rhy “ Pies Seen: Ree it et oI moter * ed tie wh Ger sae i opt ies oa | Wee - Wee ; ns iyi ew ae rh Fig deli? , ate a ! ye bee aa alt Hinde : Ua OA fs ? THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 3 Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instrucions recieved from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1950 (All rights reserved) VOL.3 A iii THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION — U.N.E.S.C.O. — for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume VOL.3 a2 a INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Infe President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (Ist January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ist January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (Ist January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold KE. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (Ist January 1947) Professor Bela Hanko (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (Honorary Life President) (27th July 1948) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) C. The staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. 8. Pankhurst Publication Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7, England, vii MEMORANDA AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND BY THE SECTION ON NOMENCLATURE DURING THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY 1948 Note by the President of the Section on Nomenclature, Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 At their final Plenary Session held on Tuesday, 27th July 1948, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology approved a proposal submitted by the Section on Nomenclature, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, that the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature should be requested, inter alia, to publish in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” the memoranda and other documents which had been considered by the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature during the Congress. 2. Immediately after the close of the Congress, the foregoing request was submitted to the International Trust who decided to reserve the present volume (volume 3) for this purpose. 3. The memoranda and other documents now published formed the basis for a large part of the discussions which took place both in the meetings of the Commission and in those of the Section on Nomenclature. They form therefore an essential part of the documentation of the work performed in Paris both by the Commission and by the Section on Nomenclature and constant reference to them is made in the Official Record of the Proceedings both of the Com- mission and the Section (shortly to be published in volumes 4 and 5 respectively of the present journal). 4. In the course of discussion the proposals recorded in the present volume were in many cases modified or expanded in various directions, while some were rejected. It is important therefore to realise that the documents published in the present volume contain a record only of the proposals submitted to the Commission and the Congress. They do not contain a record of the conclusions reached by the Commission or of the decisions taken by the Congress. Every decision that was ultimately so taken by the Congress was taken on the joint recommendation of the Commissicn and of the Section on Nomenclature. A detailed record of every such decision is given in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission, to which therefore reference should be made by zoologists anxious to ascertain the terms of any of the decisions in question. The Official Record of the Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature contains a full record of the action taken by the Section on recommendations submitted by the Commission. It will be seen that where in any given case the Section on Nomenclature indicated its desire that a particular recommendation should be modified, the matter was referred back to the Commission. Agreement was reached in every case, and in consequence the final conclusion reached by the Commission (as recorded in its Official Proceedings) represents the proposal agreed upon with the Section (as recorded in its Official Proceedings) and subsequently unanimously approved by the Congress in Plenary Session. FRANCIS HEMMING President, Section on Nomenclature, Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris. July 1948 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1. MEMORANDA AND REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AT THE SESSION OF MEETINGS HELD BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION DURING THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CON- GRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY 1948 Document No. Subject Page 1.C.(48)1 AGENDA FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN PARIS IN JULY 1948 i. re 1 (1) The work of the International Commission during the period 1936-1948, with special reference to the administrative and financial problems of the Commission. . Ae: rc o aid i: 1 (2) Composition of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and method of nomi- nating members... ay a os a 2 (3) Procedure of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature Be is a at 2 (4) Meaning of the expression “ nomenclature binaire ” as used in the Reégles Internationales: Special Report to be submitted to the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology... ee hie 3 (5) Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique : proposals for consolidation and amendment .. 3 (6) Applications submitted to the Commission in regard to individual problems of zoological nomenclature 4 (7) Report to be submitted by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Thirteenth International ache of iio Paris, 1948 . te : 4 x Document No. Subject 1.€.(48)2 REPORT BY FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., SECRETARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMIS- SION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURH, ON THE WORK OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMIS- SION DURING THE PERIOD 1936-1948 1.¢€.(48)3 THE COMPOSITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COM- MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND THE METHOD OF NOMINATING ITS MEMBERS I. Introductory II. Historical Sketch III. The Recommendations of the Executive Committee 1.€.(48)4 THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE 1.C.(48)5 THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION ‘“ NOMENCLAT- URE BINAIRE” AS USED IN THE REGLES AND ACTION, PROPOSED FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE REGLES IN REGARD THERETO 1.C.(48)6 REGLES INTERNATIONALES DE LA NOMENCLA- TURE ZOOLOGIQUE : PROPOSALS FOR CON- SOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT 4" Part 1. Directions in which it is proposed that improve- ments should be introduced into the Reégles Inter- nationales (a) Incorporation in the Regles of interpretations of existing Articles given by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in ‘“ Opinions ” already rendered (6) Important questions of nomenclature where the meaning of the existing provisions in the Regles is in dispute Page cr 6 16 bo bo 24 Se I TE OE Em Document No. Subject LC. (48) 6 (c) Minor questions on which there are either no (continued) provisions in the Régles or where there are provisions but there is doubt as to their implications (d) Matters on which the existing provisions in the Régles are' mandatory but which should clearly be in the nature of recommendations (e) Matters connected with nomenclature and nomenclatorial practice on which decisions have been taken by the International Con- _ gress of Zoology but those decisions have not been incorporated in the Régles (1) Matters connected with nomenclature (2) Matters connected with nomenclatorial practice (f) Defects in the Régles due to careless or inexpert drafting a: a ee RE (1) The relation of the “ coy ee g the Régles (2) Grammatical inconsistencies (3) Drafting difficulties due to the confusion of taxonomy with nomenclature .. (g) Need for completion of the substantive French text of the Régles ; aa we (i). Need for securing accurate translations in English and other languages of the substantive French text of the Régles Part 2. Proposals as to the machinery to be devised for securing the formal incorporation in the Régles of such changes as eto be decided pe Ki the Paris Congress ‘ vi xi Page 25 26 27 27 27. 27 27 28 28 28 29 xii Document No. Subject 1.C.(48)7 PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF PROVISO (a) TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE REGLES IN REGARD TO THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION “INDICATION” AS AP- PLIED TO GENERIC NAMES . I. Petition from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America Il. Recommendation submitted 1.C.(48)8 PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 35 AND 36 OF THE REGLES IN RELA- TION TO SPECIFIC HOMONYMS I. Historical Introduction .. II. Gaps and ambiguities in the existing provisions of Articles 35 and 36 III. Analysis of the major types of homonyms IV. Requirements of a satisfactory solution VY. Main solutions which have been suggested Proposal (1). The permanent replacement of all homonyms whenever they are discovered ; Proposal (11). The permanent replace- ment of primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined with the tem- porary replacement of secondary homonyms only if discovered when, and for the period during which, homo- nomy exists Proposal (111). The temporary replacement of both primary and secondary homo- nyms if discovered when, and for the period during which, homonymy exists Proposal (IV). The permanent. replace- ment of both primary and secondary homonyms, but only if discovered when the condition of homonymy exists Page 43 46 Document No. Subject 1.C.(48)8 Proposal (V). The permanent replacement (continued) of primary homonyms whenever dis- covered, combined with the permanent replacement of secondary homonyms, only if discovered when the condition of homonymy exists VI. Conclusions and recommendations (a) Suggested restriction of the term “ nom spécifique ”’ (specific name) and the _ adoption of the term “‘ nom spéci- fique trivial” (specific trivial name) ee ap ne (6) Definition of, and distinction between, primary and secondary homonyms (c) Procedure for replacement of homo- nyms (i) Primary homonyms .. (ui) Secondary homonyms (d) Subgeneric names in relation to specific homonymy (ec) Treatment of subspecific names in rela- tion to specific and eee homonymy (f) Exemption for the trivial name of a nominotypical subspecies (g) Deletion of the expression “ of the same origin and meaning ” in paragraph (3) of Article 35 ES et Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations 1.C.(48)9 ON THE STATUS OF NAMES OF FORMS OF LESS THAN SPECIFIC RANK: (REPORT SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT LISBON IN 1935) Page 47 48 48 51 51 5D xiv Document No. Subject 1.C.(48)9 I. Introductory (continued) II. Proposed distinction in the Régles between the nomenclature of (a) subspecies and (b) infra-subspecific forms III. Proposed nomenclatorial status of names given (a) to subspecies and (b) to infra-subspecific forms respectively fe IV. Method of application of the present proposals aa V. Criteria for determining subspecific status for names published (a) before, and (b) after, the suggested prescribed date VI. Suggested “‘ Recommendation” as to the method of citing new names proposed (a) for subspecies and (b) for infra-subspecific forms .. ee a 4a VII. The general effects of the present proposal Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations 1.C.(48)10 PROPOSED CODIFICATION OF THE INTERPRETA- TION OF THE REGLES GIVEN IN OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMIS- SION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 1.¢.(48)11 INTERPRETATIONS OF THE REGLES GIVEN IN OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION : PROPOSALS IN REGARD TO CODIFICATION Be : = (1) Article 4 (Opinion 141) .. (2) Article 4: proposed addition of a Recommanda- tion to give effect to point (2) in the “summary” to Opinion 141 : (3) Article 4 : proposed addition of a Recommanda- tion to give effect to point (3) in Opinion 141 ue % te 59 60 61 61 63 69 > Document No. Subject Page 1.C.(48)11 (4) Article 8 (Opinion 183) .. = a ne 76 (continued) : (5) Article 14, paragraph (1) (Opinion 64) X. 76 (6) Article 14, paragraph (3) (Opinion 8) .. of 76 (7-9) Article 19 (Opinions 26, 27, 36, 41, 60, 63) .. 76 (10) Article 25 (status of a name based on a hypothetical form) (Opinion 2) .. oe 78 (11) Article 25 (status of a specific name bestowed conditionally) (Opinion 49) bee a 78 (12) Article 25 (status of a name which, prior to publication, was manuscript name) (Opinion 4) .. an re She i 78 (13) Article 25 (meaning of the expression “ divul- gué dans une publication’) (Opinions 15 and 51) ie : ee Pt: 78 (14) Article 25 (status of names first appearing in documents, etc., distributed to colleagues or students) (Opinions 191 and 190) Me 78 (15) Article 25 (status of names appearing in proof sheets) (Opinion 87) ie - ae 79 (16) Article 25 (status of a name published as an emendation of a previously published name) (Opinion 148) La a a ad 19 (17) Article 25 (status of names published in advance separates) (Opinion 59) .. ae 79 (18) Article 25, Proviso (a) (meaning of expression “indication ”’?) (Opinion 1) a 79 (19) Article 25, Proviso (a) (status of specific names published jointly with generic names) (Opinion 43) Vs bh ar na 80 (20) Article 25, Proviso (a) (significance of citation of a type locality) (Opinion 52) .. i 80 xvi Document No. Subject Page L.C.(48)11 (21) Article 25, Proviso (b) (status of names origi- (continued) nally published before the publication of the 10th edition of the oo uae (Onion 5) . me . 80 (22) Article 25, Proviso (6) (meaning of expression “nomenclature binaire ’’) (Opinions 20 and Se ee Rep, ae (23) Article 25, Proviso (c) (meaning of expression “ definite at aon reference ’ ) ae ton 138) Pe 80 (24) Article 26 (Opinion 3) .. Sa Bs ie 80 (25) Article 27 (Opinion 88) .. a ae ae 80 (26) Article 30, Rule (a) (types of genera having emended names) (Opinion 148) .. ase 81 (27) Article 30, Rule (a) (type of a genus published with the formula “n.g., n.sp.”) (Opinion 6 aes de = e se ae 81 (28) Article 30, Rule (c) (type of genus not intended to be monotypical but for which only one species is os cited by mia Cae Ai). 0 : 81 (29) Article 30, Rule (d) (question whether a tauto- nymous specific or subspecific trivial name need be cited in the original publication of a generic name in order to make Rule (d) applicable to that re pan ieee ee Ma ee ate! Behe: Maes (30) Article 30, Rule (d) (type of a genus established without a designated type but containing a species for which a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name is cited as a synonym of one of the included species) (Opinion 16) 81 (31) Article 30, Rule (f) (species eligible for selection as the type of a genus established as a substitute genus, where either genus, when originally established, contained species Document No. 1.C.(48)11 (continued) Subject which are recognisable but which were not on that occasion cited under binominal names) (Opinion 35) (32) Article 30, Rule (g) (interpretation parallel to that given in Opinion 35 in relation to Rule (f)) (33) Article 30, Rule (g) (types of genera established with identical limits) (Opinion 10) (34) Article 30, Rule (g) (the type of one genus not excluded from selection as the type of another genus) (Opinion 62) ie (35) Article 30, Rule (g) (types of genera not affected on union of genera on taxonomic grounds) (Opinion 164) (36) Article 30, Rule (9) (type of a genus containing only two species automatically fixed when one of the species becomes the type of a monotypical genus) (Opinion 6) (37) Article 30, Rule (g) (validity of a type desig- nation not affected if the author making the designation did so as the result of having misidentified the species so desig- nated) (Opinion 14) (38) Article 20 (identity of included species assumed to have been correctly determined by the original author of a genus) (Opinion 168) (39) Article 30 (species eligible for selection as the type of a genus published with a definition or description but with no species dis- tinetly referred thereto) (Opinion 46) (40) Article 30 (selection of types of genera in abstracts, etc.) (Opinion 172)... ae (41) Article 34 (criteria to be observed in deter- mining whether closely similar words are to be treated as identical with one another) (Opinion 147) xvii Page 82 82 83 83 83 83 83 83 84 84 yoL, 3 B xvili Document No. Subject 1.C.(48)11 (42) Article 34 (status of a generic name which is (continued) identical with a generic name which is an ,emendation of an earlier generic name) "(Opinion 148) ét ae (43) Article 34 (a substitute generic name not to be rejected on the ground that it is of the same origin and meaning as the name which it replaces) (Opinion 148) (44) Article 34 (a generic name not invalidated by prior use for an ordinal or higher eee (Opinion 102) 5 3 (45) Articles 34 and 35 (status of generic and specific trivial names when those names have been previously published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) (Opinion 145) .. 1.€.(48)12 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND- MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGZES : FIRST INSTALMENT Proposal (1). Article 8 (proposed insertion of a provision to secure brevity in generic names) Proposal (2). Article 13 (permissive use of a capital initial letter for certain classes of specific trivial names) Proposal (3). Article 14 (proposed insertion of a provision to secure brevity in specific trivial names) Proposal (4). Article 24, Example .. Proposal (5). Article 22, Recommandation Proposal (6). Article 25 (proposed insertion of a provision to secure that apparent new names (generic or trivial) or apparent new combinations due to errors in recording journals should have no status in nomenclature) Proposal (7). Article 25, proviso (b) Page 84 84 84 84 86 87 87 87 87 88 88 , : | | Document No. - - Subject Page 1.C.(48)12 Proposal (8). Article 30° (restriction of certain (continued ) portions to names published before a certain date) ¥e aS ny Me e sb 88 Proposal (9). Article 30 (need for drafting amend- ments to make clear that the provisions in this Article are concerned with nomenclature and not with taxonomy) ‘Ss a . o: 88 Proposal (10). Article 30 (formal amendment needed to correct inexpert drafting) .. sc 89 Proposal (11). Article 30, Rule (g) (case where a type is selected for a genus by an author without that author being conscious of so doing) 89 Proposal (12). Article 31 (first sentence) .. st 90 Proposal (13). Article 35 (status of a specific trivial name which is identical with a name which is an emendation of an older name in the same genus) 2 as a F Sa bee 90 Proposal (14). Terminology, etc., of types of species and subspecies... LY if ae Me 90 Proposal (15). The trivial name of a nominotypical subspecies ree ye ‘« Ste yd 91 Proposal (16). Proposed recognition of “ neotypes ” 91 Proposal (17). Proposed addition of an Article to prevent the misuse of the Réegles for the purpose of political, religious or personal offence Ne 91 Proposal (18). Citation in the Reégles, of nouns in the singular a i. if a + 92 Proposal (19). Need for removal of verbal incon- sistencies of drafting — .. a As 4 92 Proposal (20). Need for deleting from the oe meaningless repetitive phrases ... “ft 93 VOL, 3 12 xx Document No. Subject 1.C.(48)13 PROPOSED INCORPORATION IN THE REGLES OF DECISIONS TAKEN AT VARIOUS TIMES EITHER BY THE CONGRESS OR BY THE COMMISSION AND SUBSEQUENTLY EMBODIED IN DECLARA- TIONS RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION (a) Declarations relating to conduct . . (6) Declarations relating to nomenclatorial practice 1.C.(48)14. MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND- MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGLES : SECOND INSTALMENT Proposals (21). Article 8 (need for a provision to cover cases of generic names which, though complying with Section (k) of the Second Recommandation, are in fact Latin or Latinised words in some case or number other than the nominative singular) Proposal (22). Article 14 si aie addition of a Recommandation) . . ; Proposal (23). Article 15 (suggested ees of the alternative regarding the use of hyphens in speci- fic trivial names consisting of compound words) Proposal (24). Article 18 (nomenclature of hybrids) Proposal (25). Article 25 (status of names pub- lished anonymously or over initials only) Proposal (26). Article 25 (meaning of the expression “divulgué dans une publication ’’) Proposal (27). Article 25 (proposed addition of a Recommandation regarding names first pub- lished in abstracts) Proposal (28). Article 25 (proposed addition of a Recommandation relating to generic and trivial names first published in keys) .. Proposal (29). Article 25 (date of publication) Page 94 95 95 97 98 102 103 Document No. Subject Page 1.C.(48)14 Proposal (30). Article 25 (priority to be accorded (conténued) to a name published in a book or paper issued in instalments in cases where the name appears in one instalment and the description in another) .. 3 a ae bie de 4 TOE Proposal (31). Article 25, Proviso (c) (status of a specific or subspecific trivial name published after 31st December 1930 in combination with a generic name which does not satisfy the foregoing proviso). . age fe xi -. 104 Proposal (32). Appendice (proposed addition of a section indicating how names derived from words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet) .. si 105 1.C.(48)15 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND- MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGLES : THIRD INSTALMENT Proposal (33). Article 27 (need for adaptations to meet the nomenclatorial requirements of poly- morphic Protozoa) ot He Soh. de Proposal (34). Article 35, paragraph (3) (proposed addition of two further categories of names differmg slightly from one another which should be treated as identical with one another) 106 Proposal (35). Article 4 (situation where the appli- cation of this Article would produce identical family names in different groups) _... ct LOG Proposal (36). Article 5 (situation where two or more families are united) - aS ea) LOG Proposal (37). Articles 3 and 4 (need for removing ambiguities due (1) to the failure in Article 3 to define the expression “Latin” and (2) to the ill-advised use in Article 4 of the highly technical expression “ radical ’’) @ Ren LOZ Proposal (38). Article 14, paragraph (1) (adjectival trivial names to agree in gender with generic names) dy a: os Me fe ree ~XXil - Document No. 1.C.(48)15 (continued) Subject of an additional section) Proposal (40). Article 25, proviso (c) (date as from which effective) ro te a Ns Proposal (41). Second ee Section G (pro- posed correction) .. ¢ ts as Proposal (42). Article 14 (status of trivial names consisting of unchanged modern patronymics) Proposal (43). Article 14 (status of trivial names consisting of phonetic reproductions of initials of zoologists) Proposal (44). Article 23 (use of round brackets (parentheses) in cases where subgeneric names are used as well as generic names) Proposal (45). Article 25, proviso (a) (question whether the description of the work of an animal constitutes an “indication”’) .. Proposal (46). Article 25, proviso (a) (generic names based upon figures only) Proposal (47). Article 25 (authorship of names given conditionally) ad is i. Proposal (48). Article 25 (question whether the citation, in connection with a parasitic species, of the name of its host constitutes an “ indi- cation ’’) , Proposal (49). Article 25 (expression “le plus anciennement designé ’’) Proposal (50). Articles 22 and 23 (proposed rejection of certain applications received) 3 : Proposal (51). Article 25 (authorship of a name which, when first validly published, is either a manuscript name or a name already published as a nomen nudum) Proposal (52). Article 30, Rule (g) (interpretation) . be Page Proposal (39). Second Schedule (proposed insertion’: 109 109 109 110 110 110 110 110 Mh ul 111 It 111 111 111 Xxili Document No. Subject Page 1.C.(48)15 Proposal (53). Title of the Regles as amended 112 (continued) Proposal (54). Recording of decisions by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature either (1) that a given work is not available for nomenclatorial purposes or (2) that a given name or class of name (e.g., the class of name dealt with in Opinion 124) is not available) .. ne ms av, on hen LD Proposal (55). Article 4 (proposed amendment) 112 Proposal (56). Article 12 (proposed drafting amendment) iN sie 3h a ve, Le Proposal (57). Article 7 (proposed drafting amend- ment) i es ae Se a 22 ae Proposal (58). Articles 6 and 11 Be oi co- ordination). . : ‘ iP cat Ay ae Proposal (59). Article 8, Second Recommandation, Section (6) (proposed amendment) .. vay Wee Proposal (60). Recommandation to Article 36 adopted at Padua, 1930... —.... ie By Ae A) Proposal (61). Opinion 124 (proposed extension of application) = of sie 9 Daten bee Proposal (62). Status of names placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” 114 Proposal (63). A suggested “ Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology ” a 114 1.C.(48)16 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND- MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGLES : FOURTH INSTALMENT Proposal (64). Article 25 (proposal regarding trivial names when totally misleading) det! ING Proposal (65). Opinion 124 ae aia ae tary to Proposal bay ul 115 xxiv Document No. 1.C.(48)16 (continued) Subject Proposal (66). Proposed new Article relating to the functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. . Proposal (67). Status of a holotype or lectotype in relation to a poor indication or description Proposal (68). New names published in works appearing in parts: Proposal supplementary to Proposal (30) in Paper I.C.(48)14 Proposal (69). Proposed introduction into nomen- clature of the term ‘‘ pseudo-genus ” Proposal (70). Proposed adoption for ecrtain frag- ments (organites and sclerites) of fossil inverte- brates of a different nomenclature from that for living species Proposal (71). Interpretation of the Reégles by the International Commission on Zoological Nom- enclature Proposal (72). Method of amending the Regles Proposal (73). Article 35 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (34) in Paper I.C.(48)15) .. Proposal (74). Article amending and embodying the Plenary Powers Resolution, 1913 .. : Proposal (75). The problem of “ neotypes ” (pro- posed cancellation of certain sentences in Opinion 128) Proposal (76). Article 8, Second Recommandation, Section (b) (proposal supplementary to ve gi (59) in Paper I.C.(48)15) Proposal (77). Proposed insertion of paragraph numbers where an Article consists of more than one paragraph Proposal (78). Proposed subdivision into para- graphs of Articles containmg a number of sentences, each prescribing a separate regulation Page 116 116 116 117 117 Lif 117 118 118 118 119 - 119 119 * Document No. Subject 1.C.(48)16 Proposal (79). Article 30, Rule (e) (meaning of the (continued) expression “ species inquirenda ”’) rs Proposal (80). Article 30 (proposed addition of a Recommandation urging authors not to use the expression “ genotype ”’) 1.C.(48)17, MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND- MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGLES: FIFTH INSTALMENT Proposal (81). The plenary powers in relation to particular purposes se - ne Proposal (82). The plenary powers in relation to cases of confusion arising from uncertainty as to how to apply the Régles .. Proposal (83). (The composition of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Proposal (84). The By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Proposal (85). Article 28 as applied both to generic and to trivial names... ae st if Proposal (86). First Schedule (scope) Proposal (87). Second Schedule (supplementary proposals) .. ahs M3 op a: oe Proposal (88). The Official Lists of Generic and Specific Names in Zoology in relation to the Proposal (89). Proposed cancellation of certain Opinions which contain no effective decision or, by reason of their transitory character, have lost all significance ad Proposal (90). Supplementary decisions needed in regard to matters dealt with in certain Opinions before the contents of those Opintons can use- fully be inserted in Schedules to the Régles Page 121 126 127 XXvi Document No. Subject Page 1.C.(48)17 Proposal (91). Errors in certain Opinions requiring - (continued ) correction before the contents of those Opinions. are inserted in the Schedules to the Réegles .. 129 Proposal (92). Gender of names on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” .. we sot alee Proposal (93). Date of jase into force of the Régles as revised .. ‘ . «« -) ag 1.€.(48)18 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMEND- MENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE REGLES: SIXTH INSTALMENT Proposal (94). Case of identical trivial names published in different genera bearing the same name aT rr oy ve a yn ee Proposal (95). Article 25, proviso (a) (meaning of the expression “ indication ’’) (proposal supple- mentary to Proposal (18) in Commission Paper 1.0.(48)11) oe y Sh a 2.) ay ea Proposal (96). Consolidation of decision in Opinion 46 (proposal supplementary to We ose he in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11)_ . as 132 Proposal (97). Article 30, Rule (g) (to be applied rigorously) us 4 “ a Shee Proposal (98). Cases where a series of subspecies is enumerated, each preceded by a serial letter 3 ae M a ae acts Stee Proposal (99). Date of nga into force of the a as amended ; 133 Protiogal: (100). Article 34 hcenees names) and Article 35 (trivial names)! a special case :. 133 Proposal (101). Article 25 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (12) in Paper I.C.(48)11) (nomina nuda) dh i why mf vit, des Proposal (102). Article 25 (status of generic names cited in specific synonymies) .. is ook ee: Document No. a . Subject 1.C.(48)18 Proposal: (103). Generic names first published in (continued) generic synonymies t% i i 1.C.(48)19 PARTICULARS RELATING TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL CASES Proposal (1). Proposed completion of ‘ Opinions ” which fail to provide complete answers to questions submitted - Proposal (2). Proposed addition of Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the “ Official List’ (reference Opinion 82) we + x és Proposal (3). Type species of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia) (reference Opinion 92) Proposal (4). Proposed use of the plenary powers for Porina Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) * Bis LY sd Proposal (5). Phlebotomus versus Flebotomus (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) .. sis -5 ie Proposal (6). Proposed use of the plenary powers to determine the identity of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop- tera) of a ie bc ope ate Proposal (7). Type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) om wh Proposal (8). Schistosome worms and Schistosome monsters i 1.C.(48)20 DRAFT OF REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMIS- SION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 135 136 136 136 137 137 138 139 1.C.(48)21 PRESS COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE CLOSE OF ° THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, 21ST-27TH JULY 1948 154 PART 2. COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE SECTION ON NOMENCLATURE, THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY 1948. Commission’s ViGiSe bject Page reference : Z.N.(S.)362 Un point de nomenclature. Ddit-on dire Psodos et non pas Psolos Tr. (Lep. Geometridae) ? Par H. Berthet (France) .. - Ee uae Z.N.(S.)359 Two proposed alterations in the Rules of Zoological Nomen- clature By Henning Lemche (Denmark) .. ae :.. ihe Z.N.(S.)397 Les Protozoaires parasites de Homme (abstract) By Enrique Beltran (Mexico) a - io, ee Z.N.(S.)357 Sur la nomenclature des groupements supergénériques Par R. Jeannel (France) .. eS ag .. 164 Z.N.(S.)363 Les notions de grade et de pseudo-genre Par Georges Deflandre (France) _ .. Ly, 2° GBs Z.N.(S.)864 La nomenclature des fragments fossiles (organites et sclérites) d’Invertebrés Par Georges Deflandre et Marthe Deflandre- So ty (France) a 167 Z.N.(S.)365 Quelle est l’espéce type du genre Gryphaea Lamarck ? Par Gilbert Ranson (France) ae a e- 168 (Separate Sur des propositions diverses concernant des améhorations cited fer a apporter 4 certains régles en vue d’une désignation each réguliére des noms de genre et d’espéce proposition) Par le professeur Pierre Bonnet (France) 171 Commission’s Subject Page reference : Z.N.(S.)238 Z.N.(S.)359 Z.N.(S.)359 Z.N.(S.)352 Z.N.(S.)352 Z.N.(S.)352 Z.N.(S.)352 Z.N.(S.)390 Z.N.(S.)352 Z.N.(S.)356 Z.N.(S.)352 Z.N.(S.)297 and 352 Z.N.(S.)352 Propositions diverses (Proffessor F. Bonnett) (continued) Proposition 1 (proposed amendment of Article 26 to provide availability for the names pub- lished in Clerck’s Aranei svecici in 1757) Proposition 2 (proposed new Article to follow Article 27) Proposition 3 (proposed amendment of Article 34 and proposed addition of two new Articles to follow that Article) : ty Proposition 4 (proposed deletion from Article 13 of option to use capital initial letters for certain classes of trivial name) Proposition 5 (proposed clarification of Article 14 in certain respects) ie oe 7 Proposition 6 (proposed addition of a Recommandat- ton to Article 11) : zc mae Proposition 7 (proposed amendment of Article 15) Proposition 8 (proposed addition of three new Articles to follow Article 15) .. Proposition 9 (proposed insertion after Article 18 of a new Article regarding the grammatical agree- ment of the trivial name of a species with the name of the genus to which that species is referred) .. Proposition 10 (proposed addition of a new Article to follow Article 20) Proposition 11 (proposed addition of a new para- graph to Article 32 and addition of a new Article to follow Article 19) Proposition 12 (proposed addition of a new Article to follow Article 8) Proposition 13 (proposed amendment of Article 22) 173 177 178 180 181 183 184 185 188 190 191 193 19h xxx Commission’s Subject f reference : eh. fag Page Propositions diverses (Professor F. Bonnet) (continued) Z.N.(S.)352 Proposition 14 (proposed substitution of a new . Article. to follow Article 22 in place of the existing Recommandation to that Article) .. 196 Z.N.(S.)391 Proposition 15 (proposed addition of a new Recom- mandation to Article 16) x “5 ns Z.N.(S.)392 Proposition 16 (proposed amendment of concluding paragraph of Recommandation to Article 20) 198 Z.N.(S.)393 * Proposition 17 (proposed addition of a new section . + { to the Appendice) ‘; wt be P, ee Index — xs es aie ee Siecle nf x OE Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts of the present Volume me Nea als 9 a + re tee PART I. MEMORANDA AND REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AT THE SESSION OF MEETINGS HELD BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION DURING THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY PARIS, JULY 1948 VOLUME 3. Parts 1/3 14th March, 1950 pp. T.P.—xxx, 1—62 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL An NOMENCLATURE qo. ad wit The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. CONTENTS : Title Page ; Composition of the International Com- Page mission on Zoological Nomenclature ; Thanks to U.N.E.S.C.0.; Note by the President, Section on Nomenclature, Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 ; Table of Contents TP.—xxx Part 1. Memoranda and Reports submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the Secretary to the Com- mission at the Session of Meetings held by the International Commission during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (first instalment) Half-Title, 1—62, 1 pl. LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, ( and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1950 Price One pound, eight shillings. (All rights reserved) a -_ (1) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)1 AGENDA FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN PARIS IN JULY, 1948 Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In view of the fact that there has been no meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature since that held at Lisbon in 1935, the Commission will be confronted with an exceptionally heavy agenda when it assembles next month in Paris during the meeting of the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology. It is particularly important therefore that during the Paris meeting the Commission should so organise its work as to enable it to discharge the maximum amount of work in the limited time available. 2. The principal matters which will be brought before the Commission during its Paris meeting are as follow :— (1) The work of the International Commission during the period 1936-48, with special reference to the administrative and financial problems of the Commission. A Report on the work of the Commission during the period 1936-48 will be submitted to the Commission by the Secretary as Paper I.C.(48)2. This Report will describe the transfer of the headquarters of the Commission to London in 1936 consequent upon the election of the present Secretary and the administrative and financial problems which that transfer inevitably involved. It will give an account also of the measures taken by the Secretary to secure continuity during the difficult war years and the developments which it was possible to achieve during that period. The Report will also give an account of the formation since the war of a corporation under United Kingdom Law for the purpose of con- ducting the financial and business affairs of the Commission, the Commission itself, as an unincorporated body, not being in a position directly to undertake these duties. It is suggested that the Commission, when making their Report to the Congress, should attach to it the Report by the Secretary, while themselves drawing the attention of the Congress to those points in the Secretary’s Report which they consider to be of special interest or importance. This procedure will, it is hoped, enadle the Commission to deal with this matter adequately, while VOL. 3 C (2) (3) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. at the same time avoiding the necessity of devoting too much time to this subject, in view of the many other urgent matters requiring consideration. Composition of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature and method of nominating members. There is clear evidence of a general feeling among zoologists that the present fixed membership of the Commission which necessarily excludes many countries from direct representation on the Commission is unsatisfactory and should be amended. It is clear also that, in view of the growing importance of the work of the Commission, there is a general desire among zoologists that the leading scientific institutions of the countries concerned should be brought into consultation whenever it is necessary to fill a vacancy in the membership of the Commission. This question has been carefully considered by the Executive Committee of the Commission and their proposals will be submitted in Paper I.C.(48)3. Procedure of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. The most serious—because the most merited—of the criticisms which have in the past been levelled against the International Commission have been (a) that the period taken in obtaining decisions on questions of nomenclature has often been much too long (amounting in some cases to 20 years) and (6) that the Liberum Veto imposed by the Commission on itself, when dealing with certain classes of case. has obstructed the work of the Com- mission by making it impossible to secure any decision, where even a single member of the Commission dissented from the action proposed. At the present time the Commission has before it a larger number of applications than at any previous period in its history and it is certain that it will be impossible to deal with these promptly unless a thoroughgoing reform is introduced into the procedure of the Commission. It is perfectly clear also that the whole position of the Commission will be impaired in the eyes of zoologists generally, unless it takes effective steps to enable it to clear off existing arrears of work and in future to give decisions quickly. This question has been the subject of discussion between the members of the Executive Committee and also between the Secretary and leading zoological institutions and individual specialists. Proposals for dealing with this problem will be sub- mitted in Paper I.C.(48)4. (4) (5) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 3 Meaning of the expression “ nomenclature binaire”’ as used in the “ Régles Internationales”: Special Report to be submitted to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. The International Commission were instructed by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at its final Concilium Plenum held in Lisbon in September, 1935, to prepare a Report on the meaning of the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ” as used in the Regles for submission to the Thirteenth International Congress. Numerous discussions on this question have been held with specialists, with a view to ascertaining what course of action would be the most generally acceptable. A draft Report embodying the conclusions reached as the result of these discussions will be submitted as Paper I.C.(48)5, for the consideration of the Commission. “‘Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique” : proposals for consolidation and amendment. Proposals will be laid before the Commission :— (a) to codify the interpretations of the Régles given at various times in Opinions rendered by the International Com- mission by the insertion in the Régles of express provisions dealing with the problems involved ; (b) to eliminate doubts as to the meaning of certain of the provisions of the Régles by redrafting those provisions in unambiguous terms ; (c) to insert in the Reégles provisions relating both (i) to certain matters on which resolutions have already been adopted by the Congress but which have not been incorporated in the Régles, and (ii) to certain other matters as regards which there are no provisions in the Reégles and no decisions have as yet been taken by the Congress ; (d) to remove inconsistencies from the phraseology used in the Régles. It is recognised that neither the Commission nor the Congress can hope to do more than record decisions in regard to many of the questions which will fall to be dealt with under the foregoing programme, and that other arrangements will need to be made for the formulation of the texts to be inserted in the substantive French text of the Régles. _ It is proposed that the highly technical task of formulating these drafts should be remitted to jurists. It is further proposed that the Commission should recommend the Congress to follow the precedent set by the Fifth International Congress of Zoology (Berlin, 1901), that is to say that the Congress should be invited to appoint a small Comité de Rédaction charged with the duty of examining the texts proposed by the jurists and of satisfying itself that these texts give effect to the decisions taken by the Congress. This Committee would be instructed to act with all possible dispatch, in order that the Commission may be able VoL. 3 c? 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. to publish, as soon as possible after the close of the Congress, an edition of the Regles as revised at Paris, containing both the substantive French text and an English translation thereof. A paper setting out the foregoing proposals in greater detail is being circulated as Paper I.C.(48)6. (6) Applications submitted to the Commission in regard to individual problems of zoological nomenclature. _ A large number of applications in regard to individual problems of nomenclature are at present before the Commission and the texts of a considerable number of these have been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It is proposed that, so far as time permits, the Commission should consider these cases and reach at least provisional decisions thereon. (7) Report to be submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. Paris, 1948. At the close of its deliberations, the International Commission will have to submit a Report to the Congress to be considered, first by the Section on Nomenclature, and later by the Congress itself in Concilium Plenum. This Report will need to deal with all the principal matters considered by the Commission during its Paris meeting and in particular will need to set out the proposals which the Commission may decide to submit, for adoption, to the Section on Nomenclature and to the Congress. In addition, as already explained under (1) above, the Report will need to refer briefly to the principal developments which occurred in the work of the Commission between the end of the Lisbon Congress in 1935 and the opening of the present Congress. The draft of this Report will be prepared during the Paris meeting and will be submitted to the Commission for approval at its final meeting. : 3. Note on documents to be brought by Commissioners to Paris.—The files of the Commission and other papers which it will be necessary for the Secretary to the Commission to take to Paris will inevitably be bulky and heavy. It will therefore not be possible to supply members of the Commission with additional copies of documents after their arrival in Paris. Members of the Commission are, therefore, particularly requested to ensure that they bring with them to Paris both this and other memoranda relating to the Paris meeting circulated by the Secretariat of the Commission and also the copies which have already been furnished to them both of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and of the Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 26th June, 1948. — or — INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)2 REPORT BY FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., SECRETARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, ON THE WORK OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMISSION DURING THE PERIOD 1936-1948 I submit herewith for the information of the Commission the accompanying Report which I have prepared on the work of the Secretariat of the Commission from the time when in October, 1936 I was elected to be the Secretary to the Commission up to the opening of the present Congress in July, 1948. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 15th July, 1948. Epitor1at Note.—In accordance with a decision taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the report referred to above was submitted to the International Congress of Zoology. The text of this Report will be published in Volume 5 of the present journal, the volume reserved for the record of the proceedings of the Section of Nomenclature of the Congress and the Reports on Nomenclature submitted to the Congress, (6) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)3 THE COMPOSITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND THE METHOD OF NOMINATING ITS MEMBERS Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission I. Introductory The Executive Committee of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have had under consideration the question of the size and composition of the International Commission and the method followed in nominating its members. As the result of this review, the Executive Committee are of the opinion that a stage has been reached at which it is essential that the underlying principles should be re-examined and that certain changes should be introduced in order to bring those principles into harmony with modern conditions. In the opinion of the Executive Committee, such changes alone will enable the International Commission to vindicate its claim to be a body both genuinely international in character and truly representative of zoologists and paleontologists in all parts of the world. 2. The size and composition of a body and the method by which its members are appointed necessarily exercise a considerable influence over the procedure appropriate for the discharge by that body of the functions entrusted to it. The International Commission is no exception to this general rule and the Executive Committee recognise therefore that their proposals for the reform of the composition of the Commission and the introduction of the representative principle in the nomination of its members will inevitably involve certain changes in the procedure of the Commission in dealing with matters relating to zoological nomenclature brought before it for consideration or for decision. In addition to consequential changes of this kind, there are other changes which it is essential should be introduced into the procedure of the Commission if it is to be put into a position in which it will be able promptly and effectively to handle the large and growing volume of business passing through its hands. 3. For purposes of convenience, the proposals of the Executive Committee in regard to the composition of the Commission and the method of nominating its members are set out in the present paper, while the Committee’s proposals in regard to the reform of the procedure of the Commission are set out in another paper (Paper I.C.(48)4). The Executive Committee desire, however, to emphasise their view that ‘he two sets of recommendations are complementary 7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. in character and that the acceptance of the recommendations set out in the present paper will necessarily imply a willingness to amend the procedure of the Commission on the lines suggested in Paper 1.C.(48)4, for, quite apart from the fact that, as experience has shown, the present rules of procedure are inadequate to support even the present organisation, those rules would be entirely inappropriate, if the composition of the Commission and the method of nominating its members were to be reformed in the manner recommended by the Executive Committee in the present paper. Il, Historical Sketch 4. In order properly to appreciate the nature of the proposals now sub- mitted by the Executive Committee, it is necessary to trace briefly the development during the last 50 years of the ideas of the Commission (and the Congress) in regard to such questions as the proper size of the Commission, the nature of its composition and the methods to be followed in the nomination and election of its members. A brief survey of the history of these ideas is therefore given in the following paragraphs. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established by the Third International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Leiden in 1895. It was not then the intention of the Congress that the Commission should be a permanent body, the object in view being only to set up a body which would discharge a limited task in the interval between that Congress and the Fourth Congress which was due to meet at Cambridge (England) in 1898. The task entrusted to the ad hoc Commission appointed at Leiden was to review all the codes of nomenclature (unofficial as well as official) at that time in use by zoologists and to submit. to the next Congress recommenda- tions for the adoption of a definitive international set of Regles. The Commission so set up consisted of five zoologists, all members of the Leiden — Congress and each a national of a different country. With a body consisting of so small a membership, it would clearly have been impossible to make it representative of the zoologists of all the countries in which active zoological work was being carried on. All that was possible—and clearly all that was attempted-—was to secure that the zoologists selected to be members of the Commission should be men who by reason of their personal attainments would be accepted by the general zoological public as being qualified to perform the functions then entrusted to them. 6. The Fourth International Congress of Zoology held at Cambridge in 1898 was of particular importance from the present point of view, for the decisions then taken involved the tacit acceptance of principles which for nearly 40 years were to govern the attitude both of the Commission and of the Congress. In the first place the Cambridge Congress decided that the Com- mission should thenceforward be a permanent organ of the Congress charged with the duty, on behalf of the Congress, of centralising, discussing and elaborating all questions relative to zoological nomenclature. As part of this decision the Congress decided to increase the membership of the Commission from 5 to 15 members. What is significant from the present point of view is that the Congress instructed the original Commission of five members forthwith to elect the ten new members from among the zoologists present at the Congress. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This decision naturally limited the choice of the Commission who were unable to elect any zoologist who was not a member of the Congress even if on this account they were forced (as in one or two cases they were) to elect men of far less eminence than they could have secured if they had been able to draw upon the whole field of zoologists engaged in active work at that time. Second, the decision to limit the membership of the Commission to zoologists who were actually present at Cambridge greatly narrowed the field of choice as regards the countries to be represented on the Commission. An inspection of the list of zoologists who were elected to be members of the Commission at that meeting shows that very little importance was attached to the principle of geographical representation, for, on the completion of the election, five countries monopolised between them all except 3 of the 15 seats on the Commission. These countries were Germany and the United Kingdom with three seats each, and France, the Netherlands, and the United States with two seats each. The total number of countries represented on the Commission had thus grown only from five to eight, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a threefold increase in the total membership. 7. Nothing of importance from the present point of view occurred at the Fifth Meeting of the Congress held at Berlin in 1901, but at the Sixth Meeting held at Berne in 1904 the decisions taken at Cambridge in regard to the method of appointing members of the Commission were carried to their logical con- clusion when the Congress decided that the membership of the Commission should be divided into three Classes and that at each subsequent meeting of the Congress the Class with the longest term of completed service should be superseded by a fresh Class to be filled directly by election by the Congress. From this time onwards the accepted view was that it was the Congress which was directly responsible for the selection of zoologists to be members of the Commission. It naturally followed from this that, when the Congress desired to elect new Commissioners (as happened when any Commissioner did not offer himself for re-election or when there were vacancies in the membership of the Commission due to deaths or resignations in the preceding inter-Congress period) they invariably restricted their choice to zoologists who were present at the Congress. From the practical point of view there were conveniences attaching to this course, for it rendered possible preliminary informal soundings to ascertain whether zoologists whom it was proposed to put forward for election to the Commission were in fact willing to serve, if invited to do so. On the other hand, by this decision the Berne Congress made it clear that their intention was that the membership of the Commission should be drawn exclusively from the membership of the Congress rather than from the general body of zoologists, irrespective of their attendance at the particular meeting of the Congress or even of whether they had enrolled themselves as members of that Congress. 8. The interval between the Graz Congress (1910) and the Monaco Congress (1913) was one of great activity by the Commission, an exceptionally large number of Opinions being rendered during that period.- Nearly 20 years had by now elapsed since the Commission had been first appointed and it was only natural therefore that in the three years between the Graz and Monaco > Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 9 Congresses there should be losses in the membership of the Commission through deaths and resignations. The Commission were most anxious that their work should suffer no interruption through lack of members, an important considera- tion for a body which had imposed upon itself a rule that every decision taken, if not unanimous, should be a decision taken not only by a majority of those filled by the Congress and not by the Commission. In practice, however, the distinction became rather a fine one, for at each Congress the majority elected themselves of the right to offer themselves for immediate re-election, while in the minority of cases where a new appointment had to be made, it was the Commission itself who submitted the nomination to the Congress. It may therefore be concluded that from 1911 onwards the Commission virtually acquired the right to fill all vacancies in its membership, subject only to the retention by the Congress of the right to exercise a periodical review of the action taken in this matter by the Commission. 10. This development was open to the serious disadvantage that always - arises when a body with a limited membership acquires the right itself to fill vacancies in its ranks, for however carefully and conscientiously the task of sélecting new members is performed, it is not good for any organisation to be immune from the wholesome influence which new members selected by some outside authority can bring to bear upon its deliberations. Moreover, any organisation must lose part of its moral authority if its membership cannot be effectively called in question by the general electorate to which it is nominally responsible. 11. The proceedings of the Commission at its Monaco meeting are of interest as illustrating the ideas then held by the Commission regarding the principles to be followed in the selection of new members, for at this Congress the Commission, in asking for an increase in its membership from 15 to 18 (the present number), advanced, as. their chief reason for this request, the argument that the time was propitious for co-operative work in the field of entomological 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. nomenclature and that it was therefore desired to add two entomologists to the membership of the Commission. Two conclusions may be drawn from the action taken by the Commission in this matter: first that there was still no general recognition of the need to make the Commission representative in the sense that its membership should reflect at least roughly the volume of zoological work then being carried on in different parts of the world; second, that it marked the definite acceptance of the principle never previously stated in public by the Commission that each of the principal fields of zoological work should be represented in the Commission in the person of some leading specialist. 12. For nearly 20 years no further formal changes were made in the principles. followed in the election of new members of the Commission. The Commission continued as before to fill vacancies as they occurred and the action so taken was reported to, and approved by, each successive meeting of the Congress. It must not be supposed, however, that the attitude of the Commission towards its own membership underwent no change during this period. The fact that, owing to the 1914-18 war and the subsequent confusion in the countries of Europe, only one meeting of the Congress was held between the close of the Monaco meeting in 1913 and the opening of the Padua Congress in 1930, inevitably diminished the part played by the Congress in the election of members of the Commission. The steady stream of elections to the Commission (consequent upon the death or retirement of members) which occurred throughout the inter-war period and which were almost all conducted by the Commission and not by the Congress inevitably reduced the importance attached in the selection of candidates, to the qualification universally accepted before the 1914-18 war that candidates should be selected from among the members of the Congress. Thus, by accident, the field of selection was greatly enlarged and it was possible therefore for the Commission, in making elections, to choose the best-qualified candidates that they could find. From a theoretical standpoint this’ development was entirely in the right direction, but in practice its value was largely dissipated by the fact that a body which seldom was able to meet and which therefore had to conduct most of its business by corre- spondence was not well-qualified to select the most suitable candidate in every case. In making their selection of candidates, they were bound to rely mainly upon the published record of the zoologists concerned and, while this method secured the election of men with high records of achievement, it did not always succeed also in providing Commissioners possessed of capacity for business or the qualifications needed for effective participation in a joint undertaking, where it is necessary at times to subordinate personal preferences for the general good. 13. No doubt also during this period the Commission had become more sensible of the need for securing that its membership should reflect the geographical dispersion of zoological work as well as the differences in the outlook and needs of specialists in the principal divisions of the Animal Kingdom. For at Padua the Commission included in their Report to the Congress a passage on this subject. In this passage the Commission expressly recognised the need for securing an “ equitable geographic distribution ” of seats in the he ee “¢ — le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 11 Commission as well as the “ representation of specialities.” The view so expressed was endorsed both by the Section on Nomenclature and by the Congress itself at its Final Concilinm Plenum. The acceptance of this principle was of the greatest importance as marking the final abandonment of the original conception of the Commission as a body of recognised specialists chosen for their personal qualifications and without regard to nationality. 14. The outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 brought with it new problems for the International Commission, Fortunately, the accident of nationality take all necessary steps to maintain intact the fabric of the Commission, even though it was judged better to postpone decisions on all matters of zoological nomenclature until, after the conclusion of hostilities, it would, as it was hoped, be possible freely to resume communications not only between all the members of the Commission but also generally between zoologists in all parts of the 15. Although, as explained above, communication was maintained through- out the war between all the members of the Executive Committee and between the Secretary to the Commission and a majority of the members of the Come. including the inevitable delays involved by censorship regulations, coupled with the high risk (during parts of the war) that trans-ocean mail might be lost by submarine action, made it necessary to confine consultations to essential questions and to delegate as many duties of other kinds as possible to the Executive Committee. This necessity was recognised by the members of the ance of the existence of the Commission, other than a limited number of members of the Commission were agreed that prior consultation was essential, however great the difficulties involved or however long the resultant delays. 16. Already before the outbreak of the war there was one vacancy in the membership of the Commission and it was not long before further deaths deprived the Commission of three more of its members. Clearly, if wastage was to be allowed to proceed unchecked by fresh recruitment, there was a serious risk that, if the war were to continue for a long time, the Commission would emerge so greatly depleted in numbers that it would be greatly handi- capped in its efforts to re-establish international co-operation in zoological nomenclature whenever the war came to an end. In view of its great importance, this subject was referred during the war to the whole of the membership of the Commission with which communication was still possible, 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Fortunately, as already explained, that part of the membership constituted a majority of the total membership, so that decisions taken unanimously by this portion of the Commission possessed an absolute binding force, for even if all the other members of the Commission had been able to vote and had voted in the opposite sense, those members of the Commission would have been in a minority. On this particular matter two decisions were taken as the result of the general consultation then undertaken, of which the first was concerned with machinery, while the second recognised and affirmed a new principle of the greatest importance and one which forms the foundation of the proposals now about to be placed before the Commission by the Executive Committee (see paragraph 21, below). 17. In place of the previous system by which the members of the Commission themselves had suggested the names of possible candidates, it was now agreed that in future the process of electing new members of the Commission should be divided into two parts. Henceforward the members of the Commission would be concerned to decide not the candidate to be elected but the country from which a suitable candidate should be nominated. The actual process of selection should, it was agreed, be undertaken not by the Commission itself but on behalf of the Commission by the National Academy of Science or other leading scientific institution or institutions in the country from which it was desired to secure a candidate. It was further agreed that it should be left to the Executive Committee, acting through the Secretary to the Commission, to undertake the necessary consultations with the national scientific bodies concerned. The Executive Committee were authorised also formally to accept such nominations on behalf of the Com- mission. All the elections made to the membership of the Commission have since been conducted under the foregoing procedure. Ill. The Recommendations of the Executive Committee 18. The Executive Committee are firmly convinced that the introduction during the war of the principle that it is the function of the zoologists of any country themselves to take part, through their leading scientific institutions, in the nomination of the zoologist who is to represent them on the International Commission constitutes the most important single development which has occurred in this field since the inception of the Commission. By this decision the Commission has freed itself of the reproach that it was largely a self- continuing body and has shown its determination to secure for itself a genuinely representative character. 19. Now that the membership of the Commission has been placed on a representative basis, there remain two directions in which further reforms are required. The first is concerned to secure that the membership of the Commission, while containing an adequate representation of workers in systematic zoology, shall contain also an adequate representation of workers in those of the applied sciences which are concerned with species belonging tothe Animal Kingdom and have an interest therefore in zoological nomenclature and also of university and other teachers of zoology. Naturally, the scope of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 13 the representation to be sought both in the systematic and applied fields must cover not only living animal forms but also fossil forms and in consequence arrangements must be made for the due representation of paleontologists as well as of workers concerned with living species. The second direction in which further reforms are needed is that necessary to secure that representation is afforded on the Commission to zoologists of any country who wish to par- ticipate in its work. 20. The Executive Committee are accordingly of the opinion that the stage has now been reached when it is desirable that the International Congress of Zoology should accept the principle that, having regard to the great increase in the number of Sovereign States which has occurred since 1913, the year in which the composition of the Commission was fixed at 18 members, the rapid development of work, both taxonomic and other, which has taken place during the last three decades, and the great increase in the geographical dispersion of workers in these fields, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should now be given a wider foundation, both territorially and by reference to specialised knowledge of the problems of nomenclature affecting different groups in the Animal Kingdom and of the needs of scientific men whose work involves the study of organisms belonging to the Animal Kingdom. 21. In these circumstances the Executive Committee recommend that at their forthcoming meeting in Paris the International Commission should submit the following scheme of reorganisation to the Congress for approval :— (1) that, subject to the simultaneous adoption of the revised rules of procedure indicated in Paper I.C.(48)4, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should cease to be a body with a fixed membership of 18 members and that in lieu of this system there should in future be set a minimum membership of 18, but that there should be no maximum upper limit to the membership ; (2) that, consequent upon the adoption of the foregoing change, the International Commission should be authorised to elect to its member- ship a specialist or specialists to represent zoologists or paleontologists or workers in the applied biological sciences resident in any country which is either unrepresented on the Commission or for which the existing representation is, in the opinion of the Commission, inadequate, provided that, in the former case, the Commission are satisfied that a considerable body of zoological work is being conducted in the country concerned or alternatively that there is a leading specialist who is a resident national of that country, the election of whom to be a member of the Commission would be to the general advantage ; (3) that every application for the appointment to the Commission of a national representative or, where there is already such a representative, of additional representatives, should be submitted to the Commission either through the diplomatic representative of the country concerned in the country in which the headquarters of the Commission are situated, or direct by a Government Department of the country 14 (4) (5) (6) (7) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. concerned, or by the National Academy of Science or some other leading Scientific Institution or learned Society in that Country ; that every application for the appointment to the Commission of a national representative or representatives which may be received by the Commission shall be referred forthwith to the Executive Committee of the Commission whose duty it shall be to satisfy itself, on behalf of the Commission :— (2) that the body signatory to the application is adequately representative of the country concerned ; (6) that, having regard to the conditions prescribed in (2) above, there are grounds which would justify the appointment of a national representative or, where there is already such a representative, of an additional representative ; (c) that the candidate proposed for election is personally possessed of the technical knowledge, experience, energy and other qualifica- tions requisite for the performance of the duties of a member of the Commission ; (d) that the election of the representative or additional representative, as the case may be, would not conflict with the principle that the membership of the Commission should be such as to secure, as far as may be practicable, that the national representation thereon shall bear an appropriate relation to the volume of zoological and paleontological work currently being conducted in different parts of the world and that there shall be a like balance in the representa- tion on the Commission of different types of knowledge and experience as regards both work on the systematics of the principal divisions of the Animal Kingdom and work in those branches of applied science which are affected by changes in zoological nomenclature ; that, where the Executive Committee are satisfied on all the matters specified in (4) above, they shall thereupon elect the proposed candidate to be a member of the Commission and shall forthwith promulgate the said election in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature; that, where the Executive Committee are satisfied in regard to the matters specified in (a), (b), and (c) of paragraph (4) but not in regard to the matter specified in (d) of the same paragraph, they may never- theless elect the proposed candidate to be a member of the Commission, provided that at the same time they elect also another member or members of the Commission to maintain the balance prescribed in the said sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph (4) above ; that, where, through death or resignation, a vacancy arises in the membership of the Commission, the Executive Committee shall invite the authority or authorities as the case may be specified in paragraph (3) above to submit the name of a proposed candidate to fill the said vacancy, and, having received the said nomination, shall satisfy themselves regarding the personal qualifications of the said candidate, as prescribed by sub-paragraph (c) in paragraph (4) above, and, having done so, shall elect the candidate to be a member of the Commission Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 15 and shall promulgate the election in the manner specified in paragraph (5) above ; (8) that, consequent upon the adoption of the recommendations specified in paragraphs (1) to (7) above, the system by which the members of the Commission are divided into three Classes, each Class consisting of six members and serving for a term of nine years, subject to the condition that the term of the oldest Class shall be automatically closed at the end of each meeting of the Congress, should be modified as follows :— (a) In order to take account of the fact that under the new system the total membership of the Commission will not always be exactly divisible by three, every person elected to be a member of the Commission (other than a person elected to fill a vacancy caused through death or other cause, who shall be placed in the same Class as his predecessor) shall be placed in whichever Class has the smallest membership (places vacant for other causes being treated for this purpose as though they were filled) and, if two Classes have an equal membership, that membership being less than that of the third Class or if the membership of all three Classes is the same, the new member of the Commission shall be placed in the Class, the term of service of which is first due to expire. (b) In view of the fact that every member of the Commission will be a national representative duly nominated by the highest scientific authorities in his own country, it is suggested that in future the Congress should waive its right directly to elect the Commissioners to fill the new Class to be constituted as from the close of the Congress and, in lieu of the present system, the Commission should be instructed to report to the Congress the names of the national representatives whom it is proposed to appoint to the new Class and to ask the Congress to signify its approval of the action proposed. 22. The Executive Committee confidently commend the foregoing recommendations to the favourable consideration of the International Commission, being convinced that it is only by the adoption of these changes, accompanied by the concurrent modifications in the rules of procedure recommended in Paper I.C.(48)4 that the Commission will acquire a genuinely representative territorial foundation and a wide range of technical and professional knowledge and experience and will thus secure for itself the moral standing to enable it to act as the final international authority in regard to all matters connected with zoological nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 10th July, 1948. (16 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)4 THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission The most serious—because the most merited—of the criticisms which have in the past been levelled against the International Commission have been (a) that the period taken in obtaining decisions on questions of nomenclature has often been much too long (amounting in some cases to 20 years) and (b) that the Liberum Veto imposed by the Commission on itself, when dealing with certain classes of case, has obstructed the work of the Commission by making it impossible to secure any decision where even a single member of the Commission dissented from the action proposed. 2. At the present time the Commission has before it a larger number of applications than at any previous period in its history and it is certain that it will be impossible to deal with these promptly unless a thoroughgoing reform is introduced into the procedure of the Commission. It is perfectly clear also that the whole position of the Commission will be impaired in the eyes of zoologists generally unless it takes effective steps to enable it to clear off existing arrears of work and in future to give decisions quickly. 3. If these were the only considerations involved, the Commission would clearly need to consider at its Paris meeting how best it could set its house in order. But there are other reasons of a most cogent character which would make it essential to revise certain of its rules of procedure even if (as we see is not the case) those rules had so far proved adequate to meet the needs of the Commission. I refer to the proposals of the Executive Committee for the introduction of certain changes in the composition of the Commission which have been laid before the Commission in Paper I.C.(48)3. 4. In the paper referred to above, the Executive Committee made it clear (in paragraph 3) that the simultaneous reform of the rules of procedure of the Commission is an indispensable condition to the adoption of their proposals for reorganisation of the composition of the Commission and indicated that they proposed to submit separately their proposals as regards the procedure of the Commission. Those proposals are submitted in the present paper. