44 
Subspecies ECHINOCOCCUS GRANULOSUS MULTILOCULARIS (Leuckart, 
1863), 
1856: Die multi loculiire, ulcerirende Echinokokkengesckwulst Virchow, 1856, 84-95. 
1863: Echinococcus multilocularis Leuckart, 1863, 360, 369, 370, tig. 110; Blanchard, 
1886a, 447. 
1868: Tumeur hydatique alveolaire Carriere, 1868a; 1869a. 
1875: Echinococcus multilocularis hepatis Haffter, 1875a, 362-371. 
1883: E. alveolar is Klernrn, 1883, not accessible; Blanchard, 1886a, 447. 
1886: ? E. racemosus Leuckart, 1886, 795, tig. 334. 
1896: E. multilocularis ex ulcer ans Huber, 1896a, 506. 
1896: E. osteoklastes Huber, 1896a, 506. 
1905: Tsenia echinococcus alveolaris (Klemm, 1883) Deve, 1905, Jan. 27, 128. 
There is some difference of opinion in regard to the status of the 
multilocular echinococcus, some authors regarding it as specificall} 7 
identical with the type form, others regarding it as distinct. From 
the views advanced, and because of its geographic distribution, it 
seems to me that this form may be given subspecific rank at least, and 
that it will probably be eventually recognized as of specific rank. 
REJECTION OF NAMES. 
Art. 32. A generic or a specific name, once published, can not be 
rejected, even by its author, because of inappropriateness. Exam- 
ples: Names like Polyodon , Apus , dibits, etc., when once published, 
are not to be rejected because of a claim that they indicate characters 
contradictory to those possessed b}' the animals in question. 
Discussion. — It is not infrequent that authors reject a name because 
the} 7 consider it nondescriptive or inappropriate, but the code does not 
recognize this as sufficient reason for such action. In this connection 
it is essential to recall that names are not definitions; they are simply 
handles by which objects are known. When an animal is known as 
albus , this name does not necessarily mean that the animal is white, but 
the combination of the letters a-l-b-u-s is simply a designation by which 
this animal is known. 
This view appears very illogical, at first sight, to nonzoologists, but 
it is not so illogical as it may seem. On the contrary, it corresponds 
to everyday experience. If a man has the name Black, Green, or 
Brown, we do not change it on the ground that he is white, nor do we 
change the name of a negro named White simply because his skin is 
black. The nomenclaturalist sees no more reason for changing names 
of animals because they are not descriptive than other people do in 
case of family names of persons. 
In a name we do not look for a summary of the characters of an 
animal; that summary we expect to find in the description, known 
technically as the u diagnosis. 1 ' 
The fact that u Amcebd coli ” was reported for other parts of the 
body than the colon has no bearing on the nomenclature of the species', 
