A discussion of certain questions of nomenclature, as api^lied to parasites. 173 



excludes the possibility of the words being identical, hence ex- 

 cludes the possibility of their being homonyms. 



The other extreme places stress upon the etyraology of a word, 

 and while admitting that two words of different etyraology but identical 

 in form are homonyms, it maintains that two words of the same 

 etyraology, but different in form, are also homonyms. Thus, in ac- 

 cordance with this view , the examples given above would be 

 horaonyms. 



A very limited number of entomologists go even further, and re- 

 cognize words which sound alike ("phononyms") under the sarae 

 rule as homonyms — an extreme which cannot count upon much 

 Support, since pronunciation differs according to the language we are 

 accustomed to speak. 



The point at issue depends to a very large extent upon the 

 Position taken with reference to emendations. If it is permitted to 

 emend names, the view supported by Blanchard and others must 

 necessarily prevail. The supporters of the other view, however, con- 

 sider emendation as incompatible with permanency, and if their view 

 regarding emendation is accepted, their contention regarding homonyms 

 must be accepted as a logical correlative. 



To helminthologists, the point at issue is of extreme importance, 

 and has recently been touched upon in a paper by Luhe (1899, 

 p. 524 — 539). LlJHE takes the stand that the generic narae Proteo- 

 cephalus^) Weinland, 1858, and the family name ProteocepJiala^) 

 Blainville, 1828, are homonyms ; also that Tetracotylus Monticelli, 

 1892, and Tetracotyle Filippi, 1854, come under the same category. 

 Two points are here involved: 1) Can the masculine, feminine, and 

 neuter, exist side by side as separate names? 2) Should generic and 

 family names, if identical, be considered under the rule of homonyms? 

 Luhe answers the first question in the negative; the second in the 

 affirmative. My own view is directly opposite in both cases. As for 

 the masculine, feminine, and neuter names, I fall to find any justifi- 

 cation for rejecting one in case another already exists. In English 

 we use the words Count and Countess, Prince and Princess ; in German : 

 König and Königin, Kaiser and Kaiserin, etc. ; in French : Cousin and 

 Cousine, Lapon and Laponne ; in Latin : Fundanius and Fundania, etc. 



1) Weinland, 1858, designated Taenia amhigua as type species. 



2) Braun, 1900, p. 1675, has followed Luhe, and has rejected 

 Proteocephalus, 1858, because of the family name Proteocephala, 1828. 



Zool. Jahrb. XY. Abth. f. Syst. 22 