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 17 5. The proposals which the Executive Committee now submit to the International Commission are designed both to remedy the defects which experience has shown to exist in the present rules of procedure and also to secure that the revised rules now to be adopted shall be appropriate to the practical needs of the Commission after the composition of the Commission has been reformed and enlarged in the manner indicated in the recommendations submitted in Paper I.C.(48)3. Most of the changes recommended by the Executive Committee can be adopted by a simple vote taken by the Commission itself, but that part of these recommendations which is concerned with harmonising the “‘ plenary powers” procedure with modern conditions will need to be submitted by the Commission to the Section on Nomenclature at: the Congress for approval. 6.. The recommendations on this matter which the Executive Committee now submit for the favourable consideration of the International Commission are as follows :— (1) that both at meetings of the Commission and when, during intervals between meetings, decisions on questions of zoological nomenclature are required :— (a) a proposed Opinion or Declaration on any matter not involving a change in the Régles or the use by the Commission of their plenary powers to suspend the Reégles shall be adopted as the Opinion or Declaration of the whole Commission when all the members of the Commission have voted or when, after a period of six calendar months calculated from the date of the despatch by the Secretary to the members of the Commission of final voting papers in regard to the proposed Opinion or Declaration, a majority of those Commissioners whose completed voting papers shall have been received by the Secretary have voted in favour of the proposed Opinion or Declaration ; (b) a proposed Opinion or Declaration containing a recommendation to the International Congress of Zoology for any change in, or _ addition to, the Régles or involving the use by the Commission of their plenary powers shall be adopted as the Opinion or Declaration of the whole Commission in like conditions to those specified in (a) above, save that every such proposed Opinion or Declaration shall require to receive at least two out of every three votes cast in order to secure its adoption ; (2) that the International Congress of Zoology should be invited :— (a) to amend as follows the Resolution adopted by it at its Ninth Meeting held at Monaco in March, 1913, under which, subject to certain conditions, it conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary powers to suspend the Reégles where, in the opinion of the Commission, the strict application of the Reégles would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity :— Vou. 3p 18 (3) (6) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (i) Article 1, first proviso: by the substitution of the words “shall be given in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and copies of the said notice communicated to the following publications ” for the words “ shall be given in any two of the following publications”’ ; (i) Article 1, second proviso: by the substitution of the words “provided that the number of votes cast in favour of suspension is at least twice as great as the number of votes cast against suspension” for the words “ provided, also, that the vote in the Commission is unanimously in favour of suspension” ; (ui) Article 1, third proviso: to be deleted. (iv) Article 2 (“ That in the event that a case. . . is concerned’) : to be deleted. (v) Articles 3 and 4: to be renumbered 2 and 3 respectively. to agree that the foregoing resolution, amended as recommended in (a) above, be incorporated in the Régles. (See Recommendation in paragraph 2(5) (c) of Paper I.C.(48)1). that, having regard to the importance of taking every practicable step to secure that in future decisions on applications submitted to the Commission are taken as rapidly as is consistent with due consideration of the issues involved, the procedure to be adopted in dealing with such applications should be as follows :— (a) (0) subject to the necessary funds being available, every application submitted to the Commission or, in the case of a long paper, an agreed summary thereof, shall be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as soon as possible after its receipt by the Secretary, subject to the Secretary first satisfying himself (i) that the application is in appropriate form with all the biblio- graphical and other data necessary to enable the Commission to reach a decision thereon and (ii) that it is drafted in accordance with the requirements of Declaration 4; each issue of the Bulletin containing the texts of applications submitted to the Commission shall contain a notice displayed in a prominent position drawing the attention of readers to the fact that voting on the said applications will be started at the end of six calendar months calculated from the date of publication of the said issue of the Bulletin and inviting any reader who wishes to submit comments on the proposals in question to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in any case before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above ; as soon as possible after the expiry of the period referred to in (6) above, the Secretary shall report to the members of the Commission any comments which he may have received in regard Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 19 to any such application and shall at the same time submit recommendations as to the terms of the Opinion or Declaration proposed to be rendered by the Commission in regard to the said application, together with voting papers to be used in connection therewith ; (d) in order to eliminate the delay inevitable between the completion of voting and the publication of the Opinion or Declaration embodying the decision of the Commission, the Secretary should publish in the Bulletin the “summary” of each Opinion or Declaration adopted by the Commission as soon as possible after the conclusion of the voting thereon ; (4) that, in order to assure the zoological and paleontological public of the determination of the International Commission to do everything pos- sible to speed up its procedure, the International Commission should take all practicable measures to bring to the notice of zoologists and paleontologists the revised procedure set out in (3) above and should - at the same time :— (a) explain that it is hoped that, when the existing backlog of applications has been worked off, it will normally be possible for the Commission to announce its decision on any given application within a period of about fifteen months from the date of its receipt ; (6) express the hope that, where an application is concerned with the proposed use by the Commission of their plenary powers for the purpose of validating a name or nomenclatorial usage, which, under a strict application of the Regles, would need to be sunk in synonymy or changed, as the case may be, specialists in the group concerned will recognise that, as the case is sub judice, it is desirable to avoid any action which might prejudice the decision to be taken by the Commission and will accordingly refrain from aggravating the position until such time as a decision is given by the International Commission ; (5) that provision for the foregoing changes of procedure should be made in the revision of the By-Laws which the International Commission have already agreed should be undertaken as soon as possible. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 10th July, 1948. VOL, 3 Db? (20) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)5 THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION “NOMENCLATURE BINAIRE” AS USED IN THE “ REGLES” AND ACTION PROPOSED FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE ‘““REGLES” IN REGARD THERETO. Note by the Secretary to the Commission The Commission will recall that at the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology held at Lisbon in September, 1935, they accepted an invitation from the President of the Section on Nomenclature to prepare a comprehensive Report, for submission to the Thirteenth International Congress, in regard both to the meaning of the expression “ nomenclature binaire”’ as at present used in the Régles and to the question whether any and, if so, what amendments of the Régles were needed in regard to this matter. 2. Very briefly, the position at the opening of the Lisbon Congress was :— (1) that the expression “nomenclature binaire” had been inserted in Article 25 of the Reégles in 1901 in place of the more precise expression “nomenclature binominale ” with the intention of leaving it an open question whether or not generic names published after 1757 by non- binominal authors should have rights under the Law of Priority, a question on which at that time zoologists were divided ; (2) that in Opinion 20, published in 1910, the International Commission gave a ruling that the expression “ nomenclature binaire ” was to be interpreted as covering generic names published by non-binominal authors : (3) that for the next 20 years repeated efforts were made without success to question the correctness of the interpretation given by the Com- mission but these efforts were successfully resisted by the Commission ; (4) that at the Padua Congress in 1930 the Section on Nomenclature insisted on discussing this question and took a vote (by a majority) declaring that the expression “nomenclature binaire”’ should be interpreted in the narrower of the two possible senses, i.e., that it should be interpreted as having a meaning identical with the expression ‘nomenclature binominale.”’ 3. The acute controversy which followed the Padua Congress at one time almost threatened to destroy the rule of international law in zoological nomenclature. It was to give a breathing space and to provide an opportunity Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. , 21 for more sensible views to make themselves felt that at Lisbon the Comité Permanent des Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie referred the whole question back to the President of the Section on Nomenclature, who in turn invited the International Commission to submit a Report thereon. 4, Two issues are involved :— (2) What is the meaning of the expression at present used in the Régles ? () Is the consequent meaning of Article 25 the meaning which it is desirable that that Article should have ? bd ‘nomenclature binaire’”’ as ‘ 5. Question (a) presents no difficulties, for on any logical interpretation of the Regles it is clear that the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ** can have no meaning other than that of “ nomenclature binominale.” 6. Question (b) might easily have proved controversial and up to 1939 certainly would have done so. I have, therefore, devoted a great deal of attention to the question of finding a solution which will be generally acceptable to zoologists in all parts of the world. I have had extensive correspondence with many zoologists on this matter and I devoted particular attention to it during the numerous discussions held during my visit to the United States last December. 7. It is extremely gratifying, therefore, to be able to report that there are solid grounds for believing that a solution on the lines now suggested will prove generally acceptable to American zoologists, many of whom were formerly opposed to a solution of the problem on strictly binominal lines. European and other zoologists may certainly be expected to support the present proposals, for these are in line with the view held by the large majority of those who voted on this question at the Padua Congress. 8. The accompanying draft of a Report? on this subject to be submitted by the Commission to the President of the Section on Nomenclature is accordingly submitted for the favourable consideration of the Commission in the confident belief that the proposals which it sets forth provide a means for reaching a final settlement of this long-drawn-out controversy. I must emphasise that the several points of the recommendations embodied in the draft Report are of an interlocking character and that no one of these could be deleted without destroying the balance of the proposal as a whole. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 5th July, 1948. 1Hditorial Note by the Secretary to the Commission.—The draft Report submitted to the Inter- national Commission as the Annex to Paper 1.C.(48)5 was adopted by the Commission without amendment (Paris Session, Fourth Meeting, Conclusion 3). The text of this Report will be published in Volume 5 of the present journal, (22) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER I.C.(48)6 “‘REGLES INTERNATIONALES DE LA NOMENCLATURE ZOOLOGIQUE ” : PROPOSALS FOR CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission The Régles Internationales, as they exist to-day, are substantially the same as when they were first adopted 47 years ago by the Fifth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Berlin in 1901, for, with the exception of the introduction of a new text for Article 30 at Boston in 1907 in substitution for the text adopted for that Article at Berlin, the changes which have been made in the Régles have been neither numerous nor important. This does not mean that during the last half-century there has been little progress in zoological nomenclature, for, in fact, during that period the meaning of the Régles has been elucidated in a large number of directions. This has been achieved, however, not by formal changes being made in the Regles but by the develop- ment, side by side with the Régles, of a large body of case law derived from the Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature from time to time on questions of interpretation submitted to them for decision. The decisions so reached were not presented in any uniform fashion and in many cases are difficult to follow. These difficulties are greatly enhanced by the lack of an index to the decisions taken in this way. Quite apart from the special difficulties which confront systematic workers as the result of the confused and uncertain situation described above, the Régles themselves contain numerous imperfections ; on the one hand they give no guidance on a number of important points, while, on the other, the meaning of a number of provisions is not free from doubt. 2. From the consultations carried out since the close of the war, it is clear that zoologists at large are agreed upon the need for an early effort to secure both a simplification of, and an improvement in, the existing body of inter- national law in regard to zoological nomenclature. Zoologists are undoubtedly looking to the International Commission to initiate proposals to this end at the forthcoming meeting of the Congress at Paris. It is the manifest duty of the Commission to justify these hopes to the full extent in their power, for, if they were to fail to do so, they would have failed in the principal of the duties entrusted to them by the Congress, namely, that of centralising on behalf of the Congress tlie study of all problems relating to zoological nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 23 3. What is undoubtedly needed is an overhaul of the Régles, which is at once both careful and thorough. The proposals outlined in the present paper, which are now submitted to the International Commission for consideration, have been conceived in this spirit and are designed to secure this end. 4. The present proposals are divided into two parts: the first is concerned with the nature of the improvements which it is desirable should be made in the Regles; the second, with the machinery necessary for securing the incorpora- tion in the Régles of whatever improvements may be decided upon at the Paris meeting. These two subjects are considered separately in the present memorandum. Part 1. Directions in which it is proposed that improvements should be introduced in the ‘“Régles Internationales” _5. There are eight main directions in which the present Régles are defective. In regard to each of these, it will be within the power of the Commission at its Paris meeting to secure substantial improvements. These different types of reform are discussed separately in the following paragraphs. (a) Incorporation in the “ Régles”’ of interpretations of existing Articles gwen by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in “ Opinions” already rendered. 6. As every working zoologist knows from practical experience, nothing but inconvenience arises from the fact that many important interpretations of Articles of the Régles have been given at various times in Opinions rendered by the International Commission, while no steps have been taken to incorporate those interpretations in the Régles. The first and most urgent of the tasks which require to be undertaken is the incorporation in the Régles of appropriate provisions to give formal effect to decisions already taken by the Commission and confirmed by successive meetings of the Congress. It is not proposed that the questions concerned should now be reopened, save in one or two special cases noted below, where it is clear either that the interpretations given by the Commission were misconceived or that there is now a general desire that the Reégles should be amended so as to convey a different meaning from that conveyed by the present wording of the Articles in question. What is proposed is no more than a formal consolidation into the Reégles of the interpretations which have already been given and which have in consequence become part of the general body of international law in regard to zoological nomenclature. 7. When, during the later part of the recent war, it was decided to publish an authoritative edition of the Régles, as they now exist, it was decided also that there should be attached thereto a paper summarising the decisions taken by the Commission in Opinions on questions relating to the interpretation of the Regles. I accordingly prepared such a paper. It has never been published, however, because, after I had completed it, I reached the conclusion that, in spite of every effort to approach the task in an objective spirit, it was likely that some of the conclusions reached might differ from the views held on the same subject by other zoologists and that the latter might feel that their 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. position had been prejudiced if what could be no more than a summary prepared by a single individual were to be published by the zoologist who occupied for the time being the position of Secretary to the International Commission. This document will provide, however, the material needed by the Commission to decide at Paris on the matters already dealt with in Opinions which should now be incorporated in the Régles. The document itself is too long (having regard to the paper shortage) to circulate to the Commission, but I hope to be able, before the meeting of the Commission opens, to provide an abridged synopsis as a basis of discussion}. (b) Lmportant questions of nomenclature where the meaning of the existing provisions in the “* Régles”’ is in dispute. 8. There are certain provisions in the Régles where there is at present dispute as to the meaning which should be attached to the wording employed, which it is of the highest importance should be settled with the least possible delay, for, so long as these matters remain unsettled, it is impossible for any worker in systematic zoology to know whether the names which he is using are the correct names for the animals in question under the Reégles as they exist to-day. Of the problems falling in this class, three are of outstanding im- portance, apart from the problem presented by the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire”” as used in Article 25, on which (as explained in Paper I.C.(48)1 already circulated) a Special Report must be submitted to the Congress by the Commission at its Paris meeting?. These three problems are :— ‘ (i) What is the meaning of the expression “indication” as used in Proviso (a) to Article 25 and interpreted in Opinion 1? This is a most important question, for it is clear that on what must be accepted as the most natural interpretation of Opinion 1 a generic name pub- lished without a designated type species or any explanatory matter is available, only if the genus so named was monotypical at the time when the name was first published. I have received a very large number of representations in regard to this matter and it is clear from these that in practice the interpretation given above is not acted upon by a large number of systematic workers in a wide field in the Animal Kingdom. The first question which the Commission is called upon to decide is what is the correct meaning under Opinion 1 of the expression “indication.” Having decided this question, the Jommission will next have to consider whether that meaning is the meaning which it is desirable should attach to this expression. Having reached decisions on these questions, the Commission will have to decide what recommendation to put forward to the Congress to clarify the present position. (ui) What is the meaning of Article 36 in relation to the trivial name of a species or subspecies where that name has been replaced as a homonym (under Article 35) consequent upon the union of genera or the transfer of species from one genus to another, when later on taxonomic grounds * See Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. * See Commission Paper I.C.(48)5, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 25 the species concerned is removed to another genus and its original name ceases to be a homonym? Is that name to be restored in such circumstances or does Article 36 mean that, once a name has been rejected as a homonym, it can never in any circumstances be brought back into use ? (iii) What is the status under the Régles of names originally proposed as names for units of less than subspecific rank? Have they rights under the Law of Priority, either inter se or in relation to the trivial names of the species or subspecies to which they are attached? In particular, if a name originally expressly given as the name for a unit of less than subspecific rank is found to be the oldest name bestowed upon any representative of the species or subspecies concerned, can that name be elevated to become the trivial name of the species or subspecies in question ? 9. Separate papers (Papers I.C.(48)7, 8, and 9) setting out the issues involved and putting forward suggestions as to possible solutions will be circulated for consideration by the Commission at Paris. (c) Minor questions on which there are either no provisions in the “ Régles ” or where there are provisions but there is doubt as to their implications. 10. Cases where there are no provisions in the “‘ Régles”’: There is a consider- able number of cases where there is no provision in the Régles and in consequence there is at present no means of ascertaining what is the action which a conscientious systematic worker should take. A considerable number of applications in regard to cases of this kind has been received by the Commission and, of these, particulars relating to about one dozen have been published in Part 5 of Volume I of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It is proposed to seek decisions from the Commission at their Paris meeting on the cases of this class. 11. Cases where there 1s doubt as to the implications of particular provisions mm the “ Régles”’: The fourth and fifth groups of Articles in the Reégles (namely, those comprising respectively Articles 11-18 and 20) contain a number of provisions relating to the formation of svecific trivial names. In these matters the Regles state clearly what should be done but say nothing about the question whether there are any penalties for non-compliance with these provisions. If a name is incorrectly formed, is it to be corrected to comply with the Régles ? For example, if a species is intended to be named after a woman called (say) Mrs. Hutchinson, but the name is published as hutchinsoni, should that name automatically be amended to hutchinsonae by later authors under Article 14(3), while retaining priority as from the date of publication as hutchinsont, or does the name rank for priority only from such later date as it was first published in the correct form hutchinsonae? Every working systematist has encountered cases of this kind and it is high time that unnecessary obscurities of this sort should be eliminated from the Reégles. 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (d) Matters on which the existing provisions in the “ Reégles” are mandator but which should clearly be in the nature of recommendations. 12. It is clearly most important that the Régles should contain appropriate provisions to secure the general adoption of the best nomenclatorial practice. It is equally important, however, that those provisions should be so drafted as to prevent some merely technical fault of a nomenclatorial character from invalidating an otherwise properly published name. This problem arises only in regard to Article 25 (Law of Priority), for it is that Article alone which prescribes the conditions which are to be satisfied in order to confer “ avail- ability ” upon a given name as from the date of its first publication. We must look therefore with particular care at the wording used in this Article. 13. Two cases have already arisen where words have been inserted into this Article (at Budapest in 1927) which have had the effect of invalidating a large number of names for purely technical reasons. These cases are :— (i) the expression “ definite bibliographical reference” in phrase (2) of Proviso (c), as interpreted (perfectly logically) by the Commission in Opinion 138 ; (i) the expression “ definite unambiguous designation of the type species ”’ in phrase (3) of the same proviso. 14. In the first of these cases the effect of the wording used is to invalidate any name proposed as a substitute name for (nom. nov. pro) some invalid name, unless the author proposing the substitute name cites not only the name to be replaced and its author but also the date of publication of the name to be replaced, the title of the work or journal in which the name to be replaced was first published and the page of that work or journal in which the name appeared. It is clearly most desirable that such particulars should always be given and it is highly desirable that there should be a ‘‘ Recommandation ” attached to Article 25 enjoining this practice. But it is equally clear that it is most undesirable that a substitute name should be rendered unavailable under the Law of Priority if by chance the author proposing it fails to give one of the detailed bibhographical particulars specified above. The Commission and the Congress have been severely criticised by many zoologists for the “ritualism ” inherent in this provision. This criticism must, I think, be accepted as well directed. The Commission will accordingly be invited to recommend the Congress to amend the foregoing provision in Article 25 in the sense indicated above. 15. In the second of the cases referred to in paragraph 13 above, the effect of the wording used is to invalidate a name published after 31st December, 1930, for any monotypical genus, if the author of that genus fails expressly to state that the sole included species is the type species of the genus. This is another example of unintentional ritualism which should be eliminated from Article 25. It is suggested for the consideration of the Commission that in this case the most appropriate solution would be : (i) to redraft phrase (3) of proviso (c) to Article 25 to read “in the case of a generic name, with a definite designation of the type species effected under one or other of Rules (a), (6), (c) or (d) in Article 30”; and (ii) to add a “‘Recommandation” urging authors proposing new generic names expressly to cite by name the species selected to be the type species of the new genus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 27 (e) Matters connected with nomenclature and nomenclatorial practice on which decisions have been taken by the International Congress of Zoology but where those decisions have not been incorporated in the “ Regles.”’ 16. Matters connected with nomenclature; On a number of important questions relating to nomenclature decisions have been taken by the International Congress of Zoology but those decisions have not been formally incorporated in the Régles. In two noteworthy cases of this kind it has been the practice to embody the text of the Resolutions of the Congress in published editions of the Reégles, but this practice is no sufficient substitute for formal incorporation. These two cases are: (1) the Resolution conferring plenary powers upon the Commission in certain cases and (2) the “Code of Ethics.” An even more © important omission is constituted by the silence of the Regles in regard to the functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It is essential that this should be rectified because it is an integral feature of the settlements which will be proposed in regard (a) to the problem of the meaning of the expression “ nomenclature binaire ” and (6) to that of the status of names applied to units of less than subspecific status that references to the Commission should be inserted in the Articles dealing with these matters. 17. Matters. connected. with nomenclatorial practice; At various times the Congress (on the recommendation of the Commission) have adopted resolutions in regard to nomenclatorial practice. The proper course in such cases is to embody the texts of the resolutions in question in the Régles, as was done at Monaco (1913) when a resolution was adopted in regard to the terminology of types. In a considerable number of other exactly similar cases this action was not taken and in consequence the value of the resolutions in question has been greatly impaired. The texts of these Resolutions were rescued from obli- vion by the action of the Commission in 1943 in embodying them in a series of “ Declarations,” but the situation will not be satisfactory until the texts in question have been formally incorporated at appropriate points in the Régles. (f) Defects in the “ Régles”’ due to careless or tnexpert drafting. 18. The text of the Régles exhibits many defects, the existence of which must be attributed to careless or inexpert drafting. It is proposed that the Paris Congress should be asked to authorise the elimination of these blemishes from the Régles. The type of blemish here referred to may be illustrated by the following examples : (1) The relation of the “ Appendice” to the “ Regles’: Although the “ Appendice ”” has always been printed with the “ Reégles”’ and undoubtedly forms part of that document, there is not a word in the Reégles themselves about the “‘ Appendice ” and in consequence there is nothing to show whether the provisions in the “Appendice’’ are mandatory in character (and, therefore, whether contravention of the provisions in the “ Appendice ” constitutes a breach of the provisions of the Regles themselves) or whether the object intended to be secured by placing certain matters in the Regles, while relegating other provisions to an “ Appendice,”’ was to indicate that the last-named 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. provisions were intended to constitute a guide for conduct and were not intended to be mandatory. An inspection of the provisions in the ‘‘ Appendice ” certainly suggests that this was the intention, but doubts on the subject should be eliminated by the inclusion in the Régles themselves of an express reference to the Appendice, the status of the contents of which should at the same time be expressly defined. (2) Grammatical inconsistencies; The substantive French text of the Regles (and naturally also the English and other translations) are full of grammatical inconsistencies. Of these the most conspicuous is the random and haphazard use of tenses of the verb “étre”’ (= to be), it being a matter of pure chance whether in any given case the Regles state that such and such a thing “est? (= is) done or whether such and such a thing “ doit étre *’ (=should be) done. An example of the first type of provision is provided by Article 35, which states that “Tout ... nom est rejeté . . . quand il a été employé ...’, while Article 19 provides an example of the second type, where it ‘states ‘ L’orthographe originelle d’un nom doit étre conservée, 4 moins | eed (3) Drafting difficulties due to the confusion of taxonomy with nomenclature: A good example of this type of confusion is provided by Article 31, which appears to give instructions on the “ subdivision d’une espéce ” and the “ subdivision d’un genre,”’ both purely taxonomic operations, with which the Régles of nomenclature are in no way concerned. The intention of this Article was to provide for the nomenclatorial consequences of these taxonomic operations and not for the operations themselves. It would be much more logical and much less confusing if this Article were to be redrafted correctly to convey the meaning intended, namely, that where a nominal species is divided into two or more species, the species to which the original specific name shall in future apply is to be determined in accordance with the rules (in so far as they are applicable) specified in Article 30 for determining the type species of a nominal genus which has been divided into two or more genera. (g) Need for completing the substantive French text of the * Regles.” 19. The sole substantive text of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is the French text, the texts in English and other languages being no more than translations of the substantive French text. Unfortunately, the proposals for the amendment of the code which have been adopted at various meetings of the Congress since 1901 were drafted by the Commission in English and no French text was submitted to the Congress. Accordingly, for these amendments there does not at present exist a text in the French language which can be incorporated in the substantive French text of the Régles. Both the Commission and the Congress are to blame for this state of affairs, the former for having failed to prepare texts of these amendments in the French language for incorporation in the substantive French text of the Regles, the latter for not having insisted upon the preparation of such texts. As a result, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 29 we are to-day in the absurd position that the great majority of the provisions in the Régles have a substantive text in the French language but the few passages which have been added to the Régles since 1901 have substantive texts in the English language. There can clearly be no’ possible justification for this anomaly. Proposals will therefore be laid before the Commission for the completion of the substantive French text of the Régles. (h) Need for securing accurate translations in English and other languages of the substantive French text of the “ Régles.” 20. At the present time there exists no text of the Regles in any language which embodies correctly all the changes in the text as originally adopted at Berlin in 1901 which have been approved by later meetings of the Congress. The publication of accurate and complete versions of the Régles in English and other languages is therefore a matter of urgency from the standpoint of workers who desire to have a version of the Régles in their own language. It must be noted, however, that, in addition to being incomplete in various particulars, every version of the Régles hitherto published in English and other languages contains mistranslations of various portions of the Régles. What are wanted are texts in English and other languages which are accurate and literal translations of the substantive French text. 21. In view of the fact that the French text is the sole substantive text (i.e., that in any case of doubt “le texte frangais ferait foi’), no translation, however carefully prepared, can ever safely be used to the exclusion of the French text. It was for this reason that it was decided during the war to publish as soon as might be practicable an edition of the Régles in which the French text and the English translation would be placed opposite to one another and could thus be compared line for line, the French text appearing on the left-hand pages of the volume and the English translation on the right- hand pages. Extensive preparations for this edition have been made and a special grant towards its cost has been obtained from the Royal Society of London. The publication of this edition has, however, been deliberately postponed until after the Congress in order to permit of the incorporation therein of any changes which may be adopted at Paris. Part 2. Proposals as to the machinery to be devised for securing the formal incorporation in the ‘‘ Régles”’ of such changes as may be decided upon by the Paris Congress 22. The programme of reforms suggested in the preceding Part of the present paper will constitute a heavy task both for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and for the Section on Nomenclature at the Paris Congress. Nevertheless, I am confident that with goodwill on all sides and with hard work it is a programme which is capable of achievement. If we are to carry through these reforms, we must be extremely careful to ensure that the decisions which we ask the Congress to take are expressed in such terms as to eliminate all possibility of doubt or argument after the Congress has closed. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 23. The question of procedure is thus one of particular importance. I suggest that in this matter we should adopt the procedure which experience in inter-governmental conferences has been found to be the only method capable of producing satisfactory results. By this I mean that we should draw a sharp distinction between (1) the issues which are to be decided, and (2) the phraseology to be found for giving formal effect to the decisions reached on questions of policy. The first of these tasks is the task of the Commission and the Congress, while the second is a matter for experts in the drafting of legal documents. 24. I accordingly suggest for the consideration of the International Com- mission that, when we meet in Paris, we should concentrate upon drawing up clear and unambiguous recommendations in regard to all the matters relating to the Régles on which we wish to obtain decisions from the Congress. Every such recommendation will need to be submitted to the Section on Nomenclature for consideration. I do not doubt that some of these recommendations will be adopted by the Section in the form which we recommend, but it is possible and indeed likely that the discussion in the Section will show, as regards others, that some variation from our original recommendation is desirable. Where any such variation is agreed upon, we must clearly take great care to ensure that the proposed revision, as finally put to the Section for approval (like the original recommendation), is worded in an absolutely clear and unambiguous ‘manner. After the Section has reached its conclusions, the propositions which it has approved, together with the Commission’s Report, will be brought in due course before a Conciliwm Plenum of the Congress, but it is to be expected that, in accordance with precedent, the resolutions adopted by the Section will be put to the plenary session en bloc and that no discussion or voting on individual items will be permitted. 25. If we get so far, there will still remain the task of giving effect to the decisions of the Congress through the formal incorporation of those decisions in the text of the Régles. This is a highly technical task, which can only be carried out by expert jurists trained in the task of drawing up legal instruments. Neither the Congress nor the Commission, either as bodies or as individuals, possesses the requisite skill and experience for this task. If it is to be done properly, it must be confided to professional persons possessing the qualifications necessary for the task. On the other hand, it is essential that the Congress should devise some means by which it can retain for itself the right to examine the work of the jurists and satisfy itself that the task has been carried through in strict conformity with the decisions taken in Paris. 26. How best to secure this end admittedly constitutes a difficult problem. After giving the matter the best consideration which I can (and drawing for this purpose upon my personal experience as Secretary-General at a number of inter-governmental conferences, at which formal international agreements were adopted), I desire to submit for the consideration of the Commission that the end which we all have in view is most likely to be attained by the adoption of the following procedure :-- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 31 (i) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress to take the greatest possible care to secure absolute precision in the wording of the resolutions to be adopted. (ii) After the close of the Congress the resolutions adopted by the Congress on the recommendation of the Commission and the Section on Nomen- clature to be referred by the International Commission to their legal advisers with instructions to prepare a revised text of the Régles and a translation thereof in the English language, the revised text so prepared to give precise effect to the resolutions taken in Paris. (iii) The revised text prepared by: the jurists to be submitted to a specially appointed Editorial Committee (similar to that appointed by the Berlin Congress for the purpose of editing the present Régles after their adoption by that Congress), the duty of this Committee being to satisfy itself that all the changes approved by the Paris Congress have been incorporated in the Régles but that no other change has been made other than purely consequential drafting changes, not affecting the meaning of any provision in the Régles, and, having so satisfied itself, to submit a Report to the Commission, acting for the Congress, certifying that to the best of its knowledge and belief the revised text of the Régles and of the accompanying English translation truly and faithfully complies with the decisions taken at Paris by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. 27. Ifthe foregoing procedure were to be adopted, it would clearly be desirable that the revised text of the Régles should be published with the utmost possible speed, for, until such publication had taken place, systematists in all parts of the world would be greatly handicapped, for they would know that changes had been decided upon at Paris but they would not be in possession of an authori- tative version of the Régles in which those decisions had been embodied. Fortunately, owing to the special grant received from the Royal Society of London, the Commission would be in a position to publish the revised text with the utmost speed. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 26th June, 1948. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)7 PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF PROVISO (a) TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE ‘“REGLES”” IN REGARD TO THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION “INDICATION” AS APPLIED TO GENERIC NAMES Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission It is laid down in Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles that, in order to have any rights under the Law of Priority, a name, on being published, must be accompanied by (1) an indication or (2) a definition or (3) a description. The first of these conditions—that the name was published with an indication— constitutes a minimum condition for a name to be available under Article 25, and it was therefore particularly important that the meaning of the term “indication ” should be clearly prescribed. 2. This matter was dealt with in Opinion | adopted unanimously by the International Commission in 1907. The portion of the “summary ” of that Opinion which is concerned with the status of generic names provides the following interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25: [As respects names published on, or before, 31st December, 1930], the word ‘* indication ~ in the proviso to Article 25 is to be construed as follows :— (B) With regard to generic names, an “‘ indication ’’ is :— (1) a bibliographical reference, or (2) a definite citation of an earlier name for which a new name is proposed, or (3) a definite citation or designation of a type species. 3. In Note 5 of the editorial notes incorporated in the re-issue of Opinion 1 (published m 1944) I pointed out that, according to this Opinion, any new generic name published in the period Ist January, 1758, to 3lst December, 1930 (both dates inclusive), (i) without a diagnosis, definition or description or a bibliographical reference thereto and (11) with two or more published species, none of which (a) was designated as the type or (6) had a name tautonomous with the generic name, was unavailable nomenclatorially under the Regles. A name so rejected was a nomen nudum, that is to say: it had no status (and therefore no availability) as from the date on which it was so published. 4. The publication of the re-issue of Opinion 1 with the accompanying editorial notes drawing attention to the implications of that Opinion in relation to the availability of generic names published in the way described above aroused widespread discussion in zoological circles. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 33 5. For, although Opinion 1 was adopted and published in 1907, zoologists in general had largely overlooked the extremely narrow interpretation of the expression “indication” as used in Article 25 which it contained. A large number of well-known generic names in common use in various groups of the Animal Kingdom were suddenly discovered to have been unavailable for nearly forty years under the interpretation placed on Proviso (a) of Article 25 by Opinion 1. I. Petition from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America 6. An investigation was made under the auspices of the Jot Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America among representative groups of taxonomists in the United States and Great Britain with a view to assessing the extent of disturbance in established nomenclature and in existing practice in the various sectors of the Animal Kingdom, which would result from a strict application of the interpretation of Article 25 contained in Opinion 1. A questionnaire was submitted to taxonomists working in various institutions in the United States and Great Britain, including the United States National Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, Harvard University, Stanford University, the United States Department of Agriculture. the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey and the British Museum (Natural History). A few taxonomists reported that no names in their specialities were affected and a few were wholly uninterested, but 87 significant replies were received. 7. The question posed was the status of a generic name proposed before lst January, 1931, without diagnosis or definition, or a bibliographic reference thereto, without the citation of an earlier name for which a new name was being proposed, and without designation of a type species, but with two or more valid species included (absolute tautonomy and monotypy being treated - as equivalent to the designation of a type species). Two alternative inter- pretations were then put forward : Interpretation A. (that expounded in the editorial notes to the re-issue of Opinion 1). If two or more species were referred to a genus under these conditions, the minimum requirement of a fixed type species would not have been met and the name consequently would have no availability as from the date of its original publication. Interpretation B. (based on a broader interpretation of the words ‘ indication ” or even of ‘* definition ’’ or on Rule (g) in Article 30). Generic names published under the conditions stated are available. 8. A reply was solicited to the following three questions : (1) Is there to-day in your field uniformity of interpretation on this point? (2) Which interpretation, A, B, or a third? (3) If an alternative interpretation were to be emploved would the result be disturbing to established nomenclature in your field? 9. The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature the following report on the answers received : VOL. 3 E 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In tabulating the answers to this questionnaire some difficulties were met with. For example, few gave a categorical answer to any question. Most answers to Question 1 were in terms of the worker’s personal procedure and not in terms of general practice in his field of specialisation. On the whole the replies to this question were too varied to permit significant tabulation. Suffice it is to say that most of them were in line with the accompanying reply to Question (2). On Question (2) the replies were extremely varied in form but on analysis presented a remarkably uniform picture. Of the 87 significant replies 76 indicated that Interpretation B, the liberal interpretation, was employed in their field of specialisation, was employed by them in their work or should be employed in preference to Interpretation A under amendment of Opinion 1 or of the Rules if necessary. Some insisted that the liberal interpretation is technically correct. Only 11 of the 87 gave similar answers in favour of Interpretation A, the strict interpretation, and some of these appear to have been influenced largely by the recent re-issue of Opinion 1. The grounds on which Interpretation B were favoured were various. Many expressed the opinion that nomenclature in their fields would be seriously affected if the alternative interpretation were to be employed. It is possible to regard the replies as “‘ votes ” for Interpretation A or Interpretation B. Since many replies were discursive it is necessary to interpret them. Although it is possible that a different interpretation than that employed in the following analysis might conceivably be put on a few of them, it is thought that the results would not be altered significantly. Of the 29 significant replies from British workers 24 favoured Interpretation B and 5 favoured Interpretation A: of the 58 American replies 52 favoured B and 6 favoured A. The * votes’ may be tabulated as follows :— Fields of American British Totals Specialisation B A B I ~ Flat worms Insects or Other Arthropods Molluses Brachiopods ... Echinoderms ... Bryozoa se Coelenterates ... Foraminifera ... Mammals Birds Fish... Me ui Reptiles and Amphibia bo GOrRRAONW CNN RO ~ = — weececrw Coocwroeo ececcocorooororne = Creer CNWNOOFRANS KoCoCconrocoruwnhs> wm Cr Cue ee NR (= ao to ns I _ a ~l 1 Tncludes 1 listed also in another field. * Includes 2 listed also in another field. Admittedly the number of replies is not sufficient to make percentage calculations in each group significant, nevertheless the overall picture seems highly significant. To interpret the returns in terms of the original questionnaire, there is no uniformity among zoologists (and paleontologists) as a whole. Where uniformity was found in any group it was in terms of Interpretation B. A very large majority of the returns (approximately 7/8ths) are in favour of Interpretation B, the liberal interpretation. Most of those favouring interpretation B stated that an alternative interpretation would be disturbing to established nomenclature in their respective fields. 10. From the comments received on the questionnaire it was evident that a particularly serious disturbance in nomenclature would arise from a strict application of the terms of Opinion 1 in the nomenclature of the two most numerous and complex groups in the Animal Kingdom, insects and molluscs (living and fossil), and that important disturbances in many well-known generic names would be experienced also in the case of mammals, birds and fish. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 35 11. Supported by the evidence cited above of the serious degree and extent of disturbance in established nomenclature which would follow from a strict application of the terms of Opinion 1, the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomen- clature for Paleontology in America submitted. in June, 1946, a petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, asking them : » “to liberalise Opinion 1 by deleting Proviso 3 of part B of that Opinion interpreting the meaning of, the word ‘ indication’ in Article 25 of the Régles with regard to generic names, and substituting a proviso to read: ‘ (3) the inclusion in the newly named genus of one or more validly named species,’ or by modifying the Opinion in some other way to obtain the same result.”’ II. Recommendation submitted 12. In a case of this kind clearly the first duty of the Commission is to re-examine the relevant passages of the Reégles for the purpose of determining de novo whether the interpretation of that passage given in their earlier Opinion is the interpretation which on a due and proper construction of the words used is properly applicable thereto. Not until they have reached a definite con- clusion on this question can they usefully consider what action they should take. 13. In the present case everything turns upon the meaning to be attached to a single word, the word “ indication ” as applied to the conditions in which a generic name is published. We have first to note that no definition of any kind is given for this word in the Reégles. Nor was any indirect guidance pro- vided beyond the presumption that the content of this word was narrower than that of the word “ definition ” which in turn was narrower than that of the word “ description ’’ as used in the same sentence. In these circumstances it must be agreed that when in 1907 the Commission came to consider this question, they were free to read into the word ‘indication’ any meaning which was narrower than that attaching to the expression “ definition.” In the interpretation which they gave in their Opinion 1 the Commission certainly complied with this requirement. Technically. therefore. no fault can be detected in that Opinion. 14. If we grant this conclusion, we have next to consider whether it is desirable that the expression “‘ indication ’ should have, in relation to generic names, the meaning which now attaches to it. The problems here involved are of a very different order from those considered above. We have first to note that, although for nearly forty years the word “indication ’ used in Proviso (a) to Article 25 has had, in relation to generic names, the very restricted meaning prescribed in Opinion 1, that word has in fact been generally inter- preted in a considerably wider sense by many specialists in many of the main groups of the Animal Kingdom. A strict enforcement of the interpretation given in Opinion 1 would, therefore, involve the immediate rejection of a large number of generic names now in common use, which, though poorly established by their original authors, can nevertheless be used without difficulty—and are currently so used—once a type species has been designated under Rule (g) in Article 30. The reversal of the present general (though not universal) practice would thus considerably disturb existing practice and be prejudicial to the stability of nomenclature. vol. 3 EF 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 15. Looking at this question from a broader point of view, we have to recall that the Régles constitute a code of international law which is backed by no sanction other than voluntary acceptance by the general body of zoo- logists. Where therefore a given provision, whether actually embodied in the Regles or written into that instrument by an Opinion rendered by the Inter- national Commission, is found in practice to be unnecessary (by reason of being too restrictive or otherwise) and also to be repugnant to the practice and wishes of large sections of zoologists, the question at once arises whether it is not in the greatest interest that the provision should be so modified as to bring it into harmony with the general will. 16. After examining the evidence submitted to the Commission both by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and by individual specialists, I have unhesitatingly reached the conclusion that the interpretation of the word “ indication ”’ in relation to generic names given in Opinion 1 is undesirably restrictive in scope and, if strictly applied, would prejudice, rather than promote, stability in generic nomenclature. I think that it is clear also that the interpretation given in Opinion 1 runs counter to the wishes of the majority of zoologists as to the meaning which it is desirable should attach to this part of Article 25. In these circumstances I strongly recommend the International Commission to recommend the International Congress of Zoology during its forthcoming meeting in Paris : (1) to agree that Proviso (a) to Article 25 should be so amended as to secure that a generic name published before Ist January, 1931, shall be available under that Article as from the date of its original publica- tion not only when (as at present) it was then accompanied by a defini- tion or description but also if it was then accompanied by no verbal definition or description, the only indication given being that provided by the citation under the generic name of the names of one or more previously published species ; (2) simultaneously with (1) above, to cancel the portion of Opinion | which relates to the status of generic names. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. E Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 15th July, 1948. (37) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)8 PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 35 AND 36 OF THE “REGLES” IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC HOMONYMS Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission I. ‘Historical Introduction In the latter part of 1937 the late Professor T. D. A. Cockerell, of the Uni- versity of Colorado, U.S.A., submitted a request to the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature for an authoritative ruling on the interpretation to be placed on the provisions in regard to specific homonyms of Articles 35 and 36 of the Régles Internationales. 2. The substantive French text of the Articles*in question reads as follows:— 35. (1) Tout nom spécifique est rejeté comme homonyme, quand il a été employé précédemment pour quelque autre espéce ou sous-espéce du méme genre. Exemple: Taenia ovilla Rivolta, 1878 (n. sp.) est rejeté comme homonyme de Taenia ovilla Gmelin, 1790. (2) Quand par suite de la réunion de deux genres, deux animaux ayant le méme nom spécifique ou subspécifique se trouvent rapprochés, le nom spécifique ou subspécifique le plus récent doit étre rejeté comme homonyme. 36. Les noms rejetés pour cause d’homonymie(') ne peuvent pas étre employés de nouveau. Les noms rejetés pour cause de synonymie('!) peuvent étre employés de nouveau, dans le cas de restauration de groupes supprimés par erreur. Exemple: Taenia giardi Moniez, 1879, a été supprimé comme synonyme de Taenia ovilla Rivolta, 1878 ; on a reconnu ultérieurement que T'aenia ovilla était préocupé (7'. ovilla Gmelin, 1790). Taenia ovilla, 1878, est done supprimé comme homonyme et ne peut plus jamais étre employé; c’était une dénomination mort-née, qu’on ne peut ramener a la vie, méme si l’espéce passe dans un autre genre (Thysanosoma). Le nom spécifique giardi Moniez, 1879, qui avait été supprimé comme synonyme, devient valable, grace a la suppression de ’homonyme Taenia ovilla Rivolta, 1878. (*) IL y a homonymie, quand un seul et méme nom est appliqué 4 deux ou plusieurs choses différentes ; il y a synonymie, quand deux ou plusieurs noms différents sont appliqués a un seul et méme objet. 3. The particular case on which a ruling was requested by Prof. Cockerell was the following :— In 1903 Vachel united the genera Augochlora Smith, 1853, and Agapostemon Guérin- Ménéville, 1844, with the genus Halictus Latreille, 1804, thereby causing Agapostemon coloradensis Crawford, 1901, to become a homonym of the somewhat earlier Augochlora coloradensis Titus, 1901. Vachel thereupon renamed Crawford’s species Halictus coloradinus nom. nov. Subsequent writers considered Vachel to have been in error in uniting the three genera, and separated them again. Recognising this separation, Miss Sandhouse (1936, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 26:77) referred to Crawford’s species as Agapostemon coloradinus (Vachel) n. comb., giving Agapostemon coloradensis Crawford, 1901, as a synonym. * The third paragraph which now appears in this Article was not inserted until the meeting of the Eighth Meeting of the International Congress of Zoology held at Graz in 1910. This paragraph was adopted in an English text. There is at present no substantive French text. 35 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 4. Professor Cockerell did not accept Miss Sandhouse’s procedure, which he described (in litt., 28th August, 1937) as “a reductio ad absurdum of nomen- clature,’ although he could not help admitting that it was a natural inter- pretation of the literal wording of Article 35, paragraph (2), read in conjunction with Article 36. After quoting these provisions (in litt., 4th October, 1937) he commented :— * Now any lawyer could use this to show that if a species was referred to the wrong venus, and so became (its name became) a hononym—legitimately according to the usage of the then author—that specific name would be lost for ever, even though all might agree that the species did not belong to (and had not been described under) the genus in which its name had been suppressed.” 5. At the time when Professor Cockerell’s request reached the Commission in 1937, such little time as I had available from extreme pressure of official work was entirely absorbed in establishing the Secretariat of the Commission at its new headquarters and sorting the voluminous papers transferred from Washington. Karly in 1938 I accordingly invited the President of the Com- mission to undertake on my behalf the task of making a preliminary sounding of the views of the Commissioners on the matter, preparatory to the drafting of an Opinion on the interpretation of Articles 35 and 36. This consultation was completed by June, 1939, when the President handed to me the results of his enquiries. 6. The outbreak of war in September, 1939, led to a suspension of further progress on this question until I was able to take up once more the work of the Commission in 1942. Since that time I have been able to give a great deal of further consideration to the matter and have received a large volume of corres- pondence and some extremely valuable contributions on the subject. These convinced me of two things. In the first place, it was apparent that the general opinion and practice of zoologists in the treatment of so-called secondary homonyms was developing and changing, so that it seemed advisable to post- pone further steps in approaching a settlement of the problem until after the war was over and consultation on a wider and more representative basis became possible. In the second place, I became convinced that the original plan of confining ourselves to securing an authoritative interpretation of the existing text of Articles 35 and 36 (as requested by Professor Cockerell) was no longer adequate to the situation and that a more radical treatment of the whole problem was needed. 7. The necessity for a fresh approach was evident on two grounds. In the first place, a closer examination of the text of Articles 35 and 36 disclosed a number of gaps and ambiguities and failed to provide answers to a number of essential questions, the most important of which are listed in the following section. In the second place, the preliminary consultations conducted by the President (as well as Professor Cockerell’s application) brought to light a fundamental confusion of two distinct questions : first, what the Regles as they stand really mean and, second, what zoologists in general would like them to mean, which might well be, and in this particular case apparently was, entirely different. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 39 8. This confusion no doubt arose from the unduly defeatist attitude then prevalent towards the possibility of amending the Réegles and the conviction that the only way of giving effect to desirable changes was to persuade the International Commission to give an Opinion interpreting the existing provisions of the Reégles in the desired sense, irrespective of the normal meaning of the © words used or of the intentions of their original authors. Such a procedure cannot be regarded as satisfactory or likely to promote the general respect and adherence which the Régles Internationales should aim to command. If zoologists in general are not satisfied with the provisions of the Régles as they stand, it is far better for these provisions to be amended in the direction required than for the International Commission—or individual workers—to try to read into the existing words a meaning which is obviously not there at present. II. Gaps and ambiguities in the existing provisions of Articles 35 and 36 9. The following list, without attempting in any way to be comprehensive, may be useful as indicating some of the most serious gaps and ambiguities which have already been found in the provisions of Articles 35 and 36. This will serve both to underline the necessity for a thoroughgoing revision of these Articles as well as suggesting the directions which such a revision should take. The following are some of the main questions to which the existing wording of Articles 35 and 36 provides no satisfactory answer :— (1) Does the expression “nom spécifique” in Article 35 mean nomen specificum (i.e. the binominal combination of a generic and a specific trivial name) or nomen triviale (in the terminology of Linnaeus) ? (2) Does the first paragraph of Article 35 refer only to original combinations of generic and trivial names or is it intended to cover also the sub- sequent combinations of trivial and generic names arising from the union of genera or the transfer of a species to a different genus from that in which it was originally described ? . (5) Does the expression ‘‘ autre espéce du méme genre” in the same ae ENN apes ei paragraph include also a species placed in a genus belonging to a different group but having, through inadvertent homonymy, the same name ? (4) Does the expression “la réunion de deux genres” in paragraph 2 of Article 35 include the subjective union of genera with different type species as well as the objective union of genera with the same species as type ? (5) What is the position of homonyms arising from the union of three genera ? (6) What is the position of homonyms arising from the transfer of one (or more) species from the genus in which it was (or they were) originally described to some other genus ? (7) What is the meaning of the expression “‘ se trouvent rapprochés ”’ in paragraph 2 of Article 35? Does it involve the actual citing of the two species concerned in the same genus? If not, does it apply only to the type species or does it cover all the species originally described (or subsequently placed) in the two genera concerned @ ho Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (8) What is the meaning of the participle “ rejetés*” as used in Article 362 Is it confined to names which have been expressly rejected (whether or not the species concerned was renamed) by some author or does it cover all cases where homonymy has arisen under the provisions of Articles 35 and 36, whether or not this has been noticed and appropriate action taken ? For example, if it is discovered that a name once became a homonym, through the union of genera or the transfer of species, but this fact remained unnoticed at the time and no action was taken expressly to ‘‘ reject” the name, can this name still be used if the two genera have subsequently been separated or one of the species transferred to another genus? Similarly, if two species with identical trivial names were originally described in the same genus (or in different genera having by the accident of homonymy the same name), but this was not noticed at the time, and the species have subsequently been transferred to different genera, should the later published of the two trivial names be replaced, although it was never actually “‘ rejeté pour cause d’>homonymie,”’ and the homonymy (as defined in the footnote to Article 36) no longer exists ¢ (9) Should a species of which the name has been rejected * pour cause d’homonymie ’” always be given a new name, or is it sufficient to replace the rejected name by a junior synonym, if such exists? In the latter case, what is the correct name of the species concerned if, on a subsequent revision, the synonymy is no longer recognised ? (10) What is the implication of Article 6 of the Regles (“ Les noms des genres et des sous-genres sont soumis aux mémes régles; ils sont coordonnés au point de vue de la nomenclature, c’est-a-dire de méme valeur ”’) in relation to the provisions of Articles 35 and 36 ? (11) What is the implication of Article 11 of the Reégles (les noms spécifiques et subspécifiques sont soumis aux mémes régles et recommandations; ils sont coordonnés au point de vue de la nomenclature, c’est-a-dire de méme valeur”’) in relation to the provisions of Articles 35 and 36, with special reference to the nomenclature of nominotypical subspecies ? Ill. Analysis of major types of homonyms 10. The above questions suffice to show that the problem of homonyms is considerably more complex than appears to have been realised by the authors of the Régles, and that any satisfactory regulation regarding them will need to be both more precise and more comprehensive than are the provisions of Articles 35 and 36 as they now stand. 11. In approaching the problem afresh it will facilitate the discussion if we adopt as a basis the schematic presentation of eight major types of homonyms recently put forward by Dr. Richard Blackwelder. Dr. Blackwelder’s schema is reproduced in the appendix to the present paper. 12. In these diagrams two genera, “‘X” and “Y,” are represented in parallel vertical columns. The history of each of two specific trivial names is indicated by a vertical line with dates marked at various points in its vertical Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature. 41 course. The horizontal line at the bottom represents the time at which the homonymy is discovered. In case ‘‘ A” the name albus was proposed twice in genus “ X,”’ producing unequivocal homonymy from 1900 onwards. Case “ B”’ is exactly the same except for the later removal of one of the species to genus “Y.” Tn case “C” the older name has been removed from genus ‘‘ X’”’ before the proposal of the second name. In case “‘ D” the two names were originally proposed in separate genera, but by the time the second was proposed in genus “ X ” the older name had been transferréd to genus ‘‘ X,” producing unquestionable homonymy. Case “E” is the same except that the transfer of the older takes place after the proposal of the younger. Cases “‘ F,” “@” and “ H” are the same cases as ““D” and “ E” except that the transfer of the older name to genus “ X ” was temporary ; in case ‘‘ F” entirely prior to, in case “ G ” entirely subsequent to, and in case “ H ” partly before and partly after the proposal of the name albus Smith, 1900. IV. Requirements of a satisfactory solution 13. Discussions of the problem of homonyms, both past and recent, have disclosed wide divergencies of views and suggest that it is not likely to be possible to find any solution which will give complete satisfaction to everyone. The solution to be aimed at must satisfy to as high a degree as possible a number of different, and in part mutually inconsistent, requirements. It is the difference in weighting attributed to these conflicting desiderata, rather than a difference in views on the desiderata themselves, that it is responsible for the widely divergent proposals advocated in different quarters. 14, The principal desiderata which any satisfactory solution must aim to supply to the highest degree mutually compatible with one another may be listed as follows :— (1) to avoid the confusion which would arise if the same name were used for two different species of animal ; (2) to avoid the confusion which would arise if one species of animal were known by two different names ; (3) to avoid the need for unnecessary time-consuming researches into early literature : (4) to avoid any subjective element in the interpretation of the Régles, so that the trivial name which they prescribe will be independent of the taxonomic views of individual workers ; (5) to avoid unnecessary changes in trivial names now in use ; (6) to avoid the risk of names being unnecessarily replaced through deliberate misuse of the provisions of the Reégles. V. Main solutions which have been suggested 15. Although there is no mention of it in the Régles, a distinction has been drawn by many zoologists between primary homonyms on the one hand and secondary homonyms on the other. Primary homonyms are pairs of specific names consisting of identical combinations of generic and specific trivial names at the time of their original publication. Secondary homonyms are all other 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. kinds, namely pairs of identical specific trivial names which were not originally published in the same genus but subsequently came to be used in combination with the same generic name through the transfer of one or both of the species concerned to another genus or through the union of two or more genera. Thus cases “A’’, “B” and “C” in the annex to the present paper are examples of primary homonyms and cases “D”, “E”, “F”, “@” and ‘“H” are examples of secondary homonyms. 16. It is agreed by all concerned that where homonymy (in the sense of the footnote to Article 36) directly exists (e.g. in cases *’ A’’, ‘‘ D” and ‘“‘ E”’) the later published of the two identical trivial names must. certainly be replaced. The main issues on which opinions (and practice) differ are the following :— (1) Should a primary homonym be replaced whenever it is discovered or only when the condition of homonymy still exists (case ** A”) but not otherwise (cases “ B”’ and ‘‘ C”’)? (2) Should a secondary homonym be replaced whenever it is discovered or only when the condition of homonymy still exists (cases ‘‘ D” and ‘“E ”’) but not otherwise (cases “ F”’, “‘G@” and “H’’)? (3) If a primary homonym has been replaced because a situation of homonymy existed at that time, should the original name be restored later when, through the transfer of one or both of the species to another genus (or other genera) or through the subdivision of the original genus into two or more genera, the condition of homonymy no longer exists? (e.g. in case “B” if albus Smith had been replaced by a new name some time between 1900 and 1920 when it was in the same genus as albus Latreille, should the name albus Smith be revived after 1920 when the older species albus Latreille had been removed to another genus’). (4) If a secondary homonym has been replaced because a situation of homonymy existed at that time, should the original name be restored later when, through the further transfer of one or both of the species to another genus (or other genera) or through the subdivision of the genus in which the homonymy occurred into two or more genera, the condition of homonymy no longer exists? (e.g. if the name albus Smith had been replaced between 1910 and 1920 in case “G” or between 1900 and 1910 in case “ H ” when it was a homonym of albus Latreille, should the name albus Smith be restored again in 1920 in case “G” or in 1910 in case ““H”’ when the condition of homonymy no longer exists?), 17. The. various permutations and combinations of possible answers to these questions would give more than a dozen possible solutions, but it will suffice to consider five main proposals which have been put forward or have received consideration. These are :— (1) The permanent replacement of all homonyms whenever they are discovered. (i.e. Tejection and permanent replacement of albus Smith meas: phdk th, “BR Oe De ee cares Ge emails aaa whenever homonymy is discovered.) (11) (LIT) (LV) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. , 45 The permanent replacement of primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined with the temporary replacement of secondary homonyms only if discovered when, and for the period during which, homonomy exists (i.e. rejection and permanent replacement of albus Smith in cases “A”, ““B” and “C” whenever discovered, and the temporary replacement of albus Smith if homonymy is discovered between 1910 and 1920 in case ‘‘G” and between 1900 and 1910 in case “ H”, with its restoration after 1920 in the former case and after 1910 in the latter. In cases “D” and “E” albus Smith must necessarily be replaced after 1910 and 1920 respectively, since the condition of homonomy in these two cases is assumed to persist. In case “‘ F ” there is no need to replace albus Smith at all.) The temporary replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms if discovered when, and for the period during which, homonomy exists. (The same as proposal (II) except that in case “B” albus Smith would not have to be replaced permanently but only for the period 1900-1920 if the homonymy were discovered during these years, and in case “ C ” would not need to be replaced at all.) The permanent replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms, but only if discovered when the condition of homonymy exists. (The same as proposal (I) except that the replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms would take place only if discovered while the condition of homonymy existed.) The permanent replacement of primary homonyms whenever dis- covered, combined with the permanent replacement of secondary homonyms only if discovered when the condition of homonymy exists. (The same as proposal (II) except that replacement of secondary homonyms, whenever it takes place, is to be permanent.) The main arguments that have been advanced for and against these various proposals are listed in the following paragraphs. PROPOSAL (1). The permanent replacement of all homonyms whenever they are discovered. 