st re Petia erke is rect bitad Pate aay TERS Terbcs Teltheae et P Liste baler ito ct ere Sishise i: of ehet. trae rer oe ’ r se gtseiwye lasers 218 see. [sere ¢ Nie parade ; aioe ti a sbeebs Steep rashes ys H ptiscdlicelpratags on i piaeah + oi Mott epcegeie sé, tire sete ‘ seth tos sUTegatezate af egeuees tihelateat iv ae ae cy ur PAH CTR RT NAINA coe IER IN Pi BREN. a ei Lie SR aE THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 9 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 Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoologieal Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1952—1956 (AW rights reserved) — III INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) (pp. 1-286 only) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiscke Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum wu. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) IV B. The Members of the Commission (continued) Professor Béla Hanké (Mezdégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y.., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) (exclusive of pp. 1-158) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) (exclusive of pp. 1-158) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only) Professor F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only) Professor Enrico Tortenese (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genoa, Italy) (16th December 1954) (from p. 351 onwards only) 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. Consulting Classical Advisor : Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, M.A., D.D. “Official Lists *’ Section : Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. “* Régles”’ Section: Miss A. F. Kerr, M.A. (from 18th July 1955) Administrative Officer: Mrs. 8. C. Watkins, M.A. (to 29th April 1955) Mrs. N. M. A. Guzelian (from 20th June 1955) Mrs. J. H. Newman Secretariat: < Mrs. J. Mantell Mrs. B. M. Weidema, A.L.A. Indexer : Miss M. Cosh, M.A. Translator: Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Elliott, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P. Managing Director and Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1 Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. FOREWORD The present is the fourth volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature wholly devoted to the publication of individual nomenclatorial problems submitted by specialists to the International Commission for decision. The immediately preceding volume in this series was Volume 6 which, apart from the concluding (index) part was completed on 29th August 1952. At that time the Office of the Commission had received a large number of applications relating to the nomenclature of birds, most of which had been submitted to the Commission by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature which had been established by the Tenth International Ornithological Congress at its meeting at Uppsala in 1950. Already before the completion of Volume 6 of the Bulletin it had been decided to publish these ornithological applications in a single instalment and the arrangements for this purpose were by that time well advanced. In consequence it was possible to publish this large first instalment of the present volume (on 15th October 1952) only seven weeks after the conclusion of Volume 6. This instalment which contained 31 applications was issued as a Triple-Part (Part 1/3). At that date comments had been received in the Office of the Commission in regard to a large number of applications previously published in Volume 6 and it was decided that special arrangements should be made for the publication of these comments as soon as possible in order that these might be readily available by the time that the Commission came to vote on the applications in question. Thus it was that the next instalment of the present volume, while containing only four new applications comprised no less than 59 comments on other applica- tions. This instalment which was issued as Double-Part 4-5 was published on 30th December 1952. Owing to the need in 1953 for concentrating all the resources of the Office of the Commission, first, on the preparations for the Session of the Commission to be held at Copenhagen in July of that year and, later, on the arrangements for the publication of the decisions on nomenclature taken by the Copenhagen Congress, it was necessary during that year to suspend publication of further instalments of the Bulletin dealing with individual problems of nomenclature submitted to the Commission for decision. This was the reason why, although two volumes (Volumes 8 and 10) of the Bulletin dealing with the amendment or clarification of the Régles which figured on the Copenhagen Agenda were published in 1953, no progress in regard to the present volume was made in that year. Work on the present volume was resumed early in 1954 and the next instalment (Part 6) appeared on 11th May of that year. Further Parts were published as rapidly as possible, the last VI Part (Part 11), apart from the index Part, appearing on 30th December 1954. At that date a number of earlier volumes either of the Bulletin or in the Opinions and Declarations Series still lacked their concluding index Parts. When these had been published work was begun on the corresponding Part of the present volume, which was published on 31st January 1956. 2. Attention must at this point be drawn to an apparent inconsistency in matters of terminology as between the first five and the later Parts respectively in which the present volume was published. This arises from the fact that the earlier Parts were published before the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which amended the Régles in regard to a matter of terminology. The change in question was the substitution of the expression “specific name” for the expression “ specific trivial name” to denote the second component of the binominal combination which constitutes the scientific name of a species. Consequential on this change the word “ Trivial ” in the title of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and in the title of the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology was dropped. 3. In two other respects also applications published in the later portions of the present volume differ from those included in the Parts published in 1952. The first of these arises from the decision by the Copenhagen Congress to establish an Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and an Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology for taxa of cate- gories of this group. The second of these differences flows from a decision by the above Congress to establish an Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and an Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. It is proposed later to make good by means of Directions given by the Commission any omissions under either of the above heads which occur in applications published in the present volume. In so far as may be possible proposals on these matters will be laid before the Com- mission in sufficient time to permit of the Commission’s decisions thereon being incorporated in the Opinions giving the Commission’s decisions on the applications in the present volume. In other cases proposals will be laid before the Commission separately with a view to the Commission’s decisions being embodied in Directions which will be incorporated in each case in the volume of the Opinions and Declarations Series in which the relevant Opinion is published. 4, The present volume which comprises 506 pages (T.P.—XXXV, i—xxix, 14—42) contains, in addition to the Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the years 1952 and 1953 with the Reports of the Committee of Management thereon and to the obituary of the late Dr. James Lee Peters, at the time of his death the President of the International Com- mission, 151 papers of which 70 are original applications submitted to the International Commission for decision and 81 are comments by specialists on applications submitted by other authors, Of these, 32 relate to applications Vil published in the present volume, and 49 to applications published in earlier volumes. 5. Of the 70 original applications one deals simultaneously with proposals relating to the status of individual books and with proposals relating to the status of individual names, and another deals simultaneously with individual names and with the proposed adoption of a Declaration. For practical purposes, therefore, the volume contains 72 applications submitted to the Commission for decision. Similarly 21 of the applications published in the present volume are applications submitted by two or more joint authors. When account is taken of this fact the number of applicants is found to be 123. 6. Of the 72 applications published in the present volume three asked for Declarations from the International Commission (or equivalent rulings) on the meaning of particular provisions in the Régles. Further, five applications relate to the status of names published in certain books. Thus the number of applications concerned exclusively with individual scientific names is 64. 7. The 64 applications relating to individual names published in the present volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as follows :-— TABLE 1 Distribution of applications by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class | Number of applications Ciliophora ~ Crustacea Insecta Gastropoda Cephalopoda Amphibia Osteichthyes Aves Mammalia _ iS) RON» PW Oe 4 Total Vill 8. When the 123 applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from specialists in the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) : TABLE 2 Distribution of applicants by country of residence Country of Residence | Number of applicant: Argentina Australia Czechoslovakia France Germany Japan Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America _— wonowr ke o-_ Total 9. Fifty-one (70 per cent.) of the applications published in the present volume are applications by specialists for the use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of promoting stability and universality in nomenclature and of preventing the confusion which, in the opinion of the applicants, would result from the application of the ordinary provisions of the Régles in these cases. Of these cases 49 were concerned with individual names and the remaining two with the status of individual books, Ix 10. The following table (Table 3) gives particulars of the proposals con- tained in applications published in the present volume for additions of names to the Official Lists relating to specific names, generic names, family-group names, and the titles of zoological works, and to the corresponding Official Indexes of rejected and invalid names and works : TABLE 3 Proposals for additions to the “ Official Lists’ and “ Official Indexes ’’ respectively Official Lists (valid names and works Official Indexes Category approved as available (rejected and invalid for zoological names and works) / nomenclature) Specific names 105 76 Generic names 64 230 Family-Group names 13 Titles of works Totals 11. Of the 81 comments published in the present volume, including comments incorporated either in the original application or in summaries later submitted by the applicant, six relate to more than one application. When account is taken of this fact, the total number of comments on applications is found to be 87. Of these one was a comment on a proposed Declaration and four were comments relating to the status of books. The remaining 82 comments relate to applications concerning individual names, x 12. