BRITISH SPIDERS AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION
J. E. Hull pointed out in 1920 that authors had followed Kulczynski
in his mistaken use of
C.L.K. and its allies.
Simon (1929) agreed with this conclusion and formed new genera for
their inclusion, overlooking the fact that Hull had proposed the name
In one or two cases genera have had to be renamed in accordance
with the rules of nomenclature. Although
has been applied
to spiders for a hundred years it must now be discarded for this
purpose. Templeton's paper in the `Zoological Journal', Pt. 20, is
labelled 1832 34, but we know from a reference in the `Magazine of
Natural History' for December, 1834 (p. 656), that this was not
actually published until December, 1834, or later, whereas W.
Swainson had given the name to a bird in 1833 (`Zool. Illustr.'). I
propose the new name
to take the place of
The rules laid down by the International Commission of Zoological
Nomenclature have been largely disregarded by French and British
arachnologists. The rule with the most important consequences is that
no names prior to the appearance of the tenth edition of Linnaeus'
`Systema Naturae' in 1758 are valid. This decision means that
Clerck's names (1757) for many of our commonest species must be
abandoned. Being reluctant to introduce such changes I have
corresponded with Dr. Karl Jordan, President of the International
Commission, and voiced my strong objections, but he is emphatic that
no exceptions can be allowed in any circumstances.
Other opinions given me by the President of the International
Commission after full consideration of the facts can be listed below:
1. A genitive patronymic should always be formed by adding to the
exact name an i ,
termination should be ii only where, as in certain Italian names, the
name ends with i in the first place.