174 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



No serious inconvenience appears to arise from tlie use of these terms 

 in the various languages, and it is not clear that the similar use of 

 different genders would cause trouble in zoology. Names are either 

 the same or not the same. If the same, they are homonyms and only 

 one is available; if not the same they are not homonyms, and both 

 (ceteris paribus) are available. Until it is shown that the masculine, 

 feminine, and neuter names are the same (identical), I fail to see why 

 they are homonyms, and not wishing to complicate nomenclature by 

 restrictions which have not yet been shown to be necessary, I would 

 unquestionably favor the admission of Tetracotplus and Tetracotyle^ 

 or even the imaginary case cited by LtJHE : Bothriocephalus, Bothrio- 

 cephala, and Bothriocephalum. These are all different combinations of 

 letters, hence different names (not identical), hence all admissible. 



Again, to consider masculine, feminine, and neuter generic names 

 as homonyms results in increasing the chances of unnecessarily chang- 

 ing specific names. Suppose, for instance, we have three generic names 

 X-us 1820, X-a 1825, and X-um 1830, with the following species: 

 X-us albus, 1840 X-a alba, 1850 X-um album, 1860 

 X-us niger, 1850 X-a nigra, 1860 X-um nigrum, 1870 



Let it be assumed that all six species are valid. If, now, it is 

 decided with Blanchard, Jentink, and the ornithologists, that X-us, 

 X-a, and X-um are homonyms, not only must the generic names, 

 X-a and X-um be changed, but also the four names X-a alba, X-um 

 album, X-a nigra, X-um nigrum. Thus it is within the limits of 

 possibility that six names are changed at one stroke while we are 

 considering only three genera and six species. 



On the other band, if the genders are recognized as forming 

 distinct names, all of the specific names above given would (ceteris 

 paribus) be valid, This hypothetical case is an extreme one, but it 

 represents a possibility. There can be no question but what many 

 specific names will be endangered if we follow the ornithologists. Why 

 should we take this unnecessary risk? 



It would not be pertinent to the case to reply that great con- 

 fusion would arise if we attempted now to recognize Distoma and 

 Distomum in worms as two separate genera. Had they originally 

 been proposed as separate genera, there is no reason to assume that 

 difficulties would have arisei'. Dis'Oma is due to unjustifiably chang- 

 ing the name of Fasciola; Distomum is due to the pernicious System 

 of alleged emendation. If emendation is permitted, naturally the en- 

 tire argument in favor of recognizing the three genders as three 



