The assignment of author for Dinophilidae has been uncertain and still is, with at least four authors used in print, namely Schultz, von Graff, Verriill, and Remane. However, relevant works for the first two suggestions (Schultz & von Graff) cannot be found, and the earliest verifiable usages of Dinophilidae for genus Dinophilus are Macalister (1876) and Carus (1885). The most modern author is Remane, in respect to his articles published in 1925 or 1932. He was regarded as the author in influential reviews (e.g., Fauchald 1977, Fauchald & Rouse 1997), but there were much earlier usages than Remane. Fauvel (1927) and Hartman (catalogue 1959) both assigned the authority to a person named only as 'Schultz', with Fauvel giving no date, and Hartman giving a date of 1852 for the authorship. However, no relevant article by a Schultz writing in 1852 can yet be found (including not in the Royal Society Catalogue of papers), although there is an article of 1902 by a Schultz on a Dinophilus. However, it does not mention Dinophilidae, and in addition Dinophilidae was used decades before that time. However, Hartmann-Schröder (1996: 287) attributed Dinophilidae to Schultz, 1902. Fifty years earlier Max Schultze (with an 'e') wrote a 1851 turbellaria article which mentions Dinophilus on three of its pages, but the mentions are incidental, and there is no mention of Dinophilidae. His other 1850's articles do not mention Dinophilidae. Verrill (1892) wrote a short article on the Dinophilidae of New England (Dinophilidae in the title), and recently he has been credited with authorship of the family in Westheide (2008: 128) and Kerbl et al (2018: 1, 2). However, there are earlier usages. Macaliister (1876) "An introduction to animal morphology and systematic zoology" includes Dinophilidae as a member of Rhabdocoela in Platyhelminthes. Carus (1885: 168) "Prodromus Faunae Mediterraneae ..." has Dinophilidae in nemerteans and with authorship credited to von Graff (no date). No such usages have been found in von Graff articles. Graff (1882), in a Turbellaria monograph, mentions Dinophilus (is not an annelid) but does not use Dinophilidae. Possibly the earliest user of 'Dinophilidae' is yet to be found. However, as Macalister (1876) is the earliest authenticated author/user his name is used here, and more importantly the first date for Dinophilidae is at least 1876. Macalister's contemporaries around 1876 are unaware that a family for Dinophilus exists, and were more interested in the possible relationships of the genus, so the Macalister designation aappears likely original, not copied, although his stated sources in his introduction are well-known biologists of the time. Poor verification of previous author's claims, and incomplete citations, have unnecessarily confused the history of this name. The multiple phyla involved in the history also add to the difficulty of tracking usages.
Carus, Julius Victor. (1885). [vol 1 of] Prodromus Faunae Mediterraneae sive Descriptio Animalium maris Mediterranei incolarum quam comparata silva rerum quatenus innotiut adiectis et nominibus vulgaribus eorumque auctoribus in commodum zoologorum. Vol. I. Coelenterata, Echinodermata, Vermes, Arthropoda. [Book]. i-xi, 1-525. E. Schweizerbarfsche Verlagshandlung (E. Koch). (Copepoda pp.318-378), (Annelida pp. 196-281). available online athttps://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12560479
Schmidt, Oscar 1857. Zur Kenntnis der Turbellaria, Rhabdocoela und einiger anderer Wuermer des Mittelmeeres. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 23(2): 347-366, plates 1-5. available online athttp://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36386704
Verrill, A.E. 1892. Dinophilidae of New England. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 8: 457-458.
Westheide, W. (2008). Polychaetes: interstitial families: keys and notes for the identification of the species. Synopses of the British fauna (New Series), 44 (second edition). Field Studies Council: Shrewsbury, UK. ISBN 978-1-85153-271-1. VII, 169 pp.