18. The following arguments have been advanced in favour of this proposal : (1) It appears to conform with the letter of Articles 35 and 36 as those ( » ) Articles exist to-day. On this Miss Sandhouse commented (in litt. 25th November 1938): ‘‘ While a consistent adherence to the Rules makes for inconvenience now, it seems the only way to attain permanence in names ”’. The late Secretary Stiles supported Miss Sandhouse’s view in the following words: ‘‘ Primary homonyms are still-born. Secondary homonyms are killed or die after birth. Neither a still-born child nor a 44 Bulleten of Zoological Nomenclature. dead child can be brought to life. Both are dead and should be buried or cremated or embalmed. I agree in toto with Miss Sandhouse. Any other interpretation will open this subject to unforeseen confusion in nomenclature.” (3) Under this proposal each species would be known by only one trivial name, irrespective of the subjective taxonomic views of individual workers as to the genus to which it belongs. (4) Secondary homonyms would be eliminated for all time and could not crop up again as a result of a change of view by a single worker. (5) This proposal would tend to reduce the number of species with the same trivial name in allied genera and thereby avoid possible sources of confusion. \9. The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal :— (1) President Jordan commented at the time on Secretary Stiles’ remarks quoted in paragraph 18 (2) above: “Stiles is quite wrong in saying that a secondary homonym is killed. It is imprisoned in consequence of a faulty judgment and should be released as soon as the mistake is found out.” The only form of secondary homonym which he then considered could be regarded as definitely killed and therefore as requiring to be permanently replaced would be that resulting from the objective union of two genera (i.e. the union of two genera with the same nominal species as type). In this case the imprisonment would have been based on a correct and not a faulty judgment so that execution could confidently be allowed to take place. (2) This proposal is open to abuse by any irresponsible or malicious reviser, who by placing all species in one genus could cause untold confusion by making necessary the renaming of many thousands of species throughout the Animal Kingdom. To illustrate this point, President Jordan submitted an imaginary example of a Mr. Mallocus, adherent of the view formerly advanced by Dr. Borggreve that no specific trivial name should be used more than once in Ornithology. In this example Mr. Mallocus in 1940 “ united all the birds in one genus, rejected the few thousand homonyms thus created, renamed the species affected, and after this purification, put, in 1941, the species back into the genera where they had been in 1940.” (3) It would cause unending trouble and confusion to the systematic worker who would need to be constantly on the watch to make sure that no author had amalgamated some genus with another and thus destroyed the availability of what had previously been a perfectly valid name. He would require to make a close study of the works not only of the best authors (as at present) but also of the worst authors, for it would be mostly in the works of such authors that the lumping of valid genera into large omnibus genera would be likely to be found. Systematic workers would also have to extend their reading to educational and semi-popular works where the nomenclature is often extremely faulty. c 20. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 45 PROPOSAL (Il). The permanent replacement of primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined with the temporary replacement of secondary homonyms only if discovered when, and for the period during which, homonymy exists. The following arguments have been advanced in favour of this proposal :— (1) (2) (3) (4) 22. It is the practice that has been most widely followed in the past. The fact that the only example given in Article 36 of the Regles is of a primary homonym has been cited as an argument that this Article was intended to apply to primary homonyms only. It avoids the necessity of renaming species whose names were once secondary homonyms, but where the secondary homonymy has ceased to exist (cases “F\” “G” and “H ah It enables a species which has been renamed on account of secondary homonymy to revert to the trivial name under which it was originally described once the homonymy has ceased to exist. It does not open the way to deliberate creation of secondary homonyms by irresponsible or malicious writers (cf. (2) of paragraph 19 above). It avoids the necessity of replacing names which under the previous proposal would be invalidated by a careless or ignorant lumping together of species and genera in popular or unscientific works, and avoids the need for taking account of such works (cf. (3) of paragraph 19 above). . The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal :— The wording of the Régles makes no distinction between primary and secondary homonyms. Where the name of a species has been replaced as a secondary homonym but later that species has been placed in a different genus, the species would be known by different trivial names according to the taxonomic views of different workers as to the genus to which it belongs. The subsequent resurrection of names formerly rejected as secondary homonyms when the condition of homonymy no longer exists leads to unnecessary changes of names. The distinction between the treatment of primary and secondary homonyms is illogical if our only interest is to remedy a situation of homonymy existing at the present time. PROPOSAL (III). The temporary replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms if discovered when. and for the period during which. homonymy exists. The following arguments have been advanced in favour of this proposal :— 416 (3) 24. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It is the logical procedure if our only interest is to avoid a situation of homonymy at the present time (cf. (4) of paragraph 21 above). Where this has not already been done, this proposal would remove the need for renaming species which are now placed in different genera, even if they were originally described in the same genus (cases “ B ” and “(Cas well as “ F,” “G,”’ and ‘‘H”’) (ef. (3) of paragraph 20 above). It would enable all species to be known by the trivial names under which they were originally described except where such names were currently being used for older species in the same genus. As in the case of Proposal (II) it would avoid any scope for the misuse of the Régles for the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms (cf. (5) of paragraph 20 above). It avoids the necessity for taking account of the lumping of species or genera in popular or unscientific works (cf. (6) of paragraph 20 above). The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal :— The possibility of one species being known by different trivial names according to the subjective taxonomic views of the individual worker concerned would apply under this proposal to primary as well as to secondary homonyms (ef. (2) of paragraph 21 above). The subsequent resurrection of names formerly rejected as primary and secondary homonyms when the condition of homonymy no longer exists involves unnecessary changes in trivial names (not only in cases ‘‘G’’ and “‘H”’ as under Proposal (II) but also in case * B ™ (cf. (3) of paragraph 21 above) ). Primary homonyms, unlike secondary homonyms, are independent of the taxonomic views of subsequent authors. The original com- bination is the only permanent and objectively ascertainable reference by which a specific name can always be identified, and therefore con- fusion will always arise if primary homonyms are not permanently replaced, irrespective of any subjective taxonomic revisions to which the species may be subjected subsequent to its original description, PROPOSAL (IV). The permanent replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms, but only if dis- covered when the condition of homonymy exists. The following arguments have been advanced im favour of this proposal :— (1) If we are interested only in homonymy existing at the present time, it is logical to replace both primary and secondary homonyms only if discovered when the condition of homonymy still exists (ef. (1) of paragraph 22 above). (2) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 17 As contrasted with Proposal (I) it would avoid the necessity of renaming species, the names of which have once been primary or secondary homonyms where they are no longer referred to the same genus as another species with the same trivial name (ef. (3) of paragraph 20 and (2) of paragraph 22 above). As contrasted with Proposal (III) it would avoid the possibility of one species being known by different trivial names according to the subjective taxonomic views of the individual worker concerned (cf. (2) of paragraph 21 and (2) of paragraph 23). As contrasted with Proposal (III) it would avoid unnecessary changes in names due to the resurrection of names formerly rejected as primary or secondary homonyms when the condition of homonymy ceases to exist (cf. (2) of paragraph 23). 25. The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal :— Like Proposal (III) it ignores the objective nature of primary homonyms, and fails to remedy the confusion arising from two species being originally described by the same combination of generic and specific trivial name (cf. (3) of paragraph 23 above). Like Proposal (I) it is open to abuse in the form of the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms by irresponsible or malicious writers (cf. (2) of paragraph 19 above). PROPOSAL (V). The permanent replacement of primary homo- nyms whenever discovered, combined with the permanent replacement of secondary homonyms only af discovered when the condition of homonomy exists. 26. The following arguments have been advanced in favour of this proposal :— (1) (4) Like Proposals (I) and (IV), it avoids the possibility of one species being known by different trivial names according to the subjective taxonomic views of the individual worker concerned (ef. (3) of paragraph 18 and (3) of paragraph 24 above). Like Proposal (II), it avoids the necessity of renaming species which were once secondary homonyms but where the secondary homonymy has ceased to exist (cf. (3) of paragraph 20 above). As contrasted with Proposal (II), it avoids the unnecessary change of name of a species whose trivial name has been replaced as a secondary homonym, once the condition of secondary homonymy has ceased to exist (cf. (3) of paragraph 21). It recognises the objective nature of primary homonyms and removes the confusion arising from the fact that two distinct species were originally described under the same specific name (binominal combina- tion) (ef. (3) of paragraph 23 and (1) of paragraph 25 above). 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 27. The following arguments have been advanced against this proposal :— (1) Like Proposals (I) and (IV), it is open to abuse in the form of the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms by irresponsible or malicious writers (cf. (2) of paragraph 19 and (2) of paragraph 25 above). (2) As contrasted with Proposal (IV) the replacement of a trivial name on account of primary homonymy when the condition of homonymy no longer exists involves an unnecessary change of name (cf. (2) of paragraph 24, but ef. on the other hand also (1) of paragraph 25). VI. Conclusions and recommendations 28. It is apparent from the above survey that no solution is ideal: every solution has some advantages and some disadvantages. Our object must be to select the one which has the least important disadvantages, or disadvantages which are most easily susceptible of remedy by other means. After careful weighing up of the pros and cons of the various proposals considered above, I am left with the impression that the balance of advantage lies with the last proposal (Proposal (V)) discussed. One disadvantage of this proposal (which it shares with Proposals (I) and (IV)) could probably be remedied, as suggested by the late Secretary Stiles, by the suppression of irresponsible writings of the kind in question by the International Commission under its plenary powers to suspend the Régles. The second disadvantage cited, that of unnecessary name changes, is not of very great practical importance, since the great majority of primary homonyms has already been replaced. Moreover, this disadvantage seems to be far more than outweighed by advantage (4) with which it is rigidly correlated, and by the fact that the permanent replacement of primary homonyms has been the almost universal practice of the past. 29. The selection of Proposal (V) as the solution to be recommended, while providing a valuable framework for a proposed amendment to the Regles, would by no means clear up all the gaps and ambiguities in the existing provisions of Articles 35 and 36, which have been listed in paragraph 9 above. The following paragraphs contain suggestions for providing answers to the remainder of the queries contained in that list. (a) Suggested restriction of the term “nom spécifique’” (specific name) and the adoption of the term “nom spécifique trivial” (specific trivial name). 30. It is recommended that the term “nom spécifique triviale ’’ (specific trivial name) should be used not only in Articles 35 and 36 but throughout the Régles for the Linnean concept of the nomen trivial of a species, and that the term “nom spécifique” (specific name) should be reserved to denote the nomen specificum, i.e. the binominal combination, which constitutes the specific name. This proposal would remove the ambiguity indicated in question (1) of paragraph 9. . (b) Definition of, and distinction between. primary and secondary homonyms. 31. A clear definition of primary and secondary homonyms along the lines indicated in paragraph 15 above would remove all such ambiguities as those referred to in questions (2), (3), (4). (5) and (6) of paragraph 9. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 44) (c) Procedure for replacement of homonyms. 32. Primary homonyms.—The existence of primary homonymy (as in cases “A,” ““B” and “C”’) is an objective fact, and it is necessary whenever such a situation is discovered to rename the species which bears the later published of the two identical trivial names. Even if a generally recognised subjective synonym exists, the nominal species should be given a new trivial name, since this is the only name which adheres to it objectively, irrespective of the taxonomic views of subsequent workers (cf. question (9) in paragraph 9). The new name can then be sunk as a synonym if desired, but will always be available for the nominal species should the synonymy at any time cease to be recognised. The only circumstance in which the renaming of a primary homonym is neither necessary nor desirable is when (as would only very rarely happen) the nominal species which bears the later published of the two identical trivial names has an objective synonym, that is to say when there is a second nominal species based upon the same type specimen. 33. It is important that the new trivial name of a species whose name has been rejected as a primary homonym should be well publicised, since it is henceforth to become the permanent name of the nominal species concerned. To this end I would like to propose that in such cases, as also in the case of the naming of a new species, a copy of the publication in which the new name first appears should be forwarded to the Zoological Record, so that the new name may be recorded in the systematic section of the next annual volume of that work. I should like also to suggest that an appropriate ‘‘ Recommandation”’ along these lines should be inserted in Article 25, 34. Secondary homonyms.—Secondary homonyms are necessarily subjective in origin, depending on the subjective taxonomic views of individual workers. Our aim must be to avoid the confusion to which secondary homonyms may give rise, but at the same time somehow to translate their subjective origin into objective provisions which are simple to apply and are capable of being carried out in a uniform fashion by any worker irrespective of his individual taxonomic standpoint. The provisions must permit no individual discretion and must call for no laborious researches on the part of zoologists in general and must be such as to create the maximum of uniformity and stability in nomenclature. For this purpose the onus of establishing the existence of secondary homonymy should be laid squarely on those from whose taxonomic judgment such homonymy arises. It should be the duty of any reviser who, by transferring a species from one genus to another, or by uniting two or more genera, creates a secondary homonym :— (1) expressly to cite the two species concerned in the same genus ; (2) expressly to sink the later published of the two trivial names as a homonym ; (3) to give a new name to the species. the trivial name of which has been rejected. He should further be recommended (cf. paragraph 33 above) to forward to the Zoological Record a copy of the publication in which this threefold procedure has been applied, in order that an appropriate entry may be inserted in the next volume of that work. VoL, 3 F 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 35. No name should be regarded as invalidated as a secondary homonym ° unless the three above-mentioned steps have been taken, but once they have been taken, the new name should adhere permanently to the nominal species concerned, unless, after further taxonomic revision, it is once more rejected (by a similar procedure) as a secondary homonym. 36. This procedure would establish a uniform system of nomenclature and avoid the need for time-wasting researches by systematic workers into un- scientific and popular books (cf. (3) of paragraph 19 above), though it could not prevent the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms by an irresponsible or malicious writer (cf. (2) of paragraph 19 above). (The latter danger could be met only by a judicious use by the International Commission of its plenary powers to suspend the Régles for the purpose of avoiding confusion and promcting uniformity.) Provisions along these lines would remove the ambiguities indicated in questions (7) and (8) in paragraph 9, since no species not definitely cited as a secondary homonym would need renaming, and only those names expressly sunk and replaced would be regarded as having been definitely rejected and therefore as being excluded from all further use for the species concerned. (d) Subgeneric names in relation to specific homonymy. 37. The kind of questions that may arise in relation to specific hononymy in regard to subgeneric names may be illustrated by the following examples : (1) Is a specific name to be rejected as a homonym where two species with identical trivial names are described or placed in the same genus although referred to different subgenera? My own view (and the one which accords with current practice) is that any two specific names consisting of identical trivial and generic names are homonyms (and the later published of the identical trivial names must be replaced) irrespective of whether they are placed in the same subgenus or not: (2) Is a specific name to be rejected as a homonym where two species with identical trivial names are described as belonging to the same subgenus but that subgenus is referred by the same author at different times or by different authors to different genera? My own view is that in such a case the two trivial names are not homonyms and therefore that the later published of these names should not be replaced : (3) Is a specific name to be rejected as a homonym where the two species with identical trivial names are described or placed in subgenera which, through the accident of homonymy, have the same subgeneric names, although these subgenera are referred to different genera? My own view is that, while in such a case the later published subgeneric name must be replaced as a homonym (under Article 34 of the Reégles read in conjunction with Article 6), there is no need to replace the more recent trivial name so long as the species concerned are referred to different genera. If these views are accepted, there is no need to allude to subgeneric names in Articles 35 and 36. It will, however, be essential to insert a qualification in Article 6 to indicate that subgeneric names are not to be regarded as co-ordinate with generic names for the purposes of Articles 35 and 36 in respect of specific homonymy. (cf. question (10) in paragraph 9). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 5] (e) Treatment of subspecific names in relation to specific and subspecific homonymy. 38. Subject to the exception mentioned in paragraph 39 below, the pro- vision of Article 11 that specific and subspecific names are co-ordinate, taken in conjunction with Articles 35 and 36, is generally taken to mean that, as in the case of two specific names, any two subspecific names or pairs of subspecific and specific names constitute homonyms, if they consist of combinations containing the same generic and trivial names. This being the accepted, and in my view essential, interpretation of Articles 35 and 36, when read in conjunction with Article 11, it will be necessary to make clear in the revised texts of Articles 35 and 36 that subspecific trivial names are to be subject to the same rules as specific trivial names, in the determination of specific and subspecific homonymy (cf. question (11) in paragraph 9). (f) Exemption for the trivial name of a nomgnotypical subspecies. 39. Although the Régles provide (Article 9) that the typical subgenus of a genus having two or more subgenera is to have, as its name, the same name as the genus itself, there is no corresponding provision in regard to the trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies. I am proposing elsewhere‘ the addition to the Regles of an Article to remove this anomaly, but I think it necessary to allude to the subject here because it is essential that the revised texts of Articles 35 and 36 shall secure that the trivial name of a nominotypical subspecies shall not be liable to rejection and therefore to replacement on the ground that it is a homonym of the specific trivial name of the species concerned (cf. question (11) in paragraph 9). (g) Deletion of the expression “of the same origin and meaning” in paragraph (3) of Article 35. 40. It is desirable that in their revised form the Articles of the Regles dealing with specific homonymy should retain the substance of the provisions which now appear in paragraph (3) of Article 35 and are concerned with the relationship of certain pairs of trivial names which differ from one another only by small differences of spelling. The qualification in that paragraph which limits its application to names which are “of the same origin and meaning” should however be deleted, for this limitation makes this paragraph incapable of being applied in the majority of cases falling in the class specified in that paragraph as “class (a) owing to the impossibility of determining in many instances whether any given pair of similar names are of the same origin and meaning, while as regards names falling in the remaining Classes this provision is superfluous, for names falling in these classes are by definition of the same origin and meaning. It is suggested that the opening words of this provision should be redrafted simply to provide that, where any two specific or subspecific trivial names differ from one another only by reason of the differences of spelling specified in that paragraph, those names are to be treated as being identical with one another. ‘See Point (15) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)12. VOR, oaF* wt bo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41. I summarise my principal conclusions and recommendations as follows :— (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The present provisions in regard to specific homonyms, which are embodied in Articles 35 and 36 of the Reégles, are so obscurely worded and are marked by so many and such serious omissions that it is manifest that order will never be introduced into this subject until these Articles have been completely redrafted in such a way as both to cover the whole subject and to deal expressly with each of the numerous combinations of circumstances in which specific (and subspecific) homonyms can arise. There are at present wide divergences of opinion both as to the meaning of the existing provisions and also as to the nature of the provisions which it is desirable that the Reégles should prescribe. Before considering the form which the revised version of these Articles should take, we must decide which of the main solutions which have been suggested is to be adopted. None of these solutions is ideal, each having some advantages and some disadvantages. We must therefore seek to determine which of these solutions has the fewest serious disadvantages or disadvantages which are most readily susceptible to treatment by other means. After carefully weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of the five principal types of solution which have been suggested (particulars of which are given in paragraphs 18-27 of the present paper), I have formed the conclusion that the solution which on balance offers the greatest advantages and the fewest and least serious disadvantages and which corresponds the most closely with present general practice is one which would embody the features specified in (5)-(15) below. I accordingly recommend this solution to the favourable consideration of the International Commission. In order to provide the necessary degree of clarity in the revised version of the Régles, the expressions “ specific trivial name,” “‘ primary homonym” and “secondary homonym” should be introduced and definitions should be given of the meaning to be attached to these expressions and also to the expression “ specific name.” The expression “ specific trivial name ”’ should be defined as meaning the second term of the binominal combination which forms the name of a species, i.e. it should have the same meaning as the Linnean expression ‘‘ nomen triviale,’ and the expression “ specific name” should be defined as meaning the binominal combination of generic and trivial names which together constitute the name of a species, i.e. this expression should have the same meaning as the Linnean expression “ nomen specificum.” c The expressions “ primary homonym” and “secondary homonym ” should be defined as follows :— (8) (9) (10) (11) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53 Primary homonym: A. specific name is a primary homonym of another specific name when at the time of its original publication it consisted of the same binominal combination of generic and trivial names as that which constituted the specific name of some other species at the time of its original publication. Secondary homonym : The trivial name of a species (i.e. its specific trivial name) is a secondary homonym of the specific trivial name of another species, where the two species having identical specific trivial names, although originally described in different genera, are subsequently placed, that is to say actually cited, in the same genus as the result either (1) of the union of two or more genera or (2) of the transfer of either (or both) of the species concerned from the genus in which it was (or they were) originally described to some other genus (or genera). Whenever the specific name originally bestowed upon any species is found to be a primary homonym of the specific name originally bestowed upon another species, the later published of the two names is to be permanently rejected and is to be replaced by a new specific name comprising a different specific trivia] name. Whenever the specific trivial names of two species become secondary homonyms of one another, the later published of the two specific trivial names is to be permanently rejected and replaced by a new specific trivial name, but where two species having identical specific trivial names were at one time but are no longer secondary homonyms by reason of being placed in the same genus and where in such a case the later published of the two specific trivial names was not rejected and replaced during the period in which it and the other specific trivial name were secondary homonyms of one another, that name shall not subsequently be rejected and replaced unless on a subsequent revision the two species are again re-united in a single genus and their respective specific trivial names once more become secondary homonyms of one another. Subgeneric names should not be treated as co-ordinate with generic names for purposes of specific (and subspecific) homonymy, and Article 6 should be qualified accordingly. Subspecific trivial names should be treated as co-ordinate with specific trivial names for purposes of specific and subspecific homonymy, except to the extent specified in (12) below. The rules applying to cases where a pair of species having identical specific trivial names are either originally described or subsequently united in the same genus should, therefore, apply also to cases where of two species so described or united :— D4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (a) the specific trivial name of one species is identical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the other, or (6) the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of one species is identical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the other species. (12) The subspecific trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies is not to be rejected on the ground that it is a homonym of the specific trivial name of that species. (13) In order to minimise the risk either of the publication of specific or subspecific names which are primary homonyms of previously published specific or subspecific names or of the rejection and renaming of secondary homonyms which have already been rejected and renamed, it is most important that the publication of every new specific or subspecific name should be centrally recorded as soon as possible after publication. It is accordingly suggested that a “ Recommandation” should be added to Article 25 urging every zoologist who publishes a new Specific or subspecific name either for a new species or subspecies or in substitution for a specific or subspecific name rejected as a homonym to send a copy of the publication containing that name to the Editor of the Zoological Record, c/o Zoological Society of London. Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England, in order that the name in question may be recorded in the systematic portion of the next annual volume of that work. (14) It is suggested that, in order to minimise the risk of the proposed revised rules in regard to specific homonymy being misused by irresponsible or malicious persons with the deliberate purpose of creating secondary homonyms or providing opportunities for publishing new names, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should place on record their intention to use their plenary powers to suppress any work in which, in their opinion, the provisions of the Régles have been deliberately abused in this way. (15) In the provision in paragraph (3) of Article 35 that trivial names which differ from one another only by the slight differences of spelling there specified are to be treated as being identical with one another, the qualification that, as a condition to being so treated, such names must be of the same origin and meaning, should be deleted. It is suggested that the opening words of this paragraph should be redrafted simply to provide that, where any two specific or subspecific trivial names differ from one another only by reason of the differences in spelling specified in that paragraph, those names are to be treated as being identical with one another. FRANCIS HEMMING. Secretary to the International Commassvon on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission. London, England. 29th June, 1948. CASE A Genus xX BOO allus Latr, 1800 1900 alias Smith 1900 Cenus X 1800 1880 1890 1900 albus Smith 19900 Smith Genus Y Genus Y CASE 'B 1900 allusLatr, 1900 gilbus Smit CRSE-E. CASED: Genus XxX CASE G 1BOO albusLatr, 1g00 1880 1900 ullus Smith Genus Y 1800 1890 albus 190° Smith 1900 1910 CASE C. Sa Genus ¥ f, ih f i :" ay fee ot A Pt OTe ee INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)9 ON THE STATUS OF NAMES OF FORMS OF LESS THAN SPECIFIC RANK Report by the Secretary to the Commassion I. Introductory At its Session held in connection with the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon in 1935, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had under’consideration the following resolution relating to the status of varietal names, adopted (by a majority) by Section VIII, and subsequently by a Plenary Session, of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology at its meeting in Paris in 1932 :— “La Priorité d’un nom donné a une forme quelconque d’insectes doit étre conservée dans tous les cas.” 2. The International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, Fourth Meeting, Conclusion 17) :— (a) that in the time available it would not be possible at Lisbon to deal adequately with the problems involved in this resolution ; (6) that the Secretary should confer with specialists in representative branches of the Animal Kingdom regarding the status to be accorded to names proposed as names for forms of less than subspecific status, with a view to the formulation of an Opinion appropriate to each of the various circumstances in which this problem arises. 3. In accordance with the above Conclusion, I have been in correspondence or have held personal consultations with a large number of specialists interested in this problem in different parts of the world and in connection with different groups of the Animal Kingdom. I herewith present a Report on the conclusions which I have reached. In accordance with the principles laid down in Paper 1.C.(48)6, however, I consider that the proposals here put forward, if adopted, should be incorporated in the Régles themselves rather than, as contemplated at Lisbon, being promulgated in the form of an Opinion. 4. The Régles recognise the existence of one class only of taxonomic unit below that of species, namely the ‘ sous-espéce ” (subspecies). The nomen- clature of subspecies is subject under the Régles to provisions similar to those governing the nomenclature of species. Article 11 provides that subspecific names and specific names are co-ordinate, and Article 12 that a specific name becomes a subspecific name when a species is degraded to the status of sub- species, and vice versa. Subspecific names are treated as exactly on a par with specific names in Article 25 (the Law of Priority) and Article 35 (the Law of Homonymy). 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 5. The problem with which the present Report is concerned arises from the fact that, as contrasted with the provisions of the Reégles, zoologists in general recognise many different classes of infra-specific variations, ranging from those appearing in a single individual at the one end to those characteristic of whole populations at the other. While all zoologists recognise the existence of these different classes of variations, they differ in the extent to which they think it desirable to give scientific names to the units concerned. On the one hand are those who hold that no varieties within a population should be named, that they can be denoted, where necessary, by symbols or descriptions or technical designations. On the other hand are those who employ a polynomial nomen- clature for the naming not only of subspecies (e.g. geographical races) but also of forms (seasonal, sexual, etc.), hybrids and even individual aberrations. 6. Since the Régles themselves provide no definition of a subspecies it has - remained a matter of doubt to which of the various infra-specific classes the provisions regarding the nomenclature of subspecies quoted in paragraph 4 above apply. At the one extreme is the view that names proposed for all categories of lower rank than that of species are available under the Reégles if properly proposed in Latin form and accompanied by an indication, definition or description. At the other extreme is the view that the expression “ sub- species” as used in the Régles corresponds to a definite concept, related to a population only, distinguished by constant heritable characteristics, and that properly proposed trinominal names have therefore availability under the Régles only if clearly applied to whole populations (geographical, ecological, etc.) and not if applied to sections of populations or to individuals only. 7. The question at issue is a far-reaching one. It not only affects the availability of the names of all the varieties and forms of less than subspecific rank, but, in so far as an animal originally named as representing a form is sometimes found to represent a good subspecies (or even a species), it affects also the nomenclature of a considerable number of subspecies and species which will remain in doubt until a definite ruling has been given on the subject. 8. Any satisfactory solution will clearly involve :— (1) a recognition in the Régles themselves of the existence of more than one infra-specific category ; (2) a clear and workable definition of the category or categories, to be covered by the expression “ sous-espéce ’ (subspecies), the nomen- clature of which would be co-ordinate with that of species; and (3) some provision regarding the nomenclatorial status, if any, of names given to taxonomic units of less than subspecific rank. Il. Proposed distinction in the ‘‘ Régles ’’ between the nomenclature of (a) subspecies and (b) infra-subspecific forms 9. Zoologists agree in recognising two distinct classes of taxonomic unit below that of species :—- (1) units based on constant variations characteristic of a whole population differentiated thereby from other populations (geographical, ecological, ete.) within the same species ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 57 (2) units based on variations occurring in individuals or groups, and not necessarily confined to a single population. 10. The terms applied by zoologists to these two classes of taxonomic unit below the rank of species have varied widely, some terms such as “ variety ”’ and “ form ”’-having been used indiscriminately for units in both categories. For the purpose of defining the status of names proposed for units in these two taxonomic categories respectively, it is suggested that the term “‘ sous-espéce ” (subspecies) should be restricted in the Reégles to the first category of taxonomic unit below the rank of species (that based on constant variations within a whole population), while units of the second category (those based on variations occurring in individuals or groups, and not necessarily confined to a single population) should be classed collectively as “ infra-subspecific forms.” III. Proposed nomenclatorial status of names given (a) to subspecies and (b) to infra-subspecific forms respectively. Ll. It is generally agreed that names given to “ subspecies,” as restricted in paragraph 10 above, should, subject to such amendments as may be proposed for other reasons, be governed by the existing provisions of the Regles relating to subspecies, and that they should be treated as co-ordinate with names given to species. 12. Differences have arisen, both in current practice and in proposals advocated, only in regard to the status to be accorded to names given to units in the second of the two categories distinguished in paragraph 10 above, namely to the category of infra-subspecific forms. It is this question to which it is the main task of the present Report to suggest a solution. 13. The differences referred to above can to a considerable extent be traced back to differences in the zoological ends which the nomenclature of taxonomic units below the rank of species is required to serve. We have to recognise the existence of several distinct classes of zoologist, each with different, and to some extent mutually conflicting, interests :— (1) There is first the systematist who is primarily interested in studying subspecies, species and higher categories, and who would prefer the scope of zoological nomenclature to be drawn no more widely than is necessary to include the categories with which he himself is concerned. He does not wish to take cognizance or keep records of all names proposed for aberrational or other categories of infra-subspecific rank (i) on the ehance that such a name should later be found to be the oldest name applied to a representative of a hitherto unnamed (or invalidly named) subspecies or species, or (ii) in order to ensure that any new name which he may select for a species or subspecies shall not be invalidated as a homonym of an earlier published name proposed for some unit of infra-subspecific rank. (2) Secondly, there is the considerable number of zoologists, especially in certain groups (e.g. in some Orders in the Class Insecta) who are particularly interested in the study of forms (sexual, seasonal, dimorphic) and aberrations, and seek the protection of the Régles to stabilise the 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. nomenclature of these categories. If these names were to be declared to be outside the scope of zoological nomenclature altogether and hence of the Régles, there would be nothing to ensure that the same form was always denoted by the same name (Law of Priority) or that the same name was always used to denote the same form (Law of Homonymy). Intercommunication and mutual understanding in this branch of zoology would be seriously hampered. (3) Thirdly, there are zoologists who are especially interested in the study of forms based on parallel variations occurring in a number of allied species, and who wish to use the same names or terms to denote the forms in question in whichever species or subspecies they occur. Such a procedure would be ruled out if the Law of Homonymy (Article 35 of the Régles) were to be applied to all names of infral subspecific rank. An example of this situation is provided by the names (obsoleta, arcuata, striata, etc.) proposed by the late Professor L. Courvoisier for forms showing particular aberrational characters found in each of a large number of species in the Family LycAENIDAE (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). 14. Consideration of these conflicting requirements suggests a possible compromise which would safeguard the primary interests of each group without seriously interfering with the essential needs of the others. The interests of the first group require only that the nomenclature of subspecies and higher ranks shall be entirely independent of, and unaffected by, names given to units of infra- subspecific rank. The interests of the second group require above all the protection of the Laws of Priority and Homonymy as applied to the nomenclature of infra-subspecific categories. If therefore the basic provisions of the Regles (in particular the Laws of Priority and Homonymy) could be made to apply independently in the realm of subspecies and species on the one hand, and in the realm of infra-subspecific forms on the other, then this should be perfectly satisfactory to the workers interested in each of these realms. The situation would be not dissimilar to that already obtaiming as between zoological and botanical nomenclature. 15. The realm of infra-subspecific categories on the one hand and the realm of subspecies and species on the other are not however completely independent of one another. Animals originally named as representing subspecies or species are sometimes reclassified later as representing forms or aberrations; and, on the other hand, animals originally named as representing forms or aberrations may later turn out to be representatives of good subspecies or even species. What is to be the status of names originally proposed in the one realm when the animal concerned is elevated (or degraded) to represent a unit in the other? Itis obvious that the concern of the first group of zoologists (those interested in subspecies and higher categories only) not to be troubled with names given to units of infra- subspecific rank requires that any unit of infra-subspecific rank promoted to the rank of subspecies or above must be given a new name dating, and with rights of priority (in the ‘‘ new realm ’’) only as from the time when the animal concerned was first elevated to represent a subspecies or species. If it is decided to retain the original form name asa subspecific or specific trivial name (assuming it is not a homonym in the “ new realm ”’) the name will need to rank for — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 59 priority only as from the date on which the elevation to the status of subspecies or species took place, and be attributed to the author responsible for this elevation. 16. The same considerations do not apply in the case where an animal originally named as representing a subspecies or species is treated by a later author as representing only a form or aberration. For whereas some zoologists are interested only in subspecies and species but not in lower forms, it need not be assumed that those zoologists who specialise in the study of forms, aberrations, etc., are uninterested in subspecies and species. It may be assumed that they will wish to keep a record of names proposed for species and subspecies in any case. There would appear therefore to be no need for animals originally named as répresenting subspecies or species to be renamed if they are later found to represent only forms or aberrations, assuming, that is, that the old name does not turn out to be a homonym in the realm of infra- subspecific forms. 17. The above proposals would appear to meet the requirements of the first and second classes of zoologists distinguished in paragraph 13 above. There remains the problem of meeting the requirements of the third class. those interested in the study of parallel infra-subspecific variations occurring in a number of allied species. Some exception to the operation of the Laws of Priority and Homonymy in the realm of infra-subspecific forms seems to be called for. Such a suspension of the Régles in the interests of promoting uniformity and avoiding confusion could be secured by the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers. The procedure would be for the Commission, at the request of specialists in the group concerned, where it was satisfied that greater uniformity than confusion would follow from the use of standard terminology for certain infra-subspecific forms occurring in two or more allied species, to prescribe, by Opinion, the terms to be used for such forms. These terms (or technical designations) would have absolute priority both over any names which may previously have been given to the forms in question or which thereafter may be so given and over any other use of the prescribed terms as names for other forms in the same genus. IV. Method of application of the present proposals 18. In order to apply the proposals outlined in the foregoing section of this Report, it would be necessary to establish a criterion for determining whether any name given to a form of less than specific rank is applicable (a) to a subspecies or (b) to an infra-subspecific form. 19. The first requirement for such a criterion is that it should be objective. If the Regles are to promote uniformity and stability in nomenclature, it is essential that their provisions should leave as little room as possible for any subjective element in the interpretation of the way they are to be applied. In this particular case the nomenclatorial status of names given to units of less than specific rank must be independent of the taxonomic judgment of individual zoologists as to the status of the taxonomic unit represented by the animal to which the name in question was given. The only objective criterion is that of the terms in which the name was originally published. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 20. The second essential requirement of the criterion to be used in determining into which category any name given to a unit of less than specific rank falls is that it shall be unambiguous without being unduly narrow or “ ritualistic.” Tt . must not exclude from subspecific status a name clearly intended for a subspecies solely on the ground that that name was not proposed in accordance with a certain fixed, narrowly defined procedure. At the same time the criterion to be adopted must provide a clear and unambiguous guide as to the category to which any given name of less than specific status belongs. 21. Two points arise from the above considerations :— (1) A more rigorous standard for the attainment of subspecific status can properly be required from names published after some specified future date than can be applied to names published in the past before incorporation in the Reégles of the distinction suggested in the present proposals ; (2) In the interest of maximum clarity, it is desirable to lay down an ideal procedure to be adopted in proposing new names for subspecies and infra-subspecific forms (or for re-naming organisms whose taxonomic status is being raised from that of an infra-subspecific form to that of subspecies), but this procedure must not be adopted as a minimum standard, failure to attain which shall disqualify a name from acquiring subspecific status. V. Criteria for determining subspecific status for names published (a) before and (b) after the suggested prescribed date 22. For the future it will be possible to lay down that no name published as the name of a form of less than specific status, where it is not perfectly clear from the terms of its original publication that it is intended for a subspecies, should be treated as having subspecific rank. All other names given to units of less than specific status, whether clearly proposed for infra-subspecific forms or not, would then have status only as infra-specific names. 23. Substantial notice would be necessary before bringing such a provision into force, so as to enable workers to become familiar with its implications and to make the necessary adjustments in their card indexes and their current manuscripts. I consider that it would not be practicable to bring such a provision into force before the end of 1950, and suggest therefore making it apply only to names published after midnight G.M.T. of 3lst December of that year. 24. In the case of names of less than specific rank published in the past and before Ist January 1951, a less rigorous standard must be admitted for the attainment of subspecific status. For names published in this period I suggest that all those should be treated as having subspecific status where it is not perfectly clear from the terms of their original publication that they were intended for infra-subspécific forms. This would include all names of less than specific status clearly stated to be intended for subspecies (as in the case of names published after 31st December 1950) and in addition all those not clearly specified to be intended for some infra-subspecific form. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 VI. Suggested ‘‘ Recommandations ” as to the method of citing new names proposed (a) for subspecies and (b) for infra-subspecific forms 25. Under the present proposals it would be highly desirable that authors proposing new names for subspecies or for infra-subspecific forms should make it absolutely clear which it is they are doing, by their method of citing the new name in question. In the case of a new name proposed for a subspecies this could be effected by (a) citing the new name in a trinominal combination consisting of (1) the generic name, (2) the specific trivial name and (3) the subspecific trivial name, and (b) adding at the end the expression “ ssp.n.’’ to indicate both that the name is a new name and that it is intended to apply to a subspecies. Where an author is proposing a new name for an infra-subspecific form, this should be clearly indicated by (a) inserting a comma followed by an expression indicating the status of the infra-subspecific form (e.g. an expression such as “ form. vern.”, “9-form,” or “ab.”) immediately after the subspecific or specific trivial name and before the name of the infra-subspecific form, and (b) adding at the end an expression such as ‘‘ form. nov.” or “ab. nov.’’ to indicate both that it is a new name and to which category of infra-subspecific form the name is intended to apply. 26. While it would be extremely desirable that all authors should follow the above procedure in proposing new names for units of less than specific rank, it would clearly be a gross and inexcusable case of “ ritualism ”’ if a new name clearly proposed for a subspecies were to be disqualified from subspecific status because the above procedure had not been exactly or fully followed. The course which I suggest therefore in this as in other cases where it is desired to indicate an optimum procedure without establishing it as a minimum requirement, is that the optimum procedure should be inserted in the Régles in the form of a Recommandation appended to the relevant provision, while only the minimum requirement (i.e. that needed to secure availability under the Régles) should be included in the operative provision of the Régles. 27. It is accordingly suggested that the actual requirements for the acquisition of subspecific status for a name bestowed on a form of less than specific rank should be drawn broadly, in the terms indicated in paragraph 22 above, but that this provision should be accompanied by a Recommandation strongly urging authors proposing new names for forms both of subspecific and of infra-subspecific rank. to do so in terms such as those specified in paragraph 25 above. VII. The general effects of the present proposal 28. I have now described in broad outline the scheme which I recommend for dealing with the problem of names for taxonomic units of less than specific rank, and at the end of the present Report I set out those proposals in somewhat greater detail. Before I do so, it will, I think, be useful to pause for a moment and, after looking at the scheme as a whole, to consider to what extent it meets the problem with which we are faced. gz we. §2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 29, First, whatever view may be taken on this or that aspect of the present scheme, it must, I think, be admitted that it offers a clear-cut and easily operated method for dealing with the problem of names for taxonomic units of less than specificrank. It has therefore the merit that it provides a means of putting an end to the state of chaos into which we have drifted as a result of allowing nearly 50 years to go by without making an attempt to insert provisions in the Régles to deal with this subject. All of us who are workers in systematic zoology are familiar with the difficulties which constantly arise from the complete lack of guidance on this subject in the Régles. The first need of every such worker is that an end should be put to the present state of uncertainty and that some workable scheme should be clearly prescribed in the Régles. This requirement will, I believe, be met by the adoption of the scheme now put forward. 30. No amount of study or discussion could serve to produce a scheme which would be warmly welcomed by every class of zoologist, for the question of whether names should be given to minority elements below the subspecific level is one on which complete agreement can hardly be expected. From the standpoint of some zoologists names for such forms are essential tools for their work, while for others the needs of science would be met just as well and indeed better by the adoption of some terminology for these forms which did not involve the giving of trivial names. However much zoologists may disagree on this or other questions, all will however accept the view that in pursuance of their general unity of purpose they should so conduct their affairs as to enable every legitimate interest to be met. To this end a certain amount of give and take and mutual forbearance is essential. 31. It is with this object in view that the present scheme has been constructed, for it provides on the one hand a means of validating and regulating the status of the countless thousands of names applied to forms of less than subspecific rank, while on the other hand it relieves those workers who are not concerned with the study of forms below the subspecies level of the immense burden involved in recording and cataloguing names given to such forms. The corner-stone of the whole scheme is the provision that the nomenclature of subspecies and species on the one hand and that of forms of infra-subspecific rank on the other are to be made independent of one another, though each within its own field is to be subject to the same laws. I regard this provision as of cardinal importance, for it alone provides a means of meeting the needs and wishes of each of the two main classes of zoologists concerned, without inflicting damage or serious hardship upon either. 32. I recognise that some sacrifice is entailed for each class ; those zoologists who attach importance to the naming of infra-subspecific forms will have to forego the right of seeing the names bestowed on such forms being elevated to subspecific or specific rank with their original date of publication and their original authorship. On the other hand, those zoologists who are not concerned with the study of forms of infra-subspecific rank will need to re-examine their catalogues for the purpose of identifying those species and subspecies which are to-day known by names which were originally published as names of infra- subspecific forms and which may have to be replaced if some name now _ THANKS To. UNESCO. aternational ‘Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf al Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have ei ing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL .N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance of pr ue here volume: ) 4, Oe Sg ae CEES ‘for: cig ie commence at an ely tae Volume 3: rad volume will ‘be devoted to the publication of the Rae s “Trem oar sa a. ad other documents considered the ae Volume 4 This volume will be devoted the nba eae Fs a ise aE ings of the I tthe pa Commission on Sta ae Nomenclature 's_ Session held in Paris in July 1948. : 5 0 Rate It mespesed that publication of this volume will commence within _ Yanga at se “Official Record of Proceedings of the Thirteenth International votec Asie publication DCec of bales, Pace Ge toe L hi iterna Zoology, Paris, Soe aeayrey pieede Bic r with th > Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter- Re esate 1 Can ‘Commission on Eee". _Notaesastareaer' and the Section bce SS ae on nea sen Ae rea ae ca Be We a Ay Sipe ee ee aoe Maat -. cs 2% . 2 ee 3 3 ee "INQUIRIES eee tls es regarding ~ bublications should be addressed t to the International See omencla ture, and all inquiries regarding. the scientific work of : to the Commission at the following addresses :— ; “Trust for Zeal Marius 41, Queen’s Gate, <2} Ss. Wales “0 Ae AC International Commi on Zoolog 1 No menclature : Secretariat of F ; aa < S the | mmissi ss Pak ie Ea vs hae Londény Wl Eaghaas f VOLUME 3. Parts 4/6 14th March, 1950 pp. 63—158 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ) BO | iaie y of Pu” ‘eS ~* The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. CONTENTS : Part 1. Memoranda and Reports submitted to the Page International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the Secretary to the Com- mission at the Session of Meetings held by the International Commission during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (concluded) 63—154 Part 2. Communications submitted*to the Section on Nomenclature, Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (first instalment) Half-Title, 157-—158 ‘ LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1950 Price One pound, eight shillings. (All rights reserved) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 63 regarded as a junior synonym is found to have priority over the currently used name when that name is reclassified as from the later date from which it will now rank for purposes of priority. 33. Against these sacrifices must be set the great advantages that will be reaped by both classes of zoologist. Those who attach importance to the giving of names to taxonomic units below the rank of subspecies will secure for such names a definite recognition in the Régles and will be provided with a code of rules by which the status of such names can in future be regulated. On the other hand, those zoologists who are not concerned with the study of forms of lower rank than subspecies will not only be able to disregard all such names as may in future be published for forms of these categories, but will also be able forthwith to discard many thousands of names which at present encumber their catalogues. 34. In my view, the sacrifices to be made are infinitely less than the advantages to be gained. Even if this were not so, these sacrifices and incon- veniences would be a small price to pay for a settlement which put an end to doubt and uncertainty and removed the reproach that zoologists would prefer the continuance of a state of chaos rather than make the small mutual sacrifices necessary to introduce order into this important field of zoological nomenclature. It is therefore with confidence and hope that I place in the hands of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the present Report on the subject which they entrusted to me at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35. I summarise my principal conclusions and recommendations as follows :— (1) The lowest taxonomic category mentioned in the Reégles is the “ sous- espéce”’ (subspecies). That term is not defined and many zoologists claim that, in the absence of a definition, this expression, as used in the Regles, should be interpreted as comprising every infra-specific category and not merely populations which differ constantly from one another within a given species. This view is rejected by many other zoologists, who, however, do not agree with one another as to the criteria to be adopted for determining whether a given trivial name should be regarded as the trivial name of a subspecies or should be rejected as the name of a form of infra-subspecific rank. The problem here is whether this question should be determined (a) by the terms in which the name was first published’ or (b) by the subjective taxonomic views on the status of the form concerned held by the worker using the name in question. (2) The lack of guidance in the Régles on the foregoing questions has led to much confusion and diversity of practice. In order to put an end to this state of affairs, it is essential that the Congress should agree to insert words in the Regles to make it clear :— VOL. 3 F (4) (5) (6) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (a) whether the lowest category of name to which those Régles apply is the subspecies (as currently understood) ; or (6) whether, on the contrary, the Régles apply to names bestowed on any class of infra-specific unit down to, and including, a name given to a unique individual aberration. It is clear that no solution would be acceptable which denied to the names of infra-subspecific forms the rights conferred by the Law of Priority (Article 25) or excluded such names from the scope of the Law of Homonymy (Articles 35 and 36). It is equally clear that no solution would be acceptable which granted an absolute parity to names bestowed upon infra-subspecific forms with names bestowed upon subspecies and species. The following proposals are designed to meet the practical needs both of those zoologists whose requirements are such that they should have at their disposal names for taxonomic units of infra-subspecific rank and of those zoologists who feel no such need. As a first step towards a settlement of the nomenclatorial problems involved, it is essential that the Reégles should expressly recognise the existence for nomenclatorial purposes of two categories below the species level and should give a clear definition of the meaning to be applied for nomenclatorial purposes to each of these categories. It is suggested that the expressions to be applied in the Régles to denote these categories and the definitions to be given to them should be as follows :— “* Subspecies ”’ A geographical, ecological or other population within a species which differs constantly from another such population within the same species. “ Infra-subspecific Any form of a species other than a “ subspecies ” form ” as defined above. This term would therefore include seasonal forms and minority elements of all kinds within a species, such as sexual forms, transition forms, mutants, aberrations, etc. ‘ Great instability would inevitably arise if the nomenclatorial status of a given name were to depend upon the subjective view of zoologists on the question whether a given name applied to a subspecies or to an infra-subspecific form. It is essential therefore that the Régles should provide an objective criterion, namely, that provided by the terms in which the name was originally published. It is not possible to devise a generally acceptable solution which would apply not only to names given in the future but also to names given in the past. It is therefore suggested that (as on the occasion in 1927 when a new proviso was added to Article 25) the Congress should provide two standards for names published for units of less than specific rank to acquire status as subspecific names, one, more lenient, to be applied to names already published, and another, more rigorous, standard for names published in the future. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 65 (7) It is desirable that adequate notice should be given to zoologists of (8) (9) the new provisions and it is therefore suggested that the point of time to be selected as that from which the more rigorous standard should be applied should be midnight G.M.T., 31st December 1950/1st January 1951. In order to ensure against the risk of names being invalidated on purely technical grounds, it is essential to avoid introducing unduly detailed conditions into the standards to be prescribed. The standard to be prescribed should therefore be a minimum standard. In order, however, to provide a guide to the highest standard to be aimed at, a Recommandation prescribing that standard should be added to the relevant new provision in the Reégles. It is proposed :— (a) that any trivial name published, prior to the point of time specified in (7) above, as the name of a taxonomic unit of less than specific rank shall be classified for the purposes of the Régles as follows :— (i) as the trivial name of a subspecies, when at the time of the original publication of the name the author concerned either (1) clearly indicated that he regarded the unit named as of subspecific rank or (2) did not clearly indicate the status attributed by him to the form so named, that is to say, whether he regarded it as being a subspecies or as being a form of infra-subspecific rank ; (i) as the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form, only when at the time of the original publication of the name the author concerned expressly indicated that he regarded the form so named as being a form of infra-subspecific rank. (6) that any trivial name published, after the point of time specified in (7) above, as the name of a taxonomic unit of less than specific rank shall be classified for the purposes of the Régles as follows :— (i) as the trivial name of a subspecies, only when, at the time of the original publication of the name, the author concerned clearly indicated that he regarded the form so named as being a subspecies ; (ii) as the trivial name of a form of infra-subspecific rank, in all cases where, at the time of the original publication of the name, the author concerned either expressly indicated that he regarded the form so named as being a form of infra- subspecific rank or, if he did not so indicate the status of the form, where he failed to indicate clearly that he regarded that form as being a subspecies. (c) that a Recommandation be added to the provision in the Regles dealing with the matters specified in (6) above, strongly recommending that an author when proposing a trivial name for a vou 3 F* 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. previously unnamed subspecies or, when re-naming a subspecies, the only published name for which is invalid under Article 35, should cite that name in a trinominal combination (consisting of (1) the generic name (2) the specific trivial name and (3) the subspecific trivial name) and further that, by using the expression “ssp.n.”” or otherwise, he should clearly indicate both that the name is a new name and that it is intended to apply to a subspecies. (10) It is essential that the Régles should distinguish clearly between the status of a name originally published as the name of a subspecies and that of a name originally published as the name of an infra-subspecific form. It is therefore suggested that the Régles should provide :— (a) (6) (¢) (d) (¢) that (as at present) the trivial names of subspecies shall be co- ordinate with the trivial names of species ; that a name given to any infra-subspecific form shall be co-ordinate with the name given to any other infra-subspecific form but not with names of subspecies and species ; that a name originally published as the name of an infra-sub- specific form, if elevated to subspecific or specific rank by a subsequent reviser, shall rank in its new status for purposes of priority as from the date on which it was so elevated and shall be attributed to the author by whom it was so elevated ; that for the purposes of (c) above, an author need not expressly state that he is elevating the status of a name originally published as the name of an infra-subspecific form but he must so treat the name as to make it clear that he is in fact treating that name as the name of a subspecies ; that, in order to obtain as high a standard of clarity as practicable, it is most desirable that every author, when elevating to sub- specific rank a name originally published as the name of an infra-subspecific form, should expressly state that he is so doing, and a Recommandation to this effect should be inserted in the Article of the Régles containing the provisions specified in (c) and (d) above ; that, where a name, originally published as the name of an infra-subspecific form is elevated to subspecific rank under (c) above but some other author does not recognise the taxonomic validity of the action taken by the previous reviser and in consequence continues to regard the animal in question as representing not a subspecies but an infra-subspecific form, the name for any such author shall retain its original priority and shall be attributed to its original author ; that, where a name originally published as the name of a species or subspecies is treated by a subsequent reviser as applying to an infra-subspecific form, the name shall retain its original priority and shall be attributed to its original author. an (11) (13) (14) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 67 As regards the citation of names of infra-subspecific forms, it is necessary that provision should be made in the Reégles for some method of citation different from that prescribed for subspecies. It is therefore suggested that the Régles should provide that, when an author desires to cite by name an infra-subspecific form, he should cite that name immediately after the trivial name of the species, if no subspecific name is to be cited, and immediately after the subspecific trivial name, if a subspecific name is to be cited, provided :— (a) that a comma be inserted immediately after the trivial name of the species or the subspecies, as the case may be; and (6) that an expression indicating the status of the infra-subspecific form in question (e.g. an expression such as “ form.vern..” *“‘o-form,” or ‘ ab.’’) be inserted immediately before the name of the infra-subspecific form. Consequent upon the introduction into the Régles of a prescribed manner of citing names of forms of infra-subspecific rank (as recommended in (11) above), it is desirable that there should be inserted in the Régles a Recommandation regarding the manner in which such names should be originally published parallel to that suggested in (9) (c) above in the case of names of subspecific rank. It is accordingly suggested that there should be inserted in the Régles a Recomman- dation strongly recommending that an author when proposing a trivial name for a previously unnamed form of infra-subspecific rank or when renaming such a form, the only published name for which is invalid under Article 35, should cite that name in the manner specified n (11) above. Subject to (10) and (11) above, all the provisions in the Regles which apply to the trivial names of species and subspecies should apply also to the trivial names of infra-subspecific forms. In order to prevent the confusion which might arise (and to remove the confusion which in certain instances has already arisen) when different names are applied to parallel infra-subspecific forms occurring in two or more allied species, it is suggested that the Regles should provide that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the International Congress of Zoology, may, on the application of specialists in the groups concerned, use their plenary powers to establish technical designations. to be applied to such parallel forms, such designations :-— (a) toconsist of Latin or Latinised words or words treated as such ; and (b) to comply with the provisions in the Régles relating to the * formation of specific and subspecific trivial names, and that, where a given term has been prescribed under the foregoing procedure to be the technical designation of a parallel form occurring in two or more allied species, the term so prescribed shall have absolute priority over ;— 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (i) any name which may already have been, or may thereafter be given to that form in any of the species concerned, and (ii) any other use of the same word as the name of any other infra- subspecific form of any species in the same genus or, if more than one genus is covered by the order made by the International Commission, in the genera so covered. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 14th July, 1948. ( 69 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)10 PROPOSED CODIFICATION OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ‘“ REGLES” GIVEN IN “OPINIONS” RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission Since the year 1907 when the International Congress of Zoology conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the right and the duty to render Opinions on questions of nomenclature submitted to it, the Commission has rendered in all 194 Opinions covering a wide variety of subjects. In addition, the Commission has rendered 12 Declarations, embodying decisions of a more general character, mostly concerned with nomenclatorial practice rather than with nomenclature itself, which have formed the subject of Resolutions adopted at successive meetings of the Commission and the Congress. 2. Many of the Opinions rendered by the Commission are concerned either with the status of individual names or with the addition of names to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” But when we put those Opinions on one side (as being irrelevant to our present purpose), we are left with a substantial body of Opinions, each of which contains an interpretation of the meaning to be attached to some Article of the Régles. Some of these Opinions were expressly drafted as interpretative Opinions but in most cases the inter- pretation is given more or less incidentally in connection with an answer to a question regarding the status of a particular name. In these cases the title of the Opinion relates to the name under discussion and gives no indication that a decision of principle affecting every zoologist has been given in the Opinion in question. Not unnaturally, therefore, some of these interpretations have been widely overlooked. 3. At their Session held in Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission reviewed their practice in this matter (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 15) and unanimously agreed that, when in future the Commission reached a decision of interest to the general body of zoologists, it was of the utmost importance that that decision should be presented in such a way as to ensure that it was most readily available to all concerned. This decision has been strictly applied on every occasion on which since 1935 this problem has arisen. An example of the application of this principle is provided by the case submitted to the Commission in regard to the status of the Brachiopod name Rhynchonella 70 ' Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. alta commonly attributed to Samuel Calvin and treated as having been published in or about 1878. The question put to the Commission was concerned with the status of the trivial name alta, but in order to reach a decision on this question it was necessary for the Commission to take a decision regarding the interpretation of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regles in relation to a name, the alleged ‘“ publication” of which consisted of its use in explanation of a photograph or other illustration distributed by a zoologist to his students or his colleagues. In this case the Commission gave their decision on the status of the name Rhynchonella alta (a matter of interest only to students of the Class Brachiopoda) in one Opinion (Opinion 190), while they gave their interpretation of this particular aspect of Article 25 in another Opinion (Opinion 191). 4. The reformed procedure instituted by the Commission in 1935 was undoubtedly a great improvement on that previously followed, but it touched only the fringe of the subject. Much more drastic steps will be necessary before an end can be put to the chaotic situation which confronts zoologists who desire to ascertain whether any particular provision of the Régles has been the subject of an interpretative Opinion by the International Commission. The first two tasks to be undertaken are first to make available the texts of the older Opinions, most of which are out of print and are virtually unobtainable ; the second to provide some guide by which zoologists can thread their way through the jungle presented by those Opinions in their present unindexed state. 5. When during the recent war the Commission endeavoured to take stock of the problems with which they were faced and which they would need to tackle immediately the war was over, they expressly included in their programme the publication of an authoritative edition of the substantive French text of the Régles. In making this announcement in their Report for the year 1944 (Bull. zool. Nomencl.t: Ixvi-lxvii) the Commission added that they proposed to include in the new edition of the Reégles an analysis of those of their Opinions which contained interpretations of Articles of the Régles. This analysis was started in 1944 and was substantially completed some two years later. Its preparation proved laborious and in some respects difficult owing to the need carefully to distinguish the actual decisions taken by the Commission from the numerous olter dicta embodied in the texts of many Opinions which had the appearance of being views expressed by the Commission but were in fact no more than the personal views of the draftsmen of the Opinions concerned. 