Ä discussion of certain questions of nomenclature, as applied to parasites. 169 



for not adoptiug the specific name hramae in place of glohipora. But 

 let US assume that the early synonymy cannot be clearly demonstrated 

 from a modern point of view. In this event, it appears to me that 

 since Rudolphi himself admitted that he considered his F. glohipora 

 as identical with the earlier F. hramae, and so clearly designated, 

 this action of Rudolphi demands our acceptance of hramae as the 

 specific name unless some one sbows that F. glohipora is not identical 

 with F. hramae. 



In other words, in judging the older cases of synonymy adopted 

 by earlier authors, we should adopt the oldest name given unless we 

 can show that their Interpretation was incorrect. Such a ruling is 

 eutirely in the spirit of the rule for the union of genera, resp. species, 

 which reads: 



"A genus [resp. species] formed by the union of genera [resp. 

 species] takes the oldest generic or subgeneric [resp. specific] name of 

 its components. If the names are all of the same date, that selected 

 by the first reviser shall be retaiued." 



\Vhile a practical application of such an apparently extreme view 

 would be calculated to strike consternation in the minds of most 

 helminthologists, there can be no question but what it would more 

 rapidly and permanently reduce our nomenclature to a firm foundation, 



Thus it will be seen that Looss and I take very different positions 

 on the question at issue. The logical application of Looss' view is 

 that we Start out with science as it is to-day, and so far as the early 

 writers can be interpreted by our Standard, let their generic and 

 specific names be recognized. On the other hand, my view is that 

 we should judge generic and specific descriptions of 1800 by the Stan- 

 dards of the day when they were written, and not by the Standards 

 of a Century later. 



If Looss' view is consistently followed, the natural result will be 

 to reject unnecessarily numerous names published before the days of 

 the staiuing methods, and to introduce new names, thus subjecting 

 the generic and specific designations to greater competition for sur- 

 vival. If on the other hand, the other plan is followed, namely to 

 adopt for every genus or species the oldest published and indicated 

 name under which that genus or species may be interpreted, we can 

 easily save the old names, reject the new, and reduce to a minimuni 

 the competition for survival. 



It may be recalled that the parasitologist has one great advantage 



