A discussion of certain qucstions of nomenclature, as applied to parasites. 183 



cedent. For instance, Looss published in 1896 in connection with 

 certain species, the three generic names Lecithodendrium, ProstJiometra, 

 and Fletironectes. He did not give a generic diagnosis of Lecitho- 

 dendrium and Pleuronectes until his 1899 paper, and has not yet done 

 so for his Prosthometra, yet if Braun adopts 1810 for Bothrioeephalus, 

 consistency should lead him to adopt 1899, instead of 1896, for 

 Lecithodendrium and Pleuronectes. Likewise he could rule that his 

 own genera of 1899: Paragonimus, Phyllodistomum, and Harmostomum, 

 and Lühe's genera of 1899: Telorchis, Prostliogonimus, etc., were not 

 published on those dates, for it is difficult to see a sharp distinction 

 between the cases. True, types were proposed for Braun's and for 

 all but one of Lühe's genera, but not for Looss' genera and for one 

 of Lühe's genera. 



Quite aside from the desirability of giving a generic or specific 

 name the earliest possible date permissible, in order to decrease the 

 chances of its being rejected under the rule of homonyms, it is ex- 

 ceedingly dangerous to adopt a precedent such as Braun has tried to 

 establish in connection with Bothriocephalus. 



16. Method of proposing a new geniis or species. 



Having been obliged to perform so much bibliographic and indexing 

 werk during the past ten years, a great Impression has been made 

 upon me relative to the different methods followed by authors in their 

 publications ; and in the hope that these observations may be of use 

 — to students at least if not to older workers — some of the more 

 important may be reviewed here. The writer feels confident that his 

 colleagues, especially those whose names are mentioned, will accept 

 these Suggestion s in the sarae spirit in which they are presented, — 

 namely as an effort to eliminate so far as possible, those features of 

 helminthological writings which have a constant tendency to render 

 our nomenclature unstable. As a matter of fact, here lies the root of 

 half the evil in errors and changes of nomenclature. 



The more cautious author will conform as nearly as possible to 

 the following: 



L General remarks regarding the article. 



1) The title of an article should first of all be descriptive; sec- 

 ondly, as short as possible. The latter point should, however, be 