6. Simultaneously with the preparation of the analysis of the interpretative Opinions rendered by the Commission, a start was made with the re-issue of the older Opinions which (as already explained) had for years been out of print and which were unknown to the majority of zoologists, except through the “summaries ”’ which often failed to give a clear picture of the decision taken in those cases where the ostensible object of the Opinion was to give a ruling on the status of some particular name, while by far the most important part of the Opinion was the decision taken on the interpretation of some provision of the Régles. Attached to each of these re-issues were editorial notes prepared by myself in my capacity as Secretary to the Commission, — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 71 7. Both the projected analysis of the interpretative ( Jpinions and the issue ot an annotated edition of the older Opinions represented steps in the right direction but each fell short of the ideal solution, for neither the analysis nor the annotations to the older Opinions could in the circumstances do more than represent the views of the author by whom they were compiled. However careful and objective the approach made to this task, it is obvious that documents compiled in this way were liable to contain conclusions which might be open to discussion. Obviously, it was desirable to secure, if possible, an analysis and annotations which represented the views of the whole Commission and whose authority could therefore not be called in question. 8. Within the last eighteen months the whole question has been carefully . reviewed by the Executive Committee who have come to the conclusion that the right and proper ¢ourse is to take advantage of the forthcoming meeting of the International Congress of Zoology to seek the concurrence of the Congress in a comprehensive codification of the interpretative Opinions rendered by the Commission during the last forty years. In every country in which the law consists partly of statute law and partly of case law built up from interpretative judicial decisions it is the normal practice from time to time to take stock of the position and to codify the law by writing into the statute the provisions which over the course of years have themselves become part of the general corpus of the law through interpretations of the statute made in the Courts. There is obvious advantage to be gained from periodical codifications of this sort, for, unless action is taken on these lines, the law becomes so complicated (and often to the laymen so obscure) that it is impossible for any but skilled jurists to interpret it with any confidence. Ultimately, even expert inter- pretations so prepared themselves become open to an increasing measure of reservation and doubt, owing to the fact that, as is inevitable over a long period, judicial decisions taken at one date on a particular question are found on close examination to be—or to have the appearance of being—inconsistent with decisions taken at some earlier date on some closely allied topic. There is therefore a real danger that if matters are allowed to slide indefinitely the state of the law will become so obscure as almost to defy interpretation. 9. Fortunately, matters have not yet reached such a pass in the case of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, but signs are not wanting that the Régles and the Opinions taken together are becoming so complicated as to make their interpretation by working zoologists unnecessarily time-consuming and burdensome. As a preliminary to bringing forward the present proposal, I have held numerous consultations with leading specialists and the answers received have been uniformly encouraging. The Executive Committee are confident, therefore, not only that a codification of the Opinions by the making of appropriate additions to the Reégles is long overdue and is now urgently required, but also that a stocktaking of this kind will be generally welcomed by zoologists. 10. A codification of the international law of zoological nomenclature of the kind now proposed offers the further great advantage that when this reform has been carried through, but not before, it will be possible for zoologists at 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. large and for the Commission in particular to review the whole position and to consider in what directions further elucidations are required. At the same time zoologists will be able to consider, in conditions infinitely more favourable than those obtaining today, whether any, and, if so, what, changes should be made in the existing provisions of the law. 11. As explained in the Agenda Paper for the Paris Meeting (Paper I.C. (48) 1 already circulated), the proposal now put before the Commission is that they should submit to the Section of Nomenclature of the Congress concrete proposals regarding the interpretative decisions taken in Opinions by the Commission which it is now desired should be incorporated in the Régles. It is not proposed that those propositions should be put forward in the form of suggested additions to the Régles, for the task of drafting such provisions in- volves a technical skill which neither the Commission nor the Congress possesses or could reasonably be expected to possess. Such a task can only properly be performed by skilled jurists and it is part of the present proposal that this task should be remitted to experts by whom alone it can properly be discharged. It is essential, however, that the instructions to be given to the jurists should be in the most unequivocal form and for this reason it is most important that the propositions to be submitted by the Commission to the Section on Nomen- clature should be drawn in the clearest possible terms. 12. What has been done, therefore, is to take the interpretative Opinions rendered by the Commission, to arrange them in order by reference to the Articles of the Régles to which they refer, and to draw up in respect of each of these Opinions a proposition to be submitted to the Section on Nomenclature. These propositions are set out in Paper I.C. (48) 11. _ In each case a reference is given to the Opinion or Opinions on which the proposition in question is based. 13. The list of propositions given in the paper referred to above is intended to be a complete list of all the interpretations of the Régles hitherto given by the Commission in their Opinions, except for such interpretations in regard to one or two particular provisions (for example, the meaning of the expression ‘“‘ nomenclature binaire ”’) which will form the subject of separate proposals to be submitted to the Commission during the Paris meeting. Where separate action of this kind is contemplated, an explanatory note has been added at the appropriate point in the paper now submitted as Paper I.C. (48) 11. 14. It is possible that it will be found either that the list now submitted is not fully exhaustive or that there may be passages in some of the older Opinions which have been treated by some zoologists as containing decisions on questions of principle which have not been so regarded in the preparation of the present list. I shall be particularly grateful to any member of the Commission who may find an apparent omission of this kind if he will be so good as at once to bring it to my attention so that I may have an opportunity of considering the point raised and of putting before the Commission a proposal in regard thereto. 15. Once the proposed codification has been effected, it would clearly be highly remiss if the Commission were ever again to permit a recurrence of the present state of affairs. The Executive Committee accordingly propose that Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 73 for the future the Commission, when called upon to give an Opinion interpreting a given provision of the Régles, should not only do so in the clearest and most categorical terms (in accordance with the decision which they took at Lisbon, to which reference has been made in paragraph 3.of the present paper) but also that they should expressly state that it is their intention to recommend the International Congress of Zoology at its next meeting to approve the incorpora- tion in the Régles of words to give effect to the interpretation given in the Opinion in question. 16. The Executive Committee propose that the Commission should take the following additional measures to prevent the recurrence. of uncertainty regarding the state of international law in regard to zoological nomenclature :— (1) As regards “ Opinions ” already rendered (that is to say, ““ Opinions ”’ 1 to 194): to repeal every such Opinion, in so far as that Opinion contains an interpretation of the Regles and the present International Congress of Zoology decides either that that interpretation be now incorporated in the Reégles or superseded by some other provision, this repeal to take effect as from the date of publication of the Régles as amended by the present meeting of the Congress ; (2) to request any zoologist who may consider that any Opinion, other than an Opinion repealed for interpretative purposes in accordance with (1) above, contains an interpretation of the Régles which through inadvertence has either not been incorporated in the Régles as part of the present codification or has not been expressly repealed to notify the International Commission as soon as possible, so that they may consider what recommendations in regard thereto to submit to the next meeting of the Congress ; (3) to place on record their intention :-— (a) to make proposals to the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress for the incorporation in the Reégles of any interpretation thereof given in any Opinion so far rendered which they may find was inadvertently not incorporated in the Régles by direction of the present meeting of the Congress and which they may deem it expedient should be so incorporated ; (6) to repeal, in so far as concerns the interpretation of the Régles, every Opinion so far rendered which may not already have been repealed in accordance with (1) above, as from the date of the publication, subsequent to the next meeting of the Congress, of the Reégles, as amended at that Congress ; (4) As regards any “ Opinions” rendered after the present meeting of the Congress :— (a) to lay it down that the decision given in any such Opinion is to be looked for only in the “ summary ”’ of that Opinion, that every such “ summary ” is to be rigidly construed and that no deductions, other than those expressly specified therein, are to be drawn therefrom ; 74 (5) (6) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. to place on record that no new interpretation of the Régles is to be drawn from any Opinion, other than an Opinion in which the Commission expressly state, in the “* summary ”’ thereof, that they are giving such an interpretation ; to report to each meeting of the Congress any interpretation of the Regles which they may have given in an Opinion rendered since the last previous meeting of the Congress, with a recom- mendation that every such interpretation be incorporated in the Regles ; (d) to place on record their intention to repeal any Opinion the contents of which shall have been incorporated in the Régles by direction of a meeting of the Congress, acting on a recommendation sub- mitted to it in accordance with (c) above, the said repeal to take effect as from the date of the publication, subsequent to the said meeting of the Congress, of the Régles, as amended at that Congress ; to incorporate in the By-laws of the Commission the provisions specified in (4) above. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 12th July, 1948, (75) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)11 INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ‘“‘REGLES” GIVEN IN “OPINIONS” RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION : PROPOSALS IN REGARD TO CODIFICATION Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission The following is a list of the interpretations of Articles of the Regles given in Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, together with proposals regarding the action to be taken in regard to their incorporation in the Régles. For reasons of convenience, the interpretations in question are listed. by reference not to the order in which they were promul- gated by the Commission but to the Articles of the Régles with which they are concerned. List of interpretations of the “‘ Régles ” promulgated in ‘‘ Opinions” rendered by the International Commission 1. Article 4: Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 133, as elaborated in Opinion 141, the following principles are to be observed in interpreting this Article : (a) The oldest available generic name in a family need not be taken as the type genus of that family. (b) An author estabiishing a new family is free to select as the type genus of that family whatever generic unit he considers the most appropriate. (c) The name of a family is based upon the name of its type genus. The fact that a given generic name is selected to form the name of a family constitutes ipso facto a definite designation of that genus as the type genus of that family. Example: The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758, is definitely and unambiguously designated as the type genus of the family MusciDarE by reason of the stem of the word Musca being used in the formation of the family name. (¢) The foregoing principles apply to the names of subfamilies in like manner as to those of families. 2. A Recommandation to be added in the following sense to the provision indicated in (b) above : “So far as possible, the genus selected to be the type genus of a family should be the best known and commonest of the taxonomic units concerned, i.e. it should be the most central of the genera proposed to be included in the family so established.” (See note to point (2) in summary of Opinion 141.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. So | =P) 3. A Recommandation to be added in the following sense to the provision indicated in (c) above: “In view of the fact that there are well-established family names proposed by early authors where the principle indicated in (c) above has not been observed but where it is undesirable that existing practice should be changed, authors should refer to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature any case which appears to fall in this class before changing such a name.’ (See note to point (3) in summary of Opinion 141.) . 4. Article 8: Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 183 : The provision in this Article that a generic name is to consist of a noun in the nominative singular requires that no name is to be accepted as a generic name until it has been published in that case and number and that a name first published in some other case and/or number is therefore available as a generic name only as from the date on which it is for the first time published in the nominative singular. 5. Article 14, paragraph (1): Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 64, serial letters such as “a,” “b,” “cc,” etc., are not to be accepted as constituting trival names of species or subspecies within the meaning of this paragraph of Article 14. 6. Article 14, paragraph (3): The ruling given by the Commission in regard to this paragraph in their Opinion 8 is the subject of a recommendation sub- mitted in Paper I.C.(48)6 (paragraph 11). 7. Article 19: Various proposals are under consideration for the amendment of this Article. This is no reason, however, why decisions already taken by the International Commission in Opinions rendered at various times should not be incorporated forthwith in the Régles. Indeed, until this is done it will not be possible to judge the nature and extent of the amendments (if any) which are desirable. 8. In Opinion 26 it is stated in the text that: “In general, it seems clear that the evidence [whether or not a faute d’orthographe, a faute de transcription or a faute d’impression is évident] must be contained in the original article and must be of such a nature that it is apparent to workers unacquainted with local conditions and local names” but this cannot be regarded as a definitive interpretation of Article 19, for in the “summary” of that Opinion the Commission ruled that it was “évident”’ that a given name (published by Swainson) was incorrectly spelt and should he amended “ in view of the number of typographical errors in Swainson, 1838 and 1839.’’ Moreover the proposition quoted above from Opinion 26 was subsequently abandoned by the Commission in Opinions 41, 61 and 63. It may be concluded however that in Opinion 26 the Commission ruled that, in deciding whether in any given case a “ faute” is “ évident,” particular attention should be paid to evidence contained in the book or journal in which the name was first published. It is desirable that words should be added to the Régles to make this clear. 9, The other rulings given by the Commission in regard to the interpretation of Article 19 deal with particular cases (Opinions 27, 29, 36, 41, 60, 61 and 63). Some of these rulings could conveniently be incorporated in the Reégles as — i...” °. oe Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 77 examples of cases where a faute d’orthographe, or a faute de transcription or a faute d’impression is “‘ évident.”” But care will need to be taken to ensure that the generality of the expression “ évident ”’ is not circumscribed by the insertion of these examples. The rulings in question lay down the following propositions, which it is suggested should now be incorporated in an appropriate manner in the Regles: (a) (b) (c) (d) Where a scientific name is based upon a modern patronymic and evidence of such dedication is “‘ évident” and where the spelling of the scientific name so published is not identical, except for the termination, with the spelling of the name of the person to whom the genus or species is dedicated, the spelling of the scientific name is to be corrected so as to correspond with the spelling of the name of that person. Example: Ruppelia Swainson, 1839, and Rupellia Swainson, 1839, are to be amended to Riippellia, in view of the fact that this genus was dedicated to Riippell. (Opinion 27.) When the author of a new name expressly founds that name upon one or more Greek words but inadvertently commits an error in transliterating into the Latin alphabet one or more of the Greek letters comprised in the word or words of which the name was composed, the error of tran- scription is to be corrected. Example : The erroneous transliteration of the Greek letter Zeta as though it stood for the Latin letter “x” instead of the Latin letter “‘z’’ committed in the spelling “‘ Pentoxocera ” is to be corrected and the spelling of this name emended to “ Pentozocera.”’ (Opinion 36.) When an author founds a name upon one or more Greek words cited in the original publication and where one of those words is there incorrectly spelt and in consequence the scientific name founded thereon is also incorrectly spelt, the spelling of that name is to be corrected. Example: The authors of the generic name which origin- ally appeared as “ Athlennes” stated that that name was based upon a Greek word similarly spelt (i.e., having the Greek letter Theta as its second letter). In fact, however, the Greek word concerned had as its second letter the letter Beta. This generic name should therefore have been spelt Ablennes and is to be emended accordingly. (Opinion 41.) When an author founds a trivial name upon the name of a locality or district from which the type specimen was obtained but, as the result of his misreading or miscopying that name from the label on the type specimen, publishes as the trivial name of the species a Latinised word which fails to indicate the locality or district intended, the trivial name is to be corrected. Example: A fish was given the name Leuciscus hakuensis by Giinther because he misread the label on the type specimen as indicating that it had been taken in “ Lake Hakou.” In fact, however, the name of the locality was “ Lake Hakone.” The trivial name hakuensis is therefore to be emended to hakonensis. (Opinion 63.) 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (e) When the author of a new specific name selects for the trivial name of the species a word which, though adjectival in form, is not a recog- nised Latin adjective and where the author uses for the nominative singular of that word the termination ‘-vws”’ (masculine) or “4a” _ (feminine), these terminations are to be corrected to “ -ecus ” and ‘‘-ea”’ respectively. Haxample: The word iridia published in 1855 as the trivial name for a new species of the genus Salmo is to be emended to iridea or, in the masculine, to irideus (Opinion 60). 10. Article 25 (names based upon hypothetical forms): Words to be inserted to make it clear (as laid down in Opinion 2) that names based upon hypothetical forms have no status under the Law of Priority. Example: Pithecanthropus Haeckel, 1866, being the name of a genus based upon a hypothetical species, has no rights under the Law of Priority, and does not preoccupy the generic name Pithecanthropus Dubois, [1894], which is based upon a known species. 11. Article 25 (a specific name bestowed conditionally): Words to be inserted to make it clear that, where an author doubtfully identifies known material with a described species but publishes for that material a new specific name in case it is later found to be referable to an unnamed species, the specific name, so given conditionally, is available for that species as from the date of its being so published. Example: The name Siphonophora asclepadifoli, given conditionally by Thomas in 1879 to material doubtfully identified by him with a previously named species (Aphis asclepiadis Fitch) is available as from 1879 for the materia] so named by Thomas. (Opinion 49.) 12. Article 25 (names which prior to publication were manuscript names): Words to be inserted to make it clear that a manuscript name acquires standing under the Law of Priority when published in conditions which comply with the provisos to Article 25, and that the status of such a name is not affected by the question whether the author by whom it is published accepts it as an available name or sinks it as a synonym. (Opinion 4.) 13. Article 25 (meaning of the expression “divulgue dans une publication ”): Important interpretations of the expression “divulgué dans une publication” have been given by the Commission in Opinions 15 and 51. These interpre-. tations certainly need to be incorporated in the Regles. It is desirable, how- ever, that these interpretations should be expanded slightly before this is done. This question is accordingly not dealt with here but will form the subject of a recommendation submitted in Paper I.C.(48)14.° 14. Article 25 (status of names in documents, etc., distributed to colleagues or students): Words to be inserted to make it clear that a new name introduced in a note (whether printed or otherwise reproduced) in. explanation of a photo- graph or other illustration of an animal is not “ divulgué dans une publica- tion ’’ where the author concerned does no more than distribute copies of such a note and photograph or other illustration to colleagues or students or when he merely attaches copies of such a note and illustration to separates of a paper dealing with the same subject but not containing the new name in question. (Opinion 191.) Example: The name Rhynchonella alta has no status under * See Point (26) in Commission Paper I.C. (48)14, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 79 . Article 25 as from the date (about 1878) on which it was distributed in a note with accompanying photograph by Samuel Calvin but ranks for purposes of priority as from 1890 when it was published with an indication by H. S. Williams. (Oginion 190.) 15. Article 25 (status of names appearing in proof sheets): Words to be in- serted to make it clear that the distribution of proof sheets does not constitute publication and that a new name given currency in this way has no status under the Law of Priority until such later time as it is duly published in accordance with the provisions of Article 25. (Opinion 87.) 16. Article 25 (status of a generic name published as an emendation of a previously published name): Words to be inserted to make it clear that a generic name published as an emendation, other than a valid emendation made under Article 19, of a name of the same origin and meaning is to be rejected as a synonym of the earlier name (Opinion 148). This decision carries with it the corollary that, if the earlier published name is found to be a homonym, the emended name is available as from the date on which it was published, and it would be well to make this point clear. (The example given in Opinion 148 is that of Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, which is to be treated as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck, 1799, of which it is an invalid emendation.) 17. Article 25 (status of names published in advance separates): Words to be inserted to make it clear that, where a new name appears in a paper published in a journal, and separates of that paper are distributed in advance of the publication of the paper in the journal concerned, the new name ranks not from the date of the distribution of the separates but from the later date on which the paper was actually published in the journal. Example: The Trema- tode name Amphimerus Barker does not date from the appearance of the tirés a part but from the date of issue of “‘ Studies from the Zoological Laboratory,” the University of Nebraska, No. 103 (which preceded the publication of the paper in question in the Archives de Parasttologie, for which it was printed). (Opinion 59.) 18. Article 25, Proviso (a) (meaning of expression “‘ indication”): This question was the subject of an interpretation given in Opinion 1. In that Opinion the Commission dealt separately with the question as it affects the trivial names of species and as it affects generic names. In Paper I.C.(48)7 proposals as regards generic names are being put before the Commission to insert a provision in the Régles in the opposite sense from that which would be required if the interpretation given in Opinion 1 were now to be codified. It is accordingly not proposed to deal with this question in the present paper. The portion of Opinion 1 which relates to the trivial names of species should, however, now be incorporated in the Régles. This will involve the insertion of words to make it clear that the trivial name of a species is to be treated as having been published with an “ indication’”’ when it is published with a bibliographical reference to a previously published description or when it is pubiished with a figure (illustration) or when it is published as a substitute for a previously published name. vo.. 3a 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 19. Article 25, Proviso (a) (status of specific names described jointly with generic names): Words to be inserted to make it clear that, in accordance with Opinion 43,-a specific name published, prior to Ist January, 1931, jointly with a new generic name is to be treated as having been published with an “ indi- cation,” where the new genus and the new species are described jointly, no separate description being given for either. (The terms of the actual decision by the Commission in the foregoing Opinion are: “The characters given for Teleogmus Foerster, 1856, Isoplata Foerster, 1856, Alloderma Ashmead, 1904, and Aphobetoideus Ashmead, 1904, cover the genera and the type species, and the generic and specific names are published in the sense of the Code.”’) It is necessary to limit this amendment to names published before Ist January, 1931, for names published in the foregoing manner would not satisfy the requirements of proviso (c) added to Article 25 with effect from that date. 20. Article 25, Proviso (a) (significance of citation of a type locality): Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 52, the citation of a type locality, unaccompanied by any other particulars, does not constitute the giving of an “indication” for the purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25, but that, if specific characters are given in addition to the name of the type locality, the type locality becomes a part of the description and is‘to be considered an important element in determining the identity of the species. 21 Article 25, Proviso (b) (status of names originally published before the publication of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae): Words to be added to make it clear that a name which has no status under the Régles because it was published prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature in 1758 (Article 26) does not acquire status under the FRégles if, when republished after the pub- lication of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus, it is simply reprinted with its original diagnosis, it being necessary, in order that such a name should acquire rights under the Reégles, that it should be re-inforced by being adopted or accepted by the author responsible for republishing the name (Opinion 5). 22. Article 25, Proviso (b) (meaning of expression ‘* nomenclature binaire ’’): This question is the subject of a special Report which has been circulated as Paper. I.C.(48)5. (Opinions 20 and 37.) 23. Article 25, Proviso (ce) (meaning of expression “definite libhographic — reference”): This provision, which was the subject of an interpretation in Opinion 138, is dealt with in a special proposal which has been submitted to the Commission in Paper I.C.(48)6, paragraphs 13 and 14. ' 24 Article 26: Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 3, any work published in 1758 is to be treated as having been published subsequent to the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus and therefor subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature. _ 25. Article 27: Words to be inserted to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 88, a specific name is not invalidated if in the original description of the species its author included descriptions of the bodily parts of more than a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 81 one species, and that the name of a genus having such a species as its type species is available under the Régles, the identity of that species to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 31. 26. Article 30, Rule (a) (types of genera having emended names): Words to make it clear that, as laid down in Opinion 148, where a generic name is emended, the type species of the genus bearing the emended name is auto-, matically the same species as the type of the genus bearing the name which has been replaced. 27. Article 30, Rule (a) (type of a genus published with the formula “n.g., n.sp.”): Wordsto be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 7, that, where a genus was established prior to Ist January, 1931, and no type was otherwise designated, the expression “n.g., n.sp.” is to be taken as designating as the type species the species so indicated. (The proviso (proviso (¢) ) which was added to Article 25 by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927 applied new and more rigorous conditions to names published after 31st December, 1930 (the date as from which that proviso came into force), but the older and less rigorous conditions remained applicable to names published before lst January, 1931. The interpretation of Article 25 given in Opinion 7 would have been inconsistent with the express provisions of that Article if it had been rendered after the date on which the new proviso (c) had entered into force. It follows therefore that that interpretation applies only to names published prior to lst January, 1931.) 28. Article 30, Rule (c) (type of a genus not intended to be monotypical but for which only one species is definitely cited by name): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 47 (case of Carcharias Rafinesque), that, where a genus is established without a designated type and with only one cited species, that species is the type under Rule (c) of Article 30, irrespective of whether or not the author concerned intended the genus to be monotypical. 29. Article 30, Rule (d) (question whether a tautonymous specifie or subspecific trivial name need be cited in the original publication of a generic name in order to make Rule (d) applicable to that generic name): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 18 (case of Hydrus Schneider), that, where a genus is established without a designated type and one of the included species has a synonym, of which the specific or subspecific trivial name consists of the same word as the generic name, it is immaterial for the purposes of Rule (d) in Article 30 whether that tautonymous trivial name is cited in the original descrip- tion of the genus, in cases where the name of that genus was published prior to 1st January, 1931. (The limitation of this provision to names published before 1st January, 1931, is due to the same reason as that explained in the similar case discussed in paragraph 27 above.) 30. Article 30, Rule (d) (type of a genus established without a designated type but containing a species for which a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name is cited as a synonym of one of the included VOL. 3 G? §2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. species): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 16 (case of Hquus Jinnaeus, ete.), that, where a genus is established without a designated type and where in the original description of one (but not more than one) of the included species there is a synonymy containing a name which prior to 1758 had been published as a univerbal specific name and that name consists of the same word as the generic name, such citation is equivalent, for the purposes of Rule (d) in Article 30, to the citation of a tautonymous specific trivial name, in the case of a generic name published prior to Ist January, 1931. (The example cited in Opinion 16 is that of the genus Hquus Linnaeus, 1758, where in the original description of one of the included species (£.caballus) there was a synonymy containing the pre-1758 univerbal specific name “ Equus,” as used by Gesner, which signified ‘“‘ The Horse,” i.e., the species named E. caballus by Linnaeus.) (The limitation of this provision to names published before Ist January, 1931, is due to the same reason as that explained in para- graph 27 above.) 31. Article 30, Rule (f) (species eligible for selection as the type of a genus established as a substitute genus, where either genus, when originally established, contained species which are recognisable but which were not on that occasion cited under binominal names): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 35, that, where a generic name, published prior to lst January, 1931, was published as a substitute for an earlier generic name and no type species was designated for either genus, the species cited in the original description of the genus, the name of which is being replaced, as well as the species cited in the oviginal description of the substitute genus, are eligible for subsequent selection as the type of the substitute genus and it is immaterial whether the species in question was originally cited under a scientific name. (The limitation of this provision to names published before Ist January, 1931, is due to the reason explained in paragraph 27 above.) 32. Article 30, Rule (g) (interpretation parallel to that given in Opinion 35 in relation to Rule (f): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 35, that, where a genus was established prior to lst January, 1931, without a designated type, any species originally included in the genus is eligible for subsequent selection as the type, irrespective of whether that species was originally cited under a binominal name or not. (The limitation of this provision to names published before lst January, 1931, is due to the reason explained in paragraph 27 above.) 33. Article 30, Rule (g) (types of genera established with adentical limits): Words to be inserted to make it clear, in accordance with Opinion 10, that, where, prior to Ist January, 1931, two genera with identical limits (i.e. with the same included species) were formed independently by different authors and neither genus had a designated type, any of the included species may be selected as the type of either or both genera. (The limitation of this provision to names published before Ist January, 1931, is due to the reason explained in paragraph 27 above.) —s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 83 34. Article 30, Rule (g) (the type of one genus not excluded from selection as the type of another genus): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 62, that a species may be selected as the type of a genus established prior to Ist January, 1931, notwithstanding the fact that that species is already the type of some other genus. (The limitation of this provision to names published before Ist January, 1931, is due to the reason explained in paragraph 27 above.) 35. Article 30, Rule (2) (types of genera not affected on union of genera on taxonomic grounds): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 164, that, when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds, such action in no way affects the types of the genera concerned, the broader genus thus formed taking as its name the oldest available generic name based on any included species and the genus bearing that name retaining as its type the species previously so established. 36. Article 30, Rule (g) (type of a genus containing only two species auto- matically fixed when one of the species becomes the type of a monotypical genus): Words to be inserted to make clear, as laid down in Opinion 6, that, where a genus established prior to 1st January, 1931, contains only two included species and a subsequent author selects one of those species to be the type of a new monotypical genus, that action automatically constitutes the selection of the other species to be the type of the original genus. (The limitation of this provision to names published before Ist January, 1931, is due to the reason explained in paragraph 27 above.) 37. Article 30, Rule (g) (validity of a type selection not affected if the author making the selection did so as the result of having misidentified the species so selected): Words to be inserted to make it clear that a type selection is not invalidated where the author making the selection misidentified the species which he so selected. (Opinion 14.) 38. Article 30 (identity of included species assumed to have been correctly determined by the original author of a genus): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 65 and again in Opinion 168, that it is to be assumed that the author of a genus correctly identified the species referred by him thereto. 39. Article 30 (species eligible for selection as the type of a genus published with a definition or description but with no species distinctly referred thereto): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 46, that, where prior to 1st January, 1931, a genus was established with a definition or descrip- tion but with no species distinctly referred thereto, the genus is to be deemed to contain all the species in the world, the characters of which agree with the definition or description, and the first species to be cited as being referable to the genus automatically becomes its type. (The limitation of this provision to names published before Ist January, 1931, is due to the reason explained in paragraph 27 above.) 8&4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 40. Article 30 (selection of types of genera in abstracts, etc.): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 172, that where the type of a genus has been clearly selected in an Abstract, Record or similar publication, that selection must be accepted as satisfying the requirements of this Article. 41. Article 34 (criteria to be observed in determining whether closely similar words are to be treated as identical with one another): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 147, that a generic name is to be rejected as a homonym of a previously published generic name if it is distinguished therefrom only by the following differences in spelling :—(a) the use of “ ae,” “oe,” and ‘““e”; the use of “ei,” “i,” and “y’’; or the use of “c” and ““k”’; (6) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant ; (c) the presence or absence of a “‘c”’ before a “‘t”’; (d) the use of a single or double consonant. It should be noted that in Opinion 147 the foregoing interpretation of Article 35 was limited to cases where the names in question were “ of the same origin and meaning ” but that for reasons explained in paragraph 40 of Paper I.C.(48)8 in relation to specific homonyms, it is proposed that this unworkable provision should now be discarded. 42. Article 34 (status of a generic name which rs identical with a generic name which is an emendation of an earlier generic name): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 148 (and in an individual case in Opinion 125) that a generic name is to be rejected as a homonym if it has previously been published as an emendation of another generic name of earlier date. 43. Article 34 (a substitute generic name not to be rejected on the ground that it is of the same origin and meaning as the name which it replaces): In Opinion 148 the Commission decided that a generic name published as a substitute name (nomen novum) for a name rejected by reason of its being a homonym is not itself to be rejected on the ground that it is of the same origin and meaning as the name for which it has been proposed as a substitute. As explained in paragraph 41 above, it is proposed to discard the expression “‘ of the same origin and meaning” in the provision to be incorporated in the Regles. If this recommendation is accepted, the provision here under discussion will no longer have any relevance and need not be incorporated in the Reégles, though otherwise such incorporation would be necessary. 44, Article 34 (a generic name nol invalidated by prior use for an ordinal or higher category): Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 102 (relating to the relative status of Protocephalus (generic name) and Protocephala (an earlier suprageneric name) ), that a generic name is not to be rejected on the ground that the same word has previously been published as the name for a suprageneric group. 45 Articles 34 and 35 (status of generic and specific trivial names when those names have been previously published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) : Words to be inserted to make it clear, as laid down in Opinion 145, that, where a work is rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, either under Article a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 85 25 or under the plenary powers conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, narnes (whether generic names or specific trivial names) which first. appeared in such works are to be treated as having never been published and in consequence that, where an author subsequently establishes a genus or species to which he applies the same name as one used in the rejected work, the later published name is available nomenclatorially and is not to be rejected as a homonym by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the work so reiected. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission - on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 15th July, 1948. ( 86 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER L.C.(48)12 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE ‘“‘REGLES”: FIRST INSTALMENT Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In the course of correspondence and discussions with zoologists in many parts of the world, I have received numerous suggestions for the amendment of the Régles in various minor respects, for the addition of provisions relating to matters of different kinds on which the Régles are at present silent and for the clarification of various passages in the Régles where the meaning is at present obscure. 2. In preparing documents for the consideration of the Commission at its Paris meeting, I had to concentrate my attention in the first place on those matters of a constitutional and procedural kind on which immediate decisions are necessary in order to ensure that the Commission may become a genuinely representative body and one governed by a procedure which will enable it effectively to discharge the duties entrusted to it. Next I marshalled in a series of papers the considerations which appear to me to be relevant for the consideration of a number of major problems on which it is essential that decisions should be secured (e.g. the problem presented by the expression “nomenclature binaire’’) and outlined the proposals of the Executive Committee for the codification of the present state of international law in regard to zoological nomenclature through the incorporation in the Regles of provisions giving effect to the interpretative Opinions rendered at various times by the Commission. Unfortunately this has left me with insufficient time to prepare a full list of the miscellaneous suggestions which I have received for the improvement of the Régles in various directions. I have, however, made a start with this part of the Agenda of the Commission and submit in the present paper a list giving a first instalment of the suggestions received. It is my hope that time will permit me, after my arrival in Paris, to prepare a further paper or papers completing the list now submitted. First instalment of suggestions for the improvement of the “ Régles”’ in various respects A. Proposals relating to existing Articles (1) Article 8 (proposed insertion of a provision to secure brevity in generic names): Professor J. C. Faure (Pretoria) has submitted a proposal for the avoidance in future of unnecessarily long names in zoological nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. — 87 After discussion with him and other zoologists it is suggested that a Recommandation in the following sense should be attached to Article 8 of the Reégles: It is recommended that authors establishing new genera (or subgenera) or re-naming genera (or subgenera) the previously published names of which are invalid as homonyms should avoid unnecessarily long names and that the words selected should, wherever possible, consist of not more than 15 letters. (Z.N.(S)297.) (2) Article 13 (permissive use of a capital initial letter for certain classes of specific trivial names): Many zoologists have suggested to me that in view of the fact that, as compared with the time when the Régles were adopted, very few authors use a capital initial letter when citing any specific trivial name, the time has come when Article 13 should be re-drafted so as to prescribe the uniform use of a small initial letter for such names. I have great sympathy with this recommendation, which I commend to the favourable consideration of the International Commission. (Z.N.(S)352.) (3) Article 14 (proposed insertion of a provision to secure brevity in specific trwial names) : In accordance with Professor Faure’s proposal referred to under No. (1) above, it is suggested that a Recommandation in the following sense should be attached to Article 14 of the Régles :— It is reeommended that authors describing new species (or subspecies) or re-naming species (or subspecies) the previously published names of which are invalid as homonyms should avoid unnecessarily long names and that the words selected should, wherever possible, consist of not more than 15 letters. (Z.N.(S)297.) (4) Article 24, Example: A new example should be substituted for ‘‘ Taenia solium Linné, partim, Goeze,” for it is clearly most misleading to give an example which includes a reference to a non-binominal author. (Z.N.(S)352.) (5) Article 22, “ Recommandation.” This Recommandation advises zoologists who wish to abbreviate the names of authors to follow the system used in a list published in Berlin in 1896. As the list referred to is out of print and virtually unobtainable, the utilitv of this Recommandation has disappeared and I suggest therefore that it should be deleted. With the enormous growth of the number of authors of zoological books and papers since the adoption of the above Recommandation nearly 50 years ago, the objection to abbreviating the names of authors has greatly increased, for this practice often leads to unnecessary confusion and waste of time in tracing bibliographical references, since, obviously, it is an enormous handicap if, as the result of the use of an abbreviation, it is not even possible to recognise the name of the author of the paper to be consulted. I should like therefore to suggest that the Commission should consider recommending the insertion, in place of the existing provision, of a new Recommandation urging authors, when citing previously published papers, to refrain from abbreviating the names of any of the authors cited, except in the case of deceased authors whose names by reason of the importance of their published work will be easily recognised, even if abbreviated. (Z.N.(S)352.) 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (6) Article 25 (proposed insertion of a provision to secure that apparent new names (generic or trivial) or apparent new combinations due to errors in recording journals should have no status in nomenclature): Dr.C. W. Sabrosky (Washington, D.C.) has raised the question of the status of an apparent new name (generic or trivial) or of an apparent new combination appearing in a recording or abstracting publication in cases where reference to the original publications shows the apparent new name or new combination to be clearly due to an error in recording. It is suggested that: words should be added to Article 25 to ensure that an apparent new name or new combination, when clearly due to an error in recording, should have no status in nomenclature and should not therefore be held to pre-occupy the same name or combination published deliberately: at some later date for the same or another genus or species. (Z.N.(8)334). (7) Article 25, proviso (b). The expression “ principes de la nomenclature binaire *’ which, in Paper I.C.(48)5, it is now proposed, should be replaced by the expression ‘“ principes de la nomenclature binominale”’ has been the subject of a good deal of misunderstanding, quite apart from the ambiguity created by the use of the word “binaire”. It is proposed that, in order to remedy this, words should be inserted to make it clear that the words (which in the English translation read) ‘‘ has applied the principles . . .’’ mean “ has applied those principles throughout the work in question and not merely in a particular section or passage in that work.” (Z.N.(S)352.) (8) Article 30 (restriction of certain portions to names published before a certain date): In view of the addition at Budapest in 1927 of proviso (c) to Article 25, Sections IT and III of Article 30 are inapplicable to generic names published after 31st December, 1930, while it is not clear if all the Rules included in Section I of that Article apply to such names. In order to remove doubts on this question, it is recommended that words should be inserted to make it clear that, subject to the exceptions noted in paragraphs 27, 29 to 34, 36 and 39 in Paper I.C.(48)11, Rules (a), (6), (c) and (d) in Article 30 apply to all generic names, irrespective of the date of their publication, but that the remainder of this Article is applicable only to names published before 1st January, 1931. For the reason why it is proposed that, subject to the exceptions cited, Rules (a) to (d).should apply to all generic names, see paragraphs 12 to 15 of Paper 1.C.(48)6. The problem raised in this proposal was placed before the Commission by specialists in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Z.N.(S)352.) (9) Article 30 (need for drafting amendments to make clear that the provisions in this Article are concerned with nomenclature and not with taxonomy). The Commission have always rightly insisted on the need for distinguishing between nomenclature and taxonomy and for confining the Régles to the former. There are however cases in the Régles where the two ideas are confused with one another through inexpert drafting. Article 30 is full of illogicalities of this kind. In order to make this Article readily intelligible, its wording should be modified to make it clear that its purpose is to provide Rules by which, for any given nominal genus (i.e. any genus for which a separate name has been published), one of the originally included nominal species (i.e. one of the species Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 89 cited by name by the original author of the genus as a species included by him in that genus) shall be designated as the type. It is strongly recommended that this change should be introduced. Similarly the opportunity should be taken to remove the inconsistency arising from the misconceived use of the expression “ genus”’ (as in Rules (a) to (d) and (e)) when what is intended is “generic name” (the expression correctly used in Rule (g)). What is important is to make it clear that each Rule applies to the name of a given nominal genus. It will then be possible to eliminate such absurd expressions as “publication of a genus”, “In case of a generic name without originally designated type ”’, etc. (Z.N.(S)352.) (10) Article 30 (formal amendment needed to correct inexpert drafting): This Article at present consists of a single sentence which purports to enumerate certain “ Rules” governing the designation of the types of genera. In all there are 20 of these “Rules”. On inspection however we find that only the first seven of these “ Rules ” (Rules (a) to (g)) are in fact mandatory provisions, while the remaining thirteen “Rules” are not rules at all but, as expressly stated in the title of the cross-heading “III,” are “‘ Recommandations”. Tt is proposed that this anomaly due to inexpert drafting should be eliminated by a re-wording which will restrict the word “ Rule ” to the provisions (a) to (9) which are in fact rules and will provide for the remaining provisions which are not rules but recommendations a separate serial numbering as “ Recomman- dations.” (Z.N.(8)352.) (11) Article 30 Rule (g) (case where a type is selected for a genus by an author without that author being conscious of so doing). The attention of the Commission has been drawn by numerous zoologists to the following ambiguity in Rule (9) of Article 30: Does the expression “ select the type ” cover a case where an author expressly states that the originally included nominal species A-us b-us is the type of the nominal genus X-us but at the same time adds words which either make it clear or imply that the author making the statement believed (erroneously) that the above species had already been selected as ‘the type by some previous author or, in the case of papers published before the adoption of the present Régles, where the author believed the above species was automatically the type through the operation of the so-called (but non-existent) ‘‘ Law of Elimination ” and accepted it as such? It appears to me that in conformity with the principle that the Régles are concerned only with objective facts (as contrasted with subjective taxonomic ideas) it is not practicable (or desirable) to take into account the ideas which were in the mind of a given author when he stated that a particular species was the type of a particular genus. Any other course would moreover invalidate thousands of type selections now accepted as having been made prior to 1901 by authors who accepted the so-called “Law of Elimination” (not recognised in the present: Régles as a mandatory provision) and who, in stating that such and such a species was the type of a given genus thought that they were doing no more than stating a fact. It is strongly recommended that the question posed at the beginning of this paragraph should be answered in the affirmative and that words to this effect should be incorporated in the Régles, (Z.N.(S)352.) 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (12) Article 31 (first sentence). This is a badly worded provision and it is desirable that it should be replaced by words which would make it clear that, where a nominal species, as originally established, is found to be a composite species and it is necessary therefore to subdivide it, the subdivision shall be effected in accordance with the provisions relating to the subdivision of a genus specified in Article 29 and Rule (g) in Article 30 and that the original specific name shall therefore adhere to whichever element in the original composite species is so designated as its type. (Z.N.(S)352.) (13) Article 35 (status of a specific trivial name which is identical with a name which 1s an emendation of an older name in the same genus): In Opinion 148 the Commission gave a ruling on a case parallel to that indicated above in regard to a generic name and it has been proposed (paragraph 42 of Paper 1.C.(48)11) that this decision should now be incorporated in the Régles. Clearly any such provision in regard to generic names should apply also to specific and subspecific trivial names, and it is proposed therefore that a corresponding provision should be inserted in Article 35. (Z.N.(8)352.) B. Proposed new Articles (14) Terminology, etc., of types of species and subspecies: There is evidently a widespread desire on the part of many zoologists that the terminology of types of species and subspecies should be dealt with in the Regles in greater detail than at present. As the Commission will recall, the only existing provision in regard to this subject is that contained in the sentence inserted between Sections “A” and “B” of the Appendice by the Monaco Congress in 1913. It is suggested that this provision should be deleted and that a new provision should be inserted on the following lines :— (1) A Recommandation should be added to Article 25 strongly urging every author publishing a new specific or subspecific name clearly to designate one specimen to be the type of the new species or subspecies, to indicate the full locality and other data on the label of that specimen, the sex of the specimen so selected, and the collection in which the type is deposited ; and, in the case of fossil species, the geological age of the species, measured, if possible, by the number of metres strati- graphically above or below a well-established plane. (2) A Recommandation urging every zoologist naming a new species or subspecies clearly to mark as the “ type ”’ the specimen so selected and either to deposit it in a Museum or otherwise to ensure both that it is safely preserved and that it is accessible to students. (3) A provision to be inserted at some appropriate point either in the Régles themselves or in the Appendice recognising the existence of the following categories of types for species and subspecies :— Holotype the single specimen taken as “the type” by the original author. Syntype one of a number of specimens of equal rank which formed part: of the material before an author when describing a species or subspecies for which he did not designate a holotype, ee eee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 91 Lectotype the single specimen selected from a series of syntypes to be ‘the type.” (In order to be effective, the selection of a lectotype must be made known by being announced in a publication.) Paratype a specimen other than the holotype which formed part of the original material before an author when describing a new species or subspecies. (Z.N.(S)352.) (15) The trinal name of a nominotypreal subspecies: The Regles contain a provision (Article 9) regarding the name of the typical subgenus of a genus having two or more subgenera. There is however no corresponding provision regarding the name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies, though the intention of the authors of the Reégles to insert such a provision is implied by the second of the examples cited in Article 33. No evidence is available to explain why effect was not given to that intention, and it is proposed to remedy this defect by the insertion of an Article laying it down that the trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies shall be the same as the trivial name of the species itself. (Z.N.(S)352.) (16) Proposed recognition of “ neotypes”’: There is clearly a widespread desire especially among palozoologists for the recognition under certain conditions of ‘‘ neotypes.” There is great divergence of view, however, as to what those conditions should be. There are also numerous zoologists who are opposed to the recognition of neotypes on the ground that this would lead to abuses (commercial and other) and would result in greater confusion than uniformity. I have been unable so far to devise, for submission to the Commission, any proposal which would he likely to be generally acceptable to zoologists. Although I am very conscious of the possible dangers inherent in the recognition of neotypes, | recognise the importance attached to this question by many workers, and I consider that the proposal is one to which sympathetic consideration should be given by the Commission. I accordingly suggest that the Commission should follow in this case a procedure similar to that which (as explained in paragraph 2 of Paper I.C.(48)9) they adopted at Lisbon in connection with the problem of the names of infra-subspecific forms, that is to say that they should instruct the Secretary to the Commission to confer with interested specialists, with a view to the submission to the Commission at the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress of a Report discussing fully the issues involved and, if possible, formulating proposals for the insertion in the Régles of comprehensive provisions relating to this matter. (Z.N.(8)24.) (17) Proposed addition of an Article to prevent the misuse of the “* Régles ” Jor the purpose of giving political, religious or personal offence. A memorial was recently submitted to the Commission by a large number of Brazilian zoologists regarding a new generic name published by a certain Brazilian zoologist with the intention, so the memorialists state, of heing offensive to another zoologist with whom he had heen in dispute in the law courts, the new name consisting of the name of his adversary combined with a vulgar Portuguese term of abuse. The zoologists submitting the case asked for some means of 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. preventing the Reégles being misused in this way. It is clearly highly objectionable that persons should be free to pursue personal quarrels through the protection afforded by the Law of Priority. At present there exists no means of invalidating a name so given, and it seems to me highly desirable that the Commission should be given power to act in such cases. I consider, moreover, that if provision of this sort is to be made in the Reégles, the wording should be sufficiently wide to provide a ready means for the suppression not only of names likely to give personal offence (as is alleged in the case referred to here) but also of names consisting of words or combinations of words calculated to wound religious or political susceptibilities. I suggest that the best course would be to secure the insertion of a new Article in the Régles with provisions along the following lines :— (1) The use for a generic or subgeneric name or for the trivial name of a species or subspecies or for a form of less than subspecific rank of a word (whether simple or compound) which can reasonably be regarded, in any language, as calculated to cause political, religious or personal offence is prohibited. (2) No name published in contravention of the provisions of the preceding sub-section is to possess any rights under the Law of Priority, as defined in Article 25 of the Regles. (3) It shall be open to any person who is of the opinion that a given name has been published in contravention of the provisions of the present Article to refer the question to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and it shall be the duty of the said Commission promptly to consider every such case submitted to it and, if satisfied that the submission is well grounded, to order the name concerned to be suppressed for all purposes, under the immediately preceding paragraph. (Z.N.(S)348.) C. Proposals relating to drafting changes (18) Citation, in the “ Reégles,” of nouns in the singular. It is a recognised principle of drafting that clarity is assisted if in mandatory provisions every noun is cited in the singular number and that the reverse is the case if the plural number is employed. In many parts of the Régles this principle has been followed but in others it. has been neglected. It is suggested that the Regles should be made consistent in this respect. Examples of awkward drafting resulting from the failure to observe this principle are provided (1) by the opening words of Article 20 (‘‘In forming names derived from languages . . .”’) which would read much better if the words used were “ In forming” (or better “In the formation of ’’) ‘‘a name derived from a language . . .”and (2) by the opening sentence of Article 30 which would be greatly improved if the opening phrase were to read ‘‘ The designation of the type species of a nominal genus. . .”’ instead of ‘‘ The designation of the type species of genera...”. (Z.N.($)352.) (19) Need for removal of verbal inconsistencies of drafting. The use in a code of law of more than one expression to denote the same concept is well known as likely to cause subsequent confusion and argument. It is suggested that all such blemishes should be removed from the Régles. A flagrant example of this kind of defect is to be found in Article 30, where the same concept is denoted by no less than three different expressions, namely, “ type species,” “ generic type” and “type.” Another example of this kind of defect is the use in Article 30 in Rules (a) and (6) of the expression ‘‘ publication ” and in Rule (ec) of the expression ‘ proposed” to denote exactly the same idea. (Z.N.(S)352.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 93 (20) Need for deleting from the “ Régles’”’ meaningless repetitive phrases. The Regles contain a number of repetitive phrases, a feature which is a weakness in any code of law, for persons using the code naturally suppose that the words have been inserted for some purpose and try to read differences of meaning into the phrases concerned. Among blemishes of this kind which should be deleted + are :— (1) Article 25 proviso (c) (1) and (2): the unnecessary and undefined expressions “ seu diagnosis ; sew definition ; sew condensed description.” (2) Article 25 (c) (3): the unnecessary and undefined expression “ seu genotype ; seu autogenotype ; sew orthotype.” (Z.N.(8)352.) FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 16th July, 1948. (94 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)13 PROPOSED INCORPORATION IN THE ‘‘REGLES” OF DECISIONS TAKEN AT VARIOUS TIMES EITHER BY THE CONGRESS OR BY THE COMMISSION AND SUBSEQUENTLY EMBODIED IN “DECLARATIONS” RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In the Agenda for the International Commission at its Paris meeting, which has been circulated as Paper I.C.(48)1, there was included a proposal (paragraph 2(5)) that the Commission should seek the approval of the Congress for the incorporation in the Régles of interpretations of the provisions of that instrument given by the Commission in Opinions rendered at various times, together with certain resolutions of a more general character which had formed the subject of resolutions adopted at various times by the Congress or the Commission and which have since been formally embodied by the Commission in Declarations. The proposals to be submitted to the Commission as regards interpretations of the Reégles given in Opinions have been set out in Paper 1.C.(48)11. The present paper contains corresponding recommendations as regards the resolutions recorded in Declarations rendered by the Commission. 2. For the present purposes the 12 Declarations rendered by the Commission fall into three groups :— (1) Declarations dealing with matters which fall outside the scope of the (2) Declarations dealing with matters which have been the subject of recommendations separately submitted to the Commission at its present meeting ; and (3) Declarations dealing with matters of direct concern to the égles and which have not been put before the Commission in other papers circulated for consideration at the Paris meeting. 3. Class (1) includes two Declarations, namely Declaration 9 (“On the desirability of universities including zoological nomenclature in their courses of general and systematic zoology ”) and Declaration 10 (‘* On the importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom ”’). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 95 4. Class (2) contains one Declaration (Declaration 5), which gives the text of the Resolution adopted by the Congress in 1913, which conferred plenary powers upon the International Commission in certain cases to suspend the Regles. Proposals for the incorporation in the Regles of this Resolution in a slightly amended form have been submitted to the Commission in Paper 1.C.(48)4. 5. Of the nine remaining Declarations with which we are here concerned three relate to the conduct of zoologists in relation to nomenclatorial questions and six to particular points relating mainly to bibliographical aspects of nomenclature. These two classes are considered separately below. (a) ‘ Declarations” relating to conduct. 6. Code of Ethics: This is dealt with in Declarations 1 and 12. It is proposed that at an appropriate place in the Régles there should be inserted an Article which should lay it down (Declaration 1) that, when a zoologist notices that a generic or specific name published by a living author as a new name is invalid by reason of being a homonym, his correct course is to notify the author concerned accordingly and to give that author ample opportunity of proposing a substitute name before proposing one himself. To this provision there should be added the further provision (Declaration 12) that it is no part of the duties of the International Commission to consider and pass judgment upon alleged contraventions of the foregoing provision, the observance of which must be left to the proper feelings of individual zoologists. 7. Use of intemperate language in the discussion of nomenclature: This subject is dealt with in the Commission’s Declaration 4, which is of great value not only as an exhortation to propriety of conduct but also as an aid to editors who can point to it as the justification for the deletion of unduly controversial matter in papers submitted for publication. An Article embodying the substance of this Declaration, that is to say an Article laying it down that the use of intemperate language is to be avoided in discussions of zoological nomenclature, could appropriately be inserted in the Régles next to the Article embodying the Code of Ethics which also is concerned with a question of conduct. It is recommended that this should be done. (b) “Declarations” relating to nomenclatorial. practice. 8. Issue of separates in advance of the publication of a paper in a scientific journal: The Commission have already laid it down in Opinion 59 that a name ranks not from the date of distribution of advance separates but from that on. which the paper is actually published in a scientific journal (see paragraph 17 of Paper I.C.(48)11). It is proposed that there should be inserted in Article 25 of the Régles a Recommandation embodying the resolution set out in Declaration 2. that is to say a Recommandation urging editors not to make available. and authors not to distribute, copies of papers prior to their being actually published in the scientific journal for inclusion in which they have been printed. vou, 3 96 Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature. 9. Need for indicating new names as such and for avoiding the publication of names as new on more than one occasion : It is proposed that Recommanda- tions dealing with these important matters, both of which are dealt with in Declaration 6, should be inserted in Article 25. The first of these Recommanda- tions would strongly recommend authors, when publishing new names, clearly to indicate that they are so doing, the second urging authors not to publish the same name as a new name in more than one paper and not to publish - the same paper in more than one journal without indicating that it has already been published and giving a reference to the journal in which it has. been so published. 10. Need for indicating the date of publication of zoological works : This subject is dealt with in Declarations 3 and 8. It is proposed that a Recommandation be added to Article 25 urging (1) that the exact date of publication (year, month and day) be clearly stated in every zoological work and (2) that, in the case of journals and separate works issued in parts, each part should bear the exact date of publication and that on the completion of the volume concerned there should be added a statement giving the date of publication of each part and indicating its exact contents (both pages and plates). 11. Need for citing bibliographical references: In order to bring to the attention of zoologists the resolution embodied in Declaration 7, it is recommended that a Recommandation be inserted in some appropriate Article of the Régles urging authors who cite generic, specific or subspecific names in papers containing original observations to insert at least once in the paper the name of the author and the date of publication of each name cited or to give a full bibliographical reference to that name. 12. Need for indicating in new descriptions the systematic position in the Animal Kingdom of the organism described: It is proposed that a Recommandation be added to Article 25 to give effect to the resolution embodied in Declaration 11. This Recommandation would urge authors when publishing new descriptions clearly to indicate the systematic position in the Animal Kingdom of the category or species described, and, in the case of new genera and species, to indicate the Class and Order to which the organism belongs and, if the Order is commonly divided into families, the name of the family to which the genus or species belongs. FRANCIS HEMMING. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, London, England. 15th July, 1948. (97) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)14 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE “‘REGLES” : SECOND INSTALMENT Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In Paper 1.C.(48)12 I circulated a first instalment of 20 miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Reégles. In the present paper I submit a second instalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience of reference, these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in Paper 1.C.(48)12. Second instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the “ Régles ” : in various respects (21) Article 8 (need for a provision to cover cases of generic names which, though complying with Section (k) of the second “ Recommandation,” are in fact Latin or Latinised words in some case or number other than the nominative singular) : Paragraph 4 of Paper I.C.(48)11 contains a recommendation that the interpreta- tion of Article 8 (need for generic names to be published in the nominative singular before they can acquire rights under the Law of Priority) given in Opinion 183 should now be incorporated in the Régles. Commissioner H. Boschma (Z.N.(8)223) has pointed out that some additional provision is required to meet the case of generic names which were published as though they were nouns in the nominative singular and were so used by their original authors but which are in fact Latinised Greek words in some case or number other than the nominative singular. Examples cited by Stebbing are—Kepon Duvernoy, 1840, a Latinised translation into Greek (as xyvwv) of the name of the French zoologist Desjardins and therefore a word in the genitive plural) ; Potamon Savigny, 1816 (the genitive plural of the Greek noun “ zorapdés” (a river); and Taloipa Buckton, 1905 (a composite word consisting of the Greek words “ra” and “Aura ” (the two words, when read together, meaning “the remainder”) which must therefore be regarded as a noun of neuter gender in the nominative plural. In order to cover the case of a name of the type discussed above, it is proposed that a ‘ Proviso ” should be added to Article 8 making it clear that a generic name which was treated by its original author as a Latinised noun in the nominative singular is not invalid solely by reason of the fact that it consists of a Latinised version of a word or a combination of words in any language which, in the original, consisted of a word, or words, in some case other than the nominative or some number other than the singular, or in both case and number other than the nominative singular. You, 3 H* 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (22) Article 14 (proposed addition of a ‘‘ Recommandation”): Professor Pierre Bonnet has suggested (Z.N.(S)352) that a Recommandation should be added to Article 11 urging authors not to select as the trivial name of a new species or subspecies a word which has already been used (1) in the same Family or (2) in the same Order or (3) even in the same geographical region. Everyone will agree in principle that the use of trivial names such as vulgaris, domesticus, silvestris, niger, griseus, etc., in allied groups is confusing and therefore open to objection and that the insertion of a Recommandation on this subject in Article 14 is therefore desirable. On the other hand, it would, in my opinion, be going too far to include the conditions numbered (1) and (2), for a Family may be, and an Order certainly would be, too wide to be appropriately embraced in such a Recommandation. “I consider that Professor Bonnet’s proposal (3) is unnecessary and serves no useful purpose, for no confusion could arise if (say) a passerine bird and a heron or a Tineid moth and a Papilionid butterfly occurring in the same zoo-geographical region had the same trivial name. I suggest that a Recommandation should be added to Article 14 but that it should be in general terms and should be to the effect that authors when selecting trivial names for new species or subspecies should refrain from selecting names already published for species or for subspecies of species in allied genera occurring in any part of the world. (23) Article 15 (suggested deletion of the alternative regarding the use of hyphens in specific trivial names consisting of compound words): Professor Pierre Bonnet has suggested (Z.N.