Abedus signoreti vicinus Mayr is elevated to species; A. signoreti sonorensis Menke is regarded as a subspecies of vicinus. Abedus fittkaui De Carlo, 1966, is synonymized with A. dilatatus (Say), 1832. The following previous synon- ymy is confirmed: A. montandoni De Carlo, 1932 and A. anconai De Carlo, 1938 = A. dilatatus (Say), 1832; A. drakei De Carlo, 1938 and A. stali De Carlo, 1948 - A. herberti herberti Hidalgo, 1935; A. hungerfordi De Carlo, 1932 and A. mayri De Carlo, 1948 - A. indentatus (Haldeman), 1854. The following are recorded for the first time from the United States (Arizona): A. ovatus Stil, A. parkeri Menke; the ovatus record needs confirmation. The disjunct distribution of Abedus breviceps Stal is analyzed. Dr. Jose De Carlo (1963) resurrected several of his that I (Menke 1960) placed in synonymy. I have carefully studied the argu- ments presented by De Carlo in defense of his species and find nothing to substantiate his reversal of my synonymy. On the contrary, the figures he provides to illustrate his arguments only serve to verify that I was correct in synonymizing the names in question. It is clear that we have totally different concepts. De Carlo places great weight on the form of the antenna despite the fact that I demonstrated that in most Abedus this organ is quite variable with respect to both numbers of segments and the form of the lateral process. In distinguishing his he also stresses the color of the ab- dominal venter, body size, and the shape of the parameres of the male genital capsule. As I pointed out in my revision, these are too variable to be of much use in discrimination. De Carlo also uses the form of the aedeagus and air straps to defend the reinstatement of his species. Admittedly, these last two characters display excellent differences, but he attempts to use intraspecific variation in these structures as specific differences. I have collected about one-third of the approximately 2000 Abedus specimens that I have studied and 10