168 CH. WAEDELL STILES, 



Chance of permanency than one dated 1890, since in the latter case 

 it must compete for survival with thousands of more names proposed 

 during the 90, resp. 40, years. There is less competition for 

 survival among earlier than among later names, hence 

 their chance for permanency is proportio nately greater. 



It will be uoticed above that I have placed emphasis upon the 

 Interpretation of an early diagnosis, hence recoguition of an early 

 name, by a specialist in the group in question. In this 

 point, I take direct issue with the position set forth by Looss. The 

 latter Claims that the defiuition or indication must be clear to "every- 

 one" ("Jedem"). In Opposition to Looss' view, it may be advanced 

 that a defiuition or au indication of a parasitic worm may be per- 

 fectly clear to a helminthologist, but absolutely unintelligible to an 

 ornithologist ; it may be clear to a man of forty years experience, 

 yet not to one of two years practical work. If the views expressed 

 by Looss were accepted, consisteucy would compel the rejection of 

 every diagnosis by the use of which any author or any Student in 

 the World has ever made au error in determiuing any genus or species. 

 It is, therefore, difficult to believe that Looss really holds the view 

 he has expressed. 



I find it necessary to admit that I once held the same views 

 Looss implies relative to the strictuess with which early diagnoses 

 should be interpreted, but the more I study the problems of noraen- 

 clature, the more necessary it seems to rae to lay greater stress upon 

 the condition of science in former years, and hence to accept any 

 indication or diagnosis under which a species may be interpreted, 

 rather than to demand of early authors a clear description under 

 which a species must be interpreted. In parasites, the type-host 

 should of course be considered in this connection, and in the case of 

 other animals the type-locality will usually narrow the determination 

 down to a choice between only a few species. Let us take a specific 

 example as Illustration. Rudolphi, 1809, p. 364 — 365, uses the name 

 Distoma globiporum for a species which he himself recognized as 

 identical with a form mentioned by earlier authors as Fasciola hramae, 

 Distoma cyprinaceum^ B. carinatum, and which he had named Fasci- 

 ola glohipora. In other words, he united under one species worms 

 which at least one other author (Zeder) appears to have considered 

 two species. Looss (1894, p. 41) admits that Fasciola brnmae, 

 F. longicoUis, Distoma cyprinaceutn^ and Fasciola glohipora are iden- 

 tical. Under these circumstances there appears to be no valid reason 



