A discussion of certain questions of nomenclatiire, as applied to parasites. ]89 



and combinatioDS of the words in the Latin and Greek lexicons; let 

 US rather take a practica! example. 



In Looss' paper (1899) he proposed sixty-one generic names for 

 new genera which he recognizes. Of these, ten names (namely : Ästia, 

 Anadasmus, Baris, Creadium, Enodia, Leptalea, Megacefes, Micro- 

 scapha, Polysarcus, and Stomylus) or about sixteen and four-tenths 

 per Cent, are absolutely identical with names proposed in zoology for 

 other genera, and must be changed or dropped ; eight other names, or 

 thirteen and one-tenth per cent (namely : Äcanthostomum, Dolichosomum, 

 Haematoloechus, Lepoderma, Liopyge, Progonus, Psüostomum, and 

 Stephanostomum) differ from zoological names proposed by other authors 

 in the ending and should according to many nomenclaturists be re- 

 jected. Thus with the alleged inexhaustible supply of classical names 

 at his disposal from which to select, a total of eighteen names, or 

 twenty-nine and five-tenths per cent, of the generic names proposed 

 by Looss were already more or less exhausted. Other authors have 

 had similar experiences. It may be recalled that Looss during his 

 entire scientific career has thus far proposed less than one hundred 

 generic names, and if we recall that ten of these are unquestionably 

 still-born homonyms, and that eight names are doubtful homonyms, we 

 can imagine the difficulties under which some of our other colleagues 

 labor, notably entomologists like Ashmead, whose generic names run 

 into the hundreds. 



That many men should complain of the difficulty of finding avail- 

 able names is not to be considered stränge, and when we consider 

 that zoologists have scarcely commenced to name the living 

 and extinct genera and species, it is not unreasonable for us to take 

 refuge now and then, in all sorts of devices, such as patronymics, 

 barbarous names, transpositions, arbitrary combinations of letters, etc., 

 in Order to find a nomen which Stands in less danger of being sup- 

 pressed as a still-born homonym. I am not especially devoted to 

 patronymics, still I fail to appreciate the grounds for arguing against 

 them. Our first consideration in nomenclature should be stability; 

 all other considerations are secondary. 



The most that we can demand of a name is that it shall be a 

 pronounceable combination of letters, in Latin form. Now let us com- 

 pare Athesmia and Brandesia, names of two genera discussed by 

 Looss. Wherein is the combination of letters A-t-h-e-s-m-i-a better 

 than the combination B-r-a-n-d-e-s-i-a ? The fact that the former 

 happens to be derived from a Greek word meaning law less, the 



Zool. Jahrb. XV. Abth. f. Syst. i o 



