202 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



Looss, but frora the work and reputation of both men, the fact that 

 they insert a cirrus in any given drawing, diagrammatic or otherwise, 

 and give to that drawing the name of a certain species, is prima 

 facie evidence that I must assurae good faith on their part and 

 consider that they saw a cirrus pouch or some structure which they 

 interpreted to be such. It may further be added that a cirrus pouch 

 is described by Düjaedin, 1845, p. 405 i), and is also referred to by 

 Parona, 1896, p. 15 2) in connection with a form taken as synonymous 

 with D. crassicoUe. 



From the above discussion, from which I have endeavored to 

 eliminate the subjective eleraent so far as possible, it will be seen 

 that I maintain that all due care was exercised in selecting D, crassi- 

 coUe as type of JBrachycoelium in 1896. Unfortunately I was not 

 aware of Looss' Lecithodendrium, but had I known of it, I should 

 certainly not have selected D. heteroporum as type of Brachycoelium, 

 since such an action would have been more likely at that time to 

 jeopardize Lecithodendrium thau would the selection of D. crassicoUe. 



Under the circumstances, D. crassicoUe was the most natural 

 species to select, for it was not apparent why any other species should 

 be better selected, and in selecting D. crassicoUe the ruling was made 

 in accordance with the views of those systematists who believe either 

 in page precedence or in selecting the oldest species. While I am not 

 a believer in either of these latter views, still unless in any given 

 case I can show why they should not be followed, I am willing for 

 harmony's sake to adopt them. 



In reviewing the entire subject, and giving all due consideration 

 to the views advanced by my friend Looss, I can not escape the con- 

 clusion that whatever difficulty may arise in this case is due solely, 

 entirely, and absolutely to the manner in which Lecithodendrium was 

 proposed in 1896, and to the fact that Looss failed at that time to 

 fulfiU the conditions he would have fulfilled, had he not feit it neces- 

 sary to admit (see Looss, 1899, p. 523): "That also in other speci- 

 alities of zoology similar practical difficulties arise is not impossible, 

 still I have no judgement in regard to the matter." 



After this review of the case, it will hardly be necessary to dis- 

 cuss in detail the views which Luhe, 1899, p. 536, has advanced, 



1) "Penis assez mince, replie dans un receptacle peu volumineux, 

 courbe en avant et applique au cote droit de la ventouse". 



2) "Cirro non bene distinto et racchiuso in borsa ovale". 



