NO. 1105. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 209 



Of course our efforts at classification are experimental we all admit 

 that; but from the very nature of things all efforts at classification in 

 practically unknown groups are and must be experimental. The classi- 

 fications must be changed time and again as new facts are discovered. 

 Nor have our experiments (or, as Meyner puts it, "derartige Experi- 

 inente") counted upon immediate general recognition (allgemeine Aner- 

 kenuuug) ; it was not with that end in view that we published them. 

 We do not expect to see our proposed classifications adopted by zoolo- 

 gists at large until they have stood the test of other specialists in 

 helminthology. We have not heard as yet, however, of any marked 

 disapproval of the genera proposed from workers who were acquainted 

 with the forms and who were competent to pass judgment on the case. 

 When such authors propose a better classification, they can certainly 

 count on IHauchard, Eailliet, Hassall, and myself as four helmintholo- 

 gists who are ready to follow them. At present, however, I maintain 

 that the classification originally proposed by Blanchard and since that 

 time considerably expanded by Eailliet, Hassall, and myself is a far 

 more natural and satisfactory classification oi the forms treated than 

 any other classification ever proposed for the same forms. I am fully 

 convinced, after a study of several thousand specimens, that the main 

 features of the proposed division will stand, although the details of the 

 system may undergo some changes. Helminthologists, as a class, are 

 ultra-conservative in every line except species-making and yet as long 

 as the Eudolphi-Diesing school exerts such a powerful influence in wield- 

 ing the yardstick instead of the microscope, perhaps this generic con- 

 servatism should be looked upon as a blessing. 



A third error of Meyner's is that he does not understand the views 

 which he has attempted to criticise, or the relative rank of the groups 

 proposed, and he ascribes to authors propositions which they never 

 made. Thus he states (page 6) : 



Diese Anoplocephalinen theilt er (R. Blanchard) dann init Riicksicht auf die Anord- 

 nung der Geschlecktsorgane in 3 Unterfamilien [!] ein und zwar (1) Genre Moniezla 

 * * * ; (2) Genre Auoplocephala * * * ; (3) Genre Bertia 



Meyner thus makes the terms subfamily and genus synonymous 

 rather a novel idea in systematic zoology; he accredits (page 8) Blauch- 

 ard and Eailliet with a family "Anoplocephalen," although he states 

 a few lines before that Eailliet accepted "Anoplocephaline" as a sub- 

 family. Upon the same page he speaks of Bertia as a genus and Cteno- 

 tcenia and Andrya as "Arten." It does not seem to me at all strange 

 that our efforts should "fail totally in their object" with a worker who 

 confounds such terms as species, genus, subfamily, and family. 



A fourth error into which Meyner has fallen in the passage quoted 

 is the assumption that we have taken only a few species into consid- 

 eration in making our classifications. True, we have not felt called 

 upon to give a list of all the species of cestodes with which we have 

 acquaintance, either through personal study or through the publications 

 Proc. N. M. vol. xix 14 



