A discussion of certain qiiestions of nomeuclature, as applied to parasites. 191 



ordinarily recognized generic relationships are known. It is, however, 

 open to far more serious censure than the case of the monkey, for 

 the specific narae of the latter may be absolutely ignored on the ground 

 that no tangible clue is given to the characters. With Lyperosomum, 

 however, a difference of opinion may arise. The wording Looss has 

 used is ambiguous. It would enable him to claim (were he so dis- 

 posed) that he has proposed the genus Lyperosomum^ in case this should 

 prove to be a valid geuus; but it is equally possible for him or any 

 one eise to claim that he did not propose it, in case it should turn 

 out to be invalid. The question arises : What is the Status of Lypero- 

 somum ? 



Both Looss and I have already committed ourselves on cases of 

 this natura, in connection with Sphaerostoma. Looss maintains that 

 ßuDOLPHi simply mentioned Sphaerostoma incidentally and should not 

 be held responsible for it. I maintain that Rudolphi should be held 

 responsible for the genus. I also maintain that Lyperosomum and 

 Anadasmus raust be attributed to Looss, 1899. Any other ruling 

 upon these cases leaves open the door for the widest difference of 

 opinion in numerous cases. When a name is published, with a 

 tangible indication to it, that name must be recognized and its author 

 held responsible for it. There is a tangible indication to both Lypero- 

 somum and Anadasmus as there is to Sphaerostoma^ hence Looss 

 must be held responsible for the former as Rudolphi is for the latter. 



It is certainly a matter to be regretted that my esteemed friend 

 and colleague Looss, or any one eise, should follow such a custom as 

 he has done in these two cases. If he does not think the time is 

 ripe to recognize the groups as genera or subgenera, it would be 

 better for him to content himself with indicating their relationships, 

 and leave the future to decide what name should be proposed. Looss' 

 action in these two cases is only explainable by recalling bis admis- 

 sion on p. 523, namely, that he is not in a position to judge the 

 difficulties which have arisen in nomenclature. 



In view, however, of his high standing as the greatest authority 

 on the anatomy of the FascioUdae who has ever lived, I would sub- 

 mitin a most respectful and friendly spirit, yet at the same time, in 

 the most positive manner possible, that it is his duty to inform him- 

 self upon these difficulties before lending the example and weight of 

 his authority in support of nomenclatural propositions, rulings, and 

 customs which are calculated to increase confusion in the chaos ot 

 names into which zoologists in different specialities are endeavoring 



13* 



