166 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



From the above it niay be seen that the adoption of Looss' prop- 

 osition woulcl compel us to choose between the followiag: 



1) Either we must take our position, contrary to the precedents 

 of a Century and a half, with a small niinority, which Claims that the 

 same generic name may be used in two different groups of animals, 

 and thus by bringing about an utterly chaotic State, give up immedi- 

 ately all idea of ever having an international nomenclature, or 



2) we must ignore all names in our own speciality, published be- 

 tween 1758 and 1819, but theoretically recognize all names in other 

 specialities (names with which we are less familiär) published between 

 those dates. 



It is my firm conviction that no group of specialists should adopt 

 any precedent, rule, regulation, or recommendation, which cannot be 

 brought into accord with the precedents of zoologists in general, and 

 while I appreciate as keenly as does my friend Looss the difficulties 

 of which he complains, I maintain that it is a professional duty of 

 every helminthologist to bear with these temporary, irritating — often 

 exasperating — troubles, for the general good of all parties concerned. 

 And while Looss' proposition to adopt Rudolphi's Synopsis instead 

 of LiNNAEus' Systema raay appeal (and in fact has appealed) to some 

 authors upon first thought as being an excellent Solution of the present 

 Situation in helminthology, it is impossible for me to escape the 

 conviction that it is one of the most dangerous and short sighted 

 nomenclatural propositions ever suggested. To my regret, therefore, 

 I am unable to adopt it. On the contrary, it is not clear to me that 

 any arguments have been advanced which would justify a decision in 

 favor of rejecting the lOth edition of the Systema naturae (1758), and 

 hence would justify an author in adopting a plan which would eventu- 

 ally result in rejecting the thousands of nomenclatural decision made 

 on this basis since 1846, 



4. Tue face Talue of early descriptions. 



An important point raised by Looss, in connection with the Lex 

 prioritatis, touches the validity of names which are not "clearly de- 

 fined or indicated" ("erkennbar definirt oder angedeutet"). He objects 

 to speculation as to what an author meant, and practically calls for 

 the acceptance of every diagnosis on its face value. If bis article 

 is read carefully, the important point will be noticed that bis argu- 

 ment tends to judging the face value of the diagnosis by the pres- 



