^fiscellaneous. 453 



The "^enus " Fasciola was founded by Linnreus (' Fauna Suecica,' 

 ed. ii. (Holmite, 1746), p. 505, no. 2075) for Fasciola hepatica ovata, 

 hy which name no fewer than three species are meant: — Distomum 

 Jiepaticum, Abild». ; Dendrocoshim lacteum, Oerst. ; and Schisto- 

 cephahis solidiis, Rud. It follows therefore that a Trematode, a 

 Turbellariiin, and a Cestode are equally entitled to be termed 

 Fasciola, if under these circumstances Fasciola can stand as a 

 generic name. There can, however, surely be no doubt that a 

 generic name which at the same time denotes a Trematode, a 

 Turbellarian, and a Cestode is nonsense from a scientific point of 

 view. No idea is conveyed by the word, but to this modern 

 systematists apparently attach no importance. 



Let us see how the name Fasciola was subsequently applied : — 

 Fasciola intestinalis, \Anr\2&\xs, = Ligala digramma, Creplin ; Fasciola 

 alata, B^udol^thi, = Hemistomum alatum, Diesing ; Fasciola excavata, 

 Diesing,^= Hemistomum e.ccavatum, Diesing ; Fasciola striyis, Gmelin, 

 = Uolostomum vannbile, Xitzsch ; Fasciola subclavata, Schrank, = 

 Diplocliscus subclavatus, Diesing ; Fasciola has been used to designate 

 fifty species of Distomum. 



Fasciola hepatica, ^\\W.ev, = Amphistomum conicum, Rudolphi ; 

 Fasciola verrucosa, Schrank, = ilfonos^o»iMm verrucosum, Zeder ; 

 Fasciola uncinata, Gmelin, = Pol>/stomum integerrimum, Rudolphi ; 

 Fasciola harhata, Linnsens, = Rhgnchobothrium ixileaceam, Rudolphi ; 

 Fasciola truttce, Roederer, = 7'/-i(c»op^ori«s nodulosns, Rudolphi; 

 Fasciola marmorosa, Miiller, = Tetracelis marmorata, Hempr.&Ehrg. ; 

 Fasciola glauca, Miiller, = Monocelis glauca, Diesing ; Fasciola lactea, 

 Miiller, = PZanan« lactea, ^[iiller. 



This is the result of the foundation of the genus Fasciola by 

 Linnaeus ; the definition of Fasciola is a flattened worm, which 

 tapers at both ends. 



Loess discusses the question whether in applying the law of 

 priority we should go back to Liunreus, 'Systema Natura3,' ed. x. 

 1758, or to Rudolphi, 'Synopsis,' 1819, and decides in favour of 

 the latter year, since Rudolphi was to a certain extent the founder 

 of scientific helminthology, and the only means of interpreting the 

 obscure old descriptions correctly is the study of the types. He 

 holds, however, that, as a general rule, the introduction of old and 

 unknown names not hitherto in use is a retrograde step, and that 

 disinterred anticjuities should not again bo employed. 



As a matter of fact, when we, only in accordance with the law of 

 priority, write Vesicaria truttcp instead of Tcenia longicollis, Halysis 

 latus instead of Bolhriocep>halus latus, Lumbricus teres instead of 

 Ascaris lumbricoides, Gordias medinensis instead of Dracunculus 

 medinetisis, Filaria locustce instead of Oordius aquaticus, Cucullantis 

 raiue instead oi Strong glus aitricidaris, and To'.nia Jurntca instead of 

 Echinorhijnchus angustatus, satisfaction has been rendered to the 

 right of priority. Not all the species here mentioned are the first 

 and typical ones for which the old genus was founded ; but it 

 was only a question of showing what a confusion of ideas is occa- 

 sioned by the old names, and with the growing modern inclination 



