DETERMINATION OF GENERIC TYPES, ETC. 43 



Tentacularia Zeder, 1800; type subcompressa, 1803 = lymphatica, 1793, renamed; Ten- 

 tacularia was given as a new name for the monotypical genus Hamularia, 

 1793; in 1803, Zeder added a second species; subcompressa wonld also be type 

 if page precedence were followed. 



Tetrameres Creplin, 1846 = the monotypical genus Tropisurus Diesing, 1835, renamed. 



Tnchinella Railliet, 1895; type spiralis; monotypical and further equals a mono- 

 typical genus Trichina, 1835 [not 1830], renamed. 



Trichocephalos Goeze, 1782; type trichiura; Trichocephalos is an earlier monotypical 

 genus Trichuris, 1761, renamed; the whipworm of man would also be type 

 by page precedence. 



Trichosomoides Railliet, 1895; type crassicauda; this is a new name for the mono- 

 typical genus Trichodes, 1874 [not 1782]. 



Tropidocerca Diesing, 1851; type paradoxa; this is a new name for the monotypical 

 Tropisurus, 1835 [not 1824], and Tetrameres, 1846; and is itself monotypical. 



Slightly more complicated cases may next be given: 



Cochins Zeder, 1803, is a new name which Zeder proposed for Gcezia, 1800, because 

 Rudolphi objected to naming worms after men. It is clear, therefore, that 

 Cochins, 1803, equals Gcezia deliberately renamed, hence the type of Goezia 

 should be taken as the type of Cochins. Neither genus is monotypical, nor 

 was a type originally designated. In 1800, Zeder mentioned two species: 



[Cucullanus ascaroides Goeze, 1782] examined by Zeder. Rudolphi 1801, 57, named 

 it Goezia armata. 



Goezia inermis Zeder, 1800, examined by Zeder. Rudolphi, 1801, transferred this 

 species to Liorhynchus; Zeder, 1803, transferred it back to Cochins. 



If page precedence were followed, armata would be type of Gcezia; 

 and if elimination were followed strictly, armata would be type by 

 elimination in 1801. Zeder, 1800a, 98, says: " Da nun der Goeze'sche 

 Rundwurm [armata] aus dem Welse mit mebreren Eingeweidewiir- 

 mern von verschiedenen Gattungen verwandt zu sehrj scheint, ohne 

 jedoch die karakteristischen Kennzeichen einer Gattung ganz zu tra- 

 gen; so nahm ich um so weniger Anstand ihn in einer eigenen Gat- 

 tung aufzustellen, indem mein verehrungswiirdiger Lehrer Herr Prof. 

 Schrank [1788, 98] schon lange hiezu Winke gegeben hat. Und .diesen 

 Schritt rechtfertigt gewiss eine Entdeckung, welche ich im vorigen 

 Jahre gemacht habe." 



From this quotation it seems clear that it was armata which came 

 into prime consideration in establishing Go&zia, and since, further, such 

 an interpretation agrees with page priority, and in 1801 with elimina- 

 tion, we construe armata as type of Goezia; since, now, Cochlus is simply 

 a new generic name for Goezia we construe the same species as type 

 of Cochlus. 



Nemato'xys Schneider, 1866, contained the same two species (and no 

 other) which were the two and only original species of the genus Cos- 

 mocerca^.'LSQl. No valid objection can therefore arise to the ruling 

 that Nematoxys, 1866, is identical with Cosmacerca, 1861. In both 

 cases, if page precedence were followed, ornata would be type. As 

 Diesing, 1861a, gave commutata as species inquirenda, it would appear 

 that ornata should be taken as type of Cosmocerca. Having now two 



