178 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



and would become valid, 1) if both Hemiurus and Apoblema 

 should prove unavailable by the rule of homonyms, or 2) if 

 Hemiurus sbould be subdivided, with appendiculatus in one 

 genus and sluiteri in the other. Eurther, if Hemiurus were 

 divided into two svibgenera, and sluiteri was not in the same 

 subgenus as appendiculatus, Hemiurus {Hemiurus) would be 

 the first available and hence valid name of the subgenus con- 

 taining appendiculatus ; while Hemiurus (Eurycoelum) would be 

 the first available, hence valid name of the subgenus contain- 

 ing sluiteri. 



The following example illustrates the same principles applied to 

 specific names, and at the same time shows the effect of the careless 

 use of name. 



1899. Haematoloechus similis Looss. Not available. 



1899. Dist. simile Looss, p. 602. Unavailable because of Hist. simile 



SoNsiNo, 1890. 

 1899. Haematoloechus similis Looss, p. 602. Unavailable because of 



the still-born homonym Hist. simile. A new specific name should 



be proposed. 



This is one of the best illustrations I have seen for some time 

 of the necessity of a careful study of and attention to names. Looss 

 proposed the binomial Haem. similis for a new species which he had 

 separated from H. variegatus. The name similis would have been 

 available (and in this case valid) for his form, had he not mentioned 

 that he had sometime before used — but not published — the name 

 Hist. simile for this new worm. By citing in this place the useless 

 combination Hist. simile for this species, Looss brought into the 

 World a still-born name, since it is homonym of Hist. simile 1890, 

 and, thereby, invalidated and rendered unavailable the name Haem. 

 similis. 



Unavailable names are usually either homonyms or cases of mis- 

 determination. The above cases illustrate the unavailable homonyms ; 

 the following example illustrates a name which is unavailable because 

 of misdermination : 



L Cittotaenia pectinata (Goeze, 1782). Present adopted name. 



1781. Taenia acutissima Pallas. Two opinions may be advanced as 

 to whether this name is available. Goeze evidently considered 

 it identical with his form T. pectinata; according to the views 

 expressed on page 167, it would therefore be available unless 

 some one can show that acutissima is not identical with ^jec- 

 tinata. On the other band, by the A. 0. U. Code (Cannon XLV: 



