fig. 4) have a length

1 Bull. de ’Herb. Boissier II. 5: 356. 1905.
2 See Evans, Ann. Bot. 26: 4. 1912.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1911. 309

of about 3 mm., a width of about 1.8 mm. in the broadest portion,
and of about 0.5 mm. in the apical region. They are closely imbri-
cated and long-decurrent both antically and postically ; when dissected
off and spread out they are seen to be ovate-triangular and markedly
unsymmetrical. In their natural position they spread widely from
the stem, and those on the opposite sides lie almost in one plane, thus
giving the shoot a flattened ap-
pearance. The antical margin Sees ee, TOs)

is plane in the apical region a
and often along a part of the
decurrent portion, otherwise it
is more or less revolute and
is usually slightly imcurved.
Occasionally it bears one or
two small teeth in the outer
part but in most cases is entire
throughout its length. The
postical margin is crispate and
strongly dilated at the base, (\
spreading backward from the

stem at almost a right angle :

Owe
and thus forming a part of a icke
postical crest. Beyond the di- we sew

8
lente

lated portion it extends almost

in a straight line to the apex.

On robust leaves the dilated Figure 4.—PracrocuiLa GUILLEMINIANA
portion sometimes bears a series g Mont.

of scattered spine-like teeth, 4. Leaf, dissected from the stem, X 17.
but it is quite entire in many B. Cells from the middle ofa leaf, X 300.
cases, and this condition seems C. Tooth from the postical margin of a
to be the rule on the leaves of leaf near the apex, X 225. The figures
branches and of poorly devel- were drawn from the specimens collected
opedstems. Beyond the middle at Santa Ana.

the postical margin bears a few

scattered teeth. The apex is broad and variously rounded, truncate,
or acute, depending somewhat upon the number and position of its
scattered teeth. The total number of teeth present on a leaf is
usually between five and twenty, the higher numbers being found on
leaves where the postical base is spinose-dentate. Most of the teeth
are from three to five cells in length. On the perichaetial bracts
the teeth are more numerous, numbering from twenty-five to thirty
and are found not only along the whole postical margin but along

310 Alexander W. Evans,

a considerable part of the antical margin as well. Many of these
teeth are distinctly spinose in character. The leaf-cells have
distinct triangular trigones with bulging sides. Toward the base
occasional oval intermediate thickenings make their appearance, and,
especially in the antical portion, there is a tendency toward a
coalescence of the thickenings.

The specimens just described agree in most respects with those
distributed by Spruce under the name P. oreocharis, although the
latter are a little less robust. The trigones in Spruce’s plants,
however, are a little larger, and the thickenings show a stronger
tendency to coalescence throughout the leaf. Stephani comments
on the great variability in the number of teeth found on vegetative
leaves, but emphasizes the fact that the perichaetial bracts and
the perianths present characters of more constancy.

11. Plagiochila pauciramea sp. nov.

On damp earth and wood, Lucma, 7,000 feet, August 7, 1911.

Yellowish to brownish green, not glossy, growing in loose tufts: stems
mostly 5—6 cm. long and 0.45 mm. in diameter, flexuose, ascending, sparingly
and irregularly branched, the branches all terminal, of the Frullania type,
sometimes irregularly subdivided, obliquely spreading, similar to the stem
but often shorter and with smaller leaves: leaves alternate, loosely imbri-
cated, obliquely spreading (at an angle of about 60 degrees), antical portion
more or less convex near the base, otherwise plane or nearly so, ovate, about
3 mm. long and 2.3 mm. wide, long-decurrent antically, more shortly and
narrowly decurrent postically, antical margin a little revolute near the base,
slightly outwardly curved or nearly straight, entire at the base but bearing
from two to four spinose teeth beyond the middle, postical margin narrowly
revolute in the decurrent portion and slightly beyond, more strongly out-
wardly curved, entire at the base but bearing about ten spinose teeth scattered
throughout the greater part of its length, apex broad and rounded with about
five spinose teeth; total number of teeth mostly fifteen to twenty, slender
and acuminate, mostly four to ten cells long and one to four cells wide at the
base, the larger teethirregularly distributed but tending to be more numerous
in the outer part of the leaf; leaf-cells plane, averaging about 25 wu at the
apex, 45 X 30 u in the middle, and 55 X 30 uw at the base, walls appearing
uniformly thickened on account of the fact that the thick outer walls extend
down upon the vertical walls, the latter upon careful focusing appearing thin
but showing small trigones with straight or slightly bulging sides and very
rare oval intermediate thickenings; cuticle smooth: underleaves about
0.15 mm. long and 0.12 mm. wide, divided almost to the base into four to
eight slender cilia: remaining parts not seen. (Fig. 5.)

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rozt. 311

In spite of the few and irregular branches in P. paucivamea, it
belongs to Spruce’s section Fvondescentes and has several relatives
among the species already
known from South America. ee
P. montana Spruce, from <a) y
Campana, Peru, is one of cS
these, but in this species the =
leaves narrow more markedly
toward the apex than in P.
paucivamea, the spines are
shorter and broader, the
walls of the leaf-cells do not
appear uniformly thickened,
and there are no conspicuous
underleaves. In P. amazo-
nica Spruce, another allied
species of the Amazonian
Plain, extending up the
eastern slopes of the Andes,
the margin of the leaves is
spinose throughout, even at
the antical base, and the )
spines are more numerous, Figure 5.—PLAGIOCHILA PAUCIRAMEA Evans

numbering about forty inall. A. Leaf, dissected from the stem, 17.
In this species further. the B. Cells from the middle of a leaf, those

leaves are subtriangular in in the lower part of the figure drawn at
ah antical land alower focus, X 225. C. Tooth from near

: F : the middle of the postical margin of a
postical margins tending to 5 :

i a leaf, X 225. The figures were drawn from
straight in the outer part.

the type specimen.
Both P. montana and P.
amazomca are known to the writer from specimens distributed
by Spruce.

12. Plagiochila striolata sp. nov.
On dead wood, Lucma, 7,000 feet, August 7, 1911.

Yellowish to brownish green, not glossy, growing in compact tufts: stems
mostly 1.5—2 mm. long, about 0.25 mm. in diameter, rigid, ascending,
sparingly and irregularly branched, the branches all intercalary, obliquely
spreading, very rarely subdivided, similar to the stems but usually with
smaller leaves: leaves alternate, contiguous to loosely imbricated, obliquely
spreading (at an angle of about 60 degrees), antical portion more or less
convex toward the base, postical portion slightly concave, apical portion plane

312 Alexander W. Evans,

or nearly so, broadly ovate, about 1.5 mm. long and 1.2 mm. wide, slightly
or not at all decurrent antically, shortly decurrent postically, antical margin
more or less revolute (on well-developed leaves), slightly outwardly curved,
entire, postical margin strongly outwardly curved from the short and narrow
decurrent portion, sharply dentate-spinose, apex broad and rounded, simi-
larly dentate-spinose ; total number of teeth mostly ten to twelve, unequal,
usually two to five cells long and one to three cells wide at the base, teeth in
the apical region tending to be larger than the others; leaf-cells plane, aver-
aging about 2o w in theapical region, 25 X 20 uw in the middle, and 35 X 20u
at the base, walls with large triangular trigones usually with bulging sides,
and (especially toward the base) occasional oval intermediate thickenings,
coalescence between thickenings rare except near the margin ; cuticle minutely
striolate-verruculose : remaining parts not seen. (Fig. 6.)

; we ee
wv

Figure 6.—PLAGIOCHILA STRIOLATA Evans

A. Leaf, dissected from the stem, < 17. B. Cells from the middle of a
leaf, X 300. C. Tooth from near the middle of the postical margin of a leaf,
< 225. The figures were drawn from the type specimen.

Although roughened cuticles are frequently found in many genera
of the Hepaticae they have rarely been associated with definite
species of Plagiochila. Stephani, however, has recently described two
South American species in which this peculiarity occurs. These are
P. asperifolia Steph., collected by Puiggari and Ule in Brazil, and
P. verrucosa Steph., collected by Funck and Schlim in Venezuela.
Unfortunately these species are known to the writer from description
only, but are evidently distinct from P. striolata. The first is somewhat
more robust, the leaves being about 2 mm. long. It is further dis-
tinguished by its obliquely truncate leaves with three apical spines,
the anterior one being usually much larger than the others. The
second species is still larger, the leaf-cells are only 12 w wide at the
apex and only 36 x 12 in size at the base, while the cuticle is
coarsely verruculose. The spines in this species are furthermore said
to show a distinct increase in size not only toward the apex but also
toward the postical base.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgit. 313

V. Lophocolea Dumort.

13. Lophocolea diaphana Spruce

Lophocolea diaphana Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et And. 426. 1884.

On wet earth, San Miguel, 6,000 feet, July 24, 1911.

The specimens are sterile and fragmentary, and their reference to
the present species is open to some doubt. L. diaphana was collected
by its author at several localities in Ecuador and was afterwards
distributed in his exsiccatae. In the set examined by the writer the
leaf-cells show minute trigones, although these are not mentioned
in Spruce’s description. In the specimens from San Miguel there
are no trigones, but this might very well be owing to the poor develop-
ment of the plants.

VI. Radula Dumort.

14. Radula andicola Steph.

Radula andicola Steph. Hedwigia 28: 114. 1884.

Radula viridi-aurea Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et And. 324. 1885.

On rocks, San Miguel, 5,000 feet, September 2, 1911.

A few fragments only but apparently referable to this species.
The plants are sterile except for the presence of discoid gemmae,
which are similar to those found in R. complanata (L.) Dumort.
R. andicola was based on three specimens, the first collected by Krause
in Ecuador, the second by Birschall in Venezuela, and the third by
Deventer in Brazil; the original material of R. viridt-aurea was collec-
ted by Spruce in Ecuador. In his recent synopsis of the genus Radula
Stephani! reduces Spruce’s species to synonymy, and ascribes a
still wider distribution to the plant, quoting it also from Cuba, Costa
Rica, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia.

15. Radula ramulina Tay].

Radula ramulina Tayl. Jour. Bot. 5: 374. 1846.

On rocks, San Miguel and vicinity, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24 and
September 3, 1911.

A large and conspicuous species, pale yellowish in color and growing
in depressed mats The original material was collected by Jameson
in the province of Pichincha, Ecuador. Spruce collected it repeatedly
in the same country, and it has also been definitely reported from
Bolivia. Stephani gives no precise localities for the species but states
that it is abundant in the Andes.

1 Sp. Hepat. 4: 174. 1910.

314 Alexander W. Evans,

Vil. Porella L.

16. Porella arborea (Tayl.) Trevis.

Madotheca arborea Tayl. Jour. Bot. 5: 379. 1846.

Porella arborea Trevis. Mem. R. Ist. Lomb. III. 4: 407. 1877.

On earth, San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 1911.

The specimens are sterile but agree pretty closely with those
collected by Spruce at Tunguragua, Ecuador, and distributed in his
exsiccatae. The original material of the species was found by Jameson
in the province of Pichincha, Ecuador. According to Stephani it is
abundant in the Peruvian Andes.

17. Porella squamulifera (Tayl.) Trevis.

Madotheca squamulifera Tayl. Jour. Bot. 5: 378. 1846.

Porella squamulifera Trevis. Mem. R. Ist. Lomb. III. 4: 407. 1877.

On wood, Lucma, 7,000 feet, August 7, 1911.

The specimens, which are sterile, have beén carefully compared
with those collected by Spruce at Pangor, Ecuador, and distributed
in his exsiccatae. Although the Peruvian material does not agree
very closely with Spruce’s specimens in general habit, no structural
differences could be demonstrated, and it therefore seems advisable
to refer them to P. squamulifera, at least provisionally, rather than
to try to separate them as a distinct species. The type material
of P. squamulifera was collected by Jameson in the province of
Pichincha, Ecuador, and according to Stephani the species occurs in
the Andes of Peru.

VIII. Microlejeunea (Spruce) Jack & Steph.

18. Microlejeunea bullata (Tayl.) Evans

Lejeunea bullata Tayl. Jour. Bot. 5: 398. 1846.

Microlejeunea bullata Evans, Mem. Torrey Club 8: 164. ~ #/. 21,
f. 20—29. 1902.

On rocks, Santa Ana, 3,000 feet, August 4, 1941.

The specimens are sterile and in very small amount but are appar-
ently correctly determined. MM. bullata is a widely distributed spe-
cies, originally described from material collected by Guilding on the
island of St. Vincent. It is now Known also from South Carolina,
from Florida, from several additional islands in the West Indies,
and (according to Spruce) from numerous localities in Ecuador.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgrz. 3415

IX. Taxilejeunea (Spruce) Schiffn.

19. Taxilejeunea debilis (Lehm. & Lindenb.) Schiffn.

Jungermannia debilis Lehm. & Lindenb.; Lehmann, Pug. Plant. 4:
51: 1832.

Lejeunea debilis Lehm. & Lindenb.; Nees & Montagne, Ann. des Sc.
Nat. Bot. II. 5: 60. 1836. Montagne, Fl. Boliv. in d’Orbigny, Voy.
mans Ameér. Mérid. 77: 63. 1. 7, f. 2. 1839.

Omphalanthus debilis Lehm. & Lindenb.; G. L. & N. Syn. Hep. 306.
1845.

Lejeunea (Taxi-Lejeunea) debilis Steph. Hedwigia 29: 12. 1890.

Taxilejeunea debilis Schiffn. Bot. Jahrb. 28: 579. 1897.

On earth, San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 1911.

A pale and delicate species growing in loose tufts. Widely
distributed in the American tropics from the West Indies, through
Mexico and Colombia, to Peru and Bolivia. The original material
came from the island of St. Vincent, collector’s name unknown.
The specimens in the present collection have perianths and are
in excellent condition.

20. Taxilejeunea florida (Spruce) Steph.

Lejeunea (Taxi-Lejeunea) florida Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et And. 221.
1884.

Taxilejeunea florida Steph. Sp. Hep. 5: 467. 1914.

Ollantaytambo, 9,000 feet, July 241, 1911.

This species was based on material collected by Spruce in the
Andes of Ecuador. Unfortunately the Peruvian specimens lack
perianths, but they show both male and female inflorescences and
agree closely with Spruce’s full description.

21. Taxilejeunea pterogonia (Lehm. & Lindenb.) Schiffn.

Jungermannia pterogonia Lehm. & Lindenb.; Lehmann, Pug.
Plant. 6: 44. 1834.

Omphalanthus pterogonius Lehm. & Lindenb.; G. L. & N. Syn.
Hep. 306. 1845.

Omphalanthus subalatus Lindenb. & Gottsche; G. L. & N. Syn.
Hep. 747. 1847.

Lejeunea (Taxi-Lejeunea) pterogonia Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et
And. 216. 1884.

Taxilejeunea pterogonia Schiffn.; Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzen-
farm 85-1752 hy 1895.

On earth, San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 19114.

316 Alexander W. Evans,

The specimens are sterile but are apparently referable to this
species. It was originally described from Peruvian materia! in
the herbarium of Kunze. It is now known to have a wide distribu-
tion in tropical America and has been reported from Mexico,
Colombia, Brazil, and Ecuador, as well as from Peru.

X. Diecranolejeunea (Spruce) Schiffn.

Several genera of the Lejeuneae have recently been discussed
at length by the writer in connection with the Hepaticae of Porto
Rico. Since Dicranolejeunea has not yet been detected on that
island the present opportunity is taken of calling attention to its
peculiarities. So far as known the genus is entirely tropical in its
distribution. In his Species Hepaticarum Stephani recognizes
three species from Africa, three from Asia, and-twenty-two from
North and South America, thus showing its preponderance in neo-
tropical regions. The species flourish best at relatively high alti-
tudes, altough a few have been reported from near the sea level.
The bark of trees is the favorite habitat for the majority of the
species; a few grow on the leaves of woody plants or on rocks; while
others form more or less compact tufts on banks rich in humus.
Sometimes a species is able to grow on several substrata.

Under favorable conditions the plants show a yellowish or brownish
pigmentation. Apparently in all cases the stems are at first pros-
trate, and oftentimes this habit is retained through life. In other
cases the prostrate stems give rise to erect, ascending, or pendulous
branches, or secondary stems, which become subdivided and con-
tinue their growth indefinitely. Under these circumstance it may
become difficult or impossible to demonstrate the prostrate stems
at all. A similar distinction between a primary prostrate axis
and secondary stems occurs in many genera of the Hepaticae,
such as Porella, Mastigolejeunea, and Bryopteris. Sometimes it
represents a constant feature of an entire genus; sometimes, as
in Dicranolejeunea, it is restricted to certain species. ;

The branching in Dicranolejeunea is of two types, just as in
Stictolejeunea, Bryopteris, and most species of Brachtolejeunea.
The Frullania type, in which a leaf without a lobule is situated
at the base of the branch, occurs on robust shoots and is associated
with vigorous growth (Fig. 7, B; 8, C.). The Radula type, in
which the leaf at the base of the branch bears a distinct lobule,
occurs on older shoots, especially where the development of re-
productive organs brings about a retardation or cessation of growth.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgit. 317

Apparently the subfloral innovations are invariably of this type
(Fig. 7, A; 8, A). In branches of the Frullania type the first
underleaf of the branch is either undivided or bifid and is displaced
in such a way that the branch seems to arise in its axil. The first
leaf on such a branch is rudimentary and very small but the suc-
ceeding leaves show normal features.

The leaves vary from loosely to closely imbricated (Figs. 7, 8).
As the plants become dry the lobes tend to assume a suberect position
and often wrap themselves around the stem, very much as in Mas-
tigoleyeunea and Brachiolejeunea. When water is supplied the lobes
become more or less flattened out and form an angle of forty-five
degrees or more with the axis. In general outline the lobes are
ovate and narrow to an acute, obtuse, or even rounded apex; they
are plane or slightly convex, and in certain species the postical
margin tends to be revolute; the margin is either entire or sharply
and irregularly dentate.

The lobule shows a more or less arched keel and is strongly in-
flated. In some cases the inflated portion involves the entire
lobule, the free margin being involute except in the region of the
sinus, where the opening into the water-sac is situated. In other
cases the inflated portion lies along the keel and the free margin
is appressed to the lobe. In the various species examined by the
writer the free margin has normally borne two teeth, and these
may be distinguished as the apical tooth and the proximal tooth
respectively, the proximal tooth being situated between the apical
tooth and the basal end of the margin. In poorly developed leaves
the proximal tooth may be indistinct or even obsolete. The apical
tooth is usually large and sharp, being two or three cells long and
one or two cells wide at the base (Fig. 7, D, E); sometimes the tip
cell becomes divided by a longitudinal wall (Fig. 8, G). The hyaline
papilla is situated at the proximal base of this tooth but displaced
to the inner surface of the lobe, usually two cells from the margin.
Beyond the apical tooth the long and shallow sinus extends to
the end of the keel. The proximal tooth is invariably shorter
and less complex than the apical tooth (Fig. 8, H.). In many
cases both teeth bend inward toward the lobe, making it im-
possible to determine their true structure without dissection.
In certain respects the lobules just described agree in structure
with those found in Brachiolejeunea, Ptychocoleus, and Odontole-
jeunea.

The leaf-cells (Fig. 8, F) have thin walls, small trigones, and
occasional intermediate thickenings, much more numerous in

318 Alexander W. Evans,

certain species than in others. Sometimes the trigones are so
poorly developed that it is difficult to demonstrate them.

The underleaves are undivided and vary in outline from oblong
to orbicular or even reniform. They are attached by an arched
line, the base is cuneate and often decurrent, and the margin is
quite entire and either plane or more or less revolute. The rhizoids
when present arise from a very rudimentary disc.

According to Spruce the inflorescence in Dicranolejeunea is
typically paroicous, although he admits that a dioicous infloresc-
ence sometimes occurs. Stephani describes paroicous, autoicous,
and dioicous species. In all the last, however, he admits that the
male inflorescence is unknown. The great difficulty in demon-
strating the vestiges of antheridia in paroicous species after the
sperms have been discharged makes it possible that some, if not all,
of the species described as dioicous may in reality be paroicous.
It should also be remembered that certain monoicous species occa-
sionally produce individuals in which antheridia but no archegonia
are present.

The female inflorescence is sometimes borne on a leading branch
and sometimes on a more or less abbreviated branch. In almost
every case two subfloral innovations are developed below a primary
inflorescence, although occasionally only one is present (Figs. 7, 8).
The innovations are usually short and are often terminated by secon-
dary inflorescences. These in turn may develop new innovations
upon which tertiary inflorescences may arise, but no cases have been
observed in which inflorescences of a higher order have occurred.
The innovations are typically in pairs, even in connection with secon-
dary or tertiary inflorescences, but single innovations are more fre-
quent in such cases than in connection with a primary inflorescence.

The perichaetial bracts (Figs. 7, F—K; 8, I—K) are usually distinctly
smaller or at least narrower than the leaves. The lobes show a stronger
tendency to be toothed, and dentate bracts occur in certain species
where the vegetative leaves are entire. The lobules are rarely well
developed. In most cases they are exceedingly minute and may even
be reduced to a hyaline papilla. The bracteoles are usually larger
and broader than ordinary underleaves, but they show less tendency
to be toothed than do the lobules of the bracts.

The perianth (Figs. 7, 8) yields several of the more important
characters of the genus. It is distinctly compressed and the sharp
lateral keels bear dentate or spinose wings variable in width. The
antical surface is sometimes plane, sometimes slightly concave,
and sometimes bears a very low keel without either wing or teeth.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1911. 319

The postical surface, theoretically at least, bears two low dentate
or spinose keels, but these are often coalescent so that only a single
median keel appears to be present, and the teeth or spines may be
few or absent altogether.

The male inflorescence in paroicous species occupies a variable
length of the fertile branch below the archegonium. The perigon-
ial bracts differ scarcely if at all from the ordinary leaves, except
for the presence of the single antheridium enclosed within the lobule.
The perigonial bracteoles agree in all respects with the underleaves
on ordinary vegetative shoots. In autoicous species the male in-
florescence occupies a branch of variable length. The bracts are
monandrous, closely imbricated, and much smaller than ordinary
leaves. The reduction in size affects the lobes most strongly, these
being but little larger than the lobules. The bracteoles are likewise
smaller than ordinary underleaves and extend the whole length of
the inflorescence.

When compared with the other genera of the Lejeuneae, Dicrano-
lejeunea is seen to be especially close to Odontolejeunea, in its restricted
sense.t In both genera the lobes of the leaves tend to be more or
less toothed, although species with entire leaves are included in
Dicranolejeunea; in both genera the free margin of the lobule bears
one or more teeth, the number being two in all the known species of
Dicranolejyeunea and varying from one to four in Odontolejeunea ;
in both genera the hyaline papilla of the lobule is situated at the base
of the apical tooth on the surface turned toward the lobe; in both
genera the leaves lack ocelli, and the leaf-cells have pigmented walls
with local thickenings. They agree further in their undivided under-
leaves, entire in Dicranolejeunea and either entire or variously toothed
in Odontolejeunea; in the small or obsolete lobules of their perichaetial
bracts; and in their compressed perianths with dentate wings on the
narrow lateral keels. It is difficult, indeed, to separate the genera
by characters which are both constant and significant, although
each comprises a group of closely related species. It should be noted,
however, that the branching in Odontolejeunea is always of the Radula
type, that the subfloral innovations are always single, that the peri-
gonial bracts are typically diandrous, and that the radicelliferous
discs on the underleaves are well developed. In Dicranolejeunea
both the Radula and the Frullania types of branching occur, the sub-
floral innovations are typically in pairs, the perigonial bracts seem to
be constantly monandrous, and the radicelliferous discs are either

1 See Evans, Bull. Torrey Club $1: 183. 1904.

320 Alexander W. Evans,

absent altogether or very rudimentary. Odontolejeunea is further
distinguished by the occurrence of specialized caducous branches,
which multiply the plants vegetatively ; in Dicranolejeunea no method
of vegetative reproduction has been observed. Of course the species
of Dicranolejeunea in which secondary stems arise from a prostrate
primary stem differ markedly in habit from all the species of Odonto-
lejeunea, in which the plants always cling closely to the substratum,
but they differ in the same way from the species of Dicranolejeunea
in which a prostrate habit is retained through life.

Two species of Dicranolejeunea occur in the present collection.
One is the type of the genus, D. axillaris (Nees & Mont.) Schiffn.;
the other is apparently undescribed.

22. Dicranolejeunea axillaris (Nees & Mont.) Schiffn.

Lejeunea axillaris Nees & Mont. Ann. des Sc. Nat. Bot. Il. 5: 59.
1836. ;

Lejeunea (Dicrano-Lejeunea) axillaris Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et And.
139 A884.

Dicranolejeunea axillaris Schiffn.; Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzen-
fam. 222 128- “1895:

San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 1911; a few fragments
only, mixed with Plagiochila chinantlana.

This common and variable species was originally described from
Bolivian specimens collected by d’Orbigny. Its known range extends
from the West Indies and Mexico, through Central America and the
Andes, into Chile. It has been recorded also from the Galapagos
Islands. Since the published descriptions are not altogether in
accord, even on essential points, a full account of the plant will
perhaps be useful.

According to Spruce? the leaves are contiguous to subimbricated,
the apex of the lobe bears three or more sharp teeth, the margin of
the lobule is unidentate, the leaf-cells are thickened at the angles
(and rarely in between), the inflorescence is paroicous, and the post-
ical surface of the perianth is either smooth or else bears one or
two cilia near the apex. According to Stephani? the leaves are im-
bricated, the apex of the lobe is broadly acuminate-acute and a few
teeth are borne below the apex, the lobule is obliquely truncate at
the apex with an acute angle, the leaf-cells have no trigones, the in-
florescence is monoicous, the small androecia, sessile on the stem,

1 Hep. Amaz. et And. 139. 1884.

“5 Sp ebleps0)-) LOAmE Oma:

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1971. 324

bear from four to eight pairs of bracts, and the postical keel of the
perianth is smooth.

From the study of a series of specimens from various localities
it has become evident that some of these discrepancies are due to

Figure 7.—DICRANOLEJEUNEA AXILLARIS (Nees & Mont.) Schiffn.

A. Part of a secondary shoot, showing a primary inflorescence with peri-
anth and the bases of two innovations, postical view, X 17. B. Part of a
secondary shoot, showing the base of a branch of the Frullania type, postical
view, X 17. C. Two leaves, antical view, X 17. D. Part of a lobule, show-
ing the two marginal teeth, X 225. E. Apical tooth of another lobule,
X 225. F.—H. Bracts and bracteole from a primary inflorescence, 27
IK. Bracts and bracteole from a secondary inflorescence, x 27. L. Trans-
verse section of a perianth in upper third, x 40. The figures were drawn
from specimens collected by Spruce in the Andes of Ecuador and distributed
in his exsiccatae.

the variability of the species, but that others can hardly be explained
in this way. The writer finds that the leaves are sometimes rather
closely imbricated (Fig. 7, A—C) and that sometimes they scarcely
overlap at all. The lobes taper gradually and are sharply pointed

322 Alexander W. Evans,

at the apex. Sometimes, except for this apical tooth, the margin
is quite entire, but it is much more usual for the lobe to bear from one
to five supplementary teeth in the vicinity of the apex. These teeth
tend to be more numerous along the antical margin, but some of them
are occasionally situated on the postical margin. In most cases
the apical tooth is distinctly larger than the others, but this is not
always the case, the antical tooth next the apex sometimes approach-
ing or equalling the apical tooth in size. Under these last circum-
stances the apical tooth is less conspicuous than on most leaves.

The true lobular features can not always be made out without dis-
section. If this is done the lobules are found to conform pretty
closely with Spruce’s description, although it should be noted that
neither he nor Stephani makes any mention of the proximal tooth.
The apical tooth of the lobule is short and rather sharp, being tipped
by a single cell or by two superimposed cells; in.other words it is
usually two cells long and one or two cells wide at the base (Fig. 7,
D, E). Just below the tooth four cr five cells are usually connected
with the basal cell or cells. The proximal tooth is short and consists
of little more than a single projecting cell. Apparently trigones are
always present, but they may be very inconspicuous with concave
sides. Even when better developed they are less striking than in
most members of the Lejeuneae Holostipae.

With regard to the inflorescence it is extremely difficult to demon-
strate antheridia or their vestiges after the sperms have been set
free and especially after perianths and sporophytes have developed.
It is only on very young fertile shoots, where the innovations have
just begun to grow, where the archegonium is still unfertilized,
and where the perichaetial bracts and bracteole are only partially
developed, that the antheridia show clearly. In typical cases there
about eight pairs of perigonial bracts just below the female inflor-
escence. As might be expected delicate and etiolated plants some-
times develop antheridia but no archegonia. This is shown particu-
larly well in material collected by A. Stewart on Albemarle Island, one
of the Galapagos group. In some plants from this collection certain
stems or leading branches bear a series of perigonial bracts and then
continue their growth as ordinary vegetative shoots. This may
perhaps be considered an example of reversion, due to the fact
that the conditions are not very favorable for the development of
reproductive organs.

Spruce’s description of the perianth and bracts (Fig. 7, F—L) is
unusually full and accurate. The postical keel of the perianth, as
he remarks, is low and usually smooth. But this appearance is not

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgrt. 323

altogether constant. In some cases it bears long cilia, similar to
those on the lateralwings. Thesecilia are never numerous—from one
to three in most cases—and, when more than one, often occur in two
rows, representing the ansles of the two coalescent postical keels.
In most cases the postical cilia are close to the apex, but they may
be situated as far back as the middle of the perianth. Apparently
they are never borne on wings.

In D. hypoacantha (Spruce) Steph.,1 known only from Pallatanga,
Peru, where it was collected by Spruce, D. axillaris has a very
close ally. In fact the validity of D. hypoacantha as a species may
be considered doubtful. The two species are of about the same
size and agree closely in their leaves, underleaves, bracts, and brac-
teoles. The leaves in D. hypoacantha, to be sure, occasionally have
more teeth, as many as eight in extremecases, but usually the number
is no higher than in D. axillaris. According to Spruce the inflores-
cence in D. hypoacantha is paroicous, but Stephani describes it as
dioicous. No antheridia could be discovered in the material studied
by the writer so that neither of these statements could be confirmed.
In separating D.hypoacantha Spruce relied particularly on characters
drawn from the perianths. The form, the beak, and the lateral
wings are much the same in the two species, but a typical perianth
in D. hypoacantha bears narrow spinose wings along the two coalescent
postical keels. These are shorter than the lateral wings but resemble
them in other respects. Unfortunately this typical condition seems
to be very rare. Frequently only one of the postical wings is devel-
oped, or else there are no wings at all and the spines grow out
directly from the keels. In extreme cases the number of spines may
be reduced to only two or three, and the perianths then bear a
strong resemblance to those of D. axillaris.

23. Dicranolejeunea rotundata sp. nov.
On live wood, Santa Ana, 3,000 feet, August 3, 1911.

Brownish green, not glossy, growing in depressed mats: stems about
0.15 mm. in diameter, sparingly pinnate, the branches obliquely to widely
spreading, similar to the stem but sometimes with slightly smaller leaves,
never microphyllous: leaves imbricated, obliquely spreading, the lobe slightly
convex and falcate, ovate, mostly 0.g—1 mm. long and 0.65—0.75 mm. wide,
arching part way across the stem, antical margin outwardly curved from the
base to the broad and rounded or very bluntly pointed apex, postical margin
straight or more or less outwardly curved, margin entire throughout ; lobule

Sp. Hepat 62 166... 1912:
Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 22 Aprin, 1914.

324 Alexander W. Evans,

ovate, 0.45 X 0.25 mm., more or less inflated in basal and carinal portions,
keel straight or sligtly arched, free margin curved, slightly involute at the
base, apical tooth blunt, three or four cells long, usually tipped with two

Figure 8.—DICRANOLEJEUNEA ROTUNDATA Evans

A. Part of a floriferous shoot, with a primary inflorescence and two sec-
ondary inflorescences, postical view, X 17. B. Secondary inflorescence
with one innovation, the underleaves dissected away, postical view, X I7.
C. Part of a shoot showing the base of a branch of the Frullania type, post-
ical view, X 17. D. Unfertilized secondary inflorescence, the bracteole
dissected away, postical view, X 17. E. Two leaves, antical view, X 17.
F. Cells from the middle of a lobe, X 225. G. Apical tooth of a lobule,
> 225. H. Proximal tooth ofa lobule, X 225. I, J. Bracts from a primary
inflorescences > iy) KS Bracteole from another primary inflorescence,
17. L. Transverse section of a perianth in the upper third, X 17. The
figures were drawn from the type specimen.

superimposed cells or with two cells side by side, proximal tooth shorter but
usually tipped with two superimposed cells; lobule often poorly developed,
with indistinct teeth or even entire on the free margin; cells of lobe plane
or nearly so, averaging 15 w at the margin, 35 X 27 wu in the middle, and
40 X 30 uw at the base, thin walled, trigones small, triangular, intermediate

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgrt. 325

thickenings narrowly oval, infrequent except near the base: underleaves
contiguous to loosely imbricated, plane, broadly orbicular, about 0.45 mm.
long and 0.55 mm. wide, cuneate at the base, broad and rounded or truncate
at the apex, entire throughout or slightly crenulate near the base: inflores-
cence apparently dioicous (male inflorescence unknown): Q inflorescence
borne on the stem or a leading branch, innovating on both sides, the inno-
vations soon floriferous, the secondary inflorescences innovating on one or
both sides with sterile innovations ; bracts unequal in size, those of the prim-
ary inflorescence suberect, the lobe of the larger one ovate, 1.2 X 0.9 mm.,
gradually narrowed to a blunt point, entire, the lobe of the smaller
one more narrowly ovate, 0.8 X 0:45 mm., subacute, entire, lobule a small
basal fold, maximum size about 0.45 X 0.07 mm. but in extreme cases re-
duced to a hyaline papilla; bracteole similar to the underleaves but relati-
vely narrower, about 0.75 X 0.8 mm., bracts and bracteoles of secondary
flowers smaller but otherwise similar to those of the primary flower ; perianth
slightly exserted, obovate in outline from a cuneate base, 1.1 mm. long and
0.9 mm. wide (in secondary inflorescences only 0.9 X 0.8 mm.), truncate at
the apex with a short beak, antical surface concave, mostly smooth, rarely
with a spine or two in the apical region, postical surface with a broad rounded
keel bearing a few scattered spines in the apical portion, lateral keels bearing
broad wings extending from the apex sometimes to beyond the middle,
sharply and irregularly spinose, the spines usually six to ten on each wing,
mostly three to six cells long and two cells wide at the base but very variable:
capsule (immature) about 0.35 mm. in diameter. (Fig. 8.)

The present plant is one of those species in which a prostrate
habit is retained through life and is remarkable for its entire, broad,
and usually rounded leaves. Its closest ally is perhaps D. phyllorhiza
(Nees) Schiffn., a species of the American tropics known to the writer
from descriptions only.1_ This species, which shows the same habit
of growth as D. rvotundata, is considerably more robust, the leaf-lobes
being 2.25 mm. long and 2 mm. wide, according to Stephani’s des-
cription. It is further distinguished by its relatively broader leaves,
by its autoicous inflorescence, by the obovate-oblong lobes of its
perichaetial bracts, and by its spatulate bracteoles.

XI. Brachiolejeunea (Spruce) Schiffn.

24. Brachiolejeunea densifolia (Raddi) Evans ©
Brachiolejeunea bicolor (Nees) Schiffn.; Engler & Prantl, Nat.

Pflanzenfam. 13: 128. 1895.
Brachiolejeunea densifolia Evans, Bull. Torrey Club 35: 158. 1908.2

1 See Stephani, Sp. Hep. 5: 162. 1912.
2 A full synonymy of the species may be found here.

326 Alexander W. Evans,

On wood, San Miguel, 6,000 feet, July 24, 1911. On rocks, Santa
Ana, 3,000 feet, August 4, 1911.

A widely distributed species in tropical America, its known range
extending from Mexico to Brazil and Bolivia. It flourishes best at
high elevations. The writer has already pointed out the fact that
the West Indian records for the species are based on incorrect deter-

minations.?
XII. Marchesinia S. F. Gray

25. Marchesinia brachiata (Swartz) Schiffn.

Marchesinia brachiata Schiffn.; Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzen-
fam. 18: 129. 1895.

On earth, San Miguel, 6,000 feet, July 24, 1944.

This species has recently been fully discussed by the writer and
its extensive range commented upon.? It is known at present from
Mexico and the West Indies; from Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil;
from Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia; and from the Galapagos Islands.

XII. Omphalanthus Lindenb. & Nees

26. Omphalanthus filiformis (Swartz) Nees.

Omphalanthus filiformis Nees; G. L. & N. Syn. Hep. 304. 1845.

On rocks, Huadquifia, 5,000 feet, August 1, 1911. On wood, Santa
Ana, 3,000 feet, August 4, 1911.

As in the case of the preceding species Omphalanthus fiultformas
has recently been described at length by the writer.? It has an equally
wide distribution, being known from several of the West Indian
Islands, and, on the mainland, from Mexico to Bolivia. It has
been collected also on the Galapagos Islands.

XIV. Frullania Raddi

Over seven hundred species of Frullamia are recognized by
Stephani,? the vast majority being tropical. Many of them are of
considerable size and show a striking reddish or purplish pigmentation,
so that they readily attract the attention of collectors. In certain
respects the genus shows a high degree of specialization, although it

1 Bryologist 15: 62. 1912.

2 Bull. Torrey Club 34: 546. pl. 32. 1907.

3 Bull. Torrey Club $4: 18. pl. 3, f. 1—9. 1907.
4 Sp. Hep. 4: 316—686. Ig10—1rogII.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of r9rt. 327

retains a primitive type of branching. In the present collection five
species are in a condition to be determined, a sixth species being ster-
ile and doubtful. Of the five species the first three noted below
belong to the subgenus Chonanthelia of Spruce, the fourth to the sub-
genus Tvachycolea, and the fifth to the subgenus Thyopstella. The
three species of Chonanthelia are among the most widely distributed
Frullamiae of the American tropics but have never been illustrated.
Since they are of interest from various points of view the writer takes
the present occasion for discussing them at length. The species of
Trachycolea has already been figured and described by the writer
in another connection,! while the species of Thyopsiella is still in need
of further study.

