A discussiou of ceitaiu questions of nomenclature, as applied to parasites. 207 



these dates as correct. Prof. Spengel writes me that Looss' paper 

 was not distributed until January 4, 1900. In view of the conflict- 

 ing evidence, and in view of the unfortunate circumstance connected 

 with changing the date of Looss' genera and species to 1900, it 

 appears best to adopt the dates decided upon by Braun and Luhe. 

 It is therefore necessary to give Lühe's paper priority by one day 

 over Looss' 1) paper. 



The question might be raised that ,both Spengel and Carus, as 

 editors of the two Journals, might have received copies of the Jour- 

 nals earlier than other persons, and hence should not be taken into 

 consideration; that, on the contrary it should be required that sorae 

 other person should have the Journal and should have received it 

 through a book-seller. These points, which as a matter of fact have 

 been raised by one of my colleagues, cannot be recognized as free 

 frora objection. So far as the private libraries of these two editors 

 are concerned, the point may be acknowledged as applying both to 

 Carus and to Spengel. So far, however, as the library of the 

 Zoological Institute of either Giessen or Leipzig is concerned, the 

 fact that Spengel is connected with the University of Giessen, Carus 

 with the University of Leipzig, cannot be interpreted as depriving 

 these two universities of the Privileges enjoyed by other public in- 

 stitutions of learning. If any public library in either Giessen or 

 Leipzig could show a record that it had received a copy of Looss' 

 paper on December 28, I should unhesitatingly adopt that date. 



1) Looss in two papers just published, objects to this ruling. 

 Nearly all of the questions which he raises in connection with pri- 

 ority, date of publication, nomenclature etc., have been discussed in 

 detail in connection with other groups, so that it seems hardly neces- 

 sary to repeat all the arguments here. I agree with Looss fully that 

 it does seem unjust to give Lühe's paper priority over his own, but 

 precedents of this natura have been established on a basis which 

 eliminates the subjective element as far as possible. A paper is not 

 "published" until it is open to the public. No other circumstances 

 need be taken into consideration in establishing its date. Suppose for 

 instance that both Looss and Lühe's papers were printed on the same 

 day, and bore the same date but that the entire edition of Looss' 

 article had been accidentally burned — such a case is possible — 

 Looss' present arguments would hold as well under those conditions as 

 under the present. Lühe's paper, by the Statement of Looss' publishers 

 was open to the public earlier than Looss'. The date of publication 

 on the papers on both cases is incorrect. All of these points may be 

 found by studying the history of nomenclature. 



14* 



