200 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



reason seemed apparent for our not conceding page-precedence, hence 

 we selected D. crassicoUe as type. 



But to turn to another phase of the question: we made our 

 selection without knowing of Looss' Lecithodendrium. The question 

 therefore arises, would our selection have been different if we had 

 known of that genus? To decide this point we must turn to Looss, 1896. 



In 1896, Looss proposed a genus "auquel on pourrait peut-etre 

 reserver le nom Lecithodendrium'^'' to contain the species: D. glandu- 

 losum, D. hirsutum, D. chefrenianum, D. pyramidum, D. ohtusum, 

 D. sphaerula, D. ascidia Beneden (= D. lagena Brandes nee Rud.), 

 D ascidioides, and probably also D. {Brachycoelium) heieroporum. 



Regarding this proposition, it may be notieed : 1) that it was made 

 in the text of an article 250 pages long, and the name is not con- 

 tained in the index (pp. 251 — 252); 2) Looss himself did not use the 

 genus in connection with a Single species which he included in it (see 

 Looss, 1896, pp. 64 — 86); 3) no diagnosis was given; 4) no type was 

 designated; 5) the name was even proposed with reserve. In other 

 words, it was purely a matter of luck and chance, if an author 

 examining Looss' süperb paper should happeu to discover that a genus 

 Lecithodendrium had ever been proposed, and even then one might 

 suggest that Looss only said that the name Lecithodendrium "might 

 perhaps" be used, or that it was incidently used, as Looss Claims 

 RuDOLPHi used Sjihaerostoma; Braun in his review of Looss (1896) 

 discovered the name; Stossich (1899) also discovered it; Hassall 

 and I failed to discover it. Further, 6) all of the species Looss in- 

 cluded in his Lecithodendrium come within the generic diagnosis of 

 Brachycoelium, 1845, and since this latter subgenus was mentioned in 

 so many modern papers, there are no grounds for assuming that it 

 was unknown to Looss ; 7) yet, Looss did not show wherein his genus 

 differed from Dujardin's Brachycoelium, and so far as any thing 

 contained in Looss' paper is concerued, an author would be perfectly 

 justified in suppressiug Lecithodendrium in favor of Brachycoelium. 



In other words, in proposing Lecithodendrium, Looss failed to do 

 what he should have done to insure his genus, namely, he should 

 have given it a diagnosis, showing wherein Lecithodendrium and Brachy- 

 coelium differed, and he should have designated types for both genera. 

 Having, in addition to these omissions, published the genus in a way 

 (in the text) calculated to aid other workers to overlook it, and 

 having failed to connect the name with a Single specific name he 

 intended to consider in connection with it, it would appear that my 



