While reading the above paper we found several errors that require comment.
(1). P. 26, Diogena fausta (Burmeister). Katbeh Bader and Massa claim that they record the species “…for the first time from the Middle East”. However, we had already recorded D. fausta from Israel (Ayal et al., 1999). The abstract of our paper is listed in the 1999 volume of Biological Abstracts and by ISI Web of Science. Even if the paper by Katbeh Bader and Massa was written before 1999, they should have corrected this statement at the proof stage.
(2). P. 27, Tylopsis lilifolia (Fabricius). Katbeh Bader and Massa state that their Jordanian specimens belong to the deserticulous form according to Ragge (1964). However, Ragge (1974) described Tylopsis peneri from Israel, stating that the specimens “…appeared at first to represent a deserticulous form of the widespread species Tylopsis lilifolia …”. Ragge (1974) then ruled out the possibility that these deserticulous specimens were a subspecies of T. lilifolia and described them as T. peneri new species. Katbeh Bader and Massa ignore Ragge's (1974) article in spite of the fact that all characteristics given for their “deserticulous form” are similar to those of T. peneri. Even if the specimens of Katbeh Bader and Massa are T. lilifolia and not T. peneri, a comparison with T. peneri should have been made.
(3). P.29, Scotodrymadusa philbyi (Uvarov). Katbeh Bader and Massa claim to change the status of Paradrymadusa philbyi to S. philbyi. However, Ramme (1939) had already made this change. Ramme's (1939) article, erecting the genus Scotodrymadusa, states twice, that he is changing the status of P. philbyi to S. philbyi. Ramme (1939, pp. 59–60) lists ten species (including S. philbyi) which he places into the new genus Scotodrymadusa, diagnosed in his paper on p. 81. Ramme (1939, p. 85) lists again the species which belong to the genus Scotdrymadusa and again includes philbyi. Unfortunately, Otte (1997) and Naskrecki & Otte (1999) do not refer to these changes made in Ramme's (1939) article. Katbeh Bader and Massa state that Ramme (1951) transferred Paradrymadusa rammei, P. anatolica and P. maculata to the genus Scotodrymadusa. However, this transfer was made by Ramme in 1939 (pp. 59–60 and 85, see above). Katbeh Bader and Massa further state that recent examination of the type of Paradrymadusa syriaca allowed them to also include this species in the genus Scotodrymadusa. Again, the transfer of this species to Scotodrymadusa was made by Ramme (1939, pp. 59–60 and 85). Presumably, Katbeh Bader and Massa did not consult Ramme's (1939) original article in spite of the fact that they cite it in the “literature cited” section of their paper.
(4). P.30, Scotodrymadusa philbyi (Uvarov). Katbeh Bader and Massa state that the female has been unknown and they characterize it. However, Uvarov (1933, p. 665, reference cited by Katbeh Bader and Massa) described the female under the name Paradrymadusa phylbyi, though Uvarov (1939, p. 220) himself has forgotten his own description of the female. The fact that Uvarov described the female is also stated by Otte (1997, p. 303) and Naskrecki & Otte (1999).
