A discussion of certain questions of nomenclatiire, as applied to parasites. Ißl 



results, than to strive beyoud that outlook and fall iato a chasm of 

 uncertainty and confusiou. 



In connection with the important point at issue, the following 

 propositions have beeu niade: 



1. To accept the lOth editiou of Linnaeus' Systema naturae. 



2. To accept the 12th edition of Linnaeus' Systema naturae. 



3. To accept absolute priority, going back to pre-Linnaean 

 names. 



4. To reject all names which have not been recognized for twenty- 

 five years ("Statute of Limitation"). 



5. For each speciality to determiue its own starting point. 



After a lengthy discussion of the principles and difficulties in- 

 volved, a discussion extending over many years, engaged in by numerous 

 systematists of different nationalities and representing diiferent groups, 

 Linnaeus' Systema naturae, ed. X, 1758, has by the vote of a number 

 of zoological societies, national and international, special and general, 

 been adopted as the starting point for the Operation of the law of 

 priority for all zoological groups. 



Looss has recently dissented from this majority decision, and has 

 proposed to accept a special date for helminthology, The idea in- 

 volved is not a new one. In fact several authors have from time to 

 time advanced the view that different groups might take different 

 dates as basis for their nomenclatural work. All such propositions 

 have had one and the same history: Although several persons have 

 eagerly defended them, they have been rejected by the vast majority 

 of experienced nomenclaturalists and have eventually been forgotten 

 or rejected even by their pro posers. 



Notwithstanding the past history of this proposal, Looss (1899, 

 p. 525) has very recently brought it forward again by definitely pro- 

 posing to helminthologists that we should adopt Rudolphi's Entozoorum 

 Synopsis (1819) as our starting point, instead of Linnaeus' (1758) 

 Systema naturae. 



In justification of his Suggestion, Looss advances the arguments: 

 1) that although Linnaeus was the father of binomial nomenclature of 

 the free living animals, Rudolphi was the father of binomial nomen- 

 clature for the parasitic worms (Rudolph: is spoken of as the Lin- 

 naeus of helminthology); 2) that Rudolphi did not unnecessarily 

 change preexisting names, but preserved "all the good names of the 

 older authors which fulfilled the scientific requirements" ; 3) that to 



