A discussion of certain questions of nomenclaturc, as applied lo i)arasites. 203 



since it is apparent that when he clairas priority for Lecithodendrium^ 

 1896, over Brachycoelium, 1845, and that when he maintains that in 

 selecting a type for Brachycoelium "a nccessary prerequisite would 

 be that the species [in his discussion D. heteroporum] should not be 

 placed in LecitJiodendrium,^'' he has argued the case without due con- 

 sideration of the numerous points involved. Furthermore, since he 

 overlooks the universally recognized rule that after a type has once 

 been designated, no one can change to another type without showing 

 that at the time of designation the species in question was not avail- 

 able as type. His referring to the case also, as a "nomenclatural 

 doctorate-question" shows plainly that the principles involved, and the 

 necessity and broad application of those principles have, for the moment, 

 escaped his memory. 



22. The case of Campula^ Opisthorchis, and Brachy- 



cladium. 



In Note 48, the opinion was expressed that Campula was generic- 

 ally identical with Opisthorchis, hence the latter was made a synonym 

 of the form er. Braun (1898) and Looss (1899) diifer from this opinion, 

 Looss giving his reasons for the position he takes. 



In connectiou with the subject at issue, the following points may 

 be noticed: Cobbold in 1859 proposed Campula for a distome found 

 in Phocaena communis, possessing digestive caeca which "instead of dis- 

 playing the dendritic character of the Fascioles, otfer a peculiar zigzag- 

 like form". In 1878, he determined certain worms from Platanista 

 gangeüca as identical with his Campula ohlonga, but, concluding that 

 the genus was not well founded, named them Distoma campula. Looss 

 admits '■'Distoma campula'''' as a typical Opisthorchis, but believes 

 that '^ Campula oblonga''' is an entirely different species. He also 

 lays considerable stress on the fact that Cobbold himself rejected his 

 own genus Campula — a point which to my mind is of no consequence 

 whatever, since Cobbold no longer possessed any rights over Campula 

 different from the rights possessed by other authors. 



Looss then argues that Cobbold's Campula oblonga is generic- 

 ally identical with Distoma palliatum, for which he now erects a new 

 genus, JBrachycladium, despite his own assertion that this species is 

 congeneric with a genus (Campula) already proposed by Cobbold. 



In his argument that Campula is not congeneric with Opisthorchis, 

 Looss has indeed, as must be frankly admitted. put forward an ex- 