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according to the Class of the Animal Kingdom to which the taxa concerned belong, the distribution of the comments is found to be as follows : TABLE 4 Distribution of comments on applications relating to names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of Comments Ciliophora Nematoda Crustacea Insecta Gastropoda Pelecypoda Cephalopoda Echinoidea Osteichthyes Amphibia Reptilia Aves Mammalia ns WNNONNRFKE NKR AOE Total (e2) bo 13. The 81 comments published in the present volume included four submitted by two or more joint authors. When we take this into account, we find the total number of specialists submitting comments amounted to 349. 14. When the authors of comments published in this volume are grouped by reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows ; TABLE 5 Distribution of authors of comments by country of residence of the authors concerned Country of Residence | Number of authors of comments Algeria Angola Argentina Australia Belgium Brazil Canada Chile Czechoslovakia Denmark Egypt Finland France Germany Guatemala Hawaii India Italy Japan Malaya Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Panama Philippines Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Trinidad Uganda Union of South Africa United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay Venezuela a Om oO Oh = bo OD We bob bo bo —_ 1 2 2 4 4 3 4 0 4 2 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 7 2 nO Oo m or ow ns ite) Total xi 15. For the preparation of the authors’ and subject indexes of the present volume the Commission is indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A., who succeeded Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc., in the post of Indexer of Publications on Ist January 1955. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. 1lth October 1955. TABLE OF CONTENTS International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1952 and Income and Expendh- ture Accounts for the year 1952, with Report of Committee of Management thereon xt ar #: aif ah Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1953 and Income and Expendi- ture Accounts for the year 1953, with Report of Committee of Management thereon a ue = se ee Establishment by the Tenth International Ornithological Congress of a Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. Letter dated 20th October, 1951, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chair- man of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress . . Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to put an end to the confusion arising from the discordant use of the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves). Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter- national Ornithological Congress a Enclosure : Proposals in regard to the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Report on the problems raised by the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. . ; Appendix 1: Application regarding the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, as revised in certain minor respects in agree- ment with the Chairman of the Standing Committee .. Appendix 2: Report on the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming in response to an invitation by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 .. the Bes Be Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name caspicus Hablizl, 1783, as published in the binominal combination Colymbus caspicus (Class Aves). Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress . . < as te a an Enclosure : The trivial name comprised in the specific name Colym- bus caspicus Hablizl, 1783. . : er “ Si xi Page iii 13 15 30 XIV Annexe to application : Extract from a paper entitled “ The earliest description of the Black-necked Grebe” published in the Ibis in 1948 ie Si a i ave ie Re Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress four trivial names for birds published by Anton August Heinrich Lichtenstein in 1793. Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornitho- logical Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. . Enclosure : Three trivial names published for birds by Lichtenstein (A.) in 1793 proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers Annexe to publication: Extract from a paper by Meise & Stresemann published in 1950 (Ibis 92 : 22-26).. Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name nortont- ensis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binominal combination Fringilla nortoniensis (Class Aves). Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter- national Ornithological Congress Enclosure: The trivial name comprised in the specific name Fringilla nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 = 3 Annexe to application: Extract from a paper entitled “ Birds collected in the North Pacific Area during Capt. James Cook’s last Voyage (1778 and 1779) ” (Stresemann, 1949, Ibis 91 : 244— 255) .. me = Ska a ss e, $3 ms Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress seven trivial names published by Gmelin in 1788 and 1789 for birds which until 1950 remained unidentified. Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress Enclosure : Seven trivial names published for birds by Gmelin in 1789 proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name elegans Gould, 1837, as published in the binominal combination Malurus elegans (Class Aves). By H. M. Whittell, O.B.E. (on behalf of the Checklist Committee of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union) .. ye ae ze ae ake = ‘i ok Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes a paper by Forster (J.R.) containing new names for certain Australian birds published in 1794 in volume 5 of the Magazin von merkwiirdigen neuen Reise Beschreibungen by Ernst Mayr (The American Museum of Natural History ; New York), Dean Amadon (Lhe American Museum of Natural History, New York); Jean Page 31 32 34 35 38 38 39 40 42 44 Delacour (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) ; L. Glavert (Natural History Museum, Perth, Western Australia) ; Robert Cushman Murphy (The American Museum of Natural History, New York); D. L. Serventy (Nedlands, Western Australia) ; H. M. Whittell, O.B.E. (Bridgetown, Western Australia) bd On the question whether it is necessary that the Plenary Powers should be used to suppress the trivial name novaehollandiae Latham, 1790, as published in the combination M uscicapa novaehollandiae, in order to make available the trivial name chrysops Latham, 1801, as published in the combination Sylvia chrysops (Class Aves). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N. omenclature) be Se ne; Support by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress for the proposals sub- mitted by Dr. Ernst Mayr and others for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes a paper containing new names for certain Australian birds published by Forster in 1794. Communication received from the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress a a bs Proposed emendation, under Article 19, of the trivial names of three species of bird which, when first published, were incorrectly spelt. Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. . Enclosure : Proposed correction of faulty orthography in the case of the trivial names of three species of bird. . * os ; Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Pyrrhocorax [Tunstall], 1771 (Class Aves) for the Chough. Applica- tion submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress . . f Enclosure 1 : Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Pyrrhocorax [Tunstall], 1771 Enclosure 2: Note, dated 25th September 1950, by Professor J. Berlioz (Muséum National d’ Histoire N aturelle, Paris). . On the application relating to the generic names Pyrrhocorax [Tunstall], 1771, and Coracia Brisson, 1760 (Class Aves), submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter- national Ornithological Congress. By Francis Hemming, 0.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) XV Page 45 47 50 oO bo 53 53 54 54 XVI Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name philo- melos Brehm, 1831, as published in the binominal combination T'urdus philomelos, as the trivial name of the Song Thrush. Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature of the International Ornithological Congress. . : Enclosure : T'urdus philomelos versus Turdus ericetorum On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the trivial name philomelos Brehm, 1831, as published in the binominal com- bination T'urdus philomelos, shall be oldest available name for the Song Thrush. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) .. Pye Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress three completely over- looked trivial names applied by Linnaeus to North American birds in 1776, together with an equally overlooked generic name published on the same occasion. Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress Enclosure 1: Application submitted by nine American ornitho- logists. E. R. Blake (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Ill.); H. G. Deignan (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) ; John J. Emlen, Jr. (Zoological Laboratory, University of Wisconsin); Alden H. Miller (California) ; Frank A. Pitelka (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley); A. L. Rand (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Ill.); Charles H. Rogers (Princeton, New Jersey) ; M. A. Traylor, Jr. (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Ill.); Albert Wolfson rib Western ee Evanston, Jil.) as Enclosure 2: Statement prepared i the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature ‘ d On the proposal by the Nomenclature Committee of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the Linnean names published in 1776 in the Catalogue of Edwards’s Natural History with special reference to the new names for birds. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) Annexe 1 : One new generic name for a bird by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History . Annexe 2: New trivial names for birds by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History Page 62 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 First Report on the species which under the Régles are the type species of certain genera of birds discussed, but left unsettled, in Opinion 16. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N. otnenclature) ume mt Appendix 1: Seventeen generic names in the Class Aves discussed but not settled in Opinion 16, now proposed to be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. . ee bs Appendix 2 : Seventeen specific trivial names, being the trivial names of the type species of the nominal genera enumerated in Appendix 1, now proposed to be added to the iets List af Specific Names in Zoology 7 Type species of certain genera of birds, discussed but left unsettled, in Opinion 16: support for proposals submitted in the Secretary’s Report. By Richard Meinertzhagen, D.S.O. (London) =e Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the trivial names of two Siberian birds. By James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative aoe at Harvard prin Le Mass., CO Baaiye ‘4 ; Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the name Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, shall be the oldest available name for the Passenger Pigeon, the type species of the genus Ectopistes Swainson, 1827. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) a Proposed correction in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of incorrect dates and bibliographical references given for the generic name Balaeniceps Gould, 1850, and for the name of its type species (Class Aves) (correction of an error in Opinion 67). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature) a, et a a Suggested review of the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the names Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, and Burhinus Illiger, 1811 (Class Aves). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ey fe ass : ; a da XVII Page 70 73 74 76 77 80 XVII Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress four generic names for birds published by Brisson in 1760 which have long been over- looked and which invalidate as homonyms four names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (correction of errone- ous entries in Opinion 67). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the name Gallinago Brisson, 1760 (Class Aves), and proposed substitution of Capella Frenzel, 1801, for Gallinago Koch, 1816, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (proposed correction of an erroneous entry in Opinion 67). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology of the trivial name syriacus Rothschild, 1910, as published in the combination Struthio camelus syriacus, the trivial name of the Syrian Ostrich (Class Aves). By R. Meinertzhagen, D.S.O. (London) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the name T'yrannula Swainson, 1827, and to designate a type species for Myiobius Darwin, 1839 (Class Aves). By John T. Zimmer eh American Museum i Natural History, New York) o: Support for the proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name 7'yrannula Swainson, 1827 (Class Aves). By the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter- national Ornithological Congress Request for a ruling that the trivial names of two woodpeckers, each consisting of a slight variant of a previously published name based upon a word transliterated into the Latin alphabet from a language using another alphabet, be treated as junior homonyms of the earlier names so published. vy the isahanaid Hachisuka bei Shizuoka Ken, Japan) é Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name cyanea Vieillot, 1818, as published in the combination Muscicapa cyanea, for the purpose of validating the trivial name cyanea Hume, 1877, as published in the combination Muscitrea cyanea (Class Aves). By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum ih Natural Eties New York) be : hy ‘ m Page 89 93 96 98 101 102 104 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name ferru- ginea Hodgson, 1845, as published in the combination Hemichelidon ferruginea, by the suppression of the trivial name ferruginea Merrem, 1784, as published in the combination M uscicapa ferru- ginea (Class Aves). By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) James Lee Peters : Obituary Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to correct an erroneous entry relating to the name Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 104. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) oe oe i On the action which it is desirable should be taken to correct the erroneous entry relating to the name Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 104. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The N. etherlands) .. a # Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the name Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (proposed correction of an error in Opinion 73). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Ge fe % : On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis ( Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The N etherlands). . Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By M. F. W. Tweedie (Raffles Museum and Inbrary, Singapore) Ag of: Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By I. Gordon, D.Sc., Ph.D. (British Museum (Natural History), London). . XIX Page 105 lll 113 118 119 121 121 12] xx Support for the proposed validation of the generic name Favus Lan- chester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) under the Plenary Powers. By Heinrich Balss (Hauptkonservator der apne 08 Staatsammlung, Miinchen, a.D., Germany) ; Proposed addition of the generic names Portunus Weber, 1795, and Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). . Support for Dr. L. B. Holthuis’s proposals relating to the generic name Portunus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name flavipes Olivier, 1795, as published in the combination Dytiscus flavipes (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Balfour-Browne, M.A. (Depart- ment of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, and to validate the generic names Acmaea Esch- scholtz, 1833, and T'runcatella Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda). By A. Myra Keen and Siemon W. Muller vit a net ers California, U.S.A.) : Support for the solution of the Acmea/Acmaea problem (Class Gastropoda) suggested by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. By Avery R. Test (Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.).. Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By B. J. Lempke (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) A comment on the proposed solution of the niobe/cydippe/adippe problem (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) by Jifi Paclt (Head of the Department of Biology, Forest Products Research Institute, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) Pe ‘Ss ie a ne — Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name adippe as published in the combination Papilio adippe by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Felix Bryk (Naturhistoriska Riksmusewm, Stockholm, Sweden) .. 122 127 128 130 130 131 131 132 Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers in connection with the trivial name adippe, as published by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 in the combination Papilio adippe (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By B.C. 8. Warren (Folkestone, England) .. Support for the action proposed in regard to the names involved in the niobe/adippe complex (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Wm. T. M. Forbes (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,U.S.A.).. x, Comment on the action proposed in relation to the trivial names involved in the niobe/cydippe/adippe complex (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera). By F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) s * eo Lb ay - ois mF Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers for validating the trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe in the Vienna catalogue of 1775 (Class Insecta, Order RR By Henry Beuret (Neuewelt, Basle, Switzerland) ais On the authorship to be attributed to the anonymous work published in Vienna in 1775 under the title Ankiindung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Ertan re. Francis Hemming, C.M.B., C.B.E. (London) “ : : sie Support for the action proposed in regard to the trivial names involved in the niobe/cydippe/adippe complex (Class Insecta, Order nee doptera). By Ernest L. Bell (Flushing, N.Y., U.S.A.) : Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe, as from Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera). By Eugene Munroe (Department a et ik Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) A : ve Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name adippe as published in the combination Papilio adippe by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera). By Elli Franz (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesell- schaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) c i Ue we % Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Ernst Mayr ti American Museum of Natural see New York) d a as XXxI Page 132 133 134 135 135 136 136 136 137 XXII “Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe, as from Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera). By Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural eon wee sig Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) bis : Support for the proposals relating to the trivial names involved in the niobe|cydippe/adippe complex and to the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order roe ae By Bryant Mather (Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.) .. 