50 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



Dispharagus was proposed by Dujardin (1845a, 42, 69-82) with the 

 following species: 



laticeps (Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 71. 



tennis Dujardin, 1845a, 73. Species inquirenda in Stossich, 1891. 



subula Dujardin, 1845a, 73-74. Species inquirenda in Stossich, 1891. 



attenuatus (Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 74-75. 



nasutus (Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 75. 



qnthuris (-Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 75-77. Type of Acuaria, 1811, 

 Anthuris, 1819, and Spiroptera, 1819. 



truncatus (Creplin, 1825) Dujardin, 1845a, 77. To Spiroptera by Diesing, 1851, 

 and Molin, 1860. 



bidens (Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 77-78. 



decorus Dujardin, 1845a, 78, pi. 3, fig. K. To Histiocephalus, 1851. 



quadrilobus (Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 79. 



laticaudata (Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 79. To Histiocephalus, 1851. 



bicuspis (Rudolphi, 1819) Dujardin, 1845a, 79-80. 



brevicaudatus Dujardin, 1845a, 80. To Histiocephalus, 1851. Species inquirenda 

 in Stossich, 1891, and Molin, 1860, 500. 



denudatus Dujardin, 1845a, 81, pi. 3, fig. G. To Histiocephalus, 1851. 



cystidicola (Lamarck, 1801) Dujardin, 1845a, 81-82; = Cystidicola Fissula 

 cystidicola Bosc; =0phiostoma cystidicola (Bosc) Rudolphi, 1809; = Spirop- 

 tera cystidicola (Bosc) Rudolphi, 1819. 



Thus Dujardin deliberately introduced a new name (Dispharagus) 

 for a genus for which he was perfectly aware there were two earlier 

 names ( Cystidicola, 1798, and Fissula, 1801) available; he also included 

 in this group the type (anthuris) of a genus (Anthuris) which appar- 

 ently he and all other helminthologists have overlooked. We main- 

 tain that the t} 7 pe of Dispharagus should be selected (p. 47) from the 

 included types (anthuris and cystidicola farionis)^ and since Dujardin 

 (1845a, 69) had the gastric parasites of birds particularly in mind in pro- 

 posing this genus, preference is here shown to anthuris over farionis. 



It seems that the ruling here followed, of type by absolute tautonymy 

 combined with the rules of type by inclusion, disposes of the generic 

 names in question in a far more satisfactory manner than the indefinite 

 method of type by elimination. The rule of absolute tautonymy is 

 certainly inherently just, and once this is acknowledged, a rule is avail- 

 able which can be followed objectively; the rule of type by inclusion 

 exists since 1846 (see p. 15) and is fully in harmony with the law of 

 priority. A combination of the two rules in this case disposes of a 

 very complicated combination of conditions which, ruled upon from 

 other points of view open up numerous chances for differences of 

 opinion. The type selected is one found in a common host and there- 

 fore not especially difficult to obtain; it further satisfies the rule o r 

 page precedence for authors who follow that rule. The possible objec 

 tion that it disposes of two well-known generic names, Spiroptera and 

 Dispharagus, is of less importance than at first appears, for neither of 

 these genera is of very much importance in either human or veterinary 