27. Frullania gibbosa Nees

Frullamia gibbosa Nees; G. L. & N. Syn. Hep. 414. 1845.

On rocks, Santa Ana, 3,000 feet, August 4, 1911.

The author of F. gibbosa based his species on a series of specimens
from the West Indies, Guiana, and Brazil. In the later pages of the
Synopsis Hepaticarum it is recorded also from Mexico and Colombia.
Spruce extended its known range into Peru and commented on
the curious fact that it behaved as a weed and always grew in the
neighbourhood of human habitations. Stephani notes its occurrence
in Alabama and in Chile and states also that it is very common in
tropical America, without giving definite localities. The material
from Santa Ana belongs to Spruce’s variety densissima, which he
suggests may be specifically distinct. In the opinion of the writer,
however, the differential characters assigned to this variety represent
exaggerations of the features characteristic of the species and are
neither marked enough nor constant enough to warrant a specific
separation.

The first specimen of F. gibbosa quoted by Nees von Esenbeck
was collected by Swartz on tree-trunks in Jamaica and may be re-
garded as the type of the species. It represents a part of the material
upon which Swartz based his Jungermannia obscura,? a composite
species which is no longer recognized. A portion of this type material,
preserved in the Lindenberg herbarium at Vienna (No. 6979), has
been examined by the writer; it is unfortunately very fragmentary
but seems referable to F. gibbosa as at present understood. The
same herbarium contains specimens from Colipa, Mexico (Liebmann,

1 Trans. Conn. Acad. 10: 14. pl. 6. 1897.
2 Hep. Amaz. et And. 22. 1884.
3 Fl. Ind. Occid. 8: 1869. 1806.

328 Alexander W. Evans,

No. 6947) British Guiana (Campbell, No. 6948), French Guiana
(Leprieur, No. 6977), Barbados (Herb. Hooker, No. 6952), and
Merida, Colombia (Moritz, Nos. 6949, 6950). These specimens are
among those mentioned in the Synopsis Hepaticarum, and all clearly
represent the same species. C. Wright’s specimens of I’. gibbosa from
Cuba, distributed in Hepaticae Cubenses; a large series from Jamaica,
collected by Harris, Underwood, Maxon, and the writer; and Spruce’s
specimens from Tarapoto, Peru, distributed in Hepaticae Spruceanae,
have likewise been examined. All of this material is clearly F. gibbosa,
but the specimens from the Bahama Islands, recently reported upon
by the writer,! differ somewhat from the others and perhaps belong
elsewhere.

With regard to the habitat of the species it occurs both on bark
and on rocks, frequently in exposed situations, and some of its pecul-
iarities seem to be associated with a xerophytic environment. The
plants cling closely to the substratum and the stems branch frequently.
Sometimes the branches are variable in length and become irreg-
ularly subdivided; sometimes they are more or less definitely limited
in growth and give the shoots a plumose appearance. Under the latter
circumstances the branches tend to be simple or else develop only one
or two short branches of a higher rank. In color the plants vary
from a greenish yellow to a deep dull brown and are often tinged with
whitish, owing to the fact that the margins of the leaf-lobes die and
bleach out through exposure.

The leaves are very closely imbricated, especially in the variety
densissima, the imbrication affecting not only the lobes but the lob-
ules as well (Fig. 9, A). The lobes are convex when dry but are inore
or less squarrose; when moist the apical portion spreads stili more
widely from the axis, making the surface of the lobe somewhat con-
cave, but this appearance is never so pronounced as in F. sqguarrosa
(R. Bl. & N.) Dumort., a species which resembles F. gibbosa at first
sight and which grows in similar localities. The lobes in the present
species are broadly orbicular, measuring about 0.9 mm. in length and
4.2 mm. in width; they arch considerably beyond the axis and are
rounded at the apex. At the base a distinct auricle is developed and
this may be plane or more or less crispate (Fig. 9, D). This auricle
is usually so large and so strongly dilated that it covers over the
line of attachment of the lobe. The margin of the auricle is cren-
ulate from projecting cells, although the rest of the lobe is quite
entire.

1 Bull. Torrey Club $8: 220. Ig1I.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1911. 329

The lobules (Fig. 9, A—C) measure 0.6—0.7 mm. in length and
0.45—0.6 mm. in width when well developed. In normal cases the
upper part develops an inflated water-sac, well rounded above and
with an oblique mouth. In some cases the inflated portion occupies
the entire sac and the mouth is wide open; in other cases the inflated

Figure 9.—FRULLANIA GIBBOSA Nees

A. Part of a branch bearing a paroicous inflorescence with perianth,
postical view, X 27. B. Two stem-leaves and an underleaf, the stylus of
the leaf on the right forcibly reflexed, postical view, X 27. C. Three stem-
leaves and an underleaf, postical view, X 17. D. Stem-leaf, antical view,
x 17. E. Cells from the middle of alobe, X 225. F.—H. Bracts and brac-
teoles of a single inflorescence, F. the innermost series, G. the second, and
H. the third (perigonial), 17. I. Transverse section of a perianth in the
upper third, X 27. C. was drawn from a specimen collected by the writer
at Content Gap, Jamaica, in September, 1906; the other figures, from the
specimens collected at Santa Ana.

I a ae ae

330 Alexander W. Evans,

portion is restricted to the upper and outer parts of the sac, the free
margin is appressed, and the opening is reduced to a small hole
at the outer end. The apex of the lobule, where this hole is situated,
never forms a projecting beak as in so many species of Chonanthelia.
The water-sac, in fact, bears considerable resemblance to those found
in Trachycolea. The lower part of the lobule, usually occupying in
I’. gibbosa half the length or even less, is the so-called appendiculum
of authors. In the present case it is less well developed than in most
species of Chonanthelia and is variable in form, tending perhaps to be
triangular. Along the inner edge the appendiculum is attached to
the lobe by a short keel, which spreads more or less widely away from
the axis or, in rare cases, is subparallel with it. The outer margin
of the appendiculum, extending from the end of the keel to the outer
end of the water-sac, is sometimes straight and sometimes more
or less strongly curved. In most cases it is well covered over by
the lobe but occasionally extends slightly beyond it. The margin
is apparently never toothed in any way but may be very slightly cris-
pate. In some cases the lobule does not forma water-sac but con-
sists of an ovate lamina, which is either plane or slightly canalic-
ulate and which tapers to a blunt point.

The stylus is remarkably developed and sometimes approaches the
lobule itself in size. It varies from an ovate to a broadly reniform
expansion and is sometimes plane but much more frequently cris-
pate. Sometimes the stylus is appressed to the axis and is directed
toward the apex of the shoot (Fig. 9, C, on left); sometimes it is com-
pletely reflexed by the auricles of the underleaves (Fig. 9, C, on right) ;
and sometimes a portion only is reflexed, while the rest occupies the
normal position. Under the last conditions the stylus is sometimes
bifid. Apparently the broad expansion just described represents
an extreme development of the inner basal portion of the stylus.
The reason for this idea is that, between the expansion and the lobule,
a slender tooth-like structure, tipped with a hyaline papilla, can be
discerned -(Fig. 9, B, on right). In most species of Frullania the
entire stylus consists of a structure of this character. =

Although the stylus in F. gibbosa is so conspicuous and affords one
of the most distinctive features of the species, it is not mentioned
by Nees von Esenbeck, and its characteristics are not brought out
by Stephani. Gottsche,! however, emphasizes its importance, and
Spruce describes it at some length. According to his account it
attains its highest development in the variety densissima, where

1 Ann. des Sc. Nat. Bot. V. 1: 166. 1864.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1911. 331

it is often more or less adnate to the auricles of the underleaves.
The writer has been unable to demonstrate this adnation, even
on robust plants, although it might perhaps be hazardous to maintain
that it never occurred. In any case, however, the adnation is too
inconstant to be considered a differential character of importance.

The underleaves are about as large as the lobes and agree with
them in being densely crowded. They are broadly orbicular or
reniform and are attached by a slightly arched line. The two
sharp apical teeth are separated by a lunulate sinus and are usually
less than one fourth the length of the underleaf. The teeth are
commonly connivent and tend to be more or less twisted or con-
torted, while the margin of the sinus is often revolute. Somewhere
between the bottom of the sinus and the line of attachment the
underleaves form a short and rounded tubular projection, at the
tip of which the rhizoids are developed. At the base the under-
leaves are strongly auriculate on each side. The auricles are much
like those on the lobes. They are often more or less crispate and
may be so dilated that they partially cover over the line of attach-
ment of the underleaves. Sometimes the crispate nature of the
auricles is so exaggerated that incomplete water-sacs are formed.
It will at once be noted that the auricles of the underleaves, the
auricles of the lobes, and the expanded portions of the stylus are
all very similar structures and that through them the capacity
of the species for holding water by capillarity is greatly increased.
And it is precisely these structures which attain their highest
development in markedly xerophytic localities.

The cells of the lobe average about 23u along the margin, 33 in
the middle, and 43 at the base. The trigones are large and well
developed, showing a triangular form with straight or bulging
sides (Fig. 9, E). They are rarely confluent, and intermediate
thickenings are almost never present. On the lobules and under-
leaves the cells are smaller, but the trigones are relatively larger,
more irregular in form, and more frequently confluent.

Nees von Esenbeck does not describe the type of inflorescence
found in F. gibbosa and makes no mention of the male spikes, and
the later descriptions would indicate that the inflorescence is
subject to variation. According to Gottsche it is dioicous, according
to Spruce it is normally autoicous but is paroicous in the variety
densissima, according to Stephani it is monoicous, that is, autoicous.
When the writer examined the Mexican specimens in the Linden-
berg herbarium the conclusion was reached that they were dioicous
and that the statement of Gottsche was correct. Since, however,

332 Alexander W. Evans,

no dissections were made, it is possible that the female branches
may have borne undetected perigonial bracts at the base. All the
other specimens which have been examined with special reference
to the inflorescence have proved themselves either autoicous or
paroicous. It is probable therefore that the inflorescence ought
to be described as heteroicous, in which case the male individuals
described by Gottsche may have been due to an unfavorable envi-
ronment. Apparently a paroicous inflorescence is associated with
marked xerophytism.

The female branch (Fig. 9, A) is very short and seems to be in-
variably simple. Sometimes it arises directly from a principal
axis, Sometimes from a primary branch. The perichaetical bracts
and bracteoles have been well described by Spruce. They are
exceedingly variable but always show a high degree of coalescence
(Fig. 9, F—H). The bracts, however, are completely free at the
antical base. When well developed the lobes of the innermost
bracts are about 1.5mm. long and 0.9mm. wide; they show an ovate
form, a rounded to obtuse apex, and an entire or sinuate margin.
The lobules are about as long and almost as wide but they taper
more toward the apex, which varies from obtuse to acute. The
lobules are usually so strongly convolute that they appear nar-
rower than they really are. The stylus is commonly represented
by a slender tooth-like process on the inner edge of the lobule but
it may be in the form of a rounded lobe near the base. The inner-
most bracteole is about 1.5mm. long and 0.6mm. wide and is bifid
one tenth to one fifth its length. The divisions are erect and more
or less sharp-pointed, and the sinus is narrow and usually acute.
The lateral margins of the bracteole are sometimes entire and
sometimes bear one or two teeth, lobes, or laciniae on each side.
The divisions of the bracteole are often further distinguished by
being canaliculate or irregularly revolute in various portions of
the margin. The remaining bracts and bracteoles show a greater
approach to ordinary leaves and underleaves. In the case of a
paroicous inflorescence the perigonial bracts (Fig. 9, H)_are much
like the perichaetial bracts except that the parts are smaller, the
lobes are saccate at the base, and the coalescence is much less exten-
sive. In the case of a purely male inflorescence the bracts are
much the same as in other species of Chonanthelia.

The perianth is of the normal type and shows two sharp lateral
keels, two sharp postical keels, and a grooved antical face (Fig. 9, A, I).
It measures about 2mm. in length and 0.9mm. in width and tapers
gradually to the apex, which is tipped with a long and slender

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of 1911. 333

beak. The cells have bulging trigones and the intermediate thicken-
ings, although still rare, are much more numerous than elsewhere.
Coalescence between thickenings is frequent. The beak is fringed
by a series of unicellular papillae at the mouth and a number of
similar papillae grow out from the inner surface, so that the mouth
is completely blocked up by them. Gottsche was apparently the
first to call attention to this striking peculiarity. He stated that
it occurred not only in F. gibbosa but in F. riojanetrensis (Raddi)
Spruce and other allied species. It is not, however, confined to
the subgenus Chonanthelia. It is found likewise in F. saxicola
Aust. and F. cleistostoma Schiffn. & Wollny, two species belonging
to the subgenus Tvachycolea.

In distinguishing F. gibbosa from related species the following
characters will be found most serviceable; the brownish pigmen-
tation, the closely imbricated leaves and underleaves, the well-
developed auricles at the bases of the lobes and underleaves, the
blunt apex of the lobule not extending into a horn, the small
appendiculum, the broadly expanded stylus, the absence or great
infrequency of intermediate thickenings in the leaf-cells, the blunt
and entire lobes of the bracts, the four-keeled perianth with the
beak closed by papillae.

28. Frullania hians (Lehm. & Lindenb.) Mont. & Nees

Jungermannia hians Lehm. & Lindenb.; Lehmann, Pug. Plant.
4:65. 1832.

Frullania hians Mont. & Nees, Fl. Boliv.; d’Orbigny, Voy. dans
V’Amér. Mérid. 72: 69. 1839.

On bark, San Miguel, 6,000 feet, July 24, 1911. On rocks, Santa
Ana, 3,000 feet, August 4, 1911.

The original material of the present species was- collected by
Schiede and Dieppe at Xalapa, Mexico. According to our present
knowledge its range extends from the West Indies and Mexico,
through Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, and Brazil, to Bolivia
and Argentina. It has also been reported by Stephani from the
Galapagos Islands. It seems to be confined to rather high alti-
tudes. A portion of the type specimen, preserved in the Linden-
berg herbarium at Vienna, has been examined by the writer and
agrees in all essential respects with the specimens from Ecuador
distributed by Spruce. Specimens from Jamaica, Colombia, and
Brazil have also been studied. As in the case of F. gibbosa the

1 See Schiffn. Oester. Bot. Zeitschr. 59: 469. f. 22. 1909. Also Evans,
Rhodora 12: 203. tI910.

334

Alexander W. Evans,

present plant formed a part of Swartz’s aggregate species Junger-

mannia obscura.
carefully described by Spruce.

It is a species of wide variability and has been
His description, however, differs

in certain respects from the later description of Stephani.

Figure 10.—FRULLANIA HIANS

(Lehm. & Lindenb.) Mont. & Nees

A. Part of a robust stem, postical

view, X 17. B. Leaf, antical view,

x 17. C. Cells from the middle of a

lobe, X 225. The figures were drawn

from specimens collected by Spruce

in the Andes of Ecuador and distrib-
uted in his exsiccatae.

antical portion arches across the

The plants are of large size and
grow in rather loose mats, some-
times on rocks or banks, some-
times on trees. They show a wide
range of color, varying from a
pale yellowish green to a deep
purplish black. The stems are
at first prostrate, without clinging
very closely to the substratum;
later on they separate still more
and assume a-spreading or as-
cending position. On robust
sterile shoots the branches are
usually short and simple, so that
the shoot is distinctly pinnate.
On fertile shoots there is a strong
tendency for the later branches
to elongate and become sub-
divided, thus giving the shoot a
flabellate appearance, and the
growth of such a shoot is usually
limited by the development of
the sexual branches.

The leaves are imbricated and
the lobes are strongly convex
and widely spreading but not
squarrose (Fig.10,A). They are
ovate in outline, measuring about
1.6mm. in length and 1.2 mm.
in width ; the apex is rounded,
and the whole apical region is
usually distinctly revolute. The

axis and is cordate or auriculate

at the base (Fig. 10, B), although the auricles never reach the high

degreee of development found in F. gibbosa.

The postical margin,

between the revolute apical portion and the junction with the lobule,

is more or less strongly crispate.

The lobule measures about 0.75 mm. in length and 0.35 mm.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgzrt. 335

in width; it consists, as in other species of Chonanthelia, of a water-
sac and an appendiculum, each occupying about half its length.
Sometimes the lobules do not overlap at all, but frequently the
water-sac of one lobule partially covers over the appendiculum of
the next younger lobule on the same side. The water-sac is well
rounded above, and the inflated portion is restricted to the upper
and outer portions. The apex of the lobule extends as a slender,
subacute to rounded process directed backwards. The free margin
is more or less curved in the inner part and lies closely appressed
to the appendiculum. The outer part forms a distinct angle with
the inner part and is involute except near the apex, thus forming
a narrow, canal-like opening leading into the water-sac. The
appendiculum is variable with respect to its outline and the character
of its margin. When well developed it consists of a plane or more
or less crispate expansion, oblong-rectangular in form, extending
beyond the margin of the lobe, and connected with the latter by a
long straight keel, which is parallel with the axis and about 0.15 mm.
distant from it. The outer angle of the appendiculum is sometimes
rounded but more frequently forms a sharp tooth-like point, and
additional teeth are developed. The margin at the upper end,
near where it joins the apical portion of the lobule, is involute and
often appressed to the outer surface of the sac, thus making a more
complete closure of the mouth. Although the conditions just
described represent the more typical features of the appendiculum,
it is not unusual, especially on branch-leaves, for it to be more
triangular in form, the base of the triangle being at the junction
with the water-sac, the apex at the lower end of the keel. The
stylus is extremely minute and consists of a row of cells tipped
with a hyaline papilla.

The underleaves, which measure about 0.75 x 0.9 mm., are
broadly orbicular and more or less imbricated. Except for the
apical indentation, the margin is entire or sinuate, although more
or less crispate. The line of attachment is slightly arched, and
the base is strongly cordate or auriculate, the auricles being some-
times so large that they overlap. The apical teeth are from one
tenth to one fifth as long as the underleaf; they are more or less
sharp-pointed and vary from suberect to connivent, while the
sinus is rounded. The basal portion of the underleaf develops
a bulging radicelliferous region, which remains rudimentary if no
rhizoids are formed.

The cells of the lobe average about 20 w along the margin, 26 w
in the middle, and 40 x 26 w at the base. The trigones are large

336 Alexander W. Evans,

and triangular with bulging sides, one side being usually shorter
than the other two; sometimes one or two of the sides are concave
‘or wavy, making the trigones irregular (Fig.10, C). In the middle
of the lobe intermediate thickenings are infrequent; toward the
margin, however, as well as on the lobules and underleaves, they
are much more abundant. They are mostly oval with bulging
sides but are sometimes more irregular. Except in the middle
portion of the lobe coalescence between thickenings often occurs.

The inflorescence is autoicous. The archegonia are borne on
an elongated branch, which is more or less subdivided, one of the
branches arising among or just behind the bracts. According to
Spruce the latter are in seven pairs, according to Stephani in three.
The writer has found the number of pairs to vary from two to five.
The bracts increase rapidly in size toward the perianth, those of the
innermost pair having lobes about 3.5mm. long and 1.5 mm. wide.
The innermost bracts are free from each other at the antical base
but are highly connate with the bracteole and form with it a widely
spreading open cup, in the bottom of which the perianth is situated.
The lobes of these bracts are plane, ovate in outline, and acuminate
at the apex. In most cases they are sharply and coarsely dentate
or spinose above the middle, but in some cases they are nearly
or quite entire. When teeth or spines are present the maximum
number is perhaps seven on the outer margin and five on the inner.
The lobule is about as long as the lobe but narrower, and it appears
narrower than it really is on account of its revolute margins. The
apex forms a long and slender point, and there is usually if not
always a slender tooth, representing the stylus, close to the junction
with the bracteole. Aside from the stylus the margin of the lobule
may be either entire or else irregularly toothed or spinose. The
bracteole is about 2.7 mm. long and 1mm. wide; it is deeply bifid,
the broad and rounded sinus extending nearly or quite as far back
as the clefts between the bracteoles and the lobules of the bracts.
The divisions of the bracteole are much like the lobules, being long-
pointed and with revolute margins, while the latter are either entire
or variously toothed. The remaining bracts and bracteoles show
a gradual transition toward normal leaves and underleaves.

The perianth, which is terete or slightly compressed, is narrowly
oblong or ovate in outline; it measures 3—4mm. in length and about
0.9 mm. in width and extends slightly or not at all beyond the
involucre. At the apex it is rounded or truncate and bears a long
slender beak, the throat of which is closed by short internal papillae,
rarely reaching the minutely crenulate mouth. Except in the basal

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of r9zt. 337

region the perianth is deeply plicate. The keels, which number
about ten, are rounded and separated by rounded grooves; on the
surface they are usually smooth but may be slightly roughened.

The antheridial spikes occupy short branches or are terminal
on them and apparently never proliferate. The bracts are imbri-
cated and are mostly in from two to four pairs. The lobes are
ovate and obtusely pointed or apiculate, measuring about 0.65
< 0.45 mm. ; the lobules are shorter and narrower, measuring about
0.5 x 0.25mm., they are often more or less revolute along the free
margin and are attached to the lobe by a strongly arched keel.
The apex of the lobule is much like that of the lobe. The bracteoles
are ovate and measure about 0.3 x 0.25mm., the base is slightly
or not at all cordate, the margin is entire, and the apex is shortly
biapiculate.

Spruce recognizes eight species of Chonanthelia with pluriplicate
perianths from South America and Stephani thirteen. According
to Spruce the subgenus falls naturally into two groups: Clado-
carpicae, with the single species F’. brachyclada Spruce, of Ecuador;
and Acrocarpicae, with the remaining species. F. brachyclada and
seven of the Acrocarpicae have pluriplicate perianths. The distinc-
tion between the two groups is that in the Cladocarpicae the female
branch is very short and bears bracts only, while in the Acrocarpicae
it is variable in length and bears leaves as well as bracts. Unfortu-
nately this distinction is not very constant, the female branch in
F. brachyclada being sometimes more or less elongated and bearing
normal leaves.

Of the eight species recognized by Spruce, the only ones decribed
as autoicous are F. jians and F. Arecae (Spreng.) Spruce, and it
should be noted that Stephani describes this latter species as dioic-
ous. In his Hepaticae Spruceanae, Spruce distributed specimens of
I. Avecae from Ecuador, and these specimens, in the set examined
by the writer, show female inflorescences without perianths but
no signs of antheridial spikes. They would therefore support
Stephani’s idea of a dioicous inflorescence. Unfortunately they
do not agree in all respects with Spruce’s description, so that it
is possible they do not represent his idea of the species.

The plants in the Ecuador material are a little larger than in
F’, ans, the lobes measuring about 1.8 x 1.5mm., the lobules about
1.5 x 0.8 mm., and the underleaves about 1.6 x 1.66 mm. The
lobes, lobules and underleaves lack the crispate regions, which
are usually so marked in F. hians, and the appendiculum of the
lobule is rounded and quite entire. The underieaves are orbicular

338 Alexander W. Evans,

and distinctly auriculate at the base, the auricles often overlapping.
The innermost bracts and bracteoles of the female inflorescences
are not well developed; the lobes of the bracts, however, are
entire and the same thing is true of the lobules (except for the
stylus) and of the divisions of the underleaves. None of these parts
are canaliculate. The specimens are clearly distinct from F. jians,
but it is evident that F. Avecae is in need of further study. It is
perhaps worth noting that there is a specimen of Jungermannia
Avecae Spreng. in the Lindenberg herbarium at Vienna, labeled
“ab ipso,” and presumably a co-type. This specimen is autoicous
but lacks perianths and is insufficient to give a clear idea of the
species. According to Stephani the range of F. Avecae extends
from Mexico to Chile and the plant is common throughout this
whole region. :

Among the species with pluriplicate perianths recognized by
Stephani the following are autoicous: F. glauca Steph., of Brazil;
F. ttatiaja Steph., of Brazil; and F. spinileba Steph., of Panama
and Ecuador. These species are known to the writer from de-
scription only and are evidently very close to F. jians.

In distinguishing F. hians the following characters will be found
useful: the reddish or purplish pigmentation (not always present),
the imbricated leaves and underleaves, the more or less crispate
lobes, lobules and underleaves, the strongly arched water-sac ter-
minating in a slender point, the variable, oblong appendiculum
often with teeth, the minute stylus, the great infrequency of inter-
mediate thickenings in the middle of the lobe and their greater
frequency elsewhere, the autoicous inflorescence, the crowded, large
and highly coalescent bracts and bracteoles, the sharp-pointed
and often toothed lobes, lobules and divisions of the bracteoles,
the canaliculate lobules and divisions, the long pluriplicate perianth
with a long beak, the throat of which is closed by papillae.

29. Frullania laxiflera Spruce

Frullania laxiflora Spruce, Hep. Amaz. et And. 26. 1884.

On wood, San Miguel, 6,000 feet, July 24, 1914.

In his original description of F. laxiflora Spruce records the
typical form of the species from trees and rocks in Ecuador and
a variety Crossii from Colombia. Stephani states that the plant
grows also in Guatemala and Venezuela. The writer has seen no
authentic specimens of the species and bases his determination of
the Peruvian material on the full descriptions of Spruce and Stephani.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rgrt. 339

The plants are loosely tufted and more or less tinged with reddish
brown. The stems cling very loosely to the substratum or assume
an ascending position, rhizoids being scantily developed. In most

Figure II1,—FRULLANIA LAXIFLORA Spruce

A. Part of a robust stem, postical view, KX 17. B. End of a female

branch with perianth, postical view, « 17. C. Leaf, antical view, x 17.

D. Underleaf, the basal auricles flattened out, K 17. FE. Cells from the

middle of a lobe, X 225. FF. Innermost bracts and bracteole, * 27. G.—I.

Apices of the innermost bracteoles from three inflorescences, & 27. J. Trans-

verse section of a perianth at about the middle, & 27. The figures were
drawn from the specimens collected at San Miguel.

cases they are simply pinnate, the branches being distant and
quickly limited in their growth; occasionally a branch, especially
if bearing archegonia, gives rise to one or two short branches of
a higher order.

Trans. Conn. Acav., Vol. XVIII. 23 ApRIL, 1914.

340 Alexander W. Evans,

The leaves are distant to loosely imbricated, and the convex
lobes spread widely from the axis but appear to spread obliquely
on account of the revolute apical portions (Fig. 11, A). The lobes
are ovate and measure about 1.3 mm. in length and 1.4 mm. in width.
At the antical base a large and dilated auricle is developed, which
often covers over more or less completely the line of attachment
(Fig. 14, C). The margin is entire and the apex is broad and
rounded in the Peruvian material, although Spruce says that it
is usually obtuse.

The lobule, which measures about 0.7 x 0.35 mm., shows the
usual division into water-sac and appendiculum, these being about
equal in length. The water-sac is rounded above and inflated
in the upper and outer portions. The free margin spreads almost
at right angles from the axis and is more or less outwardly curved;
the outer part of the margin forms a distinct angle with the rest
and meets the outer edge of the appendiculum at an obtuse angle,
forming however a very acute angle with the outer boundary of
the sac. In other words the apex of the lobule is not prolonged
as a free process. Most of the free margin is appressed but the
outer part is free and helps form the narrow cylindrical passage
into the sac. The appendiculum is ovate-triangular, the base
being at the sac, one side forming the outer edge, and the other
being at the keel between the lobule and the lobe. This keel, on
robust leaves at least, is curved inward, the end usually extending
to the antical surface of the axis and sometimes meeting the auricle
at the base of the lobe; on branch-leaves the keel is often straight
or nearly so. The stylus is minute and usually consists of a short
row of cells tipped with a hyaline papilla.

The underleaves are large but rarely overlap except toward the
apex of a stem or branch. They are plane or somewhat revolute
along the sides and are orbicular in outline, measuring about
0.75 mm. in length. They are further distinguished by being bifid
about one eighth their length, the divisions being sharp and the
sinus rounded. In most cases the divisions are triangular and
erect but they may be connivent. The margin is entire or nearly
so, and the base is auriculate on each side (Fig. 11, D), the auricles
being usually involute along their inner edges in such a way that
the underleaf seems to end in two pointed processes (Fig. 11, A).
The modified underleaf at the base of a branch is broad and bears
a shallow apical sinus separating two blunt and divergent divisions
(Fig. 11, A, at base).

The leaf-cells average about 16 w along the margin of the lobe,

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rorr. 341

25 x 20 in the middle, and 35 x 27 4 at the base. Trigones
are well developed, intermediate thickenings are frequent even in
the median region, and coalescence often takes place (Fig. 11, E).
The trigones are triangular in form but are subject to considerable
variation. Sometimes all three of the sides are convex, but it is
much more usual for only one to be convex, the other two being
either concave or wavy. When two wavy sides meet the angle
between them is often rounded. Sometimes the sides of the trigone
are all wavy, and then two or even all three angles of the triangle
may be rounded. The intermediate thickenings are for the most
part oval.

The inflorescence is autoicous. The female branch is more or
less elongated, and the bracts, which are mostly in two or three
pairs, are not crowded as in so many species of Chonanthelia but
scarcely overlap at all (Fig. 11, B). The imnermost bracts are
shortly coalescent with the corresponding bracteole and spread
very slightly away from the perianth (Fig. 11, F). The lobe is
ovate and averages about 1.3 x 0.7 mm., the margin being entire
or vaguely sinuate. The apex varies from rounded to acute or
even acuminate. The lobule, which measures about 1.2 x 0.6 mm.,
is also ovate, and acute or acuminate at the apex; it is strongly
concave, however, and therefore appears lanceolate. On the inner
edge below the middle the stylus, usually in the form of a sharp
tooth-like lobe, may be discerned ; otherwise the margin of the lobule
is quite entire. The innermost bracteole is narrowly to broadly
ovate and measures about 1mm. in length and from 0.3—0.5 mm.
in width. The apex is very variable (Fig. 11, B, G—I). Although
normally bifid for about one sixth its length with acute divisions
and sinus, the latter may be much shallower and rounded, and
the divisions may be obtuse or blunt. It is not unusual, indeed,
for one division to be larger or otherwise different from the other,
thus making the bracteole unsymmetrical. Aside from the apical
divisions the bracteole is either entire or bears a lobe-like tooth
on one or both sides near the base. Between the innermost bracts
and bracteole and ordinary leaves and underleaves the usual gra-
dation may be observed.

The perianth (Fig. 11, B) projects for half its length or less beyond
the bracts. It measures about 1.5 mm. in length and 1 mm. in
width and is obovate in outline, tapering toward the base and
rounded or truncate at the apex. The beak is well developed and
practically entire at the mouth, but the throat is closed by short
papillae growing out from the inner surface. The perianth is four-

342 Alexander W. Evans,

plicate for the greater part of its length, both lateral and postical
keels being sharp (Fig. 14, J). The antical surface is either plane
or else bears a low and short keel in the upper part.

The antheridial spikes occupy entire branches and are infrequently
produced. They are unusually small, being completely covered
over by the leaves, and commonly arise on a female branch. Each
spike bears two or three pairs of closely imbricated, strongly in-
flated, subequally bifid bracts, the divisions being acute or apic-
ulate and entire, except for the very minute stylus on the inner
margin of the lobule. The bracteoles are small and shortly bifid.

In Frullania tetraptera Nees & Mont.1 and F. semiconnata Lindenb.
& Gottsche,? the present species has two very close allies. F. tetrap-
tera was based on specimens collected by d’Orbigny at Valparaiso,
Chile, and has since been recorded from Rusby’s Bolivian collections
by Spruce. F. semiconnata was based on material gathered by
Liebmann at Chinantla, Mexico. It has since been reported by
Gottsche from the vicinity of Bogota, Colombia, by Spruce from
near Quito, Ecuador, and by Jack and Stephani from Argentina.
In his latest treatment of the genus Frudlania, however, Stephani
reduces F’. semiconnata to a synonym of F. tetraptera and states that
the species is common in tropical America and in Chile. Strange
to say, on a later page of the same work, he quotes F. tetraptera
as a synonym of F. gibbosa, so that his views on the subject are
not altogether clear. Spruce calls attention to the fact that F,
semiconnata is essentially a weed in the regions where he observed
it, growing particularly on the bark of apple trees.

Of F. semiconnata the writer has examined a portion of the
type specimen in the Lindenberg herbarium at Vienna and also the
abundant material collected by Pringle at Cima, Federal District,
Mexico, and distributed in his Plantae Mexicanae (No. 10,680).
No material of F. tetraptera has been available for study. The
Mexican specimens of F. semiconnata were determined by Stephani
and show both male and female branches in large number. Un-
fortunately these seem to be borne on separate individuals, so
that the material is dioicous rather than autoicous as the descriptions
demand. Since the type specimen is clearly autoicous, there is
a possibility of error in the determination of Pringle’s plants. His
material is evidently very close to F. laxiflora but differs in the
following particulars: the plants are smaller, the lobes of the leaves

1 Ann. des Sc: Nat. Bot1I. 9 47-1838:
2G. L. & N. Syn. Hep. 776. 1847.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of grt. 343

reaching a maximum size of about 0.85 x 0.75 mm. and the lobules
of 0.35 x 3mm.; the basal auricles of the lobe are less developed ;
the appendiculum of the lobule is much shorter than the water-
sac; the stylus is better developed and is often subulate, being
sometimes two or three cells wide at the base; the underleaves
are smaller (maximum size about 0.45 x 0.4 mm.), one fifth to
one fourth bifid, and cuneate at the base, the sides being often
more or less reflexed. In other respects the plants are very much
alike.

The following are among the most important characteristics of
F. laxiflora: the reddish pigmentation (not always marked), the
distant to loosely imbricated leaves, the large auricles at the base
of the lobes, the blunt water-sac without a distinctly projecting
apex, the entire appendiculum rounded along its outer edge, the
inwardly curved keel connecting lobe and lobule, the minute stylus,
the large and involute auricles of the underleaves, the well-devel-
oped thickenings in the walls of the leaf-cells, the autoicous in-
florescence, the loosely crowded perichaetial bracts, the variable
and entire lobes, the sharp, entire, concave lobules, the variable
bracteoles, the four-keeled perianth with its beak closed by papillae.

30. Frullania squarrosa (R. Bl. & N.) Dumort.

Frullania squarrosa Dumort. Recueil d’Obs. sur les Jung. 13. 1835.

On rocks, Huadquiria, 5,000 feet, July 30, 1911. On wood, Santa
Ana, 3,000 feet, August 3, 1914.

A common and variable species, the range of which apparently
extends throughout the warmer regions of the globe.

31. Frullania brasiliensis Raddi

Frullama brasiliensis Raddi, Mem. Soc. Ital. Modena, Fis. 19:
30. 1823; 20:.f1. 3, ¢. 2. 1829.

Jungermannia mucronata Lehm. & Lindenb.; Lehmann, Pug.
Plant. 6: 54. 1834.

Frullania mucronata Nees, Naturg. europ. Leberm. 3: 259. 1838.

Frullama cylindrica Gottsche; Lehmann, Pug. Plant. 8: 15. 1844.

Frullania Letboldit Lindenb. & Gottsche; G. L. & N. Syn. Hep.
782. 1847.

On rocks and wood, San Miguel, 5,000—6,000 feet, July 24, 1911.
On rocks, Santa Ana, 3,000 feet,* August 3, 1911.

A common and widely distributed species of the American tro-
pics, first described from specimens collected in Brazil but now

344 Alexander W. Evans,

known also from Jamaica, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru,
and Bolivia. The present material is either completely sterile or
else bears scattered antheridial spikes. Fertile plants are readily
distinguished by the cylindrical perianths, these organs in most
members of the subgenus Thyopsiella being distinctly triplicate.
In the absence of perianths the apiculate leaf-lobes reflexed at
the apex and auriculate at the base, together with the auriculate
underleaves with apiculate divisions and revolute margins will
aid in the identification of specimens.

Hepaticae: Yale Peruvian Expedition of rors.

INDEX TO GENERA AND SPECIES

The names of genera and species occurring in the present collection are
printed in roman type; synonyms and the names of genera and species merely
alluded to in the text are printed in italics.

Brachiolejeunea 3.25
bicolor. 325
densifolia . 325

Bryopteris 316

Cephalozia bicus-
pidata 305

Dicranolejeunea 316
axillaris 320
hypoacantha . 323
phyllorhiza 325
rotundata 323

Frullania 326
Arecae 337
brachyclada 337
brasiliensis 343
cleistostoma 333
cylindrica. 343
gibbosa 327
glauca 338
hians . 333
itatiaja 338
laxiflora 338
Leiboldui . 343
mucronata 343
viojaneivensis. 333
saxicola 333
semiconnata 342
spiniloba . 338
squarrosa . 343
tetvaptera . 342

Gymnomitrium . 296

Jungermannia Ave-

cae. 338
debilis . 315
hians . 333
mucronata 343
obscura . 327, 333
plevogonia 315

Lejeunea axillaris 320
bullata 314
debtlis 315

Lejeunea flovida. 315
Lophocolea . 313
diaphana . 313
heterophylla 305
Lophozia 296
Madotheca arborea 314
squamulifera . 314
Marchantia . 299
lamellosa 299
Marchesinia. 326
brachiata 326
Marsupella . 296
Mastigolejeunea, 316
Metzgeria 299
aurantiaca 301
chilensis 301
fruticulosa 301
furcata 300
myrviopoda 300
oligotricha 300
scyphigera 299
Microlejeunea 314
bullata 314
Myriocolea . 296
M ytilopsis 296
Odontolejeunea . 317
Omphalanthus . 326
debilis 315,
filiformis . 326
ptlerogonius B05
subalatus . 315
Plagiochasma 298
chlorocarpum 298
peruvianum 298
validum 299
Plagiochila . 302
alternans . 302
amazonica Eyal
andicola . 303
asperifolia 312
asplenioides 303

Plagiochila
Binghamiae
chinantlana
flavescens
Footei
Guilleminiana
Haeckeriana .
hypantra .
mapiriensis
montana
oveocharis
orvesitvopha
patentissima .
pauciramea
vhizophila
yutilans
striolata
subconvoluia .
truncata
veryyUcosa .

