204 CH. WARDELL STILES, 



ceedingly plausible case, an argument which has undoubtedly already 

 carried conviction to many persons, and for which I express a very 

 high appreciatioD. Admitting for the moment that he is in the right, 

 and that I and Hassall are in error, has Looss been justified in 

 rejecting Campula which he declares is not identical with Opisthorchis^ 

 but which he asserts is identical with his new genus Brachycladium ? 

 It would indeed appear that in making out such a strong case against 

 US, he has not followed up his success by keeping his own ruling 

 relative to Campula entirely free frora criticism. 



Now, let US examine the exact Status of Campula. That Cam- 

 pula was not described by Cobbold in 1859 in so exact a manner 

 as Looss describes his genera, may be admitted without question. 

 That Cobbold in 1878 determined specimens from Platanista gangetica 

 as identical with his Campula ohlonga of 1859 from Phocaena com- 

 munis, and that he figured them quite clearly, may, without any in- 

 justice to anyone, be construed as a later effort to raore definitely fix 

 the genus Campula or rather the species C. ohlonga. Now it appa- 

 rently did not occur to Looss that Cobbold might have had two 

 species before him in 1859. It appears quite certain, however, that 

 the specimens of Campula ohlonga collected by Hassall from 

 Phocaena communis., and determined by Cobbold, contained two 

 species. One of these species was in my possession when I asserted 

 with Hassall that Campula could not be separated at present from 

 Opisthorchis. That specimen was an Opisthorchis. It has unfortu- 

 nately been lost during my two years absence on foreign Service. 

 Since my return another specimen has been found and mounted, and 

 that is unquestionably generically identical with Distoma palliatum 

 hence a Brachycladium. 



Accordingly, it would appear that the case is not quite so clear 

 as would seem from Looss' argument, Both his and our positions 

 are open to criticism, Our position is weakened because of the un- 

 fortunate loss of the auto-type (specimen determined by the author 

 of Campula ohlonga as identical with his species), the specimen upon 

 which we made our assertion, hence my inability to prove the correct- 

 ness of our study by a drawing of that specimen. Furthermore, it 

 is weakened by the fact that, as Looss has pointed out, Cobbold's 

 description applies in reality more closely to Brachycladium than it 

 does to Opisthorchis. Finally, and most important of all, the fact 

 that at the time I examined Cobbold's specimen, and, indeed, until 

 a very short time ago, I was under the Impression that I had before 



