A discussion of certain questious of noruenclaturc, as applied to parasites. 205 



nie an original of 1859, ^Yhereas I had only an auto-type collected 

 some years later. 



Looss' proposition is weakened by the fact that he deliberately 

 proposed Brachycladium for the genus in which he claimed Campula 

 oblonga belonged; furthermore by the fact that Cobbold later de- 

 termiued two species froni Phocaena communis as members of his 

 species Campula ohlonga. 



The case of Campula^ Opistliorchis^ and Brachycladium^ has thus 

 become somewhat complicated. Nevertheles, it is clear what should 

 be done. The first point is, that since I was laboring under a niis- 

 apprehension in 1898 in supposing that I was dealing with an original 

 1859 speciraen of Campula ohlonga, and in reality therefore based 

 n»y Statements upon an erroneous preraise, the ruling that Opis- 

 thorchis is synonymous with Campula miist be rejected unless it can 

 be supported by the production of an uoquestionably original specimen 

 of 1859. Since this can not at present be done, I recede from the 

 ruling and acknowledge that there is at present no reason for as- 

 suming that Campula and OpisthorcJiis are congeneric. In other 

 words, I accept Looss' view unreservedly in this particular, and 

 admit the ruling of 1898 to be rendered valueless by its erroneous 

 premise. 



I am unable however to accept Looss' (1899) view that Campula 

 1859 is to be rejected. He himself admits it to be congeneric with 

 Brachycladium^ 1899, hence the latter name must naturally be sup- 

 pressed in favor of the former. Accordingly Opisthorchis Blanchard, 

 1895, should be reinstated, and Brachycladium falls as a synonym of 

 Campida ^). 



23. The date borne by a publlcation is to be assumed to 

 be correct, until it is proyed to be iiieorreet. 



Many Journals are supposed to be issued on certain specified 

 dates and they bear the dates in question upon their cover. Yet 

 circumstances frequently result in delaying the publication by a day 

 or a few months. In this way it occasionally arises, that one paper 



1) Since writing the above, a paper has appeared by Braun (1900) 

 in which he comes to exactly the same conclusions relative to re- 

 establishing Opisthorchis and suppressing Brachycladium. — Looss, 

 1901, p. 209, also accepts Campula. 



Zool. Jahrb. XV. Abth. f. Syst. 14 



