164 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



nomenclature, namely that when an author once publishes a name, 

 he has no rights over that name which other aiithors do not have. 

 Why should we accord to Rudolphi an exception which is contrary 

 to the entire spirit of nomenclatural precedents, and one which is 

 not accorded to any other author, living or dead, — not even to 



LiNNAEUS ? 



Further, even if it could be admitted that all of Looss' argu- 

 ments were valid, a moment's consideration will show that his prop- 

 osition cannot be carried out either theoretically or practically, and 

 an attempt to follow it would set an example and produce a confusion, 

 the influence and extent of which cannot be foreseen, thus defeating 

 the Chief object of nomenclatural rules, namely: as great a stability 

 as possible in systematic names. Let it be recalled, for instance, 

 that some animals are parasitic during a part of their life, and free 

 living during the remainder. Would the genus Gordius date from 

 LiNNAEUS or from Rudolphi? What would be done with the hirudi- 

 neans? Although they are not treated by Rudolphi, still Blanchard, 

 as a helminthologist, would be justified in the Interpretation that they 

 should date from 1819. Whitman and Montgomery, on the other 

 band — men who work chiefly in other fields — could with equal 

 right Claim that they should date from 1758, since they may bc 

 called free living forms, with the same right that they may be called 

 parasitic. 



Again, if we adopt for helminthology a starting point which is 

 different from the date adopted by all other zoologists, we would 

 thereby practically declare our nomenclature independent of zoo- 

 logical nomenclature in general. We would thus lose all logical basis 

 of comparison with the generic names of other groups. In this event, 

 should we accept jDistoma^) because Rudolphi used it in 1819, to 



1) Postscript. Upon returning to Washington after a prolonged ab- 

 sence, I find that Luhe has already raised this point and that Looss 

 has recently attempted to reply to it. Looss does not, however, meet 

 the case. Suppose for instance Linnaeus, 1758, is accepted by orni- 

 thologists ; Latreille, 1796, by entomologists; Rudolphi, 1819, by hel- 

 minthologists ; Gurley, 1894, in Myxosporidia, etc. Upon specializing 

 further, as we are bound to do in the future, each set of workers in 

 a smaller group might claim some new starting point: One for Trema- 

 todes, another for Cestodes, another for Nematodes, sixteen to nineteen 

 for insects, etc. Animals are not always placed in the same group. 

 Upon being transferred to another order or class, their nomenclature 

 would take another starting point. Further, if separate starting points 