Porella .
arborea
squamulifera .
Ptychocoleus

Radula . . .
andicola
complanata
ramulina .
vividi-aurea

Reboulia
carvpa. ». .

Rupinia
carpa .

Scapania

Stephaniella .

Stictolejeunea

chloro-

chloyvo-

Taxilejeunea
debilis.
florida
pterogonia

345

= Ma wy wee ,
Pater bP Aa ee ste URS yak aah e o%
4 « = ia
| SE sae i
rae a Pe at yds et ae
4 ay eal Pies Me ye es) 7 ee
Yi ,
atirnnls es a
i ¢ ers eit V - t .

ye . ei
5 ts éieegeahine) t

‘
FRCTAS VI

, a
Z eeichnenies _
a .
a nt
al TERE
~~ ~ r
- > SS 4a
= as
= é a
- - Lf
oo
i x . ates
Got eres
‘ 4

[t:2
y Li
> Li
‘
as
oD
a
4 a
OLS A tee Rs ads
af 2s.
« oa .
“ hed
Ulett
a8
aera d :
25 SS
i - l H a
eat
. 2) 4 7
y ‘>
Y
Z| Ds
4 S ) t
: : eh Fi)
PAL esti ae
4 i eM Sa
me hPsanye ay.
’ »
# atone
pw * : Purr
7
vowel Mik aks
Ot
Bie rt Sey F
tS . Pei
7% ase, P
‘ Vac ices :
oars MS oe N
. CoV
: ry “a's =
viae
aiey = 4
* - 5
€s eepene ? ape
s
: i mh
a: ‘ YS *
| * 1 Da

TRANSACTIONS OF THE

CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

INCORPORATED A. D. 1799

VOLUME 18, PAGES 347-447 FEBRUARY, 1918

The Appendices to the
Gospel according to Mark

A Study in Textual Transmission

CLAKENCE RUSSELL WILLIAMS,- Pa.D:

WARES UNIVERSITY -PRESS
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1915

avin #7. ge %

> eo rs Lie

WEIMAR: PRINTED YR, WAGNER S SOHN -

—

The modern science of textual criticism is not only a machine to
enable the student to construct a text of the New Testament which
shall be complete, correct, and free from interpolations.... It aims
at . . . reconstructing the history of the book studied.

Under the head of ‘“‘ Textual Criticism” comes the history of the
book from the time it left the author’s hands to the present day,
including the study not only of accidental errors introduced by
copyists, but also the work of later editors and revisers.

Burkitt, “Two Lectures on the Gospels.”

CONTENTS
PAGE
mANTRODUCTION.._. heck EES why eV ie0e
Il. PRELIMINARY INV ESTIG ATIONS F 2 : . 356
CopEXx VaTICANUS (B) .. 3 3 . : : a Meee
CopEX SINAITICUS (N) . : : : ‘ : , : vege
CuRSIVE 22 : F ‘ : : : ; : : . . 364
SyRIAC VERSIONS , : 5 ; : ; : : P . 366
Sinaitic Syriac ee ee ee ince ere oe
Diatessaron of Tatian . . : : ; : 2 bn
Curetonian Syriac . : ; : cae oe : eis eob
Peshitto . 2 2 : : : : : ; : 5 ol
Harclean Syriac ; at we ait a 3 : ; - 312
ARMENIAN VERSION ; : E : E ; : ,. 3814
“Of the Presbyter eon! ge . ; : ‘ : = Bue
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS 2 : : , : , ’ ; ~ Biste!
Sahidic Version, : : ; : : : : . ; »389
Bohairic Version . ; : 2 : : é ; » 9392
ETHIoPIC VERSION , é : : ; : : . ; soe
ARABIC 13. : : : ‘ ; : : : : : 5 atthe

THE SHORTER CONCLUSION

OxLp LATIN. : ‘ : : : : ; : ; E399
Codex Bab ate (k). ‘ P : ; : P , - et

GREEK MSS wIiTH BOTH CONCLUSIONS
Codex. Regius (L) . : ; f 5 : ; . 406
Fragm. Sinaiticum (3). . : ; : ; 4 .- 409
Codex Athous Laurae (4) . : - j : ; . All
Fragm. Parisiense (T!) . ‘ : : 2 5 ‘ . 414
Cursive 579 ; : : , : j 3 ; : . 416
Cursive 274™& F : ; 2 : : ‘ Z . A418
THE FREER LoGIoN, : 2 : : . A419

Ill. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY OF Ee CONCLEU-

SIONS . ° 3 3 : : . A : P : : _ wos
THE ABBREVIATED GOSPEL ., ‘ ‘ : A ; : . 433
THE LONGER CONCLUSION . : : : : : : . 436
THE SHORTER CONCLUSION . : : . : , : . 438

THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS - . f : : . 444

35°5

VI.—THE APPENDICES
TO THE GOSPEL, ACCORDING TO MARK

By CLareENCE RusseLL WILLIAMS

INTRODUCTION

Erasmus, in his notes concerning the Greek New Testament, stated
that the last twelve verses of the, Gospel according to Mark are
wanting in the best authorities. This rill of doubt became a river
through such editors as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and
Tregelles, until in 1871 in mingled grief and indignation, with profound
and minute scholarship, Dean John William Burgon defended their
authenticity in his learned monograph, “The Last Twelve Verses
of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated against recent critical
objectors and established,” which he closes with the characteristic
and triumphal saying :

Enough to have demonstrated, as I claim to have now
done, that not a particle of doubt, that not an
atom of suspicion, attaches to “THE
LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE
GOSPEL- ACCORDING 10
Sa MARI

TO TEAO>

But when Westcott and Hort’s edition of the Greek New Testament
appeared in 1881 these verses were separated from the text of Mark
and printed in double brackets, while in the accompanying notes
Dr. Hort gave a most thorough and careful discussion of the reasons
for their rejection (Vol. II, Notes, pp. 28—51).

This was followed, in 1884, by a most elaborate defence of the
authenticity of these verses by Abbe J. P. P. Martin, a scholar gene-
rally and undeservedly neglected by English and American writers
though referred to by Zahn as an authority. In his Introduction a la
Critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, the whole of the second
volume (Partie pratique) of 554 pages is devoted to a discussion of
this problem, with remarkable thoroughness. In its first hand knowl-
edge of the evidence of the manuscripts this volume is even superior
to the learned monograph of Dean Burgon, and we have found no

3D4 Clarence Russell Williams,

volume which equals it in the presentation of reproductions of the
manuscripts concerned. Abbe Martin closes his argument in defence
of these verses with the suggestion that the question of authenticity
be decided in their favor by a decree of the next Ecumenical Council.

Zahn, in his masterly “ Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons”’
published in 1890 devoted nearly thirty pages to a discussion of the
subject (Vol. II, pp. 910—938). The declaration by this leader among
the more conservative scholars that “It may be regarded as one of
the most certain of critical conclusions, that the words &o00GoivTs y%o
xvi. 8 are the last words in the book which were written by the author
himself’’ expresses the opinion of most scholars today.

Interest in this problem was intensified, and further discussion
evoked by the announcement in 1893 of the discovery by F. C. Cony-
beare of an Armenian codex in which the verses were ascribed to the
Presbyter Ariston, and by the announcement in 1908 uf the dis-
covery in the Freer Manuscript of the Gospels of the interpolation
referred to by Jerome.

English and American scholars frequently refer to H. B. Swete’s dis-
cussion of the subject (The Gospel according to St. Mark, pp. xcvi—cv,
1898) as the best recent presentation of the textual evidence.

But recent discoveries in manuscripts and the light thrown upon
the field by the investigations of textual critics call for a new dis-
cussion, not for the purpose of deciding for or against the authent-
icity of either of the conclusions found at the end of Mark, but as
an aid in solving the problems of textual transmission. |

Since the discussions of Burgon, Hort, and Martin were published
a most important witness for that form of the Gospel which ends
with verse eight has been brought to light by the discovery of the
Sinaitic Syriac by Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis in 1892 ; and the evidence
has been increased by the discovery of three manuscripts containing
the Shorter Conclusion preceding the Longer, and one cursive (579),
apparently overlooked by Swete; and, since the latter’s discussion,
there has been added the evidence of the Freer Logion, announced
in 1908 and of a Sahidic MS published in 1941. :

Briefly stated, the results this investigation tends to establish are :

The Longer Conclusion probably originated in Asia Minor during
the early half of the second century (the Armenian scholion assigning
the authorship to Ariston being cor sidered late, unauthentic, and
probably based on some misunderstanding or confusion). It was ©
carried to Rome about 150 A.D. where it had become accepted as the
authentic end of the Gospel by the time Tatian compiled his Diates-
saron (170 A.D.). It was through Tatian that it gained a place in the

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 309

Syriac New Testament. Supported by the authority and the usage
of the great church of Rome, the Longer Conclusion early gained
acceptance as an authentic portion of the Gospels throughout the
region dominated by it.

The Longer Conclusion is probably an excerpt from an apocryphal
Gospel, selected to complete the mutilated Second Gospel.

For the origin of the Shorter Conclusion we must look to Egypt,
since the manuscripts which contain it as well as the form of text
with which it is associated both point to that country as its source.
It was composed as a conclusion to the Gospel, probably by some
scholar of Alexandria, before the close of the second century. Its
adoption in the territory dominated by the church of Alexandria
required a longer time than the adoption of the Longer Conclusion
in the territory dominated by Rome, since in Egypt, the home of the
purer texts, the tradition of the incomplete form of the Gospel per-
sisted as late as the fourth century, as NB witness.

In its transmission from Alexandria the Shorter Ending gained a
place in manuscripts of the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Ethiopic versions,
and also in the Old Latin Version of Roman North Africa, apparently
as early as the time of Cyprian (250 A.D.).

Even after the introduction of the Longer Ending into Egypt the
Shorter persisted, struggling with it for centuries, as is proved by the
manuscripts containing both endings, until finally the authority of
the church at Rome, as well as its own superior intrinsic excellence,
established the Longer as the authoritative ending of the Gospel
according to Mark.

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

The evidence to be weighed in judging this question is of so in-
tricate and so disputed a character, as Dr. Hort has well said, that it
seems necessary to discuss at greater length than we would have
desired the sources and affiliations of the manuscripts, both in the
Greek and in the versions, which form the authorities upon which
our conclusions are based.

While an endeavor has been made to give a reasonably adequate
presentation of the textual evidence, the writer is aware of the im-
portance of other evidence, which, while it has not been discussed, has
nevertheless been considered in the reconstruction of the history of
the conclusions of the Gospel according to Mark.

uly tov Altory &

Trans. Conn.

éx Ti

VEQVLOZOV |
Je&io10 EOLBE-
otoAny
Egé-
| 0 0&

a ees <
AEVEL HUVTELO LL)
{

Binué|vov
hevzny | xe

FOUTS 1 CY

Exdauuperade ty Cy-

tet | TE Tov vala-

onvoy to | EGTHU-
i Qe iene
OWUEVOY YEO VY,

x
ovz~ Zot woe idé

e , ,
6 tOm0G Ummov
G = 2 s
EFI ZG @UTOV
AAG VILAYVETE

ELM UTE TOLD UC N-

~ > ~ .
TALO G@vUTOVU XL

TO LU ETOW OTL
c

MOOKYEL UU ELC
THY YOMAGLEY EXEL
G@U TOV OWEODE *A-
z
two elimev vuly
xCL ESEAFOU OWL
Co 2 AN ~
éEpiyov «mo toy |
uynuecov Ely ev
@UTaG TOO-

x j
yg | avr
U0O xuL EX\OTHOLO
: ‘ . . ‘ > | \*
zat cvdeve ov\dEery
ans 2 AS
ginov époBcvy To

yeo °

Specimen of the

3.
ov

Codex

MINTONAIOONEK THE

ey pactoymMNH MELOY
K RIANARAE PAC AIOE
oy ciINSTIANAKEKY

AIC TAIOAIGOCHNE 4S

MErACCS OAPAKAIEA

eGycaie CTOMNHME!
ON ElAONNEANICKON

KROHMENONENTOIC —

AEZIOICNEPIBERAHME
NON € TOAHNAGYKHN

KRIESEOAME HOHCAN

OKEAETEIAY TAICMA

EK QAMBREICOEINZHTE!
TETGNNAZAPHNONT
ECTAY WMEN ONH IEP
HOY KECTINGAE IDS
6ToONnoCcONoyeenKs
Bey TON AAA AYTIATE TE

EINATE TOICMAOHTA!S
Ay TOy KAITD NETS
Og: bmpOkr Gly eCele
THN CAAIAKIANE KEIBY
TONG EeceeEKAOWCE!
nenyMiN KAIE ZEAQ Y
CAIE yroNAnoToy
MNH CIOYEIXENTAL
RY TACT pPOMOCKAIEK
CTACICKAICY AEN OY
AEN EINON qd opoyn
_ roray: <r

oes
VK NG ee
*JLKP KON ¥¥

Mark xv1. 3B—8

Vaticanus, containing

From Dean Burgon’s photograph of the whole page.

Acap., Vol.

XCVETIE

Tue WITNESS oF CopEXx SINAITICUS AND CoDEXx VaATICANUS

Summary.

Codex Vaticanus (B) ends Mark’s Gospel with v.8 but the remainder
of the column and the whole of the following (third) column, is
left blank.

Codex Sinaiticus (&) also ends with v. 8. but does not leave a blank
column. However the remainder of the line after ya is filled
with an arabesque.

Je a Early Alexandrian of the time of Origen (* 250 A.D.).

lacey. .... Alexandria, (°).

Yime .... Probably before 350 A.D.

Inferences The scribes of B and of 8 knew of a conclusion for Mark

but did not consider it an authentic part of the Gospel.

Discussion.

It is most significant that the two oldest Greek MSS of the New
Testament known, the two great fourth century codices, Sinaiti-
cus and Vaticanus, our best representatives of the early Alexandrian
text, the “Neutral” text of WH, agree in ending the Gospel according
to Mark at 16:8. There is a difference however in the manner in
which they bear this witness.

Codex Vaticanus (Gregory B, von Soden 31) ends Mark at v. 8.
followed by the ornament and the subscription xat&% Méoxov. The
remainder of the column (the second) and the whole of the third is
left blank. This is contrary to the usual custom of the scribe. The
Gospel according to Matthew ends in the upper part of the second.
column of the page in a similar fashion, yet the Gospel according
to Mark begins at the top of the third column. More significant
still, in the case of Luke, which ends on the last line but one of
the second column, the subscription together with the ornament is
crowded into the lower margin, below the usual bottom of the page,
instead of being carried over to the third column.

Though no such blank is elsewhere found in this codex, it is sig-
nificant that ‘‘the same use of blank spaces is found in L at John
7:53-8:11, and also very instructively in A+ G,.” (WH. IL,
Notes, p. 29.)

Dean Burgon pointed out to the critics that this unique blank

3908 Clarence Russell Williams,

column indicates, on the part of the scribe of B, knowledge of the
existence In his day of a conclusion to Mark. One may infer that
the exemplar from which the scribe was copying also concluded the
Gospel with v. 8 (so WH), though one cannot deny the possibility
that he copied from an archetype in which, by some sign, the un-
authentic character of the last twelve verses was indicated and this,
possibly combined with his knowledge of the best current text, caused
their omission.

Can we infer from this blank which of the two conclusions the scribe
of B had in mind, the Longer or the Shorter ?

Burgon argued (p. 87) that this space furnished “a blank abun-
dantly sufficient to contain the twelve verses.”’ Zahn, on the con-
trary, declares that even if we accept the conclusion of Scrivener
(Vol. I. p. 106) that both the arabesque ornament and the subscrip-
tion xa7% Maoxov are by a later hand, with the additional space thus
gained the Longer Conclusion could not have been contained. He
therefore concludes that the scribe knew the Shorter Conclusion
(GK. II. p. 912). But, though agreeing thatthe space is insufficient
to contain the Longer Conclusion, it does not seem a necessary
inference that the scribe would measure out a blank space exactly
corresponding with the space required for the copying of the con-
clusion with which he was acquainted. While it would be a most wel-
come support to our argument for the Egyptian origin of the Shorter
Conclusion to find a witness for it in Codex Vaticanus, we are unable
to infer more than that the scribe knew of the existence of a con-
clusion to the Gospel, which he did not feel authorized to copy.
It is even possible that he knew of the existence of both conclusions,
and his doubt was in part due to this fact. It is, however, evident
that he considered the form of the Gospel which ended with v. 8. as
the authentic one.

Codex Sinaiticus (Gregory 8, von Soden 3?) also concludes Mark
at v. 8, the last line “containing only the letters TOVAP has the rest
of the space (more than half the width of the column) filled up with a
minute and elaborate ‘arabesque’ executed with the pen in ink and
vermilion. nothing like which occurs in the whole MS (O.T. or N.T.),
such spaces being elsewhere invariably left blank.’ So says John
Gwynn, apparently the first to call attention to this fact, who argues
from it that it implies a knowledge, on the part of the scribe, of a con-
clusion for the Gospel. (Scrivener’s Introduction, I. p. 95, footnote
dated May 24, 1883.)

Our own study of Codex Sinaiticus in both Tischendorf’s edition
and in the recent photographic edition of Kirsopp Lake (Oxford,

Dd¢ f4 OT 4ADAE
NZOLIONSOUD. NY IY
Nob NE ELN ov

Hab Sc rE ENS Od EL
EXPO LDWIN LIV ICKDO3IG
Ltd IN bd a)
mC IOK MUD tam
XN IPO EN I OOMNY
roanHoLovosprdyey

LOW FEONOLO.LOY

of LON IVIOMSINGI
SHAM ELL IOs.
Ive oc dws IMLONTWH
ney DOV IN IPIM G4
a WICLEIN EN EEN
NMNAIWHdOcdof
pVvtrat N aids e
mfOoHdHin IYWOOI IN 1.

NWN TE 4I9D Xs? ee)
mpvy~OLtdditHNloris

CO t.

IMO}
<€Qiec
iy: Spe an MING =
eNom brary pwste dw F
eotoal — o~——* _—— f os 1)
7 «i "ie | kt t *
afrlo PV ea , oe ae a | *
fs ~ Cee Tt, =
pis ‘. i —— Ne . ¥
it yf AL th - S
—vT ‘4 iN — ah ; Vx =
Ivaty a
’ ‘ La =
< 7 CIDA 5
, ‘moter &
e 4 x . 45!
. AN OL. ee
- £ . “
: : ‘OC ff os
ec pee 44.44.62 0 £6 22 eh 8 ibe 6)
2 AOL ~

i re ped AIOE, : Vi ‘€ Ny b
NLodod>s noi : XEN!
LIINIVAOIN ay oy i ae :

t(Loiwmw>to towso ie sR.

From facsimile of Helen and Kirsopp Lake published by the Clarendon Press.

XVIII.

Acap., Vol.

Conn.

TRANS.

NUNNNWoOt!
MINOT
NeoIX st WLo

mYIYY
IWNNINWOc< PW IVE. /

IoHd Mx NOWDOM

NOLMWLONOLAY:
LO-NIONM INL

tooo Oia OI)
~NIiMDIVCODELININ +).

teow ALIN WCINSPOIVOVI |

WIHINONEHEL! lovin

walttigwwoOod Latio

avo tacdhwd lotion
tN LOLOYOGED |
IMIDAINN OD tty
“~ALOLINOLING NOI.
1s IVSEONDMIY NWO
MIOLIN MN iww
HN IU! Peale thLot
DIIVWI OAD OOo
Niahoo mite a5,
IONIDLONDMF Oy
VY INN LOO Wd 1x
loIrnNStMao! tovd
IVNNLODIVNIG

y»dex Sinaiticus, End of John’s Gospel.
ake,

of Helen and

published by the Clarendon Press.

Kirsopp

From facsimile

Acap., Vol. XVIII.

TRANS. CONN.

a =

~ eis “RRA ratty
‘
;
KATAN TIPO Te? CTACHCICNOY? ® ENCIAH TIE PIO CAPS rCeAGCD Ne
- RO RTIOPSOAER AIS 2b RENO ACNE T? (3 Eb se Ker TP TCAML AND “LON BRON Lory RY
’ PRA METIS NON GPO kOy NM “PRDACORI ADEE DCH RATAN LOL IANO.
eistiies Sete ee Porarp? +m - Trepp gaa N mera INC POyARO yer OceT
FOC VOM Oy aaa posporinicrsanes moMCNone tabi.
ab JORIU NCP METPOR SS ark ere eed em bine ns biprMal PR POyOrse ae
ne a tee thermy f - RAOWOCTIDFCADCAN axpornxeay rots t-
Ppetens cas Ve PIMA NOLATTAL II ICAY Mu CORY SCT UDC OS
eeeeods ate cares 2 wee “LONTTARRALy TY FM yoy ows
pre POD Mie : SSeS PLOY PO yay pass
OY MAD t xe} a AOVOTEATSCIOMOL “FOC KNIE FAP AO
é CARDED PO YUN i JIAPHROAOY ORIG! APIACT ALOR eas
BAe ROP ASO ENA ~ AN Q@OERILICINA *LOCErIEMC Cer ©
[OM ALU here ae a Fike KAGC Sric
- a» 2ONTA PEA AIRPAT EE
. CERIO S Lite SCORING RG TUDE
PADS pre de DAR PP RT PE bore As
wmric tai soe MODE SDE AACS 3
PREPRESS PIERS MAxy Er tc TOE CO RAT ETI hee -
eC Ae Sor ciept if RL << oo ae ees “on Toei Pr NSee =
KORN ae ore ge Rey ACER rai CONICS MOOT NBS
PaPSES Oy eee " 2 me RECHT OPIS]
> SAB aaa es DMAS BO PS oe “pore. THe? ge ?
Sine esse ereap ae FoACARIA CPR Star 2pNses z
HMONG MOREA ATC POUNAG Fen ae
McK ar Reis. Qo1bf te etter rr
PHO vsbyet Nyt PS SONEe
bs saa Sa CC pAb AP # pare
Pecshte perez Leet Bas o0 er 4
C04 se gp tm Sok ws NORA TR =
’ Ne RxSEe DOPED ERD RPA pte bee es
Cyt t ye ete Te OPV tO EME +
ne CRP TOAST CRI AROS “IEw ROTA eikee 2
peestecpeer - GUAR NTIO ERY RY VES HAL
a rie MOM TOL RAO i Col oer oe be
pond NES TPO MPTORM POOR Oe Caeiid “ oI
CN VS OE a do TV WIN ACTA -
Pe eS Oe ee a Pope, spamnloc-
penne bout ¢ = “POROR pORER tho
Py ess tt eR ALONE phe

fee tee

RS pee
NERC

CODEX SINAITICUS. Fourth Century.

(Scale 3:8. The page shown contains Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 18, the last twelve
verses of St. Mark being omitted. This is one of the pages written by the corrector,
whom Tischendorf believes to be identical with the scribe of the Codex Vaticanus.)

From Kenyon’s Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

Trans, Conn. AcaD., Vol. XVIII.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. ao0

Clarendon Press, 1911) confirms this conclusion, and supplies addi-
tional particulars. They may be verified by the accompanying photo-
graphs, the conclusion of John being introduced as typical of the custo-
mary form of the close of the N.T. writings in this MS. It is to be
understood that our study included only the New Testament in this
codex. Examination shows:

1. Where the last words of a book do not fill the rest of the line,
elsewhere the remainder of the line is invariably left blank. Here it
is filled up with an elaborate arabesque.

2. The usual ornament consists of a single line, or at most an orna-
mented line, though Matthew shows an ornament consisting of two
intertwining curved lines. Only at the close of I Thessalonians is
there a form resembling this found at the end of Mark. The orna-
ment there though in some respects similar is less elaborate. It is
however a broken line crossed by a line of >’s and o’s. But the last
verses of I Thessalonians were copied by the same scribe who copied
this folio of Mark, the scribe D who acted also as diorthota. The
difference in ornament noted is therefore in part due to a difference
of scribes, but apparently only in part. Tischendorf held that the
last verses of John were not penned by the usual scribe of the N.T. (A)
but by this scribe, D. There seems reason however to doubt this
(compare the photograph).

3. At the end of the other Gospels the ornament is in black alone.
Here it is in black and vermilion. Lake declares: “‘ Red was used
for the Eusebian apparatus, the earlier signatures to the gatherings,
and in some of the ‘Arabesques,’ for instance at the end of Mark.”
Those who desire to verify this statement can do so with the aid of
Tischendorf’s edition, where all these are printed im red.

The marks above and below the letters of the subscription to Mark
are not found about the subscriptions of Luke and John (Matthew
has no subscription) and are not so marked nor so numerous at the
close of any other book.

In a word, the manner in which the close of the Gospel according
to Mark is indicated in N is more elaborate and definitive than in the
case of any other N.T. writing. The natural inference is that the
scribe intended to indicate by this, in the most marked and definite
manner possible without a note, that Mark certainly ended at the
close of v. 8. It indicates, since his reason for so doing must have
been due to the knowledge that not all MSS did end Mark at this
point, that he rejected, at least as far as this codex is concerned, any
conclusion for Mark. Whether in so doing he was thinking of the
Longer or the Shorter Conclusion we have no means of determining.

360 Clarence Russell Williams,

We find, therefore that the scribes of both B and & knew of one
or more conclusions of the Gospel which seem to have gained some
currency by the fourth century, but which apparently were not yet
looked upon as authentic. The best MSS they considered ended at
v. 8. in which they agree with the testimony of Eusebius.

But have we in N an independent witness, or simply a duplication
of the witness of B?

Six leaves of SN, among them Fols. 28 and 29 on which Mk. 14 :54—
Luke 1:56 are written, were not copied by the usual scribe of 8 but
by a scribe who is usually designated D. Tischendorf identified this
scribe with the scribe who wrote the whole of Codex Vaticanus. On
the basis of this identification, accepted by Dr. Hort and many other
critics, Dr. Scrivener argued that NS and B must be considered as
furnishing one witness, not two. Lake however, in his recent edition
of 8 holds that Tischendorf was probably mistaken in this iden-
tification, and in proof presents on the same page specimens of the
writing of the scribes of 8 beside a column from Codex Vaticanus.
This shows, as he claims, a greater difference between the scribe of
Vaticanus, and scribe D of Sinaiticus than between scribes D and C
of the latter.

But a solution of the problem of the identity or difference of the
scribes of the two codices at the end of Mark is not required for a
decision of the still more important question whether in these codices
we possess two witnesses or only one, since the last verses of Mark
in Nand B were evidently copied from different exemplars, as is shown
by their text. Therefore, since 8 and B go back to different exem-
plars, they must be considered two separate, if not in all points in-
dependent, witnesses.

However, for those who accept the identification of Tischendorf it
furnishes an additional, though slight, support for the interpretation
of the significance of the arabesque of N given above, since if both
codices were at this point copied by the same scribe, we might ante-
cedently expect that in 8 as in B he would furnish some jndication
of his knowledge of the existence of a conclusion for Mark. Since
these sheets seem to have been written to take the place of canceled
folios, he may have found it impossible to indicate his knowledge by
a blank column as in B, and therefore have used this less obtrusive
method,—which has been generally overlooked or ignored,—of an
elaborate arabesque, to indicate his knowledge of an ending to Mark,
current in his day, which nevertheless he rejected. Here again, we are
unable to say whether this rejection was due to his knowledge of
the best texts of the day, or to his faithfulness in copying his exemplar.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Marr. 361

On the other hand those who reject this identification will acknowl-
edge that since these two MSS are to be dated at about the same
time, and further seem to have issued from the same scriptorium, if
the scribe of B possessed and indicated a knowledge of a conclusion,
it would. be quite possible that the scribe of the other MS possessed
similar knowledge and indicated it, though in a different manner.
Additional probability is afforded this supposition by the fact that
so many of the witnesses which contain one or both of the endings
indicate a knowledge that in some sense the text of Mark closed
at v. 8.

The Provenance of NS and B.

Recent editors hold that these MSS were written in Alexandria or
in Caesarea. The arguments for the latter view are as follows:

1. At one time 8 was in the library at Caesarea as is shown by a
colophon written by N° at the end of Esther, and also at the end ot
Ezra.

2. A chapter division in Acts contained in both 8 and B is traced
by J. Armitage Robinson to the library at Caesarea. He claims that
it is a modification of the Euthalian system, and that it “probably
stood in the margin of some Greek codex at Caesarea, anterior in date
to 8 and B.” This may imply that “Nand B were at an early stage
of their history lying side by side in thesamelibrary.” (“Euthaliana”’
in Texts and Studies, III, 3, p. 101, 37f.)

But this does not demonstrate the Caesarean origin of the two
codices since, as Lake points out in the Encyclopedia Britannica
( Biple’”’) :

a) “It cannot be shown that the MS corrected by Pamphilus was
still at Caesarea when it was used by 8.”

b) “It is not certain that the chapter divisions in Acts were added
by the original scribe.”’

c) It does not necessarily follow that at this time 8 and B were in
their original homes.

d) It cannot be proved that these chapter divisions were found
only at Caesarea.

e) The Euthalian enumeration appears to be late, not earlier than
the sixth and probably of the eighth century (so Lake in his intro-
duction to the Codex &).

For an Alexandrian origin the arguments are:

I. Palaeographical :

1. The Codex Sinaiticus contains no letters which we cannot par-
allel in the fourth or earlier centuries.

362 Clarence Russell Williams,

2. All the peculiarities of N are found in Pap. Rylands 28 as well
as in B, a remarkable fact which suggests that these three MSS came
from the same scriptorium.

II. Orthographical :

1. Thespelling of xeaGGa70¢ as KPABAKTOX ten out of the eleven
times where it occurs in 8 agrees with witnesses exclusively Egyptian,
both of an earlier and later date than this MS.

2. The spelling of *Iopandettyg as INAPAHAKITHE eight out of
the nine times it occurs in the N.T. in 8 is common to the Old Latin,
both European and African, but in Greek codices it appears to be
found only in § and in B, in the latter in the form IXTPAHAKITHY.
This was one of the supports of WH theory of the Western prove-
nance of these MSS, but this spelling is also found in the papyri of
Egypt. ‘‘Thus the evidence for the spelling in Egypt is probably as
early as any that can be adduced in Latin, and even if it be ultima-
tely a Latinism it affords no argument against the Egyptian prove-
nance of any individual MS.”

III. The four column page of N suggests Close relationship with the
papyri. In fact Scrivener declares that “‘either 8 or its immediate
prototype must have been derived from a papyrus exemplar, probably
of Egyptian origin.”

IV. ‘The remarkable similarity subsisting between the hands of
the scribes who added the superscription to Acts in both MSS” in-
dicates either the same scribe or two scribes in the same scriptorium ;
Prof. Lake is inclined to believe the latter. Now as Egyptian Papyrus
Rylands 28 agrees with & and B” in practically the only palaeo-
graphical pecularities they present’’ it seems most probable that these
three MSS all came from the same scriptorium, and Rylands 28 indi-
cates that it was in Egypt.

V. There is an extraordinary resemblance between the Psalms
in the Coptic text of the Pistis Sophia and the text of N in the
Psalms.

VI. That the text of NB represents the recension of Hesychius has
been argued by Bousset, and accepted by von Soden and many Ger-
man scholars, but to some English scholars this does not seem to rest
on a very solid foundation.

VII. No non-Alexandrian writer has been found who used the’ Neu-
tral” text, in spite of the contention of WH that this text, though
connected with Alexandria, was not confined to it.

VIII. The archetype of B contained the epistles in an order found
elsewhere only in the Sahidic Version. It may therefore be inferred
that this was the Old Egyptian or Alexandrian order. This however

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 363

may perhaps only prove that the archetype of B came from Alexan-
dria, but scarcely that B itself must have been written there.

Prof. Lake, from whom most of these arguments are taken, con-
cludes his discussion of the original provenance and date of Codex
Sinaiticus, in the introduction to his edition of the same (p. xv) as
follows :

“Jt remains true that all the arguments from history, criticism,
palaeography, and orthography combine to give the view that the
codex is an Egyptian MS of the fourth century, a probability which
cannot be approached by any other theory. It would be too much
to call it certain: but short of this it may fairly be regarded as the
hypothesis which ought to be used as the general basis of any dis-
cussion as to the critical value of the Codex Sinaiticus.”’

We therefore hold, a point of considerable importance for our dis-
cussion and therefore argued at some length, that 8 and B are both
to be traced to Egypt.

Text.

While to WH, NS and B are the great representatives of the so-called
“Neutral” text, it is today recognized that they represent fairly well
the quotations of Origen, the great Alexandrian scholar. The resear-
ches of Bernard into the text used by Clement of Alexandria indi-
cate that in Alexandria itself an earlier and different type of text was
employed at the end of the second and beginning of the third century.
The text of Clement seems to have more in common with the Old
Latin, or “geographically Western” text than with this “ Neutral’’
text, though the quotations of Clement agree with no text as yet found
either in the MSS or the versions.

If in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus we have representatives of the
text of Origen, we may conclude that about the middle of the third
century the last twelve verses were not considered an authentic part
of Mark by the dominant text. With this conclusion agrees the fact
that in the extant writings of Clement and Origen no trace of these
verses have been found. And if, as we shall see later, Eusebius takes
from Origen his testimony concerning the lack of these verses in the
best Greek MSS, a supposition of Burgon adopted by some critics, we
have additional support for this supposition.

The investigations of von Soden support these conclusions as to
the text, for he holds that 8 and B go back to a common original and
that this common original is the best representative of the text called
by him H, a text which represents and includes both the “ Neutral”
and “Alexandrian” texts of WH. This text he holds to have been

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 25 Feprvuary, 1915

364 Clarence Russell Walliams,

contaminated by the Egyptian versions and also at times, by the K
and I texts, and by Origen, but not to any great extent. As to the
origin of this type of text, he declares that it was “‘unquestionably
Egyptian, in view of the fact that it was used by all the Egyptian
Church writers after the end of the third century.’ (Condensed from
the article “von Soden” by Lake in Encycl. Brit.).

Bibliography.
B was published in phototype ‘‘ Biblorum Graecorum Codex Vaticanus,”’
1905.
N was published in photographic facsimile by Kirsopp Lake, Oxford, Claren-
don Press, 1911.

Lake’s Introduction to the above and his article under “ Bible”
in the Encyclopedia Britannica discuss the arguments for the prove-
nance of these codices.

Burkitt, Texts and Studies V, p. vilif. discusses the Egyptian character
of B; and J. Armitage Robinson “‘ Euthaliana,’’ Texts and Studies,
III, 3, 1895 discusses the possible relation of the modified Euthalian
chapter divisions to Caesarea.

ZAHN, GK, II, pp. 911, 912 discusses the ending the scribe of B had in mind
in leaving a blank at the close of Mark.

CURSIVE 22

Cursive 22 was brought into prominence in this discussion by
Burgon, who first pointed out its peculiarities (p. 230 cf. WH II,
Notes, p. 30).

Its witness is as follows:

~ , ; IP,
goBotvto yao + TéhO¢ “i

+ Ev Tlot tay avoLyedowy.
¥ sie ~ Le >

emg wde TAyooUTAL 6 Ev

ayyedtotys: év moAAote -

SE. xa TaDTA OspETOL +
Avactag 38. mow! mooty cabRatwv.

’EgoBotvte yao+ is followed by vé\o¢+- in red in the text. On
the next line the interesting note follows, stillin red and in the same
hand, but written in shorter lines. This is followed immediately, on
the next line, by the Longer Ending, at the close of which is again
found + 7é0¢ + which sign, Burgon declares “occurs nowhere else in
the MS. nor at the end of any other Gospels’’ (sic).

cpa prey ee “reac Tote po th-roalc- aurey
pS a EE A S ox veo ares Cay
hecsn. ica Dourrrpe Lets pester Ger erlian Voy
Actap- E1c4 Surdpoddrre nearbode Corrst!
Apap Msi 8 enbod om. Shyer cir x3
win nove xby 86 dared pits less
Sica - Co au See) dudep Garvey - ee
> ouows resp, + eeernoc 7
= Ennis “un Set ie USN
Ewe te De TENN Ova 5 Eu

Or reve He: EN HOR
Sexe. ae

107,

of 22, Folo
(A 4 Y)

>
Cur

Sh wp oui rrrp co mop ee ae
aRic br< pent {IRE Goes Doce peo plas:

ran are eked oy, rd A ee
wrol Epo prey poten roby Boi ot role lipaiovens 7
icoucd, ot GUCoU oxy reer Si 3Uu Ik 6 -86-
c7Shy rcdanriic. K nt on emy: Bb de
eratre - rots pes y rré ei rare oot y
Raveead oh “Gp Goer Soe Gi. arrepcto
ME poia So oypou: te oucg pos AGA Bipilee-,

Cursive 22. From Abbé Martin’s Introduction a

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII.

la Critique textuelle du N.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. . 365

This MS was never prepared for liturgical use, though a later hand
- has scrawled roughly here and there indications of the beginnings
and endings of a few of the lections. The colophon, on the other
hand, as a reference to the accompanying plate will show, is original,
and not a later addition.
Of course both Burgon and Martin argue that here the véd0¢ is
a vestige of a distant liturgical exemplar, but, as Dr. Hort argues,
it is not possible to explain the phenomena of 22 and the other MSS
which have <é)0¢ at this point simply on the basis of liturgical use.
Rather this MS indicates that in some sense the Gospel is understood
to end at v. 8, in some sense at v. 20. In time there naturally arose,

in all probability, a confusion of this 7é,0¢ with the liturgical 7é/<,
which would be the more natural as a lection did end with v. 8.