4% = a - J. Support for the action proposed in regard to the trivial names involved in the niobe/cydippe/adippe complex and in regard to the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By T. N. Freeman (Department Agriculture, Division a pega te Ottawa, Canada) 2 rs ty Support for the proposal submitted by Mr. C. F. dos Passos in relation to the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) . ~ Comment on Mr. C. F. dos Passos’ proposal relating to the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Eugene Munroe (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) Support for Mr. C. F. dos Passos’ proposals relating to the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order inant By L. P. Grey (Lincoln, Maine, U.S.A.) - Pe as is Support for the action proposed in regard to the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Karl P. Schmidt a Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) . si : Proposed wibetiijar of the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus (Class Nematoda). By Allen McIntosh (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Animal Industry, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) .. Page 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 14] XXIII On the problem relating to the name Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda) raised by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty. By John M. Lucker (Zoological Division, eet Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) : = ae e Bi ee On the trivial name to be used for the kidney worm of swine (Class Nematoda) : comment on proposal submitted by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty. By Harold W. Manter Set edi of Nebraska, Department of Zoology, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) . Comment on the application submitted by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty in regard to the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus (Class Nematoda). By Robert Ph. Dollfus (Laboratoire d’Helminthologie Coloniale et de Parasitologie Comparée, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) Support for Professor Harold E. Vokes’s proposal relating to the generic name Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda). By Joseph P. E. Morrison (Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) .. : Comment on Dr. Jiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name Sphinx Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By John G. Franclemont (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Comment on Dr. Jiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name Diloba Boisduval, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By John G. Franclement (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of te and Plant econ ge ap iganei DsCx U.S.A.) ' . d : Support for Dr. Gilbert Ranson’s proposal relating to the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Class Peleeypoda). By the Members of the Shell- fish Sub-Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.. Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and to validate, as from 1758, the terms employed by Linnaeus for groups of that genus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): proposed addition of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Jiti Paclt (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) .. ’ Page 143 143 144 144 144 145 145 147 XXIV Page Support for Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposals for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and to validate, as of subgeneric status, the terms then applied to groups of species of that genus. By Wm. T. M. Forbes (New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) 149 On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) and to validate, as of subgeneric status, certain terms then used by Linnaeus for sub-divisions of that genus : reply to certain criticisms made by Dr. Jiti Paclt. By John G. Franclemont (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., ii eo rat 149 Support for Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposals for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and to validate, as of subgeneric status, the terms then used to denote groups of that genus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Frederick H. Rindge (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) 151 Support for Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal relating to the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and matters connected therewith (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) .. gh 3) ae On the consequential action in regard to the generic name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) which would be needed in the event of approval being given to Dr. John G. Francle- mont’s proposal that the name J'inea should be validated under the Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) a as alte te na se: eee In support of the application to suspend the rules to (a) validate seven generic names of Linnaeus as of 1758, and designate their type species (b) suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, give preference to its typical subgenus Noctua, declare NocTUIDAE the correct name for the family, and (c) validate one generic name of Linnaeus as of 1767 and designate its type species (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Cyril F. dos Passos, LL.B. (Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York)... .. 158 Comment of Dr. Jiiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By John G. Franclemont (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of ssiidiuaiartt and Plant —inagetl Seyi DG. U.S.A.) “8 , Comment on Dr. Jiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name Pyralis Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By John G. Franclemont (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of seghstiaccin and Plant isi sii D.C., U.S.A.) , ‘ 5 . Support for the proposals submitted by Dr. Laurence M. Klauber regarding the trivial names atrox Baird and Girard, 1853, as published in the combination Crotalus atrox, and polysticta Cope, 1865, as published in the combination Caudisona polysticta, respectively (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata), By Howard K. Gloyd (The Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.).. Support for Dr. Laurence M. Klauber’s proposals for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial names atrox Baird and Girard, 1853, as published in the combination Crotalus atrox, and polysticta Cope, 1965, as published in the combination Caudisona polysticta (Class Reptilia). By C. B. Perkins (Zoological se of San Pi Balboa Park, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) . Support for Dr. Laurence M. Klauber’s proposals for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial names atrox Baird and Girard, 1853, as published in the combination Crotalus atrox, and polysticta Cope, 1865, as published in the combination Caudisona polysticta (Class Reptilia). By Edward H. Taylor (University of Kansas, Department of Zoology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) . Ne Support for the Gans/Loveridge proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830 (Class Reptilia). By Hobart M. Smith (University Oe Illinois, pet aa Are af Zoology, Urbana, Iliinois, U.S.A.) Support for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830, and to determine the identity of the species to which the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Coluber simus, should be applied (Class Reptilia). By James A. Oliver (Curator of Reptiles, New York Biren kina Zoological Park, New York) .. as : : phe XXV Page 154 155 155 156 156 157 XXVI Support for Dr. Richard A. Edgren’s proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to determine the application of the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Coluber simus (Class Reptilia). By Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) .. - Ae Support for Dr. Richard A. Edgren’s proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers in connection with the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Coluber simus (Class Reptilia). By Karl P. Schmidt and Clifford H. Pope oe Natural oh Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) oe Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine the species to which the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Coluber simus, should apply (Class Reptilia). By Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) 5% er Support for Dr. J. Wyatt Durham’s proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Mellita as from Agassiz, 1841 (Class Echinoidea). By H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) eA Soa ae te is es ae Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name browni Hutton, 1901, as published in the combination Drosophila brouni, for the purpose of preserving the specific name immigrans Sturte- vant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). Joint application by : Ernst Mayr (Curator, Whitney-Rothschild Collection, The American Museum of Natural History, New York) ; J. T. Patterson (Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas) ; Marshall P. Wheeler (Assistant Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas) ; Warren P. Spencer (Professor of Biology, College of Wooster, Ohio) ‘ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junc- tion, Colorado, U.S.A.) ie 2h 5% en i. ae Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Aphis pini and as interpreted by De Geer (1773) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) ae ve vi = Wa * ” Page 157 | 158 158 XXVII Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate, as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) a species in harmony with accepted nomencla- torial practice. By F.C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) Report on the application submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the generic names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) . . x Proposed adoption of a Declaration on the question whether the insertion of a mark of interrogation invalidates a designation of a type species for a genus made under Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Régles. