172 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



meropis Rudolphi, 1819, and he maintains tliat these are uomina 

 n uda. 



The case at hand is a difficult one tu decide satisfactorily, and 

 one in regard to which there may be a legitimate difference of 

 opinion. D. merojns was not named until 1819, and its only indica- 

 tion is the host and organ in which it occurs. This is undoubtedly 

 a clew to the worm, heuce D. meropis can hardly be called a n o m e n 

 n u d u m in the sense in which this term is used in other groups. 

 The organ and host species of a parasite are frequently all that is 

 required for the determination of a species, provided its genus is 

 known. Although it must be admitted that these cases are un- 

 fortunate, and although I confess a feeling of uncertainty regarding 

 the Position which should be taken in reference to them, still we 

 have here an excuse for excepting earlier naraes, hence names less 

 liable to later change. At present, therefore, I rather incline to the 

 acceptauce of names where only the organ and host species are 

 given. 



7. The rule of hoinoiiyms. 



According to this rule, the later of two homonyms must be re- 

 jected. The rule sounds simple enough, yet there is considerable dif- 

 ference of opinion as to exactly what homonyms are. Two extremes 

 of opinion may be noticed : The one extreme is represented by Gill, 

 Jordan, Everman, and certain other workers (and the writer belongs 

 in this category) ; the other extreme is represented by Blanchard, 

 Jentink, and a number of other authors. The International Com- 

 mission endeavored to find a compromise, but its attempt cannot be 

 called a success. 



The first extreme Starts out from the Standpoint that words are 

 either identical or different. If identical, they cannot be dif- 

 ferent, hence they are homonyms; and in judging the case, absolutely 

 no consideration is given to the etymology of the word. Thus : 

 Äheona Giard 1854, and Äbeona StIl 1876, are identical (though, 

 incidentally, of ditferent etymology); fluvialis, fluviatilis, fluviaticus, 

 and fluviorum^ or Distomus^ Distoma, and Distomum, or silvestris and 

 sylvestris, or coeruleus and caeruhus, or Hhopalophorus and Hopalo- 

 phorus, not being identical, respectively, must be different. Ac- 

 cordiugly, these words are not homonyms. According to this view, 

 the difference of a Single letter, entirely regardless of the etymology, 



1 



