160 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



conceded by all to be an "authority". Granted, but from what stand- 

 point is "authority" to be judged ? Rudolf Leuckart was an iufini- 

 tely superior authority in helminthology to Rudolphi, when judged 

 from the Standpoint of an histologist, embryologist, or anatomist ; but 

 it may be considered an open questiop whether Rudolphi was not 

 the greater authority as a systematist. Which "authority" should be 

 selected? And suppose some helminthologist in the near future ex- 

 ceeds in prominence both Rudolphi and Leuckart, shall we then 

 follow his personal whims regarding names? 



Reducing the subject to a nutshell, those authors who "worship 

 the fetich of priority" see but two choices open: Either to adopt the 

 oldest available name, regardless of personal interests, national pride, 

 or any other consideration, or to adopt haphazard any name one 

 chooses. 



In helminthology, authors have been backward in declaring them- 

 selves in favor of "priority". Even within the last few years, lead- 

 ing helminthologists like Leuckart, Braun, and Looss, have not only 

 thrown priority to the winds by disregarding it in their writings, but 

 have even argued against it. More recently, however, both Braun 

 and Looss show a change of opinion on the subject and have appa- 

 rently become convinced of the ad van tage of the only system which 

 öfters US a stable nomenclature. 



Accepting the law of priority as a necessity, it remains to be 

 determined: 



3. At what date should the law of priority become operative, 



LiNNAEUS, 17 5 8 r Rudolphi, 1819? 



The answer to this question is not so seifevident as it would 

 seem, for it involves not only principle but also possibility. It would 

 not be discussed here were it not for a proposition recently made 

 by Looss. 



We must strive our utmost for the abstract of the principle ; but 

 the success of our efforts depends upon the possibilities which result 

 from our powers and the existiug conditions, hence upon the practical 

 feasibility of our general rules. Far better is it to make the law 

 our servant — to carry out our purpose of making a stable nomen- 

 clature, than to make ourselves its slaves and thereby defeat the very 

 object of the adoption of the law. Far better is it to strive in the 

 spirit of the law so far as there is the slightest outlook for definite 