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ite : Report on the status of new names published in Oken, [1815-1816], Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. By Francis Hemming, O©.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Appendix 1: Application relating to the status of the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood in May 1944 (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) ts ey. Ly a Appendix 2: On the system of classification used by Oken (L.) in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte of 1816. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring) : xg Ds ays ne ats Appendix 3 : On the question of the status of names in Oken, 1815- 1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 3 (Zoologie). By Angel Cabrera (Hua Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) = of Appendix 4 : On the question of the use of generic names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte (extract from a letter, dated 18th January 1947, from Mr. T. D. S. Morrison-Scott, Deputy Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) to the Secretary to the Commission) oe a On the need for validating the name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora) for use in its accustomed sense. By Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) we sf “% Page 174 184 188 193 202 204 206 208 XXVIII Report on the status of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Cilio- phora, Sub-class Ciliata). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N oimenclatife) Request for a ruling on the question of the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda). By Katherine V. W. Palmer (Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.).. On the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda), a genus established with no cited nominal species. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature) as ie Ne “ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Malenargia Meigen, 1828, by suppressing the name Agapetes Billberg, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order eR By Jiri Paclt (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) A cis - a a Support for Dr. J. Paclt’s proposal for the suppression of the generic name Agapetes Billberg, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) a Results of the Questionnaire on the proposed suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) by Meigen published in 1800 in the Nouvelle classification des Mouches & deux Ailes. By Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of ner and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : A request for the use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic names in Geoffroy (1762) in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta). By Alan Stone, C. W. Sabrosky, W. W. Wirth and R. H. Foote (Division of Insect Detection and Identification, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) iF x dhs if ar si oe Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Amphibia, Order Caudata). By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate (i) a neotype for the neminal species Ammonites mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813 and (ii) a type species for the genus Douvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By R. Casey (Geological Survey and Museum, London) .. ‘2 a Ne ard vy Page 214 219 219 221 222 225 241 247 250 XXIX Page Application for a ruling that works credited to S. A. Renier as of the dates 1804 and 1807 were not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles. By A. si Keen wiabininihi sidiciideh Stanford, California, U.S.A.) .. 257 Question whether it is desirable in the interests of nomenclatorial stability to validate under the Plenary Powers certain generic names from Renier, [1804], Prospetto, consequent upon the rejection of that work for nomenclatorial purposes. By Francis Hemming, O.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) .. ee a. in as a a anny ote Question of validating certain generic names under the Plenary Powers, in the interests of nomenclatorial stability as from Renier, [1807], Tavola, in the event of the rejection of that work for nomenclatorial purposes. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N: siitencaladhdye) of. .. 264 Supplementary application concerning the suppression of works by S. A. Renier (1804 and 1807). By L. R. Cox, M.A., Sc.D., F.B.S. ait Museum (Natural History), London) .. d : : 265 Proposed adoption of a Declaration that a generic or specific name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under Article 27 of the Regles and proposed suppression of certain such names under the Plenary Powers. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.RB.S. ripening University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) A . ” 266 Comment on the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda). By Katherine V. W. Palmer sisi gical Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y.,U.S.A.).. ‘ hi sd iy Je nme th 200 Support for the proposed validation of the generic name Strationys Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Maurice T. ; James (State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.).. 269 Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Xantho Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijomuseum van prsincaiatan Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) .. , Ke . ¥uete70 XXX Request that the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteich- thyes, Order Cyprinida, Family cyprrympa£) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Question of possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers to determine the gender of the generic name. By Reeve M. Bailey and Robert Rush Miller (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan) Objection to the Bailey/Miller proposal that the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes) should be treated as being of the masculine gender and counter-proposal that this name be accepted as being of the feminine gender. By Carl L. Hubbs (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) and W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) bs nie 3 :s te 4¢ < On the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) bs rts ; ~e 3 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to vary the type species of the genus Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), in order to validate existing nomenclatorial practice. By R. Casey (Geological Survey and Museum, London) and C. W. Wright, M.A. Proposed limitation to the purposes of the Law of Priority of the suppression of the name Argus Bohadsch, 1761 (Class Gastropoda) effected in Opinion 185, in order to prevent the confusion which would otherwise arise in the Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and Cyril F. dos Passos (Research Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, The American Museum of Natural History, New York) Support for the Hemming/dos Passos proposal for the suppression of the generic name Argus Scopoli, 1763 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By N. D. Riley, C.B.E. (British Museum (Natural History), London) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the specific name minimus Miller (J.S.), 1826, as published in the com- bination Belemnites minimus (Class Cephalopoda, Order Dibranchia). By H. H. Swinnerton, D.Sc. (Nottingham, England) . . Page 272 274 276 278 283 284 de cee Support for Dr. J. Paclt’s proposal to validate the generic name Melan- argia Meigen, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich M. Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) .. Comment on Professor Hobart M. Smith’s proposal relating to the generic name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Amphibia, Order Caudata). By Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washingion, D.C., U.S.A.) ae xe *. Support for Professor Hobart M. Smith’s proposal relating to the generic name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Amphibia, Order Caudata). By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Sencken- berg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Retirement of Dr. Joseph Pearson (Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) .. Election as Commissioners of :—K. H. L. Key (Canberra, Australia) ; Alden H. Miller (Berkeley, California, U JS.A.); Ferdinand Prantl (Prague, Czechoslovakia) ; Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Vienna, Austria) ; F. 8. Bodenheimer (Jerusalem, Israel) ; Ernst Mayr (Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) 33 xe Se as % Establishment by the Polish Academy of Science of a Group of Polish Zoologists to co-operate with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Letter dated 29th January 1954, from Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski, Member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission Report on the question of the generic name to be used for the Virginia Deer of North America and the Fallow Deer of Europe. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) shi i t : x Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of stabilising the name for the Virginia Deer. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, DS.C., M.A., D.Se. (British Museum (Natural History), London) oe Support for Dr. Morrison-Scott’s proposal relating to the name for the Virginia Deer. By Karl P. Schmidt (Chief Curator of Zoology), Colin Campbell Sanborn (Curator of Mammals), D. Dwight Davies (Curator of Anatomy), Bryan Patterson (Curator of Fossil Mammals), and Rainer Zangerl (Curator of Fossil Reptiles) (all of the Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U cw a ee is ™ XXXI Page 285 289 289 291 298 299 Xxx Counter-proposal to certain portions of Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott’s application regarding the stabilisation of the generic name for the Virginia Deer of America. By Angel Cabrera (Cuidad Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina). . ¥ if ibs ty es x0 Support for Dr. Morrison-Scott’s proposal relating to the name for the Virginia Deer. By Robert K. Enders Mae de Swarth- more, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) é ; d Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda). By Lothar Forcart (Custos, Zoological Department, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland) ye ip Fi a ve Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name Helt- cella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) for use in its accustomed sense. By A. E. Ellis (Epsom rain vee rete and R. Winckworth (London, England). . ; , Formica Linnaeus, 1758 : Report on proposed action, under the Plenary Powers, to give valid force to the decision taken by the Com- mission in Paris : action needed because of circumstances not then known to the Commission. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) Application for the re-examination and re-phrasing of the decision taken by the International Commission regarding the name of the type species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymen- optera). By I. H. H. Yarrow, M.A., Ph.D. (British Museum (Natural History), London) ee cap ae Support for Dr. I. H. H. Yarrow’s proposal for the re-phrasing of the decision taken by the International Commission regarding the name of the type species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758. By R. B. Benson, M.A. (British Museum (Natural History), London) ;G. E. J. Nixon, B.A. (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London); J. F. Perkins, B.Se. (British Musewm (Natural History), London) and O. W. Richards, D.Sc. anes pore a Science and tiga London) tea Page 299 300 301 304 309 313 318 XXXII Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Carinifex Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda). By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) ats aj 4: - ine Comment on Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr.’s proposal for the validation of the generic name Carinifex Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda) and an alternative proposal. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clatur. ) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the family-group name XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) es ee oe Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Discias Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) “ 23 a: 1; we be ap Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic names Upogebia Leach, 1814, and Processa Leach, 1815 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis i i useum van ot can Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the family-group names PROCESSIDAE and UPOGEBIINAE (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Noinenclature) Comment on the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Roy A. Harrison (Entomologist, Plant Diseases Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand) Comment on the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By E. B. Basden (Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, Scotland) : Support for the application to validate the name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans. By Erich Martin smyia hectic Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) { ef nia ai is Page 321 326 329 334 340 342 343 344 XXXIV Support for the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By F. Van Emden, D.Sc. pase apa Institute af nts London) “ d “8 ‘ ' Support for the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the com- bination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, Ph.D., D.Sc. map piel University, ae id Zoology, Cambridge) “9 Objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Caenisites Buckman (S.8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By L. F. Spath, D.Sc., F.RS. a Museum (Natural History), London) / Comment on the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Caenisites Buckman (8.8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By R. V. Melville, M.Sc. (Geological Survey and Museum, London) " - Re ae Ey a Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal relating to Caenisites Buckman (S.8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Helmut Holder (Institut und Museum fiir Geologie und lip peas der Universitat Tiibingen, Germany) z : ie i aya Support for the proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Caenisites Buckman (S.S8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By P. C. Sylvester- eee Leieeiais a Sheffield, Sheffield, England) F Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal relating to Caenisites Buckman (S.8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Otto H. Haas (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal for a Declaration that a generic or specific name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite be excluded from availability under the esi By C. W. Wright (London) . es aia , - a si Support for Professor Swinnerton’s proposal to validate, under the Plenary Powers, the specific name minimus Miller (J.S.), 1826, as published in the combination Belemnites minimus (Class sini Order Dibranchia). By C. W. Wright (London) .. Page 345 346 346 348 349 349 350 350 350 : | | XXXV Page Proposed rejection for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the second edition of Curtis (J.), 1837, A Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects or alternatively the proposed suppression of the above work under the Plenary Powers for the foregoing purposes. By C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.,U.S.A.) .. ae ne es Be lis Support for the Sabrosky/Blackwelder proposal that the second (1837) edition of Curtis’s Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects be rejected for the purposes of Article 30. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). . ie ng i a iS wey oae Corrigenda or sis ais ae ty . 3 ve Suey OO Index to authors of applications and of comments on applications .. 359 Subject Index .. Me ay Pe Se ce as 2. ss 4am Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published Me ee Ke i .. 441 Instructions to binders ‘i “is 4g Sa _ iS ee rae INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEARS 1952 AND 1953 Gat REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1952 (Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting) The year 1952 by its chequered character illustrates both the achievements which it is possible for the Trust to secure even without an assured income and also the embarrassments to which it is liable to be exposed by reason of being forced to rely for its operations almost entirely upon the income which it obtains from the sale of its publications. On the positive side the year was marked by a successful drive to secure the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of a large instalment of applications awaiting attention by the Commission. This is an aspect of the work of the Commission to which great importance is attached by the Trust, for the throwing-open of an application for discussion in this way constitutes a most important stage in its consideration and paves the way in most cases for the taking by the Commission of a decision six months later on the problem submitted to it for decision. The unsatisfactory feature of the year 1952 is that in it expenditure exceeded income and it was necessary therefore to draw upon the Trust’s reserves to meet the deficit so disclosed. Fortunately, as will be seen later in the present Report, this deficit was accompanied by circumstances which mitigated part of its seriousness. Nevertheless, the fact that there should have been any deficit is much to be regretted and demonstrates once again in an acute form the need for providing adequate funds for the discharge by the Commission of the duties entrusted to it. 2. Scope of the publications issued in 1952 : In 1952 the Trust continued the policy inaugurated in the previous year of pressing on with the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of applications on individual nomen- clatorial problems submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. At the same time the Trust took the first important step in connection with the preparations for the Session of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to be held at Copenhagen in July 1953 in connection with the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, devoting for this purpose a whole volume of the Bulletin. On the first part of this programme the Trust published seven Parts (Parts 5 to 11) of volume 6 of the Bulletin, thereby completing that volume, except for the concluding (Index) Part and in addition published five Parts (Parts 1 to 5) of volume 9. The Parts so published contained 74 applications. It will be seen therefore that during the year the Trust advanced a large mass of applications to the point at which, after the prescribed waiting period of six months the Com- mission will be in a position to take decisions preparatory to the adoption iv of a further large instalment of Opinions. The Trust attaches great importance to the furtherance of this side of the work of the Commission, since, if the judicial functions of that body are to command universal respect, it is essential that its procedure should be such as to enable it to reach decisions without the long delays which have often occurred in the past. In the year under review the Trust published also the concluding (Index) Part (Part 12) of volume 1 of the Bulletin. For the detailed indexes contained in this Part the Trust is indebted to Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc., who during the year joined the staff of the Commission in a part-time capacity in charge of the Indexes Branch. Under the second part of its Publications Programme for 1952 the Trust devoted a whole volume (volume 7) of the Bulletin to a series of detailed surveys prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, of seven major problems relating to the text of the Régles which the Paris (1948) Congress had decided should be the subject of special study with a view to the submission of Reports, with recommendations, to the next (Copenhagen, 1953) Congress. The purpose of these surveys was to call attention to the issues on which decisions would be sought from the Copenhagen Congress and to elicit the views of interested specialists as to the nature of the decisions so to be taken. In addition, there were included in this volume notes on twenty-eight individual nomenclatorial problems which had also