NO.1105. PEOCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 209 



Of course our eflforts at classificatiou are experimental — we all admit 

 that; but from the very uature of things. all efforts at classification in 

 practically unknown groups are and must be experimental. The classi- 

 fications nuist be changed time and again as new facts are discovered. 

 Nor have our experiments (or, as Meyner puts it, "derartige Experi- 

 meute'') counted upon immediate general recognition (allgemeine Aner- 

 kennung); it was not with that end in view that we published them. 

 We do not expect to see our proposed classifications adopted by zoolo- 

 gists at large until they have stood the test of other specialists in 

 helminthology. We have not heard as yet, however, of any marked 

 disa]>in'oval of the genera proposed from workers who were accjuainted 

 with the forms and who were competent to pass judgment on the case. 

 When such authors propose a better classification, tbey can certainly 

 count on Blanchard, liailliet, Hassall, and myself as four helmintholo- 

 gists who are ready to follow them. At present, however, I maintain 

 that the classification originally proposed by Blanchard and since that 

 time considerably expanded by Kailliet, Hassall, and myself is a far 

 more natural and satisfactory classification oi the forms treated than 

 any other classification ever proposed for the same forms. I am fully 

 convinced, after a study of several thousand specimens, that the main 

 features of the x)roposed division will stand, although the details of the 

 system may undergo some changes. Helminthologists, as a class, are 

 ultra-conservative in every line except species-inaking — and yet as long 

 as the Rudolphi-Diesing school exerts such a powerful infiuence in m ield- 

 iug the yardstick instead of the microscope, perhaps this generic con- 

 servatism should be looked upon as a blessing. 



A third error of Meyner's is that he does not understand the views 

 which he has attemi^ted to criticise, or the relative rank of the groups 

 proposed, and he ascribes to authors propositions which they never 

 made. Thus he states (page G) : 



Diese Anoploceplialinentheilt er (R. Blanchard) dann mit Riicksicht auf die Anord- 

 nung der Geschlechtsorgane in 3 Uiilerfamilieii [!] eiu uud zwar (1) Genre Mouiezia 

 * * * ; (2) Genre Auoplocophala ** * * ; (3) Genre Bertia * * *. 



Meyner thus makes th§ terms snhfaniih/ and f/enus synonymous — 

 rather a novel idea in systematic zoology; he accredits (page 8) Blanch- 

 ard and Bailliet with a family "Anoplocephalen," although he states 

 a few lines before that Eailliet accepted "Anoplocephaline" as a sub- 

 family. Upon the same page he speaks of Bertia as a geiius and Cteno- 

 twnia and Ajidrya as '^Arten.'"' It does not seem to me at all strange 

 that our efforts should "fail totally in their object" with a worker who 

 confounds such terms as species, genus, subfamily, and family. 



A fourth error into which Meyner has fallen in the passage quoted 

 is the assumi)tion that we have taken only a few species into consid- 

 eration in making our classifications. True, we have not felt called 

 upon to give a list of all the species of cestodes with which we have 

 acquaintance, either through personal study or through the publications 

 Proc. N. M. vol. xix 14 