This interpretation is supported by the similar but independent
testimony of certain ancient Armenian codices where eiayyé)1ov
%27% Macxov follows both v. 8 and v. 20. We must infer that such
texts were derived ultimately from an exemplar which ended with
verse 8.

In this connection it is interesting to note that precisely the same
rubric is found in cursive 15 (Paris 64, Sd ¢ 283) at the bottom of the
verso of folio 98 (not in the lower margin, see the reproduction by
Martin p. 516). The recto of folio 99 reads at the top as the page
title the abbreviation for edayyéhov avacthowoy 7 nave Maoxoy in
vermilion, followed by the words ’Avaczée 6 Io in gold. The page
contains the Longer Ending, immediately followed, whether on the
last line or in the lower margin it is hard to determine, by the sub-
scription in vermilion, written between ornaments of black

S pe 5 >
Rimi : whoumbnxTauaonovedayys : PmAwe

This MS is most interesting as showing how easily and simply, by
the loss of a leaf, the last twelve verses could be separated from the
rest of the Gospel.

Cursives 20 and 300 (Paris Nat. Gr. 188 and 186, Sd A138 and A141)
which are derived from a common exemplar contain the scholion

évreDoev Ewe tO téhog Ev Ton Thy aveedowy OO xciva.év Bz
TOUS aoyators Tavern anapkhenta xeitat, that is to say, “from here to
the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. In the
ancient copies, however, it all forms part of the text.”

Burgon makes much of the fact that in both these MSS the scholion
appears in the wrong place at the end of v. 15. But Martin shows
that this is a mere accident, due to the fact that it was written at
this point in the margin, solely because there was a blank space here,

366 Clarence Russell Williams,

and then the scribe carelessly neglected to place in the text at the
close of v. 8 the sign which would direct attention to it.

The fact that in cursive 300 at the end of Matthew (f. 89) is written
éyokon xo. dv7ePASy ax sav ‘Tepocodiporg mahowwy averyphomv and
after Mark edayyédov, nave Mé&pnov dyocon nat avreBAnon Opotme ex
cv éonovdaou.gvv, the second colophon (not the first) being found in
Cod. 20 and both appearing in codex 262 (Paris 53, Sd ¢1020), is of
interest, but need prove no more than that the exemplar, from which
these MSS were copied, had been ‘‘collated with the ancient and
approved copies at Jerusalem.’”’ (Martin, p. 420, cf. Burgon, p. 119.)

THe Syrrac VERSIONS
Summary.
Sinaitic Syriac.

In the Sinaitic Syriac (Ss) Mark ends at 16:8 followed by the usual

subscription.
Text .... Early “Western,” as read in Antioch about 150 A.D.
Date. 24150: AD (Others2200 429).
Place .... Probably Sytia.

Inferences The earliest Syriac version agreed with NB in ending
Mark at v. 8.
The Diatessaron of Tatian.

The Diatessaron of Tatian (T) included the Longer Conclusion, our
earliest certain witness to it.

Text i... weary... Wester, ol theanype current at Rome.
mee il ENGI DA
Place .... Probably issued at Edessa, but representing, in contents,

the tradition of the church of Rome.

Inferences The Longer Conclusion seems to have been introduced into
the East by Tatian, who brought it from Rome, where it
had gained a recognized place in the official text before
170 A.D.

Curetonian Syriac.

The Curetonian Syriac (Sc) shows the Longer Conclusion.

Text .... Early ‘‘ Western” Greek text as read in Antioch about
200 A.D.

Date .... 200—250 A.D.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 367

Place .... The region of Antioch.

Inferences Through the influence of Tatian’s Diatessaron, the Longer
Conclusion gained a recognized place in the Old Syriac
Version.

Peshitto.

The Peshitto (Sp) contains the Longer Conclusion alone in all MSS,
save one where it has been accompanied by the Shorter Con-
clusion in the margin, due to the influence of later versions.

Text .... The Greek text current at Antioch about 400 A.D.
Paice... 4144 A-D.
Pijecs. =... Edessa.

Inferences By the fifth century the Longer Conclusion had gained
undisputed position in the Syriac versions.

Harclean Syriac.

The Harclean Syriac contains the Shorter Conclusion in the margin
of at least two MSS.

Text .... The Greek Text of Alexandria about 600 A.D.
Dare, ...- 6416 A.D.
Place .... Alexandria.

Inferences In one or more MSS found at Alexandria at the beginning
of the seventh century the Shorter Conclusion was found.

Discussion.

To rightly weigh and estimate the evidence of the Syriac versions
a brief discussion of the relations of our earliest representatives of the
Gospels in Syriac will be necessary, since, as Burkitt says, ‘‘almost
everything that relates to the origin and early history of the Syriac
versions is the subject of controversy.’’ While following in the main
the theory of Prof. Burkitt, “‘the convincing theory which at present
holds the field” (Norman M’Lean in Encycl. Brit.), we follow Mrs.
Lewis, Hjelt, Merx, Blass, and others in considering Ss earlier than T.

Tatian supplies us with a fixed date for our discussion, for we know
he went to Rome about the middle of the second century, became a
follower, and later a fellow worker of Justin Martyr, through whom he
may have been converted to Christianity, and after some years resi-
dence departed for the East about 172 A.D., a date fixed with con-
siderable certainly by Zahn (Forschungen, I, p. 283).

Returning to Syria he completed and issued, perhaps at Edessa, his
Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels, in the Syriac language.
This work attained great popularity in the Syrian Church, and became

368 Clarence Russell Williams,

the form in which the Gospels were publicly read in the churches of
Edessa, as we learn from the “ Doctrine of Addai,” an apocryphal work
which seems to preserve the popular tradition of Edessa at the close
of the fourth century. It reads:

“(Now much people day by day] were gathering together and
coming to the prayer of (Divine) Service and to the Old Testament
and the New of the Diatessaron ; and in the Resurrection of the
dead they were believing. .. .” (xxxv. 15—17).

Thus we see the Doctrine of Addai transfers the Diatessaron to
apostolic times (so Wright, History of Syriac Literature, p. 8).

While still at Rome he probably commenced his Diatessaron, and
it is quite likely that Justin Martyr knew and approved his under-
taking (cf. Hill, “‘ The Earliest Life of Christ,” Introd. p.9). Whether
this work was originally in Greek (or Latin) and was afterwards trans-
lated into Syriac, as Harnack, Burkitt, and others hold, or was origi-
nally prepared in the Syriac, does not vitaily concern this discussion,
if it be granted that in the compiling of his-work, as to its contents
Tatian would include what was found in the Greek texts of the Gospels
current at that date in Rome, with which he would of course be
familiar.

Since it has never been proved that Tatian included in his compila-
tion a passage of any considerable length taken from any other source
than our canonical Gospels, and since the Longer Conclusion is worked
over into the Harmony, for ‘“‘this same mosaic of Mt. 28, Mk. 16, and
Lk. 24 is found in fuld [Codex Fuldensis] as in the Arabic Diatessaron.
Aphaates 120 mentions Christ’s ascension at the right hand of the
Father (Mk. 16: 9) immediately after quoting Mt. 28: 20,” (Burkitt,
Encycl. Bib., col. 5003, note), we conclude that at Rome in 170 A.D.
these twelve verses were accepted as an authentic part of our canonical
Gospels, and if so none will deny that they must l:ave formed then as
now the closing section of the Gospel according to Mark. If they did
not originate at Rome, they must have been brought to that city as
early as the middle of the second century. :

This conclusion will of course be affected somewhat by the view
one takes of the language in which the Diatessaron was originally
compiled. If the original form was in Greek this conclusion is much
strengthened, but if, from the first, it was composed in Syriac, it seems
natural to suppose that, as to content, the tradition of Rome would
be followed.

As to language, however, we believe that Tatian made use of and
in part borrowed from an earlier Syriac version of the Gospels, as

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 369

Zahn, after an exhaustive investigation, had concluded even before
the discovery of Ss. At the same time he concluded that this version
of the Old Syriac used by Tatian must have been made about the
middle of the second century, from a Greek text similar to D and the
oldest Itala MSS. (Cf. Hasting’s D. B. Extra, p. 459.)

At this time the Curetonian was the only form of the Old Syriac
known, and Zahn proved that T and Sc had influenced one another
(Forschungen I). .

But Baethgen proved that this relationship was due to the influence
of T on Sc, and therefore the Diatessaron was the earlier of the two
(Evangelienfragmente, Leipzig 1885, pp. 58ff.). Hort had already
conjectured that Sc had “degenerated by transcription and perhaps
by irregular revision.” (Cf. WH. II, Par. 118.)

Much additional light was thrown upon this problem by the dis-
covery of the Sinaitic Syriac by Mrs. Lewis in 1892. Our study of Ss
leads us to the conclusion that it is older than Se (so argues Cony-
beare, Bewer, and others) and further we believe Ss to be older than
the Diatessaron. Since at this point we depart from the accepted
theory of Burkitt and agree with the views of Mrs. Lewis, Hjelt, Merx,
Blass, Stenning, Bewer, and others, it will be well to support this
conclusion by a presentation of some of the arguments in its favor.

Stenning affirms :

“A comparison of the text of Ss with that of Sc shows that those
peculiar features of the text which clearly pointed, in the case of the
latter, to the influence of T are by no means so strongly marked, if
not entirely wanting, in the former. This divergence of text is
especially noticeable in respect to the harmonistic and ‘dogmatic’
readings which undoubtedly form the main support of Baethgen’s
argument as to the relation of Sc to T.”” (Hasting’s D.B., Extra.)

Burkitt, who at first held to the priority of Ss though now con-
sidering T the earlier, confesses :

“Some of the readings characteristic of that MS [i. e. Ss] are
quite contrary in tendency to what we otherwise know of Syriac
Christianity, and that such a text should exist at all is a remarkable
testimony to the essential faithfulness of the translator to the Greek
text before him. The Diatessaron much nearer reflects the tenden-
cies of the time. In fact some things which we know to have stood
im the Diatessaron almost read like a deliberate protest against the
text of Syr. vt. as represented by the Sinai palimpsest.’’ (Italics
our own.) (Encycl. Bib. col. 5003):

Hjelt, after a careful study of the relations of Ss to T (Die alt-
syrische Evangelieniibersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron besonders

370 Clarence Russell Williams,

in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhaltnis. Forschungen vii, i, pp. 107—162)
declares (p. 155):

Dass “In den Fallen, wo Ss und T von einander abweichen, der
erstgenannte in der Regel eine Textgestalt aufweist, welche als die
urspringlichere und altere erscheint. Ss bezeugt durchweg, dass
die Verfasser von Syr. vt. keine textkritische Intentionen hatten, son-
dern den einzigen praktischen Zweck verfolgten, das geschriebene
Evangelium in volkstiimlicher, verstandlicher Form ihren Lands-
leuten zuganglich zu machen. Daher die harmlose Unbefangenheit
und Freiheit, womit sie ihre Ubersetzung ausgefiihrt haben. Anders
verhalt es sich mit Tatian. In ihm sehen wir den theologisch inter-
essierten Textkritiker. Er hat die von ihm vorgefundene alt-
sylische Evangelientibersetzung eimer durchgehenden Revision auf
Grund des ihm bekannten griechischen Textes unterzogen, offen-
bare Fehler und MiBverstandnisse korrigiert, Ausdriicke und Wen-
dungen, die ihm allzufrei oder ungenau ses geandert, andere
Lesarten, die er vorzog, aufgenommen usw.

And Bewer (The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian
Church, Chicago, 1900) who concludes that different Greek texts
underlay Ss and Sc, says (p. 13):

“Both Texts are very old, dating certainly from the second cen-
tury ; but Ss is older than that of Sc; compare for this the first
chapter of Matthew relating the birth of Jesus, and the omissions
as well as the sometimes curious additions.”

And Burkitt, at the close of his argument for the priority of T to
the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, makes the significant admission :

‘It is possible that the date assigned in the foregoing paragraphs
to the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe is too late and that the version
may have originated in the epoch of the first mission, the times of
Addaiand Aggai.”’ (Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, Vol. II, p. 210.)
Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis, the discoverer of Ss, whose recent edition

must supersede all others, declares in her introduction that Merx,
Hjelt, and Blass studied this MS “with the ardor born of a conviction
that they were dealing with a text of the second century-anterior
to Tatian: in fact, with the earliest translation of the Four Gospels
into any language.” (‘The Old Syriac Gospels,” Introd. p. v.)

As for the date of the Peshitto, we need only express our agreement
with the theory which Burkitt seems almost to have proved to a
demonstration, that it was made by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa in
411 A.D, to take the place of the Diatessaron, and that it followed
the Greek text current at Antioch at that date. (For Burkitt’s argu-
ments see “Evangelion da-Mepharreshe,” II. pp. 161—165.)

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 374

Considering that the true relation of these Syriac texts is indicated
by the order Ss, T, Sc, Sp, we conclude :

“1. The Old Syriac as represented by Ss is to be dated as early
as the middle of the second century. It must have been made from
a form of text which concluded Mark at 16:8, since the lack of the
twelve concluding verses “‘can orly be a Greek variant and must
therefore represent the original form of the Old Syriac,” (Burkitt
in the Guardian, Oct. 31, 1894). Burkitt would date Ss about the
beginning of the third century. Whichever date be adopted Ss
furnishes us with a witness which confirms the testimony of & and
B that an early form of Mark concluded the Gospel with the eighth
verse.

2. Our present evidence implies that the Longer Conclusion was
introduced into the Syriac versions through Tatian, who found these
twelve verses in the Greek MSS used at Rome in 172 A.D., and there
fore included them in his Diatessaron.

3. The Old Syriac soon became affected by the popular Diatessaron.
Both consciously and unconsciously the scribes who copied the former
would be influenced by the versions publicly read in the churches.
In a later revision of the Old Syriac it was brought into closer con-
formity with the current Greek text, and also probably to the Dia-
tessaron, and the Longer Conclusion was added, as is shown by Sc.
Probably this occurred about the beginning of the third century,
though it may not have been accomplished until the middle of that
century. Sc is therefore a witness to the Greek text as read at
Antioch about 200 A.D.

While it is conceivable, as has been suggested, that in Sc or its
archetype the Shorter preceded the Longer Conclusion, as in L and
the uncials of the double conclusion, this does not seem probable.

4. The Peshitto, a revision of the Old Syriac made by Rabbula
in 411 A.D. to conform it to the current Greek text preserves for us
the text of Antioch about 400 A.D. It testifies that prior to the
fifth century the Longer Conclusion had become an accepted part
of the Gospels in the Syriac Testament, as well as in the Greek MSS
known in this region, for G. H. Gwilliam, who collated over forty MSS
for his edition of the text of the Gospels in the Peshitto declares :

“Inter vv. 8, 9, interpungimus c. codd, mult.; in manu prima
exarati, statim sequuntur, aeque et in omnibus, quibus postremum

S. Mar, folium non deest ; nec in eis unquam invenimus signum in

textu, nec notam in margine, nec scholion subscriptum, quae

posteriorem cap. xvi partim in suspicionem vocent.”’

(Tetraevangelium Sanctum, Oxford, 1901, p. 312, note.)

372 Clarence Russell Williams

Abbe Martin, however, tells us, (p. 398) that the Shorter Conclusion
is found in the margin of MS, Add. 14, 456, a fact which need not sur-
prise us since this MS has been enriched by a number of notes added
from the Philoxenian Version, in which term he probably includes the
Harclean Version.

The Philoxenian Version was made in 508 A.D. by Polycarpus, a
chorepiscopos, for Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis (Mabug). It
seems to have been a revision of the Peshitto, adding those books of
the Greek canon (2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation) which
were lacking in the current Syriac version.

In 616 A.D. this version was revised by Thomas of Harkel (Hera
clea), bishop of Hierapolis. This revision was made near Alexandria,
and was designed to represent the Greek as closely as possible, even to
the order of the words. Scrivener calls it “‘ probably the most servile
version of Scripture ever made.’’ We know that in the revision of the
Gospels Thomas of Harclea had two (or three) Greek MSS probably
from the library of the monastery at Enanton, a village “nine” miles
from Alexandria. To indicate the various readings found in his MSS
the critical symbols of the asterisk and obelus were used, as well as
marginal notes.

The Shorter Conclusion is found in the margin of two MSS of this
version, one Rom. Vat. Syr. 268, of an unknown date, which Mai
thinks Thomas of Harclea wrote with his own hand in 615 A.D. and
the other a MS in the Library of the New College, Oxford, used by
Joseph White in his edition which in reality presents us with the
Harclean text, though it i. entitled “‘Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio
Syriaca Philoxeniana, Oxford, 1778. The text of these two MSS,
save for a couple of insignificant variations. is the same, and presents
an exact translation of the Greek. The text of the Vatican MS is
found in Martin, II, p. 395.

It is evident therefore that in one or more of the Greek MS of
Alexandria, used by Thomas at the beginning of the seventh century,
the Shorter Ending was found. His version therefore furnishes us
with another indication of the Egyptian origin of the Shorter Con-
clusion.

The testimony of the Syriac versions therefore tells us:

1. The Greek text as known at Antioch about 150 A.D. did not
contain any conclusion to Mark.

2. The Greek text as known at Rome in 170 A.D. contained the
Longer Conclusion. Since by this date it seems to have been ac-
cepted as unquestionably a part of the Gospel, it must have reached
Rome by 150 A.D. at the latest.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 373

3. The Greek text as known at Antioch about 200 A.D. contained
the Longer Conclusion. Probably the Diatessaron had much in-
fluence in securing its admission.

4. By 411 A.D., when the Peshitto was issued, the Longer Con-
clusion had an undisputed place in the Syriac N.T.

5. The Shorter Conclusion was introduced into the margin of the
Harclean Syriac from Alexandrian MSS in 616 A.D.

Bibliography.

ZAHN, Forschungen I Tatian’s Diatessaron.
Proved T and Sc were related.
Hjelt examines Zahn’s views in Church Quarterly Review,
April 1903 pp. 167—170.

BAETHGEN, FRIEDRICH, Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text des

Curetonischen Syrers, Leipzig 1883.
Proved even to Zahn that T is prior to Sc.

HyjeLt, ArtHuUR, Forschungen vii Teil ] Heft Leipzig, 1903. Die altsyrische
Evangelientibersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron besonders in
ihrem gegenseitigen Verhaltnis.

Proved the priority of Ss to T.
Argued in Ss the various Gospels had various translators.

Burkitt, F. C., Texts and Studies, vii 2 Cambridge, 1901. S Ephraem’s
Quotations from the Gospels.

Identified the Gospels in the Peshitta with the revision of
Rabbula in 4]1 A.D.
Woop, Studia Biblia III pp. 105—138.
Rendered out of date by Burkitt’s study above.

Burxi1t, F.C., Evangelion da-Mephareshe Vol. II; Encycl. Bib. “‘ Texts and

Versions ;”’ :

The Guardian Oct. 31, 1894.

Contains his earlier view. Dates Ss 150 A.D. before T. Cf.
Conybeare, Academy Jan. 12, 1895.

ieee ee the Harhest life of Christ . .-. being the Diatessaron of Tatian,
London 1893.

Harris, J., RENDEL, The Diatessaron of Tatian, a preliminary study, 1890.

HEMPHILL, S., The Diatessaron of Tatian, 1880.

Lewis and Gigson, Studia Sinaitica, Pt. VI (1897) ; The Palestinian Syriac
Lectionary 1899.

BEWER, Jutius A., The History of the N. T. Canon in the Syrian Church.
Chicago, 1900.

KEN yon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Chap. V.

Very good.

Ci. also Scriveners Introduction; H.D.B. ‘‘ Syriac Versions’”’ and ‘‘ Diates-
saron”’ latter in Extra Vol.

Bncyel: Brit, Xl ed ~~ Bible’ and, “Syriac, Literature.

374 Clarence Russell Williams

Sinaitic Syriac.

The Four Gospels in Syriac Transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest.
By the late Robert L. Bensley, J. Rendel Harris, and F. Craw-
ford Burkitt with an introduction by Agnes Smith Lewis ;
Cambridge, 1894.

Some Pages of the Four Gospels Re-transcribed from the Sinaitic
Palimpsest. By Agnes Smith Lewis; London, 1896.

The Old Syriac Gospels or Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, Edited by
Agnes Smith Lewis; London, 1910.

Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The Curetonian Version of the Four
Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the
early Syriac Patristic evidence. F. Crawford Burkitt ; Cam-
bridge, 1904.

THe ARMENIAN VERSION

Synopsis.
Testimony The ending is scarcely found in the early MSS before the
thirteenth century and is wanting in half the later MSS.
Text .... Probably from the Old Syriac, later revised by Greek
MSS from Constantinople. The text is similar to NB.
Place: 22. “Arimentar
Date .... Latter part, or possibly early part of fourth century.

“Of the Presbyter Ariston.”

Testimony The earliest known Armenian MS to contain the longer
ending, the Edschmiadzin Codex, has inserted before v. 9ff
“Of the Presbyter Ariston.”

Text .... Probably the exemplar was an Armenian text of the early
half of the sixth century from Edessa.

Place .... The monastery of Noravank (= New Monastery).

Daten ezeedoo0 Aa:

Inferences 1. We have no evidence that this rubric “‘Of the Pres.
byter Ariston’ contains an early tradition, since it cannot
be traced back of the MS in which it is found.

2. We have no proof that it is a trustworthy tradition,
since it has not yet been found outside this MS.

3. We do not know with whom the “Ariston”’ of the
rubric is to be identified.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 375

Therefore we hold that the authorship of the last twelve
verses of the Gospel according to Mark still remains an
open question.

Discussion.

The Armenian version furnishes us with a possible clue to the
authorship of the longer ending, which in one Armenian codex: is
prefaced by the words “Of the Presbyter Ariston.’’ Before dis-
cussing this evidence, however, we must first investigate the history
of the version.

From what language was the Armenian version translated ? Both
Syriac and Greek are mentioned as its source. Both languages were
used in Armenia, It may be inferred that both Syriac and Greek
authorities were used in the preparation of this version.

Statements from three Armenian writers of the fifth century seem
to imply this. Their testimony is by no means identical, and yet
it combines “‘a certain conflict of assertion with a suspicious family
likeness’’ (Robinson). From a combination of these statements it
has been inferred that S. Mesrop, with the assistance of a Greek scribe
Hrofanos (Rufinus, probably) prepared a translation based upon the
Greek text, and S. Sahik (Isaac) a translation based upon the Syriac
(So Lake and Kenyon). This first translation is dated about 395—400
A.D. (Kenyon).

On the other hand J. Armitage Robinson in his careful study
(Euthaliana, p. 72 ff.) declares : ‘‘One fact seems to stand out distinctly
after the perusal of these puzzling statements [1. e. of the three early
Armenian writers] that the earliest attempts at translating the Scrip-
tures into Armenian were based on Syriac Codices.”’

For the Syriac origin of the Armenian version it may be argued :

i. The geographical position of Armenia makes it probable that
Christianity would be introduced into it from Syria, and it would be
most natural that the Syrian evangelists would bring and use their
own Syriac version.

2. Syriac was the early ecclesiastical language of the Armenian
Church as we learn from the tradition which states that up to the
time of S. Mesrop and S. Sahik the Syrian language was used in the
Armenian services, which were therefore unintelligible to the mass of
the people.

3. Much of the early Armenian Christian literature was translated
from famous Syrian fathers, as Ephraim and Aphrahat, and when,
about 400 A.D. the church history of Eusebius was given to the

D |

376 Clarence Russell Williams,

Armenians in their own tongue, it was translated not from the origina
Greek but from a Syriac MS.

4. Third Corinthians was considered canonical in the Armenian
Bible up to the seventh century. But the only other canon which
contained it, so far as we know, was the Syriac, where it had a place
in the first half of the fourth century.

5. Theodore, an Armenian writer of the seventh century declares
that the ancient Armenian version contained Luke 22:43, 44 and
3 Corinthians and that Gregory the Illuminator, the apostle of the
Armenians, quoted the latter at the beginning of the fourth century.

If this statement is correct, it would imply that nearly a century
before the translation of Mesrop and Sahik there was a translation of
the Gospels and the Epistles in Armenian and that the source of this
translation was Syriac.

The above is confirmed by the researches of Robinson, who shows
that traces of these primitive readings from the Syriac are still to be
found in the Armenian vulgate. (Euthaliana, pp. 76—98.) Conybeare,
Burkitt, and Kenyon accept these results of Robinson, who has
shown that the above is true not only of the Gospels, but of the
epistles, the latter showing a resemblance to the Syriac text used
by Ephraim.

6. The colophons usually found at the end or beginning of each
Gospel in the Armenian declare that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew
language, Mark in the Egyptian tongue, Luke in the Syrian language,
and John in the Greek tongue. These colophons which give but one
Gospel a Greek original seem to imply, as Conybeare suggests, a
rivalry between the Syrians and the Greeks in which the Armenians
sided with the Syrians.

We infe: therefore that the Armenian version had certainly, though
possibly not exclusively, a Syrian origin.

From what Syriac text was this version made ?

Such coincidences as have been discovered between the Armenian
and Syrian versions point not to the Peshitto but to the Old Syriac.
From this we must infer that at the time when the Armenian version
was made the Peshitto was not established as the authorized version
of the Syrian Church, and also that the Old Syriac held a more im-
portant place in the early Syrian Church than was at first recognized,
since it was made the basis for a missionary version.. This also gives
to the Armenian version far greater importance and weight than was
formerly conceded to it, since it thus becomes a very important wit-
ness to the Old Syriac readings in places where at present we do not
possess the testimony of Old Syriac MSS. (So Robinson.)

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 377

The above arguments make out a fairly strong case for the Syriac
parentage of the Armenian version and prove, moreover, that a trans-
lation into the Armenian was made not later than the end of the fourth
century, and that very probably the earliest version is to be dated
as early as the early part of that century (So Conybeare and Kenyon).

That the Armenian Church existed before the middle of the third
century we know from the statement of Eusebius that Dionysius,
bishop of Alexandria (248—265 A.D.), wrote a letter to the Armenians,
the name of whose bishop was Meruzanes.

But while the origin of the Armenian version is obscure, we have
clear testimony to its revision, for after the council of Ephesus (431
A.D.) the disciples of Mesrop brought to their master “certain trust-
worthy Greek codices” from Constantinople, by which the earlier
translation was revised. Conybeare dates this revision at 439 A.D.
(aeweb i p. 153.)

The Greek text from which this revision was made was, so far as
can be determined, not the Antiochean but one akin to NB, for there
are but few readings in the Armenian which are not attested by NB
or by the Old Syriac, and these few may have arisen from later chance
corruptions (so Burkitt, Encycl. Bib. IV. col. 5011).

The Armenian MSS known are most of them late, the earliest seem-
ing to be in Moscow, dated 887. We have a few MSS of the tenth
and eleventh centuries containing the Gospels, but the remaining
books of the N.T. are rarely found in MSS before the end of the thir-
teenth century.

Kenyon’s assertion that the late MSS are less trustworthy, being
affected by the introduction of the Vulgate into the East, is flatly
denied by Conybeare, who declares, “One codex of the Armenian
Bible differs very slightly from another.”

The testimony of the Armenian MSS concerning the longer ending
is most interesting and significant. It is scarcely found in MSS be-
fore the thirteenth century (Conybeare) and is wanting in half the
MSS since the time of the crusades (Martin, quoted by Zahn). When
Armenian MSS do contain the longer Ending, after the words corre-
sponding to égoBctvee yap there is written the colophon ‘Here ends
Mark’s Gospel’’ (Martin declares that in addition to the subscription
there is a jagged line) and then after a pause, they continue with
vs. 9—20 (So Conybeare). We are further told (WH Notes p. 30)
that among the more ancient MSS some have eduyyédov xa7% Mapnov
after v. 8 and again after v. 20. These verses are omitted in Zohrab’s
edition of the Armenian (So Horner in his edition of the Sahidic
Gospels notes).

378 Clarence Russell Williams,

In his second article ““On the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark’s
Gospel” (The Expositor, December, 1895, p. 403), Conybeare has the
following discussion of MSS which seems of sufficient interest and
importance to quote in full:

“Tn the Mechitarist library on the island of San Lazaro at Venice,
is a codex of the Gospels dated A.D. 902, by consequence nearly
a hundred years earlier than the Edschmiadzin copy. In this
codex v. 8 ends the second column of a verso. The same marginal
writing was continued on the recto side of the next folio but there
is not more of it than would amount to verses9—13. It is, however,
too obliterated to be read without chemical treatment. I examined
it carefully, and satisfied myself that the writing so erased was not
any part of the twelve verses—a very curious and important fact.
There is too much of it for it to have been the alternative ending
of Mark found in the Greek uncial codex L. Perhaps the scribe
herein gave his reasons for omitting the last twelve verses. The
verso side of the folio is left blank and the entire pericope could
hardly have been contained even on both sides.

In an Armenian codex of the four Gospels belonging to the Bod-
leian library and dated 1304, the scribe seems to have originally
written the last twelve verses in the second column of the recto of
fol. 141 and in both of the verso, but to have himself afterwards
effaced them, adding the last line of verse 8 at the bottom of the
right-hand column of the recto side of folio 141. |

In more than one Armenian codex, where these verses occupied
a fclio by themselves, that folio has simply been cut out. In a
13th or 14th century codex at San Lazaro in Venice there is prefixed
to the verses the notice, “This is unauthentic.”’ In the Bodleian
Armenian codex of the four Gospels, dated A.D. 1355, a notice is
prefixed as follows: “This is an addition.’”’ Many codices of the
four Gospels, and also of the entire Bible, end the Gospel accor-
ding to Mark at verse 8, and then after a space proceed with the
twelve verses. This is so in the case of the oldest San Lazaro
Bible, dated 1220, and of a Bible in the collection of Lord Zouche
later in date but copied from an early archetype. In such cases
the words “The end of Mark (ov of Mark’s Gospel)” is added
after v. 8.

As to the evidence of the Armenian lectionaries, Conybeare says
that is only modern, but declares that the oldest known, probably of
the ninth century, did not contain vs. 9-20. This is an uncial codex
now in Paris. It would seem therefore that these verses, in the
early Armenian church, were not read on Ascension Day, as in other

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 379

churches. However since the twelfth century it has been customary in
the Armenian Church to use this lection, and the equivalent of “ For
Ascension Day” is usually written against v. 9. in Armenian MSS
written since that time.

These twelve verses probably belonged to the original Armenian
version of the Gospels, prior to the revision of Mesrop early in the
fifth century, but were afterwards excised.

This is hinted by some of the above evidence and also by the fact
that in the fifth century vs. 17 and 18 are quoted in almost precisely
the form we have them in the present Armenian version, by Eznik, a
fellow worker of S. Mesrop and S. Sahik, in his work on Heresies,
Book I which Conybeare dates 420—430 A.D. Conybeare also notes
“plentiful citation’’ of these verses in the Armenian Acts of Pilate
which version ‘‘must be almost as early as the sixth century.” Again
the text is the same as found in such Armenian codices as contain the
longer ending.

But we know of other parts of the Armenian version of the fifth
century which were omitted from the later Armenian canon, as the
Apocalypse. Moreover the pericope adulterae is absent from the
oldest MSS though cited by Gregory of Narek in 950 A.D.

But, though absent from all other known codices prior to 1100 A.D.
Dr. F. C. Conybeare has found the longer ending in a most interesting
MS in the Patriarchal Library at Edschmiadzin at the foot of Mount
Ararat, which is said to be the most important library in Armenia.
This earliest known codex to contain the longer ending is also the
oldest codex to contain the pericope adulterae, though in an ancient
and unusual form.

This uncial codex was written in 989 A.D. (not 986 as stated by
Conybeare in his first article, a mistake which Swete has perpetuated,
though it was early corrected by Zahn). Before the last twelve verses
has been inserted Aviston Evitzou “Of the Presbyter Ariston.”

Of the Presbyter Ariston.

In the Expositor for October, 1893 Mr. F. C. Conybeare stated that
in November 1891 he had collated at Edschmiadzin a codex of the
Gospels in which the last twelve verses were prefaced by the words
“Ariston Eritzou” “Of the Presbyter Ariston.”

The following later and more accurate description is given by Dr.
Conybeare in Swete p. civ (cf. the description in the original article
in the Expositor, Oct. 1893, p. 243).

“In this codex verse 8 of ch. xvi. ends at the beginning of a line,
in the second column of a page. The line is partly filled up with

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 26 Fepruary, 1915.

380 Clarence Russell Williams,

the vermilioned flourishes which indicate that the Gospel proper
of Mark is ended. Verse 9 however is begun on the next line, and
the whole twelve verses are completed in the same large uncials
as the rest of the Gospels. As it were by an afterthought the scribe
adds the title Aviston Evitzou just above the flourishes mentioned,
and within the columnar space. It is written in vermilioned
smaller uncials identical in character with those which at the foot
of each column denote the Ammonian canons, and also with those
which the scribe uses to complete a word at the end of a line,
thereby preserving the symmetry of the lines, and avoiding the
necessity of placing the last one or two letters of a word by them-
selves at the beginning ofa fresh line. The title therefore was added
by the first hand; or, if not by him, atleast by the SiooSm7H. In
any case it is contemporary, and must have stood in the older copy
transcribed, from which also were perhaps transferred the fifth
century full-page illustrations included in the existing codex. At
first it was intended to omit the title, but on second thoughts it was
added. If the scribe had from the first meant to keep it, he would
have left room for it, instead of cramping it in above the terminal

flourishes. That he regarded Mark proper as ending with verse 8,

is further shown by the large circular boss consisting of concentric

circles of color added against the end of verse 8 between the columns.

The paler tints in the photograph correspond to vermilion in the

codex ; and the vermilioned lettering of the title was so faint in the

positive sent to Mr. Conybeare from Edschmiadzin in 1895, that
he has strengthened it with ink for the preparation of the present
facsimile.”

This rubric could not indicate the copyist, whose name the codex
gives as Johannes, nor the translator of these verses, since Ariston
is not an Armenian name, but must mean the original author of these
verses. This alone, declares Conybeare, explains the genitive case
“Of the presbyter”’ used here, [note that the name Ariston is not
in the genitive] and “the dignity accorded to the words ‘Ariston
Eritzou,’ which are in minioned uncials, as are the titles ‘of Matthew’
etc. .. . at the heads of their respective Gospels.”

But reference to the facsimile to us seems to infer not the dignity of
these words, but rather lack of it, since they are not even given a
separate line but crowded in between the lines in a much smaller hand
than the rest of the text. Since the facsimile does not give the title
of the Gospel, we can make no comparison with it. We must take
exception however to the inference that Ariston “must in the scribe’s
mind have been a writer of almost the same importance as Mark him-

YD a A

wet ny

ee ny

“sr wk on !
: Ad Cr Ita we we ae

Jl /, ‘ & 1

Jisamilarcine,
1h. Pine THR ~EAUVOUS EU AL ,
i. Mined OUTTA MTC
ee WEA Eb GG: = RINE. AC

URS PALO) Sonate OA feel,
er) bce et ee | | TET rere} Teens
TOTNES oy ey et 1“ a
~E-

is ~_ =e a4 r 4 rf is tol ¥ ee ial ut
oBlscaniniy Sata o£ us rio: mt on 02}

“ya <i a

ae BO esse Cte TRCN NIE LO
] OW 6 OR che 4 5 ¥

iy ue ne) Vasibiva TUONO LIS ad

WNINMOW GGL ape, PREMIO ITD

LS Th OG
UN bay zR-ul « ic i) x Se
pein ie i} | es Tee eed ree eT | ‘}
eC TAM Ws - ;

NOI Ei piel

last twelve

the

inserted before

”

Ariston Eritzou

with

Codex,

Edschmiadzin

Mark.
pel accordin;s

verses

St. Mark.

—
>

Gos

From Swete’s, The

XVIII.

Vol.

ACAD..,

Conn.

RANS.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 381

self to judge from the prominence given to his name, and the red
uncials in which it is written.”

We further take exception to Conybeare’s inference that the trans-
lator of these twelve verses into the Armenian must have had a Greek
or Syriac MS in which they were prefaced by the words “Agrettwvoc
mpeciutécov. The opposite seems to us to be more probable since:

1. The scribe clearly indicates that in some sense he considers the
Gospel to end at v. 8 since he has filled the remainder of the last line
of this verse with the vermilion flourishes by which he indicates the
close of a Gospel.

2. He has at this point inserted the boss which further indicates
the end of the Gospel at this point.

3. The scribe does not give a line to this rubric but crowds it in as
an afterthought. As Conybeare acknowledges, “if the scribe had
from the first meant to keep it, he would have left room for it, instead
of cramping it above the terminal flourishes.”

4. Even acknowledging that the insertion is contemporary with the
original transcribing of the codex, it may have been inserted not by
the scribe but by the SeSmc7h¢, as Mr. Conybeare acknowledges.
This admission seems to us to seriously weaken his argument for the
existence of this rubric in the exemplar.

This codex was written by the scribe Johannes at the commission
of a monk and presbyter, Stephanus, who in a note he appends to the
book declares “‘this book is to be read in this church, for it is copied
from authentic and old originals’”’ (Strzygowski, Byzantische Denk-
maler, I Vienna, 1891 p. 19, quoted in Zahn’s articles). The same
authority declares that the covers and the pictures bound with this
codex belong to the first half of the sixth century, and they seem very
probably to be taken from one of these “‘old originals” (so Zahn, and
Conybeare acknowledges it possible). If this is correct at least one
exemplar of this codex is to be dated before 550 A.D. It is possible,
however, as Conybeare has pointed out, to hold that these illustrations
belonged to the Syriac exemplar from which the Armenian scribe
translated the last twelve verses.