been deferred by the Paris Congress, the purpose of these notes being to seek comments on the issues involved for the consideration of the Commission when it came to take decisions on the various questions concerned. Already also during the year 1952 the Trust decided to allocate a further complete volume for the publication of comments received on the problems discussed in volume 7 and of proposals on other matters relating to the text of the Régles which would need to be considered by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. The volume so earmarked was volume 8 and it was because that volume had been set aside for this purpose that, as already explained, the new volume containing applications for decisions on individual cases which was started during 1952 was allotted the volume number “9”’, instead of the volume number “8”. The total number of pages published during 1952 amounted to 646 pages (vol. 2, 86 pp. and 26 pp. of preliminary matter ; vol. 6, 352 pp.; vol. 7, 230 pp. and 4 pp. of preliminary matter ; vol.9,158 pp.). At this level the output of publications in 1952 was slightly greater than in 1951, when the number of pages published amounted to 608. No Opinions or Declarations were published in 1952, but, as has already been explained, the large number of applications published in the Bulletin during the year provided the basis for a large number of pub- lications of this class as soon as the Commission was in a position to resume this side of its work. 3. Income from the sale of publications : The income obtained from the sale of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (including the sale of back Parts) amounted in 1952 to £2,465 15s. 5d. At this level income under this head exceeded that obtained in any previous year with the exception of 1950, the year in which were published the three volumes (vols. 3, 4 and 5) of the Bulletin v containing the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session which had been in preparation since 1948 and had for the most part been printed in 1949. The income obtained under this head in 1952 exceeded that similarly obtained in 1951 (£1,968 13s. 2d.) by £497 2s. 3d. As already explained, no Opinions or Declarations were published in 1952, but sales of back Parts of these publications amounted during the year to £31 14s. 5d., a figure slightly greater than the amount (£30 6s. 10d.) obtained in 1951. The total income from the sale of publications in 1952 thus amounted to £2,497 9s. 10d. or £498 9s. 10d. more than the amount secured under this head in 1951. 4. Donations and Grants Received : During the year under review the Trust received a grant of £357 from U.N.E.S.C.O. through the International Union for Biological Sciences, and a donation of £25 from the Royal Entomo- logical Society of London. To both these institutions the Trust is happy to offer its grateful thanks. The total sum received under this head in 1952 (£382) exceeded the amount (£167 10s. 10d.) in 1951 by £214 9s. 2d. 5. Total Income in 1952: The total income of the Trust in 1952, made up of the foregoing items, amounted to £2,879 9s. 10d. or £712 19s. 10d. more than in 1951. 6. Administrative Expenses: During the year 1952 administrative expenses amounted to £569 2s. 3d., an increase of £42 13s. 4d. over the expendi- ture (£526 8s. 1ld.) incurred under this head in 1951. Expenditure on the salary of the part-time Publications Officer (£206 17s. 7d.) showed an increase of £29 11s. 5d. over 1951, while payments to part-time typists, which in 1951 amounted to £17 9s. 4d., rose in 1952 to £66 3s. 8d., an increase of £48 14s. 4d. The former of these increases was due mainly to a small increase made by the Trust as from Ist April 1952 in the salary paid to the part-time Publications Officer and, in part also, to a special gratuity paid to that officer at the end of the year in recognition of the great increase in the volume of work which she had been called upon to perform in 1952 as the result of the growth of sales of the Trust’s publications, and of the zealous manner in which she had performed her duties. The substantial increase in 1952 in the payments made to part-time typists as compared with 1951 was due to the fact that already by the autumn of 1952 special arrangements had to be made for the copying of the large number of documents received on matters connected with the meeting of the International Commission and of the International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in July 1953, for it was evident that, if, as was proposed, all these documents were to be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in the special volume (vol. 8) which, as already explained, the Trust had earlier in the year decided to allot to the documents required for the Copenhagen Agenda, it would be necessary to begin the publication of that volume early in 1953. Office Expenses in 1952 amounted to £275 1s. Od., or practically the same figure as in 1951 (£281 13s. 5d.). No 6 vi expenditure was incurred on official travelling in 1952. The fee paid by the Trust to its Auditor (£21) remained unchanged. 7. Depreciation of Office Equipment : During 1952 the sum of £20 9s. 5d. was devoted to covering depreciation of office equipment. The increase (£4 7s. 3d.) shown under this head is attributable to the fact that in 1952 it was necessary to buy an extra typewriter for the office of the Commission. The cost of this purchase is reflected in the increase shown in the Balance Sheet of the book value at cost of office equipment purchased since July 1948. 8. Expenditure on printing scientific publications : Expenditure on the printing of scientific publications in the year 1952 amounted to the sum of £2,828 17s. 3d. The whole of this expenditure was in respect of printing the Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature. This represents an increase over that so incurred in 1951 (£1,404 6s. 10d.) of £1,424 10s. 5d. Although this is an increase of more than 100 per cent. over 1951, it is important that it should be realised that the expenditure incurred in 1952 represents no more than the outlay involved in printing the quantity of publications which it was possible for the part-time Honorary Secretary to see through the press during the course of the year. It does not in any sense represent, and is indeed much less than, the annual outlay which would be required if the Commission possessed a staff adequate to meet the needs of its work and if in consequence it were possible to publish all applications as soon as they were ready and also to publish Opinions immediately after decisions had been taken on the questions involved. 9. Total Expenditure in 1952 : Total expenditure in 1952, made up of the items shown in the preceding paragraphs, amounted to £3,418 8s. ld. At this level expenditure exceeded that in 1951 by £1,471 1ls. As will be seen from the particulars already given, almost the whole of this increase is attributable to the vigorous Publications Policy pursued by the Trust in the year under review. 10. Balance carried down : Total Expenditure in 1952 (£3,418 8s. 11d.) exceeded total Income (£2,879 9s. 10d.) by £538 19s. 1d., which was accordingly carried down. At the beginning of the year the Income and Expenditure Account Balance stood at £2,767 7s. Sd. At 31st December 1952 this was reduced by the amount of the adverse balance brought down to £2,228 8s. 7d. 41. Balance Sheet as at 3ist December 1952: At 31st December 1952 Revenue Reserves amounted to £2,748 6s. lld. These Reserves consisted of the Income and Expenditure Account Balance to which reference has already been made, of the “ Official List > Suspense Account (£422 1s. 8d.) and of the Office Equipment Reserve (£97 16s. 8d.). The last two items were the same as at 31st December 1951, while, as already explained, the first of these items was less by the amount by which in 1952 expenditure exceeded income (£538 19s. 1d.) than the level at which this Balance stood at the end of 1951. 4 ai ati eee ee -e vii Other liabilities consisted of the provision of £1,000 made in previous years for the publication of the revised edition of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, and the liabilities in respect of sundry creditors (£1,522 14s. 9d.). Total liabilities at the end of 1952 thus amounted to £5,271 1s. 8d. On the other side of the Balance Sheet, the fixed assets belonging to the Trust, valued at cost less depreciation, stood in the books at £184 5s. Od. This represents an increase of £39 5s. 7d. over the position at 3lst December 1951, and reflects the expenditure incurred during 1952 on the purchase of a new typewriter, less the amount by which during the year the total fixed assets were written off on account of depreciation. Current assets at the end of 1952 amounted to £5,086 16s. 8d. This latter sum consisted of two items. The first of these was a sum of £675, which represented the estimated value of the amounts due to the Trust in respect of publications sold, but not already paid for, by 3lst December 1952. As in previous years, the estimate made for this item was based upon the book value of the sales in question, from which an appropriate deduction was made in respect of possible bad debts. The level at which this item stood in the Balance Sheet at the end of 1952 exceeded that at the end of 1951 (£250) by the large sum of £425. This increase was attributable not to any relaxation in the efforts made by the Trust to secure prompt payment of monies due to it but to the fact that two large Parts of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (vol. 2, Part 12 and vol. 9, Part 4/5) were published so late in December 1952 that payments by subscribers could not be expected before the close of the year. The second item consisted of the sum of £4,411 16s. 8d., being the balances at the bank and cash in hand at the end of 1952. 