(S)352) that this Article should be amended so as to eliminate the present choice of alternatives and therefore to require that a compound specific or subspecific trivial name should be written as a single word without the use of hyphens. The course suggested by Professor Bonnet is logical, and I feel that the Commission would be wise to agree to it. (24) Article 18 (nomenclature of hybrids) : One of the longest outstanding cases is a proposal submitted to the Commission before the Lisbon Congress of 1935 by Dr. Hans Bytinski-Salz in regard to this Article. This proposal consists of four small points, of which the first and third are concerned with slight additions which it is suggested should be made to this Article to cover points not at present dealt with therein, while the second and fourth are concerned only to secure a more logical form of words than that which at present figures in the Reégles. All four proposals are desirable and are recommended for approval. They are as follows :— (1) Section (a) at end add: “In the case of hybrids between species belonging to the same genus, the trivial names of the two parents united by the sign of multiplication may be placed in brackets and cited immediately after the name of the common genus. Example: Tetrao (tetrix x urogallus) ”. (2) Section (b) at end: Substitute the words * who first published and described the hybrid as such” for the words “who first recognised the hybrid form as such’ (a reconnu comme telle la forme hybride). Bulletin of Loological Nomenclature, oo (3) Section (c) after the example at present cited : Add the words: Tetrao tetrix oc ——__—— 4 Gallus gallus Tetrao urogallus 4) Section (d) at the beginning : Substitute ‘‘ When either of the parents of a hybrid is not unquestionably established both as to species and sex” for ‘‘ When the parents of a hybrid are not known as such” (Quand les procréateurs d’un hybride ne sont pas reconnus comme tels), (Z.N.(S)21.) (25) Article 25 (status of names published anonymously or over initials only) : The question has been raised (Z.N.(8)84) whether a name published anony- mously or over initials only has rights under the Law of Priority (Article 25). No one will dispute that this method of publication is highly undesirable and I feel that there would be general agreement that as from some early future date names published in this way should be ruled to be unavailable until such later time as they appear in a book or paper published by an author whose name is given. On the other hand, there is clearly nothing in the Régles which at present invalidates a name published anonymously and a considerable number of names published in this way are in current use (for example the specific trivial names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published in the celebrated ‘‘ Vienna Catalogue’ of 1775). I therefore suggest that the Com- mission should now invite the Congress to agree to amend Article 25 in such a way as to make it clear :-— (a) that any name published either anonymously or over initials only prior to (say) midnight G.M.T. 3lst December 1950 (the point of time suggested in paragraph 23 of Paper I.C.(48)9 in connection with the proposal there submitted in regard to the status of names of less than specific rank) which satisfies the provisions specified in Article 25 has availability under this Article, but (6) that no name published anonymously or over initials only published after the point of time specified in (a) above is to have any availability until such later time as it is republished by the same or some other author in a book or paper in which that author’s name is giver ; (c) that the fact of re-publication by a named author shall be sufficient to validate such a name, provided either that in the publication concerned that author complies with the requirements of proviso (c) to Article 25 or, in cases where that proviso was complied with in the original (anonymous) publication of the name, that the later author gives a bibliographical reference to that publication ; (d) that, when a name is validated as in (c) above, it shall rank for purposes of priority as from the date of such validation and shall be attributed to the author by whom it was so validated. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (26) Article 25 (meaning of the expression “* divulqué dans une publication’) : As explained in paragraph 13 of paper I.C.(48)11, the Commission have twice given partial rulings regarding the meaning to be attached to the expression “* divulgué dans une publication ” but those rulings are not altogether suitable for inclusion in the Régles without further amplification. The rulings in question were not given as express decisions of the Commission and incorpo- — rated as such in the “ Summary ” of the Opinions concerned but were stated less formally in the explanatory text of those Opinions. The two Opinions in question were (1) Opinion 15 (which is concerned with the availability of the name Craspedacusta sowerlit Lankester, 1880) and Opinion 51 (which is concerned with the status of names published in 1797 in the Musewm Calonnianum). In Opinion 15 the statement appears that “‘ Publication in the sense of the Code consists in the public issue of printed matter”. The statement in Opinion 51, which refers to, and qualifies, the definition given in Opinion 15, reads as follows :— ‘The qualifying word ‘ public’ in this definition indicates that the printed matter in question is not intended for special persons only or for a limited time, but that it is given to the world, or used in the nature of a permanent record.” Thirty-six years have gone by since even the more recent of the foregoing Opinions was rendered by the Commission and one development has occurred during that period which was not anticipated by the Commission, namely the publication of new names in books or papers reproduced by some process (e.g. photographic or lithographic processes of various kinds and mimeographing and similar methods) other than actual printing. All of these methods fall outside the scope of the Commission’s ruling, for they are excluded by the use of the expression “ printed matter”. Many names published in works repro- duced by one or other of the foregoing or similar methods have however been accepted by zoologists as from their appearance therein, and rightly so, for many papers reproduced by these methods are fully as well reproduced as papers produced by some actual method of “ printing.” Before the substance of the principles enunciated by the Commission in the Opinions referred to above can be incorporated in the Régles, it is essential that consideration should be given to this aspect of the question. If we grant (as we should) that actual “printing” is not an essential condition, we must consider what were the objects of the Commission when they originally insisted that, in order that a given book or paper should be accepted as having been “ divulgué dans une publication”, that publication must consist of “ printed matter.” This subject was extensively discussed by the Commission during the inter-war years and it is possible to deduce certain important conclusions from the evidence so afforded (Z.N.($)84). It is accordingly suggested that the International Congress of Zoology should be invited to amend Article 25 so as to provide a minimum standard to be complied with by all publications irrespective of their date of issue and a more rigorous standard to apply to names published after some near future date. It is further proposed that a Recommandation should be added to Article 25 laying down for guidance the ideal standard to be aimed at, Se ae a eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 101 The following proposals are accordingly submitted for the favourable consideration of the International Commission : (1) (2) (3) (4) that a name made public prior to midnight G.M.T. 31st December 1950 is to be deemed to have been “ divulgué dans une publication ” only if it complies with both of the following conditions :— (4) it must be included in a document reproduced either by printing or by some. other mechanical method of reproduction which secures that every copy is identical with every other copy : (b) the document in which the name is included must be a document issued for purposes of record and therefore of consultation by interested persons and must accordingly not be a document issued for exclusive consideration by special persons or for particular purposes or for only a limited time ; : that, in order to be deemed to have been “ divulgué dans une publica- tion”, any name made public after the point of time specified in (1) above must comply with all the following conditions :— (a) it must have been made public in conditions which satisfy the requirements of (a) and (b) in (1) above; (6) the document containing the new name must be reproduced on paper, and with ink of quality and durability sufficient to offer a reasonable prospect of permanency ; (c) where a document is distributed by (or on behalf of) its author to certain selected persons, at least some copies must also be placed on sale or made available for issue free of charge to any institution or person who may apply for a copy ; that a Recommandation be added to the relevant portion of Article 25 urging institutions and individuals responsible for the publication of works and papers containing new names to secure that there appears in the work or the part of the work or journal comprising papers containing such names a clear statement : (a) of the name of the institution or individual responsible for publishing the work or journal concerned ; (b) of the address from which the work or journal may be purchased (c) of the price for which a copy may be obtained ; that the mandatory provisions to be added to the Régles to give effect to the recommendations submitted in (1) and (2) above should specify also that none of the undermentioned types of action constitute publication :— (a) the anonymous issue, or the issue over initials only, of a work or paper after 3lst December 1950 (see Point No. (25) of the present paper) : (b) the deposit of a document, however reproduced, in a public library or in the library of a scientific institution ; (c) the distribution of printers’ proof sheets (See Point No. (15) in Paper I.C.(48)11; 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (d} the presentation of a paper before a meeting of any kind : (ec) the distribution of separata (pre-prints, off-prints. etc.) in advance of the appearance of the paper in question in the journal, for inclusion in which it was printed (see Point No. (17) in Paper 1.C.(48)11). (f) the affixing of labels or tags on museum specimens ; (5) that the recommendation regarding the languages in which alone new systematic units should be proposed should be removed from its present position in Section “A” of the Appendice and, for greater prominence, inserted as a Recommandation to Article 25. (27) Article 25 (proposed addition of a ‘‘ Recommamdation” regarding names first published in abstracts): Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) has raised the question (Z.N.(8)262) of the status of names first published in an abstract of a paper issued in advance of the paper itself. This is a practice which was formerly followed by the Zoological Society of London and other Societies but which was subsequently abandoned because it was found to give rise to the publication of nomina nuda or of names with an “ indication ” of doubtful adequacy. It gave rise also to awkward questions such as that whether the “ Abstract ” containing the name had or had not been published, i.e. whether the name had been “ divulgué dans une publication ”’ in the sense of Article 25. Clearly whether a name so published is available under Article 25 depends upon the fullness of the description or indication given in the “‘ Abstract.” It is clear also however that this method of publishing a new name is calculated to lead to doubt and discussion as to the availability of the name in question and is therefore a method of publication which should be avoided. Similar criticisms apply to names first published in abstracts which appear at the head of a paper and which thus precede the main description of the new genus or species concerned. It is therefore recommended that a Recommandation be added to Article 25 urging all institutions and individuals responsible for the publication of papers containing new names to refrain from actually citing such names either (1) in abstracts published in advance of the actual publication of the papers themselves or (2) in abstracts placed at the head of the papers in which such names are to be published. (28) Article 25. (proposed addition of a ‘“ Recommandation”’ relating to generic and trivial names first published in keys): Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) has asked (Z.N.(8)262) for a ruling on the availability of names (generic or trivial) published in keys. We all know of numerous cases of this kind in which it would clearly be illogical and wrong to rule such names invalid solely by reason of their having been first published in keys. On the other hand, it is difficult in a key to comply with the requirements of Article 25 and, in the case of specific names, it would be virtually impossible in a key to comply with the terms of the Recommandation which it has been proposed, in paragraph (1) of Point (14) in Paper (I.C.48)12, should be added to that Article, It is accordingly suggested that a further Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 103 Kecommandation should be added to Article 25 urging authors not to publish names for the first time in keys or, if it is desired to publish such names in a work or paper which contains, or consists primarily of, a key, to publish them at the beginning of the work or paper and before the key concerned. (29) Article 25 (date of publication): At the same time as the Commission considered the criteria to be adopted in determining whether a given book or paper had been “ divulgué dans une publication ” they considered also the question of the means by which the date of publication should be determined (Z.N.(S)84). The conclusions then provisionally reached, which are now submitted for final approval, were that a new provision should be inserted in or near Article 25 which would lay down the following rules :-— (1) The date borne by a publication is to be assumed to be correct unless and until it is shown in a published statement to be otherwise. (2) A book or a journal or a part of a book or a journal which bears the month and year in which it was published is to be assumed to have been published on the last day of that month and a book or journal or part thereot which bears the year of publication but not the month shall be deemed to have been published on the last day of the last month of that year, except in so far as evidence can be brought forward from other sources to show that it, or a portion of it, was published on an earlier date in the same year, in which case the portion concerned is to be treated as having been published on the latest date compatible with the evidence so brought forward, the subsequent parts being treated as having been published on the last day of the last month of the year in question. (3) Where the only evidence as to the date of publication available in a given volume is a range of dates specified on the title page or otherwise, the whole volume is to be treated as though it were published on the last day of the latest month comprised in the latest of the years - specified, and, if evidence that some specified portion was, or specified portions were, published at a given earlier date or dates, the dates ot publication of the several portions of the volume shall be determined in the manner specified in (2) above, save that the date of publication of the last portion of the said volume shall be assumed to have taken place on the last day of the last month of the period. (4) Where a volume contains no direct evidence regarding the date on which it, or on which parts of it, were published, the date of publication of the volume or of its several parts shall be determined by reference to the dates of publication of the first-published volume or part of a volume of any other work or journal containing a reference thereto. It is further suggested that there should be added a Recommandation urging authors :— (1) to refrain from placing brackets round the date of a name, if that date is given on the title page of the volume containing the name or in an express statement regarding the date of publication of the volume or its parts where that statement is included in the volume itself j 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (2) to enclose in round brackets a date or a part of a date where that date or that part of a date cannot be ascertained in the manner indicated in (1) but can be determined by reference to other evidence afforded by the volume itself, e.g. to evidence provided either by dates printed on the first pages of individual signatures or on the wrappers in which the parts were published ; (3) to enclose in square brackets a date or parts of a date where that date or part of a date can be determined only by reference to some other volume or work. (30) Article 25 (Priority to be accorded to a name published in a book or paper issued in instalments in cases where the name appears in one instalment and the description in another) : Where a book is published in parts or a paper published in a journal appears in two or more parts, it sometimes happens that a new name appears in one instalment with little or no description and the description or the larger part of it appears on the following page in the next succeeding part. It has been suggested (Z.N.(S)352) that a provision should be inserted in the Régles to make clear the date as from which such a name ranks for priority. The question is of some importance, for there are cases where the two parts containing portions of a given description have been published at a considerable interval from one another. In consequence questions may arise regarding the relative priority of the name in relation to some other name for the same animal published during the intervening period. It is proposed to clarify this matter by the insertion in Article 25 of a provision that, where a new genus or species is described in a book or paper which is published in parts and the description of that genus or species appears partly in one part and partly in another, the name concerned ranks for the purpose of the Law of Priority as from the later of the two parts, except where the portion of the description contained in the earlier part is sufficient to comply with the provisos of Article 25. (31) Article 25, Proviso (c) (status of a specific or subspecific trivial name published after 31st December 1930 in combination with a generic name which does not satisfy the foregoing proviso): President Karl Jordan has suggested (Z.N.(S)315) that, in order to prevent any possibility of misunderstanding, it would be well to make it perfectly clear in the Régles that, where a specific name published after 3lst December 1930 comprises a generic name which is invalid by reason of not complying with the requirements of proviso (c) to Article 25, the availability of the specific trivial name concerned is not affected, its status in this matter being exactly the same as that of a specific trivial name which, when first published, formed part of a specific name (binominal combination) which comprised a generic name which was invalid because it was a homonym of a previously published generic name. The same subject has also been considered by specialists in the Smithsonian Institution who have asked that a definite ruling may be given. It would clearly be “ ritualistic” in the highest degree to argue in favour of rejecting a specific trivial name solely on the ground that the generic name in combination with which it was originally published was an invalid name. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenelatare, 105 It is equally clear that it is desirable that there should be no ambiguity in this matter. It is accordingly recommended that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that the status of a specific trivial name is not affected if the generic name in combination with which it was originally published is invalid either because it was published in conditions which did not satisfy the requirements laid down for generic names in Article 25 or because it is invalid under Article 34 by reason of being a homonym. (32) “ Appendice” (proposed addition of a section indicating how names derived from words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet); The present Appendice (which for reasons given in paragraph 35 of the Annex to Paper I.C.(48)5 should in future be known as the Second Schedule to the Reégles) contains a section (Section F) which indicates how names based upon words of Greek origin should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet. There is however no corresponding section in the Appendice relating to the transliteration of names derived from words belonging to languages which use the Cyrillic alphabet. This is an obvious weakness, for the latter rules are far less generally known than those which govern the trans- literation of Greek words into the Latin alphabet. It is proposed that the International Congress should be asked to agree to the addition to the Appendice _ (=Second Schedule) of a section setting out the rules to be followed in transliterating into the Latin alphabet names based on words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet (Z.N.(S)310). FRANCIS HEMMING, _ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, Paris. 19th July, 1948, (106) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)15 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE “REGLES” ; THIRD INSTALMENT Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In Paper I.C.(48)14 I circulated a second instalment of 12 miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Régles. In the present paper 1 submit a third instalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience of reference, these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in Paper 1.€.(48)14. Third instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the “‘Régles’’ in various respects (33) Artrcle 27 (need for adaptations to meet the nomenclatorial requirements of polymorphic Protozoa): This Article was drafted with reference to the Metazoa and, as pointed out by Dr. C. A. Hoare (London) (Z.N. (S) 291), is not in its present form altogether suitable for polymorphic species of Protozoa which have both sexual and asexual forms. It is suggested that to provide for cases of this kind, a new category, which might conveniently precede the existing category (a), should be inserted in this Article. It is suggested that this new category should read: “irrespective, in the case of a polymorphic species, of the form named.” ; (34) Article 35, paragraph (3) (proposed addition of two further categories of names, differing slightly from one another, which should be treated as identical with one another): It has been proposed that the following additions should be made to the list of categories given in paragraph (3) of Article 35, as categories, words in which are to be treated as identical with one another :— (1) words having the terminations -costa and -costata (Z.N.(S)309) ; (2) words in which the semivowel or consonantal ‘i ”’ has been transcribed as ny Sei,” Sey Lory 2 (ZNS) 198): (35) Article 4 (situation where the application of this Article would produce identical family names in different groups): This question was considered by the Commission at Lisbon in 1935 in relation to the family names to be formed from the generic names Merops, Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and Merope Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta). The Commission gave a decision in that case designed to prevent the establishment in two groups of family names consisting of the EE oe Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 107 same word (see Opinion 140). Commissioner Boschma has suggested (Z.N.(S.) 210) that a definite ruling of a general kind should now be given. It is accord- ingly proposed that, where compliance with the provisions of Article 4 leads, or appears to lead, to the establishment of two or more families having the same “name, the case should be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, whose duty it shall be to determine the name to be applied to each of the families concerned. (36) Article 5 (situation when two or more families are united): The late Dr. Steven A. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History)) asked for a ruling on the question as to the action which should be taken in regard to the names of families when two genera, each the type of a family, are united in a single family by a subsequent reviser (Z.N.(S.)265). The question raised is whether the name of the united family so established should be based (1) upon the older of the two generic names in question or (2) upon the name of whichever of the genera concerned was first made the type of one of the families now united together. It is suggested that in conformity with the principles underlying the tuling given in Opinion 141 (see Point No. 1 in Paper I.C.(48)11) the Regles should provide that, where two or more families are united by a reviser, the name of the combined family so established should be based upon the name of whichever of the type genera concerned was first selected to be the type genus of a family. (37) Articles 3 and 4 (need for removing ambiguities due (1) to the failure in Article 3 to define the expression “‘ Latin”’ and (2) to the ill-advised use in Article 4 of the highly technical expression “ radical”): Article 3 is defective since it ignores the fact that there is no such language as “‘ Latin”’ pure and simple. that that language (like many other languages) has had a long history, that in the course of that history it has undergone numerous changes and therefore that it would be incorrect to attempt (as some authors have done) rigidly to apply to late-Latin and pseudo-Latin words the complex rules of grammar and philology which specialists have worked out as appropriate for Latin words of the classical period. When we turn to Article 4, we have to note that at the Graz Congress in 1910, it was decided, on the recommendation of the Commission, to substitute the word “stem” for the word “root” in the English version of the Régles. There is nothing to show whether, in recom- mending the foregoing change, the Commission thought that the English word “stem” was a more accurate translation of the word “ radical ”’ in the sub- stantive French text (in which case they were in error) or whether their intention was to recommend the substitution of the word “‘ theme” for the word “radical” in the substantive French text. If (as has been generally, - though not universally, assumed) the action taken by the Graz Congress is to be interpreted in the second of these senses, it would, as pointed out by the eminent scholar, Professor L. W. Grensted of Oxford (Z.N.(8)313), when applied in connection with Article 4, produce such monstrosities in the way of family names (in the Class Insecta) as PLUSIALDAE and GRYLLOIDAE, the ~ stem ~ of the first declension noun Pluisia being Plusia- and that of the second declension noun Gryllus being Gryllo-. The difficulties raised at present by these two 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Articles reside in the fact :— (a) that Article 3 fails to recognise that the Latin language underwent many changes between the time, during the first millennium B.C., when it made its appearance and the close of the second millennium A.D., when at last it became a dead language for most purposes though not, inter alia, for those of the zoological and botanical nomenclature ; and (b) that Article 4 employs without explanation or comment a highly technical grammatical expression, the interpretation of which is a matter of difficulty even to learned classical scholars, working on the theoretical hypotheses of grammar and philology. The only practicable way of overcoming these difficulties would be, as suggested by Professor Grensted, to provide that a family name shall be based upon the grammatical or classical ‘‘ stem” or upon such part of it as would both show most clearly the relation between the family name on the one hand and on the other the name of the genus upon which it is based and would provide the simplest and most euphonious form consistent with that relationship. A solution on these lines would offer the great advantage that it would make it possible in almost every case to determine the correct form of a family name (1) by putting the name of the genus concerned into the genitive singular, (2) by cutting off the termination (-ae, -2, -is or -ws according to the ordinary rules of Latin declension), and (3) by adding the termination -zdae. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is here recommended that the Commission should invite the International Congress of Zoology to approve the following propositions :— (1) that a provision on the following lines be inserted in Article 3 :— Care is to be taken in the interpretation of the present Article to pay due regard to the fact that Latin as used for scientific purposes is, and particularly Latin so used in the eighteenth century was, a living language and therefore that, while classical Latin is necessarily the standard to which scientific names should, so far as possible, conform, _ that standard is not to be applied in such a way as to ignore later developments in the language or as to override considerations of scientific accuracy, uniformity, intelligibility or practical usefulness. (2) that a provision on the following lines be added to Article 4:— For the purpose of the present Article the expression “stem” is to be interpreted as meaning either (1) the grammatical or classical “stem” or (2) a part of the “‘stem” the choice to be made in favour of whichever of the foregoing methods both shows most clearly the relation between the generic name on the one hand and the name of the family on the other and provides the simplest and most cuphonious form compatible with that relationship. (38) Article 14, paragraph (1) (adjectival trivial names to agree im gender with generic names): Article 14 requires that, when a specific trivial name is, an adjective, it shall agree in gender with the genericname. This is an essential provision in any system of nomenclature which involves the use of an inflected language such as Latin. It was rigorously applied in the XVIIIth century by Linnaeus and his contemporaries who found no difficulty in so doing, for the words used as generic names by those authors were all words, the gender of which was known or could be readily determined. In the period of 190 years Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 109 which has e:apsed since the publication in 1758 of the tenth edition of the Systema Naturae, the situation has been completely changed by the introduction of thousands of generic names consisting of neo-Latin or pseudo-Latin words, for which it is impossible to determine the gender which should be adopted. In spite of this development, there has been no corresponding evolution in the provisions of Article 14, in so far as those are concerned with the gender in which adjectival specific trivial names should be placed. This is unfortunate, for nothing is more calculated to bring a law into contempt than a failure to keep it abreast of current requirements. The problem is a difficult one. The following suggestions are necessarily not comprehensive but it is thought that their adoption and incorporation in the Régles will go some way towards bringing order into this difficult subject :— (a) where a generic name is a classical Latin word, the specific trivial name, if an adjective, should agree in gender with that name : (b) where a generic name consists of a word which is unknown in classical Latin but is found in the later history of the Latin language, the specific trivial name, if an adjective, should agree in gender with the ascertained gender of the word selected as tle generic name ; (ce) where a generic name consists of a word unknown in any stage of the history of the Latin language except as used to-day for zoological nomenclature, the following rules should be observed :— (i) if the word ends with any of the terminations used for nouns in classical or later Latin, the gender of the generic name shall be assumed to be the gender normally applicable to a noun having that termination ; (ul) if the generic name has a termination not found in Latin other than Latin as used in zoological nomenclature, the gender of that noun shall be deemed to be masculine. (File Z.N.(S)352.) (39) Second Schedule (proposed insertion of an additional section): It is further suggested that for the convenience of those zoologists who have not had a classical education, there should be inserted in the Second Schedule of the Régles a concise statement of the rules which normally determine the gender of a Latin noun and a list of the better known of those nouns which are exceptions to the normal rule (Z.N.(S)352). (40) Article 25, proviso (c) (date as from which spunea The Congress agreed at Budapest that the operative date should be midnight G.M.T. 31st December 1930/Ist January 1931. It is suggested that this should be inserted in this Article (Z.N.(8)352). (41) Second Schedule, Section G (proposed correction) : Commissioner Boschnia has pointed out (Z.N.(G)10) that the statement (paragraph 16) that “* The soft aspirate may be used to represent the Arabic ain” is incorrect in that what is intended is not the soft aspirate but the spiritus asper or esprit rude. It is proposed that this error should be corrected. LO Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (42) Article 14 (status of trivial names consisting of unchanged modern patronymics): (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 89): It is proposed to make it clear that a name such as “‘ cerisy” is to be amended automatically to cerisyz and to retain the original author and date of publication (Z.N.(S)165). (43) Article 14 (trivial names consisting of phonetic reproductions of initials of zoologists) (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 89): It is proposed that words should be inserted in the Régles:— (a) to make it clear :— (i) that a trivial name (like a generic name) may consist of a word composed of an arbitrary combination of letters. (1) that, in consequence, a trivial name is not to be rejected on the ground that it consists of a phonetic reproduction of the initials of one or more zoologists (Z.N.(S)163) ; (b) to insert a Recommandation that, where an author selects as a trivial name a word consisting of an arbitrary combination of letters, the combination so made should not be such that, when pronounced. it appears to be a word or combination of words in some language other than Latin (file Z.N.(S)352). (44) Artecle 23 (use of round brackets (parentheses) in cases where subgeneric vames are used as well as generic names) (See Bull. zool. Nomencl, 1: 91): Itis proposed to make it clear (1) that the provisions in this Article apply only to cases where a generic name is changed and therefore that, where a subgeneric name is either changed or omitted, or, if no such name was used in the original description, such a name is later used, such a change does not lead to the use of brackets (parentheses) round an author’s name, provided that the generic name remains unchanged (Z.N.(S)129) but that in every other case such a change is required (Z.N.(S)128) ; (2) that this Article does not apply to changes in the status of trivial names from specific to subspecific rank and vice versa. (45) Article 25 proviso (a) (question whether the description of the work of an animal constitutes an indication) (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 93): Many fossil species and also gall-producing living species have been described first by their work. It is therefore proposed :— (1) to make it clear that a description of the work of an animal unaccompanied by a description of the animal itself constitutes -an “‘ indication ” ; (2) to add a Recommandation urging authors, so far as possible, to avoid establishing new taxonomic units, based solely upon the work of the animals concerned (Z.N.(S)140). (46) Article 25, proviso (a) (generic names based upon figures only) (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 94): It follows fromthe decision taken by the Commission during the present session to widen the meaning of the expression “* indication ”’ as applied to generic names published prior to Ist January 1931. that a generic name published before that date on a legend to a plate or plates but without explanatory matter is published with an “ indication ” (Z.N.($)68). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ill (47) Article 25 (authorship of names given conditionally) (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 97): It is proposed to make it clear that, where a name is given conditionally and is later brought into use, the name dates from its original publication and is to be attributed to its original author (i.e. it does not date only from the later date when it was first definitely brought into use and is not to be attributed to the reviser by whom it was so brought into use). (Z.N.(9)45.) (48) Article 25 (question whether the citation, wm connection with a parasitic species, of the name of its host constitutes an “indication’’) (See Bull. zool. Nomencel. _1: 97): It is proposed to make it clear that the sole citation of a host species, like the sole citation of a type locality, does not constitute an “ indication,” but that, in the former case (as in the latter case), such a citation becomes an important part of the description of a species, where the name of that species is published with an indication. (Z.N.(S)167.) (49) Article 25 (expression “le plus anciennement designé”’) : It is proposed to make it clear in the Régles :— (1) that the foregoing expression is to be interpreted rigorously, that is to say a name published on any given day of a given month has priority over another name published on the immediately following day; (2) that, where two names for one animal are found to have been published on the same day, the question of which name is to be given priority over the other is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. (Z.N.(S)125) (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 102.) (50) Articles 22 and 23 (proposed rejection of certain applications received): Some years before the war the Commission received applications for the deletion from the Regles of these Articles. These applications contained no grounds in support of the action proposed. In order to clear the records of the Commission, it is suggested that the Commission should now formally reject both these applications. (Z.N.(S)12 on p. 90 of volume 1 of the Bulletin and Z.N.(S)142 on page 93 of the same volume of the Bulletin.) (51) Article 25 (authorship of a name which when first validly published is either a manuscript name or a name already published as anomen nudum) : It is proposed to make it clear that in view of the fact that neither a manuscript name nor a nomen nudum has any standing under Article 25, a name belonging to either of these classes, when first published with an “ indication ”’, should be attributed to the author by whom it is so published. (Z.N.(S)352.) (52) Article 30, Rule (g) (interpretation): It is proposed to make it clear that for the purpose of this Rule, the type of a nominal genus has been selected not only where an author states that he is making such a selection but also where he clearly states that a given originally included nominal species is the type of the genus but at the same time indicates (incorrectly) that in making this statement he is doing no more than recording a previously established fact. (Z.N.(S)352.) VOL, 3 I 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (53) Title of the “ Régles”’ as amended: In order that there may be no ambiguity in the citation by authors of Articles of the Régles when these are published with the revisions now agreed upon, it is essential that authors should have a definite means of indicating that it is the revised edition to which they are referring. It is proposed therefore to follow the normal course in such a case and to insert at the end of the Régles a concluding Article stating that the title of these Régles is the ‘‘ Réegles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, 1901-1948 ” and that they may be cited as such. (Z.N.(8)352.) (54) Recording of decisions by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature either (1) that a given work is not available for nomenclatorial purposes or (2) that a given name or class of name (e.g. such names as those dealt with in Opinion 124) is not available: It is suggested that it would be more logical and would serve the convenience of zoologists if decisions by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on matters falling in the classes indicated above were to be recorded in‘a special schedule to be attached to the Reégles just as decisions taken under the plenary powers are now so to be recorded. The last-named group of cases is to be incorporated in a First Schedule. It is now proposed :— (1) that the class of decisions here under consideration should be incorporated in a schedule to be known as the Second Schedule ;, (2) that the present Appendice should be known as the ‘‘ Third Schedule ” (instead of as the Second Schedule, as hitherto proposed) (Z.N.(S)352). (55) Article 4 (proposed amendment): Article 4 provides that the name of a family is to be formed by adding the ending idae, and the name of a subfamily by adding inae to the stem of the name of its type genus. Professor Boschma proposes an addition to Article 4 prohibiting the use of names ending in -dae for supra-specific groups other than families, and names ending in -inae for supra-specific groups other than subfamilies. (Z.N.(S8)200.) (56) Article 12 (proposed drafting amendment): Article 12 provides that ““a specific name becomes a subspecific name when the species so named becomes a subspecies, and vice versa.”’ In view of the subjective nature of the taxonomic revision referred to in this Article, it is suggested that it would be more appropriate to re-word the Article as follows :— ““When an animal originally described as a species is treated by a later author as a subspecies, the specific trivial name of the species becomes the subspecific trivial name of the subspecies, and vice versa. (The substitution of * specific trivial name ”’ and ‘‘ subspecific trivial name” for ‘specific name” and ‘‘subspecific name” follows from the decision on point (5) in Paper I.C. (48)8), (Z.N.(S.) 352.) (57) Article 7 (proposed drafting amendment): For reasons analogous to those given in point (56) above, it is suggested that Article 7 should be re-drafted as follows :— ‘“When a taxonomic unit originally described as a genus is treated by a later author as a subgenus, the generic name of the genus becomes the subgeneric name of the subgenus, and vice versa” (Z.N. (S.) 352). ae ——e Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 113 (58) Articles 6 and 11 (proposed co-ordination): There is a discrepancy between the French texts of Articles 6 and 11 which is undoubtedly due to a drafting slip and which it is suggested Should be corrected in the revised edition of the Reégles. Article 6 states that “‘ Les noms des genres et des sous-genres sont soumis aux mémes régles; ... ,” whereas Article 11 states that ‘‘ Les noms spécifiques et subspécifiques sont soumis aux mémes régles et recommandations;... .” It is proposed to add “ et recommandations ” after “‘ régles”” in Article 6 (Z.N.(S)352). (59) Article 8, Second Recommandation, Section (b) (proposed amendment): This Recommandation states that if a compound Greek word is selected as a generic name, the attribute should precede the principal word. Examples are then given of words correctly joined in this way, but these are followed by the misleading and inaccurate statement quoted below :— “On peut néanmoins admettre des mots formés sur le modéle du mot Hippopotamus, cest-a-dire dans lesquels l’attribut est aprés le mot principal. Exemples: Philydrus, Biorhiza.” Professor Grensted (Z.N.(S8)253) has pointed out :— (1) that the word “ hippopotamus, though it does occur in late Greek, appears to be a local or even slang word, wrongly formed and without any parallel whatever in the Greek language . . . The word is at monstrous as the animal it represents, and it is therefore no model at all upon which to base intelligible generic names.” (2) Point (6) in this Recommandation is philologically correct only when the attribute is truly adjectival, as in Stenogyra (narrow whorl), i.e. narrow-whorled. But when the attribute expresses not a quality but an action, being in principle a verb-form, it may either precede or follow the other term in the partnership. Thus Hydrophilus means not a watery friend but a lover of water and Philydrus means exactly the same, both being equally correct. It is proposed, therefore, to amend Point (b) in the second Recommandation to Article 8 as follows :— (1) Omit the second paragraph (i.e. the paragraph quoted above) ; (2) Amend the first paragraph to read : “Compound Greek words in which, where the attribute expresses a quality, that word should precede the principal word but if it expresses either an action or an activity or a state, it may either precede or follow the word with which it is conjoined.”’ (60) ‘ Recommandation” to Article 36 adopted at Padua, 1930: The Eleventh International Congress at Padua adopted an additional Recomman- dation to Article 36 stating that “when homonyms are of the same date, any name proposed for a genus takes precedence over a name (its homonym) proposed for a subgenus. The same principle is applicable to homonyms of species and subspecies of identical date.” Clearly this provision should have been inserted in the mandatory paragraphs of Articles 34 and 35 and nut adopted as a mere Recommandation to Article 36. (Indeed, in Opinion 124, it was (wrongly) referred to as an “‘amendment ” to Article 36.) VOL. 3 1? 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It is proposed that the provision referred to above adopted at Padua in 1930 should be incorporated in the substantive parts of Articles 33 and 54 respectively. (Z.N.(8)352.) (61) ** Opinion” 124 (proposed extension of application): Opinion 124 states that under the Régles the various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of that date (1758) as of subgeneric value. It is desirable that it should be made clear that this decision carries with it similar treatment of names given to subdivisions of genera by Linnaeus in all subsequent editions of the Systema Naturae. It implies also that names given to subdivisions of genera by Fabricius should be treated in the same way, for the method adopted by these two authors is identical. It is proposed that this should now he made clear. (Z.N.(S)352.) (62) Status of names placed on the“ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”: The names placed on the “* Official List ” are of two kinds :—(1) names validated by. the Commission under their plenary powers and (2) names which are believed to be nomenclatorially available in every way but which have not been formally conserved by the use of the plenary powers. No change can be made in regard to entries relating to the first of these two classes but at present no special sanction applies to names belonging to the second class. This is an unnecessary weakness in the present system which impairs the utility of the ‘“ Official Iist.” It is suggested that this situation should be rectified by the insertion in the Regles of a provision that, when a generic name has been placed on the “ Official List,” that name is to be used for the type species of the genus concerned and for any other species regarded as congeneric therewith and is not to be.replaced by any other generic name, even if later evidence shows either that it is not an available name or is not the oldest name for the genus concerned or has as its type species some species other than the species so recorded in the “ Official Iist” unless the Commission, on having the facts laid before it, shall so direct. (Z.N.(S)352.) (63) A suggested “ Official Last of Trivial Names in Zoology” : The plenary powers Resolution of March 1913 refers (Article 3) to trivial names as well as to generic names, but no provision was made at that time for the recording of decisions relating to the first class of name, although’as regards the second it was agreed to establish an “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” It is proposed that this omission should be rectified by the establishment of an Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology,” subject to the same general conditions as those laid down in regard to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” (Z.N.(S)352). FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, Paris. 23rd July, 1948. (115) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)16 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE “‘REGLES”: FOURTH INSTALMENT Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In Paper I.C.(48)15 I circulated a third instalment of 31 miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Régles. In the present paper I submit a fourth instalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience of reference these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in Paper 1.C.(48)15. Fourth Instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the ‘* Régles ” in various respects (64) Article 25 (position regarding trivial names when totally misleading): In some cases the trivial name of a species is so misleading that it has been suggested that it should be changed. Examples: (1) A Philippine Hesperid butterfly, wrongly labelled “ California’ was later described under the trivial name californica; (2) the Eire subspecies of the common European butterfly Pieris napi (Linnaeus) was given by a continental worker the trivial name britannicus, a choice repugnant to Irish nationalist sentiment; (3) a subspecies of the butterfly Leptidea sinapis (Linnaeus) from Syria was given the name deserticola in the mistaken belief that it occurred in the Syrian desert whereas in fact it occurs only in the hot damp valley of the Dog River near Beirut. It has been suggested by Mr. P. P. Graves (Hire) that there should be means for removing such anomalies and therefore that there should be added to the Régles a provision that where by reason of containing a reference to an erroneous locality or habitat a trivial name given to a species or subspecies is so misleading as to constitute a permanent cause of confusion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature may, on the application of specialists in the group concerned, direct that the name be suppressed for all purposes other than the Law of Homonymy (Z.N.(S)205). (65) “ Opinion” 124 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (61) ): Conse- quential upon the decision already taken to clarify the contents of Opinion 124, it is suggested that it should be made clear that the terms (consisting of adjectives in the nominative singular) inserted between the generic name and the specific trivial name of each species figured in the first volume of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge are not to be treated as subgeneric names as from the date of publication of that volume (Z.N.(S)218). 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (66) Proposed new Article relating to the functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : It has been proposed in paragraph 16 of Paper I.C.(48)6 that an Article should be inserted defining the functions, in relation to zoological nomenclature, entrusted to the International Commission — on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Congress of Zoology. In the case of a number of Articles of the Reégles, the Commission have now agreed that reference should be inserted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and for this reason alone it would be necessary to insert an Article defining the functions of the Commission. It is suggested that this Article should be based upon the definition of duties adopted by the Congress at its Fourth meeting held in Cambridge in 1898 supplemented by such later decisions as have since been taken by the Congress. These will be found set out on page V of volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It is accordingly suggested that the Article relating to this matter should be on the following lines : The centralisation, discussion and elaboration of all questions of zoologica nomen- clature is entrusted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘ Commission ’’) the duties of which include :— (1) the submission, as may be required, to the International Congress of Zoology (herein- after referred to as the Congress) of recommendations for the amendment or clarification of, or for the insertion of additional provisions in, the Régles Internationales dela Nomen- clature Zoologique (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘ Régles’’) where, in its opinion, such amendments, clarifications or additions are required ; (2) the preliminary consideration on behalf of the Congress, for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Commission may decide, of every proposition relating to a proposed change in the Régles which may be submitted to the Congress from any source ; (3) the rendering of ‘‘ Opinions” on questions of zoological nomenclature submitted to it, such Opinions to become operative forthwith without further reference to the Con- gress ; (4) the compilation of the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” and of the “‘ Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology.” ‘ The Commission possesses also plenary powers to suspend any part of the Régles as applied to the names in any book or to any individual name where in its opinion the strict . application of the Régles would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity provided that the use of the said plenary powers shall be subject to the following conditions :— [Here will be inserted the conditions provided in the Resolution of March, 1913 (Declaration 5) subject to the incorporation therein of the amendments thereto agreed upon during the present Congress. | (67) Status of a holotype or lectotype in relation to a poor indication or description : It is proposed to make it clear in the Régles that, where a specific or subspecific name is published with a poor indication or description, the holo- type of the species or subspecies or the lectotype, in cases where the species or subspecies concerned was originally based on a series of syntypes, is to be regarded as available to supplement the characters noted in the original des- cription. of the species or subspecies concerned (Z.N.(S)291). (68) Supplementary proposal on Point No. 30 in Paper 1.C.(48)14. This Point dealt with the status of names published in books or journals appearing in parts, in those cases where a portion of the original description of a new taxonomic unit appears in one part and the remainder in the next following part. It was not made sufficiently clear in that Point that, in the case of a Sia Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 117 new generic name published subsequent to 31st December, 1930, it must be provided that no matter how much of the description appears in the earlier part, the namé ranks for purposes of priority from the later part if the designation of the type species is not included in the earlier part. It is proposed that this should be made clear in the amendment to be made in the Reégles. (69) Proposed introduction into nomenclature of the term “‘ pseudo-genus’”? : It was proposed by M. Deflandre (Section on Nomenclature, Saturday morning, July 24th, 1948) that there should be incorporated into the Régles a term “ pseudo-genus” to denote all genera already or in future to be established where those genera are not monophyletic and that in future the expression “ genus ”’ should be restricted to those groups immediately above the species level which are monophyletic. A scheme of this kind would introduce into nomenclature a subjective element of a peculiarly intractable kind which could only give rise to argument and confusion. It is recommended that this proposal be rejected but this should not be held to prejudice the use of the expression “pseudo-genus”’ as a technical term. (Z.N.(8)363.) (70) Proposed adoption for certain fragments (organites and sclérites) of fossil species of invertebrates of a different nom enclature from that for living species: Such a system had been proposed by M. Deflandre (Section on Nomenclature, 24th July), but the study of the Animal Kingdom as a whole would be greatly embarrassed if the nomenclature to be employed for identical grades were to differ according to whether the species concerned were living species or fossil species. Moreover, the introduction for palzozoology of a nomenclature different from that used for zoology would menace the unity of the present system of nomenclature which applies equally to the whole Animal Kingdom and makes no distinction between living and extinct species. It is suggested that the proposal which has been submitted on this subject be rejected, without prejudice to the use in this or other cases of a special technical terminology by way of supplement to, but not in replacement of, the rules of zoological nomenclature. (Z.N.(S)364.) (71) Interpretations of the “ Régles” by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : It is proposed to make it clear in the Regles that where at any time between meetings of the Congress the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of the judicial functions entrusted to it, gives an interpretation of the meaning of a given provision in the Régles, the interpretation so given shall immediately upon being published in a Declaration of the Commission have like force and vigour as though it had been embodied in the Régles until the next succeeding meeting of the Congress, at which meeting the question whether an amendment to the Regles shall be made in the sense of the said interpretation shall be submitted for decision. (Z.N.(S)352.) (72) Method of amending the “ Régles” : There is a general desire for a clear statement as to the manner in which amendments may be made in the Reégles. It is accordingly proposed that an Article should be inserted stating that amendments in, or additions to, the Regles can only be made by the 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. International Congress of Zoology on the recommendation of the Section on Nomenclature at meetings at which such a Section is established but that no decision on a proposition that such an amendment or addition be so made may be taken unless the proposition has been submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a period of at least one year from the opening of the Congress concerned or for such less a period as in any given case the Commission may agree is sufficient (Z.N.(8)352). (73) Article 35 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (34) in Paper 1.C.(48)15) : It has been suggested that the Commission should agree to recommend the Congress to insert in the Régles a Recommandation that authors should refrain from publishing in the same genus trivial names differing from one another only by the terminations -costa and -costata. It is proposed to add to this “ Recommandation ” a corresponding recommendation in regard to the use of trivial names differing from one another only by the terminations -cauda and -caudata (Z.N.(S)309). (74) Article amending and embodying the Plenary Powers Resolution, 1913 : Through inadvertence it was proposed in Paper {.C.(48)4 (paragraph 6(2) (q) ) that the resolution relating to the establishment of co-operation between the Commission and specialist bodies which was added by the Monaco Congress as a final paragraph to the Plenary Powers Resolution should be incorporated in the Article now to be inserted in the Régles. The subject matter of this paragraph has no relevance to the grant to the Commission of plenary powers and it was never intended to recommend that it should be incorporated in the Regles. It.is accordingly proposed that the foregoing paragraph in Paper 1.C.(48)4 and the decision thereon should be amended accordingly. sis (75) The problem of “ neotypes”’ (proposed cancellation of certain sentences in “ Opinion” 128): No decision on this question has ever been reached by the Commission and they have agreed during the present meeting that this problem shall be made the subject of a special study by the Secretary to the Commission in consultation with interested specialists. As has been pointed vut by Commissioner Harold E. Vokes, it is unfortunate therefore that there should have been inserted in Opinion 126 (relating to the new names in d’Orbigny’s ‘“‘ Prodrome’’) the series of obiter dicta by the author of that Opinion which appears on page 21 of the edition published by the Smith- sonian Institution, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Commission in 1936 and which have the appearance of constituting a decision by the Commission on this important question, whereas in fact the only matter on which a vote was taken by the Commission in this, as in other Opinions, was the matter indicated in the draft ‘‘ Summary ” then submitted. That ‘‘ Summary ” dealt with the matter which alone was at that time under consideration by the Commission and rightly contained no reference to the views expressed in the passage which occurs on page 21 of the printed edition. This misleading way of recording the individual views of the draftsman of an Opinion has already caused a. certain amount of inconvenience in the consideration of the problem whether, and, if so, under what conditions “ neotypes” should be recognised, In order to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 119 prevent any further harm being done by Opinion 126, it is now proposed that the Commission should (1) confirm the decision as recorded in the ‘‘ Summary ” of Opinion 126 and (2) cancel, so far as concerns the interpretation of the Reégles, all observations contained in the body of that Opinion but not in the “ Summary.” (76) Article 8, second “ Recommandation” section (b): When considering Paper 1.C.(48)15, the Commission adopted the proposals in regard to this matter sub- mitted under Point No. (59). A new wording for the Recommandation was then agreed upon but no examples were included in the draft then adopted. It is proposed to insert the name Stenogyra as an example of the first part of section (6) of this Recommandation and to insert the names Hydrophilus and Philydrus as examples of the second part of this section of this Recommandation (Z.N.(S)253). (77) Proposed insertion of paragraph numbers where an Article consists of more than one paragraph : The foregoing recommendation, which is purely a matter of presentation, is submitted since experience (including experience at the present Congress) has shown that the discussion of a given Article consisting of more than one paragraph is seriously hampered unless the paragraphs in question are referred to in this way. Moreover in the case of at least one Article (Article 14) the most ludicrous misquotation is commonly made as the result of the paragraphs being at present unnumbered. This Article consists of three paragraphs of which the first is a sentence subdivided into three phrases lettered “a.” “b” and “c.” As a result both paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) are commonly referred to in the literature as paragraph (c), though, as explained above, the phrase lettered “‘c ” is not a paragraph at all, being no more than a fragment of paragraph (1). (78) Proposed subdivision into paragraphs of Articles containing a number of sentences, each prescribing a separate regulation : For reasons similar to those explained in (77) above, it is proposed to treat as separate paragraphs provisions dealing with separate matters which now appear as separate sentences in a single Article. Example: Article 1 of the substantive French text contains three separate sentences, each dealing with a different question. These are compressed into two sentences in the incorrect English translation now currently in use. Under the present proposal each of those three sentences will become a separate paragraph in this Article. (Z.N.(S)352.) (79) Article 30, Rule (e) (meaning of the expression “ species inquirenda ”’): In order to allay a doubt which has been expressed to the Commission (Z.N.(S)236), it is proposed that it should be made clear in the Régles that for the purpose of this Rule a species is a “ species inquirenda”’ if the author of a genus is doubtful of the taxonomic status of the nominal species concerned (either because the species is unknown to him or because of difficulties of identifying it). This expression does not mean that the author was doubtful whether the species in question was correctly referable to the genus concerned, that question being provided for in the immediately following subsection of this Rule, 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (80) Article 30, proposed addition of a ‘“‘ Recommandation ” urging authors not to use the expression “‘ genotype”: The expression genotype is now widely used by geneticists in a sense totally different from that in which it is sometimes - used in zoological nomenclature (i.e. in the sense of the type species of a genus). The use of this expression in zoological nomenclature is much less frequent than formerly and, in order to avoid confusion, it would be useful if a Recommanda- tion were added to Article 30 urging authors not to use that expression when referring to the type species of a genus. It is recommended that the Com- mission should now agree to the insertion of a Recommandation in this sense. (Z.N.(S)352.) FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the I nternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, Paris. 24th July, 1948. (121) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)17 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE “‘REGLES”: FIFTH INSTALMENT Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In Paper I.C.(48)16 I circulated a fourth instalment of 17 miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Régles. In the present paper I submit a fifth instalment of proposals of this kind. For convenience of reference, these are numbered consecutively with those enumerated in Paper I.C.(48)16. Fifth instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the “Régles” in various respects (81) The plenary powers in relation to particular purposes : It is very clear from the discussions in the Section on Nomenclature and from the communica- tions received from various sources (including the communications received from the Danish and Austrian zoologists) that there is a very widespread desire that steps should be taken to include in the Régles provisions to prevent the upsetting of well-known and commonly used names solely upon biblio- graphical grounds. The Commission have undertaken to study this question and submit a report to the next meeting of the Congress. On the main issue involved, clearly no action is possible at the present Congress but there is one direction in which it is in the power of the Commission to meet the general wish of zoologists. This would be by recommending the Congress to include in the Article in which the plenary powers resolution is to be incorporated a new provision (analogous to that agreed upon at the meeting of the Section on Nomenclature held on Friday, 23rd July in relation to names of importance to medicine, veterinary science, agriculture, etc.) in which the Commission would be enjoined to give special consideration to applications for the use of their plenary powers when those applications are concerned either :— (1) to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes some old long-forgotten work containing new names the introduction of which would sink in synonymy names that are well established in current use; (2) to suppress any old but hitherto forgotten name in any book where the introduction of that name at the present time would sink in synonymy some well-known name in current use. (Z.N.(S)352.) 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This is a modest proposal but it is. | am convinced, of a nature calculated to strengthen the hands of the Commission in dealing with cases of this kind. As such it is of value and it would, I believe, be widely welcomed. I accordingly recommend it to the Commission for adoption. (82) The plenary powers in relation to cases of confusion arising from uncertainty as to how to apply the “‘Reégles’’: At the time when the plenary powers were granted to the Commission, the preoccupation of all zoologists was centred upon the question of the strict application of the Régles and of the effects of such an application in given cases. It had not at that time been as fully apparent that, even where all concerned were agreed in favour of the strict application of the Régles, cases would occasionally arise where owing to the impossibility of determining with certainty to which of two or more species a given trivial name should be applied, a serious and irremediable state of confusion would arise unless powers were given to the Commission definitely to remove all such doubts by declaring under their plenary powers to which species in such a case a given trivial name should apply. Now that some 35 years later:a general effort has been made in many groups strictly to apply the Reégles, it has been found. that in a number of important cases it is impossible to apply those Régles with-precision owing to the doubts which exist as to the correct application of some well-known specific trivial name. These doubts are to-day a potent source of uncertainty and instability and every zoologist with whom this matter has been discussed is agreed that authority should be given to the Commission to use their plenary powers to settle such cases or, if it is held that this authority has already been granted under the existing powers, that that authority should be more explicity expressed. _ It: is accordingly recommended that the Commission should invite the Section on Nomenclature and, through it, the Congress to approve an extension of the existing plenary powers to cover not only (as at present) cases where greater confusion than uniformity would clearly result from the strict applica- tion of the Régles but also cases where, in the absence of the use of such powers, confusion is likely to persist through the impossibility of determining the manner in. which, under a strict application of the Régles, a given specific trivial name should be applied. (Z.N.(S)352.) (83) The composition of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Now that it has been decided to include in the Régles an Article relating to the functions of the Commission, it is necessary also to include an Article dealing with the composition of the Commission and the method of electing its members. It is suggeSted that this Article should be in general terms and should provide :— - (1). that the Commission shall consist of such number of persons not et being less than 18 as the Congress or the Commission acting on its behalf may from time to time determine ; (2) that one third of the members of the Commission shall be elected by the Congress at each of its meetings for such periods and subject to such conditions as may from time to time be imposed by the Congress ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 128 (3) that the Congress may determine from time to time the number of officers of the Commission and the titles and duties of such officers and may elect members of the Commission to hold the offices so established ; (4) that during periods between meetings of the Congress the Commission may, subject to maintaining the number specified in (1) above, vary the number of members and may elect zoologists to fill additional places so created and may also fill casual vacancies which may occur during such periods through death, resignation or otherwise, such elections being made for such periods and subject to such conditions as the Commission may from time to time prescribe ; (5) that, if, as the result of an emergency, the Congress is prevented from holding its normal periodical meetings, the Executive Committee of the Commission (consisting of the officers of the Commission) may assume and exercise such extraordinary powers as it may consider necessary to secure the continued existence of the Commission, provided :— (a) that the powers so assumed shall not include the power to vary the Régles ; (6) that at the first meeting of the Congress after the end of such emergency the Commission shall submit a report to the Congress regarding the extraordinary powers assumed during the emergency and the action taken by the Executive Committee thereunder ; (6) that in filling places in the Commission due regard is to be paid by ‘the Congress or the Commission, as the case may be, to the need for securing (a) that there is an appropriate balance in the membership of the Commission as between different parts of the world and (6) that there is an appropriate representation of different types of knowledge and experience (i) in the various branches of the Animal Kingdom as respects both living and fossil species and also (u) of the needs of workers not only in the field of systematic zoology but also in the applied fields concerned with biological subjects. (84) By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: The insertion in the Régles of an Article relating to the composition and functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature makes it necessary also to insert an Article regarding the manner in which the Commission is to conduct its business. It is suggested that this should be done by the insertion of an Article providing :— (1) that the procedure and other matters concerned with the conduct of the affairs of the Commission shall be governed by By-Laws to be adopted by the Commission ; . (2) that these By-Laws shall contain provisions giving effect to every provision included in the Régles which prescribes either the composition or functions of the Commission and that the Articles dealing with those matters are to be Organic Articles and therefore not subject to change except in so far as the Congress may from time to time vary the provisions in the Regles relating to the composition and functions of the Commission ; 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (3) that, in addition to the Organic Articles, the Commission may include in their By-Laws such provisions as they may consider necessary relating (i) to the election of officers and the duties to be assigned to each such officer, (ii) to the election of members of the Commission, (ili) to the election of an Executive Committee, its composition and the functions to be entrusted thereto, (iv) to the methods to be followed in voting on matters requiring decisions and (v) generally to any other matter concerning the conduct of the business of the Commission ; (4) that, subject to (2) above, the Commission may at any time vary its By-Laws to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may from time to time decide ; (5) that the Commission should arrange for the International Trust on Zoological Nomenclature, the corporation formed to carry out all financial duties on behalf of the Commission, to print its By-Laws and at all times to place supplies thereof on sale. (85) Article 28 as applied both to generic and to trivial names'. There is so much doubt in the minds of zoologists as to the position under the Reégles in this matter and there is in consequence such diversity of practice that it is, I think, essential that the Commission should agree to insert words into this Article expressly stating either what is the position or, if the Régles are to be altered, what the position is to be. At present this Article leaves it to the first reviser to choose which of any two or more generic names should be accepted in preference to the other or others when all the names in question are published in the same book or journal and the parts of that book or journal containing the names in question are published simultaneously. This Article, read in conjunction with Article 31, appears to mean that, where two nominal species are united on taxonomic grounds and the names of these nominal species were published in the same book, the choice as to which of the trivial names in question shall in future be the name of the combined species rests with the first reviser. On the other hand, we know :— (1) that the determination of the question who is the first reviser often involves a laborious search of the literature and that, even when this search has been made, it is often a matter of doubt whether a given passage in a given work constitutes an act by a “ first reviser ” ; (2) that a large and increasing number of zoologists ignores the present provisions of Article 28 as applied to a combined species by calling in aid the principle of page precedence and, if necessary, that of line precedence, a method which gives a quick and clear-cut answer to the | question of the name to be adopted ; (3) that the Commission itself has inclined towards the principle of page precedence, having thought it necessary in two cases to use its plenary powers to protect a generic name, in the first of these cases (Opinion 1 Point (85) constitutes the Report on this subject which at the Ninth Meeting of their Paris Session the Commission requested the Secretary to prepare for their consideration. ; | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 125 156) (Vanessa Fabricius) against another generic name (Cynthia Fabricius) published higher up on the same page of the same work, and in the second case (Opinion 167) to protect a name (Huthalha Hiibner) against a name (Symphaedra Hiibner) published on an earlier page of the same work. In these circumstances it cannot be claimed that the position as it exists to-day under the Regles is free from doubt. In my view, the factors calling for special consideration are :— (a) that a large and increasing number of zoologists applies the principle of page and line precedence ; (6) that this system is infinitely easier to operate than that of the first reviser, and (c) that on two occasions the Commission have used their plenary powers on the assumption that page and line precedure constitute the rule. These are grounds in favour of the insertion in this Article of a clear-cut provision stating definitely that, where the names of two or more nominal genera or of two or more nominal species are published simultaneously in the same book or journal and a later reviser decides to unite the nominal genera or nominal species as the case may be, the name to be adopted for the combined genus or species so established is to be determined by the application of the principle of page precedence and, if necessary, that of line precedence, it being understood that if the application of this rule creates a really hard case, that case will be remedied by the use of the plenary powers. If the Commission take the opposite view, then they should, I think, state clearly in Article 28 that the principle of page and line precedence is not to be invoked. In that case they should, I think, be prepared to use their plenary powers to remedy any hard cases so created. My belief is that the number of hard cases is likely to be smaller if the principle of page and line precedence is invoked than if the opposite principle is affirmed. For this reason and because of the much greater simplicity and certainty secured by the principle of page and line precedence, I hope that the Commission will adopt this principle. In any case, a clarification of Article 28, in one direction or another, is absolutely essential. (86) Regles, First Schedule (scope) : We have agreed to include in the First Schedule particulars relating to all cases where the Commission use their plenary powers. It is just as important, however, formally to record cases where the use of the plenary powers has been refused. It is therefore proposed : (a) that the scope of the First Schedule should be enlarged to this extent ; and (6) that the Standing Orders of the Commission should provide for the automatic cancellation of Opinions relating to the use of the plenary powers as and when the decisions recorded therein are inscribed in the First Schedule. (87) Reégles, Second Schedule (supplementary proposals): This has been established for the reception of particulars of decisions taken by the Commission 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. when not acting under their plenary powers when those decisions relate to the status of books. It is recommended :— (a). that the scope of this Schedule should be extentied to cover also all decisions in regard to individual names taken by the Commission in Opinions other than under the plenary powers ; (6) that the Standing Orders of the Commission should provide for the automatic cancellation of every Opinion falling in the class specified in (a) above as from the date on which the decision recorded therein is inscribed in the Second Schedule. (88) The Official Lasts of Generic and Specific Names in Zoology % in relation to the “ Régles”’: It is proposed :— (a). that there should be two further Schedules to the Régles established forthwith, namely : (i) a Fourth Schedule for the reception of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (i) a Fifth Schedule for the reception of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (6) that, in order to prevent the Régles from being unduly bulky the Fourth "and Fifth Schedules should be published separately from time to time in Parts ; (c) that on ‘the forthcoming publication of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the volume so published shall constitute the Fourth Schedule to the Regles, and that, as from the date of its publication, all the Opinions rendered by the Commission in relation to the names recorded in the said Schedule as having been entered upon the Official Just should be cancelled ; (2) that as and when a sufficient number of specific names has been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, that Official List shall be published in like manner to that prescribed in (c) above and the relevant Opinions thereupon cancelled. (89) Proposed cancellation of certain “‘ Opinions” which contain no effective decision or, by reason of their transitory character, have now lost all significance: It is “proposed that the following Opinions falling i in the above classes should be cancelled in whole or in part :— ~ (a) Opinion 9. (No effective dectaion’) (6) Opinions 23 Both these Opinions should be cancelled, as each states ~ and 24 that a certain generic name proposed by the non- binominal author Commerson is an available name. If so desired by specialists, the Commission can later validate the names in question under their plenary powers. (c) Opinion 32. The statement in this Opinion is correct but is now irrelevant in view of the fact that the Commission has since designated Sphex flavipennis Fabricius as the type species of the genus Sphex under their plenary powers. (d) (f) (9) (h) (t) () (k) (!) Opinion 44. Opinion 74. Opinion 76. Opinion 83. Opinion 88. Opinion 102. Opinion 107. Opinion 113. Opinion 133. