A discussion of cortain questions of nomenclature, as apjjlicd to parasites. IQ^ 



the exclusion of Fasciola Linnaeus, 1758, and in the face of Distoma 

 Sav., 1816 (a mollusk)? How shoulcl we rule upon Eurysoma Gistl., 

 1829 (coleopteroii), Eurysoma Koch, 1840 (arachnoid), srnd Eurysoma 

 DujARDiN, 1845 (a trematode)? The nomenclature of helminthology 

 niust be either independent of general zoological nomenclature, or the 

 two must be interdependent. An interdependence is very difficult, 

 unless we recognize the same work as starting point; an independence 

 would permit the use of Distoma and Eurysoma in trematodes, and 

 the use of the same names in other groups. To this it cannot be 

 replied that we could recognize their interdependence since 1819, for 

 even if we adopted this date for helminthology, we should still 

 be forced to consider the names published in other 

 groups betweenl758 and 1819 (and hence recognize the 

 date, 1758) — and this while we refused to consider the names 

 published in our own group during the same years. 



Finally, let us consider the dangerous precedent we should be 

 setting to specialists in other groups, — in the sporozoa, for example. 

 With the same right that we selected 1819 for helminthology, workers 

 in the Myxosporidia could adopt Gurley 1894, as their starting point, 

 My official duties compel me, personally, to keep myself more or less 

 informed in regard to the worms, the sporozoa, and the insects in- 

 festing man and the domesticated animals. Let us now Image the 

 confusion if a System of nomenclature permitted me or any other 

 author to adopt one date for worms, another for sporozoa, and a 

 third for insects. Let us assume that the nomenclature of all three 

 groups is declared independent, and that it was permitted to use 

 Distoma as a valid name in all these divisions. Let us imagine the 

 lucidity of an article on the parasites of man with Distoma X (a 

 worm), Distoma Y (as a Sporozoen), Distoma Z (as an insect). Such 

 a possibility, absurd as it appears, is the logical result of Looss' 

 proposition. 



are taken, few authors would ever go back of the date selected for 

 his own group to determine whether a given name had been used in 

 another group; and even if they did, the point would be raised — 

 what is the starting point for the group in question? If conchologists 

 should accept 1830 as their date, Distoma 1816 would be invalidated 

 for mollusks, hence there would be no reason why Distoma 1819 should 

 not be used for worms. Looss' reply to Luhe presupposes that hel- 

 minthologists rule that they accept 1819, and that all other 

 writers accept 17 5 8. 