But if these words were in the exemplar, and especially if they
are to be considered as of equal importance with the titles of the
Gospels, why were they not copied at the first, instead of being
crowded in as an afterthought ?

5. But if the Armenians considered this a true and authentic
tradition, why is this rubric never found in other Armenian MSS which
contain these twelve verses translated as they are in the Edschmiadzin
codex? A search in all the other codices found in the library at

382 Clarence Russell Williams,

Edschmiadzin has disclosed no other instance, and it does not
occur in any of the codices found in Venice, Paris, London, and
Oxford.

6. Moreover if this tradition came from an ancient and authentic
Syriac MS why has it not been found in some Syriac codex ?

Zahn, who felt these latter difficulties, would resolve them by
assuming that ‘‘a learned man of the fourth or fifth century, who was
interested in the question of the origin of Mark xvi. 9—20, because he
did not find the section in all copies, who also knew the work of Papias,
and found in it a Dvegesis of Aristion’s, essentially the same with
Mark xvi. 14—18, availing himself of his information, entered on the
margin of his copy of the Gospels the words ‘Agiotiwvog mpecSuvépov.
This notice may then have gained currency over a small range and
have made its way to Armenia among other places.’’ (See Conybeare’s
Translation of Zahn’s article, Expositor, Sept. 1894, p. 225.) While
we do not accept this supposition of Zahn’s, his theory is interesting
for it suggests that the rubric may be founded ultimately upon the
inference or supposition of some student or-scribe, which we believe
to have been probably the case.

To us, then, it seems probable that the rubric “Ariston Eritzou”’
was not contained in the text of the fifth century exemplar of this
codex, and that quite possibly it was added from a much later source,
which may have been based on a late tradition or supposition or
a mistaken inference. Furthermore it does not seem to us that
this rubric was intended to have the same dignity as the titles “Of
Matthew” etc. affixed to the Gospels.

At the same time it is probable that these verses were translated
into the Armenian as early as the fifth century, since Eznik, a fifth
century Father of the Armenian Church cites vs, 17, 18 almost pre-
cisely as we have them in the present text, but seems to carefully
abstain from quoting them as belonging to Mark. That these verses
belonged to the early Armenian version but were afterwards excised,
is declared by a late Greek Father, according to Conybeare who does
not give his name. Was this Theodore Chrthenavor early in the eighth
century, who declared that Luke 22 : 43, 44 was cut out from the early
Armenian version by certain Docetic heretics ?. (See Conybeare, Ex-
positor, Dec. 1895, p. 405.)

As far as internal evidence goes this is quite possible, since these
verses as found in the Edschmiadzin codex agree fairly well with
the rest of the Gospel. However they might have been translated
at a later time in an archaic style, by a careful student of the
version.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 383

Whether translated originally from the Greek or the Syriac has
not been determined. Conybeare ‘‘on reconsideration” holds that
they are from the Greek. Zahn inclines to a Syriac origin, which is
quite possible, since we know that at the beginning of the fifth cen-
tury they had a recognized place in the Syriac Bible as represented
by the Peshitto.

But even granting, as we do not, that the phrase “ Ariston Eritzou’
represents an early and authentic tradition, we must insist that we
do not know who the Ariston mentioned is.

Mr. T. A. Archer suggested that he is to be identified with the Aris-
tion, who, with the Presbyter John, was an authority for Papias, as
mentioned in Eusebius, Church History, II, 39. For this identifi-
cation, which he adopted, Conybeare has argued strongly.

The difficulties this theory must face are:

1. The rubric speaks of Ariston, not Aristion. But Conybeare cites
the Armenian version of Eusebius to show that the name of Aristion
can be and is thus transliterated. Zahn and Resch agree, but Prof.
Bacon declares Ariston does not represent Aristion “badly spelled,
as was natural, by an Armenian scribe.”

2. In the quotations from Papias he speaks of ‘‘Aristion and the
Presbyter John,” and though the two names are thrice repeated, the
title presbyter is always given to John and never to Aristion. How-
ever in the Armenian version we have an instance where Aristion and
John are together called presbyters.

3. Aristion, as far as our evidence goes, was not a writer, for Papias
declares he had not been a reader of writings, but an ear-witness
(ad7qx00¢) of Aristion and John and therefore received from him
an oral tradition, not a written narrative.

4. Had Aristion been the author of the end of Mark it is most prob-
_ able that he would have communicated this fact to Papias, and that
Papias would have mentioned it in his discussion of the origin of the
Gospel according to Mark.

5. Eusebius notes that Papias, in his 3myfoeg has a story of
Justus called Barsabas “how he drank off a deadly drug, and yet
suffered no ill effects because of the grace of the Lord.” This is of
course a proof of the fulfilment of Mk. 16: 18, and Dean Burgon has
argued from it that Papias here refers to these verses, and that they
were contained in Mark’s Gospel in his day.

Now Eusebius does not in any way connect this story of Papias
with Aristion or the Presbyter John, but Conybeare stated in his first
article that :

384 Clarence Russell Williams,

“Tn a 12th century Bodleian Codex of Rufinus’ Latin version
of the Ecclesiastical History this story is mentioned in the margin
against the name of Aristion (in p. 136. 31), from which we tnay
suppose that the scholiast of Rufinus regarded the story as in a pe-
culiar manner due to or suggested by Aristion.... It is unlikely
that Aristion himself in his 3uqjyyees told the story in illustration
of verse 18, of which he was the author, and that Papias only copied
it from him. But the scholiast of Rufinus may have known that
these twelve verses were Aristion’s, and on that account have con-
nected with Aristion’s name a story so aptly illustrative of one of
the verses in question.” (Ex. Oct. 1893 pp. 246, 250.)

This seemed strong confirmation for the identification of the Ariston
of the rubric with Aristion, the authority of Papias, to Conybeare,
and also to Zahn, who, confining the narrative from Aristion in these
twelve verses to vs. 14—18 held that Papias wrote down the narratives
of Aristion, and that the Armenian title is due to the fact that Papias
attributed this section of his narrative to Aristion, as was known by
the person who compiled the longer ending. (Ex. Sept. 1894 p. 224.)

But this, the strongest support to the theory, has failed, since this
scholion is “‘a very ragged and late bit of writing” (Conybeare) and
the inference from it is a mistaken one, as is shown by Prof. J. Vernon
Bartlet, who, requested by Prof. Bacon to transcribe this gloss in the
Rufinus codex, “with special regard for its location on the page,”
sent him the following explanation, recently published (Bacon in The
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. xxx, Part I, 1911, p. 105).

“My notes on the Bodleian MS. of Rufinus, which I examined
(MSS. 2. and Miscell. 294, once in the monastery of Eberbach) are to
this effect. The scholion is really simply one of a number of margi-
nal notes, indicating the contents, which occur throughout the MS.
Conybeare noticed that the ‘scholion’ ‘ Quod Justus quiet Barsabas
venenum biberit nihilque ex hoc triste pertulerit’ stood ‘in the margin
over against the name of Aristion’ and inferred that this showed
consciousness that this story was ‘due to or suggested by Aristion.’

“But the position ‘over against’ Aristion is a mere accident, due
to the fact that there is mo voom on the inner margin of the Ms.
(which is written in 2 columns), where it should come, for the
marginal note to be inserted. Hence it comes opposite the name
of Aristion, which though a good deal earlier in the text, is in fact
parallel (to the matter in question) in the other column. There are
similar cases which I have observed elsewhere. Thus the inference
was a mistake of Conybeare’s, and the observation is of no historical
value.”

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 385
Concerning the identification of “‘Ariston Eritzou”’ with the
Aristion known through Papias, we can at least say that it is not
proven.

But already before the publication of his first article Prof. Sanday
had suggested to Dr. Conybeare that the Ariston referred to was
Ariston (or Aristo) of Pella, whom Eusebius quotes at some length as
reporting the overthrow by Hadrian in 135 A.D. of Jerusalem. In
a scholion of the seventh century by Maximus Confessor (De mystica
Theol. cap. i, p. 17, ed. Corderii) he is declared to be the author of the
Jewish-Christian “Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus. Prof. Bacon has
argued that this statement is late and untrustworthy, and that the
above writing was originally anonymous.

Resch declares that “If we take the name “Agiotmy in the strict
form in which it has been transmitted, no other person can be con-
sidered to be referred to thereby than Aviston of Pella. He acknowl-
edges however that in antiquity there was a confusion of the names
‘Agiezmy and “Agiotiwy. However it is interesting to note that the
name of Ariston of Pella is transliterated in precisely this way in
the Armenian version of Eusebius.

Conybeare brings against this identification two objections:

1. The date of 140—150 A.D. is too late for the origin of a sec-
tion so uniformly found in Greek MSS Zahn agrees. But the testi-
mony of Greek MSS is now seen to be not so uniform as was at first
supposed, and the arguments of Resch and Rohrbach that these
verses were added to Mark at the time of the formation of the fourfold
Gospel canon,-which would date them just about this time, as far as
their connection with the second Gospel is concerned, is a sufficient
answer to this objection.

2. “So far as we know anything about Ariston’s writings they
were not at all similar to these twelve verses.’’ But in his second
article Dr. Conybeare himself overthrows this argument by stating :
“Both dialogue and history of Ariston having perished, we have no
means of deciding whether the twelve verses are in the style of that
author. We do hear that some people mistook his dialogue for a work
of Luke the Evangelist ; and as that was so, it is likely that Ariston
of Pella could have written the twelve verses.”

Moreover this objection would tell equally against the identification
with the Aristion of Papias since we do not know anything about the
writings of Aristion, and in fact do not know that he was a writer at
all. Besides if the rubric here does refer these verses to Ariston of
Pella, it by no means proves that he wrote them. It may indicate only
a tradition, and as our previous arguments have sought to show, this

386 Clarence Russell Williams,

tradition, since it cannot be proved that this rubric was contained
in a fifth century exemplar of the codex, is not necessarily either
ancient or authentic.

Zahn declared that :

‘““Conybeare has quite rightly rejected the idea of Ariston of Pella.
It is quite true that Moses of Chorene had plenty of fables to relate
about him (II. 60), and we could not avoid thinking of him, if
Langlois (Coll. of Arm. Hist., I. 391; I. 110, n. 3) were right in
ascribing to Moses the statement that Ariston was secretary of the
Bishop Mark, of Jerusalem, in the time of Hadrian.

“Tf that were so, the completer of the Second Gospel must have
been identified with the secretary of the Evangelist Mark, and also
have received the name Ariston.” (Conybeare’s trans. Ex. Sept.
1894, p. 222.)

Zahn declares, however that Langlois is mistaken, and that Moses
of Chorene means that Ariston was the secretary of Hadrian. Prof.
Bacon states that Moses means that Ariston was the secretary of
Ardaces. These three views prove sufficiently that at this point the
testimony of Moses of Chorene is ambiguous.

If modern scholars find difficulty in interpreting this testimony
it is quite possible that a scribe of the tenth century might find equal
difficulty. If Langlois could suppose that Ariston was secretary of
Bishop Mark of Jerusalem, according to Moses of Chorene, so might
this scribe who would of course be familiar with the writings of this
great Armenian historian. That the scribe should further confuse
the Bishop Mark of Jerusalem, in the time of Hadrian with the
Evangelist Mark is by no means impossible. That he did make
these blunders, has been argued by Prof. Bacon, (“Against the Au-
thorship of the Last Verses of Mark,’’ The Expositor, VI Series 1905,
pp. 401-412 and Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,
Vol. Arisioes)

To suppose that the Gospel according to Mark was finished by this
secretary, is, as Prof. Bacon suggests, quite a natural inference. That
this was the inference not of an ancient authority, but of the scribe
who wrote this codex in 989 A.D. seems far more probable than the
supposition that it is to be traced back to “‘a learned man of the fourth
or fifth century,” in view of the fact that we have as yet found no
duplication of this rubric in any Armenian or Syriac MS. It is quite
possible that its omission from Armenian MSS of later date than our
codex is due to a recognition either of its late date, or of its precarious
foundation, or both.

It is but just to say that the author’s doubts concerning the anti-

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 387

quity and trustworthiness of this ascription of the last twelve verses
of Mark to “Ariston”’ arose while studying the original articles of
Dr. Conybeare, and it was not until later that the articles of Prof.
Bacon were studied. These served to confirm the view already
formed, but the preceding argument is by no means dependent upon
the acceptance or rejection of Prof. Bacon’s theory of the misunder-
standing of the Armenian scribe. That theory suggests an explana-
tion of the origin of the inference, but independently of it, the evidence
indicates :

1. We have no evidence that this rubric contains an early tradition,
since we cannot trace it back of the MS in which it is found, which is
dated 989 A.D.

2. We have no proof that it is a trustworthy tradition, since no
other trace of it has as yet been found.

3. We cannot be sure which Ariston the rubric refers to. The
evidence for his identification with the Aristion of Papias is very weak.
And if the scribe intended to indicate Ariston of Pella, the probability
is that he was mistaken.

Therefore we conclude that the words “Ariston Eritzou”’ of the
Edschmiadzin codex gives only a late, and probably an untrustworthy
inference or conjecture of a scribe.

The whole question, therefore, of the authorship and source of
the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark is still open.

Bibliography.
CONYBEARE, F. C., ““Armenian Version’’ H.D.B. in loco.
Burkitt, Under “Texts and Versions.’’ Encycl. Bibl.

DAKE, Ke: Under ~ Bible”. Encycel. Brit. lth ed.

KENyoNn, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N.T.

ROBINSON, J. ARMITAGE, “ Euthaliana.”’

CONYBEARE, F. C., The Academy, Feb. 1, 1896. A review of the above.
ZAHN, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons p. 913.

Martin, J. P. P., Introduction a la Critique textuelle du N.T. Tome II, p. 330f.

Bibliography.
“Of the Presbyter Ariston,”

CONYBEARE, F. C., “‘ Aristion, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark,”
The Expositor, Oct. 1893, pp. 241—254. (Series IV, No. xlvi.)
The original announcement of the discovery.
Harnack, In the Theologische Literaturzeitung, Nov. 1893.
Little more, than a recapitulation of the above. Inclines to the
view that Conybeare is right.

388 Clarence Russell Williams,

ZauN, In the Theologische Literaturblatt, Leipzig, for Dec. 22 ? 1893. Trans-
lation by Conybeare in the Expositor, Sept. 1894, pp. 220—226.
Argues the compiler of 16: 9—20 took vs. 14—18 from Papias
who had derived them from Aristion. The rubric to be traced to
“a learned man of the fourth or fifth century.”
ReEscH, ALFRED, Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, T. und U.
x Band, Heft 3, p. 449. Translation by Conybeare in the Expo-
sitor, Sept. 1894, pp. 226—232.
The rubric refers to Ariston of Pella, redactor of the oldest Gospel
canon who is its author
Ariston of Pella is here indicated as the author of these verses,
and he must therefore have been the redactor of the earliest Gospel
canon.
CONYBEARE, ‘On the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark’s Gospel. The Ex-
positor, Dec. 1895, pp. 401—421. (Series V, No. xii.)
A reply.
Bacon, B. W., ‘Against the Authorship of the Last Verses of Mark.’
The Expositor, Dec. 1905, pp. 401—412. (Series VI, Vol. XII.)
The scribe meant Ariston of Pella, thinking he was the secretary
of the Evangelist Mark. A late and mistaken tradition.
Bacon, ‘‘Aristo.”’ Hasting’s Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels in loco.
A further discussion of the above theory.
Bacon, B. W., Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. XXX, Pt. I, 1911) pp:
105—107.
Contains the note by Prof. Bartlett concerning the mistaken in-
ference from the gloss in the codex of Ruiinus.

THE EGyPriaAN VERSIONS

Egypt is of great significance in the history of the New Testament
as the home of the non-Western text. In importance therefore the
Egyptian Versions of the South rank next to the Syriac versions of the
East and the Latin versions of the West. The history of the conclu-
sions of Mark must now be traced, as far as possible, in the versions
of Egypt. -

The present classification of the dialects of Egypt divides them into
Bohairic (Memphitic), the dialect of the district about Alexandria ;
the Middle Egyptian, which includes the Memphitic, Fayyumic,
Akhmimic, etc. ; and the Sahidic (Thebaic), the dialect of Upper Egypt.

The Bohairic, originally spoken in the district about Alexandria,
was the most literary of the dialects of Egypt, and ultimately super-
seded them all. This version then became, what it still remains, the
official version of the Coptic Church throughout the country. The

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 389

origin of the Bohairic Version must therefore be associated with
Alexandria.

- But Greek was the early official language of this part of Egypt,
and the earliest extant writings of Egyptian Christianity are in that
tongue. It would therefore be antecedently probable that Upper
Egypt, which we know formerly reacted against foreigners, would first
require a version in the vernacular. Critical study supports this
inference, concludin, that the Sahidic Version was most probably the
earliest Egyptian version, followed by the Middle Egyptian and the
Bohairic in the order named.

The date of the earliest Egyptian version is generally given as the
latter part of the second or the early half of the third century. The
year 200 A.D. cannot be very far wrong (Kenyon) since the Sahidic
shows in the N.T. a type of text which prevailed in the second century
and in the O.T. a pre-Origenian text.

The Greek text from which the Sahidic was translated belonged to
the type represented by NB, although it contained a considerable
“Western’’ element of an early character, perhaps the type shown in
Clement of Alexandria. The translation is idiomatic, and in some
cases inexact.

The Middle Egyptian Version is known to have been profoundly
influenced by the Sahidic, but is not yet available for critical use.

The Bohairic, the latest of these versions, shows a desire for more
literal exactness in translation, and also exhibits the influence of what
was considered, at the time it was made, a better Greek text. Where
it differs from the Sahidic it almost always follows “Alexandrian”
readings.

The Sahidic Version.

The Sahidic Version agrees with the Bohairic in its “‘ Neutral’ ten-
dencies and in its freedom from “Antiochian” interpolations, which
do not seem to have influenced the text of Egypt until the tenth cen-
tury. It is to be placed among such representatives of the ancient
text as N8, B, Claromontanus, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria.
Its lack of readings peculiar to L, with the exception of the double
ending of Mark, show that it does not belong to the late Alexandrian
type of text.

Most of the Coptic manuscripts known have been supplied by the
White Monastery, from which, according to the estimate of Dr. Crum,
nine thousand leaves have been obtained.

The Sahidic Gospels have been edited from many fragments by
G. Horner in “The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the

390 Clarence Russell Williams,

Southern Dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic. Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1911. In regard to his sources the editor says:
“Two general observations may be made in regard to the whole
body of fragments. The first is the freedom from corrections and
the consistency of the orthography of individual MSS.... Only
one MS appears to have been extensively corrected. The second
observation is the unanimity of the readings. Variants appear, as
is only natural in so large a number of MSS of different dates, but
the variants are few, and their scarcity may be connected with the
fact that so many of the fragments have come from the same place,
the White Monastery.”

We are able to call attention to a MS in this version containing the
double ending of Mark which has not, so far as we are aware, been
included in any previous discussion of our problem. This is a frag-
ment brought from Egypt by M. Weill in 1905, who seems to have ob- .
tained it in Cairo. A few leaves of the same MS were obtained by
Sayce, and one leaf is in the Bodleian.

Folio 162b.of this Sahidic MS (Weill 16 which Horner calls 108 in
his edition) contains the Shorter Conclusion, followed by the custo-
mary note, and the Longer Conclusion. It is interesting to note that
preceding Luke, in this MS, is found an imperfect list of tituli of his
Gospel, reminding us in this respect of L. The MS is dated by Horner
in the eleventh century and he translates the text as follows:

And when they had heard they came out of the sepulchre, and
they ran, for trembling was laying hold on them, and a confusion ;
and they said not a word to anyone, for they were fearing. But
all the things which were ordered them, to those who followed
Petros they said openly. After these (things) also again Jesus was
manifested to them from the place of rising of the sun unto the place
of setting. He sent through them the preaching which is holy and
incorruptible of (the) eternal salvation.

But these (lit. those) also belong to them:

But a trembling was laying hold on them and a confusion ; and
they said not any word to any one, for they were fearing. ~ But when
he had risen in (the) morning of the first day (lit. day 1) of the week,
he was manifested first to Maria the Magd(alen)e this (one) out of
whom he cast seven demons. That (woman) went, she showed to
those who had been (lit. were) with him, as they mourn and (weep).
They also (again), when they had heard that he is living and that
she saw him, were unbelieving. But after these (things) to two
of them, as they walk. he was manifested in another form, as they
go into the (field). (But) after these (things) to the (twelve he was

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark, oot

manifested) and he reproached their unbelief and their hardness of
- heart, because they believed not those who saw him having risen.
And said he to (them), Go into all the world and preach the gospel
to all the creation. He who will believe and be baptized will be
saved ; he who will not believe will be condemned. But these signs
will follow those who will believe: they will cast demons out in my
name ; they will speak in languages ; and they will take up serpents
in their hands ; even if they should drink a deadly potion it will not
hurt them ; they will place their hands upon those who are sick, and
they (will) recover (lit. rest). But the Lord Jesus after his speak-
ing to them was taken up to the heaven, he sat (on the) right of God.
(But they, when they had (come out), preached (everywhere), the)
Lord helping them, confirming the word (through) the signs which
follow them.
According to Markos, it is finished.

Horner says that the curved brackets mean that the fragment is
imperfect in the verse.

The testimony of this recently discovered Sahidic fragment con-
taining the double ending of Mark is of far greatér weight and signi-
ficance than would at first sight appear. Since as yet but a mere
handful of Sahidic fragments containing the closing verses of Mark
is known,—Horner seems to cite only 50, the Bodleian fragment and
102, together with the Greek of Paris 129,—that one of them should
possess the double ending is surprising. It may indicate not a pe-
culiar, but a relatively common form of the Gospel in this version.
As has been noted, Horner declares that there is great unanimity of
reading in the fragments found. It certainly indicates far more than
would be implied by the discovery of an additional Greek MSS of this
form, and we believe approximates in significance, though not of
course in importance, to the discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac, so far
as its bearing upon the version to which it belongs is concerned.*

While the MS containing the double ending is assigned to the
eleventh century, it seems quite probable that an earlier archetype
had a form of the text in which the Gospel ended with the Shorter
Conclusion ; which may have been early introduced into this version
and obtained wide currency, for aught we know.

This. supposition receives a slight confirmation from the Arabic
gloss which accompanies the insertion of the Shorter Ending in Brit.

1 It is known that there is a Coptic (probably Sahidic) MS with a double
ending among the recently acquired J. Pierpont Morgan MSS.

| e

392 Clarence Russell Williams,

Mus. Or. 1315 of the Bohairic Version which reads “In the copy of
the Sa‘id.’’ This note refers to the Sahidic copy declares Horner
(Sahidic, p. 636).

The Sahidic, as we have seen, is older than the Bohairic, the latter,
though not entirely independent of it, being based on a later Greek
text. The fact that one MS of the Sahidic contains the double ending
in the text while the two Bohairic MSS which contain the Shorter
Conclusion relegate it to the margin, confirms our theory of the his-
tory of the conclusions of Mark as developed in Egypt. The Sahidic
represents our third, the Bohairic our fourth stage. At the same time
there are also indications, as Zahn has shown, that some Bohairic MS
contained the Shorter Ending only. That the Egyptian versions
should mirror the text dominant in Alexandria at various periods is
what would be antecedently expected, and what the evidence seems
to show. i

The Bohairic Version.

The Bohairic Version, still in ecclesiastical fise among the Copts, is
probably to be dated toward the close of the third or in some part of
the fourth century (so Kenyon, Lake, etc.). It originated almost
certainly in Alexandria, and shows an underlying Alexandrian text
(Hyvernat quoting Headlam, and so also Nestle).

Present critics consider the underlying Greek text “singularly
pure and free from so-called ‘Western’ additions.” It belongs to
the type of text represented by NB and L.

Our earliest codices of this version belong to the twelfth century,
though certain fragments may be as early as the ninth century. The
Bohairic is often accompanied by an Arabic translation, though a
Graeco-Bohairic MS has not as yet been discovered.

This version has been edited by G. Horner in “The Coptic Ver-
sion of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, otherwise called
Memphitic or Bohairic, with Introduction, Critical Apparatus, and
literal English Translation,’’ Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898. _ Horner
declares that in all the MSS examined by him the customary type of
the Gospel according to Mark was found, with no reference to the
Shorter Ending save in Hunt 17, (Horner’s A) and Brit. Mus. Or. 1315
(Horner’s E).

The testimony of Hunt 17, ‘“‘a very fine and important MS”’ (Light-
foot) is given by Horner (p. 480) as follows:

“At the end of v. 8, in the break, as if referring to the last twelve
verses, is a gloss [in Arabic] ‘this is the chapter expelled in the

Greek.’

oxee NH THPOT ETAYRONGEN poy [ KAA ox] NAH
ET ayl menEenNcaA TEED OG One? Ben pea lera yf E40) ayia,

Bo MAUL WOT OTTO LKENENCA War BE ON AYOYWNGZ E&P -

Wor NR se 1exenw NI AL ANE OW NTE pH wa NEG ALA

SE Orog Ayosusrioy ONLI OES <60y¥ab Natuo-
ENK NTE Tl wns ERG AMUHN Nat On 630% €EXIN! Nro
Tox O7reg ALENEN CHA NAL eye Tagwoy Lex TAQWORI NIN Xe} pow ay8ae—
y , a
NCAR’ AMAZE ITE
Tee NEA 9ANGON IES ovog 44 TOS KE @™! wah (NaAzEP f rop

Bohairic. Hunt 17, margin.

Copied from Abbé Martin’s Introduction a la Critique textuelle du Nouveau
Testament, Partie pratique, II, p. 399.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. X VIII.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 393

“Tn the margin is written by the ordinary early corrector ‘And
all the (things) which he ordered to them who came after Peter,
(lit. and) openly they spake of them. And after these (things) in-
deed, again Jesus appeared to them from the risings of (the) sun
until his settings, and he sent them to preach (lit. throw) (the) good
tidings, holy, imperishable, of the eternal life. Amen. These
(words) themselves are belonging to those: (viz) And after these
(things) troubles and perplexities seized them: and they said not
a word to anybody, for they were fearing.’”’

This MS was written, as it testifies, in 1173—4 “by Theod(orus of)
Paseri (Busir), monk of the Laura of S. Makari (Macarius)”’ a mon-
astery still existing in the Nitrian desert, southwest of Cairo, whence
it was brought by Robert Curzon in 1838. It is now in the Bodleian
Library at Oxford.

“The importance of this MS,” to quote Lightfoot, “consists in a
great measure in its marginal additions, which are very frequent. The
text seems to give the original Bohairic Version in a very pure form ;
while the margin supplies all, or very nearly all the passages which
in fewer or greater numbers have crept into the text of other Bohairic
MSS, and which (as far as regards the Bohairic Version itself) must be
regarded as interpolations, whatever sanctions they may have in
Greek MSS or other ancient authorities.’ (Scrivener’s Introduction,
Mp. 114.)

We see then that it forms a close parallel to the Harclean Syriac,
through it seems to have had a different ancestry (cf. Burkitt, Encycl.
Bibl. iv, col. 5010).

Notice that in this MS the Shorter Ending is not preceded by any
note, but is concluded by the Amen ; that the text is confused ; that
the usual note follows with a repetition of the latter part of v. 8. in
the strange form, ‘‘And after these things troubles and perplexities
seized fhem: and they said not a word to anybody, for they were
fearing.”

Zahn declares that this usual note and the supplement to the Shorter
Ending found in this MS has nothing to do with the Longer Ending,
but is a modification of v. 8b, and that the marginal gloss must have
originated from a MS in which the Shorter Ending with the Amen
formed the proper ending of the Gospel, and yet it was remarked that
certain other MSS read the quoted supplement to the Shorter Ending
besides this.

Now this last MS gives evidence of a bold attempt to conform the
text of the Shorter Ending and v. 8; dealing with the matter in a
manner parallel to k where, as we shall see v. 8 has been modified

394 Clarence Russell Williams,

to read, ‘‘ Now they, when they came out from the tomb fled, for fright
and terror held them on account of their fear.”

Hunt. 17 therefore witnesses to the fact that there once existed
Bohairic MSS of two types, both ending apparently with the Shorter
Conclusion, but one type simply adding the shorter ending to v. 8
without modification, and the other modifying v. 8 so that it
would not contradict the Shorter Ending, perhaps, as Zahn sug-
gests, by inserting this ending between the earlier and later por-
tions of v. 8

The other Bohairic MS which contains the Shorter Conclusion in
the margin is British Museum Oriental 1315, again a Coptic-Arabic
MS whose date is 1207 A.D. This MS is “ profusely glossed in Arabic”’
and in the text follows D, Copt. Arab. Rom. Vat. 9 (Greg. 30) ex-
cept in the early chapters of Luke. Horner’s presentation of the tes-
timony of this MS which he calls E in his discussion of the text. is as
follows :

“After v. 8, is the break which marks the end of verses in all
MSS, and in it a sign corresponding to the two similar signs in the
margin, which seem to indicate an omitted section: then in the
lower margin is written by the original hand:

‘In another writing: and ail things which they ordered Peter,
he did them quickly (cuvzéuwe): and after these (things) Jesus
manifested himself to them: from the risings of (the) sun until his
settings ; by them he sent the preaching, holy, unpolai for (lit.
in) eternal salvation.’

“This section is translated thus [in Arabic]:
‘And all things which he ordered to Peter, they did them de-
cidedly (decisively) ; and after this Jesus appeared to them from the
risings of the sun to her settings, and by their means he sent the
Gospel, pure (holy), without pollution.’

“There is also a gloss [in Arabic]:
‘in the copy of the Sa‘id’ which belongs to the translation.”

This gloss, according to Horner’s edition of the Sahtdic (p. 636)
refers to the Sahidic copy.

Horner holds that “unpolluted”’ and “‘salvation’’ show that the
form of his latter MS is more correct than-that found in Hunt. 17,
and that the absence of the confused addition of the latter, which he
considers a version of the gloss of L, indicates that it goes back to an
earlier and more intelligent copyist. The readings of Or. 1315 seem
to associate it more closely with the Greek, with k, and with the Syriac,
while the closest ally of Hunt. 17 seems to be the Ethiopic, which

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 395

we must next discuss. Note that a reference to the rising and setting
of the sun occurs also in the ‘‘ab oriente ad occasum’ of the para-
phrase of the Pistis Sophia.

Egyptian Versions, Bibliography.

For general discussions see Lightfoot and Headlam in Scrivener,
K. Lake in Encycl. Brit. under “ Bible”, Kenyon in his “ Handbook
to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.’”’, Burkitt, in Eucycl. Bib. “Texts
and Versions,’ and Robinson in Hasting’s D.B. “‘ Egyptian Versions.”

For lists of MSS containing portions of the Coptic Bible see Hyver-
nat, Revue Biblique, Internationale, 1896, No. 4, p. 54ff. and 1897
No. 1, pp. 55—62, cf. also 48f.

The best full collections are said to be in Woide, Appendix ad
editionem N. T. Graeci, Oxford, 1799 and Amelineau, ZAS 1886—1888
with Crum’s Coptic MSS brought from Fayyum.

The Bohairic Version has been edited by G. Horner, “The Coptic
Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, otherwise
called Memphitic or Bohairic, with Introduction, Critical Apparatus,
and literal English Translation, Vol. I, Introd. Mt. Mk. Oxford, 1898.

Compare also Sanday, Appendices to the New Testament, p. 187
and Hyvernat, Revue Biblique Internationale, 1897, No. 1, p. 48f.

The Sahidic Version has recently been edited (by G. Horner
apparently) in “‘The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the
Southern Dialect, otherwise called the Sahidic and Thebaic, Oxford,
AS4 4.

Tue Eruiopic VERSION

The Ethiopic Version is the name commonly given to the version
in Ge’ez, the classical language of the Abyssinians.

The tradition of the Abyssinian Church states that this version was
made from the Greek before the fifth century. Dillmann accepts this
tradition as correct for the following reasons : (Charles, H.D.B. in loco).

1. Christianity was firmly established in Abyssinia by the fifth
century.:

2. Jared, poet and musician, issued a hymnal for that church in the
sixth century.

3. Chrysostom appears to have known an Ethiopic Version of the
Bible.

4, Only in the first period did the Ethiopic Church translate directly

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. oa Frsruary, 1915.

396 Clarence Russell Williams,

from the Greek, for after the appearance of the Arabic language in
Egypt translations were made from that tongue.

Others date the version in the fifth oz sixth century (Guidi, Burkitt,
Charles, Kenyon) and Guildemeister puts it in the sixth or seventh
century.

Now whether Christianity teached Abyssinia through Egypt, its
northern neighbor, or directly from Palestine by teachers voyaging
down the Red Sea, we are not told, but there are traces of an older
Ethiopic Version of the Gospels made from the Syriac, as was the
Aramaic (cf. notes by Guildemeister pointing out the Aramaic coloring
of the Ethiopic N.T. in Tischendorf’s N.T. III, p. 895 note). The text
of the Ethiopic now and then does agree with the Old Syriac against
almost all other authorities. Hackspill would assign the version to
the fifth century, and holds it was made from a Syrian Occidental text.

Later, perhaps in the fourteenth century, the text was revised from
the medieval Arabic text current at that time in Alexandria, as was
proved by Guidi (La Traduzione degli Evangelii in Arabo in Ethio-
pico, Rome, 1888). Hackspill declares (Zeit. fiir Assyrologie, xi, 117,
1897) that only the oldest MS furnishes us with a comparatively pure
text, all others representing the later revised text. The unrevised
text is represented by Co. Paris Aeth. 32 while most MSS and all
printed editions present us with a text which is influenced by the
Alexandrian vulgate and shows traces of the Arabic. Most of the
MSS, of which at least one hundred are contained in European libra-
ries, belong to the XVII, XVIII, and XIX centuries.

As to the text represented by the version, Charles (H.D.B. I. p. 792)
says that it is related to the older type as represented by NB but
shows Western, Alexandrian, and Syriac elements. As yet no critical
edition of the Ethiopic has been published, and our knowledge of the
version is too slight to use to any considerable extent. It is therefore
impossible to give a full presentation of the testimony of the Ethiopic
as regards the last verses of Mark but it seems to present most of the
forms we have hitherto discussed. =

Sanday (Appendices ad Novum Testamentum) speaking of twelve
MSS found in the British Museum declares that three omit the ending,
viz. Or. 509 (xviii) ; Or. 513 (xvii) and Cod. Add. 16,190 (undated by
Sanday and Gregory).

Seven MSS (Cod. Or. 540 (1664—5), 544 (xvii), 512 (xvii), 514 (xvu),
516 (xvii), 517 (xvii), 518 (1655) close the Gospel with the Shorter
Ending which he thus translates :

“et omne quod imperavit Petro et iis qui ejus erant perfecte narravit

et posthac apparuit iis dominus Jesus ab ortu solis ad occasum et

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 397

misit eos praedicatum evangelium sacrum incorruptibile ad salutem
-aeternam. Amen. Amen.”

A study of Sanday’s list leads to the inference that the only manu-
script of the twelve which can contain the Longer Conclusion is Cod.
Ge 507 - (xv).

However WH (II, Notes p. 38) states that the Shorter Conclusion
is found “in at least several Aethiopic MSS continuously with v. 8,
and followed continuously by vv, 9—20, without note or mark of any
kind (Dr. Wright)’”’. Although we have consulted Wm. Wright’s
“Catalogue of the Ethiopic MSS in the British Museum acquired since
the year 1847”’ London, 1877 we have found no further light on the
subject, nor reference to this fact.

The Ethiopic Version therefore furnishes us with further evidence
for a form of the Gospel ending at v. 8, agreeing thus with N, B
and Ss with all of which, as we have seen it has textual affinity.

Certain MSS conclude the Gospel with the Shorter Ending alone.
There is nothing to forbid, and much to suggest that the Shorter
Ending was introduced into the text from Egypt. We have noted
that all the MSS are late, belonging to the seventeenth century, and
that they represent a revision of the text which seems to be dependent
on Alexandrian authorities.

It also witnesses to the later text,—of which we have found illus-
trations in four Greek uncials and one cursive, as well as in the
Sahidic,—the text with the double ending. It therefore confirms
the conclusions derived from earlier evidence.

If, as we hold, the Shorter Ending originated in Egypt, it would
be quite natural to find it in the Ethiopic Version, which might be
conformed, from period to period, to the current standard Alexandrian
text. This, as far as our evidence goes, is precisely what occurred.
It should be noted that the one MS cited by Sanday for the Longer
Conclusion, if our interpretation of his evidence is correct, antedates
by two centuries the MSS containing the Shorter Conclusion. This
however may be due to the form of text followed at this late date. Of
the influence of the Sahidic and the Bohairic Versions on the Ethiopic
our evidence does not give us sufficient information to draw con-
clusions.

Ethiopic Version, Bibliography.
For general discussions see the authorities quoted under Egyptian
Versions, to which may be added Charles on ‘Ethiopic Versions” in

Hastings D.B. Vol. I, pp. 791—793.
For lists of MSS see Wm. Wright, Catalogue of the Ethiopic MSS

398 Clarence Russel Walliams,

in the British Museum acquired since the year 1847, London, 1877 ( ?)
and Zotenberg, Cat. des MSS Ethiopiens de la Bibliotheque Nationale,
1877, p. 141 ff. together with Sanday, Appendices ad Novum Testa-
mentum.

No critical edition of the Ethiopic Version has as yet been published,
and therefore it is impossible to obtain the full testimony of this
version upon the matter we are discussing.

ARABIC 13

An Arabic MS, Rom. Vat. Arab. 13 (formerly 71), is included by
Tischendorf and Tregelles as a witness for the form of the Gospel
which ends at v. 8. WH do not contain any mention of it in their
notes. ;

Abbe Martin, after examining the MS, declares that it cannot be
considered a witness against the last twelve verses, that at most it
can only be cited as doubtful, and that the probability is that it con-
tained the Longer Conclusion. The following is practically a con-
densed translation of his argument.

