6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



Turning now to the more practical and less academic side of the 

 question we are faced by the following taxonomic situation. 



Endamoeha Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, has for its monotype A-nweha 

 blattae. The generic name was emended by Chatton, 1910, Ann. Zool. 

 exp. gen.. 282/ and 1912, Bull. Soc. zool. France, p. 1 10, to read Enta- 

 moeba, and by Chatton and Lalung, 1912, BSPe, p. 142, in the same 

 sense. Accordingly, there is a generic name Endauwcha and one Enfa- 

 mocha with the same species {E. blattae) as type. 



Entamoeba'^ Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895c, p. 18, contained 

 Amoeba coli and A. blattae without designation of type. Apparently 

 the first type designation in words was by Brumpt (1913, p. 21) as 

 Entamoeba hominis which is Amoeba coli renamed. It will be noted 

 that the type designation is three years later than Chatton's emendation 

 of Endainoeba to Entamoeba. It is also clear that Chatton (1912) 

 quotes the generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1897, 

 and invites attention to the fact that as early as 1910 he (Chatton," 

 AZeg, 282) had shown that protozoologists had erroneously attributed 

 the parentage of the genus Entamoeba to Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 

 1897. Accordingly, for Chatton Endainoeba 1879 and Entamoeba 

 1897 were simple orthographic variants and it is not at all impossible 

 (renaming and cf. Opinion 6) to construe his papers (1910, 282, and 

 1912, no) as a designation of blattae as the type of Entamoeba Casa- 

 grandi & Barbagallo. 1897. This point of view receives support in the 

 fact that Chatton eliminated E. coli from Entamoeba and made it 

 type of LoscJiia. If this point of view be accepted, Endamoeba 1879 

 and Entamoeba 1895 are to be interpreted as having the same geno- 

 type, on the premise that Chatton in 191 2 determined the type of 

 Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo as blattae while Brumpt did not 

 make his determination ( hominis = coli) until 1913. 



We are further faced by the complication that some authors con- 

 sider the species blattae and coli as congeneric, others as belonging to 

 two dififerent genera in the same family, and still others as belonging 

 to two different subgenera in the same eenus. 



* It is obvious that Casagrandi & Barbagallo were discussing E. coli rather 

 than E. blattae, and that they cited only incidentally the latter species. To take 

 E. blattae as type of their Eutamocha is theoretically possible under the Rules, 

 but is contraindicated by Art. 30, 11, p, q, t, also by the obvious fact that Casa- 

 grandi & Barbagallo had E. coli especially in mind. The difficulty is solved 

 equally well by considering Entamoeba a variant of Endainoeba, as Chatton 

 (1910) did, before Chatton & Lalung, 1912, eliminated coli to Loschia. 



'"Entamoeba Leidy, 1879" • • • • " C'est a tort que Doflein (1909) attribue 

 la paternite du genre Entamoeba a Casagrandi & Barbagallo (1897)." 



