A disciission of certain questions of nomenclatiire, aß applied to parasites. 195 



translating bis Latin specific name into a Greek generic name Sphae- 

 rostoma. 



No speculation is needed to understand the case; all that is re- 

 quired is an examinatiou of the diagnosis given by Rudolphi, and a 

 knowledge of zoological customs and precedents; and on the basis of 

 these there is no question in my mind but that globiporum should be 

 selected as type of Sphaerostoma. 



It may here be added that, before Publishing this case in 1898, 

 it was submitted to two of the most experienced nomenclaturists living, 

 to see if, perchance, they would riile differently from the way I had 

 decided. Both men agreed with me that Sphaerostoma was published 

 in such a way that it could not be ignored, and that there was no 

 question but that globiporum was the most natural species to select 

 as type. 



Looss further takes the ground that, according to the law of 

 priority, Sphaerostoma Rudolphi should be rejected because it is not 

 "recognizably defined or indicated". As seen from the above, I find 

 it necessary to maintain that this genus is recognizably indi- 

 cated, hence tbat it is subject to the law of priority. Our positions, 

 therefore, are diametrically opposed, 



A curious part of Looss' discussion is that he apparently does 

 not see the enormous advantage of dating a genus 1809, when pos- 

 sible, instead of 1899, — thus reducing the chances of a later change 

 of name. 



20. The case of Schisturus Rudolphi 1809. 



Looss (1899, p. 527 — 528) considers that we have gone too far 

 in connection with the generic name Schisturus, and suggests that if 

 Rudolphi, 1819, were accepted as starting point, all such early names 

 would at once be removed from consideration as nomenclatural 

 Problems. 



Looss has evidently misunderstood us. It was our purpose to 

 collect all generic names which in any way came into consideration 

 with the Fasciolidae. Rudolphi (1819, p. 425) cites Schisturus in the 

 synonymy of Disfoma nigroflavum, and this fact made it obligatory 

 upon US to enter Schisturus in our hst. Having found the name in 

 this connection, it was necessary to define its Status; this we did in 

 no uncertain terms; and it is difficult to see how Looss can object 

 to the ruling we made. Many authors might have been inclined to 



