A discussion of certain questions of nomeuclature, as applied to parasites. ] 7 J 



Looss mentions bis own difficulties in Egypt in this particular, 

 yet who would claim that, if one of bis magnificently described species 

 proved to be identical witb a form recognizably described in books 

 accessible to workers in Europe or America, tbe Law of Priority is 

 not applicable to tbe names in question? 



The type or cotype or paratype specimens are accessible to all 

 of US — where they still exist — if we will visit tbe museum in 

 whicb they are deposited, and in many cases we can obtain them by 

 writiug for them. This is one of tbe means open to us to clear up 

 early descriptions, just as rauch as tbe staining metbods, tbe micro- 

 scope, tbe microtome, or tbe dissecting knife, and it is difficult to 

 See a contradiction in principle between tbe results of such a study 

 and tbe law of priority. 



In laying such stress upon tbe publication, it would appear 

 that our friend has forgotten tbe bistory and purpose of requiring 

 publication as a prerequisite to tbe consideration of a name. 

 Attention may be called to tbe fact that in tbe evolution of tbe rules 

 of nomenclature, the question arose as to whetber a name should be 

 recognized in case it is written or printed upon a museum label, but 

 otherwise not accessible, and it has been decided that such names 

 were not entitled to the Law of Priority. Not until a name is made 

 public by definition or indication are we called upon to take it into 

 consideration, but wben once publisbed in this manner, it is incurabent 

 upon US to use every method at our disposal to recognize it before 

 rejecting it. 



As I read Looss, he is not opposed in principle to the reexami- 

 nation of types, but simply wishes to direct attention to what he be- 

 lieves to be a contradiction, a contradiction which I am not in a 

 Position to admit. 



A definition or an indication must, of course, give some tangible 

 clew to the nature of tbe object named, but the reexamination of 

 types is one of the necessities connected witb the gradual evolution 

 of zoology, and it is in recognition of this necessity that zoologists have 

 laid such stress upon preserving types for future workers. 



6. Nomina iiuda. 



Looss raises the important point as to the Status of the names 

 which RuDOLPHi gives to bis species dubiae, such as Disfoma 



