DETERMINATION OF GENERIC TYPES, ETC. 75 



Round worm genus. Doubtful homonyms. 



Pin-in* Bastian, 1865 r . Plectus by Scudder, 1882, p. 269, possibly 



earlier. 



fPolijporus Gruby, 1840 Polypora M'Coy, 1844, pol. ; Mosel, 1876, 



coelenterate. 



Proboscidta " Bruguiere, 1791 " Proboscidia Bory, 1824, rotifer. 



Proleptus Dujardin, 1845 Prolepta Walk., 1851, hemipteron. 



Pterocephalus Linstow, 1899 Pterocephala Swains., 1839, fish. 



Pterocephalia Roam., 1852, crustacean. 



Rhabditis Dujardin, 1845 Rhabdites Haan, 1825, mollusk.. 



Spiliphera Bastian, 1865 Spilophora Bohem., 1850, cqleopteron. 



Spilophorus Lac:., 1856, coleopteron. 



Spilophora, Bastian, 1865 Spilophorus Lac., 1856, coleopteron. 



Spironoura Leidy, 1856 Spirnra E. Blanchard, 1849, nematode. 



Stenuras Dujardin, 1845 Stenura Dejean, 1834, coleopteron. 



Stenuris Kirby, 1837, coleopteron. 



Strongylus Mueller, "1780," 1784 Stroggulus Motsch, 1845, coleopteron. 



Synonchus Cobb, 1894 T . . . Synonycha Chevrolat, 1833, coleopteron. 



Trirli hia Owen, 1835 Trichinia Bisch. , ? date, worm. 



Try china Klug., ? date, for 



Trychine Klug., ? date, coleopteron. 

 Trichodefs Linstow, 1874 Trichotis Felder, 1874, lepidopteron. 



Trichoda Huebner, 1806, lepidopteron. 



Trichosoma Rudolphi, 1819 Trichosomus Swains., 1839, fish; Chevro- 

 lat, ? 1881, coleopteron. 

 Trichuris Roederer & Wagler, 1761, 1762 . . Trichurus Wagner, 1843, for 



Trichosurus Lesson, 1828, mammal. 



Trichura Huebn., 1816, lepidopteron. 



Trichiurus Linnseus, 1758, fish. 



IHcfa'wra'Steph., 1829, lepidopteron. 



Tricoma Cobb, 1894 Tricomia Walk., 1865, lepidopteron. 



Trlpula Bastian, 1865 



Tripyla Bastian, 1865 Tripylus Phil. , 1845, echinoderm. 



Uracanthus Diesing, 1861 Uracantha Hope, ante 1846, coleopteron. 



Judging from published opinions, Braun, Looss, and many other 

 authors would probably construe most of these names under the Rule 

 of Homonyms. One of the points advanced in favor of so doing is 

 that these names, if used as basis for family and subfamily names, 

 might give rise to homonyms in groups higher than genera. This 

 point hardly appears to be so important as might at first seem, for it is 

 the exception rather than the rule that a family has but one genus, 

 and if it has two genera, and one of its generic names is a doubtful 

 homonym, the other generic name could be used as basis for the famih T 

 and subfamily names. 



Judging from von Linstow's position on absolute homonyms, he 

 would doubtless accept doubtful homonyms as available. Jordan, 

 Everman, Ashmead, and a number of other authors, including our- 

 selves, accept names of this class on the ground that a difference of a 

 single letter in two names precludes the possibility of their being 

 identical, hence they can not be homonyms. (See Art. 36, Internat. 

 Code.) 



