A discussiou of certain questions of nomcnclature, as applied to jjarasites. ] ß3 



to Interpret, is in the spirit of the Linnaeau System. Why should we 

 ignore tbe work of tliese meu? To do so without very good reasons 



— reasons which can be thoroughly supported by principles and pre- 

 cedents establisbed by men who have had wide experience in nomen- 

 clatural studies, is simply to invite some future generation of helniintbo- 

 logists to adopt some very complete systematic work publisbed perhaps 

 in 1950 or 2000, and perbaps based upon a total disregard of tbe Law 

 of Priority, as tbeir point of departure, and to ignore all preceding 

 work directed toward a stable zoological nomenclature. I, for one, do 

 not desire to set sucb a dangerous example. 



To Looss' secoud point (that Rudolphi did not unnessarily change 

 preexisting names, but preserved "all tbe good names of tbe older 

 autbors wbicb fulfilled tbe scientific requirements"), it must be replied 

 tbat it is found necessary to take direct issue witb my esteemed 

 frieud upon tbis assertion. Not only did Rudolphi unnecessarily and 

 in a most wanton manner cbange names adopted by bis predecessors, 

 but in bis later works be unnecessarily cbauged names wbicb be bim- 

 self bad proposed or adopted in bis earlier writings. Wberein lay 

 the necessity of adopting Distoma in 1808 — 10, 1814, and 1819, in 

 place of Fasciola used by bim in 1801 — 3? Wberein was tbe neces- 

 sity of introducing numerous new specific names for forms wbicb 

 he biraself identified as identical witbforms described 

 und er other names by earlier binomial autbors? 



Looss' tbird point (that to revert to pre-RuDOLPHi names would 

 result in overturning a good part of the current nomenclature of 

 parasites), wbile rather indefinite, is the same argument which many 

 persons bave advanced against tbe Law of Priority itself, and which 

 any one could equally well advance in favor of accepting even, for 

 certain gener a, autbors wbo bave publisbed within recent years 



— rather than to revert to older names. It may also be remarked 

 tbat Looss bas not made a very definite Statement as to what con- 

 stitutes "a good part" of the current nomenclature. Looss' tbird 

 argument accordingly cannot be given much weight. 



Turning now to a pbase of the subject wbicb my friend did not 

 discuss: If Rudolph: was such a second Linnaeüs and so consistent 

 a noraenclaturalist, why sbould we adopt bis Synopsis (1819) instead 

 of bis Historia (1808—10) or bis Beobachtungen (1801—3)? Of course, 

 tbere would be tbe great advantage that we sbould then have one 

 year as basis, instead of three. But, by accepting 1819, instead of 

 1801 — 3, we should violate one of the most important principles of 