The MS contains portions of the first three Gospels and two epistles,
in a good text. It is written in a Cufic character and belongs to the
eighth or ninth century, though many of its lost folios have been
supplied at a comparatively recent time.

The last line of folio 74 originally did not end with the last words
of 16:8 but with “they were.’’ The end of the verse must there-
fore have been written on folio 75 which has disappeared. But if this
folio was to contain only the concluding words of v. 8 would not the
scribe have found means, by a little crowding, of writing them on the
verso of folio 74? Would he have wished to take a whole folio
of parchment for two or three words? Anyone who has had any
experience in the study of manuscripts knows that this,would not
be the case.

It is true that today one reads under this original last line the words
+ after “they were afraid’ but these words were supplied by a
secondary hand, and therefore prove that v. 8 was finished on the
recto of folio 75.

Folio 75 is on a different parchment, and in a different hand, not
Cufic but Neskhi in character, proving that a folio of the original MS
has disappeared at this point. This has happened in this manuscript

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 399

in many parts of the N.T. and it is therefore probable that here also
the folio of the original has perished and been replaced at a relatively
late date.

The same hand which wrote at the bottom of folio 74 verso “they

’ were afraid” added the sign - which represents the Greek 7é)0¢ but

it is the same hand which adapted this MS to liturgical uses, as is
proved by the words o%@8acov and xvoixx7, in the margin, and the same
sign is written in a number of places in the Gospel. This sign, which
the second hand has sketched after Mark 16 : 8, explains how those who
superficially inspected this Arabic MS could have deceived themselves
as to its character and significance, and have thought that it signified
not the end of a lection but the end of the Gospel itself.

To these considerations it should be added that this MS discards
the readings of the family of MSS which reject 16: 9—20.

We find, therefore, that Arabic 13 is in reality of no significance
in discussing this question, but it has been examined lest we seem to
overlook some of the testimony.

This discussion of Abbe Martin’s is found in his Introduction
a la Critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, Partie pratique,
Tome II, pp. 430 ff.

THE SHORTER CONCLUSION

THE OLD LATIN VERSION

The Witness of the Old Latin Codex Bobiensis (k).

Summary.

k contains the shorter ending only, following v. 8 without note or
break. V. 8 has been slightly altered to conform to it.

Text .... That of Cyprian at Carthage in the middle of the third
century.

Place .... Roman North Africa.

Waae..... Fifth century.

Inference . The earliest O.L. text probably ended with v. 8, agreeing
with NB and Ss. The shorter ending was introduced
into it from Alexandria, either directly or through upper
Egypt.

400 Clarence Russell Williams,

Fol. 41 ecce locus illius ubi fuit positus:
7 Sed ite et dicite discipulis- et petro
praecedo uos in galileam illic me
uidebitis: sicut uobis dixi *illae au
tem cum cum exirent a monumé
to fugerunt- tenebat enim illas
tremor: et pauor- propter timoré
9Omnia autem quaecumque prae
cepta erant et qui cum puero erant
breuiter exposuerunt posthaec
et ipse hiS adparuit et ab orienté
usque: usque in orientem- misit
per illos: sanctam: et incorruptam. ha-
salutis aeternae- amen-

praedicationis.

Fol. 41d.
EUANGELIUM: CATA:

MARCUM: EXP:
INCIP-. CATA: MAT CHEM

FELICITER

Notes by Dr. Sanday in O.L. Bibl. Texts. p. 23. _

illaem. p.,illim.2. Prius cumexpunctumestam.2? 9. Confer
codicem graecum Parisinum Let App. I. p. 115. et ab orienté MS; et
om. Fleck. Denique ha indicat uerbum subter scriptum praedica-
tionis : -dicationis est in rasura. Quod prius fuit uidetur in n desisse.
Debebat esse sanctam et incorruptam praedicationem salutis aeternae.

Fol. 41b. Lineae secunda et tertia rubricatae sunt et ornamenta
partim rubro colore insignita.

re Rwy pois:
nS

CeLOCU Ss LLUSUBI FUITPOs|TUS:
PRES TEETOICILE SISCIPUU SST pet RO
pRASCS QSOUOSINGAL LEAN Lem
USEBITISSICUTUOBISSINI Jitneau
TEINCUMCUMERT RENTAINONUME
TOFUSSRUNT TENE BATE NIIILLAS
TRENIORSTPAUORS ROPTS RI ORS
OIYNIAAUTE NN GUASCUNIGUS PRS
CEPTACRANTETGUICUIN) PUCRQERART
SRSUIT SOREN POSUSRUNIT pOsThAse
CUPS TP NAPA RUITETABORIGNIE
Usque UsyUcINORIENTEM NSIT
PERMOSSANCTA ETINCORRU STAN) Hy.

\. "TTI¢
Oe i So 1a a: ,
BITISNETERNAC = omeet
- a “as od as a ‘
} sin’ ‘4 ions Tict ae eg. ‘ ‘
; \ os J OPIS ry F shoal o .
. oe 2

° Y Z ~ VF agt
, et a = a 5
Codex Bobiensis (K),

From Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. II edited by Wordsworth and Sanday.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII.

=
2
=
»
a
a .
-

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 401

Discussion.

In the Bobbio MS now numbered G. vil. 15 in the National Library
at Turin, usually called Codex Bobiensis (k) we have the only instance
as yet discovered of a Greek or Latin MS which contains the shorter
ending alone without the longer.

But k is a codex of unusual interest and importance ; “perhaps
the most important of the Old Latin MSS” (Nestle). “It is a book
of the highest interest, being undoubtedly the oldest existing represen-
tative of the African version of the Gospels, and as such is historically
and critically inferior to none of our Old Latin Biblical texts.’’
(Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts No. I, p. v.)

What then was the origin, the source, and the relations of the Old
Latin version represented by k?

In the past it has been pretty generally acknowledged that the
birthplace of the Old Latin version was to be found in Roman North
Africa. Recently some have dissented from this view, but at any
rate the oldest O.L. MSS seem to come from that region and to be
connected with the Fathers there.

The ‘African’ text, as Dr. Hort called it, of the O.L. is represented
in the Gospels by k ande, in the Acts and the Apocalypse by h. Dr.
Hort was the first to call attention to the fact that a large proportion
of these two texts of the Gospels are ‘“‘absolutely identical with
that of Cyprian where he differs from European MSS and Fathers ;
but each has also an admixture of other readings.” (WHII, p.81.)

As to the source of this version it is possible to suppose that it came
to North Africa from Rome or from Alexandria. Upon this problem
an examination of the text will throw some light, but at present we
recall the words of Kennedy in H.D.B. “The Old Latin Version”’
D:D.

“Perhaps the translation came there by way of Rome, whose
connection with Africa and Carthage at this time was as intimate as
can be conceived. Perhaps it traveled westward through upper
Egypt. Indeed certain phenomena bearing upon the underlying
Greek text seem to favor this hypothesis, notably a remarkable
affinity here and there in the O.L. with the recension of Hesychius,
and in both O.T. and N:T. with Cod. Alex.”

In a note Kennedy suggests that “perhaps this affinity is better
explained by later revisions.”

As to the Codex Bobiensis itself, it once contained the four Gospels,
probably in the order John, Luke, Mark, Matthew (so Wordsworth).
At present we possess, roughly speaking, only Mk. vii—xvi and
Mt. i—xv.

402 Clarence Russell Williams,

The handwriting is angular rather than round, without ornament
or flourish, and in spite of the fact that it is written with great neat-
ness in “a very firm and practical hand like that of a professional
scribe”’ (Wordsworth) it contains many scribal blunders, some of them
extraordinary in character. A mere glance at the last folio of Mark
will illustrate this fact. To account for these two seemingly contra-
dictory facts the most probable hypotheses seems to be that the writer
was a Greek scribe with very little knowledge of Latin. This would
lead us to suspect an Alexandrian scribe, as Tischendorf has already
done.

‘As to the Greek affinities of the book besides the CATA of the
headlines, the blunders that meet us on nearly every page prove to
us that F, R, and S were unfamiliar letters to our scribe, and his
occasional substitution of P for Ris probably a Graecism. In-view
of circumstances like this Tischendorf hazards the same conjecture
as he had previously made in regard to the cognate MS., the Palatine
Gospels (e, Vienna no. 1185), that it was written in Africa by an
Alexandrian calligraph, who was wholly ignorant of Latin (Wiener
Jahrbiicher, cxx. Anz. Blatt., p. 45, 1845, cp. Evangelium Pala-
tinum Prolegomena, p. xix., Lipsiae 1847.)”

Wordsworth m O.L. Bibl. Texts. No. Il. p. xv.

Certainly any scribe who could write “‘abrode aps te exredist tibi
ut sicreat’’ could not have been much of a Latin scholar.

The text of k, however, is a pure one, in spite of the many blunders
of the scribe. Sanday, after a most careful critical examination con-
cludes: “Corruption in the sense of transmitted and aggravated
blunders of the scribe it has suffered from severely enough, but the
intrusive element derived from foreign texts is, so far as we have seen,
comparatively small.”’ (O.L. Bibl. Texts II, p. Ixxxiv.)

The MS is to be dated in the V century (Tischendorf, Wordsworth)
though Swete says IV or V and Fleck, the early editor says VI or per-
haps V.

As for the type of Greek text underlying k, Sanday, after a careful
examination, finds that two elements stand out with great_,clearness,
the Western and the Neutral. ‘“‘Each of these enters in large pro-
portion into k; the ‘Western’ is naturally somewhat the larger, but
the ‘Neutral’ is also strongly pronounced.’”’ (O.L. Bibl. Texts, I,
peltG2)

As to the readings which k-has in common with the Old Latin,
Sanday concludes that they “present all the characteristics of ‘Wes-
tern’ readings in general.’’ “‘ Few of these can lay a claim to the text
as it was originally written.”

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 403

As to the readings which k has in common with NB he says that
they “must have come in at a remote stage before the Greek and
Latin texts in the ancestors of k were separated, in fact either be-
fore the Western text branched off at all or soon after the point of
parting.”

Back of k Sanday infers a still older form of the version, “a form
not much dissimilar from k, but with some features of greater anti-
quity.”” (p. xc.)

“The common archetype of k and Cyprian is, if not quite, yet
very nearly the most primitive form that we can trace. [Every
step that we take toward recovering it seems to widen the gap

which separates it from the other stem or stems, including a, b,

and d.” (p. Ixvn.)

We conclude, therefore, that the ‘African Latin’ as represented by
k, differs from other forms of the Old Latin version not only in its
language, but also in its underlying Greek text. Such ‘Western’
elements as it shares specifically with the O.L. seem to have come in
relatively late.

This Greek text differs noticeably from the eclectic texts of the
fourth century both Greek and Latin.

“For the most part the interpolations of this, the oldest con-
tinuous Latin text of the Gospels that has some down to us are to

a large extent not the interpolations of the eclectic text and its

omissions are not their omissions ; moreover its renderings are not

the renderings of the later revised Latin texts such as the Vulgate
and its immediate predecessors. All this tends to show that the

Latin text of the third century had to a large extent escaped re-

vision from Greek sources; in other words that the Greek text

implied by k and its companions is that which underlies the original

translations. Burkitt, Encyl. Bibl.

It has considerable affinity with the early Alexandrian text as
represented by NB and agrees with it in omitting the longer con-
clusion.

It also has affinities with the Old Syriac as represented by Ss
in its tendency toward abridgment, in its significant omission of a
clause in Mt. 1: 25, and again in its omission of the longer ending.
In spite of the fragmentary character of the witness of k and of Sc,
which omits all of Mark save the last few verses, Baethgen (Evan-
gelienfragmente p. 80) finds that it has special affinities with Sc.,

as does e the only other representative of ‘African Latin’ in the
Gospels.

404 _ Clarence Russell Williams,

The text of e, however, which shows later development than k
and a greater divergence from Cyprian, does not, unfortunately,
contain Mark xvi. It is therefore not possible to conclude with any
degree of certainly whether the shorter conclusion was a recognized
portion of the text, and found in the text of Cyprian as read at Car-
thage in the middle of the third century, before the Decian perse-
cution.

The affinity of k with L is very slight. This peculiarity of k in
containing the shorter ending alone, without hint of any other ending
for the Gospel, is the more remarkable since the longer ending seems
to have early become an integral part of the text of the Gospel as
known at Rome.

It seems most natural to conclude, in view of the text we have
found underlying k, that it received the shorter ending from Egypt,
and this receives a measure of confirmation from the fact that, as
Zahn has shown, an ancestor of the Bohairic Codex, Hunt. 17 which
contains the shorter ending in the margin “must have dealt with the
matter in essentially the same manner.”

This assertion of Zahn that there must have been Bohairic MSS
which resembled k im text adds further support to our contention
that the shorter ending was introduced into the ‘African Latin’ not
from Rome, but from Egypt, possibly through Upper Egypt, as
Kennedy suggests, either through or with the support of Coptic MSS ;
possibly from Lower Egypt, as Hunt 17 would suggest, with the
support of the Bohairic version ; possibly from some Greek MS of
Alexandria. .

It would seem, then, probable that the earliest ‘African Latin’ text
did not contain either ending, but concluded the Gospel at v. 8, as
do NB, and Ss, with all of which we have found k to have affinity.
So WH.

That the shorter ending was not introduced into the version first
by the Alexandrian (?) scribe of k, but was copied by him from an
earlier exemplar is quite evident, not only from the general charac-
teristics of the scribe but from the impossibility of the original trans-
lator writing in v. 9 “ puero”’ for “petro” which he had just copied in
v. 7 correctly, and bungling the phrase ‘‘from the east even unto the
west’”’ until he writes ‘“‘ab orienté usque- usque in orientem.”’ If an
Alexandrian, however, he would most probably be familiar with the
shorter ending.

How long before the transcribing of k in the fifth century the shorter
ending was introduced into the Latin it is of course impossible to
say. And yet there seems no evidence to forbid our believing that

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 405

it was in the text of Cyprian, which would carry us back two cen-
turies earlier. Either at the time it became a part of this text or
later v. 8 was modified to conform to the shorter conclusion, omit-
ting the words in v. 8b which contradict it, “they said nothing to
any one.”

Codex Bobiensis, therefore, furnishes us with another witness to
the antiquity and to the diffusion of the shorter ending, and lends
weight to the conclusion that the shorter ending originated in Egypt.

Bibliography.

k is edited by Worsworth and Sanday in Old Latin Biblical Texts No. II, 1886.
A facsimile of Mk. 16: 6—9 forms the frontispiece.
In this volume the text is printed in full, is described by Words-
worth and its relations discussed by Sanday.
BurRkKITT, Encyl. Bibl. ‘‘Texts and Versions” Vol. IV.
Kenney, E.G. A.; H.D.B., ~The Old Latin Versions’’ Vol. IIL.
The relation of k to Sc is discussed in Baethgen’s Evangelienfragmente,
p. 80.
Compare also the usual authorities: Tischendori, Zahn, Scrivener, von Soden,
etc.

406 Clarence Russell Williams,

GREEK MSS witrH BoTH CONCLUSIONS

Codex Regius (L).

MH EK@OAMBEIXOAI
IN ZHTEITE TON
NAZQPAION TO —
EXTAYP2MENON
HCEP@H OYK EXTI-
QAE JAE O TOMO
OWUOY EOHKAN AY
TON AAAA YUATE
TE EIUATE TOI MA
@OHTAIS AYTOY KAI
TO HWETP OTI
IIPOATEI YMA® EIS
THN TAAIAAIAN
EKEI AYTON OWE
®E KAGOY EWE —
YMIN

YAT KAI EZEAQOYSAI E
B ®YTON ATO TOY

MNHMEIOY El
XEN AE: AYTA> FPO
MO KAI EKXTAXSED
KAI OYAENI OYAEN
EHION E®OBOYN
TOs EA

N N N N N N N N N

®EPETE TOY
KAI TAYTA

ce oe oe

“Z 2 2

NANTA AE TA IIAPH

TTEAMENA TOIX
ITEPI TON ITETPON
SYNTOMGEY E=EH
ITIAAN META

Al TAYTA KAI -AYTOS
O I AIO ANATOAH>
KAI AXPI AYZEO>
K=AITEXTIAEN Al
AYTEN TO IEPON
KAT A®OAPTON KH
PYTMA THS AIO

NIOY YOTHPIAY

» ESTHN AE KAI»
“ TATYA ®EPO :
- MENA META TO |
~ E@OBOYNTO

» TAP .

ANAXTA® AE IIPQI
MP2TH YABBATOY

Folio 115, recto (Tischendorf).

Codex Regius (L).

Summary.
The Codex Regius, L, Paris, Nat. Gk. 62 (Sd.e 56) contains the Shorter
followed by the Longer Conclusion, both preceded by notes.
Text .... Resembles B, the citations of Origen, and the margin of

Syr. Harc.
Place .... Heype
Date. 2.2) Vilioes

Inferences Upon a text ending at v. 8 has been later imposed the
Shorter Ending and later still the Longer Ending.
All this seems to have occurred in Egypt.

Litein ARTE Céb ea ATL: ih erereroy

iN ZORA EON She: a
YZ lo et ro. P=

oT AY DIVINE NON AN'TA APT ATIA Fs

HI Ep ro E104 NISECTY Al PEAMAENAT OLE

WA, f= 1, AE OT Orme Se ae eet
OM IVE Sr HICAN AY CYNTORAWEE Zt
TON-AAAAY ATE PUIAAN™ RAETA
TECTIA ET ONCRAA Afmayra caiaylec
SHI ALCANAT SO Vical SIC AT CANATOAHE
TWeT pW OT ICAIAN DE ANCE Wl
npoaAr ELV RAACEN ET ATIECTAEN AT
TH NITAATAALAN® ANT WNT BS f poN
FIC eAAy® PONON/ZEC | IATA rOvAATITON Ic Ht
ret isartr we fing PVP Man THe, aby
VRAIN Neve ae ie ee
AL ET EArmOV CALE Oe ee a Ce
iN VITON ATTEN OY z COUT MAA, 6 Ie,
AS) NH RAELOY™ EL TAVITA erPc :
YENA FAYTACT SO ee NAM ETATO ©
muy: ICATERC EMAL Fit: ; OKBOYNTO,

-—, ==

IKCADOVA EMLOVA EN x2 aes
ETOP EQDOROVN

“ ~ o2
TOrAp = Mi WAC TACASHIPtvE
Pee cds Be nici, NPwTHtakBAT o*

Codex Regius (L).

From Kenyon’s Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 407

Discussion.

_In L verse 8 ends with zo yap on the last line but one of the first
column of folio 113 recto. The last line of the same column is filled
up by ornamental marks, which is this scribe’s method of indicating
the end of a Gospel, and therefore indicated here that in some sense
the Gospel according to Mark is held to end at this point.

At the beginning of the second column, enclosed in ornamental
marks, is written ODEPETE [OY KAI TAYTA “These also are in a
manner (or “somewhere” i. e. in some authorities) current.” The
next line contains a small ornament and then follows the Shorter
Ending. This is immediately followed by another note, surrounded,
as before, with ornamental lines EXTIN AE KAI TAYTA ®EPO-
MENA META TO E®OBOYNTO LAP “ And there are these also current
after ég0R00vt0 yao.’’ The Longer Conclusion follows, beginning with
a large and ornate uncial A (compare Cursive 22), the first two lines
of which completes the recto of folio 113, and the remainder of which
fills both columns of the verso, the first column of Folio 114 and the
first line of the second column, which reads QN *AMHN* followed
immediately by the usual colophon sdayyékov xat& Maoxov sur-
rounded, as were the preceding notes, with ornamental lines, more
elaborate in character however than the preceding (not the case
in the colophon of Luke, the last verses of Matthew and Mark are lost).
This is followed immediately by the chapter headings of Luke’s Gospel.

This codex has always been of peculiar interest, not only because
up to 1884 it was the only known Greek codex to contain the double
ending of Mark, and therefore naturally evoked the scorn of Burgon,
who declared that the scribe was “‘evidently incapable of distingui-
shing the grossest fabrication from the genuine text,” but because of
the character of the text itself, which has given it a high standing
with textual critics from the times of Stephens and Beza. “By far
the most remarkable document of its age and class”’ (Scrivener) it
contains many important critical notes either in the margin or the
text, which appear to be by the first hand. Of these we have just had
examples. Tischendorf declares that many readings found in the
margin of the later Syriac editions seem to be found in this codex only.

The manuscript is written in a curious hand in compressed uncials.
It is poorly written, showing many ignorant blunders, and may have
been copied by a scribe who did not understand Greek.

Nevertheless the text is ‘extraordinarily good” (Gregory) and it
seems to have been copied from a MS of the same type of text as B,
with which it often agrees, though at the date when this MS was
produced, another type of text had become dominant in the church.

408 Clarence Russell Williams

It is also very remarkable in that it agrees with the citations of Origen,
and with the margin of the Harclean Syriac. It further possesses
affiliations with C and among the versions it is an ally of the Bohairic.
Beyond other MSS of its date it abounds in “Alexandrian forms.”

The type of writing shows it cannot be dated earlier than the eighth
century, to which it is generally assigned.

At to its place of origin, that is pretty generally supposed to be
Egypt, but since this point is so important for our future discussion
we quote from Tischendorf, who edited it:

“Ac patriam quidem Aegyptum vel Aegypti viciniam fuisse
hominemque qui scriberet certe non ipso genere Graecum, veri-
simillimum est. Quae sententia maxime commendatur quum iis
de quibus supra exposui rationibus orthographicis, tum crebris
Alexandrinae dialecti vestigiis, tum mira errorum scribendi atque
interpungendi frequentia tum denique inepta quae identidem
occurrit diversarum lectionumconfusione. Nequecertecontra hanc
sententiam est quod foll. 24. et 25., ut jam retuli, in diebus festis et
Sancti Saba et Sancti Clementis martyris-mentio fit.”

Mon. Sacra Ined. 1846 p. 21.

As to the punctuation used in this MS, Tischendorf says:

‘““Plerumque major distinctio fit crucis signo, minor puncto ; se-
detiam commata et semicola quae vocant, atque insuper aliquoties
puncta bis, ter, quater posita occurrunt.’’ At this point in the dis-
cussion we anticipate by calling attention to the fact that in L the
sign for the end of a sentence or major division immediately precedes
as well as follows égoGcivto yao and though, as can be plainly seem,
this sign of the cross is used to separate clauses, yet this MS rather
supports our contention that in the original these two words formed
not the end of the preceding sentence, but the beginning of a new
sentence, which was abruptly broken off when the authentic con-.
clusion of the Gospel according to Mark disappeared.

The Codex Bobiensis, therefore, bears witness :

1. To an early period when Mark ended at v. 8 as in B, with whose
text L has affiliations which are close. :

2. To a later time when the Shorter Ending was appended, and
continued for some time to be the only ending of Mark.

3. To astill later period when the Shorter Ending was still preferred,
though the Longer Conclusion had gained such recognition as to com-
pel its addition.

(Later still, as cursive 274 shows, the Longer Conclusion became
the only authentic ending of Mark and the Shorter Conclusion was
relegated to the margin.)

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 409

4. Egypt is indicated by L as the region where this occurred.
‘With Egypt L is associated by its form of writing ; its style of text,
similar to that of B, of the citations of Origen, and of the Harclean
Syriac, margin ; its ‘“‘Alexandrian forms ;’”’ and the fact that it is an
ally of the Bohairic Version.

This MS. is another witness to Egypt as the home of the erga
Conclusion.

Frag. Sinaiticum (77%).
Folio 32, Verso.

toe o tonoc olIOY AAV GATS AIG @ Ss

cfyxav avTON
ara unayeTE KITA

te tog pOOHTAIX AY

cov xo. TQ ITETPQ
ott mpoayKI YMA
sic why YaATAAIAN
EXEL anon OWEXOE
yw29o¢ elIEN YMI
no. eccASoYXAL EWY
yov azo tOY MNH
ustou etyeN DAP AY
tag toou.02 KAI EK
otacig nor OYAEN

t ovoev etllC JN EPO

evarye MON
nata paPKON

> AMO ANATOAHS
AXPI AYXEG> EEA
TTEXTEIAEN AIA AY
FON TO LERPON KAI
A®D@APTON KHPY
TMA TH® AIQNIOY
SOTHPIAY AMHN
EXTIN AE KAI TAYTA*
MEPOMENA META
TO E®OBOYNTO TAP
ANAXTA® AE TPO!
ITP2TH SABBATOY
E®ANH IITPOTON
MAPIA TH MATAA
AHNH ITAP H»
EKBEBAHKEI! ENTA
AAIMONIA EKEINH
TIOPEY @iniinitiinnnmnitiicit A TT A
DELTA EN MR

Mark xvi. 6—fin.

* These three lines are in a smaller character.

410 Clarence Russell Williams,

Codex “I,
Fragm. 7'* = Gregory 0112 (Sd « 46).

Summary.

Contains the double ending of Mark.

Text «..2c: Resembles; Sandal:

Dates rie.

Place. =.°..) Bey pe:

Inferences The Gospel was known in three forms, the short Gospel,
the Short Ending, and the Long Ending. This knowl-
edge is to be traced to Egypt.

Discussion.

As regards the contents and arrangement of the endings there is a
close resemblance between Codex 712 which contains both, and L.
Notice that v. 8 is followed by the customary subscription sdayyéhov
xa7% Méexov showing that it was ultimately descended from an
archetype which ended here, —as do BN and Ss, —to which the sub-
scription was appended. In L the subscription is wanting but the
end of the Gospel at this point is indicated by ornamental marks
in the last line of the column.

2. The note in smaller characters preceding the Longer Conclu-
sion EXTIN AE KAI TAYTA ®EPOMENA META TO E®OBOYNTO
LAP is identical with the note in L but is not surrounded by orna-
mental lines.

3. Burkitt points out that as the column in the MS consists of
twenty-five lines, five lines are wanting before tadv« xot adcé¢ and
he restores these lines as follows:

IIANTA AE TA IIA
PHITEAMENA TOI*

HEPL TON HETPON s
XYNTOMGES EERE

TEIAAN META AE

He also suggests that, as the note before the Longer Ending, which
is common to this MS and L, is here written in smaller characters,
it is quite possible that the note found in L before the Shorter Ending
EPETE HOY KAT TAYTA may have stood before his reconstruc-
tion. Swete inserts this reconstruction in his presentation of his
evidence.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 411

Prot. J. Rendel Harris, on his first visit to the convent of St. Cathe-
rine on Mount Sinai discovered, amid a mass of fragments and loose
leaves, three leaves, two of them stuck together, containing an ancient
text of the latter part of Mark. This he published in 1890 in his
Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai, pp. xii, xiii, 45—52.

Upon a second visit in the spring of 1893 by holding up the com-
pacted leaves of thin vellum in the strong sunlight he was able to read
most of the closing words of Mark, and found a text containing both
the Shorter and Longer Endings which he published in 1893 in the
Journal of Biblical Literature (xii, Pt. II, p. 96). It is also pub-
lished by Mrs. Lewis in her Catalogue of Syriac MSS on Mt. Sinai,
fo--4031.).

The text is closely allied to that of certain of the great uncials.
When first discovered Harris thought it comparable to 8 but Hort
considered that it had closer affiliations with L, a surmise which the
later discovery of the double ending confirmed.

As to the handwriting it is “a looped uncial with strong Coptic
characteristics, not unlike that of the famous Codex Marchalianus of
the prophets.”

On account of its resemblance to this MS, and because of other
signs of antiquity, Harris assigned it to the seventh century.

From the style of handwriting and the place of discovery the dis-
cover assigns to the MS an Egyptian origin.

The inferences to be drawn from this MS are the same as those we
deduced from L.

Codex Athous Laurae (4).
Mark 16:8. h

E®OBOYNTO TAP: 7

HANTA AE TA ITAPHITEAMENA TOIS ITEPI TON
NETPON XYNTOM®>S. E=SHITEIAAN: META

AK TAYTA KAT-AYTOS [IX E®ANH AITO ANATOAH®
KAI MEXPI AYSEQ> EEATIEXTEIAEN AI AYTON
TO IEPON KAI A®@OAPTON KHPYTMA THY AI&
NIOY SOTHPIAX AMHN:

EXTIN KAI TAYTA ®EPOMENA
META TO E®OBOYNTO [AP.

ANAXTA® AE x. 7. 2. to end of verse 20.
EYATTEAION KATA MAPKON:

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 28 ” Feervary, 1915.

412 Clarence Russell Williams,

Codex W,
Codex W [045] = 172 or B 52 in Laura Catalogue (Sd 36)
Summary.

In Codex WV the double ending is found, but while the Longer Ending
is preceded by the customary note, this MS is peculiar in that
the Shorter Ending follows V. 8 without note or break.

Text .... Pre-Syrian, basis Alexandrian, with a number of early

Western readings.

Date ..5- VIEL ore.

Place 2.2 aEeypt.

Inferences As in the case of L and 7; but here the testimony for

a form of text appending the Shorter Conclusion directly
to v. 8 is stronger.

Discussion.

In Codex W the égoSctvzo yao is followed on the same line by an
abbreviated zého¢ which is evidently liturgical. On the next line
follows the Shorter Ending without note or break, in which partic- _
ular this MS differs from the other uncials of its class but agrees
with 579. — It is concluded by the Amen. The archetype from which
this MS was descended probably had the shorter ending only.

The Longer Ending is preceded by the customary note EXTIN KAI
TAYTA ®EPOMENA META TO E®OBOYNTO LAP as in Land 7?
here written in shorter lines. It is followed by the usual subscription.

As to special readings, this MS is peculiar in having péyou for ayot,
agrees with “7/2 in omitting 6 before ‘Imood¢, and with k in omitting
autos before éocvy.

From the absence of the note which in the companion uncials
accompanies the Shorter Conclusion, Gregory infers that this MS
shows an earlier form of the text, unless a revision is implied by such
forms as éoavy, véyot, and aH.

This manuscript was found by Prof. Gregory on August 26, 1896
among fragments discovered in the monastery at Athos, Laura of
St. Athanasius. By von Soden it is numbered 56 and thus follows
BNCAD.. He declares ‘‘ Dieser Codex ist sehr korrekt geschrieben.”
(p. 943.) Gregory described it technically (Prolegomena, p. 445) but
in July 1899 it was photographed by K. Lake whose notes (Journal
of Theological Studies, Vol. I, 1900, pp. 290—292) furnish us with
the best discussion of the character of the text. He concludes that
the text of Mark is far more valuable than that of Luke and John
(Mt. and Mk. 1: 1—9:4 is wanting). His notes therefore refer only
to the Markan text, and from them we gain the following facts.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 413

As to distinctively Syrian readings, none are certain as two variants
claiming to be Syrian may well be Alexandrian. With this vonSoden
agrees who says there seems in this MS no Syrian influence. nor in-
fluence of Origen or Chrysostom.

As to purely “ Neutral” readings, there seem a considerable num-
ber, probably about as many “‘non-Alexandrian Neutral”’ as “non-
Neutral Alexandrian.’”’ It is remarkable that this codex agrees with
B boh. in the readings connected with the cock-crowing in chapter xiv,
and in omitting xa moooxodAnixcetar v7 yuvouxt advo in Mark 10:7,
thus agreeing with N B, 48ev. go.

The combination of this MS with Ss against all other Greek MSS
and the Latins occurs five times (10:39; 11:21: 14:27; 13:41;
L726);

The conclusion of Lake has such a direct bearing upon our dis-
cussion that we give it in full.

“We may therefore say with some confidence that in Mark V
gives us a pre-Syrian text of which the basis is Alexandrian (in the
widest sense), while a number of the readings are Western. The
interesting question is how did these Western readings get into an
Alexandrian MS? On this point it may be observed that the Western
element is not a late one, for the majority of the Western readings
found in YW are among those which are rejected by the late texts.
It is an early ancestor of VY who has left us the Western readings.
This makes us think of the Biblical text of Clement, and raises the
_ suspicion that it may not be necessary to go outside Alexandria in

tracing the ancestry of YW’. Certainly Cyril and Origen give us ad-
equate evidence for the use of Alexandrian and Neutral types of text.
Can we go on to say that the early Western element in the sCLAY
group is to be used as evidence for the early pre-Origenistic Western
text of Alexandria, of which the quotations in Clement prove the
existence but do not define the limits.” (p. 290.)

It is possible that the text of this MS shows the influence of the
Sahidic Version, but the points of contact are few, and could be ex-
plained by other suppositions.

This MS, with 579, witnesses to a form of text in which the
Shorter Conclusion formed the only and the authentic ending of the
Gospel. It further connects, as before, this Shorter Conclusion with
Egypt.

Since this MS with L and ‘t* possesses a formula before the Longer
Ending identical in all three MSS they are probably descended from
an early common ancestor.

Clarence Russell Williams,

T! folio 162 verso.

e . QAE’ JAE

O TOOL OllOY
E@HKAN AYTON
AAAA YUATETE
EINATE TCIY MA
QHTAIX AYTOY
KAI T@ TETP®
OFT TEGAREIA
MA> EIX THN TA
AIAATAN’ EKEI
AYTON OWEXOE
KAQQ> EMIEN
PMIN® KAT AKOY
YANTEY EZHAGQON
AIlO TOY MNH
MIOY KAI EY
TON EIXEN

PAP AYTAX TPO
MOX KAI EK>
TAXIX KAI OYAENI
OYAEN EIION
EPOBOYNTO

PAP’

*x * * *

* * * * *

(INANTA AE TA II[a]

PHPTEAMEN| «]
TOL MEPI TON

[me]TPON SYN
TOM®Y EEH
TEIAAN

META AE TAYTA
KAT AFFOU(O 1s
E®ANH AYTOIS
All ANATOAH®
HAIOY KAI AXPI
AYXEO® EEEWVE
XTEIAEN AI AY
TON TO IEPON
KAI ADOAPTON
KHPYTMA THY
AIONIOY SOTH
PIA® AMHN-™
Ree:

x
*
*

oO oe ae

*
*
*
x

* * * % #

* & +

EIXEN TAP AYTA®
TPOMO® KAI EK
STADE RAL OF
AENI OYAEN EI
HON E®OBOY
POCA
ANAXTA® AE IIPQI
IIPOTH, SABBA ~
TOY E®ANH [IP
TON MAPIA TH
MAVTAAAHNH A

ee a
¥ : Akon

es ae a A
be CPabsr tek eI 5
She PERO PETE: . “RPA Mi hen 2
é4 Perse > RaQ a seas
Reet per ater der (% SSASRAT WL yews oe %

a yi edad TOE |

ae , oe aia 4 ~
Tare Winks aa! aka NaS CFaTGt
orm ad “Gea: FAV Bm BOE PE e
venreg 7 1O€ PO ge ~ USts oe aaa oe
“Mec ise im ae FL OKET )
ATES CIGD Bee Maer py Aue iis pray
RAE EES AWS fat es oe ee OT RE

rerey fad fae EB ce
Bi 8" ri Aa ee |

it hi were ee Pe SCARE ES OK
ey |. te 5 aby 24 (OR ee oe
oe nec Bee Neva VER eN Ty!
PFOA DIETS VR “aes oR
19bb ALMA zx i" at eee vad 4

s one: 3
Parents ot

' cr ey FV IE fi wpe
Rage eee se vaeeocsterte
1s ey a i PANG WAS 85 ry Bs
At ae Giunigserone
eS REI ON ye ea FE 4,1 eee
es aie Pe Sus? lems at
3S oe ett ais i? Pee ae TF RR:
rig ti Ree vemye ee wa aa ee x
eee aad P - ofr y merrre: whee

nO ae Ee) a Fe Oates P 4oas be
5) 4,03 sass t Feisots

Fragment Parisiense (T').
Manuscrit copte 129 folio 162 verso.

From Amelineau’s Notices et Extraits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Bd.
Phototype by Berthand, Paris.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 415

Fragment T!.

Summary.

Fragment T* [099] = Paris. Nat. Copt. 129° (P of Swete, Sd 47)
contains the double conclusion, each ending having a note

(now illegible) before it. In copying the Longer Conclusion the
scribe begins with etyev in v. 8.

Text .... Being only a single folio this cannot be determined.
iMate .... Vil or VIL €.
lace... beypt.

Inferences Witnesses to the threefold form of Mark in Egypt and
shows the Longer struggling with the Shorter Conclusion.

Discussion.

Among the Coptic MSS from the great White Monastery, from whicl:
the Freer MSS are supposed to have come, were found several frag-
ments of the New Testament, three of them Graeco-Sahidic, and six
Greek only, but written in a hand of a Coptic character. These were
published in 1895 by Amelineau with accompanying phototypes of
some of the pages (Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothéque Nationale,
Bd. 34, Paris 1895, pp. 363—424).

One of these fragments, a single folio called by him 129° folio 162
contains the double ending of Mark. Of this he says:

“Ce feuillet a conservé la fin de lEvangile selon saint Marc,
xvi, 6—18. Il contient donc un passage dont l’authenticité a été
contestée ; mais il ne le contient qu’aprés une longue remarque
montrant que ce passage, qui va du verset 9 4 la fin, n’était pas con-
sidéré comme absolument authentique par le copiste et celui qu’il
copiait. Cette remarque se trouve en termes a peu prés semblables
en d’autres manuscrits ; malheureusement, elle est complétement
illisible en certains passages, par suite des préparations qu’il a fallu
faire subir au parchemin avant de le faire entrer dans le volume
dont il fait partie.” (p. 370.)

Since the scribe begins to copy the Longer Ending not at Avaozae
bys moot but with ely ev of v. 8, it is to be inferred that the Longer
Ending was not contained in the exemplar of this MS, (or perhaps
in an earlier archetype), but was added by the scribe from another
MS, and that by an oversight he began to copy in v. 8, instead of at
the beginning of v. 9, thus repeating a portion already transcribed.

