60 BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



Some systematists would maintain that since in^rmis was placed in 

 Liorhynchus in 1801 it can not come into consideration as type of 

 Gcezia, and it is immaterial to these authors whether the transfer was 

 a correct one or not. 



(c) Some authors hold that if the transfer had been made by Zeder 

 (the author of Croszia), the species could not be considered as type, 

 but having been made by another than the author of Goezia it is still 

 available as type. 



(d) Other authors maintain that if, in the opinion of the author who 

 wishes to establish the type of Goezia, Rudolphi's transfer of inermis 

 was not correct from a systematic standpoint, this form can be returned 

 to Goezia for the purpose of establishing the type. 



(e) We have personally been inclined to follow the plan that, if some 

 author has already transferred an eliminated species back to the 

 original genus, we would consider it on the same basis as if it had 

 never been taken out of the genus. 



(/) The A. O. U. Code provides for "restricted elimination," as 

 quoted above, p. 17. 



In view of this wide divergence of opinion, it is probably better to 

 take a middle ground for the present and to divide the question of 

 transfer into a rule and a recommendation. The rule covers the 

 species selected as types of other genera (see p. 58), and the recom- 

 mendation covers the other cases. Hence, 



13. PREFERENCE TO BE SHOWN TO SPECIES NOT SUBSEQUENTLY CLASSIFIED IN OTHER 



GENERA. 



RECOMMENDATION. If some of the original species of a genus have 

 later been classified in other genera, but not designated as their types, pref- 

 erence should be shown to the species still remaining in the original genus 

 in selecting its type. 



It may be readily admitted that this recommendation does not go 

 far enough for certain cases, but the advisabilit} r of making it stronger 

 at the present time seems doubtful. It is a middle ground, which can 

 not be objected to as far as U goes. It is not denied that it does not 

 go far enough to meet the views of certain very able men whose 

 opinions upon the point at issue are valuable. The following cases 

 are of interest in this connection: 



Ascaris Linnaeus, 1758, originally contained two species: 



vermieularis, transferred to Oxyuris, 1803, by Bremser, 1819. 



lumbricoides, generally accepted as type of Ascaris; type of Lombricoides, 1821. 



The nomenclatural considerations in connection with Ascaris are 

 rather complex. (1) It might be maintained that, with authors prior 

 to 1758, Ascaris referred to Ascaris vermieularis rather than to Ascaris 

 lumbricoides, hence that the former should be taken as type. It is not 

 necessary, however, to go back of 1758 in deciding the question, but, 



