148 Transactions of the Society. 



VI. — Third List of New Rotifers since 1889. 

 By Charles F. Rousselet, Curator and F.K.M.S. 



In continuation of my two previous lists published in this Journal 

 in August 1893 and February 1897, I now submit a third list of 

 98 new names which have since been added to the literature of the 

 Rotifera, and which brings the total number to 393 new names 

 of Rotifers since Hudson and Gosse's Monograph was completed in 

 1889. I say new names advisedly, which does not mean new species, 

 for out of the 98 in the present list no fewer than 38 can be 

 identified as old species, and some of the others will ever remain 

 unrecognisable. 



It seems a great pity that authors should continue to burden 

 science with so much dead weight, when a little more search and care 

 in the identification would make their lists and work so much more 

 useful. Mr. H. S. Jennings * has well expressed what should be 

 the guiding idea for workers in this department, and his words 

 deserve to be repeated here for the benefit of all. Mr. Jennings 

 writes : " No one has a right to cumber scientific literature with the 

 names of species ' presumably undescribed,' as a recent paper naively 

 puts it, without recognising the fact that a vast volume of literature 

 has appeared on the group since the publication of Hudson and Gosse's 

 Monograph, including descriptions of many new species. The recog- 

 nition and description of a new species must therefore be regarded as 

 a most laborious piece of work, involving a careful examination of 

 large numbers of papers in various languages, besides a consultation 

 of Hudson and Gosse. There is no excuse for omitting such a study 

 before publishing descriptions of species as new, in view of the full 

 lists of new Rotifers published at intervals by Mr. C. F. Rousselet, with 

 the titles of the papers in which the descriptions are published. If 

 a student finds himself unable to see a large share of these papers, it 

 is his duty to recognise the fact that he is not in a position to publish 

 names of new species. If he wishes to publish his notes and draw- 

 ings, these may be of great use to other workers ; but if he proceeds 

 to append new names to his descriptions, increasing the already heavy 

 burden of synonymy, his work becomes a positive injury to science 

 and a nuisance to all careful scientific students. — The publication of 

 new species without a figure, which has been practised by some 

 American authors, as well as by some of those of Europe, is greatly 



* Rotatoria of the United States (108), 1900, p. 70. 