Since the accompanying transcription incorporates the corrections
of Gregory, who saw the MS in 1904, it differs somewhat from Swete.

416 Clarence Russell Williams,

It is to be noted as to readings that T+ has the article before Jesus
with L while VW and 7 omit it. It has éo&vy adtetg, and adds
703 with me codd (mg) aeth codd. It is unique in reading ax be-
fore avatoAte and in the reading éexéotetAev. It does not however
contain adti¢ for adtcig as can be seen by reference to the accom-
panying photograph. This was a mistake of Amelineau, followed by
Swete but corrected by Gregory (Textkritik des N.T. p. 71).

It is to be noted, as explained by Amelineau “Ce feuillet a été placé
a l’enver. par le relieur ; le verso doit étre au recto.”

Since the fragment consists of one folio it is not possible to deter-
mine accurately the text relations, but since the other uncials show-
ing the double ending are allied to 8 B it seems probable that this MS
is related to the same family.

The MS is dated in the seventh or eighth century, and the Coptic
type of writing, and the signs used, as well as the.place where it was
found all make it certain that it was copied in Egypt.

The study of this MS confirms the conclusions drawn from a study
of the other uncials containing the double ending, and we gain from
it another glimpse of the struggle of the Longer with the Shorter
Conclusion in Egypt.

The discussion of Amelineau should be supplemented by Gregory
(Textkritik des N.T. pp. 70, 71, 1026, 1065, 1066).

Cursive 579.

Summary.
Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 97 = Gregory 579, Scr. 743, Sde376.
Testimony The only cursive with both endings in the text. Has
zéhoc in red at the close of v.8 followed by Shorter En-
ding and Amen. On verso of the folio is the Longer
Ending. No word of explanation before either ending.

Text .... In general like 8B. In Shorter Ending like _L.
Place... 2 ==
Date %- eee ce

Inferences As late as XIII C. the double ending persisted, with the
shorter form first.
2. Some MSS appended the Shorter Ending without
explanatory note.
3. The shorter form was appended to a type of text
represented by NB.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 417

Discussion.

In his interesting discussion of the Shorter Conclusion, Swete has
presented in parallel columns the evidence of the four Greek uncials
in which it is found preceding the Longer Conclusion. But he does
not tell us that these uncials are supported by cursive 579 although
Zahn had previously referred to the fact in his discussion (GK. II,
p. 921).

This cursive resembles W in having the word vé)o¢ (in red) written
in the text at the close of v. 8 followed immediately by the Shorter
Ending with the Amen. This finishes the recto of folio 70. On the
verso is found the Longer Ending. It is not accompanied by the final
zéhoe but neither is this found at the close of the other Gospels.
No word of explanation accompanies either ending. But at the end
of Mark is written, as regularly elsewhere at the close of the other
Gospels, pvfiodynm xdore why SovAny cov Gduuziav in red. YW contains
a few explanatory words before the Longer Ending but none before
the Shorter. In the latter respect, therefore, this manuscript agrees
with it, but in text, as far as we can learn, it agrees completely
with L.

This manuscript was discovered by Abbe Martin while preparing
his technical description of the Greek MSS of the N.T. in the Biblio-
théque Nationale. It had been listed in the Catalogus Codicum Manu-
scriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae, Tome II, published in 1743, as num-
ber 97, but most curiously overlooked by Griesbach, Scholtz, and even
Tischendorf. It is to be classed with Gr. 96 (cursive 286) and Gr. 98
(cursive 287). The very enumeration here adopted shows its omission
by early editors from the list of cursives. However it is mentioned
in the lists of Scrivener, Gregory, Kenyon, and von Soder, usually
with the note that it contains the double ending of Mark.

Before discovering it Abbe Martin had completed his elaborate dis-
cussion of the end of Mark contained in his Introduction a la Critique
textuelle du N.T., Tome II, but found room to note and describe
it in his preface (pp. iv—viii), and our discussion is little more than
a translation and condensation of the material there presented.
Martin gave to this cursive the number 743 which was followed by
Scrivener, but Gregory calls it 579 and von Soden < 376.

The MS is written on rather coarse parchment, and one or two
folios are lacking at the end (John 20: 28—end) as well as Mark
3:28-4:8. The first folios of Matthew have been slightly injured
by dampness, but the titles are found at the beginning of the last
three Gospels, and are also repeated at the top or bottom of each

418 Clarence Russell Williams,

page. The Eusebian Sections are written in the margin, but rather
irregularly. As to the text, it is disfigured by the boldest itacisms.
There are a number of readings which are peculiar, or which link it
with the oldest group of MSS. Martin places it in the same family
with 8B. It does not contain Luke 22: 42, 43 but includes John
5:3, 4 and the pericope adulterae with the title mepl <7j¢ pliyadidog
(sic) yovaixde (f. 134b). The MS seems only partially adapted to
liturgical use, the 7éX0¢ being found in the text, but seldom the aoy7%,
and there being no evidence of modifications at the beginning or end
of the lessons. It was made, Martin thinks, for the use of some
Melachite Christian.

The date assigned 579 is the thirteenth century.

This seems to be the only cursive known which contains the Shorter
Conclusion in the text, as 274, the other cursive which contains it,
relegates it to the margin. It is therefore the only cursive which
seems to prefer this conclusion. Further it shows that this form of the
Gospel persisted as late as the thirteenth century. While we must of
course assume that it was either immediately or ultimately copied from
an uncial of the L type, it is most interesting to note that even at this
relatively late date the Shorter Conclusion had not become so entirely
discredited as to forbid a scribe copying a text which contained it,—in
other words as late as the thirteenth century a MS could contain the
Shorter Ending and still be considered worthy of being used as an
exemplar.

This cursive is also an additional witnéss to the fact that the Shorter
Ending was appended to a type of text represented by 8B, and that
there were MSS which appended it to v. 8 without explanatory note.

For further discussion of this cursive see Martin’s “ Description
technique des manuscrits grecs du N.T.’’—Paris, Maisonneuve, 1884,
pp. 91—94.

Cursive 274™8.
Cursive 274 = Paris. Nat. Suppl. Gr. 79 (Sd.< 1024).

This “ peculiarly interesting and important’’ (Burgon) cursive of
the tenth century is unique among Greek MSS in containing the
Shorter Conclusion in the margin.

In the lower margin of folio 104 recto is found the Shorter Ending
in the same form as in L save that évaco@v is written for avxToAiF¢
and the Amen is appended. (It seems to us quite possible that the
Amen was added by a later hand, see the fascimile). The writing
is in small capitals, unlike the cursive hand of the text, which Dean
Burgon considered belonged to the transition period between uncial

——_—_e

SS ee

teap curr popaad ¢ i creinls ¢ rare oro fom

portly Cire Clean reat aes See. on

capo ond woe Gah war Eerie

mop ot OE Iarbas of famtu ~H4 Y +
It ot Sy eytou var Ue Cae aS

ound iy Ab dares spo nO lca 6K QS

ove Das gi Mey i ot dey doe p Cho use~

ae seOey ee
cra Sap cr Eco 2 ALN aque eW Eady
po 1 TTP om ah cow poral eb ap bh “TTP oo Wy ereop ra

pels chips Werth: “asf tr 6K Narn ewe
Ae cals AR TE Gros dow po yt ode | Gla ph a ee
[l <p Ou fam “co cwrlnd Ney “mie whine
au \op o Wen aeS Fat p Bout Lon fre
2 eter te Bald por ated cmp née Sal ge
CAS Kon & Ba) the crore rl Lord qhoup
M Gade cali Deen y 6s anes ye caret
ost & Sap Gp os eee eae
Ln Wen oir 4 ocihp ote cet
4 ee ee ee
Na ae vas Acd pore Gmqtoup pulaerews2
Pehd 1A oes ov wI8 +01 ey Ne Koo
Ed oi Cprat on ies cy fds oby rhe Bo
Ae lt eis tea lar cli Atkpo Lap du op ©
Ze (OS Co GS Oiuoaptu ote cure p Slusp eye"
cAn ou ki ani qe oop kan frtin annig, a
Bite re fqop loops pa array mw
ee

x< TawradeTanap MOCCAWMATOLEN TON >

x nev OMEN NTTOMWCE F HEC EIAAN. UETARC TAY set
sq ANTocieanoanaTrontn.t aKpraytewe.ezance
x

wy Aya THN TOLE PONT AQen nee rua
Taedwnteyey eiuae 3 t rt :

nw: —

MINUSCULE Evy. 274 (Par. Nat. Suppl. Gr. 79) of the tenth century.
‘Mark xvi. 6—15, exhibiting the shorter conclusion in the lower margin.
From Nestle’s Introduction to the Greek New Testament.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 419

and cursive writing. It occupies five lines, before each of which is
found an asterisk in red. Burgon says the capitals themselves are
in red, but this does not seem to be mentioned in Martin’s discussion.

Opposite the last line of v. 8 of the text, in the outer margin, is
found an asterisk, and at the end of the same line, next the inner mar-
gin, is found a sign. These are signs of reference, frequently found
in this MS. Between verses 8 and 9 are written in uncials abbre-
viations indicating, “End of the second gospel of the Resurrection,”
and in the inner margin, opposite the beginning of v. 9 the signs which
indicate ‘‘ Third gospel of the Resurrection ; the same gospel at matins
on Ascension Day.’ At the close of v. 20 in red is the usual final
subscription

x: Kdayyédtov nate Mapxov -x-

It is interesting to note that no formula or colophon of any kind
accompanies the Shorter Ending in this MS.

This codex belongs to the tenth century. It is later therefore than
L (VIII C) and earlier than 579 (XIII C).

As to the locality where the Gospel was produced, we have not
found definite information, though von Soden tells us it once belonged
to a Maximus Panagiota “ Protokanonarchen von Gallipoli.”

Cursive 274 witnesses to the fact that in the section where it was
copied the Longer Conclusion was alone considered authentic, but
the scribe added the Shorter Conclusion, which he evidently considered
unauthentic but interesting, and which quite probably he copied from
another MS (cf. Harclean Syriac), in the lower margin, inserting an
asterisk opposite v. 8 to show where its connection with the text
had been.

THe FREER LOGION

Jerome, in his dialogue between a Catholic Atticus and a heretic
Critobulus, which he wrote at Bethlehem in 415 A.D., makes
Atticus say:

“In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in Graecis codicibus, juxta
Marcum in fine eius evangelii scribitur :

Postea cum accubuissent undecim apparuit eis Iesus et ex-
probravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui
viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant
dicentes : Saeculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis sub Satana!

1 So cod. Vat. 1. The other MSS read “ substantia’.

420 Clarence Russell Williams,

est, qui? sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi vir-
tutem. Idcirco iam nunc revela iustitiam tuam.‘

Contra Pelag. II, 15.

Jerome does not tell us where he found these MSS and no such codex
was known until the announcement in February 1908 that the saying
had been discovered in one of the four MSS which Mr. Charles L. Freer
of Detroit bought on December 19, 1906 from an Arab dealer, Ali
Arabi in Gizeh near Cairo. The dealer declared the four MSS came
from Akhmim (ancient Panopolis) in Upper Egypt. These MSS con-
tained parts of the Greek Bible of both the Old and New Testaments,
written by different scribes, and ranged in date from the fourth or fifth
to the eighth or ninth centuries.

It is with the third of these manuscripts, that containing the four
Gospels, that we have to do in this discussion, since it is found to
contain inserted in Mark 16 between the fourteenth and fifteenth
verses not only the defence of the disciples, which Jerome had quoted,
but also the answer of Jesus, which had previously been entirely
unknown. To the saying of Jesus in this codex has been given the
name of “‘the Freer Logion”’ though the manuscripts themselves,
first called the “‘Detroit Manuscripts” and then the “Freer MSS,”
are, according to the recent volumes reproducing in facsimile the
first and the third manuscripts, to be known as the “ Washington
Manuscripts”’ since they are to be ultimately placed in the Smith-
sonian Institute at Washington, D.C., a gift to the people of the U.S.

The text of the Freer Logion, with two slight corrections of
scribal errors, reads as follows

5 5 A co Ln be 5 rie c
1 xaxeivor amedoyotvt(o) Agyovtes OTL 6
) 3A ces = 5 / ri X ~ — alae
2 alov odtog tig avoutag xal tio amoatiag
c XX X ww = ~ 5 a ~ S~ ai CX
3 Ono tov Latavev gotw 6 pH sv ta Ono
~ — Bes =e / ‘ > dn tard i
4 <Bv mi(eun)atov axaQaota thy aAnferav
‘ ry i i

5 od S(s0)0 nataraéobar Sivautv dix

6 toto amoxaAubov cod thy ee

lod ANS > ~~ Yi —\ &

7 viv von sxeivor EAcyov TH N(orot)G not
8 X(mozd)¢ éxetvors xpoodhey rev OTL eer
9 tar 6 boos thy et&y Tio SoUcIxe cod

oy ce
uN
o

ps
Re c
ad
~

R
of]
—~
o
=
=

{ a |

10 Natave adda dyy
Y

13 ahnfctav xo unnéte on

1 quae in’ MSS.

wropoprt 10 Pe YORsEK IOI ION PP
. SHAS BIAST ERB ORST ECASHIS TE AGH
TiONe OGD EEMEMIMCETUE TFY CAH Yc
$4 Ana beeper ER MOIE TOIT EPA EP COOH RonPai
PUA SCEKRL TP ARGIAGTI CT TABLA SWOT IASERY S
ft [ORKAPABH ITITOICBE ALAM ER OF OA
CPTI EPI EAT ERIOY KEIIICT ETAL 5
IBS CEPAPAIAST ED OF OYWIT EX EF OWT ELF ore
Ab kts? OOF HAI EASS OMA ACTA T CATT CT IL j
YIIOT OFICAT ABRIALLELT IN OMMEUPRLTAY TIO ;
Tat ITA AUWHIAICA BAPTA “THPIARHG EIAFI &
TOY BF ICATARAB ECOAIAY HAM KG
Toy peasiakAaryye AMCoy HHA WALA ay:
marr Ary FICESHIOIEA FFOLITWI XLS FAIA
EICEIKIOICIIPOLEXES ER OTF TIE-FIS eee
i | Pasgopac TUSMET EIN THES OY CIACT EY, 7 3s
) ae AK AMA EIT Iz £7 / AAAABPHALD IY F me C
Pe RIERA a aie REE Ee rages * AK
1 aeeay OKT po yTtO Tp E- Peat ysseicyry” & s 2 aR

; A

HO-EIAK IATATE heey thst apr peesern er a

» Vy

v2 IAT? IDIERIT HOO Y PALL AIS TARIDSCIINL Fett AA y BS 3

rOAPT OM THEAITC 4; APO CYAIICD oBPsrt, x V4 une
FAP ORLAMIIEVILIAL “AAMTITO PE yOEEs oe ee

SECENCOT OMI CD CAORLATIAKI TA PY T Es

TOE YAS T ENIONTIACHT FART ILE SROET S

CALIKCAS BATTISTI CLO ELL OWUBHICE ey é OA BA. Pe
SIACTHICACKAS TAI IOE 4c 4a CULO CETAS esos ap 2
CH AAIAD BZ OI ET EY CX CIEL A YP IAP
FOOROY O14 1 FF EXIT WO OKI OLAAT IAA OY

The Freer Logion.
From a facsimile furnished by Prof. Henry A. Sanders of the University of
Michigan.

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 424

y o ‘ 2 ~ > ~ oN NS Oy SY
14 Wa why ev TH ovpave mv(supat)inny nal a
15 obaptov cig Sinaocdvns Sdgav
16 xdnoovouryowow ard mooev9é
if {eal ‘
In line 1 the MS reads axseAcyouvte and in line 10 dwva.

Lines 3, 4. Goodspeed amends to 6x6 tov Lavavev gotw, [z]O[v]
wh, ZvtTx ond Tay xv(svp.)aTov [cv] axxaotwv. He connects this
with Justin Martyr and his “plaintive demonology ” ; “ The so-called
demons strive for nothing else than to lead men away from God the
Creator, and his first-born, Christ.’ (I Apol. 58). Thus he finds a
connection with the latter half of the second century. Nestle agrees
save that he deletes the 6 and does not insert tév.

Lines 4,5. thy dAnfetav cod G(c0)t xataAaPeobar SUvaywv. Sanders
amends by inserting xa before ddvay.y. Gregory objects that «A*-
Gerxv and Svvay.y are too far apart and suggests reading xnSwviy for
ahi fictav, supporting it by Jerome’s “‘veram virtutem.”

Line 9. For &AAx 3w& most would correct to ax Sewv% but some
suggest & x tue which seems less probable. The connection be-
tween lines 9 and 10 is obscure.

Line 11. Sanders amends to dzée tiv &unotHodvtTMy ya Ssuggest-
ing that éyo is here placed twelve letters too early because the arche-
type had twelve letters to the line as N and therefore this word,
inserted above the end of one line, was copied by the scribe at the
end of the preceding.

The following translation incorporates most of the suggestions of
Goodspeed and Sanders :

And they made excuse, saying, “This age of lawlessness and
unbelief is under Satan, who by the unclean spirits does not allow
(sc. men) power to comprehend the truth of God. For this reason
reveal thy righteousness now,” they said to Christ.

And Christ replied to them, “The limit of the years of the power
of Satan has been fulfilled, but other terrible things are near at
hand. And I was delivered unto death on behalf of those who
sinned, in order that they may return to the truth and sin no more,
to the end that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible
glory of righteousness (which glory is) in heaven. But go ye into
all the world,” etc.

As to. the text of the Freer MS it seems to be singularly pure and
free from late additions and corrections, although the scribe was a
careless one and examples of metathesis, dittography, and slight
omissions and insertions are found. .As to its character and affinities,
Prof. Edgar J. Goodspeed says:

nS
bo
two

Clarence Russell Williams,

“The type of text of W is curiously heterogenious, showing
three somewhat distinct strata, neutral, Western, and Syrian.
Matthew and Luke, chaps. 8—24, are decidedly Syrian in type.
John, and the early part of Luke (chaps. 1—7) which follows it
are neutral, with some interesting Western readings interspersed ;
e. g., the omission of the Lucan genealogy. The primitive sub-
scription xa%7% twxvvqy is a further hint of the neutral ancestry of
this part of the manuscript. Mark is decidedly Western through-
out, and while its readings are often not those of D they are
usually of the same general kind as they, and so illustrate Hort’s
feeling that the Western is as much a textual tendency as a
definite textual type.”’

(American Journal of Theology, April 1914, p. 279.)

“Jn its Syrian parts it stands with Alexandrinus as a second
and hardly inferior Greek witness. In its neutral parts, while
less pure than B, it has sustained probably no more adulteration
than &, with which it shows certain external affinities ; and in
antiquity it ranks next after these codices Among uncial witnesses.
In its Western portions it is certainly no less free than D, and
with its greater probable age, it promises to play an important
part in further studies of the Western text.” (Ibid. p. 281.)

We note it omits some, but not all of Hort’s “‘Western non-
interpolations,” and in some other omissions betrays a like affinity,
although in its omission of the pericope adulterae it is non-Western.
And in the insertion of this logion it exemplifies one of Hort’s marks
of the Western MSS, readiness to adopt extraneous material.

Its date, then, that must be placed early, as its antiquity is testified
to by the simplicity of its hand, its freedom from ornaments and
exaggeration, and the character of the ornaments at the end. Scholars
are inclined to date it in the fifth century at latest, and there seems
a tendency to place it in the fourth.

As to the place from which it came, the dealer who sold it to Mr.
Freer stated that it was from Akhmim. 5

Dr. Carl Schmidt in 1905 bought a manuscript of I Clement in Cop-
tic (the Akhmimic dialect) of the fourth or fifth century, a MS of
Proverbs in the same dialect and of the same date, and a Greek Easter
letter of the early viiic.and all three proved to have come from the
library of the White Monastery near Sohag opposite Akhmim. He
suggested (Theolog. Literaturz. 1908, p. 359) that all four of the Freer
MSS came from the same source, inferring that they were found when
the library was repaired. Since none of the MSS of this group are

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 423

later than the ninth century it has been suggested that they may have
been walled up and lost sight of for nearly a thousand years, since
no traces of medieval meddling are found in them. This opinion of
Schmidt has been adopted by Gregory, Crum, Hunt, Rendel Harris,
and Goodspeed, and the latter has argued strongly for it, supporting
the view by the suggestion that the subscription at the close of Mark,
which now reads Timotheus, but which is evidently written over an
erasure, originally read Sinotheus, for the proper name of the White
Monastery is Anba Shanudah, embalming the name of the great
Shenute, a leading figure in Coptic history who probably became head
of this convent in 586 and who lived, we are told, until 451 A.D.,
dying at the advanced age of one hundred and eighteen. His im-
portance led in time to his being looked upon as the founder of the
monastery, which was given his name and retained it long after his
identity was forgotten. Goodspeed would identify the Timotheus
of the rewritten subscription with Timotheus Aelurus, who was pro-
bably looked upon by the monks of this convent as their rightful
patriarch, though deposed and in exile (460-475 A.D.). It then
becomes possible, on this theory, to believe that Sinuthius himself
may have handled and read this very MS.

Prof. Sanders however declared, and still holds to this opinion in
his volume accompanying the facsimile edition of the ‘“ Washington
Manuscript’ of Deuteronomy- Joshua (as he suggests calling the first
of the Freer Manuscripts since they are later to be deposited in the
Smithsonian Institute at Washington by Mr. Freer as a gift to the
people of the United States) that ‘‘Timothy”’ here means “St. Ti-
mothy”’ and “All his’ means “All the worshippers in his church or
the inmates in his monastery.” In a writer of the thirteenth century,
Abu Salih who wrote on ‘‘Churches and Monasteries of Egypt (trans.
by Evetts and Butler, p. 190) he finds ‘Near this place there is a
monastery known as the Monastery of the Vinedresser (Dair al-
Karram), but called by the heretics the Monastery of the Dogs (Dair
al Kalab). The monastery is near the pyramids on the western side,
and its church is called the Church of Timothy, the monk, a native
of Memphis, whose body is buried in it.’’ This Timothy was a Roman
soldier who was martyred in the Diocletian persecution 304 A.D. He
claims that among the more than seven hundred churches mentioned
by the above writer, who must be dated soon after 1208, there is
found no mention of any other church dedicated to Timothy.

This identification seems to us doubly precarious, first because we
can by no means be sure there was no other church in Egypt at this
time with the name of Timothy, and in the second place because the

424 Clarence Russell Williams,

name Timothy itself in the MS is evidently written over an erasure
and therefore cannot be original.

Against the White Monastery Prof. Sanders argues: first that the
dealer who sold the MSS said they came from Akhmim, and as Orien-
tals are usually liars, this would naturally incline one to look in the
opposite direction for the source. But even men who usually lie some-
times tell the truth. In the second place the MSS bought by Schmidt
were papyri, while the Freer MSS are on parchment. But if the find
was divided, it would be natural, as Goodspeed suggests, to make the
division of them on the basis of material. We conclude then that the
immediate resting place of the MSS before they were sold was the
White Monastery near Akhmim.

As to the original home we are told there are indications which
would connect them with some Nitrian convent. Now Jerome does
not tell us where he saw the Greek MS or MSS of which he writes,
but we know that in 386 A.D. he journeyed to Egypt and visited
certain Nitrian monasteries. Jerome, as a textual critic, would be
interested in seeing MSS of the Bible whereverhe went. In this home
of the Freer MS, or in a neighboring convent, a parent or sister MS, or
possibly this very MS itself, may have been shown him as curious and
interesting. He may have at this time copied the insertion, and later
translated it into Latin, using such portion of it as was needed fer
his argument in his work against Pelagius. Or, since it was not a.
long journey from Egypt to Bethlehem, one which could be made on
foot in a week, it is quite possible to think of some traveler or messenger
bringing such a MS from Egypt to Caesarea, where we know there
were many Egyptian MSS, where Jerome could easily have seen it.

Either of these theories would not only account for the connection
between Jerome and the Freer MS but would at the same time help
to explain the lack of other testimony concerning this section.

But questions concerning this logion more closely related to our
investigation must now be discussed. We will consider them in the
following order :

1. Its authenticity,—is it a true saying of Jesus ?

2. Its integrity—do the two parts, the apology of the apostles
and the reply of Jesus belong together ?

3. Its coherence or relation to the passage in which it is here
found,—is it an integral part of the Longer Conclusion or an inter-
polation ? Ifthe latter, was it composed originally for insertion into
this context, or is it an extract from another work inserted here ?

4. What indications of its source and authorship can be found ?

5. What is its textual significance ? -

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 425

1. Is this a true saying of Jesus ?
. Since it does not agree with his words or his spirit we conclude that
it is not. Since we possess only a Greek translation of the sayings
Jesus uttered in the Aramaic, all arguments must rest on a foundation
more or less insecure, nevertheless most scholars will agree:

a) Jesus would seen have spoken of “the limit of the es or
the power of Satan.”

b) Instead of tHv &uaetyod%vtwy Jesus would have said téyv cu.xo-
TWABY.

c) The expression Sxooteégmow sig tHy xAVfetav would scarcely
have been used by Jesus for repentance or conversion. It reminds
us of the Johannine phraseology, but possesses no N.T. parallel. It
is quite unlike the simple and direct expressions of the Synoptic
Gospels. :

d) The expression to “inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory
of righteousness” is “‘ quite foreign to the New Testament, and to the
words of Jesus most of all’? (Goodspeed). The center of the ex
pression “‘the glory of righteousness ”’ is, it is true, simple, but scarcely
like a word of Jesus.

e) As to the rhetoric in this logion, we may conclude with Gregory,
“Ich glaube die meisten werden bereit sein mit mir zu sagen, daB das
Knappe, Kernige, Unmittelbare, Unvermittelte, das Ziel scharf und
schnell Treffende, das wir in den durch die vier Evangelisten tber-
lieferten Aussagen Jesu finden, hier sich in keiner Weise zeigt.’’ (Das
Freer-Logion, p. 61.)

A word study of this section reveals both its dependence on our
Gospels and its unlikeness to them.

‘O aioy ofteg reminds us of 6 viv aimy and its contrast: aimv 6
uéAAwv in the Synoptists and Paul; and é%w is used in the same
writings. Ivebu.« is common in Mark; «Ayefuxv reminds us of John,
and Siuxaoctdvn of Paul. As to “the power of Satan’ compare Luke
10:19; Col. 1:13. With “the limit of the years ...of Satan”’ com-
pare John 12:34; 16:11. With ‘“‘sin no more” compare John
5:14. Advauts is used of the power of God, (see Matt. 22:29;
Mark 12: 24; Luke 22:69) but never by Paul and the Synoptists is
the expression ‘‘the power of Christ” used. “Yxooteégm is found in
Acts 13: 34; 2 Pet. 2: 21, but not in this sense. It is never used in
the N.T. of conversion but a parallel with émotégw is found in
Acts 26: 18.

The words G00¢, Sewac, and meaThEyon are never found in the N.T.

The expression 6p0¢ mexdfowtat is as strange one, as is also “to
inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness in

426 Clarence Russell Williams,

heaven.” The latter is quite foreign to the N.T. and to the words
of Jesus though we recall I Peter 1: 4, 5 eig xAngovoptav aofaptov ...
TeTnpuevyy év odpaveic, etc., compare also Rom. 1:23; 2:7.

But in the Shorter Conclusion we read 76 tepév aofapvoy xipuypx
sie aloviev cwtyetas with which may be compared Wisdom 18: 4
dv Gy Tysdrev TO KolaeTov vouovn Gi¢ TH aldive Sidooba,

The suggestion has not been previously made, to our knowledge,
that in this logion and its setting we have a remarkable parallel to
Luke’s account of the return of the seventy, probably an echo of it
(Luke 10: 17—20). The paragraph reads “ And the seventy returned
with joy saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy
name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan (vév Yatzavév) fallen
as lightning from heaven. Behold I have given you authority (7hy
Eovotay cf. thig eoucine cod Natav&) to tread upon serpents and
scorpions (xutélv émave Goswy cf. Guet¢ aoodow of Mark 16: 18) and
over all the power of the enemy (thy Sdvauw vod éySo03 cf. cod Sed
nazanapéoda. Sivap.y) and nothing shall in any wise hurt you (com-
pare the expression “if they drink any deadly thing it shall in no
wise hurt them” of Mark 16:18 although the Greek is different).
Nevertheless in this rejoice not, that the spirits (7% mveduaca) are
subject unto you ; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven
(v tote odeavete cf. “to the end that they may inherit the spiritual
and incorruptible glory of righteousness in heaven (év 7 odpavé)).

It is further to be noted that the verse immediately preceding this
paragraph, in the Gospel according to Luke (10:16) speaks of the
“hearing” or “‘rejecting’’ of the disciples’ message. It is to this that
the words of the disciples, here made an excuse for themselves, orig-
inally referred, as we shall argue later.

This section, then, is based on our canonical Gospels, and on them
alone, for in spite of marked differences we have abundant evidence
of similarity, and it seems absurd to limit the vocabularly and ex-
pressions of a second century Christian to those found in the N.T.
At the same time the marked Pauline cast of thought and expression
which distinguishes this section, separates it not only from the Gospels,
but from the Longer Conclusion as well, though in its Johannine ele-
ments there may seem to be a slight relationship with the latter.

2. The integrity of this section,—do the two parts of the saying,
the apology of the apostles and the reply of Jesus belong together ?

We have already seen that Jerome furnishes us only the excuse
of the disciples, though in a smoother and simpler form. The answer
of Jesus has been found nowhere but in the Freer MS. Did this
answer originally belong with the disciples’ apology, or was it appended

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 427

at a later time or added from a different source? The fact that
Jerome quotes only the excuse is probably due to the purpose he had
in introducing the saying, which was fulfilled in the reference to the
age being under the power of Satan.

For the following reasons we conclude the two parts belonged to-
gether from the first:

a) The significance of the apology of the apostles, as of so many
sayings of the disciples in the Gospels, is found in its furnishing -an
excuse, or occasion rather, for the saying of Jesus. As Gregory aptly
says, “Ihr Teil ist, die Veranlassung zu dem Spruch Jesu zu geben.
Sie kennzeichnen die Richtung, die seine Worte nehmen werden, das
Ziel dessen, was er sagt.” (p. 36.)

b) The answer of Jesus does correspond fairly well with the apology
of the disciples. They offer as an excuse for unbelief the fact that
the age is an evil one, in which Satan prevents the comprehending of
the truth. Therefore they ask that the righteousness of Christ be
revealed, overthrowing the power of Satan, and freeing from un-
belief.

Jesus replies that the power of Satan has already reached its limit,
and that already his death has made it possible for sinners to turn
from unbelief to the truth and inherit the glory of righteousness.
This latter portion of the words of Jesus seems to be an answer,
although not a very direct one, to the request of the disciples for a
revelation of his righteousness. .

c) The need of the disciples at this time was for comfort for them-
selves and encouragement in their work. These are furnished by the
answer of Jesus which declares that no longer are they in a world
under Satan’s power and that by his death he has made possible
for sinners salvation from sin.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the answer of Jesus originally
belonged to the words of the disciples. At the same time it seems
quite probable that the answer of Jesus was originally more full, and
that in a part of it not quoted here it may have replied more directly
to the request of the disciples for an immediate revelation of his
righteousness.

3. Is this logion an integral part of the Longer Conclusion or an
interpolation? ~

In spite of the high authority which supports the former view, we
consider’it an interpolation. True the rebuking of the disciples by
Jesus for their unbelief and hardness of heart does offer an occasion
for their excusing themselves (axehoyoivee), though the canonical
Gospels furnish no example of such an attempt in connection with the

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 29 Fesruary, 1915.

428 Clarence Russell Williams,

appearances of the risen Christ. But studied closely lines 2—12 show
no necessary connection with their setting, save only that they imply
a time after the resurrection, as Gregory suggests. But, pushing his
argument further, we claim that though they seem to be an excuse
for unbelief, there is nothing in the words of the disciples, taken by
themselves, which implies that this unbelief was specifically the un-
belief of the apostles, and further that it was unbelief in the resurrec-
tion of their Master. If removed from the context in which we now
find them, these words would most naturally be interpreted to refer
to unbelief in the hearts of those to whom they were sent, which
hindered the success of the apostolic mission to the world, rather
than to unbelief in the hearts of the apostles themselves.

The answer of Jesus seems to suit this interpretation. He replies
that the world is no longer under the power of Satan, and that he
has made it possible for sinners (not disciples) to “return to the
truth” and inherit the glory of righteousness. Such an interpretation
of the saying of Jesus brings it into close connection with the com-
mission which immediately follows. “But going into all the world,
etc.” And this commission, with the promise of salvation to those
who believe, and the promise of miraculous power in the world (vs.
17, 18) for the further encouragement of the disciples, Jends further
support to our suggestion that the words of the disciples in this
logion originally referred not to their own unbelief in the resurrection ,
but to the unbelief of the world which refused their message. Further
this interpretation seems to suit the expression thy &ffeixv tod Geod
xaztanupéoias better than the customary explanation.

Our interpretation of this passage, therefore, leads us to adopt the
suggestion of Gregory that xdxéivo. &nehoyotvto Aéyovves Oct Is an
editorial insertion, framed to connect a logion of Jesus with v. 14,
(which would agree with the use of xéxelvor here); and that the in-
sertion of && before xogev$éveeg in v. 15, of which no trace has
been found in any other MS, is the work of the same editorial hand,
and for the same purpose.

a) This &\& since it isnot found in any other MSS is itself a
witness to an insertion here. =

b) The lack of a direct answer to the apostles’ request for an
immediate revelation of the righteousness, which makes the words
seem superfluous here, seems to indicate that the answer of Jesus
originally contained some reply, and therefore that we have but a
portion of this answer here.

c) In the Freer MS a space of about six letters is left before the
introduction of this section, which thus begins at the beginning of

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 429

the line. There is also a space of three letters at its close, but v. 15

begins on the same line, after a slight break. This seems, judging
from the last page of Mark, to be the common method of indicating a
paragraph or section in this MS and therefore does not imply an in-
sertion, yet it is to be observed that it perfectly agrees with the theory
of an insertion at this point.

The argument from the thought of this section is supported by the
argument from style and vocabulary. We rearrange and conderise
the points Goodspeed makes, at times using his words:

1. The logion calls Jesus 6 Xowotdé¢, but in the Longer Conclusion
he is called 6 xvguo¢g, vs. 19, 20, to which in v. 19 we must possibly
add *Incods.

2. The Logion agrees with Mark’s Gospel in its frequent reference
to spirits or unclean spirits, while the Longer Conclusion uses Saw.6vix
\ ae eee

3. The loose and superfluous éxeiver Eheyov 7H Xero7vH which we
retain, in spite of Harnack’s contention that it is a marginal gloss
which has slipped into the text, contrasts with the clear-cut style of
the Longer Ending.

4. The feeble vagueness of “‘other terrible things are near at hand”’
further contrasts with the precision of the Longer Ending.

5. The clumsy expression “the spiritual and incorruptible glory
of righteousness in heaven”’ is quite unlike the style of the Longer
Conclusion but reminds us of the “holy and incorruptible preaching
_ of eternal salvation,” of the Shorter Conclusion.

6. The absence of this logion in all other MSS of the Gospels is
strong evidence that these words did not originally form part of the
Longer Conclusion.

This logion, then did not originally form a part of the longer of the
two endings. Its difference in tone and style make it seem, in con-
nection with it, like a new patch on an old garment (Goodspeed).
A fortiori it does not belong to the canonical Gospel tradition.

But some would claim that it was taken from the same source which
supplied the Longer Conclusion. So Harnack who, after acknowl-
ledging that the logion does not belong in the place in which it is
found, would argue that it came from the source of the Longer En-
ding, which he holds was the tradition of Aristion through Papias.
At first copied as a marginal note it later became inserted in the
text. .

Reasons for the rejection of the Aristion source of Mk. 16: 9—20
have already been given. The marked differences between these two
fragments, already pointed out, leads to the inference that they could

430 Clarence Russell Williams,

not have had a common source. The Freer Logion seems to be the
product of a later, a more thoughtful and philosophical age.

In rejecting the conclusion of so weighty an authority as Prof.
Harnack, it is comforting to find support in so eminent a textual
critic as Prof. Gregory, and one who agrees with the former in accep-
ting the Aristion source of the Longer Conclusion. While acknowl-
edging the possibility of identity of source, he does not accept the
theory. “Denn der Abschnitt scheint durchaus nicht aus derselben
Feder geflossen, aus demselben Kopf entsprungen zu sein, wie der
unechte Schluss.” (p. 63.)

4, But if this logion is not to be assigned to the source from which
the Longer Conclusion was taken, what can be inferred as to its
origin ?

Concluding that the section is an extract from a longer writing,
that Jerome probably knew the whole logion, having seen it in a MS
closely related to the Freer MS, that possibly he saw it in 386 A.D. on
his trip to Egypt, when he visited the Nitrian monasteries in addition
to spending a month in Alexandria, we conclude that this writing
is to be traced back to Egypt, perhaps toa Nitrian monastery.

For in spite of his words, Jerome may have seen but one MS con-
taining this logion. It is not impossible that it is to this very MS that
he refers. At least it must have been one closely related, since of
all the thousands of Greek texts known to us, it has as yet been found
in no other MS, proving that this reading must always have had a
very limited diffusion. Probably it never traveled very far from its .
source. Since this MS connects it with Egypt, it is most natural,
especially as on this supposition we can easily explain Jerome’s
knowledge of it, to posit an Egyptian origin. This we are free to
do, since we have denied its coherence with the Longer Conclusion.

