A discussion of certain questions of nomenclature, as applied to parasites. 175 



separate words falls, as does also the letter of the law of priority 



itself. 



Taking this position defines my view regarding Proteocephalus and 

 Froteocephala without further argument. The question, however, 

 arises : suppose both had been Froteocephala ? Could a generic name 

 Froteocephala, 1858, be used when a family name Froteocephala, 1828, 

 existed? To decide this case, which involves the question whether 

 identical family and generic names come under the rule of homonyms, 

 we must first consider precedent and then see whether any good 

 reasons have been advanced to justify us in not following the estab- 

 lished usage. Consulting the Codes of nomenclature, we find that none 

 of them maintain that the law of priority is to be strictly applied to 

 any group higher than genera; also that nearly all of them distinctly 

 provide that a generic name cannot be used in case the same name 

 has been used for some other genus or subgenus (family is 

 not mentioned) in the same kingdora. We fail to find any code which 

 ^xcludes the use of a word as a generic name in case the same word 

 has previously been used to designate a higher group. The A. 0. U. 

 Committee, in fact, distinctly states in its report : "Generic names not 

 to be invalidated by use of same name for a higher group." This 

 same principle applies to species. By almost general consent, the 

 use of a given combination of letters as a specific name does not 

 invalidate the use of the same combination as a generic name 

 {Trutta trutta). 



Not finding sufficient precedent or sufficient reason for applying 

 the rule of homonyms reciprocally to generic names and those of 

 higher groups (note that family names are not used in combination 

 "with specific names), it is necessary to differ with Luhe and Braun 

 in this matter and to accept the precedent of the majori ty. Further- 

 more, I fail to find any necessity for attempting to overturn the cur- 

 rent usage or any arguments which would suffice to do so. 



8. An apparent exception to the law of priority. 



The attention of helmin thologists may well be directed to an 

 apparent exception to the lex prioritatis made in their favor, and 

 severely criticised, by zoologists of other groups, as an inconsistency. 

 Keference is made to VII, § 3 b, of the German and English editions 

 •of the report of the International Commission, § 35 of the French 

 edition, which reads: 



12* 



