196 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



coDstrue Rudolphi's citation in this case as being the work of "the 

 first reviser", and as indicating that Schisturus — not being preceded 

 by a mark of interrogation (Rudolphi, 1819, p. 425) — should be 

 construed as a definitely fixed narae, to be recognized 

 as generic as soon as nigroflavum was taken outof the 

 gen US Distoma. Foreseeing such a possibility, especially on the part 

 of younger students, we endeavored to inhibit such action until Schis- 

 turus paradoxus should be shown to be identical with D. nigroflavum. 

 If it is ever established that such is the case, no doubt can possibly 

 arise as to the rehabilitation of Schisturus^ and we see no reason for 

 retracting our words. If the identity is never established, Schisturus 

 is not entitled to priority. Personally, I did not then and de not now, 

 See any probability that this synonymy, adopted by Rudolphi, will 

 ever be established; this does not, however, entirely relieve us of the 

 responsibility of considering the naine Schisturus. We did not attempt 

 to reestablish Schisturus as the valid (gültiger) name for Podocotyle^ 

 but simply indicated it in its proper place as a doubtful synonym, 

 warned against its rehabilitation on insufficient grounds, and indicated 

 the necessity of holding the name in mind. The name is not a 

 nomen nudum; it is accompanied by a diagnosis and four figures, 

 and a type (only) species; its fate hangs on the fate of that species. 

 It is, therefore, not entirely clear to me wherein Looss and I diflfer 

 in principle in regard to this case. 



31. The case of Brachycoelium and Lecithodendrium, 



Looss (1899, p. 611—614) heartily disapproves of the action taken 

 by Hassall and myself in designating Distoma crassicoUe as type of 

 the genus Brachycoelium and asks which name is valid, the insuffi- 

 ciently defined older name (Brachycoelium) or the sufficiently diagnosed 

 younger name (Lecithodendrium)? He also refers (p. 647) in con- 

 nection with this case, "to the inconvenience resulting from the mere 

 designations of typical representatives for insufficiently and absolutely 

 undetermined genera" and ends his discussion (p. 614) with the ex- 

 clamation: "Therefore, care in selecting typical representatives!" 

 From the discussion it would appear that Looss considers that we 

 had designated D. crassicoUe as type, without due consideration of the 

 factors involved, and Luhe (1899) apparently takes the same view. 

 Under these circumstances, it may be well to examine carefully the 

 exact Status of the case. 



