182 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



the identity of the forms they described, with genera and species pre- 

 viously described by earlier authors, new and unnecessary names have 

 been introduced into science. Linnaeus and Rudolphi are two of the 

 prominent ofienders in this respect. The introduction of new names 

 is always to be avoided, when such name is not justified with ref- 

 erence to preexisting names but the fact that an author has proposed 

 a name which later falls as a synonym or perhaps as a homonym 

 should not be judged too harshly; for many circumstances, perhaps 

 not all of which are known to the reviser or reviewer, come into con- 

 sideration. Several of the names recently proposed (December 30, 

 1899) by Looss fall, because Braun (Dec. 7, 1899) and Luhe (Dec. 29, 

 1899) proposed names covering the same genera. For any one to 

 critisize Looss for these Synonyms would be unreasonable. The exercise 

 of more good faith, when judging others' writings would enhance the 

 value of the publications of some authors. 



15. The (lates of ßUDOLPHl's species and genera. 



There is a decided lack of uniformity among authors in quoting 

 the dates of Rudolphi's genera and species. Many of his 1801 — 3 

 species are quoted as 1810, while all of his 1814 species are usually 

 quoted as 1819, Such lack of uniformity is unfortunately calculated 

 to produce confusion, and sets an example which is not free from 

 criticism. 



If a species was originally published in 1803 or 1814, why give 

 it the date 1810 or 1819 and thus increase the chances of its rejec- 

 tion by the rule of homonyms? A species or genus should be given 

 its correct date, not an artificial one. This applies to Rudolphi's 

 genera also. Braun i) (1900, p. 1660) for instance prefers to adopt 

 1810 as date of Bothriocephalus rather than 1808. 



Such a ruling, however, is contrary to evidence, hence it cannot 

 be admitted. The one reference to Bothriocephalus on p. 111, Ru- 

 dolphi, 1808, is sufficient to hold the generic name to that date even 

 if Rudolphi had not made anatomical references to the genus in other 

 parts of his 1808 volume. The motive which leads Braun to his dis- 

 cussion is that it was not until 1810 that Rudolphi gave a diagnosis 

 for Bothriocephalus. Such a view, however, raakes a dangerous pre- 



1) "Eine Diagnose giebt Rudolphi aber erst im zweiten, 1810 er- 

 schienenen Theil des zweiten Bandes desselben Werkes und damit er- 

 scheint mir die Bedeutung von Bothriocephalus erst festgelegt." 