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 127 The Opinion falls to the ground owing to the suppression of Gronovius 1763, by Opinion 89. This is concerned only with the rejection of a proposal on procedure submitted by Commissioner Apstein. The following action is needed :— (1) cancel the first sentence ; (2) insert the content of the second sentence in the Fourth Schedule ; (3) cancel the third sentence because the conclusion here indicated has already been superseded by Opinion 80 ; (4) cancel the remainder of the “ Summary.” The first sentence will now be clearly stated in the Régles and should be omitted from the Fourth Schedule. The interpretative portion is now to be incorporated in the Régles. The remainder should be inserted in the Fourth Schedule, subject to the substitution of the word “available” for the word “ valid.” The interpretative element is now to be incorporated in the Régles. The remainder is concerned with taxonomy and not nomenclature and for this reason and because it does no more than state the obvious. it should not be included in the Fourth Schedule. It is proposed that, as regards this very bad Opinion, the only portion to be entered in the Fourth Schedule should be the last two lines of the “ Summary.” The date “1802” should be corrected, for Latreille’s volume is dated according to the French Revolutionary Calendar (running from September to September). This Opinion is unnecessary as it is completely covered by the general principles enumerated in Opinion 141. (90) Supplementary decisions needed in regard to matters dealt with in certain “ Opinions ”” before the contents of those “ Opinions’ can usefully be inserted in Schedules to the “ Réegles ” :— (a) (6) Opinion 31. Opinions 68 and 69, The decision in this Opinion which was published in 1910 is incorrect. This was pointed out in 1911 by Stejneger in a footnote incongruously inserted at the foot of the first page of Opinion 38. The error in Opinion 31 has never been formally corrected and this needs now to be done. These Opinions are concerned with the types of the genera Pleuronectes Linneus, 1758, and Sparus Linnzus. 1758 (Class Pisces). These Opinions are most unhelpful. for they state only that ‘an author (Fleming, 1828) did not fix the types of these genera. It is recommended VOL. 3.4 128 (c) Opinion 97. (d) Opinion 78. and (e) Opinion 99. (f) Opinion 129. (g) ‘< Opinions” suppressing generic names under the plenary powers Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. that immediate steps should be taken by the Commission to determine, in consultation with specialists, what are the types of these genera and that, having done so, they should insert these particulars in the Third Schedule, at the same time cancelling Opinions 68 and 69. Hiibner’s Tentamen: It would be impossible to include in the Third Schedule the tortuous and evasive statement given in the “Summary ” of this Opinion. It is proposed therefore clearly to state that Hiibner’s Tentamen was not published within the meaning of Article 25 and that therefore the new names in it have no availability as from the date (1806) on which this sheet was distributed by its author. (The decision in this Opinion is agreeable now to the vast majority of specialists, there now being only a minute handful who support the Tentamen and these only in respect of a few of the names included in it.) Name of the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Tick and Endamoeba versus Entamoeba: Both these Opinions are very poor, have been the subject of much criticism, and have been re-submitted by specialists for further con- sideration. It is accordingly proposed :— (a) that the Commission should announce that the matters dealt with in these two Opinions should be treated as sub judice: and (b) that, pending a review of the problems involved, the contents of neither of these Opinions should be entered in the Fourth Schedule to the Régles. This Opinion suppresses Bipinnaria, etc., as generic names but adds that they are available as technical designations for developmental stages of the Echinoderms concerned. It is recommended that the Commission should make it clear that, although Bipinnaria and the other names concerned as proposed by Sars are suppressed as generic names, they retain their status under Article 34 and therefore make it impossible for these names to be validly used for other genera in the Animai Kingdom. In some Opinions the Commission have suppressed a generic name in order to clear the way for the validation of the same name as used at a later date, while in other Opinions they have suppressed a generic name in order to validate some other name for the same genus. It is recommended that in every case falling in the first class the name suppressed should be suppressed absolutely so far as concerns its publication by the author and in the - work cited, but that a name falling in the second class, while being suppressed for purposes of availability, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 129 should nevertheless retain its position under Article 34, thus making it impossible for the name to be validly used for some other genus (a course which would clearly give rise to confusion and run counter to the intention of the Commission at the time when they took the decisions in question). (91) Errors in certain “ Opinions’”’ requiring correction before the contents of those ““ Opinions” are inserted in the Schedules to the “ Reégles.” It is pro- posed :— (a) that when any name on which a decision has been given in an Opinion (0) is transferred to one of the Schedules to the Régles : (i) the name should be correctly cited and its bibliographical reference inserted ; (ii) im the case of a specific trivial name, the original generic name (frequently omitted in the older Opinions) should be inserted. that if, when the Secretary to the Commission re-examines the Opinions with a view to the transfer of their contents to the Schedules, he should find other errors or obscurities than those specified in Points (89) and (90) above, the Commission should treat as a matter of urgency the correction of such errors in order not to hold up the publication of the revised edition of the Régles and that to this end all procedural delays should be eliminated under suspension of the by-laws. (92) Gender of names on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”: It is suggested that the Commission should agree :— (1) that the gender of every generic name placed on the “ Official List ” should be indicated in the alphabetical index to that list when pub- lished ; that it be a standing instruction that whenever in future a generic name is placed on the “ Official List,” its gender be at the same time recorded therein. (93) Date of entry into force of the “ Régles” as revised: When the Régles were adopted in 1901, it took three and a half years before the text was pub- lished. It is proposed on this occasion to act with the utmost despatch. All zoologists will naturally wish to know as soon as possible, and also to act as soon as possible on, the changes and other modifications which have now been agreed upon. It is accordingly proposed :— (1) that the Minutes of the meetings of the Paris Session setting out in detail all the decisions taken shall be published at the earliest possible moment in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature together with (1) the supporting I.C.(48) papers and (2) the Report, now to be submitted to the Congress by the Commission ; VOL. 3 J? 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (2) that when the foregoing documents are published as in (1) above, they should be prefaced by a short note explaining the arrangements in hand for the early publication of the revised Régles and advising all authors thenceforward to proceed as though the revised Reégles con- taining the said changes were already published ; (3) that the Régles, as amended by the Paris Congress, shall formally enter into force as from the date on which they are published on behalf of the Congress by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ; (4) that an Article be inserted in the Régles prescribing the date of entry into force as in (3) above. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission. Paris. 24th July, 1948. (131) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)18 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR CLARIFICATION OF THE “‘REGLES’”’: SIXTH INSTALMENT Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission I circulate herewith for the consideration of the Commission a sixth instal- ment of miscellaneous proposals, some of which are concerned with the amend- ment of the Régles, while others relate to matters of a more general character. The fifth instalment was circulated as Paper I.C.(48)17. Sixth instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the improvement of the “‘Régles”’ in various respects (94) Case of identical trivial names published in different genera bearing the same name: Commissioner Bradley has raised the question of the treatment to be accorded to two identical trivial names given to species in different genera when those genera bear the same name. In Paper I.C.(48)8 these cases were covered in the definition of “ primary homonym,” i.e., by the words “ the same combination of generic and trivial names,” though the definition of secondary homonyms was restricted to cases of identical trivial names placed in the same genus (i.e., it does not cover the case of identical trivial names placed in different genera which have the same name). It seems to me that specific homonyms (whether primary or secondary) which arise solely through the existence of generic homonyms (i.e., through the fact that Article 34 has not been complied with) constitute a special case and should not call for the replacement of the junior trivial name, since once Article 34 has been complied with, this would be totally unnecessary. It is suggested therefore that the definition of specific homonyms (both primary and secondary) for the purposes of the proposals contained in Paper I.C.(48)8 should be restricted to cases of identical trivial “names either originally published, or subsequently placed, am the same genus, and that a provision should be added stating that, where species bearing identical trivial names are either originally published, or are subsequently placed in different genera and those genera bear the same name, the junior generic name should be replaced (as required by Article 34) but that the junior trivial name is not to be replaced (Z.N.(S)80). (95) Article 25, proviso (a) (meaning of the expression ** indication ”’) (pr: posal supplementary to Proposal (18) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)11): At the very end of this paragraph there is a loophole. As things now stand, it would 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. be possible validly to replace an invalid trivial name without giving any des- cription or figure or a reference to such figure even if the name to be replaced was a nomen nudum. This is of course no more than a slip and it is proposed to remedy it by inserting at the end of the sentence the words “ where that name was a name which had originally been published with an indication.” (96) Consolidation of decision in ‘* Opinion” 46 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (39) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)11): There is another slip here. As drafted, the “ summary ” of Opinion 46 contemplates a situation in which, when species are first placed in a genus which was originally published without any species being cited by name, only one such species is cited. In that case, as stated in the words used, that species would automatically become the type of the genus concerned. But this form of words leaves unprovided for the case where on the first occasion on which any species are cited by name as belonging to the genus the names of two or more species are cited. It is proposed to remedy this defect by inserting words to the effect that where, on the occasion on which for the first time the name of a species is cited as being referable to a genus in which, when first established, no species was cited by name or recognisably described without a name and on that occasion two or more nominal species are so cited, these nominal species become for purposes of nomenclature the originally included species and are therefore the species from which alone a subsequent author, acting under Rule (g) of Article 30, can select the type species of the genus. (97) Article 30, Rule (g) (to be applied rigorously): It has sometimes happened that a given generic name was introduced in a particular book but that for some reason contemporary authors treated the use of the name either:by the same author or by some other author in some other book published either after or earlier (e.g., in the case of pre-1758 names) as the place where the name was first published or, where they have not actually done this, they have proceeded, when selecting the type under Rule (g) in Article 30, to argue that account can be taken of species included by the author in books other than that in which the name was first validly published under Article 25. Alternatively, it has been argued that, where an author states that species “ X” is the type of genus A-us Linnaeus, 1735, that action constitutes a valid type designation for A-us Linnaeus, 1758. On a number of occasions, illogicalities of this kind have led to confusion and error and it is proposed that the Régles should make it clear that, where an author selects a species to be the type of a genus as of an author and/or as of a date other than the original author of the genus or other than as from the book in which the name was first validly published, the so-called type-selection so made does not comply with the requirements of Rule (9) in Article 30, it being necessary for the purpose of that Rule that a subsequent author selecting the type of a nominal genus should have under consideration for this purpose only the first occasion on which the generic name in question was validly published under Article 25. (This is necessary, since otherwise it might be possible to select as the type of a genus a species not included in the original (post-1757) publication of the generic name or to ignore a valid type designation by some other author on the ground that the species so selected was not an originally included species.) 4 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 133 (98) Cases where a series of subspecies is enumerated, each preceded by a serial letter: Old authors used sometimes to list (usually as “ varietates ’’) the subspecies of a species, and, when doing so, place a letter (‘‘ a,” “ b,” “c,”’ ete.) before each “ var.” in turn. It has sometimes been argued that these letters form part of the name of the subspecies, where that name was first introduced in such circumstances. This is a misconception and it is proposed that this should be made clear in the Régles. (99) Date of entry into force of the “ Régles”’ as amended: A proposal on this subject is included in ].C.(48)20 (draft report). It is suggested that the Commission should reach a decision on this question when they come to con- sider that paper. (100) Article 34 (generic names) and Article 35 (trivial names), a special case: An implicit result of the Commission’s ruling in Opinion 116 is that a generic name ending in “ -nus”’ is not to be treated as being identical with one ending in “ mus.” This implication was inadvertently not noted when I.C.(48)11 was being prepared. It is suggested that this decision (which would cover also generic names ending in (1) -ma and -na, and (2) -mum and -num) should be incorporated in the Régles and Opinion 116 at the same time cancelled for interpretative purposes. (101) Article 25 (Point (12) in 1.C.(48)11 (nomina nuda) ): It would be well to make it clear that (i) a name which has been published without an indi- cation or (ii) has been published in a work found not to be available is, on being later published with an indication, in exactly the same position as a manuscript name when so published. (102) Article 25 (status of generic names cited in specific synonymies): We have now made clear the position as regards trivial names previously not validly pub- lished or previously not published at all, when those names are published in synonymies and it is possible therefore to attach a definite meaning to them. There remains one other class of case, namely, where in the synonymy of a species an author cites, but does not adopt, a binominal combination (specific name), the nomen genericum comprised in which has either never been published or is a name which has been published only by a non-binominal author (either before or after 1758). We have already covered the second of these classes (names by non-binominal authors) in Point (20) in Paper I.C.(48)11. Names of genera belonging to the other class (generic names cited in specific synonymies where the generic name has either not previously been published or has been published in conditions which do not satisfy Article 25) are usually ignored, and, I think, rightly so. I accordingly recommend that the Régles should make it clear that generic names published in such circumstances acquire thereby no rights under the Law of Priority. (103) Generic names first published in generic synonymies: It is not at present clear in the Régles what are to be the included species of a genus the name of which is first published in a generic synonymy. To take an example: (1) an author validly established a genus “ A-us”’ with (say) 20 included species, 134 Bulletun of Zoological Nomenclature. (2) a later author dealing with the same genus cites in it 10 species, of which some were different from those cited by the original author and in addition cited the unpublished generic name “ Y-us” in the synonymy of X-us. The question is: (a) are the originally included species for Y-us the 20 species placed in A-us by its original author or (b) are the 10 species placed in that genus by the latter author alone to be regarded as the originally included species? I think it important that we should give a clear answer to this question. 1 recommend answer (a); for the later author clearly regarded the MS. name as equal in content with the genus as originally established. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Comuission, Paris. 25th July, 1948. ( 135 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C.(48)19 PARTICULARS RELATING TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL CASES Memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission In the present Paper 1 submit particulars relating to certain individual cases which have been before the Commission for some time and on which | desire to have their opinion. (1) Proposed completion of ~ Opimons ~ which fail to provide complete (uswers to questions submitted: One of the defects of a number of the older Opimons is that they provide an answer to part only of the question submitted. { have been in correspondence with Professor Harold Kirby on the subject of Opimion 95 (in which 3 out of 5 generic names in the Phylum Protozoa submitted tor inclusion in the Official List were “ tabled ” for further consideration, which they never received) and Commissioner Boschma has raised the question of supplementing the incomplete decision given in Opinion 82 (see Point No. (2) below). I suggest that the Secretary to the Commission be instructed to examine the past Opinions with a view to ascertaining all instances where part of an application was not dealt with, and to submit proposals for completing these Opinions as soon as possible. (Z.N.(S)201). (2) Proposed addition of Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta Order Diptera) to the “ Official List ” (reference Opinion 82): One instance of the type of omission referred to in Point (1) above has been raised by Com- missioner Boschma (Z.N.(S)201). In the application dealt with in Opinion 82, the Commission were asked to take a two-fold action as regards each of two names of genera in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta). They were asked :— (A)(1) to validate the name Musca Linnaeus. 1758, with Musca domestica Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species ; (2) to place the name Musca Linnaeus, with the above species as type species, on the Official List; (B)(1) to validate the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, with Musca vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ; and (2) to place the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. with the above species, as type species on the Official List. In Opinion 82 the Commission dealt only with the first of these four re- quests. It has since been ruled in connection with Opinion 137 that, where (as in the case of Musca Linn.) the Commission use their plenary powers to validate a given generic name or to fix its type species. this decision carries 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. with it automatically a decision to place on the Official List the name so vali- dated, irrespective of whether the latter decision is recorded (as it should be) in the Opinion concerned. No further action is necessary therefore as regards request (A)(2) above. The decision as regards Musca Linnaeus cleared away all difficulties as regards the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, and it is proposed that the Commission should now place that generic name (with Musca vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as type by original designation) on the Official List. (3) Type of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia) (reference Opinion 92): In Opinion 92 in which the above name was placed on the Official List, the type species of the genus was erroneously cited as Scincus sloanii Daudin, 1803. This was due to a gross piece of carelessness, since the above species was not only not one of the species originally included in Mabuya by Fitzinger but was actually cited by that author in another genus on a different page of the same paper. Actually, Lacertus mabouya Lacépéde, 1788, is the type of Fitzinger’s genus by absolute tautonymy and is so recognised by specialists in this group. It is proposed to correct this mistake in the edition of the Official List shortly to be published. (Z.N.(S)203.) (4) Proposed use of the plenary powers for Porina Walker, 1856 (Order Lepidoptera): This name is of importance as this genus has a species which is a serious pasture pest in New Zealand. It is invalid, however, because it is pre-occupied by Porina d’Orbigny, 1852, the name for a genus of cretaceous Bryozoa. Recent species have also been referred to this genus which is regarded as one of the principal genera of Bryozoa. It would seem to me to be quite a wrong use of the plenary powers to employ them to validate a name in one part of the Animal Kingdom, if (as here) this means upsetting a well-known generic name in some other part of the Animal Kingdom. It appears to me, therefore, that the present application should be rejected and that the next name for “ Porina,” i.e., Oxycanus, Walker, 1856, should be used in its place, as in fact is already being done by some authors in New Zealand. It is suggested that concurrently with the rejection of the present application the name Oxycanus should be placed on the Official List. (Z.N.(S.)194.) (5) Phlebotomus or Flebotomus (Class Insecta, Order Diptera): This name was published by Rondani in 1840 with an “ F- ”’ but was emended to “ Ph- ” by Agassiz in 1846. This emendation is in general, though not universal, use and it is generally agreed by the authorities who have approached the Commission (C. T. Brues ; G. B. Fairchild ; Marshall Hertig) that it would cause confusion if (as suggested by William F. Rapp, Jr.) the original ‘‘ F-” spelling were to be re-adopted. It has been suggested by some of the Commission’s correspondents that the original spelling was a faute d’orthographe or a faute de transcription or a faute d’impression. It is clear, however, from Rondani’s paper that his spelling is intentional. This would indeed have been the natural spelling for an Italian to adopt, having regard to the Italian word “‘ Flebotomia ”’ (meaning “ lancet ”’). If, therefore, the ‘‘ Ph-”’ spelling is to be continued, the Commission will have to use their plenary powers to secure this end. In view of the very wide use OO — —————S — ———————- ~~ 83° Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 137 of this spelling in medical works and also of the views of specialists who have approached the Commission, it is suggested that action in this sense should be taken. The case was advertised last November and not a single objection has been raised against the adoption of this course. It is suggested that at the same time as the ‘“ Ph-” spelling is validated, this generic name should be placed on the Official List (type: Bibio papatisi Scopoli, 1786, by monotypy). (Z.N.(S.)169.) (6) Proposed use of the plenary powers to determine the identity of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): No final settlement will ever be reached on the question whether the above name was given to (1) the North American “ Monarch ” Danaid or (2) to the Chinese species of Danaid named Papilio genutia by Cramer, unless the Commission use their plenary powers to put an end to this controversy, for there are good arguments in support of either view (though personally I think those in favour of the ‘‘ Monarch ”’ to be the stronger of the two). (Great confusion has arisen in this case, a fact which is particularly unfortunate (a) because of the large non-systematic literature regarding the “ Monarch ” (in relation to its migratory habits) and (6) because it is particularly objectionable to be in doubt regarding the identity of the type species of a genus (Danaus Kluk, 1802) which forms the basis of a family. I recommend that this problem which was submitted to the Commis- sion by the late A. 8. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History)) should now be settled by the use of the plenary powers to determine the matter by declaring that the species to which the name Papilio plexippus Linn. applies is the North American “ Monarch” and not the Chinese species. This would be done by reference to some figure of the first of these species. (Z.N.(8.)323.) (7) Type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1750 (Class Aves): This case has been on the books of the Commission for over twenty years, and the only reason why it was not settled long ago was that, whatever decision was taken, it was certain that that decision would displease some section of ornithologists. As the result of this cowardly action on the part of the Commission, the situation has become more difficult, rather than less difficult. It is essential, therefore, that a decision should be taken with the least possible delay. Owing to the fact that there is a wide divergence of practice in this case, one group of workers taking as the type of this genus a species which is the type of one family and another - group a species which is the type of another family, nothing would be gained by the use of the plenary powers. It seems to me, therefore, that the proper course is to determine definitely what is the type species of this genus under the Régles and to render an Opinion giving the answer. Owing to the divergence of practice referred to above, this is not a matter on which it is possible to obtain any material assistance from ornithologists, for all the specialists con- cerned are committed in their own work to one view or the other. It is accor- dingly proposed that, in view of the negative results obtained from the consul- tations carried out since the Lisbon Session of the Commission, the Secretary to the Commission should be instructed to prepare for the consideration of the Commission an objective statement of this case, together with his conclusion as to the type species of this genus on a strict application of the Régles, that an 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. immediate vote should be taken on this statement when it is available and that, on the completion of the voting, an Opinion setting out the decision of the Commission should be published, the genus Colymbus being at the same time placed on the Official List, with whatever species the Commission may have found to be the type under the Régles. (Z.N.(8.)78.) I recommend also that the Commission should place on record their disapproval of the use of delay as a means of avoiding difficult decisions and their determination in future to provide an answer without fear or favour in regard to every matter submitted to them for decision. (8) Schistosome worms and Schistosome monsters: In 1832 Gurlt (Lehrbuch der pathologischen Anatomie) gave an account of the various types of Monsters and classified them in “genera” and “families” according to the Linnaean system. It is an obvious abuse of the Linnaean system of nomenclature for it to be applied to teratology in this way and it is proposed that the Commission should decide that for this reason the names of the so-called genera and species proposed for Monsters by Gurlt in 1832 (l.c.) have no standing in zoological nomenclature. The same applies to the name Schistosoma reflecum as used in the foregoing sense by Eisenbarthe in 1908 and to a similar use by Notter in 1927 (both of which latter papers have already unfortunately found their way into bibliographies of Schistosomiasis). (Z.N.(S.)285.) FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, Paris. 25th July, 1948. (139) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER I.C. (48) 20 DRAFT OF REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Note by the Secretary to the Commission I circulate herewith for the consideration of my colleagues, the attached draft of the Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Congress for approval by the final Conciliwm Plenum to be held on Tuesday next. 27th July, 1948. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission. Paris. 25th July. 1948. Epitor1aLt Nots :—The text of the Report, as unanimously adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and similarly approved by the Section on Nomenclature on Monday, 26th July, 1948, will be published in volume 5 of the present journal. The chief differences between the draft as submitted with Commission Paper I.C.(48)20 and the text as unanimously approved and adopted are :—(1) the insertion of a new paragraph (paragraph 6) between the paragraphs numbered 5 and 6 in the draft, for the purpose of recording that at the later meetings of the Paris Session the International Commission reached decisions on a large number of applications on individual problems of zoological nomenclature, the subsequent para- graphs being renumbered accordingly ; (2) the insertion in paragraph 18 of the Report (paragraph 17 of the draft) of a reference to a change in the Danish representation on the Commission made subsequent to the preparation of the draft ; (3) the expansion into two paragraphs (paragraphs 20 and 21) of the description given in paragraph 19 of the draft of the arrangements proposed to be made to fill vacancies in the Commission consequent upon the expiry of the term of service of members of the Commission, the purpose of these changes being (a) to make a consequential correction in regard to the Danish representation on the Commission and (5) to explain the arrangements agreed upon in substitution for the existing system of three 9-year Classes ; (4) the redrafting of paragraph 45 of the draft (paragraph 47 of the Report as adopted) for the purpose (a) of recording a decision then agreed upon that the title of the proposed new ‘‘ Official List of names of species should be changed to that of ‘* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ and (b) of expanding the reference to this ‘* Official List ”’ in order to make it comparable with that given in the preceding paragraph (paragraph 44 of the draft) which related to the existing “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (5) the redrafting of paragraph 47 of the draft (paragraph 49 of the Report as.finally adopted) for the purpose of recording a decision then taken that the task of examining the draft of the Régles as revised by the Paris Congress, when that draft was received from the jurists, should be entrusted not to the Executive Committee of the Commission, as previously agreed, but to an ad hoc Editorial Committee of three members. (140) DRAFT OF REPORT BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY INTRODUCTORY © We, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, assembled in Paris in July, 1948, have the honour to submit to the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology the following Report in which we deal both with the developments which have occurred in the work of the Commission since our last meeting held at Lisbon in 1935 during the Twelfth International Congress and with the decisions of outstanding importance which have been reached during the present Congress by the Commission and the Section on Nomen- clature. 2. The present Report is divided into three parts. In the first of these parts we deal with changes which have occurred in the composition of the Commission since 1935 and we ask for the covering approval of the Congress for the measures taken on our behalf by the Executive Committee during and since the war to secure the continued existence of the Commission as a body. In the same section, we submit important proposals which we have agreed upon during the present Congress for the introduction of certain changes in the com- position of the Commission and the method to be followed in electing zoologists to be members of the Commission, together with consequential changes which we are agreed it is necessary should be introduced into our procedure. The combined effect of these changes will, we are confident, secure to the Commission an unassailably representative and international character which will greatly heighten its moral authority as the body which has been entrusted by the Congress with final authority for all matters relating to the regulation of inter- national law in the field of zoological nomenclature. 3. In Part 2 of our Report we indicate very briefly the administrative and financial developments which have marked the period since the close of the Lisbon Congress thirteen years ago. It is not possible within the compass of the present Report adequately to deal with the many important innovations introduced during this period. We have therefore thought it valuable to submit with the present Report a detailed Report which has been prepared by our Secretary, Commissioner Francis Hemming. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 141 4. In Part 3 of the present Report, we turn to the position of the Régles Internationales and indicate in broad outline the far-reaching reforms which we now recommend should be introduced. These proposals are based upon extensive consultations with representative zoological institutions and with leading specialists in many groups, both in the Old World and the New. The plan now submitted constitutes by far the most extensive and significant con- tribution to the advancement of zoological nomenclature since the adoption of the Régles at the meeting of the Congress held in Berlin in 1901. The success- ful issue of our discussions at the present Congress is due very largely to the great interest displayed in matters of nomenclature by many members of the present Congress and to the scientific and objective spirit which they have brought to the discussion of the many complex problems involved. To a considerable extent also this happy result is due to the decision of the Commis- sion to throw its meetings open to all members of the Congress, thereby enlisting at every stage the accumulated knowledge and experience of a wide range of specialists in many fields. The Commission desire to thank all those who participated in their meetings for the valuable assistance and advice which they brought to the elaboration of the present plan. 5. The changes now proposed will enormously simplify the task of zoo- logists in applying the Régles in the course of their special studies and as such will be warmly welcomed by them. Everything in the Régles which experience has shown to be wisely conceived and of permanent value has been most care- fully conserved. On the other hand, everything which is time-worn or obscure has been placed on one side and replaced by provisions which are clear, definite and explicit. The provisions agreed upon by the Commission which are now submitted for the approval of the Congress are designed to meet the expressed views of leading zoologists in all parts of the world and to further the attainment of that stability in nomenclature which it is the aim of every zoologist to secure. PART 1. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION DURING THE PERIOD 1935-1948, AND PROPOSALS DESIGNED TO SECURE FOR THE COMMISSION THE MOST TRULY REPRESENTATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER AND TO ENDOW THAT BODY WITH THE HIGHEST MEASURE OF MORAL AUTHORITY (a) Changes in the composition of the Commission since 1935 6. Losses through death and resignation. Deaths and resignations through ill-health have, as was to be expected, led to heavy losses in the membership of the Commission since its meeting held at Lisbon thirteen years ago. 7. We have lost through death no less than seven of our colleagues, Commissioners Fantham, Stone, Stiles, Stejneger, Chapman, Arndt, and Pel- legrin. Every one of the colleagues whom we have lost made a valuable contribution to the work of the Commission during his period of office, and we deeply regret—as we do not doubt the Congress will also regret—that they 142 Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature. should have passed from among us. We feel bound to express a particular sense of loss arising from the death of our Vice-President, Commissioner Charles Wardell Stiles (U.S.A.), who at the time of his death had served continuously as a member of the Commission for forty-five years, during thirty-eight of which he had held the office of Secretary, and of Commissioner Leonhard Stejneger (U.S.A.), who served as a member of the Commission for forty-four years, and by his wide experience and judicial temperament had made a most notable contribution to the work of the Commission. 8. We feel bound also to express our particular regret at the death of Commissioner Walther Arndt (Germany) who lost his life during the war in circumstances which constitute an ineffaceable outrage against the whole body of men of science. Denounced to the Gestapo apparently for no other reason than his intellectual integrity and his attachment to the conception of co- operation between scientific men, irrespective of nationality, Commissioner Arndt, the most gentle and inoffensive of men, was hurriedly arrested in January 1944 and shortly afterwards suffered death by the headsman’s axe. We deeply deplore the loss which we have sustained as the result of this abominable crime and we ask the Congress to join with us in emphatically condemning this disgraceful murder. 9. In addition we have lost four other Commissioners through other causes. Three Commissioners (Apstein, Silvestri, Bolivar) have resigned on account of advancing years and ill-health or for other reasons, while Commis- sioner Jaczewski (Poland) has been unable to continue to discharge his duties as a Commissioner as the result of circumstances arising out of the late war. and his place has accordingly been treated as having been vacated. 10. Election of Commissioner Francis Hemming to be Secretary to the Commission. At the close of the Lisbon Congress in 1935, the post of Secretary to the Commission was vacant, Commissioner C. W. Stiles having resigned that Office but no election of a successor having been made. A year later, in October, 1936, Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) was unanimously elected to be Secretary to the Commission and the headquarters of the Commis- sion were accordingly transferred from Washington to London. ll. Steps taken to fill vacancies. In accordance with the powers conferred on them by the Congress at their meeting held at Monaco in 1913, the Commis- sion have taken the following steps to fill the vacancies which have arisen in their body and they ask for the approval of the Congress for the action so taken: (1) Elections in 1937. Senhor A. do Amaral (Brazil) vice Dr. A. Handlirsch (Austria) ; Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) wice Dr. Geza Horvath (Hungary) ; Dr. Walther Arndt (Germany) wce Professor Karl Apstein (Germany). (2) Elections in 1939. Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) vice Professor F. Silvestri (Italy) ; Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) vice Dr. H. B. Fantham (Canada): Dr. T. Jaczewski (Poland) vice Dr. C. Bolivar y Pieltain. : Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature. 143 (3) Elections during the War. Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) vice Dr. Witmer Stone (U.8.A.) ° Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) vice Dr. Leonhard Stejneger (U.S.A.) ; Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) vice Dr. C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) ; Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) vice Dr. Frederick Chapman (Australia). ‘4) Elections since the end of the War. Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) wce Dr. W. Arndt (Germany) ; Dr. Th. Mortensen (Denmark) vice Professor Jacques Pellegrin (France): Dr. Paul Rode (France) wce Dr. T. Jaczewski (Poland). 12. We ask the Congress to approve and confirm the elections set forth above. 13. At the same time we have to report that, in accordance with the powers delegated to us by the Congress, we took steps, as each of the Classes of which the body of the Commission is composed completed its term of service, to replace it with a new Class and to elect to that Class the retiring members of the time- expired Class. The Classes so constituted were: Class 1946 vice Class 1937 ; Class 1949 vice Class 1940 ; Class 1952 wice Class 1943 ; Class 1955 vice Class 1946. We ask the Congress to approve and confirm the action so taken. 14. German and Japanese representation on the Commission. At our present meeting we have reviewed the action taken in this matter as respects two Commissioners, namely Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) and Professor Rudolf Richter (Germany). We have a high regard for the professional eminence of both of these colleagues and value the important services which they have rendered to the Commission during their term of office. We feel. however, that in the circumstances arising out of the late war, we should be correctly reflecting the general sentiment of zoologists as a whole in recommend- ing that the zoologists of Japan and Germany respectively should now be given an opportunity of deciding for themselves whether their present representation should remain unchanged or whether it would be their wish to nominate other zoologists to represent them. We accordingly recommend to the Congress that they should release Professor Esaki and Professor Richter from service as members of the Commission and should declare their places to be rendered vacant. 15. Re-election of the Officers of the Commission during the War. We have also to report that on the expiry of the term of service of the Class 1940, the Offices of President and Secretary fell vacant owing to the completion of their terms of service by Commissioners Karl Jordan and Francis Hemming, while three years later the office of Vice-President similarly fell vacant consequent upon the completion of the term of service of Class 1943 of which Commissioner James Lee Peters was a member. In each case we invited the retiring officer to resume his functions for a further period, being convinced that this would be in accordance with the wishes of the Congress. We ask that our action in this matter be approved and confirmed. Von. 3k 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 16. Attendance of Commissioners at present meeting: Five members of the Commission have attended the present Session of meetings : namely Com- missioners Hemming, di Caporiacco, Bradley, Boschma and Rode. The remain- ing members, including our President and Vice-President, were unavoidably prevented from being present. In the absence of the President and Vice- President, our meetings during the present session have been presided over by our Secretary, Commissioner Francis Hemming. 17. Election of Alternate Members of the Commission for the duration of the Congress : In accordance with the power conferred upon the Commission by the Congress at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927, we invited the under- mentioned members of the Congress to serve as Alternate Members of the Commission during our present Paris Session : Senor Enrique Beltran (Mexico) vice Sefior A. Cabrera (Argentina). Dr. Edward Hindle (United Kingdom) vice Dr. Karl Jordan (United King- dom). Professor Arturo Ricardo Jorge (Portugal) vice Senhor A. do Amaral (Brazil). Professor Harold Kirby (U.8.A.) vice Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.). Professor Kamel Mansour (Egypt) vice Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary). Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.) vice Dr. James L. Peters (U.8.A.). Mr. Norman D. Riley (United Kingdom) vice Dr. W. T. Calman (United Kingdom). Professor R. Spirck (Denmark) vice Dr. Th. Mortensen (Denmark). Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) vice Professor Rudolf Richter (Germany) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) vice Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.). 18. We desire to express our sense of indebtedness to the foregoing zoo- logists for consenting to assist us by serving as Alternate Members of the Commission and for the long hours which many of them have devoted to our proceedings, often at considerable personal inconvenience and always at the cost of not participating in other activities of the Congress. 19. Formation of Class 1958 vice Class 1949: The Class 1949 expires on the last day of the present Congress and we recommend that the following four members of that Class should be elected to be members of the new Class 1958 :— Cabrera, Hemming, Jordan, Pearson. Much to our regret our old friend and colleague Dr. Th. Mortensen has asked to be permitted to retire from the service | of the Commission on account of ill-health and we feel unable to resist his request in this matter. We recommend that he should be replaced by Professor Dr. R. Sparck (Denmark) who, as already reported (paragraph 17), has acted during the present Congress as an Alternate Member in place of Dr. Mortensen. The sixth place in this Class should, we recommend, be left vacant until such time as information is available regarding the wishes of German zoologists on the question of their representation on the Commission. 20. Resignation of President Karl Jordan : It is with the deepest regret and with a profound sense of loss that we have received a letter from our Presi- dent, Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom), expressing the hope that, having regard to his age and to the fact that he is now totally deaf, he may be released from the duties of President of the Commission. Dr. Jordan has been a Member Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature. 145 of the Commission continuously for a period of thirty-five years during nineteen of which he held the office of President, having been elected thereto in 1929. consequent upon the death of the eminent Italian zoologist, the late Professor F. 8. Monticelli. Throughout his long term of office, Dr. Jordan has brought to the service of the Commission a wealth of knowledge, a wisdom of counsel, and a high sense of judicial impartiality which have been of the greatest value to the Commission. In particular, the Commission owe to Dr. Jordan a special debt of gratitude for the devotion which he has brought to his duties as our President and to the judgment with which he has guided our labours during many difficult periods. We sincerely regret that Dr. Jordan has found it necessary to take the present decision and we thank him most warmly for the eminent services which, while President of the Commission, he has rendered to zoological nomenclature. Our regret would be all the keener were it not for the fact that Dr. Jordan has felt able to accede to our request that, although no longer our President, he should continue to serve as a member of our body. We feel that it will be the unanimous wish of the Congress, as it is of the Commis- sion, that a special tribute should be paid to our old friend and colleague and we have therefore great pleasure in recommending the Congress, as an excep- tional measure, to establish the post of Honorary Life President of the Commis- sion and to offer this post to our retiring President. 21. Proposed election of Vice-President James Lee Peters to be President : We unanimously recommend that our Vice-President, Dr. James Lee Peters (U.8.A.), be elected President of the Commission in succession to Dr. Karl Jordan. Dr. Peters is well known not only to us but also to a wide body of zoologists and we feel confident that in his hands the impartiality and dignity of the Presidency of the Commission will be upheld and maintained. 22. Proposed election of Commissioner A. do Amaral to be Vice-President of the Commission: We have pleasure in recommending that the vacancy caused by the election of Dr. Peters to be President should be filled by the election of Dr. A. do Amaral (Brazil) to be Vice-President of the Commission. 23. Proposed re-election of Commissioner Francis Hemming to be Secretary to the Commission : The term of office of Commissioner Francis Hemming as Secretary to the Commission expires on the last day of the present Congress consequent on the expiry of the period of service of the Class 1949. We recommend that Commissioner Hemming should be re-elected to this Office for a further period. 24. Office of Assistant Secretary : We recommend that this Office should be allowed to lapse as an office to be held by a member of the Commission and should be made available for the chief Assistant to the Secretary in the Bureau of the Commission. (b) Proposed enlargement of the Commission and introduction of changes in the manner of nominating members of the Commission 25. We recommend that in order to provide an opportunity for any country in which any considerable amount of zoological work is being done to be represented or for the election of any zoologist of outstanding qualities who Von. 3 Ke 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. would be pre-eminently suitable to be a member of the Commission, the members ship of the Commission should be enlarged, there being in future no upper limit to the number of members, the present number of 18 being retained as a minimum. We propose also that certain safeguards should be introduced to secure that there shall at all times be an appropriate balance in the member- ship of the Commission as between different parts of the world and as between different types of knowledge and experience both in the field of systematic zoology (including palaeozoology) and in those of the applied sciences which are concerned with organisms belonging to the Animal Kingdom. 26. Werecommend also that certain changes should be made in the manner by which zoologists may be proposed for election as members of the Commission. We think it necessary that the Commission should retain the right and the duty of itself inviting individual zoologists in certain cases to serve as members of the Commission, but we consider also that, parallel with this method of selection, there should be introduced a system by which the views of zoologists in any particular country should be sought, through appropriate channels, in regard to the selection of a zoologist of their country to be their national representative on the Commission. 27. We have discussed both these proposals at a meeting held jointly with the Section of Nomenclature which is in full agreement with the line of development which we advocate. We do not consider it necessary therefore to set out here the detailed machinery by which we propose that the new scheme should be operated, for we feel that it will be the wish of the Congress that matters of this kind should be settled in the Section on Nomenclature and that only the broad outlines of the scheme should be brought to the attention of the Congress in plenary Session. Full particulars of both schemes will however be recorded in the minutes both of the Commission and of the Section for purposes of record. 28. We ask for the approval of the Congress for the proposed enlargement of the Commission and for the changes in the method to be followed in the election of members of the Commission outlined above. (c) The procedure of the Commission 29. In consequence of the recommendations for the enlargement of the Commission submitted in the preceding paragraph, changes are needed in the procedure of the Commission. Further, even if no change had been proposed in the size of the Commission, we should have felt bound to ask the Congress to withdraw the rule by which in certain types of case absolute unanimity is required at present, for experience has shown that the Liberum Veto is a definite hindrance to the work of the Commission and is open to strong objection, quite apart from the objections generally entertained towards this outworn rule of voting. The Commission consider, however, that as regards cases involving either the suspension of the Régles or a proposed amendment to the Régles a more rigorous rule of voting should be required than should be necessary to secure the approval of the Commission on other matters. In their present PT. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 147 proposals therefore the Commission have made provision for a distinction of this kind, the more rigorous of the two standards requiring (1) that as a minimum one quarter of the membership of the Commission shall record their votes, and (2) that two out of every three votes cast shall be in favour of the action pro- posed. . 30. We have discussed our proposals in detail with the Section on Nomen- clature by whom they are approved and supported. Full particulars will be given in the minutes of the meetings both of the Commission and of the Section. We believe that in view of the heavy calls upon its time the Congress will regard the foregoing summary as adequate for their purposes and we accordingly invite the Congress to give their approval to the plan for the reform of the Com- mission’s procedure proposed by the Commission and unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature. 31. We should add that we have decided also upon various administrative reforms which will, we believe, greatly reduce the period required to obtain an Opinion from the Commission on any given question of nomenclature and thus materially enhance the value to zoologists of the work of the Commission. PART 2. ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE PERIOD 1936-1948 32. The detailed Report prepared by our Secretary, Commissioner Francis Hemming, which, as already explained (paragraph 3 above), we propose to lay before the Congress, gives a full account of the administrative and. financial developments which have occurred in the work of the Commission during the period from October, 1936 (when Commissioner Hemming was elected to be Secretary to the Commission), up to the opening of the present Congress. It will be sufficient, therefore, if here we confine ourselves to the briefest outline of these developments. We think it necessary, however, to include this short summary, partly because the Congress is entitled to be informed of the work of the Commission during the long interval which has elapsed since its last meeting and partly because we wish to take the opportunity of expressing our concurrence in the various developments in question and of securing the approval of the Congress for the action taken. 33. The principal developments which we have to report are as follows :- (1) A critical situation arose immediately upon the transfer of the Secre- tariat of the Commission to London, since at that time the Commission possessed no funds at all and was naturally unable to look for the assistance which, while located in Washington, it had received from the Smithsonian Institution. At the outset, therefore, it was necessary to raise a small fund from leading scientific institutions in the United Kingdom and the United States. 148 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. By June, 1939, the Secretariat had been firmly established at its new headquarters and the publication of Opinions directly by the Commission itself began in August of that year. The outbreak of war in September, 1939, put a temporary stop to the work of the Commission, as, owing to the threat of air raids on London, it was thought best to evacuate the records of the Commission to a place of safety in the country. In the summer of 1942 these records were brought back to London and the work of the Secretariat was resumed. No new nomenclatorial decisions could be taken during the war owing to the imterruption of all communications between the Secretariat in London and those members of the Commission who were nationals of Germany and the countries associated with her and also with those members of the Commission who were nationals of countries then in German occupation. There was however at that time a large number of applications on which decisions had already been taken and also a certain number on which every Commissioner had had an opportunity of voting but on which the voting had not been completed. It was accordingly decided first to prepare and publish Opinions on all the cases falling in the first of these classes and second to secure enough additional votes from the available Commissioners to complete the cases that were still incomplete. The publication of Opinions was re-started in October, 1942, and con- tinued steadily until all the decisions taken at Lisbon had been formally rendered by the issue of 48 Opinions and 3 Declarations. In addition, during the same period 13 Opinions were completed and published and Declarations 1 to 9 and Opinions 1 to 16 were republished, the earlier edition having become out of print. The titles of all these publications are given in Commissioner Hemming’s detailed Report. In all, 3 Declarations and 61 Opinions have been rendered and published since the outbreak of war, the total number rendered to date amounting to 12 Declarations and 194 Opinions. In 1943 the Commission established a journal, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, as a medium for the publication of the texts of applica- tions submitted for decision, thereby providing an opportunity for zoologists all over the world to ascertain what proposals are before the Commission at any given time and to comment thereon before any decision is taken by the Commission. An appeal for a fund of £1,800 was issued in 1943 and a number of generous donations was received in response. Nevertheless, the financial position of the Commission remained extremely precarious, even though all the work of the Secretariat was done for the Commission by an unpaid spare-time Secretary and the Secretariat itself was housed in the Secretary’s house. In 1947 U.N.E.S.C.O. came forward with a generous offer of a condi- tional grant of £10,600 and a similar grant (also conditional) has been made for the current year. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 149 (10) In 1947 also a Corporation was formed under United Kingdom law under the title “ International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ”, which took over from the Commission the responsibility for the conduct of its financial affairs. This was essential, for only by this means could the Commission’s financial affairs be placed upon an assured basis. 34. The immediate difficulties have been relieved by the grant made by U.N.E.S.C.O. but the central problem facing the Commission and the Congress remains unsolved. For the volume of work passing through the Secretariat of the Commission has grown so greatly that a whole-time permanent Secretary is required, it being beyond the capacity of any honorary Secretary who (like the present one) can devote only his spare time to the work of the Commission, his day time being necessarily taken up with earning a livelihood. Such an appointment cannot be made until the Commission has an assured income of $25,000 to $30,000 a year, or some two and a half times as great as the grant received from U.N.E.S.C.0. during the past year. In the meantime the Com- mission must do the best it can with the help of a spare-time Secretary who, by providing his services free, heavily subsidises the Commission and gives it an air of financial soundness which it does not possess. 35. It is the intention of the Commission to seek additional means of financial support, for it realises how easy it would be for a situation to arise in which with its present income it would be impossible for it to continue its work. The situation is extremely difficult and is a source of constant anxiety. It will not be remedied until the leading zoological institutions of the world, realising (as they already do) that the Commission is an institution, the continued existence of which is essential for their work, take steps to provide the Commis- sion with an assured income sufficient to enable it to provide the service in regard to nomenclature which is essential to all zoologists and which it alone is in a position to offer. PART 3. THE PROPOSED CODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT OF THE “REGLES” 36. At the present time the state of international law in respect to zoo- logical nomenclature is extremely unsatisfactory, zoologists having to rely on the one hand upon the Régles adopted nearly 50 years ago and now in serious need of re-examination and on the other hand upon an ill-digested mass of case law built up over more than 40 years in Opinions rendered by the Commission. 37. Inspired by a desire to make an advance towards substituting order for the present chaos, the Commission drew up plans prior to the opening of the present Congress for the incorporation into the Reégles of the interpretative decisions already given by the Commission in Opinions, for the settlement of a number of important individual nomenclatorial problems which were either not dealt with in the Régles or were there dealt with in a piece-meal, incoherent and obscure fashion and for the incorporation in the Régles of a number of long overdue minor corrections, clarifications and additions. On assembling in 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Paris, we quickly found that the general temper of zoologists attending the Congress was strongly in favour of a more thorough-going reform than had previously seemed practicable. Encouraged by these favourable conditions, the Commission have devoted every effort to securing the maximum benefit from the present Congress and now, after holding fourteen meetings during a period of five working days, have drawn up a far-reaching but carefully balanced scheme of reform. 38. Codification of the * Opinions” relating to the * Régles” : We have drawn up, and the Section on Nomenclature has approved, a plan for the imme- diate incorporation into the Régles (subject to certain exceptions and modifica- tions) of all the interpretations of various of its Articles which have been given by the Commission at different times. We recommend also the incorporation into the Régles of the important resolutions of a more general character, which are embodied in certain of the Commission’s Declarations. It is part of our purpose that on their incorporation into the Régles, the Opinions and Declara- tions on which the newly incorporated provisions are based. should be repealed and cancelled for all except historical purposes. 39. The problem of the meaning of the expression * nomenclature binarre” - This problem, which gave rise to such serious difficulties at Padua in 1930, was (as the Congress will recall) referred back to the Commission in 1935 by the President of the Section on Nomenclature, to whom the matter had been submitted by the Comité Permanent. During the present meeting we have unanimously adopted a Report in which (1) we find that the foregoing expression as at present used in the Régles has a meaning exactly equivalent to that of the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binominale ” and (2) we recommend that, subject to certain safeguards for generic names published by non-binominal authors, the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale ” should now be incorporated in the Régles in place of the expression “nomenclature binaire”. We submitted this Report to the President of the Section on Nomenclature by whom it was laid before the Section. It isa matter of great satisfaction to us that the Section gave their unanimous approval to our Report. which is accordingly submitted to the Congress for final approval. 40. Three major problems of zoological nomenclature : We have sudmitted detailed reports to the Section on Nomenclature on three major problems of zoological nomenclature, of which the first is at present dealt with in the Regles in a manner contrary to the general wishes of zoologists, the second is dealt with so obscurely and incompletely that the present state of the law is open to the greatest doubt, while the third deals with a question on which the Reégles are absolutely silent. These questions are : (1) the meaning of the expression “ indication ” as used in proviso (a) to Article 25 ; (2) the rules relating to homonymy in specific and subspecitic trivial names; (3) the problem of names for forms of less than subspecific rank, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 15] 41. On our proposals for dealing with each of these important questions the Section on Nomenclature has expressed its unanimous and enthusiastic support. 42. Miscellaneous amendments in, additions to, and clarifications of, the ‘ Régles”’ : We have submitted a large number of proposals for amending the Regles, for making additions thereto and for inserting clarifications in regard to passages which were either obscure or badly drafted. These proposals also have been warmly acclaimed by the Section on Nomenclature. 43. Incorporation in the “ Régles’’ of decisions at present embodied in ‘* Opinions” and the consequential repeal of the “ Opinions” in question: We propose that all decisions in regard to individual names should be incorporated in Schedules to be attached to the Régles and that, when this has been done, the Opinions in question should be repealed and cancelled except for historical pur- poses. In the case of the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology’, we propose that the Schedule concerned should be issued separately as a companion volume to the actual Régles. The reform constituted by this plan will afford an immense relief to zoologists and naturally therefore won for itself warm support in the Section on Nomenclature. 44. “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”: In view of the very wide- spread wish expressed both inside and outside the Section on Nomenclature that the Official List should be used as a means of promoting stability in nomen- clature, we agreed to recommend that the status of names on the Official Last should be enhanced by providing that, even if a name is found to have been placed on the List in error, it should remain the correct name for the genus in question unless and until the Commission shall otherwise direct. In view of the enhanced status now to be given to all names on the Official List, the Commission hope that specialists will be stimulated to co-operate actively in securing the addition to the Official List of all the more important generic names in the groups with which they are concerned, thereby achieving a far-reaching measure of stability in the nomenclature of the groups in question. 45. The‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” : The establishment of an “‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ is an essential corollary to the existing Official List of generic names and we recommend that such a List should now be established. The Section on Nomenclature, realising the impor- tance of this question, warmly supports our proposal in this matter. 46. The “ pleins pouvoirs’”’ to suspend the ** Régles” granted to the Commas- ion by the Congress in 1913: We propose that the “ pleins pouvoirs ”’ Resolution of 1913 shall be amended in various respects to meet the requirements of the changes in procedure recommended in the earlier part of the present Report (paragraph 30). We propose also that words should be added to make it clear that these powers are intended for use, especially, inter alia, (1) to preserve names of importance in medicine, agriculture, veterinary science and horti- culture and in the teaching of zoology at universities and elsewhere, (2) to 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. prevent existing nomenclatorial practice from being thrown into confusion by the unearthing of forgotten works or of forgotten names in well-known works, and (3) to stabilise the application of well-known names where, in the absence of such intervention by the Commission, it is likely that it would always be a matter of dispute to which of two or more species a given name is properly applicable under the Régles. Of these proposals, the first two were suggested to us by the Section on Nomenclature, while the third, which we put forward ourselves, secured immediately the enthusiastic support of the Section. Finally. we recommend that this Resolution, as amended above, should now be incor- porated in the Reégles, in order to make it clear to every zoologist that the pro- visions embodied therein are of force and vigour equal to that of any of the provisions of the Régles. In this matter also we have the full-hearted support of the Section on Nomenclature. 47. The preparation of the substantive French text of the “ Regles ”’ as now pro- posed to be amended : The task of preparing the substantive French text of the Regles will involve highly technical problems, the solution of which will call for the employment of experts. The Commission have accordingly proposed to the Section on Nomenclature, and the Section has agreed, on the following course of procedure. The record of the decisions of the Congress in so far as these relate to changes in the Régles, together with the supporting memoranda on which these decisions were based, should be referred to jurists with instruc- tions to prepare the draft of the new substantive French text together with a literal English translation, and that these two drafts should then be circulated by the Secretary to each member of the Commission to provide him with an opportunity for examining the texts to ensure that they faithfully embody the decisions of the Congress, and neither add anything to, nor omit anything from, these decisions. At the end of three calendar months from the date of the texts being so circulated, any comments falling within the above field should, we recommend, be referred to the Executive Committee for decision. When any such matters have been decided, the Régles, as amended, should be pro- mulgated with the least possible delay. 48. The revised Régles should, we propose, enter into force as from the date on which they are published. We anticipate, however, that it will be possible, at a considerably earlier date, to publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the minutes of the meetings of the Commission at its Paris Session and we propose that the Congress should recommend all zoologists thereafter to take as their guide the record of the Paris decisions as contained in these minutes during the, as we hope, short period which will elapse between the publication of the Paris minutes and the formal promulgation of the revised Regles. 49. Conclusion: The Paris meeting of the Commission marks a turning- point in the history of zoological nomenclature, for the Commission, with the active support of the Section on Nomenclature, has both carried through a complete codification of the law as it stood at the opening of the Congress and has also put forward new proposals of the greatest importance and value on questions which previously found no mention in the Régles or only provisions of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 153 the most inadequate character. At the same time, as part of the process of codification, nearly one quarter of the body of Opinions has been deprived of all but a historical interest and this process will be virtually completed on the publication of the Reégles as amended at the present meeting and of the volume containing the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Finally, the status of that List has been materially enhanced and with it the prospect of securing stability in generic nomenclature. As for the trivial names of species, an important advance in the direction of stabilisation has been achieved by the decision to establish for such names an Official List parallel to that already in existence for generic names. 50. Much remains to be done, but with the help of the revised Régles adopted at the present Congress zoologists will be in an incomparably better position to judge in which directions further improvements are still required than if they had still to thread their way through the maze of independent decisions by which hitherto they have had to guide themselves in their daily work. The Commission are determined that, so far as it lies in their power to prevent it, zoologists shall never again be required to struggle with an undigested mass of decisions built up over a long period. To this end, the Commission have decided, and they now give their assurance to the Congress, that at each subsequent meeting of the Congress they will submit recommendations for the incorporation in the Régles of any conclusions which they may have reached since the previous meeting of the Congress, so that by thus harvesting the results of their work, they may be able at every such meeting to secure that every zoologist shall be able to find within the covers of a single volume a full, detailed and authoritative record of the entire body of international law on zoological nomenclature. 