Gregory suggests that the writer shows that he has been influenced
both in his vocabulary, and to a less extent in his thought, by Egyp-
tian Gnosticism, but other scholars take exception to such a conclusion.
The logion, however, probably formed a section of an apocryphal
Gospel or ‘‘kerygma,” based upon our canonical Gospels, and prob-
ably written in Egypt during the second century. 5

But the remarkable confusion of text displayed by this logion is
scarcely what we would expect if its circulation was extremely lim-
ited. This leads Gregory to suggest that we have here a translation,
possibly from a Coptic original. Such a supposition might help to
explain such difficult passages as thy &ffevav Tod Gs03 xactadhabéobon
dévauy, and the lack of smooth connection between verses eight
and nine and verses nine and ten.

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 431

If this very attractive hypothesis be adopted, it supports our theory
that in Egypt there were at various times various endings to Mark.
Knowing this fact, an Egyptian scribe would feel more free to take
liberties with the last section of the Gospel than any other, since for
him the tradition which supported it was neither ancient nor uni-
versal. Therefore to the last twelve verses, which he knew found
their way into the Alexandrian text at a late date, some unknown
scribe made an addition from a writing known to him.

While the date of the original writing seems to be early, judged
by internal considerations ; though apparently later than the compo-
sition of the Longer Conclusion, since it shows a more developed, a
more speculative handling of the Gospel tradition,—probably be-
fore the beginning of the third century,—the date of the insertion
of this logion into the Longer Conclusion seems relatively late, per-
haps during the fourth century. It must have been prior to 415 A.D.
when Jerome speaks of it in his writing. Either it was generally
recognized as an interpolation by the scribes, and therefore not copied
by them, or else it found a private or purely local circulation.

5. As to the significance of the Freer MS for textual criticism, it
furnishes us with another witness to the fact that during the second,
third, and fourth centuries it was generally known that something
was the matter with the end of Mark’s Gospel, and therefore the
scribes were accustomed to treat this section with greater freedom
than they employed toward the remainder of the Gospel. This tradi-
tion of doubtful authority seems most strong and persistent in Egypt.
Therefore this latest and most important of recent discoveries con-
firms what we have learned from other witnesses concerning the
textual transmission of the appendices of the Gospel according to
Mark in that country.

Freer Logion Bibliography.
SANDERS, Henry A., Biblical World, Feb. 1908, pp. 138—142; American
Journal of Archaeology, Mar. 1908, pp. 49—55.
GooDSsPEED, EpcGar J., Biblical World, Mar. 1908, pp. 218—226. Criticism
Oehes text.
Harnack, A., Theologische Literaturzeitung, Mar. 14, 1908, coll. 168—170.
VON SODEN, H., Die Christliche Welt, May 14, 1908, coll. 482—486.
KUNZE, JOHANNES, Theologisches Literaturblatt, Leipzig, Feb. 28, 1908, p. 11.
ScuHMIpT, Cart, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig, May 3, 1908, coll.
359, 360.
Crum, Egyptian Exploration Fund Archaeological Report, 1907—8, p. 62,
SwetTeE, H. B., The Guardian, May 1, 1908; Expository Times, June, 1908.
Editorial.

432 The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark,

GOODSPEED, EpGAR J., Independent, Sept. 10, 1908, pp. 596—601.

GrReEGorRY, C. R., Das Freer Logion, Leipzig 1908.

SANDERS, HENRY A., Nation, Dec. 31, 1908; American Journal of Archaeology,
Series II, Vol. XIII, 1909, pp. 130f.

GOODSPEED, E. J., Biblical World, March, 1909, pp. 201—206.

SANDERS, H. A., Biblical World, May, 1909, pp. 343—344.

GOoopsPEED, E. J., American Journal of Theology, Vol. XIII, 1909, pp. 597
—603.

SANDERS, H. A., Biblical World, Sept. 1910.

Rescu, Agrapha, p. 209 (Texte und Untersuchungen XXX).

SANDERS, HENRY A., The Washington Manuscript of Deuteronomy and
Joshua, Macmillan, 1910. The Old Testament Manuscripts in the
Freer Collection, Macmillan, 1910. (University of Michigan
Studies, Vol. VIII, Pt. 1 of the Humanistic Series.)

Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels
in the Freer Collection, Macmillan, 1912. The New Testament
Manuscript of the Four Gospels, Macmillan, 1912. (University
of Michigan Studies, Vol. IX of the Humanistic Series.)

GoopsPEED, E. J., The Freer Gospels, a collation with the text of Westcott
and Hort, American Journal of Theology, July, October, 1913,
January, April, 1914.

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY
OFTHE CONCLUSIONS OF THE-SECOND GOSPEL

The Gospel according to Mark at one time circulated in an abhre-
viated form, without conclusion, breaking off abruptly with égofetveo
yap at the close of the eighth verse. This form was widely distributed,
as is proved:

a) By §, B, Ss. Armcodd, Ethcodd,

b) By signs, breaks, or notes in various MSS which indicate that
the scribes understood the Gospel, in some sense, to close with v. 8.

c) By the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome, Victor of Antioch, etc.

d) By the omission of the last twelve verses in the Eusebian Canons
and the Ammonian Sections.

Was the Gospel left unfinished by its author, or was the conclusion
lost by accident, or was it purposely excised ?

Probably the abbreviated form of the Gospel is not due to the
author since the narrative breaks off not at the end of a paragraph,
or even of a sentence, but in the midst of a clause ; for we read Mark
46:8 thus; “And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trem-
bling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing
to any one; for they were afraid of—”’

In support of this interpretation may be urged the absence of other
instances in the N.T. of a sentence ending with y% ; and the unusual
use of égo%c%ro in an absolute sense, required by any other trans-
lation. Where the phrase &gofcivto yap is employed elsewhere in
the N.T. it is associated with some person or circumstance which is
the cause or the object of the fear. Compare the following instances :

Mark 11:18 éooBoivto yap addy,

Mark 11:32 égo8otvro tov Gy)ov,

Acts 5:26 éooBotvto yap tov Aaxdv,
Luke 22:2 égofodvto yao tov Andy,
Luke 19:21 gooBotuyv yao cs,

2Cor. 12:20 goBodpor yao ph moe eMov,

Did they fear a person or a circumstance, for both are used with
this expression, as the above examples show? Burkitt suggests that
they were afraid of the Jews. We suggest that they were afraid of
not being believed by the others if they told their story. The original
sentence may have read somewhat as follows, “‘they feared lest they

434 Clarence Russell Williams,

(the disciples) would not believe them but mock.” Compare with
this 16544:

That same argument which renders the theory of an unfinished
Gospel improbable, stands in the way of a theory of deliberate ex-
cision.

a) An excision would scarcely have been made thus awkwardly in
the midst of a phrase.

b) If the excision was made for the purpose of immediately sub-
stituting the Longer Conclusion for the original ending, it would
scarcely have been made at this point, leaving a manifestly clumsy
juncture.

c) In case such an excision was made as has been suggested, one
would naturally expect to find copies of the Gospel with the original
ending persisting alongside of copies with the substituted ending, but
scarcely copies without any ending. Yet we have many proofs that
the Gospel circulated in the abbreviated form in various lands for
several centuries.

d) It is evident that the Shorter Conclusion was composed to
furnish a fitting ending for the Gospel. The Shorter Conclusion is
a witness to the abbreviated form of the Gospel, since it would not
have been needed where the Longer Conclusion was already known.
Further, the Shorter Conclusion would not have been appended to a
verse which contradicts it (“they said nothing to any one’’) unless
previously the Gospel was known in a form which ended with v. 8.
The attempt in k to alter v. 8 to conform to the Shorter Ending
supports this contention.

Probabilities, therefore, indicate an accidental loss of the original
conclusion. This is best explained by the supposition that the last
leaf of the Gospel was lost (so Griesbach, Burkitt, and others). The
last leaf of a book is most readily lost, and Martin has shown, by the
example of Cursive 15, how this might have occurred. Compare also
the discussion of Arabic 13. Such an hypothesis accounts not only
for the breaking off of the Gospel in the midst of a phrase, but also
for the three forms in which the Gospel is found : without conclusion,
with the Shorter Conclusion, and with the Longer Conclusion. Adop-
ting the signs used by Zahn, we will denote the abbreviated Gospel by
A, the Shorter Conclusion by B, and the Longer Conclusion by C.

A glance at the synoptic material will show that the Gospels ac-
cording to Matthew and according to Luke follow Mark as their source
as far as v. 8 (Matt. 28: 8 and Luke 24: 8), and thereafter they follow
different and divergent traditions. While it is perhaps impossible to
affirm that neither can in any way reflect the Markan ending (cf-

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 435

Schmeidel, ‘‘ Gospels,’ Encycl. Bibl. col. 1880), it seems probable that
neither Gospel was based on the original conclusion. As Resch says:
“The entire literary style of their concluding sections announce to
us that they flow from sources which were hidden from the second
evangelist and never opened by him.”’ (Ausser-Canonische Parallel-
texte zu den Evangelien, T. und U., X, 3, p. 449, quoted here from
Conybeare’s translation in the Expositor, 1894, p. 227.)

The form of Mark used by the writers of the first and third of our
Gospels was probably the same as that found in 8, B, and Ss. The
conclusion seems to have been lost from Mark before Matthew and
Luke were written, that is in the first century.

However it has been argued by Rohrbach (Der Schluss des Marcus-
evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelienkanon und die Kleinasiatischen Pres-
byter, Berlin 1894, and Die Berichte tiber die Auferstehung Jesus
Christi, Berlin, 1898), following up a suggestion made by Harnack
(Bruchstiicke des Ev. und der Ap. des Petrus), that the original ending
of Mark was known to and used by the author of the Gospel according
to Peter. In that apocryphal writing the concluding incident follows
the narrative of Mark up to the eight verse of that Gospel, and then
begins another incident with “But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my
brother took our nets, and went away to the sea ; and there was with
us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord... .”

Since the end of the writing is lost, it still remains possible that in
narrating the incident he thus introduces, the author used the Fourth
Gospel, or the tradition upon which it was based. Against this it
has been argued that the writer of the Fourth Gospel never mentions
Levi the son of Alphaeus, and that he is referred to in this way by
Mark alone (2:14). But if the author of the Gospel according to
Peter possessed the Second Gospel in its abbreviated form, what more
natural than that he should wish to conclude his narrative with an
account of the restoration of Peter, and take this narrative from the
Fourth Gospel, or from the material which was incorporated into it.
It would not be unnatural to take the names of some of the group
from the Second Gospel, which he had just been following. The same
might be true even if he possessed the Gospel according to Mark with
one of the conclusions appended. Until the lost end of this apo-
cryphal Gospel is found the question cannot be definitely settled, but
internal.evidence is against the hypothesis of Rohrbach. We hold
therefore to the early loss of the authentic conclusion of the Second
Gospel.

This inference, which will be challenged by some, is, however,
only of minor importance for the present argument. The loss of the

436 Clarence Russell Williams,

original conclusion of the Gospel, granted by practically all critics
today, alone is of major importance to our discussion.

That the Longer Conclusion was not composed by the writer of
the Second Gospel has been so frequently demonstrated, by argu-
ments from vocabulary, style, and purpose, that it is not necessary
to rehearse the proof. It was appended to the abbreviated form of
the Gospel as a fitting conclusion, but was not composed for this
purpose, but taken from an existing work as is shown:

a) By the abrupt beginning, without an expressed subject. Since
the previous section has been speaking of the angels and the women,
we would expect the name Jesus to be expressed here.

b)*By the return in time to the resurrection itself, making v. 9
parallel to v. 1, and showing that here we have a new and independent
account, “‘a condensed fifth narrative of the Forty Days.” (Hort.)

c) By the introduction of Mary Magdalene as fhough for the first
time, with the explanatory appellation “from whom he had ca.t
out seven demons,” when she has recently been mentioned by name
three separate times, 15:40, 47; 16: 1. “.

The Longer Conclusion furnishes a generalized and conventionalized
narrative of the resurrection appearances, in a somewhat rhythmical
structure. It is evidently based on the other Gospels and on Acts:

vs. 9—11 based on John 20: 11—18.

vs. 12, 13 based on Luke 24: 13—35.

v. 14 combines reminiscenses of John 20: 19—29 and Luke 24: 36f.

vs. 15, 16 based on Matt. 28 : 19 with reminiscenses of John 20: 21f.

and Luke 24: 47.

vs. 17, 18 a brief summary of Acts, where we read of casting out

demons, speaking with tongues, and taking up a serpent.

vs. 19, 20 a summary of events narrated in Acts in Johannine

language. :

Not only the vocabulary but the whole tone of the Longer Con-
clusion shows Johannine influence. The narrative is didactic rather
than historical. The emphasis upon faith and belief makes it evident
that the writer is tracing the slow recovery of the apostles from the
unbelief evoked by the crucifixion to the final triumph of faith in the
risen Christ which fits them for the proclamation of the gospel mes-
sage. We have a close parallel to John xx and xxi, on which the
narrative is in part based. ‘“‘The historian has given place to the
theologian, the interpreter of St. Peter, to the scholar of St. John.”
(Swete.)

Resch has attempted to prove that the Longer Conclusion goes
back to a source earlier than the canon, a source used by Paul, and

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 437

perhaps employed in other epistles (Zeitschrift fiir Kirch. Wissen-
schaft, 1889, I, p. 25f.), but form and vocabulary indicate a later
rather than earlier date than the canonical writings.

The Longer Conclusion seems to have belonged originally to an
apocryphal writing, possibly a gospel, perhaps a kerygma like the
Kerygma Petri. The Freer Logion did not belong to this source,
as has been argued. To criticize the various theories of the origin of
this section offered by Resch, Rohrbach, von Dobschiitz and others
is not possible in this discussion, but none of these theories have been
generally adopted as satisfactory or conclusive. Many of the most
eminent textual critics of today accept the Aristion authorship or
source of this fragment, but reasons have been given in the previous
discussion for not adopting this view.

The Longer Conclusion probably originated in Asia Minor. Its
form, coloring, and purpose, especially its emphasis upon faith and
unbelief, all lead us to associate it with the Johannine school. Ex-
ternal testimony confirms this conclusion drawn from internal evi-
dence, for our first undisputed reference to it among the fathers is
found in Irenaeus of Lyons in Celtic Gaul, who, in his work against
Heresies (III. 10. 6) says: “In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus, Et
quidem dominus Jesus,” going on to quote Mark 16:19. We know
that in his early life Irenaeus was associated with Asia Minor, and that
he remembered seeing Polycarp when he was a lad. Though he had
visited Rome, most probably he would follow the tradition of Asia
Minor. Since his work was written 182—188 A.D. we infer that by
this date the Longer Conclusion was recognized by the great churches
of Asia Minor as the authoritative, authentic, and sole conclusion of
the Gospel, since, in spite of his wide knowledge, Irenaeus reveals no
suspicion of its genuineness.

But at a still earlier date, that is about 172 A.D., Tatian incorpo-
rated the Longer Conclusion into his Diatessaron. Tatian seems to
have reached Rome about 150 A.D. As pupil and associate of Justin
Martyr he would naturally follow the tradition and the text of the
church at Rome. We infer, therefore, that very soon after C had been
appended to the Gospel it was carried from Asia Minor to Rome.
The close association and frequent communication between the
churches of these two sections render this antecedently probable.
If we could believe that Justin Martyr, when he writes ot &xéotoXor
abTOd e€eMdvetes navtayod éxyjougav (Apol. i. 45) refers to éxeivor de
&éeMovees extoutav ravtayod in 16: 20 this supposition would receive
strong confirmation, but though many scholars find here an early
testimony to the Longer Conclusion, literary dependence seems by

438 Clarence Russell Williams,

no means sure. The similarity of language may be a mere coin-
cidence, or may be due to the use of a common source.

We conclude that the Longer Conclusion was taken from an in-
dependent writing which originated in Asia Minor ; that during the
first half of the second century it was added to the Second Gospel to
forma conclusion. Before the middle of the second century it passed to
Rome, where it soon gained currency as the only authentic conclusion
of the Gospel. The authority of the church of Ephesus, the authority
of the church of Rome, the intrinsic excellence of C, and current dis-
satisfaction with an incomplete Gospel, all tended to its early and
rapid acceptance in the regions dominated by the influence of these
two great churches.

The Syrian Church, whose canon presents an unusual development,
probably followed the ancient tradition in her earliest version, and
concluded Mark at v. 8, as is witnessed by Ss. It was Tatian who, in
his Diatessaron, gave currency to the Longer Conclusion in the East,
and through the Diatessaron C gained in time a place in the Old
Syriac, as we learn from Sc which is to be dated about the beginning

‘of the third century. By the time the Peshitto was issued in 441 A.D.
it had so thoroughly established itself in the Syrian text that no MS
of that version (with one exception) hints at any other form. In
616 A.D. Thomas of Harclea revised the Peshitto in a monastery
near Alexandria, employing Alexandrian MSS for the purpose and
the Shorter Conclusion is found in the margin of two MSS of the Harc-
lean Syriac. It is quite evident that the Shorter Conclusion found
its way into the Syriac from Egypt.

The Armenian, based at least to a certain extent on the Syriac,
persisted in rejecting any conclusion until the Middle Ages, for the
Longer Ending is scarcely found in any MSS until the thirteenth cen-
tury, and is wanting in half the later ones. There is a suggestion,
however, that the early form of this version knew C. Be that as it
may, the Armenian Version is unique in allowing the abbreviated
form of the Gospel to persist as the recognized and authentic type for
many centuries, in fact until comparatively recent times.

For light upon the origin of the Shorter Conclusion we must look
to Egypt whence our witnesses to this form come.

Modern c iticism is inclined to recognize three early types ot text
as belonging to the church of Alexandria :

1. The earliest known to us is represented by the quotations found
in Clement of Alexandria (cir. 190). and must therefore belong to the
end of the second and beginning of the third centuries. This text
is not found reproduced in any extant MS, but we know that it

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 439

was characterized by a considerable “‘Western”’ element, of an early
type.

_ 2. The second stage is represented in the quotations of Origen and
is fairly well reproduced by § and B, although Origen seems also to
have used MSS of an earlier type. The “Neutral” text of WH rep-
resents therefore, the second stage of the development of the Alex-
andrian text.

3. The third stage is represented by the quotations of Cyril of
Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria 412—444 A.D.), and is found in
a small group of MSS, especially C.L,=,A,W. The “Alexandrian”
text of WH is therefore the third stage of the text of Alexandria, a
revision of the second stage, showing a tendency to revive readings
of the first stage which were rejected in the second. It may be noted
that von Soden does not separate the “‘ Neutral’’ and “ Alexandrian”’
texts, but includes both in the class he calls H, and says this text has
been contaminated by the Egyptian versions.

Egypt early knew and long preserved the Gospel according to
Mark in the abbreviated form, as is witnessed by 8 and B which were
written there in the fourth century. Though, as we have seen, both
betray a knowledge of a conclusion to the Gospel,—whether the Longer
or the Shorter Conclusion the evidence does not show,—they never-
theless hold that the more authentic text ends at v. 8. It is possible
to claim that 8 and B give us but the judgment of the scribes who
wrote them, or of the earlier archetypes from which they were copied,
but the excellent text presented by them is against such a supposition.
They certainly reveal the persistence until the fourth century of the
tradition of the abbreviated text.

In Egypt, to this abbreviated Gospel, the Shorter Conclusion was
appended, as is witnessed by L, 7!*, T, and W. It is evident that B
was composed for the purpose it serves and for the place it holds, that
is to furnish a fitting conclusion for the Gospel... By its contradiction
to v. 8 it bears testimony to the A form, for unless a form of text
had been already in circulation containing the words, “they said
nothing to any one,’ these words would been excised or altered
when B was appended. That they were early felt to be incompatible
with B is shown by k and an ancestor of Bohairic Bunt: : 27:

In language and conception the Shorter Conclusion differs from the
Synoptics even more than does the Longer. In tone it is ecclesiastical
and theological. Evidently based on Luke-Acts, or upon the history
and conceptions found there, in style it is comparable to the opening
verses of the Gospel according to Luke (so Dr. Hort I, p. 298). The
writer also seems familiar with the epistles of Paul, and his style

440 Clarence Russell Williams,

reminds us more of the epistles than of the Gospels. As Dr. Hort well
says, ‘‘The vagueness and generality of the last sentence finds no
parallel in the Gospel narrative.’’ He would find suggestions for
its construction in Luke 24:9—12; Mt. 28:19; Luke 24: 47 and
John 20:21. There is also a slight resemblance to Clement of Rome.

Because the Shorter Conclusion is more theological, ecclesiastical,
and modern than the Longer, we are inclined to date it later, though
recognizing that this may possibly be due to another environment
or another author, rather than a later age. Since as yet we have no
data to determine how long C existed in an independent composition
before being added to A, it does not necessarily follow that B was added
to Mark ata laterdatethan C. Indeed, since B was evidently com-
posed for the purpose of rounding offan unfinished Gospel, we must
infer that at the time when it was written C had not become known, at
least to any extent. in Egypt, since it is self-evident that the meager
B could never have gained large acceptance in regions where C, mani-
festly and immeasurably its superior, was already known. We date
it therefore in the second century.

That the origin of the Shorter Conclusion-belongs to Egypt our
whole investigation seems to imply beyond a reasonable doubt, for
the following reasons:

1. Because the four uncials containing the double conclusion,
L, T!, 72, and W, are from Egypt, and of these L and WV belong to
that type of text, the so-called “Alexandrian” text, which is known
to represent the third known stage of the Greek text in Egypt. We
have not found a single MS containing B, either in the Greek or the
versions, whose origin is certainly, or even most probably, to be traced
to any other country.

2. Because the MSS showing the Shorter Conclusion are more or
less closely related, as we have seen, to the text of 8 B, the-so-called
“Neutral” text, which represents the second known type of the Alex-
andrian text. All the versions in which the Shorter Conclusion is
found have affiliations with this type of text, and most of them seem
to have been based upon it.

It seems evident, therefore, that after the earliest type of the text
of Mark, that ending with v. 8, Egypt possessed a second form which
concluded the Gospel with B. This, however, was very frequently,
if not usually, appended with a break or notes or a subscription,
testifying to the earlier, abbreviated form of the Gospel.

A third form known in Egypt is shown by the uncials with the
double conclusion. It is self-evident that in these MSS C is appended
to B, and, since in all known MSS showing the double conclusion B

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 441

precedes C, the Shorter Conclusion is still preferred. This form wit-
nesses to a time when C found its way into Egypt from the region
_dominated by the church at Rome. For a long time, at least in some

sections, C was compelled to struggle with its rival, which earlier
possessed and still claimed the field, as is shown by the increasing
number of MSS found possessing the double conclusion, and by the
date of the uncials of the L type, which shows that as late as the
seventh and eighth centuries MSS in which B was incorporated
into the text were still deemed worthy of being employed as exem-
plars.

At the same time, as is witnessed by Codices A and C, MSS contain-
ing only the Longer Conclusion were known in Egypt at least as early
as the fifth century, and these MSS show an excellent text. It must
therefore be recognized that, while we are tracing a logical, and, doubt-
less to a certain extent, chronological development in this reconstruc-
tion, it is quite possible that we are not following the dominant tra-
dition even of these early centuries. While the testimony of Eusebius,
Jerome, Victor of Antioch, and others have been confirmed by recent
discoveries, which prove that the tradition which held that the Gospel
ended with v.8 was of far wider acceptance than was supposed a few
decades ago, and while the evidence of the MSS confirms the same
facts in regard to the Shorter Conclusion, it is quite possible that B
may have become very early the authoritative text of a minority,
if it was not that from the beginning. This minority must have been
a very respectable one, as is witnessed by the Old Latin, the Bohairic,
the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic, in all of which versions it gained for a
time a place. We have seen that all of these versions are to be asso-
ciated with Egypt, another argument for the Egyptian origin of the
Shorter Conclusion. We find, then, that we are tracing the struggle
of two rival forms in the region dominated by Alexandria, and that
here, in contrast to its experience in the region dominated by Rome,
the Longer Conclusion gained acceptance and recognition as the sole
authoritative ending of Mark only after a struggle of centuries had
finally eliminated B.

But previous to this final elimination, there seems to have inter-
vened, probably in restricted sections, a type of text which, while
giving C alone a place in the text, inserted B in the margin (Cursive
274, two Bohairic MSS, and the Harclean Syriac). The Shorter Con-
clusion is now looked upon as an ancient and interesting variant,
though of inferior authority toC. In this respect the little group of
MSS reverses the judgment of the MSS containing the double con-
clusion, which considered B of the higher authority.

442, Clarence Russell Williams,

The final stage is of course the total elimination of B and of every
reference to it. The superior authority of the church at Rome and
the superior excellence of C have at length won for it the struggle
with its rival, and C obtains at Alexandria what it had enjoyed from
the second century at Rome, recognition as the only authoritative
conclusion of the Gospel according to Mark.

As has been stated, it is not our purpose to imply by this recon-
struction of the history of the conclusions of Mark in Egypt that there
existed five sharply defined periods, in which the five forms success-
ively dominated the text of Alexandria. Certainly these periods
overlapped, and MSS of various forms were used and copied simul-
taneously. It is quite possible that one or more of these forms never
became dominant either in Egypt or elsewhere, and this is particu-
larly true of the third and fourth forms, and possible even of the
second form. But evidence of the existence of all these forms is given
us both in Greek MSS and inthe MSS of versioris dominated by the
Greek text of Alexandria. This evidence of the versions must now
be briefly recapitulated.

The evidence of the Sahidic MS Weill 16, showing the double ending
to Mark, has not, to our knowledge, been used in any previous dis-
cussion of this problem. It is of far greater significance and import-
ance than would at first appear. That amid the three or four Sahidic
fragments containing the last verses of Mark one should reveal the
double ending is surprising, for it may witness to the fact that the
Shorter Conclusion was at one time relatively common, if not domi-
nant, in the version of Upper Egypt. The fact that underlying the ~
Sahidic is a type of text apparently akin to that used by Clement of
Alexandria, that is, a second century type of the Alexandrian text,
increases the importance of the witness of the Sahidic. While we do
not hold that the Sahidic Version originally ended with B, (to us it
seems more probable that it originally ended with v. 8), in view of
the note which precedes C in the- Sahidic, as well as the reference
to the Sahidic in the note found in one Bohairic MS (Or. 41345), it
seems most probable that at one time a type of text ending with B
gained more or less currency in the Sahidic Version. This form may
witness to a later adaptation of the Sahidic Version to a type of text
which, as we have seen, gained some currency in the Greek text of
Lower Egypt. We find here therefore, an additional witness to the
authority and the diffusion of our second and third stages in the de-
velopment of the Greek text of Egypt.

Since writing the above, we have heard, upon excellent authority,
that among the Coptic MSS in the recent acquisition to the J. Pierpont

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 443

Morgan Library one is found to contain the double ending to Mark.

__ As all these MSS are reported to be in the Sahidic dialect, this dis-

covery furnishes additional support to our inference concerning the
place of B in the Sahidic version. It is to be hoped that Prof. Hyvernat
will soon make this evidence available for critical use.

That the Bohairic Version shows the Shorter Conclusion in the
margin of two MSS, Hunt. 17 and Brit. Mus. Or. 1315, agrees with the
reconstruction of the history already suggested, since critics hold that
the Bohairic Version is later than the Sahidic, and was based on a later
Alexandrian text, the so-called ‘“‘Neutral’”’ text. These two Bohairic
MSS, therefore, are witnesses for our fourth stage, when B is relegated
to the margin.

But while the witness of Hunt. 17,—which seems to include most
of the readings which had at any time found their way into the Sahi-
dic,—would not in itself imply that B was more than sporadic in this
version, it is to be noted that one or more of the ancestors of this MS,
as Zahn has pointed out, concluded the Gospel with B and that v. 8
was violently altered to conform to it, as in k. Therefore, while it
would be rash to conclude that B at one time formed the sole and
authoritative ending of Mark in the Bohairic Version, we are jus-
tified in declaring that there existed MSS of this type in the Bohairic.
Further, as the note “In the Copy of the Said,” of Or. 1315 proves,
the Shorter Conclusion in the Bohairic was held to be related in some
way to the Sahidic Version, whether to the extent of being derived
from it, or simply being looked upon as similar to it, we cannot say.

In the Ethiopic Version we have a group of MSS showing A, another
group showing B, and a third A+B-+C, a further confirmation of
the Egyptian origin of the Shorter Conclusion, although we again
suggest that possibly the original form of the Ethiopic ended with v. 8.
There is a possibility that the Gospels were brought to this region at
the first from Palestine, rather than from Egypt.

The Old Latin Version of Roman North Africa, as represented by k
is unique in showing us a version from which we have a MS which ex-
hibits the Shorter Conclusion alone. Since this version, asrepresented
by k and e, seems based on the Alexandrian rather than on the Roman
type of Greek text we infer that here also the Shorter Conclusion was
introduced from Egypt. Whether B formed the recognized conclusion
of Mark as read by Cyprian in Carthage (7 250), is not certain, since e,
the only other MS representing this recension, lacks the close of the
Gospel. But that the B form was not introduced by the scribe of k,
even though he was probably an Egyptian, seems certain from the
careless and inaccurate manner in which these lines are written in

Trans. Conn. Acap., Vol. XVIII. 30 Frpruary, 1915.

L444 Clarence Russell Walliams,

this MS. The mistakes are incredible in a translator. They must be
due to the heedlessness of acopyist. Therefore, whether the B form
is original in the Old Latin of North Africa or not, it certainly was
found in a group of MSS which are to be dated as early as the fourth
or fifth centuries. And if the O.L. did not originally possess B, it
ended with v. 8as did 8, B, and Ss_ However, the fact that k alters
v. 8 to conform to B slightly increases the probability that k represents
the original form of the African Latin, and that this alteration was
made at the time of translation, since no trace of it has been found
in any Greek MS.

That in the Sahidic and Bohairic C ultimately superceded B is
easily explained by the history of the Greek text of Egypt, to which it
would naturally be conformed, by being revised from time to time.
That all the O.L. versions save that of North Africa contain C alone
is in harmony with the fact that they are of later.origin, and were
made from the authoritative text of the church of Rome. It is pos-
sible, however, to argue that all the versions containing B originally
possessed the A form and that the B form was introduced into later
MSS from Egypt, either immediately or ultimately.

Though the limits of our discussion forbid a full investigation of the
patristic evidence, both positive and negative, this evidence has
not been forgotten, and it is believed that the theory advocated does
not conflict with these witnesses, but is supported by them.

Eusebius, in his Quaest. ad Marin. ap. Mai, nov. patr. bibl. iv,
p. 255f., in answering the question of Marinus, “ How is it that in
Matthew the Saviour appears as having been raised up ove cabRacoy
[xxviii, 1], but in Mark zoo) ti wx% civ oxbPaTmv’’ ? suggests a pos-
sible escape through textual criticism, as follows:

¢c

~ ¢ > ~ Vv x» “
6 uv yxp thy toltTo odoxovonv mepinomyy afeTalv ermoL av [Ly
dy &macw abviy oépecbon tole dverypdpors tod nave Mapxov
edayyeniov. te yolv dxorSi sav avtypaomv TO Téhog Tept-
\ t i Wea > t
, ~ , > ~ , > = A
yodme. . . . dv wig Aéyoug . . . epofodvto yao. Ev TouTH Yap
~ > / ~ ‘ ~ > 4
cyedov &v anac. Tels avTtypamore TOD Kato Mé&pxov sdayyedtou

in
A

Q ‘ - tne
meoryéyoumto, to Téhos, tH DE SEHo onavins Ev Tio, XAK
v

od &v milo. wepdusva mepiTTe av sty.

Dr. Hort Translates (II, Notes, p. 31):

“For one man, rejecting the passage itself, the section which makes
this statement, will say that it is not current in all the copies of the
Gospel according to Mark. That is the accurate copies determine
the end of the narrative according to Mark at the words... . 2g0Boite
yao. For at this point the end of the Gospel according to Mark is

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 445

determined in nearly all copies of the Gospel according to Mark ;
whereas what follows, being but scantily current insome, but not in
~ all [copies], will be redundant [i. e. such as should be discarded], and
especially if it should contain a contradiction to the testimony of the
other evangelists.”

Eusebius, therefore, strictly interpreted, declares that the best and
largest number of Greek MSS concluded the Gospel with v. 8. This
testimony applies of course only to those MSS with which he was
himself conversant. However, it is significant that the Eusebian
Canons, according to the more ancient and trustworthy MSS, do
not include vs. 9-20, and that the Ammonian Sections also omit
them.

The testimony of Eusebius is echoed nearly a century later by
Jerome in his work “‘ Ad Hedibia,” (120 Vall.). This work was written
at Bethlehem in 406 or 407 A.D. After a question, which seems a free
presentation of that put into the mouth of Marinus by Eusebius, he
says:

‘“‘Hujus quaestionis duplex solutio est ; aut enim non recipimus
Marci testimonium, quod in raris detur evangeliis omnibus Graeciae
libris pene hoc capitulum non habentibus, praesertim quum diversa
atque contraria evangelistis ceteris narrare videatur ; aut hoc res-
pondendum,” etc.

Victor of Antioch (+ 400) seems also to echo this testimony of
Eusebius, and does not expound the last twelve verses in his commen-
tary on Mark, though in some editions a commentary and scholium
affirming the authenticity of these verses has been added from an
anonymous source.

Burgon surmised that this witness of Eusebius was ultimately de-
rived from Origen, and Hort seems to agree, remarking that it would
carry the witness back to an earlier date, and a greater textual
authority.

This seems to us most probable, since we have already seen that
the abbreviated form of the Gospel was apparently more prevalent
and persistent in Egypt than in other regions. On this hypothesis,
the real witness of these words of Eusebius is to the fact that the
largest number, and those the best in text, of the Greek MSS known to
Origen were in the abbreviated form. This is just what we would
have. expected, since Origen would probably rank the authoritative
text of Alexandria above that of Rome, and be more familiar with
Egyptian than with western MSS. At the same time Eusebius would
not have used this statement unless it was measurably true in his
own day.

446 Clarence Russell Williams,

Jerome, likewise, would not have repeated this statement unless
he too was familiar with MSS of this type. The Freer Logion helps
us to interpret this testimony of Jerome, for it renders it almost certain
that Jerome saw the MS or MSS which contained this logion in Egypt,
or found it in one or more MSS brought from Egypt. Very probably
then, in quoting the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome is thinking es-
pecially of MSS brought from Egypt, or at least of MSS of the type
found most abundantly there.

This testimony of Jerome has been belittled by the defenders of
the authenticity of the Longer Conclusion because, after expressing
these doubts concerning the last twelve verses, he gave them a place
in the Vulgate, without indicating that there was any question as to
their authenticity. But, in revising the Old Latin for this purpose,
Jerome would most naturally follow the tradition of the church of
Rome, which early received them as the authentic-conclusion of the ©
Gospel. Whatever the evidence of the MSS of the East, Jerome
would be well aware that these verses could be omitted from his
version only at the cost of raising a great outcry against it in the West,
on the ground that it mutilated the Second Gospel. This practical
consideration is quite sufficient to explain his action. Though practi-
cally all textual critics now consider these verses unauthentic, what
modern editor would dare omit them from a version prepared for
popular use?

The Egyptian origin of the Shorter Conclusion has been suggested
by Hort, Zahn, Nestle, and others but, so far as we are aware, the
Egyptian provenance of this fragment has not been proved by any
English or American writer. In fact so recently as 1908, the Bishop
of Moray, writing upon the Gospel according to Mark in Hastings’
Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, says concerning the author of
the Shorter Conclusion, “‘ Swete conjectures that he was a Westerner,
because of the emphasis laid on the West. Nestle makes him an
Egyptian, without giving reasons (Hastings DB. III. 13).”

_ The conjecture of Swete is given in “The Gospel according to
St. Mark,” 1898, p. ci. After presenting the textual evidénce, he
says concerning the Shorter Ending:

“Perhaps it may without rashness be attributed to a Roman
hand ; a Western origin is suggested by the pointed references to
the westward course of the Apostolic preaching.”

This seems very slender evidence upon which to base such a con-
clusion, since it would be as well known to a Christian writer of the
second century as of the twentieth that historically the gospel did
travel from the East to the West. As has been suggested to the

The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark. 447

writer, upon such a basis one might argue that the author of the
_ anonymous prophecy called in our Bible “Malachi,” wrote in Rome,
for he says, “‘ From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of
the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles.’ (Mal.
1:11.) We might even argue that the writer of this prophecy was
not a Jew at all but a Gentile.

During the course of this investigation, it has been a constant
source of surprise to find that every assured fact gleaned from the
history of MSS and from the families of text to which these MSS be-
long, point to Egypt as the original home of the Shorter Conclusion.
Not only do the Greek MSS in which it is contained come from that
country, but the versions in which it is known associate themselves
with the same section, and the texts represented in the MSS and
underlying the versions are all more or less closely associated with
the types of text found in Alexandria.

No textual evidence-has been found which would certainly associate
_the Shorter Conclusion with Rome. On the contrary, the testimony
of all the Greek uncials and all the versions associated with the
authority of Rome seem uniformly to support the authenticity of the
Longer Conclusion.

The suggested Roman acceptance of the Longer Conclusion and
the Alexandrian origin of the Shorter Conclusion agree with the testi-
mony of the Fathers, newly discovered MSS, the Freer Logion, and
the recognized fact that there early arose a difference between the
text of the Gospels as read at Rome and at Alexandria.

Realizing that the question of the authenticity of either of these
conclusions is no longer in debate among critics, and that the Shorter
Conclusion is, in itself, unimportant, this fresh study of the problem
has been undertaken with the hope that through it a little additional
light might be thrown upon the history of the New Testament in the
early Christian Church.

Lit

Aah Rial rah

pi A es 5 y i

i iy ete i
Be hae ai

i nat ane , ¢ a A ef

)
Aikea

Q Connecticut Academy of Arts
pl and Sciences, New Haven

C9 Transactions

Vas

Physical &

Applied Sei.

Serials

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

STORAGE

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Transactions"

See other formats