94 CH. WARDELL STILES AND ALBERT HASSALL 



1860, Thecosoma Moquin -Tandon, Éléments Zool. méd., Paris, 

 p. 342. SchistosomaWeiiûâïid [nec Schistosomus G. St. Hilaire, 1837, 

 genus in teratology] renamed. 



[811, ((Bilhartzia)) of Sonsino, Comp. rend. Congrès internat, 

 sci. méd., 5^ session, Genève, p. 652, Misprint ior Bilharzia. 



1895, « Schistosomum Weinland ))of R. Blanchard, Les i/emafo- 

 zoaires, II, p. 40. 



This genus is almost imiversally adopted, altliough many 

 authors(l) still cling to the synonyms Gynœcophorus and Bilharzia. 

 We cannot admit that the similarity of a name used in teratology 

 {Schistosomus) is a valid reason for rejecting a generic term 

 [Schistosoma) in systematic Zoology; furthermore, even if a name 

 in teratology were granted equal rightsin Zoological nomenclature, 

 with generic names, we would not reject Weinland's name, since 

 we consider that the endings in this case are sufTiciently distinct 

 to render the m both valid. 



Schistosominae Stiles & Hassall, 1898. New subfamilly. 

 1858, Family Gynsecophora Weinland, Human Cestoides. An 

 Essay, etc., p. 87. — Type, Schistosoma Weinland. 



Diagnosis : Dioecious FascioUdae. — Type, Schistosoma Weinland. 



Schistosomum see Schistosoma. 



Schisturus see Podocotyk. 



Sphserostoma Rudolphi, 1809. — Type, Fasciola bramae MùUer, 

 1776. 



1809, Sp/iéeros^oma RuDOLPHr [nec (2) Macg., 1844], Entozoorum 

 hist. nat., II, I, p. 39. 



Rudolphi proposed this genus as foUows : « Quae corpore piano, 

 quaeque tereti utantur, gênera non separanda, limites enim certi 

 vix adsunt ; sed species plurimae (potissimum in piscibus obviae) 

 poris globosis, maxime que mobilibus, saepeque extantibus muni- 



(1) Rcgarding the continued use of Bilharzia and Gyna;cop/iorvs by autbors 

 who refuse to use Schistosoma, we can only remark that to us it scems either 

 that every author must use the carliest available name as is provided for by ail 

 generally adopted codes of nomenclature, or that « every author may use any 

 name he pleases ». If the former alternative is followed, as is imperativc if we 

 wish an international System of nomenclature, Schistosoma is the name to be 

 used; if the latter method is followed, we fail to see the pcrtinency of the 

 remarks which hâve been made against the use, by those who prefcr it, of the 

 name Schistosoma. 



(2) Sphœrostoma Macg., 1844, MoUusk. 



