NO. 5 OI'INIONS 98 TIJ 104 5 



In view of the history of the genus Aiuocha it would he difficult to 

 assume that recommendation A' ohtains in this case. 



In attempting- to derive the two names from the Greek, it seems not 

 ahsolutely inconceivable that the authors might have united the Greek 

 words Iv and aixoifSy], Leidy using a d and Casagrandi & Barbagallo 

 using a t for sake of euphony. If this possil)ility were actually the 

 fact, the case would be somewhat similar to Microdon and Mikrodon, 

 but more similar to TacniarJiyncJnts Weinl., 1858a, and Tacniorhyn- 

 cliiis Arribalzaga, 1891, and etymologically [not necessarily taxo- 

 nomically] the words would be not only synonyms but, if used for 

 two dilTerent things, inrtiially homonyms. 



Another, certainly more probable and more scholastic line of argu- 

 ment would be that while both names are based on u/xot/?^/, Leidy 

 derived his Greek prefix from h-^ov and Casagrandi &: Barbagallo 

 derived their prefix from ivT6<i. 



Professor J. M. Campbell, of the Catholic L'niversity of America, 

 has kindly furnished the Secretary with the following memorandum 

 in regard to these two words : 



evbov, seen in our ordinary lexica, is derived from e'c 4- Indo-European -doin. 



Its original signification is "in the liouse " {-dom. cf. Latin domus). 

 tvTos, of our lexica, is derived from eV -{- Indo-European -fos (meaning 

 "from"). Its original signification is "in from," i.e.. "from witliin." 

 The Indo-European -to.'! ("from") is seen in the Sanscrit imtklui-tah 

 (" fro)ii the nioutli") and in the Latin caeli/!r.y {" frotii heaven"). 

 Both ei^dov and etros, according to Boisacq's " Dictionnaire etymologique de la 

 Langue greque " (Paris, 1910), are now synonymous, signifying " a I'interieur." 

 Their early confusion of meaning is indicated hy the career of eV5o;' in tlie 

 dialects. In Cretan, Megarian, and Syracusan, ei^dov became written evdos on 

 analogy with ivro's . .Such an analogical form proI)al)ly arose from the approxi- 

 mate similarity in siielling of evdov and (vtos and, wliat is of more interest to 

 us, from their similarity in meaning. 



Accordingly, cndoii and ciilos are now synrniyms and from this 

 point of view Endmnocha and Eutauiocba are words of identical 

 meaning but of slightly different etymology in their historic develop- 

 ment, in that both of them liave in common the (ireek words Iv and 

 dfioL^y but dififer in the Indo-Euro]iean dom and tos. 



Words of similar derivations as res])ects the oid and cut are well 

 known in terminology in zoology and are often interchangeable. For 

 instance, ciidoplasm is interchangeable with riitol^lasm, and cndodenn 

 with entoderm. Not only wotild the conctirrent use of these terms in 

 different senses Ije confusing but zoologists have come to use them as 

 absolute synonyms. 