51. The Paris Congress of 1948 has been a meeting of outstanding achieve- ment in the field of zoological nomenclature and it is fitting that this achievement should have been secured in the same city as that in which almost 60 years ago the first important steps were taken to establish an international code of nomen- clature for living creatures. 52. In submitting our Report to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, we desire to express in the warmest terms our sense of gratitude for the interest, help and support which we have throughout received at the hands both of our French hosts and of all other members of the Congress and to place on record our conviction that it is to this spirit of co-operation and the strength which it gives that must be attributed the outstanding results achieved. ( 154 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PAPER 1.C. (48) 21 PRESS COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, 21st—27th JULY, 1948 Note by the Secretary to the Commission In view of the far-reaching decisions in regard to zoological nomenclature taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the recommenda- tion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, it was clearly of great importance that an authoritative summary of those decisions should be issued to the scientific press of the world at the earliest possible moment. Accordingly, I spent part of yesterday afternoon in preparing the draft of a communiqué to be issued to the press by the Commission for this purpose. I took copies of this draft with me to the final banquet of the Congress last night and submitted it for approval to as many of the members of the Commission as I could find. In this way I was able to obtain the comments of the majority of the members (including Alternate Members) of the Commission who had taken part in our discussions during the past week. The majority of the members consulted approved the draft as it stood, but some were kind enough to offer various suggestions of a drafting or verbal character. So far as possible, I have adopted these suggestions and have incorporated them in the text now prepared for release to the press. 2. I circulate herewith for the information of my colleagues a copy of the communiqué in the form in which it is being issued. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission, Paris. 28th July, 1948. EpitoriaL Nore:—For the text of the Communiqué referred to above. see Volume 5 of the present journal. PART 2. COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE SECTION ON NOMENCLATURE, THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY, 1948 Pt ( 157) UN POINT DE NOMENCLATURE. DOIT-ON DIRE PSODOS ET NON PAS PSOLOS TR. (LEP. GEOMETRIDAE) ? Par H. Berruet (France) (Commission’s Reference Z.N. (S.)362) En grec ‘OVOAO® veut dire la fumée, la suie, et il suffit d’examiner une collection de ce genre de Géométrides, ou 4 défaut de jeter les yeux sur les admirables planches de Culot, Vol. IV des “ Noctuelles et Géométres d’Europe ” par exemple pour se rendre compte de ce que cette couleur de suie, de fumée est la teinte générale de toutes les espéces actuellement comprises dans le genre de Treitschke. De fait, il y a grande difficulté 4 se procurer ces différentes espéces dont la majorité ne vit qu’en haute montagne, voire au-dessus de 4.000 atteignant en France 4.100 m. sur des rochers presque inaccessibles, souvent dangereux a atteindre, ot en tout cas il y a toujours péril a chasser au filet. Si maintenant on se reporte au texte méme de Treitschke au 6° tome des “Schmett. v. Eur.” (suite 4 l’ouvrage d’Ochsenheimer)”’, p. 254 de la 1% édition, on lit au Gen. XCVII ce que je traduis littéralement : ‘“‘ La couleur de fond de ces papillons “” est noire. Leur corps est d’un noir profond . . .”’ ; suit le nom donné: “ Psodos, Ile0d0s, aussi bien que o7%di0s couleur de cendre ” ajoute-t-il. Or ce qui est exact pour o70d.0s est quant & Yodos un horrible barbarisme provenant d’un lapsus calami, erreur de copie ou de typographie, sinon de lecture par l’Econome du Théatre Impérial de Vienne ! On peut aisément l’expliquer du fait que si l’on écrit le mot en majuscules, comme je l’ai fait en téte du présent article, ainsi qu’on le trouve sur certains dictionnaires, il suffit que le A lambda ait les deux tirets du bas des jambages un peu trop accusés ou empatés, pour tormer A un delta trés exactement. Dans ces conditions, le Code zoologique le permettant dans son art. 19, je propose que le nom de ce genre soit rétabli dans sa propre forme correcte de la pensée de son auteur Treitschke et s’écrive Psolos Tr. ‘! Les espéces comprises au temps de Treitschke dans ce genre étaient : alpinata Hbn. SV 197 (nec Scop.) = quadrifaria Sulzer 1776. C’est la premiére nommée et par conséquent le type du genre ; torvaria Hbn. = tenebraria Esp. 1806 qui est une Orphne Hbn. Autre désignation poétique de la couleur sombre, obscure, foncée. horridaria Hbn. actuellement confondue avec la précédente. venetaria Hbn. qui faisait si jolie image rappelant la mantille noire des Vénitiennes avec ses broderies = fusca Thbg. (nec Hw.), qui est une Pygmeana Bdv. 1840. trepidaria Hbn. = canaliculata Hochw. 1785. Ainsi les 2 espéces qguadrifaria Sulz.= alpinata Hbn., qui est le type, et canaliculata Hochw. = trepidaria Hbn. sont les seules citées par Treitschke subsistant dans son genre Psolos. aucune n’ayant conservé le nom donné. aA — ego: Wax (158 ) TWO PROPOSED ALTERATIONS IN THE RULES ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE By Hennine Lemcue (Denmark) (Commission’s Reference Z.N. (S.)359) Proposal 1. It is proposed that the provisions of the Resolution relating to the suspension of the Rules in certain cases should be amended to read as follows. The words proposed to be inserted in addition to. or in place of, existing words are printed in italics. REsOLVED.—That plenary power is herewith conferred upon the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for this Congress, to suspend the Régles as applied to any given case, where in its judgment the strict application of the Régles will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided, however, that no less than half a year’s notice shall be given in the Bulletin of the Commission and in some other selected, suitable journals, that the question of a possible suspension of the Régles as applied to such case is under consideration, thereby making it possible for zoologists, particularly specialists in the group in question, to present arguments for or against the suspension under consideration, and provided, also, that the vote of the Commission is at least a two-thirds majority of the full Commission, and provided, further, that if the vote is not a two-thirds majority, may it be for suspension or for application of the “ Regles,” the case is to be presented to the section on Nomenclature of the next International Congress of Zoologists, which after discussion of the case shall endow the Commission with the power to revise the case once more and then to make a final decision by simple majority. This decision shall be without appeal; and Reso_veD.—That the foregoing authority refers especially to cases of names of larval stages and the transference of names from one genus or species to another, but also to any other case where the strict application of the “* Regles”’ will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity; and RESOLVED.—That the Congress fully approves the plan that has been inaugurated by the Commission of conferring with special committees from the special group involved in any given case, and that it authorises and instructs the Commission to continue and extend this policy, and also, to present its votes as fast as possible without impairing the solicitude necessary for the decisions. ’ ty Mey : 75; - ao oh mu 3 - » = = eines eS >F ZOOLOGICAL [NOMENCLATURE tion w Il commence at an eaily dae fw rega ding pubcations shapes a addressed to the International omenclature. all inquiries regarding the scientific work of the Commission at the following addresses :— for for Zoologia Nomenclature: 41, Queen’s Gate, ssion on Ee Rec Nomenclature : Secretariat of ark Village East, oo London, N.W.1, England. VOLUME 3. Parts 7/9 21st April, 1950 pp. 159—237. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL ayrcHASSNOMENCLATURE 49 APR 1950 The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. CONTENTS : Part 2. Communications submitted to the Section on Page Nomenclature, Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (concluding instalment) 159—199 Subject Index 201—236 Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which Volume 3 was published 237 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1950 Price One pound, cight shillings. (All rights reserved) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 159 Recommandation: In such cases of transference of names to other species, which will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, the question as to be placed before the Commission without delay. The Commission is to investigate the, problem immediately and to present a vote on the case, uf necessary by suspension of the “ Regles.” In the meantime, the species involved are to be named as af the error had not been detected. Proposal 2. It is proposed that the following new paragraph (paragraph (5) ) should be added to Article 34 of the Rules :— Article 34 (b).—A name of a genus or species, given before the year 1850 and not used in scientific literature since January 1st, 1850, is to be rejected m favour of such other name which has been in general use for the genus or species in question since that date. SCANDINAVIAN ZOOLOGISTS SUPPORTING EITHER OR BOTH OF THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. HENNING LEMCHE Proposal Name Title Institution Town and/or Desist Country X X | O. Bakkendorf — _ Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | H. Blegvad dr. phil. Biologisk Station Charlottenlund, Denmark. X X | Paul Bondesen mag. scient. Naturhistorisk Aarhus, Museum. Denmark. X X | Hang Borei fil. dr. Wennergrens Institut | Stockholm, Sweden. X X | Prosper Bovien dr. phil. Statens plantepatho- | Lyngby, logiske Forseg. Denmark. x Hans Brattstrém fil. dr., docent. Zoologiska Lund, Sweden, Institutionen. X ~.. | Hjalmar Broch prof. emer., dr. phil. — Oslo, Norway. X X | Anton Fr. Broun dr. phil. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark, X X | Jens Braendegaard dr. phil. — Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | F. W. Braestrup dr. phil. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | Stig Diding fil. mag. Zoologiska Lund, Sweden. Institutionen, x E. Ditlevsen cand. mag. Carlsberg Copenhagen, Laboratorium, Denmark. X X | Harry Federley prof., fil. dr. Genetiska Institutet Helsingfors, Finland. X = X | Torkel Weis Fogh mag. scient. — Charlottenlund, Denmark. x Torsten Gislén prof., fil. dr. Zoologiska Lund, Sweden. Institutionen. X X | Hans Ove Greve stud. mag. — Copenhagen, Denmark. (A cross denotes signature of petition supporting the Proposal specified at head of column) VOL.co Db 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. SCANDINAVIAN ZOOLOGISTS SUPPORTING EITHER OR BOTH OF THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. HENNING LEMCHE Proposal ek ae xX xX baa x X xX X ». a.¢ ox 5 EX DSi x Xe x xX Xe B52 Salas $ eh ee x x x D. Garo. x x Dae 28 2, We > es x X xy OK BG lay 8 xX. i 7 ee Basi” (A cross denotes signature of petition supporting the proposal specified at head of column) Name Gunnar Gustafson Victor Hansen Bertil Hanstrém A. Heintz Axel M. Hemmingsen Bengt Hubendick Aage I. C. Jensen P. Jespersen Palle Johnsen Erik Jorgensen Johannes Keiding J. B. Kirkegaard Jorgen Knudsen P. L. Kramp J. P. Kryger Karl Lang Knud Larsen Dan Laursen Henning Lemche Carl H. Lindroth Alex. Luther B. Léppenthin F. Jensenius Madsen Holger Madsen G. Mandahl-Barth Th. Mortensen L. R. Natvig Egili Nielsen Title fil. dr. prof., fil. dr. prof., dr. phil. dr. phil. fil. dr. dr. phil. dr. phil. mag. scient. cand. mag. mag. scient. cand. mag. cand. mag. dr. phil. fil. dr. mag. scient. cand, mag., Lektor dr. phil. fil. dr. prof., fil. dr. mag. scient. mag. scient. mag. scient. mag. scient. dr. phil. dr. phil. dr. phil. Institution Kristineberg zoologiska station. Zoologiska Institutionen. Paleontologiske Museet. Nordisk Insulin- laboratorium. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet. Commis. intern. Explor. Mér Commis. intern. Explor. Mér Zoologisk Museum Pharmaceutisk Laereanstalt. Statens Skadedyrs- laboratorium. Biologisk Station Biologisk Station Zoologisk Museum Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet Biologisk Station Kgl. Veterinaer og Landbohdéjskole Zoologiska Museet Universitets- biblioteket. Zoologisk Museum Danmarks Akvarium Zoologisk Museum Mineralogisk Museum Fiskebackskil, Town and/or Country Sweden. Copenhagen, Denmark. Lund, Sweden. Oslo, Norway. Copenhagen, Denmark. Stockholm, Sweden. CharlottenJund, Denmark. Charlottenlund, Denmark. Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen, Denmark. Springforbi, Denmark. Charlottenlund, Denmark, Charlottenlund, Denmark. Copenhagen, Denmark. Lolland, Denmark. Stockholm, Sweden. Charlottenlund, Denmark. Haslev, Denmark. Copenhagen, Denmark. Djursholm, Sweden. Helsingfors, Finland. Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen, Denmark. Copenhagen, Denmark. Charlottenlund. Denmark. Copenhagen , Denmark. Oslo, Norway. Copenhagen, Denmark. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 161 SCANDINAVIAN ZOOLOGISTS SUPPORTING EITHER OR BOTH OF THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. HENNING LEMCHE (A cross denotes signature of petition supporting the Proposal specified at head of column) Proposal Name Title Institution Town and/or Te, 2: Country X X | Erik Tetens Nielsen | dr. phil. _ Frederiksvaerk, Denmark. x Peder Nielsen — — Silkeborg, Denmark. X X | Nils Odhner prof., fil. dr. Naturhistoriska Stockholm, Riksmuseet. Sweden. X X | Frei Ossiannilsson fil. dr. Statens Vaxtskydds- | Stockholm, anstalt, Sweden. X X | C. V. Otterstrém mag. scient. Biologisk Station Charlottenlund, Denmark. X X | Bjorn Petersen fil. dr., docent. Zoologiska Uppsala, ; Institutionen. Sweden. X XX | J. R. Pfaff mag. scient. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark. xX Christian Poulsen prof., dr. phil. Mineralogisk Museum | Copenhagen, Denmark. X xX | C. J. Rasmussen cand, mag. Biologisk Station Charlottenlund, Denmark. X X |} Finn Salomonsen dr. phil. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | Oscar Sjoberg —_ _— Loos, Sweden. X X | Christina Sperber fil. dr. Zoologiska Uppsala, Institutionen. Sweden. X X | Ivar Sperber fil. dr., docent. Zoologiska Uppsala, ; Institutionen. Sweden. X X | R. Sparck prof., dr. phil. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark. x Hans Tambs-Lyche | konservator Bergens Museum Bergen, Norway. X X | Ellen Thomsen dr. phil, Kgl. Veterinaer og Copenhagen. Landbohdjskole. Denmark. X X | Math. Thomsen prof., dr. phil. Kgl. Veterinaer og Copenhagen, Landbohdjskole. Denmark, X X | Gunnar Thorson dr. phil. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | Bror Thunblad fi]. mag. Statens Vaxtskydds- Stockholm, anstalt. Sweden. -X X | Bo Tjeder fil. dr. — Falun, Sweden. X X | Johannes Troelsen dr. phil. Mineralogisk Museum | Copenhagen, Denmark. X X |S. L. Tuxen dr. phil. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | Karen Vestergaard cand. mag. Statens Skadedyrs-. Springforbi, Jaboratorium. Denmark. X X | H. Volsée dr. phil. Zoologisk Museum Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | August West — — Copenhagen, Denmark. X X | H. Wichmand forstander Statens Skadedyrs- Springforbi, laboratorium. Denmark. X X | N.L. Wolff — = Copenhagen, Denmark. vou. 3 L? (162) LES PROTOZOAIRES PARASITES DE L’HOMME (abstract) By Enrique BELTRAN (Mexico) (Commission’s reference Z.N. (S.)397) Lista de nombres de protozoarios parasitos del hombre, preparada Enrique Beltran, como una sugestién para presentarse en el Congres Internacional de Zoologia, que se reunira en Paris en 1948. No tos los nombres mencionados tienen el mismo valor, sino que pueden divdirse en las siguientes categorias : (1) nombres que se suponen absolutamente correctos; (2) nombres de facto cuya adopcién oficial se propone; (3) nombres sobre los cuales el autor no tiene una opinién definitiva ; y (4) nombres que no se han podido completar, con el nombre del autor quehizo la nueva combinacién, y de los cuales se pidese dato. El autor desea la mds amplia opinidn, critica y correccion de sus colegas en cada uno de esos puntos. List of names of parasitic protozoa of man, prepared by Enrique Beltran, as a suggestion to be presented at the International Congress of Zoology, to be held at Paris in 1948. Not all the names have the same value; they may be divided in the following groups: (1) names supposed to be absolutely correct ; (2) de facto names proposed for official adoption; (3) names about which the author has not a definitive opinion ; and (4) names that have been impossible to complete with the names of the author who made the new combination ; information about that would be appreciated. The author respectfully invites expression of the views, criticism and corrections of his colleagues about every one of those subjects. Lista de nombres—List of names. ENDAMOEBA LEIDY, 1879. E. coli (Grassi, 1879) Hickson, 1909. E. histolytica (Schaudinn, 1903) Hickson, 1909. E. gingivalis (Gross, 1849) Smith y Barrett, 1915. EN DOLIMAX KUENEN Y SWELLENGREBEL, 1917. E. nana (Wenyon y O'Connor, 1917) Brug, 1918. IODAMOEBA DOBELL, 1919. I. williamsi (Prowazek, 1911) Taliaferro y Becker, 1922. DIENTAMOEBA JEPPS Y DOBELL, 1918. D. fragilis Jepps y Dobell, 1918. T RICHOMONAS DONNE, 1836. T. vaginalis Donné, 1836. T. hominis (Davaine, 1860) Grassi, 1888. T. tenax (O. F. Miiller, 1773) Dobell, 1939. ———To ea Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 163 GIARDIA KUENSTLER, 1882, emend. ALEXEIEFF, 1914. G. lamblia Stiles, 1915. CHILOMASTIX ALEXEIEFF, 1910. C. mesnili (Wenyon, 1910) Alexeieff, 1912. ENTEROMONAS DA FONSECA, 1915. E. hominis da Fonseca, 1915. RETORTOMONAS GRASSI, 1879. R. intestinalis (Wenyon y O'Connor, 1917) Wenrich, 1932. TRYPANOSOMA GRUBY, 1843. T. gambiense Dutton, 1902. T. rhodesiense Stevens y Fantham, 1910. SCHIZOTRY PANUM CHAGAS, 1909, emend. DIAS, 1934. S. cruzi Chagas, 1909, emend. Dias, 1934. LEISHMANIA ROSS, 1903. L. donovani (Laveran y Mesnil, 1903) Ross, 1903. L. troyica (Wright, 1903). L. brasiliensis Vianna, 1911. PLASMODIUM MARCHIAFAVA Y CELLI, 1885. P. vivax (Grassi y Feletti, 1890). P. malariae (Grassi y Feletti, 1890). P. falciparum (Welch, 1897). P. ovale Stephens, 1922. TOXOPLASMA NICOLLE Y MANCEAUX, 1909. T. chagasi (Torres, 1927), Beltran (no publicado). SARCOCYSTIS RAY LANKESTER, 1882. S. lindemanni (Rivolta, 1878) Dobell, 1919. ISOSPORA SCHNEIDER, 1881. I. hominis Fantham, 1917. BALANTIDIUM CLAPAREDE Y LACHMANN, 1858. Balantidium coli (Malmsten, 1857) Stein, 1863. El autor agradeceria infinito que las observaciones, criticas y correcciones que se hagan a la lista anterior, vengan acompanadas de las referencias bibliograficas completas, que permitan localis los trabajos originales. Como el Congreso Internacional de Zoologia se reunira en Paris en la primavera de 1948, se agradecera la may prontitud en la contestacién. The author would appreciate remarks, criticisms, and corrections to the list accompanied by complete bibliographic references to allow him to locate the original papers. (164) SUR LA NOMENCLATURE DES GROUPEMENTS SUPERGENERIQUES Par R. JEANNEL (France) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)357) Tous les zoologistes s’accordent pour reconnaitre aux auteurs des classifica- tions le droit de prendre un néologisme quelconque pour nommer les grandes catégories systématiques: classes, ordres, sous-ordres, divisions des sous- ordres. En ce qui concerne la nomenclature des familles, sous-familles et tribus, on s’accorde au contraire pour vouloir adopter, par priorité, le nom de groupement de genre le plus anciennement proposé, a la condition qu’il soit formé au moyen du radical d’un nom de genre contenu dans ce groupement et actuellement valable. A ce radical, on ajoute une désinence latine particuliére. Le code de nomenclature a précisé que ces désinences sont -zdae pour les familles, -inae pour les sous-familles, -inz pour les tribus, ce qui est absurde ; car -inae est le féminin de -ini, et cela a pour conséquence que les citations des sous-familles sont entachées de barbarismes. On écrit naturellement : “Jes Carabinae sont nombreux” alors qu’il faudrait dire “ nombreuses,” tandis qu’il est d’usage d’employer, dans le langage courant, les noms zoologiques au masculin. C’est pourquoi nous avons proposé de remplacer, pour les sous-familles, la désinence féminine -inae par la désinence masculine -itae (Oritae, les Orites). Pour le choix des noms de groupements de genres (famille, sous-famille, tribu), il n’est pas possible de formuler des régles absolues strictement basées sur la priorité, comme cela peut se faire pour les noms de genres et d’espéces. Il faudra pour eux tenir compte de deux facteurs : 1° la priorité, 2° la légitimité. La priorite.—La priorité appartient non pas au nom formé avec le radical du genre le plus anciennement décrit, mais bien au nom le plus anciennement proposé pour désigner le groupement, a la condition, bien entendu, que ce nom soit formé avec le radical de celui d’un genre faisant partie du groupement et actuellement valable. Contrairement au principe énoncé par Bradley (Science, LXVII, 1925, p. 103), la priorité doit jouer pour les noms supergénériques, méme lorsqu’als n'ont pas &é donnés sous une forme latine plurale, a la condition qu’ils aient été formés avec le radical du nom d’un genre contenu dans le groupement et actuellement valable. Le contraire éliminerait injustement oeuvre des grands entomologistes du début du xix® siécle, & qui on doit le fondement de la systématique des Insectes (par exemple Lacordaire pour les Coléoptéres). ie Eas rrwe, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 165 La Leerrimirs.—Un nom de genre une fois donné est immuable. I] ne peut pas en étre de méme pour les noms de groupements supergénériques, qui n'ont rien d’obligatoire, car la constitution de ces groupements est conven- tionnelle et variable. La définition des groupements peut changer, au point que la conservation d’un nom ancien ayant la priorité puisse présenter de grands inconvénients. Par exemple : Schaum, en 1870, a créé la tribu Mormolycini pour le Mormolyce phyllodes dont les formes étranges lui faisaient douter qu'il soit réellement un Carabique. Plus tard, Chaudoir a démontré que le Mormolyce entre, sans aucun doute, dans la famille des Thyréoptérides, qu'il a parfaitement définie. Faut-il pour cela donner le nom de Mormolycidae & la famille définie par Chaudoir ? Ce serait faire une application illégitime de la priorité. On ne peut pas dire en effet que les Thyréoptérides de Chaudoir soient des Mormolycini (sensu Schaum) ; par contre les M ormolycini Schaum sont réelle- ment des Thyreopteridae (sensu Chaudoir). C’est done le nom de Chaudoir qui est légitime et qu’il faudra adopter. Il est done nécessaire, dans un code de nomenclature équitable, que des articles particuliers soient édictés en ce qui concerne les groupements super- _ génériques. Le Code pourra dire, par exemple, qu’un nom de groupement supergénérique ayant la priorité pourra étre rejeté comme “ illégitime,” lorsque son adoption entrainerait un désaccord évident entre la diagnose du premier descripteur et celle du groupement tel qu’il doit étre défini. Bien entendu, il entrera un élément subjectif dans l’application de ce principe de “ légitimité.”” Mais qu’on veuille bien remarquer que tout code doit étre fait pour étre appliqué par un tribunal jugeant selon l’esprit et non selon la lettre. Le code de nomenclature zoologique est le seul de tous les codes édictés par les hommes dont l’application soit directe, “a la lettre.” Ne faudrait-il pas reconnaitre aux monographes un peu du pouvoir d’un tribunal et admettre qu’ils puissent prendre des décisions auxquelles l’usage, plus tard, donnerait force de loi 2 ( 166 ) LES NOTIONS DE GRADE ET DE PSEUDO-GENRE Par GrorcGres DEFLANDRE (France) (Commission’s reference Z.N. (S.)363) Dans un travail relatif & la notion de genre chez les Silico-flagellidés (Deflandre, 1941, C.R. Ac. Sc., p. 100), j’ai, en conclusion, retiré a Naviculopsis Frenguelli son acception de genre pour le qualifier de grade, lui appliquant exactement un texte de L. Cuénot (L’espéce, Paris, 1936, p. 189): “le pseudo- genre étant polygénétique doit donc étre considéré non comme un genre, mais comme un grade (mot de Bather 1927).” J’avais démontré que Naviculopsis était fondé “sur des caractéres qui se sont développés indépendamment sur des lignées divergentes.”” Dans un Rapport présenté ici (Section ITI), j’évoque, & propos de l’évolution des Silicoflagellidés, plusieurs cas analogues a celui de Naviculopsis (“ genres’’ Vallacerta, Lyramula, Cornua, Mesocena). Mon attention a été attirée sur le fait que la signification que j’ai donnée au grade, en suivant fidélement L. Cuénot, n’est pas celle congue par Bather. L. Cuénot (l.c. p. 273) le définit : Grade (Bather, 1927) Certaine forme d’organisation qui peut apparaitre séparément dans plusieurs lignées paralléles ; c’est un pseudo- genre. Ex. Gryphaea .. . Bather (1927, Quart. J. Geol. Soc., p. XC) écrit: As subdivision of this genus, there may be : (a) subgenera . . . (b) gentes . . . (c) grades or evolutionary stages, separated by horizontal lines indicating time-limits and denoted by an epithet or phrase not interfering with the systematic hierarchy ; (d) seriations. .. . Il remarque, plus loin, que les évolutionistes déclarés, eux-mémes, ont hésité a considérer les genres sous un jour purement phylo- génétique. ‘‘ Consequently more genera represent grades of organisation rather than lines of descent.” Le grade de Bather ne correspond donc pas exactement au grade de L. Cuénot et il parait préférable de ne pas détourner ce mot de son sens originel. Cependant, la définition de L. Cuénot correspond a une notion précise, s’appliquant 4 de nombreux cas, et qui devrait étre concretisée par un terme propre. Plut6t que de créer un mot nouveau, je propose de donner au terme pseudo- genre un sens restrictif correspondant A la dite définition. Ce terme était employé, jusqu’ici, sans discrimination, pour désigner des genres non naturels (non monophylétiques), quelles que soient les conceptions ou les préoccupations de leurs créateurs et de leurs utilisateurs, L’une de ses utilisations est men- tionnée dans une autre communication. oI ( 167 ) LA NOMENCLATURE DES FRAGMENTS FOSSILES (ORGANITES ET SCLERITES) D’INVERTEBRES Par GeorcEes DerLANpre et MARTHE DrFLANDRE-RiGAaup (France) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)364) La tendance a l'utilisation, en micropaléontologie appliqué, de la totalité des vestiges organiques contenus dans les roches sédimentaires, conduit & un probléme de nomenclature générale, auquel Croneis a proposé une solution. Ce probléme se pose conjointement dans les domaines zoologique et botanique : il s’agit de la spécification et de la classification des fragments microscopiques d’organismes : organites ou sclérites sensu lato (p. ex. machoires d’Annélides, Conodontes, sclérites d’Holothurides, spicules divers). Un organite ou un sclérite peut parfois caractériser une espece et recevoir un nom spécifique justifié. Plus souvent, il y a incertitude—ou méme certitude opposée : l’objet considéré n'est pas spécial & une espéce, parfois pas méme A un genre (certains spicules ou sclérites). Par nécessité pratique et en vue d’une utilisation stratigraphique, il y a lieu de désigner ces objets en leur appliquant les principes de la nomen- clature binominale latine linnéenne. Cependant, pour répondre aux objections motivées de certains biologistes, pour éviter aussi des interprétations erronées (p. ex. attribution 4 un genre, d’une ancienneté invérifiable, 4 la suite de l'emploi de son nom générique pour un microfossile), il y aurait lieu de bannir les termes Wespeces, de genres, etc... et d’éviter d’employer inconsidérément des noms de genres actuels. Croneis a proposé (1938, 1941, Bull. Amer. Ass. Petrol. Geol., p. 1245) de substituer aux divers termes de la nomenclature biologique, les appellations en usage dans l’Ordo militaris romain : 4 la succession hiérarchique Classe—Ordre—Famille—Genre—Espice, correspondrait exactement: Fzer- citus—Legio—Cohors—Manipulus—Centuria. En pratique, les trois derniers termes, la Cohorte, le Manipule, la Centurie, équivalant respectivement au rang de la famille, du genre et de lespéce, sont appelés a étre les plus usités. Avec Croneis, nous pensons qu’il est méme plus commode de parler d’un manipule, que d’un genre artificiel, d’un genre morphologique ou d’un pseudo-genre. Une acception restrictive de ce dernier terme est d’ailleurs proposée d’autre part. Les appellations nouvellement introduites seront suivies respectivement de cohors nov., manip. nov. ou cent. nov. Tl est souhaitable qu'un manip. nov. morphologiquement apparenté & un genre vivant, prenne son nom, avec la désinence -ites. Dans l’ordre de recherches poursuivies par l’un de nous (M.D.-R., sclérites d’Holothurides), celui-ci propose dés & présent les manipules nouveaux suivants : Chiroditites, Cucumarites, Myriotrochites, Stichopites et Synaptites Defl.-Rig. manip. nov., dont la diagnose sera donnée ultérieurement. ( 168 ) QUELLE EST L’ESPECE TYPE DU GENRE GRYPHAEA LAMARCK ? Par GILBERT RANSON (France) (Commission’s reference Z.N. (S.)365) Ce sujet a fait l’objet de maintes discussions. I] est néanmoins nécessaire d’y revenir parce qu’un accord n’a pu encore se faire entre les auteurs. Pp q En 1801, dans “‘l’Addition”’ 4 son ‘‘Systéme des Animaux Sans Vertébres’’, Lamarck crée le Genre Gryphaea. Dans |’Avertissement a ce “ Systéme,” Yauteur dit: “ Pour faire connaitre d’une manieére certaine les genres dont je donne ici les caractéres, j’ai cité sous chacun d’eux une espéce connue, ou trés rarement plusieurs, et j’y ai joint quelques synonymes que je puis certifier ; cela suffit pour me faire comprendre.” Pour le genre Gryphaea, Lamarck cite les espéces suivantes :— Gryphaea angulata Lik. Gryphaea suborbiculata Lmk. Gryphaea cymbula Lmk. Gryphaea arcuata Lik. Gryphaea africana Lik. Gryphaea carinata Link. Gryphaea latissima Lmk. Gryphaea depressa Lmk. Gryphaea angusta Lmk. I] ajoute en Nota: ‘“‘... Dans mon tableau général des espéces, je carac- tériserai toutes celles dont je donne ici simplement le nom.” Lamarck considé- rait done cette liste comme provisoire et il semble bien, d’aprés les citations qui viennent d’étre faites, qu’il n’accordait qu’une valeur “d’exemples” aux espeéces citées. La notion de “ type’ n’était pas encore congue a cette époque. Mais dés 1823, nous voyons Children sélectionner les “‘types”’ de I’ “‘ Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertébres”’. Malgré tout, Lamarck donne comme premier exemple de son genre, l’espéce Gryphaea angulata. 11 ne fait pas de doute que Lamarck le créa aprés l’examen de unique exemplaire de cette espéce qu'il venait de recevoir. Cet échantillon se trouve actuellement dans les collections du Muséum de Paris et a été figuré par Delessert en 1841. En effet, en 1819, dans son ‘‘ Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertébres,”’ Lamarck décrit comme premiére espéce du genre, Gryphaea angulata Lmk. Mais en ce qui concerne les autres espéces, la plupart des noms originaux sont modifiés et trois autres espéces introduites. Voici les noms correspondant aux ' earn chiens elle mle a a lta Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 169 espéces citées en 180] :— Gryphaea angulata Lmk. Gryphaea columba Luk. Gryphaea cymbium Luk. Gryphaea arcuata Lmk. Gryphaea secunda Lmk. Gryphaea plicata Luk. Gryphaea latissima Lmk. Gryphaea silicea Lmk. Gryphaea angusta Luk. Entre 1801 et 1819 plusieurs auteurs ont publié des travaux sur les Mollusques, se référant aux Huitres: Bosc en 1802, Roissy en 1805 et Cuvier en 1817. Mais ces auteurs ne sélectionnent pas de “ types ” et citent seulement des exemples. II] ne peut étre tenu compte de ces travaux pour fixer le “ type ” du genre Gryphaea. Finlay, en 1928, remarque judicieusement que le fait de citer ou méme de figurer un échantillon d’un genre n’est pas retenu par les régles pour étre la sélection définie d’un “ type.” Ainsi nous sommes amenés au travail de Children (1823) ot, pour la premiére fois, Gryphaea angulata est désigné comme “ type ” du genre. Cependant M. Winckworth de Londres me fait remarquer, dans une lettre que Children se référe a I’ “ Histoire Naturelle ” de 1819 et non au “ Systéme ” de 1801 ; cette sélection du “ type ” ne serait donc pas valable. I] ajoute “ the next selection of type is by Anton (1839), where G. arcuata is given as type (compare page VI, where he says that he prints the type species of each genus in small capital print).” La question se pose donc maintenant de savoir si le “ type’ du genre Gryphaea doit étre pris dans le “ Systéme des Animaux Sans Vertébres” (1801) ou dans |’ “Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertébres”’ (1819). S’il doit étre sélectionné dans le “ Systéme ” nous nous trouvons en présence du fait suivant : d’aprés nos conceptions modernes de la nomenclature, Gryphaea angulata, premiére espéce citée par Lamarck, n’y étant ni décrite ni figurée est un nomen nudum. Il importe donc de prendre comme “type” la premiére espéce suivante bien décrite ou bien figurée dans les références données par Lamarck. C’est pourquoi les auteurs ont choisi G. arcuata Lmk. Mais peut-on prendre en considération le “ Systéme ”’ pour sélectionner des “types”? ? Cette question a été soulevée a diverses reprises et posée a la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Dans deux de ses “ Opinions ” (79 et 81) cette Commission répond négativement et se résume ainsi: “ Rigidly construed, Lamarck’s (1801 A) Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres is not accepted as designation of type species,” s’expliquant de la maniére suivante dans “]’Opinion” 79: “In the view of the Commission, Lamarck cites a ‘known species or very rarely several’ as examples, in order to illustrate the genera, but rigidly construed, he does not fix the types. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This interpretation is supported by an examination of Lamarck’s (1816 b) Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertébres, in which he does not even cite certain species mentioned in 1801. For instance, in 1801, p. 293, he cites only P. rufipes under Pentatoma ; if he had intended this as type designation he would, presumably, have cited this species under Pentatoma in 1816 b, 492-494, but he does not do so; he stated that Pentatoma contains a large number of species, of which he cites: acuminata, baccarum and prasina.” En ce qui concerne le genre Gryphaea, si Lamarck a cité chaque fois en premiére ligne l’espéce Gryphaea angulata, il a modifié les noms de la plupart des espéces suivantes de la liste de 1801. II est donc bien osé de choisir parmi les autres espéces celle devant étre prise comme “ type.” D’autre part Lamarck a non seulement changé les noms de certaines espéces mais il a modifié les références pour deux d’entre elles. C’est ainsi qu’en 1801 on trouve :— Gryphaea cymbula n. Knorr, Pétrif. Vol. 2é, part 1, pl. 20, fig. 7. Esp. fossile. Gryphaea arcuata n. Encyclop. pl. 189, fig. 1, 2. Knorr, Pétrif. Vol. 2é, p. 1, pl. 60, fig. 1, 2. Bourg. Pétrif. No. 92, Esp. fossile. Et en 1819 :-— Gryphaea cynbium. Knorr, Pétrif. part 2, B.I., d., pl. 20, fig. 7. Encyclop. pl. 189, fig. 1, 2. Gryphaea arcuata. Bourguet, Pétrif. pl. 15, No. 92. Knorr, Pétrif. part 2, D II, pl. 60, fig. 1, 2. (rryphaea incurva. Sowerby, Conch. Min., No. 20, t.112, f.1. La référence, en 1801, de G. arcuata a I Encyclopédie est passée, en 1819, a G. cymbium. On ne peut done pas dire qu’en 1801 le @. arcuala de Lamarck soit bien défini. Pour toutes ces raisons nous ne devons done pas choisir le type de Gryphaea dans le ‘‘ Systéme ” de Lamarck, mais dans son “ Histoire Naturelle ” comme l’a fait Children en 1823. Cet auteur est le premier a avoir désigné Gryphaea angulata Lmk. comme type du genre. Nous ne pouvons pas suivre Dall qui, en 1898, ne semblant pas connaitre le travail d’Anton, sélectionne de nouveau G. arcuata comme type. Gryphaea arcuata Lmk. est le type du genre Liogryphaca P. Fischer, 1886. Bibliographie 1801—LamarcK. Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres. 1802—Bosc, L. A. G. Histoire Naturelle des Coquilles, T.II. 1805—Roissy. Histoire Naturelle des Mollusques, T.VI. 1817—Couvier. Régne Animal. 1819—Lamarck. Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebres, T.VI. 1823—CuitpREN. Lamarck’s Genera of shells. Art. V. Quart.J.Se.Lit. and Arts, Vol. 15. 1839—Anton. Verzeichniss der Conchylien. 1886—Fiscuer, P. Manuel de Conchyliologie. 1898—Datt, W. H. Contributions to the tertiary Fauna of Florida. Part IV. Trans. Wagner Free Institute of Se. of Philadelphia, Vol. 3, Part IV. 1924—Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions 78 to 81 (publication 2747). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 73, No. 2. 1929—Fintay, H. J. The recent Mollusca of the Chatham Islands. Trans. and Proceed. New Zealand Institute, Vol. 59. St Mt ee ee a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 171 SUR DES PROPOSITIONS DIVERSES CONCERNANT DES AMELIORATIONS A APPORTER A CERTAINES REGLES EN VUE D’UNE DESIGNATION REGULIERE DES NOMS DE GENRE ET D’ESPECE Par le professeur PIERRE BONNET (France). A la suite d’un important travail de Bibliographie arachnologique (Biblio- graphia Araneorum, tome I, Toulouse, 1945), j’ai revu toute la systématique du groupe des Aranéides. En reprenant dans tous les travaux parus, tous les noms des Araignées qui ont été donnés, puis cités par la suite un nombre de fois plus ou moins grand pour chacune d’elles, et souvent avec de nombreux changements dans leur appellation ou dans leur graphie, je n’ai pu que constater une diversité tellement grande, que l’on serait tenté de croire 4 l’inefficacité des Régles de Nomenclature. Car sil y a beaucoup de fautes dont les auteurs sont eux-mémes responsables par leur manque de soin a bien finir leurs travaux et surtout 4 en corriger les épreuves d’imprimerie, . . . si beaucoup d’erreurs sont dues a la méconnaissance que bien des auteurs manifestent pour le grec et le Jatin, .. . il y a aussi une certaine responsabilité des Régles de Nomenclature actuelles. En effet ces Régles ont, dans un cas, commis l’erreur de faire ce qu’elles disaient ne pas vouloir faire, dans d’autres cas elles ont laissé des alternatives inadmissibles en Nomenclature, dans d’autres enfin elles manquent de précisions pour renseigner les auteurs sur la fagon de former des noms corrects et de les accorder. C’est ainsi qu'il est vraiment désespérant aujourd’hui de voir qu’une Araignée trés commune, le Doloméde admirable, peut dans les travaux parus ces dix derniéres années, étre appelée indifféremment : if Pisaura mirabilis CLERCK (ou OLIVIER) ou Pisaura listert (ou listerii) ou Pisaura rufofasciata (ou rufo-fasciata ou rufifasciata) Une autre Araignée s’appelle : Evarcha (ou Euarcha) arcuata CLERCK (ou OLIVIER) ou Hvarcha (ou Euarcha) Marcgravi (ou marcgravi, ou marc-gravi) ou Evarcha (ou Euarcha) Marcgravii (ou marcgravii, ou marc-gravii) Une troisiéme, dont l’appellation ne change pas cependant, Meta degeert, voit son nom spécifique couramment écrit de dix facons différentes : De geeri De Geert . de Geert Degeeri degeeri, De geerti De Geer _— de Geert Degeerit degeerit, nombre que l’on peut porter 4 16 si l’on tient compte du trait d’union que l’on met aussi entre la particule et le nom principal (De-Geert) et auquel l’on peut ajouter les formes geeri et geerii, qui ont été aussi quelques fois employées. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Et l’on pourrait multiplier les exemples. C’est pour mettre de l’ordre, de la clarté, de la régularité et une certaine uniformisation dans appellation des Araignées afin d’arriver & cet heureux résultat, que nous souhaitons tous, d’appeler chaque animal par un seul et méme nom, reconnu de tous et semblablement orthographié, c’est pour arriver A ce résultat, dis-je, que j’ai envisagé les 17 propositions ci-jointes. Je vous les présente avec l’espoir qu’elles retiendront votre attention et qu’elles pourront étre adoptées par le Congrés. ah Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 PROPOSITION 1 (proposed amendment of Article 26 to provide availability for the names published in Clerck’s Aranei svecici of 1757) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)238) Compléter l'article 26 en ajoutant A la fin du libellé : “ excepté pour Vordre des Aranéides, pour lequel Vouvrage de CLERCK, * Aranei Suecici’ (1757) a priorité.”’ Ou bien, l’article 26 n’étant pas modifié, ajouter un article 26 bis (ou une Remarque a la suite), disant: ‘‘ Par mesure exceptionelle, Varticle 26 est suspendu pour Vordre des Aranéides et la priorité remonte a V owvrage de CLERCK * Aranet Suecict,’ 1757, uniquement pour le genre Araneus et les 66 espéces qui y sont citées.”” Explication.—J’ai fait, au sujet de cette proposition, que je juge de premiére importance, une Pétition que je vous adresse et dans laquelle j’établis avec la plus grande clarté, le bien fondé de la position des Aranéologistes pour réclamer la priorité des noms des Araignées de CLERCK. Je veux croire que le bon sens de notre argumentation ne vous échappera pas, et qu’a elle seule cette argumentation doit pouvoir obtenir votre approbation unanime. J insiste sur le fait que c’est une exception a l’article 26 que nous demandons. Mais que cette exception soit obtenue par la modification de l'article 26 ou par un article additionnel 4 cet article 26 ou par tout autre moyen que vous pourrez juger préférable, il importe peu pour nous; l’essentiel c’est que vous nous accordiez, d’une fagon, ou d’une autre, la possibilité d’ utiliser officiellement les noms des Araignées de CLERCK. x Je pense, 4 ce point de vue, que si le grand arachnologiste SIMON, au lieu de réclamer la substitution de la date de 1751 4 celle de 1758, s’était borné, entre le Congrés de Moscou (1892) et celui de Berlin (1901), 4 réclamer unique- ment la reconnaissance de louvrage de CLERCK, il aurait eu satisfaction, comme obtiennent satisfaction tous ceux qui ont fait valoir la priorité d’usage de noms anciens trés employés sur des noms nouvellement ressuscités, mais prioritaires d’apreés les Régles. Indépendamment de toutes ces bonnes raisons qui, 4 elles seules, doivent entrainer votre adhésion 4 notre cause, j’ai voulu savoir ce que pensaient mes collégues, aussi ai-je fait, au sujet de cette Pétition, une enquéte parmi les 62 Aranéologistes actuels du Monde entier. Voici les résultats de cette en- quéte ; je crois qu’elle est aussi significative que la Pétition elle-méme. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. _ 48 ont répondu favorablement, approuvant pleinement et souvent avec enthousiasme cette pétition, certains ajoutant méme des commentaires qui renforcent mon argumentation (MM. RABAUD, BERLAND, FAGE, MILLOT, DENIS, DRESCO, BALAZUC, MEQUIGNON, SAVORY, RA SCHERRIFFS, BRISTOWE, COLLART, THOMAS, VAN DER HAMMEN, SCHENKEL, Mme. HOLZAPFEL, DI CAPORIACCO, MONTEROSSO, DE BARROS-MACHADO, BRANDEGAARD, NORGAARD, PALMGREN, CHARITONOW, GERHARDT, WIEHLE, R@WER, KASTNER, STRAND, KOLOSVARY, DE MELLO-LEITAO, BIRABEN, PETRUNKEVITCH, CHAMBERLIN, BISHOP, BAERG, CHICKERING, GERTSCH, KASTON, MUMA, FRINGS, VAN RIPER, FOX, GOODNIGHT. WALLACE, WRIGHT, BROWN, HICKMAN, LAWRENCE). 4 sont opposés & ce que l’on fasse exception demandée (MM. TULGREN, MUSGRAVE, HULL et Miss BRYANT); je vais revenir sur leur cas dans un instant. _ 2 ne se croient pas suffisamment expérimentés en Arachnologie pour prendre position (MM. CHRYSANTHUS et HUZUM). 8 n’ont pas répondu; la nationalité de 6 de ces naturalistes (MM. SPASSKY, DRENSKY, ROSCA, STOJICEVIC, MILLER, KRATOCHVIL) laisse -comprendre que leur silence tient 4 une cause qui n’est certainement pas la manifestation de leur abstention; pour les deux autres (MM. IVIE et MULAIK) il se peut que ma lettre ou leur réponse se soient égarées, comme cela s’est produit pour la premiére réponse du professeur PETRUNKEVITCH. J’ajoute que sur ces 8 aranéologistes, 6 sont “ clerckistes ” et 2 “‘ linnéistes,”’ d’aprés leurs écrits. En ce qui concerne les 48 réponses favorables, vous verrez que tous les signataires sont pleinement d’accord avee moi et que la plupart vous demandent aussi avec la plus grande conviction de reconnaitre la validité des noms des Araignées de CLERCK. Mais je mentionnerai plus particuliérement les réponses des “ linnéistes” (MM. BRISTOWE, COLLART, VAN HAMMEN, KOLOSVARY, ROEWER, KASTNER et STRAND) qui souhaitent aussi que l’on revienne officiellement aux noms de CLERCK, noms quwils acceptent d’employer avec joie, dés que la Commission de Nomenclature leur en donnera la possibilité, par cette recon- naissance officielle que nous réclarhons. Je fais remarquer plus spécialement encore la réponse du Prof. STRAND, le grand fautif en la matiére, car c’est lui, qui le premier, a appliqué l’article 26 aux Araignées “ plus par loyauté que par conviction 4 l’égard de la régle en vigueur ” dit-il; et c’est lui qui a déterminé la résurrection ou l’apparition d’une quarantaine de noms laissés dans l’oubli depuis cent ans, pour les opposer aux dénominations de CLERCK, si souvent utilisées ; sans lui, vous vous trouveriez peut-étre aujourd’hui en présence d’un refus total des Aranéologistes d’appliquer cet article au seul ouvrage de CLERCK, bien entendu. Mais laissons le passé, et remercions aujourd’hui ces auteurs “Jinnéistes ” pour leur correction et leur honnéteté scientifiques qui seront, j’en suis stir, d’un grand poids dans votre décision. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 175 Pour ce qui est des 4 opposants, je traiterai chaque cas séparément : 1. Le prof. TULLGREN ne donne aucun motif de son refus de se joindre a nous. Il] est impossible de ce fait de discuter sur son cas. Je crois cependant entrevoir l’ennui qui résulterait, pour lui, de l’adoption officielle des noms de CLERCK en rapport avec le traité des Araignées suédoises qu’il est entrain de publier. 2. Monsieur MUSGRAVE, de l’Australian Museum, n’est pas 4 proprement parler un aranéologiste ; n’ayant publié que 6 notes sur les moeurs des Araignées, il n’a pu se rendre compte de la valeur des noms de CLERCK ; je lavais consulté parce qu’il avait particuliérement connu le grand arachnologiste australien RAINBOW. Mr. MUSGRAVE traite la question d’un point de vue général et en entomologiste, s’opposant surtout a toutes les exceptions que l’on peut faire aux régles quelles qu’elles soient. De plus, je le regrette pour lui, il a mal lu ou mal compris le sens de ma pétition puisqu’il écrit “ therefore little is to be gained by reverting back to those names of Clerck so long discarded.” Oui diable a-t-il vu que les noms de Clerck étaient depuis si longtemps abandonnés, alors que c’est tout le contraire que je montre ! 3. Miss BRYANT est irrévocablement “ linnéiste.” Sa réponse, qui parle du bon fondement et de l’utilité des Régles de nomenclature (ce dont nous sommes tous persuadés), est fausse quand elle dit que ces Régles ‘‘ have proved sufficient for their purpose,” si l’on envisage le cas des Araignées de CLERCK. Non 1a, les régles non seulement n’ont pas atteint leur but, mais ce sont elles qui ont entrainé une grande perturbation dans la Nomenclature arachnologiste. D’autre part je regrette que Miss BRYANT n’ait vu dans ma Pétition que le point de vue sentimental en faveur de CLERCK, sans se rendre compte de mon “argumentation matérielle ’ qui doit en effet entrainer votre décision. Enfin, je ne saurais mieux répondre a notre collégue qu’en lui adressant la lettre du Prof. SAVORY, qui, en quelque sorte, lui avait répondu par anticipation. 4. Quant au Rev. HULL, sa réponse négative se comprend difficilement, car notre collégue est “ clerckiste ’’ ayant toujours utilisé les noms d’Araignées de CLERCK. Mais il ne veut pas du nom d’Araneus pour remplacer le genre Epeira, de la méme facgon qu'il ne veut pas du genre Aranea LINNE qu'il faut employer cependant quand on est “ linnéiste.’’ Le Rev. HULL ne répond done pas a la question, car, ce qu’il reproche a CLERCK, il faudrait aussi le reprocher a LINNE; et l'on ne comprend plus une argumentation qui, par le fait, rejette les noms de CLERCK (qu’il utilise) pour valoriser les noms de LINNE qu'il nutilise pas ! En définitive, l’opposition est trés faible et par le nombre et par la valeur des arguments employés. L’argument d’ordre général, invoqué par Miss BRYANT et Mr. MUSGRAVE, de ne pas créer un précédent, ne justifie pas leurs craintes, puisque dans chaque cas c’est la Commission de Nomenclature qui approuve, ou non, l’exception demandée. Et si toutes les exceptions présentées sont aussi valables que la nétre, il n’y aura que justice et bon sens a le faire, et une fois de plus ce sera l'exception qui confirmera la régle ! Finalement, la Commission de Nomenclature se trouve sur ce sujet, en ‘présence des points suivants : VoL. 3 M 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 1. Une pétition, solidement argumentée, pour montrer qu'il est du meilleur bon sens et de la plus grande justice en méme temps, de valoriser les “‘ Araner Suecici ’’ de CLERCK, pour que les noms des 54 Araignées les plus anciennement connues, trés communes et dont les appellations sont constamment utilisées aujourd’hui, soient officiellement reconnus. 2. En répondant favorablement 4 notre Pétition, les Membres de la Com- mission internationale de Nomenclature donnent satisfaction a la grande majorité des Aranéologistes qui utilisent les noms de CLERCK, et déterminent conformément au but essentiel que poursuivent les Régles, une seule dénomina- tion de toutes les Araignées nommées par CLERCK, puisque les “ linnéistes ”’ (MM. STRAND, BRISTOWE, ROEWER, KASTNER, KOLOSVARY, COLLART) acceptent avec joie d’utiliser ces noms, dés que leur emploi aura été officiellement reconnu. D’autre part il y a peu de cas a faire des quatre opposants, car, en plus de la faiblesse de leur argumentation, il y a lieu de remarquer que Mr. MUSGRAVE n’est pas intéressé par les Araignées de CLERCK, que le Rev. HULL, a 84 ans, ne s’occupe plus d’Araignées ; quant a Miss BRYANT et au Prof. TULLGREN, ils auront stirement 4 coeur de se plier & la nouvelle réglementation. 3. Si notre Pétition est rejetée, c’est l’anarchie qui continue dans la nomen- clature aranéologique ; car il n’y a pas de doute que les 49 “ clerckistes ”’ purs actuels (en comptant les 6 qui n’ont pas répondu et moi-méme) continueront a utiliser les noms de CLERCK, et resteront ainsi en rébellion avec article 26 ; pendant que 8 ou 9 linnéistes (dont 6 peu enthousiastes) emploieront des noms différents, avec l’obligation pour eux de mettre entre parenthéses les noms de CLERCK, pour que l’on sache de quelles Araignées ils parlent! Bien plus, je mettrai ces “ linnéistes” dans la nouvelle obligation, pour qu’ils soient logiques avec eux-mémes, d’appliquer l’article 26 jusqu’au bout, et de changer encore une fois les appellations de 9 de ces Araignees, et d’en attribuer 15 autres 3 MARTINI & GOEZE au lieu d’OLIVIER! MARTINI & GOEKZE, deux compilateurs sans grande importance et inconnus en Aranéologie depuis 170 ans ! Je veux finalement espérer avec tous nos collégues arachnologistes, que les Membres de la Commission internationale de Nomenclature sauront prendre la seule décision qui s’impose en cette circonstance, la reconnaissance des noms des Araignées de CLERCK, pour le plus grand bien de la Nomenclature et de l’Arachnologie et le plus grand honneur des Nomenclateurs de 1948. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 177 PROPOSITION 2 (proposed new Article to follow Article 27) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)359) Ajouter un article 27bis ainsi concu : Article 27bis.—“ Loi de prescription : tout nom qui sera resté ignoré durant de nombreuses années ne pourra, pour cause de priorité, remplacer un nom de genre ou Vespéce depuis longtemps utilisé ; s'il y avait lieu de le faire les spécialistes en décideront.” Explication. —Ainsi dans un article de DUGES de 1836, je trouve, en 1944, la description d’une Salticide formiciforme appelée : Salticus cinctus, espéce que personne n’a relevée jusqu’ici. Or cette espéce est le Leptorchestes mutilloides de LUCAS, 1846. Salticus cinctus a donc priorité et l’espéce, d’aprés Particle 25, devrait s’appeler maintenant Leptorchestes cinctus. Tl serait insensé de faire une telle modification et de remplacer aujourd’hui par ce dernier nom, le terme de L. mutilloides cité ainsi une cinquantaine de fois par vingt auteurs différents depuis cent ans. Autre exemple: DENIS, en 1938, aprés avoir étudié les Araignées d’un article de RISSO de 1826, reconnait dans l Atypus limbatus de RISSO, 1826, le Sitticus floricola de C. L. Koch, 1837. Cette espéce devrait donc s’appeler maintenant Svtticus limbatus. Or cette Araignée, fort connue, a été citée, sous le nom de floricola, 198 fois ; il paraitrait ridicule aujourd hui de changer ce nom. D’autre part il faut aussi envisager qu’un jour, un autre auteur peut trouver que cette identification est inexacte, et qu’en réalité ce limbatus de RISSO est le Sitticus pubescens, encore plus commun, cité 350 fois jusqu’ici, et de nouveau il faudrait tout changer ! Enfin, ce n’est pas le cas ici, mais il pourrait arriver que le nom ressuscité, soit déja utilisé dans le méme genre, il entrainerait donc en méme temps le changement de nom d’une autre espace. Tout cela démontre amplement la nécessité d’adopter la loi de prescription que je propose. Elle se confond d’ailleurs avec une proposition BRAUER, mais elle évite, dans chaque cas d’en référer A la Commission de Nomenclature. Vou. m2 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSITION 3 (proposed amendment of Article 34 and proposed addition of two new Articles to follow that Article) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)359) Modifier l’article 34 comme suit, et ajouter les articles 34bis et 34ter. Article 34.—‘‘ Homonymie : tout nom générique nest rejeté comme homonyme que sil a été utilisé pour wn autre genre dans un méme grand groupe @’animaux ou dans un méme pays ; les grands groupes danimaux sont : Protozoaires, Spongiaires, Coelentérés, Plathelminthes, Annélides, Némathelminthes, autres Vers, Crustacés, Myriapodes (s-l.), Insectes, Arachnides, Echinodermes, Pro- cordés, Vertébrés.” Article 34bis.—‘‘ On ne reviendra pas sur les changements faits jusqu’en 1920; mais a partir de cette date seront maintenus contre le nom nouveau proposé tous les noms ayant déja une grande vogue et qui, depuis de nombreuses années étaient employés sans la. moindre confusion avec un homonyme méconnu d'un autre groupe.” Article 34ter.—‘‘ Cependant, a partir de 1940, il ne sera plus toléré qu’on utilise pour un nouveau genre un nom déja existant et se trouvant dans le Nomen- clator Zoologicus de NEAVE (1939-1940). Explication.—L’adoption de l'article 34, tel que je le propose, mettrait fin 3 lauctorisnominomanie. Plusieurs auteurs, souvent sans réflexion et sans aucune étude approfondie des deux homonymes, ont muté le nom du deuxiéme en date, avec la seule idée de créer un nom leur appartenant. En fait, il importe peu que deux homonymes existent lorsque l’un d’eux est un nom qui n’est jamais utilisé; si ce nom, jamais utilisé, est’le second, — cela n’a pas d’importance si l’on change son vocable ; mais s'il est le premier, il est trés grave de venir changer le nom du deuxiéme. Ainsi, SIMON a créé, en 1864, chez les Araignées, un genre Argyrodes, sans savoir que ce terme était préoccupé et sans que personne ne s’en doute pendant de nombreuses années ; d’autre part, il se trouve que ce genre est important et trés répandu puisque l’on en connait une centaine d’espéces réparties dans le Monde entier, et pendant 70 ans tous les Arachnologistes de citer et de décrire de nombreux Argyrodes. Puis subitement, en 1928, STRAND découvre que ce nom d’Argyrodes est préoccupé par un Microlépidoptére de Hongrie, nommé ainsi par GUENEE, en 1845; et STRAND de créer le nouveau genre Argyrodina STRAND pour remplacer l Argyrodes de SIMON. Bien que le nom nouveau ne soit pas trés éloigné du précédent, et que l’opération soit conforme au texte de Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 179 Varticle 34, il vient déranger toute une grande série d’appellations d’Araignées fort connues, sous le prétexte qu’un tout petit papillon de Hongrie a déja porté ce nom. Or cet Argyrodes-Papillon n’a jamais été revu depuis sa création, on ne sait plus ce qu’il est ; pourquoi venir alors changer le nom géné- rique de l Argyrodes-Araignée, avec leque] pendant 70 ans, il n’y avait jamais eu confusion ? D’autre part, Argyrodina était inutile, car Argyrodes-Araignée tient en réserve deux autres genres synonymes: Conopistha KARSCH, 1882, et Bellinda KEYSERLING, 1884. Et voila une centaine WV’ Argyrodes qui devraient s’appeler maintenant Conopistha, ce qui entrainerait le changement du nom de la sous-famille et de la tribu. Il y a de trés nombreux exemples dans ce cas, et si l’article 34 n’est pas modifié, cela porte un tort immense A la Nomenclature, déja si décriée par tous changements de noms successifs et souvent bien inutiles. Aussi, de la méme fagon que les Régles admettent qu’un méme nom puisse étre utilisé en Botanique et en Zoologie (tout en recommandant de léviter), de méme qu’on admet qu’un nom spécifique peut-étre employé un nombre considérable de fois (domesticus, vulgaris, etc.) dans des genres différents, il est possible d’admettre que des noms de genre, deux fois employés autrefois, peuvent étre maintenus, pourvu qu’ils appartiennent & deux grands groupes différents, surtout lorsque le changement de l'un d’eux entraine de trop grandes modifications. Mais on peut décider aussi que l’on ne reviendra pas sur les changements faits avant 1920, et que d’autre part on ne tolérera plus que l’on se serve A partir de 1940 d’un nom de genre déja employé se trouvant dans le Nomenclator Zoologicus de NEAVE. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSITION 4 (proposed deletion from Article 13 of option to use capital initial letters for certain classes of trivial name) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Modifier l’article 13 comme suit : Article 13.—‘‘ Tous les noms spécifiques, sans exception, s’écrivent avec une petite lettre initiale.” Explication.—Il y a lieu, en effet, de généraliser cette régle, en supprimant la possibilité de mettre une capitale aux noms spécifiques de personne. De nombreux zoologistes agissent ainsi aujourd’hui; quelques uns s’y opposent encore ; mais un grand nombre, indifférents et qui ne demandent qu’a suivre une régle fixe, ne savent que faire. C’est pour cela que l’on voit actuelle- ment dans de nombreux articles, cette indécision des auteurs qui, par exemple, écrivent 4 un moment donné Cuvieri, andreae et quelques lignes plus bas cuveri, Andreae, ce qui donne l’impression d’un travail fait sans soin. Il y a intérét & mettre toujours une minuscule aux noms spécifiques parce que, dans un texte, ci l’on cite, & la suite Jes uns des autres, un certain nombre d’animaux, on distingue facilement Jes noms de genres des noms d’espéce, si les premiers sont tous avec une majuscule et les seconds avec une minuscule. Dans le longues listes alphabétiques, cet intérét apparait avec plus de netteté encore. Le prétexte qu’invoquent les défenseurs de la majuscule (diminution de Yhonneur que l’on fait 4 une personne en écrivant son nom avec une petite lettre) ne repose sur rien de bien sérieux. En effet, l’on n’a jamais pensé minimiser la valeur d’un grand homme en créant des adjectifs, comme napoléonien, cornélien, wagnérien, linnéen ou cuvieranus, linnaeanus, simonianus, Cle: Was. Il n’y a pas de doute que l’on arrivera un jour & écrire tous les noms spécifiques avec une minuscule ; autant hater cette uniformisation, en l’imposant aujourd hui par la régle proposée. Bees 4k Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 181 PROPOSITION 5 (proposed clarification of Article 14 in certain respects) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Modifier, en le précisant, le paragraphe (ce) de l’Article 14. Article 14 (c).—Quand il s’agit d’exprimer une dédicace a une ow plusieurs personnes, leurs noms prennent la marque du génitif. 1. Sice sont des personnes de |’Antiquité ; ou si la dédicace s’adresse aux prénoms des personnes, prénoms qui ont une origine latine, ces mots suivent les régles de la déclinaison latine, en prenant leur génitif correct (mais avec des initiales minuscules) : plinn, aristotelis, ciceronis, senecae, cinnae, victoris, simonis, antonii, petri, ludovici, elisabethae. 2. Si ce sont des personnes portant un nom moderne ou un prénom comme nom patronymique, le génitif est toujours formé par l’addition (au nom exact et complet de la personne, écrit normalement dans sa langue, avec ses accents), d’un 7 quand cette personne est un homme, de ae quand c’est une dame, orwm quand il s’agit d’un ménage ou de deux fréres, avum s'il s’agit de deux soeurs : cuviert, anieli, pécastaingi, schimkewitschi, sjéstedti, mobiusi, simon (non simonis), victori (non victoris), qrerrer (non petri), lowist (non ludovici), latreiller, fager, kishinouyei, macleez, racovitzar, fear, garciat, bhattacharyar, scopolw, pavesii, silvestru, kuleynskia, gestroi, saitor, puyor, bureawm, arnowi, raimui, kolosvaryi, lévyi, murray, merianae, bryantae, bacelarae, racovitzae(*), pavesiae, peckhamorum, berlandorum, bonnetarum. Exceptions : (a) pour LINNE : linnaer (au lieu de linnéi) » FABRICIUS : fabric (,, ,, ,, fabriciusi) ny EODA : podae (,, 5, +», podai) » DE L’ECLUSE : clusit (,, ,, ,, Péclusei) car l’on ne peut modifier ces noms couramment employés, (1) Quand le nom d’une dame se termine par a, on change le a en ae: racovitzae ‘et_ non racovitzaae. 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (b) pour les noms se terminant par g faire la terminaison en: wi, uae, uorum : DUBOSCQ: duboscqui (non duboseqi) LECLERCQ : leclerequi (non leclereqi) 3. Pour les noms ayant une particule nobiliaire séparable (de, du, del, di, do, van, von, etc.) la supprimer : DE LESSERT: lesserti. DE DALMAS: dalmasi. DEL PINO: pinot. DI CAPORIACCO: caporiaccoit. VAN HASSELT: hasselti. VON DER TRAPPEN : trappenc. Exceptions : (a) Si la particule est soudée au nom ou si, par longue habitude, elle fait partie intégrante du nom, elle est maintenue : DUJARDIN : dujardini DE GEER: degeeri MACCOOK : maccooki (*) O’CONNOR :: o’connori (b) En frangais, les articles le, la, les précédant les noms doivent étre maintenus: LE SUEUR: lesueuri ; s’ils sont précédés de la particule de, seule la particule disparait : DE LA ROCHE: larochei ; DE LA MARTINIERE : lamartiniérei 4. Pour les noms ayant un vocable double n’utiliser qu’un seul nom en choisissant le plus important : PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE: cambridgei ; GADEAU- DE- KERVILLE: kervillei ; GUERIN-MENEVILLE : guérint ; DE BARROS-MACHADO : machadov. Il est bien évident cependant que l’on peut aussi utiliser le premier nom (pickardi, gadeaui, ménevillet, barrost). 5. Corrélativement, tous les noms composés avec Saint, Sainte, Sanct, Sancto, San, etc., ne doivent pas voir de préfixe figurer dans leur nom: SAINT REMY: rémyi. SANZ DE DIEGO: diegor. (2) Pour les noms avec MAG, il y a lieu de rétablir Je a, méme lorsqu’il est noremalement supptimé dans le nom: MC COOK. —_ ~~. ] | P Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 183 PROPOSITION 6 (proposed addition of a Recommandation to Article 11) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Ajouter a l’article 1], la recommandation suivante. Article 11.—Recommandation : “ On doit éviter d’employer un méme nom spécifique soit pour des genres voisins, soit dans une méme famille ou un méme ordre @animauz, soit encore dans une méme région géographique.” Explication.—I] existe des termes qui sont souvent utilisés (vulgaris, domesticus, silvestris, rurestris, pusillus, niger, griseus, etc.). Quand ces termes sont employés dans des genres svstématiquement et géographiquement éloignés, cela n’a effet, aucune importance ; mais si un méme terme est souvent utilisé dans un méme groupe ou dans un méme pays, cela peut occasionner de sérieux ennuis. Ainsi: Misumena californica et Miswmenops californica, appartiennent a deux genres voisins, dont le second s’est formé aux dépens du premier. Trochosa floridana, Pardosa floridana, Lycosa floridana, appartiennent a trois genres voisins qui sont pris parfois les uns pour les autres, si bien que pour ces espéces on ne sait plus de quelle il s’agit, surtout qu’elles ont été décrites par le méme auteur. De méme, il y a un gros inconvénient 4 trouver dans un méme pays des quantités d’animaux qui portent le nom de ce pays; c’est ainsi que pour ne parler que des Araignées, sur 277 espéces connues de Californie, il y en a 31 qui portent le nom de californicus, a, wm, ce qui est vraiment exagéré. Si dans tous les groupes nous avons la méme proportion, le nombre de californicus doit étre effrayant et bien incommode pour la faune de ce pays. Enfin il faut se garder aussi d’utiliser trop souvent le nom d’un auteur illustre, malgré tout ’honneur qu’on veut lui faire ; il y a bien une cinquantaine de stmoni chez les Araignées, autant de strandi, si ce n'est pas davantage ; un jour ou l’autre certains de ces noms préteront a confusion. Aussi les auteurs feront bien de se demander a l'avenir, si le nom qu ils veulent utiliser pour nommer une nouvelle espéce n’est pas déja plusieurs fois employé, surtout pour des genres voisins ou une méme region. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSITION 7 (proposed amendment of Article 15) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Modifier l'article 15, comme suit : Article 15.—‘‘ Des dénominations spécifiques a vocable double ne font pas exception a Varticle 2; mais pour cela ils doivent toujours étre écrits en un seul mot, sans trait d’union (sanctaecatharinae, janmayeni, cornupastoris, coranguinum, cedonullt).”” Explication.—Il y a lieu tout d’abord de supprimer, de l'article actuel, la possibilité de se servir du nom d’une personne & vocable double pour désigner une espéce. De méme qu’on a demandé, pour la création d’un genre, de n’utiliser que l’un des termes (paragraphe E de l’article 8) on doit faire de méme pour les noms spécifiques, comme je |’ai indiqué dans le paragraphe 4 de l'article 14 (Proposition 5); cela répond aussi a l’idée exprimée plus haut, qu’un nom spécifique doit étre court. Sil existe déja des noms spécifiques d’auteurs a vocable double, on doit les maintenir mais les écrire en un seul mot (pickardcambridger, milneedwards?). D’autre part l’article actuel prévoit que, dans les mots composés, l’on peut mettre un trait d’union ou non. I] faut supprimer cette alternative et interdire tout a fait le trait d’union, pour deux raisons : 1. le trait d’union n’existait pas en latin; les Romains écrivaient quadrimanus, dentiscalpium, tauricornis, etc. Nous devons de la méme fagon écrire sanctaecatharinae, cornupastoris, cinereofasciata, etc. ; 2. le terme spécifique écrit en un seul mot, répond davantage a l’idée que l’on avait de sopposer a toute désignation polynominale. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 185 PROPOSITION 8 (proposed addition of three new Articles to follow Article 15) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)390) Ajouter trois articles 15bis, ter, quater, sur la fagon de former les mots spécifiques composés. Article 15bis.—Les noms spécifiques composes, formés de deux mots grecs ou de deux mots latins, deviennent généralement des adjectifs ; le deuaiéme terme, seul déclinable, s’accorde avec le nom générique. Ils peuvent étre formés : 1. par la juxtaposition 4 un adjectif d’une préposition, d’un préfixe courant ou d’un adjectif numéral invariable (subaequalis, pseudomonticola, unicornis, bimaculatus, triguttatus, decemnotatus, vigintipunctatus). Recommandation : L’adjectif numéral en composition avec un adjectif s’écrit en toutes lettres; on ne doit pas écrire 10-notatus, 13-gultatus, 18- punctatus. (Car beaucoup de personnes ne sauraient peut-étre pas prononcer sur le moment decemnotatus, tredecimguttatus ou duodevigintipunctatus, ce qui est essentiel.) 2. par la juxtaposition de deux adjectifs le premier étant réuni au deuxiéme par une voyalle de liaison o ou 7 (fuscorufus, albogilvus, rubicoloratus). Recommandation : C’est Voreille qui guide dans le choix de cette voyelle de liaison ; quand un mot supporte l’une ou l’autre (albomaculata, albimaculata), i] vaut mieux mettre o. 3. par juxtaposition d’un adjectif 4 un substantif réuni a lui par une voyelle de liaison ; l’ensemble devient un mot adjectivé qui peut avoir : (a) une seule forme invariable pour les trois genres (longipes, melano- gaster, et tous les mots composés avec pes, frons, dens, thorax, ceps, gaster, color, etc.) (b) une forme déclinable de la premiére classe (quadrimanus, a, um ; melanocephalus, a, um ; et tous les mots composés avec manus, carpus, tarsus, barbus, spinus, comus, stylus. ophthalmus, etc.) (c) une forme déclinable de la deuxiéme classe ( flavipalpis, e ; tenuitarsis e; et tous les mots composés avec palpis, tarsis, barbis, rostris, cornis, ventris, collis, formas, etc.). Recommandation : Quand un terme supporte d’étre un adjectif de le premiére ou de la deuxiéme classe (longitarsus ou longitarsis ; flavipalpus ou 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. flavopalpis ; rufibarbus ou rifobarbis) il vaut mieux prendre la forme en 18, @, qui a été la plus employée. 4. par juxtaposition de deux substantifs : (a) le premier, complément de l'autre, se met au génitif ; le deuxiéme, considéré comme apposition, est au nominatif (tauricornu, equisetum, menthaefolia) (b) inversion peut ne pas exister, et, de ce fait, le mot composé a une terminaison au génitif (densleonis, cornucopiae, cornupastoris) (c) mais le deuxiéme nom peut prendre une forme adjective, et dans ce cas il s’accorde avec le nom générique (vermiformis, e ; formicaeformis, e ; fronticornis, e ; anguicomus, a, um ; ferrequinus, a, um ; etc.). 5. par justapoxition d’un verbe et d’un substantif; le substantif est devant le verbe, réuni a lui par une voyelle de liaison; le verbe prend une forme adjective déclinable. (a) les verbes genere, fugere, vorare, gradi, vagari donnent des formes en us, a, wm (genus, a, um ; fugus, a, um ; vorus, gradus, vagus) (Exemples : montigenus, lucifugus, omnivorus, herbigradus, montivagus). (b) les verbes gerere et ferre donnent des formes ger, a, wm et fer, a, wm (Exemple : crucifer, a, um ; dentiger, a, um). Les formes gerus et ferus sont trés incorrectes, et ne doivent pas étre employées (c) le verbe colere donne la forme invariable cola (silvicola, agricola, monticola, floricola, ruricola, etc.). C’est done une grosse erreur que d’accorder ces termes avec le nom générique, on ne doit pas dire silvicolus, ni agricolum, etc. : (d) les verbes grecs phoreo (je porte) et phileo (j'aime) donnent des terminaisons latinisées en phorus, a, um et philus, a, wm (stylophorus, a, um ; hydrophilus, a, um). Les formes en phoreus et phileus sont a rejeter. Recommandation générale : Dans la formation de ces mots composés il est — formellement interdit de former des mots hybrides en combinant un mot latin et un mot grec: nigrocephalus, isopes, etc., ne sont pas admissibles. Cependant si certains de ces hybrides ont été formés et employés sans que personne n’ait jamais songé & les rectifier, il y a leu de les conserver aujourd’hui en application de article 32. Article 15ter.—Dans la composition de ces mots composés, Vhiatus dott toujours étre évité. L’hiatus est trés désagréable a Voreille et les Romains en avaient horreur ; il faut done léviter autant qu’il est possible. On supprime hiatus : (a) par la syncope de la voyelle finale du premier terme, ou de la voyelle de liaison ; mais on ne touche jamais A la premiére lettre du deuxiéme terme : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 187 pseudoagricola doit devenir pseudagricola quadriangulatus ,, » quadrangulatus nigroolivacea Pe » nigrolivacea Pseudoicius ba » Pseudicius (microorganisme est un mot affreux que l’on doit remplacer par micror- ganisme). ; (b) par introduction d’une lettre euphonique entre les deux voyelles de Phiatus : reempltus devient redemptus ; reimitus devient redimitus. (le terme protandrie pour proandrie est trés bien formé). Articlel5quater.— Dans les mots composés avec une lettre qui rappelle un signe Wornementation, il y a liew d’indiquer, entre crochets, la prononciation de cette lettre grecque ou latine. d [lambda]|—signata ; m [ém]|—nigrum ; «x [iks]—notatus. Ici le trait d’union doit étre maintenu. 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSITION 9 (proposed insertion after Article 18 of a new Article regarding the grammatical agreement of the trivial name of a species with the name of the genus to which that species is referred) (Commmission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Aprés l'article 18, ajouter un nouveau paragraphe intitulé : ACCORD DU NOM DE L’ESPECE AVEC LE NOM DU GENRE. L’accord du nom de l’espéce avec celui du genre n’est pas aussi simple qu’on le pourrait croire; c’est encore la un chapitre important qui n’est pas suffisamment traité dans les Régles de nomenclature. De ce fait, il y a trop d’auteurs qui font des accords épouvantables en réalisant d’une fagon simpliste qu'il suffit de mettre us, a, wm, @ la fin du nom d’espéce, quand le nom de genre se termine lui-méme par us, a, wm. Article 18bis.—Régles d’accord du nom spécifique avec le nom générique. 1. Le nom de l’espéce est un substantif. (A) sil est en apposition, il est au nominatif : Felis leo, Lycosa venator. (B) sil est determinatif, il est au génitif : Lycosa silvarum, Zodarium hispaniae. C’est aussi le cas des noms des personnes auxquelles une espéce est dédiée : Salticus listeri, Argiope briinnichi, Cyrba peckhamorum. 2. Le nom de l’espéce est un adjectif ou une forme adjectivée ; elle s’accorde avec le sexe du nom générique, donc au nominatif masculin, féminin ou neutre, suivant le cas. I.—Il importe 4 ce moment 1a de déterminer le sexe des noms génériques ; il faut pour cela consulter les lexiques grecs et latins qui donnent le genre des mots. (A) Géneralement les noms latins en ws sont du masculin, en a du féminin, en wm du neutre. Mais il ne faut pas s’y fier. t— (B) (C) (E) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 189 Exception: (a) les genres composés avec nauta et cold veulent le nom d’espéce au masculin : Argonauta majus, Agricola fulvus (b) certains noms en us veulent le féminin (Fagus silvatica) ou le neutre (Genus novum). Les noms se terminant par as, ax, es, er, is, or, etc., peuvent étre de l’un des trois genres ; consulter le dictionnaire. Certains mots grecs terminés par a (pelma, omma, soma, gramma) que l’on pourrait croire du féminin, sont du neutre et appellent une terminaison en conséquence : Porrhomma pygmaeum, Eurypelma forte, Oxrysoma nudum. Si on a employé comme nom de genre un nom mythologique, il apporte avec lui son sexe : Venus verrucosa, Apollo decorus, Triton littoralis. Si le nom de genre a été formé du nom d’une personne, avec terminaison en us, a, wm, ou wus, ia, tum, ou d’un nom quelconque ayant une de ces terminaisons, ]’espéce s’accorde en suivant la désinence du genre : Vandelius lucidus, Simonia cuprea, Merleum cristatum, Anzacia insulana, Nomisia exornata, Algerius novus. Le sexe du nom générique déterminé, il faut savoir de quelle classe est Padjectif pour faire des accords convenables, en us, a, wm ou en is, e. La, il faut prendre garde aux formes irréguliéres comme ger et fer (qui ne veulent ni gerus ni ferus au masculin) ou comme cola qui est invariable (Araneus agricola, Theridium silvicola). 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSITION 10 (proposed addition of a new Article to follow Article 20) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)356) Ajouter un article 20bis, ainsi congu. Article 20bis.—‘* Polymorphisme de certains mots. Si certains mots ont été écrits de plusieurs facons on doit adopter celle qui a une priorité originelle.” Exemples : silva non sylva ; terol non tyrol ; littoralis non litoralis ; pyrenaeus non pireneus ; caeruleus non coeruleus et surtout non ceruleus ; sulfur non sulphur ; compta non comta ; hibernalis non hybernalis ; pirum non pyrum. Explication.—Il y a un gros inconvenient a maintenir des noms polymorphes dont les deux graphies sont correctes. En effet il aurait fallu, suivant l'article 19, pouvoir maintenir l’orthographe originelle, et c’eut été trés bien. Mais comme, dans la pratique, il n’est pas possible de se souvenir, chaque fois, de la fagon dont le mot a été écrit par lauteur-créateur d’un genre ou d’une espéce il s’en suit que les auteurs subséquents l’écrivent tantdt d’une fagon, tantdt de lautre, suivant leur inspiration du moment, sans se soucier de lorthographe originelle qu'il faudrait chaque fois vérifier. C’est ainsi que BLACK WALL a décrit Drassus sylvestris et Neriene sylvaticus, mais KOCH a décrit Tegenaria silvestris et KULCZYNSKI Tmeticus silvicola (pour ne citer que ces quatre cas, car il y en a bien d’autres) ; ce sont des espéces citées trés souvent, mais les sylvestris et les sylvaticus de BLACKWALL sont écrits un grand nombre de fois silvestris et silvaticus, de la méme fagon que le silvestris de KOCH et le silvicola de KULCZYNSKI sont aussi souvent écrits sylvestris et sylvicola. Et certains de ces auteurs sont excusables, car celui qui dans un catalogue ou dans une liste de captures donne le nom de ces espéces, ne peut en effet écrire tous ces silvestris, silvicola, silvaticus, silvarum que d’une méme fagon, tous avec un 7, ou tous avec un y. Tant que l’on laissera subsister ce polymorphisme, on n’arrivera 4 rien de bon ; uniformisons, décrétons que silva (ses dérivés et composés) s’écrira toujours avec un 2, et jamais avec un y, et toutes ces anomalies disparaitront. Il y a lieu de rechercher s'il n’y a pas d’autres mots, en plus de ceux que ]'ai cités, qui ont aussi une double graphie. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 191 PROPOSITION 11 (proposed addition of a new paragraph to Article 32 and addition of a new Article to follow Article 19) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Compléter article 32 et ajouter un article 19bis qui en découle. Article 32.—Apreés le libellé de cet article ajouter “* Mavs cela ne veut pas dire que ‘tout nom une fois publié ne peut pas étre modifié’ ; ce serait contraire a la logique et a Vesprit de Varticle 19 qui prévoit la correction des noms renfermant une faute de transcription, @ orthographe ou d’impression.” Article 19bis.