20 
proposed T. angulata as type, the case comes under § 7 of the Strick- 
landian code, which states: ‘‘ Provided, however, that if these authors 
select their respective types from different sections of the genus, and 
these sections be afterward raised into separate genera, then these 
names may be retained in a restricted sense for the new genera, respec- 
tively.” Thus as long as Liga and Dilejns are considered generically 
or subgenerically identical, Liga^ 1857, takes precedence over Dilepis^ 
1858; but if Liga and Dilepis are recognized as generically distinct, 
both names are available (but not necessarily valid) for the respective 
genera or subgenera. 
In determining the type of ILymenolepis we have before us a case 
of practically the same nature. Weinland has definitely designated 
Tdenia omirina as type of Lepidotrias^ but he has placed Ilymenolepis 
ilavopunctata in this subgenus. The genus Ilymenolepis itself is 
based directly wpon fiavopunctata^ as is clearly shown by the reference, 
‘‘Gen. 1. Hymenolepis Weinland (see § 68),” for § 68 is the discussion 
of II, jlavop>unctata,, and this reference “ (see § 68)” can, and I believe 
it should, be interpreted as designation of the type. Thus, if Ilymen- 
olepis jiavopunctata l^—T. diminuta) and Tsenia murina {—T nano) are 
congeneric, lepidotrias is synonym of Ilymenolepis; but should these 
two species ever be recognized as generically distinct, both names are 
available in determining the valid names of the respective genera. 
In 1896 1 ilavopunctata— diminxita as type of Ilymenolepis,, 
basing my action on the above interpretation, but not publishing the 
details. 
At that time* the fact had escaped my attention that Blanchard (1891a) 
had mentioned T. murmct=T. nana as type. Blanchard’s reasoning 
was apparently based on the view that Ilymenolepis had been divided 
into two subgenera, both of the latter having type species; hence either 
murina or angidata should be type of Ilymenolepis. 
There is a certain amount of justice in this point of view, and it 
must be admitted that one of Weinland’s (1861, pp. 1-21) papers lends 
considerable support to it. Still this interpretation does not appear 
to correspond altogether with Weinland’s earlier publications or inten- 
tions. In chronological sequence Weinland’s text (§ 68) was surely 
written before his footnote. The fact that he consistently combined 
ilavopunctata^ but no other species, with IIymenolep>is is significant. 
Further, if Jlavojntnctata is taken as type of Ilymenolepis^ the name 
lepidotrias is not hopelessly suppressed, while if murina— nana is 
taken as type of Ilymenolepis we needlessly forfeit all use of Lepido- 
trias unless Hymenolepis should eventually prove to be a homonym. 
In order to obtain the views of other zoologists who have made a 
special study of the principles involved in determining type species, I 
have laid this case, with the original literature in question, before Drs. 
Merriam and Palmer (mammalogists and ornithologists), Dr. Stejneger 