—‘‘ Tout nom de genre ou d’espeéce rectifié continue a appartenir au premier auteur qui a décrit et nommé ce genre ou cette espéece ; en aucun cas les correcteur ne peut s’en attribuer la paternité.” Explication.—I] est trés important d’ajouter cette remarque, car beaucoup d’auteurs, ces derniers temps, maintiennent, en partant de cet article 32, qu‘ils généralisent ‘“‘ qu’un nom une fois publié ne peut plus étre ni changé ni modifié ; bien plus, ils rétablissent les fautes d’orthographe primitives qui avaient été corrigées depuis ! ”’ L’article congu comme le comprennent ces auteurs, serait une absurdité et l’on ne peut que s’indigner de voir des auteurs, sous ce prétexte, rétablir la graphie inexacte d’un mot. C’est ainsi que le grand arachnologiste SIMON a écrit son premier ouvrage sur les Araignées 4 l’age de 16 ans ; il a créé dans ce livre un certain nombre de noms et fait quelques fautes de transcription de lettres grecques, fautes qu'il a corrigées lui-méme par la suite : ainsi Ozyptila (1864) qu’il a rectifié en Oxyptila en 1875, et depuis a été toujours employé sous cette graphie correcte. II est alors inadmissible que BANKS, (suivi en cela par quelques auteurs américains et Embrik STRAND), vienne rétablir, en 1907, le mot Ozyptila qui n’était quwune faute d’orthographe d’un enfant de 16 ans ! De méme on doit corriger le Micromata initial de LATREILLE en Microm- mata, le dromaderius initial de WALCKENAER en dromedarius, V Argyope initial de SAVIGNY en Argiope, etc. D’ailleurs je fais remarquer qu’en généralisant la portée de cet article réduit 4 son sens “ qu’une fois publié tout nom ne peut plus étre modifié,” cela rendrait inutiles toutes les autres régles de Nomenclature, puisque deviendraient valables tous les noms qui seraient contraires a ces régles ! VoL. 3 N 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Il est bien évident que le nom rectifié appartient toujours 4 lauteur qui a eréé le nom incorrect et non & celui qui a fait le rectification, méme si la rectifi- cation, assez importante, transforme sérieusement le nom. Ainsi LAWRENCE a créé, en 1937, le genre Paranetella pour le Paranetus distinctus ; or ce nom de genre c’est Panaretus ; je rétablis la correction en disant que le nouveau genre s’appelle Panaretella, mais avec LAWRENCE comme nom d’auteur, car c’est toujours lui qui a créé et décrit ce genre, malgré la faute nominale dont il l’a dotée 4 sa naissance. A ce méme propos, si dans le changement des noms de genre pour homonymie, on avait su décréter & l’origine, que le nom nouveau proposé continuerait a appartenir 4 l’auteur qui avait créé le genre, cela aurait porté un rude coup a l’'auctorisnominomanie naissante. Cette fagon de faire aurait eu l’avantage de ne pas changer la date réelle de la découverte d’un genre (ou d’une espéce), car il serait anormal, par exemple, que |’ Argyrodes de SIMON, 1864, ne date plus que de 1928 si l’on acceptait son changement en Argyrodina. D’autre part, Yauteur qui a le véritable mérite d’avoir découvert et créé une nouveauté ne verrait pas cette place d’honneur usurpée par un auteur qui n’a eu que le souci de trouver un autre nom. Ainsi le Latona de L. KOCH, 1866, est changé en Lampona par THORELL en 1869, parce que Latona est déja occupé. J’envisage qu’on aurait pu désigner ce genre comme suit : Lampona (L. KOCH, 1866 ; sub Latona). Cette perspective est bien séduisante ; mais comme elle est trés grosse de conséquences (on devrait changer le nom d’auteur d’un grand nombre de genres et d’espéces) je n’ai pas voulu prendre l’initiative d’une telle modification, sans avoir préalablement provoqué une discussion de la Commission de Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 193 PROPOSITION 12 (proposed addition of a new Article to follow Article 8) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)297 and 352) Ajouter un article 8bis, ainsi congu : Article 8bis.—Les noms de genre et d’espece ne doivent avoir de signification bizarre dans aucune langue ; leur longueur ou leur compleaité ne doit pas excéder sia syllabes. Les noms déja formés et qui contreviennent a ces dis ‘positions ne sont pas valables. Explication.—Si bon nombre de naturalistes travaillent avec gout, méthode et conscience, n’ayant d’autre but que la recherche de la vérité et le souci du travail bien fait, il en est d’autres, malheureusement, dont l’esprit s’embarrasse de considérations moins élevées. L’article 8 indique bien dans ses recommandations, comment il faut faire pour créer des noms de genre, mais il oublie de dire ce qu’il ne faut pas faire ; c'est une lacune, car il y a lieu d’inviter les auteurs A éviter les noms malsonnants et surtout a ne pas créer des termes comiques ou trop longs. Noms malsonnants : c’est peut-étre difficile de l’éviter, car ce qui est choquant pour une oreille frangaise (comme Cucumaria ou Thaumatoncus), peut ne pas létre pour les Anglais, des Allemands ou des Japonais. Enfin dans chaque langue, on doit éviter de créer des termes ayant une consonnance facheuse. Noms comiques: Cela peut étre évité et doit étre interdit. Ainsi KIRKALDY (Entomologist, 1904, pp. 279-283) a créé des noms comme Ochisme et Marichisme, qui sont une graphie des expressions anglaises O kiss me et Mary kiss me. C’est exactement comme si un Frangais créait des vocables dans le genre de Vienferdodoleon, Prentoncafelea ou Fepipizoe! A partir de ce moment la fantaisie et le grotesque peuvent se donner libre cours. Noms trop longs : Dans un article, DYBOWSKI “ Synoptisches Verzeichnis mit Kurzer .. . der Baikalflohkrebse ” (Bull. intern. Acad. pol. sci. let., 1926, pp. 1-77) a créé un grand nombre de genres d’une longueur et d’une complexité remarquables, comme : Nematoceroechinogammarus Gammaracanthuskotylodermogammarus Parapallaseakotylodermogammarus, ete. Il y a un manque de bon sens & créer de semblables termes, et je ne saurais mieux le montrer qu’en exagérant la chose, en proposant un nom comme : Polichinellobizarrocomicburlescomagicaraneus | VoL, 3 Nn? 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. L’indignation que nous pourrions éprouver 4 voir de tels vocables ne pourrait rien contre le fait qu ils sont parfaitement valables si quelqu’un a Vidée de les créer, rien dans nos réglements ne l’interdisant. C’est pour cela que je propose de fixer la longueur des noms de genres et d’espéces & un maxi- mum de six syllabes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 195 PROPOSITION 13 (proposed amendment of Article 22) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Modifier l’article 22 comme suit : Supprimer dans son libellé “ ou une parenthése ”’ et exemple “ ou Primates _LINNE (1758) ”.—En effet la parenthése doit étre réservée pour l’indication du nom d’auteur et de la-date, quand l’espéce a changé de genre (article 23). Ajouter 4 la suite: “Si lauteur du nouveau nom n'est pas Vauteur de Particle ot ce nom parait, on inscrit d’abord le nom du créateur, puis, précédé de » puis, p ‘in’, le nom de Vauteur de Varticle avec la date de parution. Exemple : Coelotes gasperini SIMON in GASPERINT, 1891”. “Si Pauteur d'un nouveau nom est l'un des deux signataires d’un article on Vindique comme cect : Sitticus hungaricus (KULCZYNSKI in CHYZER & KULCZYNSKI, 1892).” Si Pespéce a changé de genre on met aussi entre parenthéses l’ensemble de ces noms d’auteur (exemple précédent). Pour les articles signés de deux noms d’auteurs, remplacer les conjonctions utilisées dans les différentes langues (et, and, und, y, 7, e, etc.) par la conjonction latine et sous la forme & qui devient ainsi un signe international. La recommandation de l'article 22 est & supprimer (voir proposition 14). 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSITION 14 (proposed substitution of a new Article to follow Article 22 in place of the existing Recommandation to that Article) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)352) Supprimer la recommandation de article 22 et la remplacer par un article 22 bis. Article 22 bis —‘‘ II n’est pas possible aujourd’hui d’avoir des abbrévations conventionnelles des noms d’auteurs, pour Vensemble de la Zoologie. Ces abré- viations doivent étre déterminées dans chaque groupe.” Conseils pour abréger convenablement les noms d’auteurs : (1) Pour les noms composés de plusieurs syllabes, prendre la premiére syllabe avec la consonne ou les consonnes d’appui de la deuxiéme syllabe. LINNE : Lin.; SIMON: Sim.; KULCZYNSKI: Kulcz. BLACKWALL: Black. ; WALCKENAER: Walck.; SCOPOLI: Scop. (2) Si le nom ne comprend qu'une seule syllabe : (A) S’il ne comprend que 2, 3 ou 4 lettres, l’écrire en entier: PY, ROC, FOX, HULL, HOGG, ete. (B) S’il se compose de 5, 6 ou 7 lettres, le réduire a 3 ou 4 lettres, en prenant la premiére et les 2 ou 3 derniéres: BANKS: Bks. ; HENTZ: Htz. ; GERTSCH : Gsch.; WRIGHT : Wght. (3) Si le nom est double, abréger seulement le nom principal : GUERIN-MENEVILLE : Guer.; FRANGANILLO-BALBOA : Frang. MELLO-LEILAO : Leit.; GADEAU DE KERVILLE : Kerv. (4) Si ces noms sont précédés de particules, les supprimer : DE LESSERT: Les.; VAN HASSELT: Hass.; DI CAPORIACCO : Cap. (5) Si des auteurs ont le méme nom, n’utiliser que les initiales de leurs noms et prénoms : Octavius PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE : 0.P.C. Frederic-Octavius PICKARD-CAMBRIDGE : F.O.P.C. Carl Ludwig KOCH : C.L.K. Ludwig KOCH : L.K, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 197 PROPOSITION 15 (proposed addition of a new Recommandation to Article 16) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)391) Ajouter 4 larticle 16 une nouvelle recommandation sur la formation des adjectifs géographiques en ensis. Article 16.—Recommandation : Pour former les adjectifs géographiques en ensis, au nom latinisé (ou non) des pays et des villes, ajouter ce suffixe ensis si le nom se termine par une consonne, et s’il se termine par une voyelle remplacer cette voyelle par ensis. Exemples : Timor / timorensis Tirol / tirolensis Burdigala : burdigalensis Canada / canadensis Massilia : massiliensis Brasilia __: brasiliensis Paraguay : paraguayensis Guadeloupe : guadelowpensis Explication.—Cette recommandation est nécessaire car de nombreux auteurs ne savent que faire en l’occurence, et il importe par cette régle trés simple de montrer que l’on ne doit pas dire canadiensis, ni brasilensis.— Finalement, la terminaison en iensis n’existe que s’il y a déja un 7 dansla terminaison du nom géographique. Exception : Athenae a donné atheniensis. 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. PROPOSITION 16 (proposed amendment of concluding paragraph of Recommandation to Article 20) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)392) Modification au dernier paragraphe de la Recommandation de l’article 20. Article 20.—Recommandation: Dernier paragraphe. Pour les noms patronymiques comprenant des lettres a, 6, ti, que Von peut écrire aussi ae, o2, ue il est recommandé, si l'on utilise ces noms pour former des noms de genre ou despece, d’adopter Vécriture di, 6, ti, Exemples : bablert (non baebleri); Dénitzia (non Doenitzia); Miilleria (non Muelleria) ; briinnichi (non bruennichi). Explication.—Il semble que lusage le plus courant soit d’employer ces lettres avec le tréma.—De plus si la prononciation d, ae d’une part, 6, oe d’autre part, sont identiques, il n’en est pas de méme de ii (que l’on doit prononcer comme un u frangais) et de we que l’on risque de prononcer wé, ce qui modifie la prononciation réelle du nom. Enfin l’écriture avec ae, oe, ue déplace sérieusement la position des termes ainsi orthographiés, dans des listes alphabétiques; si l’on ne prend pas soin de regarder ces listes aux deux graphies possibles, on risque parfois de croire qu’un nom est oublié, alors qu’il est inscrit @ un autre endroit. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 199 PROPOSITION 17 (proposed addition of a new section to the Appendice to the Reégles) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)393) Ajouter 4 ?APPENDICEH, un paragraphe ‘F’ intitulé : Transcription du v et du 7 latins. Les lettres v et 1 deviennent u et i devant wne consonne, et v ou 7 devant une voyelle. Exemples : Premier cas: urbs, ventus, illustris, imperialis. Deuxiéme cas: dives, ventus, yugum, jucundis. En appliquant cette régle au préfixe Hu, elle donne en effet Husparassus, Bugnatha, Euphoresia, ete., et doit donner Evagrus, Evetria, Evathlus, Evan- gelium, etc. (et non Kuagrus, Kuetria, Euathlus, Euangelium). Explication.—Les Romains n’avaient qu'une lettre pour le v voyelle et pour le » consonne; une seule lettre aussi pour le 7 voyelle et le 7 con- sonne; mais la pratique a voulu par la suite que le v voyelle devienne un w et le 7 consonne un j; il y a lieu de se conformer 4 cette pratique et de l’appliquer intégralement en interdisant les écritures iwgum, iucundis, vupiter et en obligeant les auteurs a écrire le préfixe ew sous cette forme devant une consonne : Husparassus, Eugnatha, et Vécrire ev devant une voyelle : Evagrus, Evetria, termes qui sont plus euphoniques que Huagrus ou Luetria, bien que cette derniére écriture soit étymologiquement plus correcte. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 201 INDEX Amendment of the Régles, proposed insertion of an Article governing Page procedure for .. a Ee a ms + ae .. 117-118 By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, proposed insertion in the Régles of an Article relating to .. 123-124 Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, proposed addition of, to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” with Musca vomi- toria, Linnaeus, 1758, as type species (reference Opinion 82) .. 135-136 Clerck, 1757, Aranei svecici, proposed amendment of Article 26 to validate names in... - ne a ve Ps .. 173-176 Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, proposal regarding procedure to be adopted for reaching a decision on long-outstanding application relating to 137-138 Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, proposed reform of the composition of (Paper I.C.(48)3) .. F i 6-15 The proposals submitted include proposals relating to : the removal of the upper limit hitherto imposed on the membership of the Commission, the present upper limit of eighteen being retained as a minimum os =f 13 the institution of a system providing for the direct repre- sentation on the Commission of zoologists in any country in which any considerable amount of zoological work is being conducted... -- dss a = aE 13 the institution of a revised method for the election of members of the Commission .. %: = a aA J eb the publication in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ of announcements relating to the election of new Commissioners + eh a rs ie me 14 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. the arrangements to be made for filling casual vacancies in the membership of the Commission Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, proposed reform of procedure of (Paper I.C.(48)4) The proposals submitted include proposals relating to : voting procedure in cases not involving either a suggested change in the Régles or the use by the Commission of its plenary powers voting procedure in cases involving a suggested change in the Régles voting procedure in cases involving the use by the Commis- sion of its plenary powers .. time-table to be aimed at by the Commission in dealing with applications submitted issue to zoologists of an announcement in regard to reform of procedure amendment of By-Laws to take account of revised procedure Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature : Report to be submitted by, to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, draft of (Paper 1.C.(48)20) = Communiqué issued to the scientific press of the world at the close of the Thirteenth Internation Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (Paper I.C.(48)21) .. os a a ae de = composition of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, proposed reform of (Paper I.C.(48)3) Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : proposals for incorporation in the Régles of recom- mendations contained in : Declaration 1 (Code of Ethics): substance to be incorporated in a new Article in the Régles Page 14-15 16-19 17 17 17-18 ve! -S 19 19 .. 139-153 154 6-15 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 203 Declaration 2 (issue of separates in advance of publication of — Page paper concerned) : insertion in the Régles of a Recommanda- tion deprecating .. a he nt He ssh a: 95 Declaration 3 (need for recording exact date of publication of books and journals): insertion in the Reégles of a Recom- mandation regarding... sf sa = ne ‘xe 96 Declaration 4 (use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature): insertion in the Regles of a provision prohibiting... bs it pa a BA 95 Declaration 5 (the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature): proposed incorporation of, in the Régles subject to certain amendments . . re 17-18, 95 Declaration 6 (need for giving a clear indication that new names are such and for avoiding publication of a name as new more than once): proposed insertion in the Reégles of a Recommandation regarding... +s 23 e oe 96 Declaration 7 (need for citing bibliographical references) : pro- posed insertion in the Regles of a Recommandation regarding 96 Declaration 8 (need for publication of exact date of publication of books and papers on zoological subjects) : substance of, to be incorporated in the Recommandation embodying substance of Declaration 3 .. a ie 2 of 7 - 96 Declaration 11 (need for indicating systematic position of taxo- nomic units when first named): proposed insertion in the ge kag of a Recommandation regarding .. Kis a 96 Declaration 12 (supplement to Code of Ethics) : proposed inclu- sion of substance of, in new provision embodying the sub- stance of Declaration 1 . e ‘4 a a +: 95 Flebotomus Rondani, 1840, proposed emendation of, to Phlebotomus 136-137 Fossil fragments (organites and sclerites) of Invertebrates, proposed introduction of new system of nomenclature for .. fe aed LOW Grade, proposed recognition of, and definition of, in the Hae as a new category re ae bs bs uA as 166 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Gryphaea Lamarck, question whether available from 1801 or from 1819, and type species of Gurlt, proposal that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should rule that the so-called generic names and specific trivial names published by, in 1832 for Schistosome Monsters possess no status under the Régles < 53 homonymy, proposed revision of provisions in the Régles in relation to the names of species (Articles 35 and 36) (Paper I.C.(48)8) .. infra-subspecific forms, proposed insertion in the Régles of provisions governing the nomenclature of (Paper I.C.(48)9) .. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, see Commis- sion, International, on Zoological Nomenclature .. mabouya Lacépede, 1788, Lacertus, proposed insertion of, in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ as the type species of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, in place of erroneous entry of Scincus sloani Daudin, 1803 (proposed correction of an error in Opinion 92) Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, proposed correction of erroneous type citation for, in “* Official List of Generic Names in peta eg aise: correction of an error in Opinion 92) : : x neotypes, question whether recognition of, as a category of type specimen, should be granted in the Regles .. * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” gender of names placed on, proposal to record in .. naines proposed to be added to: Calliphora Robineau- ane 1830 atia Insecta, Order Diptera) mA ‘ : : 4 Oxycanus Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) Phlebotomus (emend. of Flebotomus) Rondani, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) nk 3 ey P age . 168-170 138 37-54 55-68 136 136 91 136 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (continued) : status of names placed on, proposed definition of . . * Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology,” proposed establishment of Opimons rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : proposals of a general character relating to : proposed incorporation in the Régles, in whole or in part, of interpretations of individual provisions given in Opinions 205 Page 1l4 114 already rendered = rz ie a .. 23-24, 69-74 proposed repeal of Opinions for interpretative purposes after the incorporation in the Régles of interpretations thereof given in : proposed issue to zoologists of invitation to draw the attention of the Commission to any apparent new interpretations of the Regles contained in Opinions not cancelled by the Paris Congress on the incorporation in the Regles consequent upon the proposed codification of the inte pretations given in Opinions already rendered ies e proposal that, after the close of the Paris Congress, decisions in Opinions should be looked for only in the “ summaries ” prefixed thereto .. Ae : r proposal that certain Opinions already rendered should be cancelled, in whole or in part, except for historical purposes, owing to the decisions recorded therein having lost all practical significance, by reason of their transitory character proposal that decisions in regard to individual nomenclatorial problems given in Opinions should be recorded in Schedules attached to the Reégles, the Opinions concerned being there- upon cancelled for all except historical purposes .. 112, proposals for the amendment or clarification of certain Opinions prior to the decisions recorded therein being recorded in Schedules to the Régles . . 7 proposal that the Secretary be requested to transfer to Schedules to the Régles decisions on individual nomenclatorial prob- lems given in Opinions already rendered, except where those 73 126 127 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological — Page Nomenclature: proposals of a general character relating to (continued) decisions in his opinion do not appear to be in harmony with the Régles, in which case the problems concerned to be re-submitted for decision by the Commission .. ny 129 proposal that the Secretary be requested to examine bibliographi- cal and similar references to individual names and books cited in Opinions already rendered, prior to the incorporation in Schedules to the Régles of the decisions recorded therein, and to fill up gaps and make any corrections which may be required .. am - es ie a, i A 129 proposal that supplementary decisions should be taken in regard to certain matters on which Opinions had already been rendered, prior to the incorporation in Schedules to the Régles of the decisions recorded therein a - ay 127 proposal that interpretations of the Réegles by the Commission in Opinions during inter-Congress periods should be reported to the next meeting of the Congress for incorporation in the Reégles it Ri He ee he a3 zs 74 proposal that, on interpretations of the Regles im Opinions adopted during an inter-Congress period being incorporated in the Régles, the Opinions in question should be siciaoe for all except historical purposes if ; 74 proposal that it should be made part of the procedure of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in using its plenary powers to suppress names, that, where the object of the action taken is to make available for one genus or species a name which has previously been applied to some other genus or species, the earlier of the names in question should be suppressed both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and also for those of the Law of Homonymy but that, where the object of suppressing a name is to make another name available for the genus or species concerned, the name to be suppressed should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority only, its status under the Law of Homonymy remaining unaffected... af ue 128 proposal that care should in future be taken to include in every Opinion an answer on each nomenclatorial problem sub- mitted in the original application and that, where in the case of any Opinion already rendered it was found that incomplete Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) answers had been given, the problem concerned should be re- submitted to the Commission with a view to its to its taking decisions on the issues previously left undecided proposal that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature place on record its disapproval of the practice of postponing the adoption of Opinions on the ground solely that the question at issue is controversial Opinion 1, proposal to amend the interpretation of the expression “indication,” as used in Article 25 in relation to generic names given in proposal to incorporate in the Régles interpretation given in, relating to the meaning of the expression “indication” as used in article 25 in relation to generic and trivial names, subject in the former case, to certain modifications proposal to remove an inconsistency in the interpretation of the expression “indication” as used in Article 25 given in Opinion 1 .. Opinion 2, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation given in, relating to the status of a name based upon a hypothetical form Opinion 3, proposal to incorporate in Article 26 interpretation given in, regarding the relative priority to assigned to the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus and other works published in 1758 a Ae Opinion 4, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation given in, relating to the status of names which, prior to being validly published with an indication had obtained currency either as manuscript names or as nomina nuda os Opimion 5, proposal to clarify and incorporate in Article 25 interpretation given in, relating to the status of names originally published prior to 1758 and subsequently repub- lished Bs it Ais ng - bah b, uF Opinion 6, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 interpretation given in, relating to the type species of a genus having a name 207 Page 138 32-36 79 131 78 80 78 80 von. 3 0 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological — Page Nomenclature: proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) published prior to 1st January 1931 originally published without a designated type species and with two (but not more than two) included species, where one of those species is later designated as the type species of a monotypical genus 83 Opinion 7, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 the interpretation given in, relating to the significance to be attached to the use of the expression “ n.g., n.sp.” at the time of the publication, prior to lst January 1931, of a name for a genus for which no species was designated as the type species . . ve a 81 Opinion 8, proposed cancellation of, because incorrect .. ze 20, 7G Opinion 9, proposal to cancel, as containing no effective decision 126 Opinion 10, proposal to clarify the interpretation given in, of Article 30 in relation to the type species of two or more genera established with identical limits and to incorporate in that Article the interpretation so clarified . . = i 82 Opinion 14, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Article 30 in relation to the validity of the selection of a type species in a case where an author, when selecting a type species, misidentifies the species so selected and to incorporate in Article 30 the interpretation, so clarified vt tt ne 83 Opinion 15, proposal to amend and extend the interpretation of Article 25 given in, in relation to the meaning of the expres- sion “‘ divulgué dans une publication ” a a 78, 100-102 Opinion 16, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 given in, regarding the type species of a genus established without a designated type species, where in the synonymy of one of the included species there was cited a pre- 1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as that selected for the generic name and to incorporate in Article 30 the interpretation so clarified as a .. 81-82 Opinion 18, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 given in, regarding the type species of a genus where one of the originally included species of a genus had a synonym, the trivial name of which was a tautonym of the generic name but that tautonymous trivial name was not cited ee ee: eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 209 Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological — Page Nomenclature: proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) at the time of the original publication of the generic name, and to incorporate in Article 30 the interpretation so clarified 81 Opinion 20, question whether the interpretation of the expression “nomenclature binaire,” as used in Article 25, given in, is correct .. Be oy < at +4 .f 20.80 Opinion 23, proposal to cancel, as containing an incorrect inter- pretation of the Reégles .. * a i ae sie 126 Opinion 24, proposal to cancel, as containing an incorrect inter- pretation of the Régles .. be 7 xg ~ i 126 Opinion 26, proposal to amend the interpretation of Article 19 given in, regarding the significance to be attached to the question whether evidence of an error of orthography or transcription or a printers’ error is contained in the original publication, and to incorporate in Article 19 the interpretation so amended ey a8 ¥- oy otk iis ie 76 Opinion 27, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 the interpre- tation given in, relating to the emendation of names based upon modern patronymics Bs bes i, ie 77 Opinion 29, proposal not to incorporate in Article 19 the inter- pretation given in on the subject of the emendation of names 76 Opinion 31, proposal that the erroneous decision in regard to the type species of the genus Columbina Spix given in, should be corrected in the manner acknowledged by the Commission in 1911 as being necessary, before the decision in that Opinion is transferred to the appropriate Schedule to the Regles --. 28 ass a Hy a xe ia 127 Opinion 32, proposal to cancel, because decision regarding the type species of the genus Sphex Linnaeus given in, super- seded by later decision to vary the type species of that genus under the plenary powers He a by :0 2 126 Opinion 35, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Article 30 given in, regarding the species eligible for selection as the type species of a genus for which no species was included under a binominal name by the original author and of a genus established as a substitute for such a genus, and to incorporate in that Article the interpretation so clarified .. 82 Vox. 3 02 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological — Page Nomenclature: proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) Opinion 36, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 the interpreta- tion given in, relating to the emendation of names .. ae 77 Opinion 37, proposed review of, in connection with the examina- tion of the meaning of the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binaire ” 80 Opinion 41, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 the interpreta- tion given in, regarding the emendation of names .. “he iii Opinion 43, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Article 25 given in, regarding status of a specific name described jointly with a new generic name and to incorporate in that Article the interpretation so clarified .. ie ra a si 80 Opinion 44, proposal to cancel, because superseded by decision in Opinion 89 i dt. 2. ae 23 ae it} 127 Opinion 46, proposal to clarify interpretation of Article 30 given in, regarding the species to be regarded as eligible for selection as the type species of a genus established without a Pare specified included species es . 83, 132 Opinion 47, proposal to clarify the interpretation of Rule (c) in Article 30 given in, regarding the type species of a genus not regarded by its author as monotypical but for which one species only was cited by that author ka 4 eh 81 Opinion 49, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation given in, regarding the status of names given conditionally 78 Opinion 51, proposal to amend and extend the interpretation of Article 25 given in, regarding the meaning of the-expression “ divulgué dans une publication”... a eS 78, 100-102 Opinion 52, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation given in, regarding the significance to be attached to the citation of a type locality in the description of a new species 80 Opinion 59, proposal to incorporate in Article 25 interpretation given, regarding the status of names appearing in advance separates be ee us se i a a if 79 Opinion 60, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 interpretation given in, regarding the emendation of names . . os aa 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 211 Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological = Page Nomenclature: proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) Opinion 61, proposal not to incorporate in Article 19 interpreta- tion given, regarding the emendation of names a ge 76 Opinion 62, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 interpretation given, regarding the eligibility of a species to be selected as the type species of more than one genus sb mn a 83 Opinion 63, proposal to incorporate in Article 19 interpretation given, regarding the emendation of names .. *: ¥. 17 Opinion 64, proposal to incorporate in Article 14 interpretation given in, regarding the eligibility of single letters as trivial names i 2 76 Opinion 65, see Opinion 168 Opinion 68 (type species of Pleuronectes), proposal that decision in, should be completed as soon as possible at he Bs. 127 Opinion 69 (type species of Sparus), proposal that decision in, should be completed as soon as possible sy Sie 4a 127 Opimon 74 (Apstein’s list of proposed nomina conservanda), pro- posal to cancel, except for historical purposes, the decision therein no longer having any practical relevance... Ne 127 Opinion 76 (Pyrosoma, Cyclosalpa, etc.), proposal to modify, because decision therein, in part, incorrect aus Bs Opinion 78 (name of Rocky Mountain Fever Tick), proposal that decision in, should not be transferred to a Schedule to the Regles, pending further examination of the problem by the Commission, the matter in the mean time to be regarded as sub judice .. bs. ae oe re ss * nt 128 Opimon 82, proposed completion of, by the addition of Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” 135 Opinion 83, proposal to cancel for interpretative purposes because interpretation of the Law of Homonymy givenin, will be covered by the new text of Article 35 now agreed upon 127 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological — Page Nomenclature: proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) Opinion 87, proposal to incorporate in Article 25interpretation given in, regarding the status of names appearing in proof sheets a oe ne ir Mt Ae ca et 79 Opinion 88, proposal to clarify the interpretation given in, re- garding the status of a generic name based upon a composite nominal species .. em a s aE ~ 80-81, 127 Opinion 92, proposal to correct the erroneous entry regarding the generic name Mabuya Fitzinger in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” specified in... a % 136 Opinion 97, proposal to clarify interpretation of Article 25 in relation to the names in Hiibner’s Tentamen given in, and to incorporate in the appropriate Schedule to the Regles interpretation so clarified ne 45 a 33 ti 128 Opinion 99 (Endameoba and Entamoeba), proposal that decision in, should not be transferred to a Schedule to the Régles, pending further examination of the problem by the Commission, the matter in the mean time to be regarded as sub judice .. 128 Opinion 102, proposal to incorporate in Article 34 interpretation given in, regarding the status of a generic name which is a homonym of a previously published name for an Order or higher category sus e ae es s s. 084, 22f Opinion 107, proposal to incorporate inthe Regles a part only of the decision in .. - she bs ve 4: sr 127 Opinion 113, proposal to correct erroneous date cited in .. a 127 Opinion 124, proposal to extend ruling in, relating to status of terms intermediate between generic and specific trivial names used by Linnaeus in 1758 to similar terms published by Linnaeus in other works and by Fabricius Ye “ 114 proposal to extend ruling in, to terms used by Hiibner (J.) between generic and specific trivial names in the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (vol. 1) .. .. 115-116 Opinion 125, see Opinion 148 Opinion 126, proposed deletion from, of misleading observations on the subject of neotypes.. ge iy be = 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 213 Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological — Page Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) Opinion 129, proposal that the name Bipinnaria Sars and other generic names specified in, should retain their status under Article 34 (and thus be ineligible for use in any part of the Animal Kingdom), ue Sanaa for the purposes of Article 25 ig 128 Opinion 133, proposal that this Opinion be repealed in view of the more complete restatement in Opinion 141 of the decision recorded therein ie. a te dts oni os 127 Opinion 138, proposed cancellation of, consequent upon the repeal of the provision of the Bake of which this Opinion gave an interpretation .. : =e pore Oe Opinion 141, proposal to incorporate in Article 4, partly as a substantive provision and partly in the form of two Recom- mandations of the interpretation of that Article givenin .. 75-76 Opimon 145, proposed incorporation in the Reégles of words giving effect to, and amplifying decision in, relating to Articles 34 and 35 BA a 4 a er .. 84-85 Opinion 147, proposed incorporation in Article 34 of the inter- pretation given in, subject to the deletion of the words “ of the same origin and meaning ” Me as Ns Be 84 Opinion 148, proposal to incorporate, in a modified form, in Articles 25 and 30 the rulings given therein in relation to the status of a generic name proposed as an emendation of a previously published name and the relation, under Article 34, of such a name to another identical name os ceat9, Si status of such a name in relation to a later published name consisting of the same word bi te as ~ 84 words “‘ of the same origin and meaning,” as used in, as gee not to be incorporated in the Régles us : vm 84 Opinion 164, proposal to incorporate in the Reégles provision in, that the type species of a genus is not liable change when a genus is united with another genus on taxonomic grounds .. 83 Opinion 168, proposal to incorporate in the Reégles provision in, that the author a genus is to be assumed to have correctly identi- fied the species referred by him thereto - nS a3 83 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : proposals relating to individual Opinions (continued) Opinion 172, proposal to incorporate in Article 30 the provision in, relating to the significance to be attached to the selection in a recording journal of the type species of a genus, the name of which was published prior to Ist January 1931 Opinion 183, proposal to incorporate in Article 8 of the provisions in, relating to the need for a generic name to be published in the nominative singular in order to acquire rights under Article 25 oe 2 at Opinion 191, proposed to incorporate in Article 25 of provision in, relating to the meaning of the expression “ publication ” with example drawn from Opinion 190 Organites, see Fossil fragments (organites and sclerites) Oxycanus Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed addition of, to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” papatasi Scopoli, 1786, Bibio, type species of Phlebotomus (emend. of Flebotomus) Rondani, 1840, proposed to be added to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” A ry be Phlebotomus, proposed emendation to, of Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 plenary powers of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature proposed amendment and extension of .. 17-18, 95, 118, 121-122, 158-159, plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio plexippus), proposed use of the plenary sther tet to Paina nate species to which the name, applicable Porina Walker, 1856, proposed rejection of Lamang for validation of, under the plenary powers ; .* 6 y Prescription, proposed recognition in the Régles of a Law of Page 84 76 78 136 137 136 159-161 137 136 158-161, 177, 178-179 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 215 Press Communiqué issued by the International Commission on Zoo- Page logical Nomenclature at the close of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology .. a wt 2 ei te 154 Primary Homonyms, see Homonymy Procedure of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomen- clature, proposed reform of procedure of Protozoan parasites of Man, nomenclature of, proposals relating to .. 162-163 Pseudo-genus, proposed recognition of, and definition of, in the Regles as anew category... e ne ~ é oe ST eG Psolos Treitschke, proposed emendation of, to Psodos . . € A 157 Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique : proposed amendments of general application : proposed elimination of grammatical inconsistencies. . ate 28 proposed elimination of confusion in certain cases between nomenclature and taxonomy .. 45 ag ie Be 28 proposed substitution of the singular, for the plural, number used for nouns employed in the Régles < bs < 92 proposed removal of verbal inconsistencies of drafting .. = 92 proposed removal of meaningless repetitive phrases... <2 93 proposed insertion of paragraph numbess in any Article consisting of more than one paragraph .. a: - ae 22 119 proposed subdivision into numbered paragraphs of any Article consisting of two or more sentences, each prescribing a separate provision * a ae on oe 119 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 3 (Latin the language of scientific nomenclature) : pro- posed insertion of a Recommandation reminding zoologists that, while classical Latin is necessarily the standard to which, so far, as possible, scientific nomenclature should conform, Latin remained a living language for many cen- turies after the close of the classical period and that later developments in the language should therefore be taken into account in interpreting this Article Article 4 (family names): proposed substitution of the word “théme ” (=stem) for the word “ radical ”’ (—root) proposed insertion of a Recommandation indicating how a family name should be formed from the stem of the name of the type genus proposed incorporation in, of interpretation given in Opinions 141 proposed addition of Recommandations drawing attention to two recommendations included in the “summary ” to Opinion 141 proposed addition of a provision prohibiting the use of words having the termination “~-idae” or “—inae”’, except for family and subfamily names .. proposed insertion of provisions dealing with the situation where application of this Article leads to the formation of two or more families with identical names proposed insertion of provisions dealing with the family name to be adopted when two or more families are united on taxonomic grounds Article 6: proposed amendment to provide that generic and subgeneric names are not to be treated as co-ordinate for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy proposed drafting amendment to co-ordinate text with Article 11 Article 7: proposed drafting amendment for the purpose of eliminating confusion between nomenclature and taxonomy Page . LO7-108 107 108 75 75-76 112 106 107 113 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Régles Fnternationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particulars provisions (continued) Article 8: proposed incorporation of interpretation given in Opimion 183 (regarding the need for generic names to be published in the nominative singular) proposed addition of a Recommandation urging authors to select short words as generic names proposed insertion of a provision to deal with names which, though published as though in the nominative singular, are in fact words in some other case or number . . proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors to avoid choosing for a generic name a word which, when pronounced, appears to be a word or combination of words in some language other than Latin proposed amendment of section (b) of the second Recom- mandation > proposed insertion of a corrected ‘*‘ example ” illustrating section (b) of the second Recommandation Article 11, proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors not to select as a trivial name for a species a word previously so published for a species in an allied genus Article 12, proposed drafting amendment to eliminate confusion between nomenclature and taxonomy Article 13, proposed redrafting of, to eliminate the option to use capital initial letters for certain classes of trivial names Article 14, proposal that a name formed in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its original author proposed incorporation in. of interpretation given in Opinion 64, regarding the status of trivial names consisting of single letters proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors to select short words as trivial names proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors not to select as trivial names words already so published for species in allied groups ~ 217 Page 86-87 97 110 113 119 76 87 98 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions: Article 14 (continued) : proposed insertion of a provision to assist authors in deter- mining the gender of generic names, so as to secure correct grammatical agreement therewith of adjectival trivial names proposed definition of the status of trivial names consisting of unchanged modern patronymics proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that a trivial name (like a generic name) may consist of an arbitrary combination of letters proposed definition of the status of a trivial name consisting of a phonetic representation of the initials of two or more persons proposed insertion of a Recommandation deprecating the selection, as trivial names, of words which, when pro- nounced, appear to be a word or words in some language other than Latin proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that, where a subspecific name is published in a list in which the trivial name is preceded by a serial letter, that letter does not form part of the trivial name in question Page . 108-109 110 110 110 110 133 proposed insertion of provisions clarifying the procedure to be followed in forming trivial names based upon various classes of patronymics proposed insertion of a provision clarifying the rules relating to the grammatical agreement of adjectival trivial names with generic names Article 15, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its original author proposed elimination of existing option to use hyphens for trivial names consisting of compound words proposed insertion of provisions relating to the orthography of trivial names consisting of compound words .. . 181-182 . 188-189 98, 184 . 185, 187 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 219 Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for Page the amendment or clarification of particular provisions (continued) Article 16, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its original author cf bo or proposed insertion of a Recommandation relating to the formation of geographical adjectival trivial names... 197 Article 18, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its original author .. Be $y i Pa i es 25 proposed insertion of a drafting amendment at the end of section (a) .. A he ies mo 7" ae 98 proposed insertion of a drafting amendment at the end of section (b) .. Sis ev $5 id oe iw 98 proposed insertion of an additional example at the end of section (¢) .. be me e% ae z a 99 proposed insertion of a drafting amendment at the beginning of section (d) a tf U3 a a te 99 Article 19, proposed clarification of the interpretation of, given in Opinion 26 regarding the importance in the emendation of names, of evidence afforded by the original publication, and proposed incorporation in, of interpretation so clarified .. 76 proposed incorporation in, as examples or otherwise, of interpretations of, given in Opinions 27, 36, 41, 60 and 63 (examples of cases where names should be amended) 77 Article 20, proposed insertion of a provision that a name formed in contravention of, be automatically corrected by later authors, retain its original priority and be attributed to its original author .. sy * ae is e arg 25 proposed clarification of provisions of Recommandation .. 198 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions (continucd) Article 22, proposed rejection of a proposal submitted by the late Dr. Arthur P. Jacot that this Article be deleted proposed deletion of the Recommandation relating to the abbreviation of the names of authors and the substitu- tion therefor of a revised Recommandation proposed amendment of provisions relating to the use of round brackets (parentheses) proposed insertion of an additional provision relating to the method to be followed in citing the author of a name, where the taxonomic unit named is described by one author but the description is coe sus another author a Be a : as Article 23, proposed rejection of a proposal submitted by the American Malacological Union that this Article be deleted proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that this Article applies only to changes of generic names and that, for the purposes of this Article, the use of, or the omission of, subgeneric names is irrelevant ; proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that round brackets (parentheses) are not to be placed round the name of an author, where a name originally published as a specific trivial name is later cited as the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of a species in the same genus and vice versa ce 22 Article 24, proposed substitution in the “example” of a name published by a binominal author for the name Png by a non-binominal author at present cited is Article 25, proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors to notify to the Zoological Record particulars of new names proposed definition of the status of a name based on a hypo- thetical form (Opinion 2) .. proposed definition of the status of a name published con- ditionally (Opinion 49) Page Cue 87 195 195 lll 110 110 87 49 78 78 ) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 221 Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for Page the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 25 (continued) proposed definition of the status of a name which prior to being published with an indication was in currency as a manuscript name (Opinion 4) or asa nomen nudum .. 78, 133 proposed definition of the status of a name introduced in a note in explanation of a photograph or figure distributed by an author (Opinion 191) ae af + aie 78 proposed definition of the status of a name appearing in a proof sheet (Opinion 87) .. 2 Sy! ES a proposed definition of the status of a name appearing in an advance separate (Opinion 59) .. si oe sa Spe proposed definition of the status of a name published as an invalid emendation of an earlier name (Opinion 148) 79 proposed definition of the status of a specific name, where the species so named is described jointly with a new genus (Opinion 43) .. ee a My _ se 80 proposed definition of the expression “ divulgué dans une publication,” in relation (a) to names published prior to 31st December 1950 and (b) to names published after that date ee! = seat ae a au, 18,; 104 proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors and editors to affix certain particulars to all zoological books and journals to facilitate determination of question whether work or journal concerned has been duly published... ei Se Ka te Kt, te 101 proposed transfer to, as a Recommandation, of the provision in Appendice relating to languages to be used for papers containing descriptions of new taxonomic units 102 proposed insertion of a provision that apparent new names arising from errors in recording journals possess no nomenclatorial status as such... ae =< ¥ 88 proposed insertion of a Recommandation deprecating the distribution of advance separates (Declaration 2) .. 95 proposed drafting amendments to eliminate meaningless repetitive phrases .. be * ys ai Es 93 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Réegles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for — Page the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 25 (continued) proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging that new names should be distinguished as such (Declaration 6) 96 proposed insertion of a Recommandation deprecating the publication of a name as a new name on more than one occasion (Declaration 6) .. ~ °g: oa a 96 proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging the insertion of exact particulars of date of publication of all. zoo- logical works and of all parts of zoological journals (Declarations 3 and 8)... :4 a a 2 96 proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors to give particulars of the position in the Animal Kingdom of all new taxonomic units described (Declaration 11) .. 96 proposed definition of the status of a name published either anonymously or over initials only S - 299. 008 proposed insertion of a Recommandation dealing with the question of the publication of new names in abstracts 102 proposed insertion of a Recommandation dealing with the question of the publication of new names in keys... 102 proposed insertion of provisions prescribing the method to be adopted in determining the dates of Bre of zoological works and zoological journals * 103 proposed insertion of a Recommandation advising authors as to manner of citing dates = ste fs .. 103-104 proposed insertion of provisions for determining the date of publication, for the purposes of priority, of a name where part of the description was published on one date and the remainder on a later date in the case of books or journals issued in parts... i wd .. 104, 116-117 proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the authorship to be attributed to a name published conditionally ee 111 proposed definition of the expression “ le plus anciennement designé” a ae se he os me 111 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 25 (continued) proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the authorship to be attributed to a name which, when first published with an indication, was already in currency as a manu- script name or had been previously published as a nomen nudum uf ss proposed insertion of a provision for suppressing trivial names found to be totally misleading proposed insertion of a provision defining the status of a holotype or of a lectotype in relation to a poor description proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the status of a generic name first published in a specific synonymy Article 25, Proviso (a), proposed amendment of definition of expression “ indication” given in Opinion 1 24, 32-36, 79, proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the significance to be attributed to the citation of a type ira aie in an original description (Opinion 52) 2 proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that the description of the work of an animal, as contrasted with the animal itself, constitutes an indication proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors, so far as possible, to avoid establishing new taxonomic units based solely upon the work of an animal proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that a generic name based on a figure is to be accepted as having been published with an indication in the case of names published prior to lst January, 1931 proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the significance to be attributed, in the case of a parasitic species, to the citation of the host species without any other particulars “ec Article 25, Proviso (b), meaning of expression “ nomenclature binaire,” draft Report stating that this expression has the same meaning as the expression “ nomenclature binominale ” and recommending that the latter expression should be substituted for the former 116 133 131-132 80 110 110 110 lll 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions: Article 25 (continued) meaning of the expression “ principes de la nomenclature binominale,”’ proposed definition of status of a pre-1758 name when subsequently ee (Opinion 5), proposed definition of 2 : te Article 25, Proviso (c), proposed amendment of the expression “definite bibliographic reference ”’ proposed amendment of the expression “definite un- ambiguous designation of the type species” proposed insertion of a Recommandation regarding method of citation desirable when a new generic name is published proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that the status of a specific trivial name is not adversely affected if the generic name in combination with which it is published is an invalid name proposed clarification of the point of time as from which Proviso (c) operative Article 26, proposed substitution of the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binominale ” for the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binaire ” proposed insertion of a provision clarifying the relative status of books published in 1758 (Opinion 3) .. proposed insertion of a proviso securing availability for names published in 1757 in Clerck’s Aranet svecici Article 27, proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that a specific name not invalidated by reason of the inclusion in the description thereof of descriptions of parts of two or more animals (Opinion 88) proposed adaptation of, to meet the nomenclatorial needs of polymorphic Protozoa Article 28, Report on the relative advantages of the “ first reviser ” and “‘ page precedence ”’ principles prepared re the aire at the request of the Commission Page 88 80 26, 80 26 . 104-105 109 80 . 173-176 80-81 106 . 124-125 : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions (continued) Article 30, proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that a nominal species originally described from parts of two or more animals eligible to be the type species of a genus (Opinion 88) é proposed insertion of a provision that the type species of a genus, the generic name of which was published as an emendation of a previously published generic name is automatically the same species as that which is the type species of the genus, the name of which is so emended (Opinion 148) proposed insertion of a provision that an author selecting a type species for a genus is to be assumed correctly to have identified the species so designated or selected (Opinion 14) A proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the method to be adopted for determining the species eligible to be selected as the type species of a genus established prior to 1st January, 1931, with no species distinctly referred thereto (provision corresponding to clarified version of Opinion 46) .. proposed insertion of a provision prescribing that a selection of the type species of a genus made in a recording journal is to be accepted (Opinion 172) proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that the type species of a genus is not liable to change when the genus concerned is united with another genus on taxonomic grounds (Opinion 164) proposed insertion of provisions making clear the extent to which this Article applies to generic names published subsequent to 31st December, 1930 81 81 83 83, 132 84 83 88 proposed adoption of drafting amendments for the purpose of _ eliminating confusion between nomenclature and taxonomy proposed elimination of the word “* Rule ” as applied to non- mandatory provision included in the Recommandation to this Article . 88-89 89 VOL, 3 BP? 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 30 (continued) proposed elimination of difficulties in drafting consequent upon using nouns in the plural rather than the singular proposed elimination of inconsistencies in drafting .. proposed insertion of a Recommandation deprecating the use of the expression “‘ genotype ”’ proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the method to be adopted for determining the species eligible to be selected as the type species of a genus, the name of which was first published in a generic synonymy Article 30, Rule (a), proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the significance to be attached to the use of the formula “n.g., n.sp ’ (Opinion 7) Article 30, Rule (c), proposed insertion of a provision that a genus is to be treated as monotypical when one species only is definitely referred by name thereto, irrespective of the intentions of the original author (Opinion 47) Article 30, Rule (d), proposed insertion of a provision that this rule applies to a generic name where one of the originally included species has a synonym, the trivial name of which is tautonymous with the generic name, even if that synonym was not cited in the original description of the genus (Opinion 18) proposed insertion of a provision that this Rule applies to a generic name when there was cited in thesynonymy of one of the originally included species a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name (Opinion 16) .. Article 30, Rule (e), proposed definition of the expression “‘ species inquirenda ” 4 is 4) Article 30, Rule (f), proposed insertion of a provision prescribing the species to be regarded as the type species, or as eligible for selection thereas, of a substitute genus, where either genus, when originally established, contain species which were recognisable but which were not on that occasion cited under binominal names where the names in question were published prior to lst January, 1931 (Opinion 35) Page . 133-134 81 81 81 81-82 119 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 227 Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for Page the amendment or clarification of particular provisions : Article 30 (continued) proposed insertion of a provision that, where prior to Ist January, 1931, a generic name is published as a substitute for a previously published generic name and no type species has been designated or selected for the genus bearing the earlier name, any of the species included in either genus is eligible for selection as the type species of the substitute genus (Opinion 35) a ses M, 82 Article 30, Rule (g), proposed insertion of a provision that, in the case of a name published prior to Ist J anuary, 1931, an originally included species not then cited under a binominal name is eligible for selection as the type species of the genus (Opinion 35) a a 2 a8 S. vy o“ 82 proposal that in the case of generic names published prior to Ist January, 1931, for genera with identical limits, where no type species was designated for either genus, any of the included species may be selected to be the type species of both or all of the genera concerned (Opinion 10) 82 proposed insertion of a provision that, in the case of two genera established prior to Ist January, 1931, a species included in both genera and which is the type species of one of those genera is eligible for selection as the type species of the other genus (Opinion 62) .. Ry) bt 83 proposed insertion of a provision that, where a genus is established prior to Ist January, 1931, with only two included species, neither of which was designated as the type species and one of those species is later designated as the type species of a monotypical genus, that action automatically constitutes the selection of the remaining species as the type species of the original genus (Opinion 6) 83 proposed insertion of a provision that the author of a genus is to be assumed correctly to have identified the species referred by him thereto (Opinions 65 and 168); :.. a} 83 proposed insertion of a provision making it clear that an author is to be treated as having selected a species to be the type species of a genus where he clearly states that the species in question is the type species, irrespective of whether the author concerned regarded himself as selecting a type species or believed that the species in question had previously been designated or selected as such afd pe = ba oe 49,53 proposed provision that the later published of any pair of secondary homonyms should be permanently rejected and replaced but that a name should not be so rejected and replaced if the species concerned are no longer considered to be congeneric a ee ihe sh 49-50, 53 proposed insertion of Recommandations urging authors rejecting and replacing primary or secondary homonyms to notify such rejection and replacement to the Zoological Record : 5, ' sh 49, 54 proposed insertion of a provision that subgeneric names should not be treated as co-ordinate with generic names for the purposes of specific homonymy and should therefore be disregarded in determining whether specific names are homonyms of one another... whe cat © (ay Be proposed insertion of a provision that subspecfic. trivial names are subject to the same rules as specific trivial - names both infer se and as between one specific, and one subspecific, trivial name .. be oy Bi 51, 53-54 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for Page the amendment or clarification of particular provisions: Articles 35 and 36 (continued) proposed insertion of a provision excepting the subspecific trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a polytypic species from the rules governing subspecific trivial names in relation to homonymy .. me es yb proposed deletion from paragraph (3) of Article 35 of the words ‘‘ of the same origin and meaning ” ..) ek, be proposed insertion of a provision that a trivial name is not to be rejected as a homonym by reason of the same word having been so employed in the same genus in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes (Opinion 145) .. 84-85 proposed insertion of a provision that a trivial name is not to be rejected as a homonym by reason solely of the same combination having been published by error in a recording journal ie ni nie e 5 fh “it 88 proposed insertion of a provision that a trivial name is to be rejected as a homonym where previously the trivial name of a species in the same genus has been emended so as to form a word identical with that of which the later published trivial name consists .. fs “44 4 90 proposed extension of the list given in paragraph (3) of Article 35 of names differing slightly from one another which should be treated as homonyms of one another 106 proposed incorporation, as a substantive provision, of the Recommandation hitherto attached to Article 36 regard- ing the relative precedence to be accorded to homonyms of equal date where one is a specific, and the other a subspecific, name i as mm *, of 113 proposed insertion of a Recommandation urging authors not to publish trivial names differing from trivial names of other species in the same genus solely by reason of being in a noun form or adjectival form, as the case may be 118 proposal that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should place on record its intention to use its plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes books or papers published by irresponsible or malicious persons for the deliberate purpose of creating secondary homonyms or providing opportunities for publishing new names. An i" a ae I Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposals for the amendment or clarification of particular provisions (continued) A ppendice, proposed insertion of an additional section relating to the transliteration of the Latin letters “‘ v ” and “i” proposed transfer to Article 25 of provisions relating to languages recommended for use when describing new taxonomic units Second Schedule (formerly Appendice), proposed deletion from, of provisions relating to type specimens hitherto placed between Sections A and B, consequent upon insertion in the Reégles of an Article containing expanded mandatory provisions in regard thereto se * proposed insertion of a Section prescribing the method by which words originally written in the Cyrillic alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet when such a word is made into, or made part of, a scientific name proposed drafting amendment in Section G .. proposal that the Second Schedule should be renumbered as the Third Schedule ae oe oe s Réegles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed addition of New Articles and New Schedules : (1) New Article recognising for nomenclatorial purposes the category “ infra-subspecific form ” and laying down rules governing this category of name and clarifying its relationship to the names of subspecies (Report prepared by the Secretary in accordance with request of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935) The foregoing proposed new Article includes provisions on the following matters : definition for nomenclatorial purposes of the ex- pressions “ infra-subspecific form”? and “ sub- species ” 3 alu “i infra-specific names to be classified as subspecific names or as infra-subspecific names by reference to the objective criterion provided by the manner of original publication .. 199 105 109 64 64 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed addition of New Articles and New Schedules : First New Article (continued) standard to be adopted for determining whether a given name is a subspecific name or only the name of an infra-subspecific form to be less rigorous in the case of names published prior to the entry into force of the proposed new Article than for names published after that date, the dividing line proposed being midnight, G.M.T., 31st December, 1950/1st January, 1951 standard to be laid down for determining whether a given name is a subspecific name to be a mini- mum standard, in order to prevent names from being invalidated for technical reasons but a Recommandation to be inserted ganar ine: ideal procedure to be aimed at , insertion of a Recommandation regarding the method to be adopted in citing a subspecific name at the time of original publication, in order clearly to distinguish such a name from an_ infra- subspecific name .. definition of relationship of infra-subspecific names to subspecific names and vice versa rules governing the transfer of a given trivial name from being the name of a subspecies to being the name of an infra-subspecific form and vice versa method to be followed in citing the name of a previously published infra-subspecific form insertion of a Recommandation regarding the method to be adopted in citing an infra- -subspecific name at the time of original publication application, subject to certain exceptions, to the trivial names of infra-subspecific forms of provisions in the Reégles relating to the trivial names of subspecies at grant to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of power to prescribe the use of uniform technical designations for parallel infra- subspecific forms occurring in groups of allied Page 64-65 66 67 67 67 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed addition of New Articles and New Schedules : First New Article (continued) o species, such technical designations to be used in preference to any trivial name previously published for such a form of any one of the species concerned and to render the words constituting those terms ineligible for use for other infra-subspecific forms in the genera to which the species concerned are referred (2) New Article defining the concepts “ holotype,” “ syntype,” “ lectotype ” and “ paratype’ (Article to replace non- mandatory provisions hitherto placed between Sections A and B of the Appendice) The foregoing New Article to include : a Recommandation urging authors describing a new species or subspecies clearly to designate one specimen to be the “‘ holotype ” and at the same time to publish certain specified particulars regarding that specimen .. a Recommandation urging zoologists naming new species or subspecies clearly to mark the holotype and to deposit that specimen in a Museum or otherwise to provide that it is safely preserved and accessible to students (3) New Article prescribing the method of naming the nomino- typical subspecies of a polytypic species . . (4) New Article declaring that Latin “ generic ” and “ trivial ” names given to monsters (e.g. Schistosome monsters) have no status in zoological nomenclature (5) New Article embodying the Plenary Powers Resolution of 1913, subject to certain amendments Supplementary provisions proposed to be inserted in the foregoing Article : special consideration to be given to applications sub- mitted for the use of the plenary powers in relation to names of importance in medicine, 233 Page 67-68 90-91 138 95, 118 veterinary science and agriculture. , ». 121-122 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed addition of New Articles and New Schedules (continued) plenary powers to be available for removing doubts as to how the Regles should be applied in par- ticular cases as well as for modifying their application. . (6) New Article recognising and defining a Law of Prescription (proposals submitted by Dr. H. Lemche and Professor P. Bonnet) .. 6h ai 158-161, 177, (7) New Article providing for the formation na orthography of names consisting of compound words of Greek or Latin origin .. (8) New Article providing against the use of a hiatus in the formation of trivial names consisting of compound words (9) New Article prescribing the procedure to be followed in the case of compound trivial names, where the first portion of the name consists of a letter of the Greek alphabet (10) New Article relating to the orthography to be adopted in the case of a trivial name consisting of a polymorphic word (11) New Article relating to the a eee to be attributed to emended names ; é (12) New Article prohibiting the use of names having a bizarre or otherwise objectionable meaning in any language (13) New Article prescribing the maximum length to be permitted for names (14) New Article prescribing the procedure to be followed in abbreviating the names of authors ' (15) New Article embodying the substance of the Code of Ethics - (Declarations 1 and 12) ee (16) New Article providing for the prevention of the misuse of the Regles for the purpose of giving political, religious or personal offence as (17) New Article deprecating the use of intemperate language in the discussion of zoological nomenclature (Declaration 4) .. (18) New Article prescribing the functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature oe £6 Page 178-179 . 185-186 186-187 188 190 . 191-192 . 193-194 195 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. hegles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed addition of New Articles and New Schedules (continued) (19) New Article prescribing the composition of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (20) New Article prescribing the form and scope of the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (21) New Article providing for the automatic cancellation of Opinions relating to individual names, on their contents being transferred to the Schedules established for the recording of such decisions ae + oe = (22) New Article prescribing the status of interpretations of the Réegles given by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Declarations (23) New Article specifying the procedure to be adopted in amending the Régles : = Be ie ; (24) New Article prescribing the title of the Regles, as amended by the Paris Congress re At 3 m? as (25) New Article prescribing the date of entry into force of the Reégles, as amended by the Paris Congress. . (26) New Schedule in which to be recorded all decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature under its plenary powers .. (27) New Schedule specifying the gender of Latin and Latinised Greek nouns for the guidance of zoologists in determining the gender of generic names ; (28) New Schedule in which to be recorded decisions on individual cases, taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, otherwise than under its plenary powers i ah at ue sae ibe (29) New Schedule containing the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ (30) New Schedule containing the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ i a eA ite ; Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed insertion at an appropriate point of a Recommandation urging authors to cite at least once in any given paper a bibliographical reference for names mentioned therein ra ms . 122-123 123-124 117 . 117-118 112 . 129-130 18, 125 109 125-126 126 126 96 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposais for the — Page completion of substantive French text, the preparation of an accurate English translation, the arrangements to be made for the preparation of revised text embodying decisions taken by the Paris Congress and for the verification and promulgation of that text! «6; a Ls i eR e om .. 28-31, 129-130 Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the meaning of the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire”’ as used in the Regles and action proposed for the amendment of the Régles in regard thereto, draft of .. a. wk sid .. 20-21 Report by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Thirteenth International Congress of geass onthe work - performed during the Congress, draft of .. .. 139-153 Secondary Homonyms, see Homonymy. sloant Daudin, 1803, Scincus, incorrectly stated in Opinion 92 to be the type species of the genus Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 ne 3 136 Schistosome monsters, proposed issue of a ruling that the use by Gurlt in 1832 of Latin ‘“‘ generic ’ and “ specific trivial ’’ names for, not in accordance with the Régles and that such names have no status in zoological nomenclature .. Ze rt us uh si 138 Sclerites, see Fossil Fragments (organites and sclerites). supergeneric groups, nomenclature of (communication by Professor R. Jeannel) ... Me ae ve a on “zi .. 164-165 Trivial Names in Zoology, suggested establishment of an “ Official List ” for age a aff ue re Be i sid 114 type specimens, terminology to be used for... ae ta reo varieties, nomenclature of, see Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, first proposed New Article vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, Musca, type species of the gue Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 .. is ae E rt “fs 135 work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature during the period 1936-1948, Report by the Secretary on a: 5 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 237 Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present Volume was published. Part No. Contents of Part Date of publication 1/3 T.P.—xxx, 1-—62 14th March, 1950 4/6 63—158 14th March, 1950 7/9 159—237 21st April, 1950 PURCHASED 12 APR 1950 Printed in Great Britain by Mercum & Son, Lrtp., at their Press at 8, Princes St., Westminster, London, 8.W.1. =a ac inter ai tae - the Co ‘aaa ar the Section nae chon aieneds: should b be addressed to the International ic eecacne and all inquiries ee the ree ok: work of ‘to oe Commission bis ape addres rapes me ee ieee ‘Soar Panga stats, Saar