12. Situation disclosed by the Accounts for 1952 : The situation disclosed by the Accounts for the year 1952 is encouraging in the sense that the great increase in income from the sale of the Trust’s publications, representing, as it does, not so much an increase in the volume of sales as a great increase in the total output achieved, affords gratifying evidence of the success of the efforts made to advance the consideration of a large number of applications now awaiting attention by the Commission. From the financial point of view however the situation disclosed by the Accounts affords an unpleasant reminder of the extremely precarious basis on which through lack of an assured income the Trust is forced to conduct its operations. In all essential respects the year 1952 was similar to the year 1951 but in the current year a net loss was incurred on the Trust’s Income and Expenditure Account, whereas in 1951 a profit was secured. This was entirely due to the different course taken by the production and sale of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In 1951 the Publications Programme was set at a relatively low level, the last Part to be published appeared well before the end of the year and at 31st December the amount of work in progress in the hands of the printer was small. Tn consequence, virtually the whole of the expenditure incurred on the Bulletin in that year was immediately remunerative in the sense that income from the sale of the units published was obtained during the year under account. In viii the year 1952, however, the position was quite different. The Publications Programme was set at a much higher level and sales were correspondingly higher. Throughout the year there was a steady flow of papers for the Bulletin passing to the printer and the year ended with a large amount of work — in progress. This block of work represented a liability incurred by the Trust to its printer and it was necessary therefore to include the amount involved in the Income and Expenditure Account as part of the expenditure incurred on the production of the Bulletin. Such expenditure is recovered at the time when publication takes place but, when it is incurred in one year and pub- lication does not take place until the following year, it represents a purely nugatory expenditure in the year in which it is incurred, for no return is obtained for in that year. It will be seen therefore that the loss shown in the Income and Expenditure Account for 1952 is largely formal in character. Never- theless, the fact that it is necessary to record a loss in the foregoing Account for 1952 is very unsatisfactory. It brings into striking relief the difficulties involved in attempting to maintain the output of publications at a high level without an assured income sufficient to make it unnecessary to rely upon sales for the day-to-day financing of current work. 13. Prospect for the Year 1953: Looking forward to the year 1953, the Trust finds itself confronted with a difficult prospect. For the last four years zoologists and palaeontologists in all parts of the world have been anxiously awaiting the meeting at Copenhagen in 1953 of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at which it is hoped that decisions will be taken on the questions relating to the reform of the Régles which were left unsettled by the Paris Congress of 1948. Already the Trust has taken important measures in preparation for the Copenhagen Congress, notably by publishing a whole volume (volume 7) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature specially devoted to the major problems of nomenclature which are to be discussed by that Congress and by earmarking a further volume (volume 8) for the publication of other documents which have been submitted for consideration at that meeting. If, however, these and other documents are to be handled in an orderly fashion at Copenhagen and generally acceptable solutions are to be devised, it will be essential that detailed preparations should be taken in advance to this end. So great is the importance of these considerations that the Trust has in mind to convene a special Colloquium on Zoological Nomen- clature to meet at Copenhagen a week or ten days before the opening of the Congress, in order to provide an opportunity for the dispassionate discussion of the intricate problems on which the Congress will be called upon to take decisions. While in 1953 as in previous years it may be hoped that the cost of publishing the volumes of the Bulletin involved will be met by income obtained from sales, it is certain that a heavy expenditure will be involved in organising the proposed Colloquium. The Trust has reason to hope that the International Union for Biological Sciences and U.N.E.S.C.O. will contribute towards the cost of the Colloquium within the limits imposed by their respective budgets, but it is faced nevertheless with the certainty that the expenses in ix connection with this meeting which it will be necessary for it to meet from its own funds will be substantial and cannot possibly be defrayed from current income. In other words, the arrangements which have been set in train for the completion of the reform of the Régles by the Copenhagen Congress are bound to involve an expenditure which it will only be possible for the Trust to meet by drawing upon its small accumulated reserves. The reform of the Régles is however a matter of such cardinal importance that the Trust does not doubt that in incurring this expenditure it will have the support of all zoologists. At the same time the Trust is of the opinion that it is essential that the attention of zoologists should be drawn in the most serious manner to the imperative need for providing an assured income for financing the work of the Commission. For if such provision is not made it can only be a matter of time before the whole Commission system will collapse through lack of funds. Even today it is possible to maintain the work of the Commission only by reason of the subsidies in the form of unpaid service and of free office accommodation provided by Mr. Hemming, the Honorary Secretary to the Commission. It is the intention of the Trust to appoint a strong delegation to attend the Copenhagen meetings for the purpose of placing before the zoologists there assembled the need for grappling with the financial and ad- ministrative problems involved in maintaining the work of the Commission. 14. Presentation of the Accounts for the Year 1952 and Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1952: With the foregoing explanations and with the serious warning set out above, the Committee of Management submits herewith to the Trust and, through the Trust, to the general body of zoologists the Accounts for the year 1952 and the Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1952. In doing so, the Committee of Management desires once again to record its thanks to Mr. Francis Hemming, the Honorary Managing Director of the Trust and its Honorary Secretary, for the services rendered by him during the year and also to the Trust’s part-time Publications Officer, Mrs. C. Rosner, who has continued to show great interest and assiduity in her duties. Finally, the Committee of Management wishes to thank the Auditors of the Trust, Messrs. W. B. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants, and their representative, Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, for the constant assistance rendered during the year under review. Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7, England. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR Incorporated under the Companies BALANCE SHEET— 1951 - £ £ a a £ «. d. Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)— 422 “ Official List ’? Suspense Account ere .. 422 1 8 98 Office Equipment Reserve et Aen aif 9716 8 2,767 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 2,228 8 7 3,287 waa ———— 2,748 6 ll . Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code— ‘International Code (Publication) ’” Suspense 1,000 Account (per separate account) Ra San 1,000 0 0 Liabilities— 1,815 Sundry Creditors ate he Bie ae 1,522 14 9) £6,102 £5,271 1 8 SS ————— We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income — our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by the — Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1952, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view of the | Fryspury Crrcus Houses, BLoMFIELD STREET, Lonpon, E.C.2. 9th April 1953 ee ee DOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) Ist DECEMBER 1952 Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— Book Value at 31st December, 1947 (being for the purpose of the Companies Act, 1948 the 112 value at Ist July 1948) ... : PLE LIANG 98 . Additions since at Cost ~~ ue te ISAS iS 210 269 15 9 Less : Depreciation— 49 to 3lst December 1951 RSS Ae ee” 16 for year to date... Ae 20 9 5 65 — — — 85 10 9 _—— ————. 184 5 0 Current Assets— 250 Amounts due for Publications, ete., valuedat ... 675 0 0 5,707 Balance at Bank and Cash in Hand .... ... 4,411 16 8 5,086 16 8 (Note :—Stock of Publications not valued) FRANCIS HEMMING Members of the Committee FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN of Management. £5,271. 1) 8 ssary-for the purposes of our audit. In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears Bod Expenditure Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of Companies Act 1948 in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the Excess of Expenditure over Income for the year ended on that date. (Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. Income and Expenditure Account fo 1951 INCOME : £ £ fc > 8. (a. £. s..d9 To Sales of publications— ; 30 Opinions and Declarations Mad ee 3114 5 1,969 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature woo 2,465 "90 2 1,999 — ——_——- 2,497 9 10 25 », Donation ; 25 0 0 » Grant from U. N. E.S. C. O. per eee Pavel 142 national Union for Biological Sciences as 357 0 0 ,. Balance carried down being Excess of Expen- — diture over Income for the year... oe 538 19 1 £2,166 £3,418 8 11° ee ET 219 To Balance brought down oe ioe ee —-— — 2,548 », Balance at 3lst asics 1951 brought forward a an as 2,167 7 8 £2,767 £2,767 7 8 ** Official List ’ £422 To Balance at 3lst ee 1951 Sigh forward “2 . £422 1 8 To Balance at 3lst pian 1951 bia £98 forward tes : £97 16 8 “International Code (Publ To Balance at 31st eect a 1951 eee £1,000 forward se £1,000 0 D ee 1951 £ £2,767 £422 nent Reserve £98 Suspense Account he year ended 3ist December 1952 EXPENDITURE 8. d. By Administration Expenses— Salaries— £177 Publications Officer ... 206 17 7 17 Stenographer Secretary... 66 3 8 Travelling Expenses... Office Expenses Audit Fee , Depreciation of Office Equipment iat Publications—Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature... tise Bib eta ae Ane , Balance carried down, being Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year = 9 By Balance brought down ,. Balance carried to Balance Sheet By Balance carried to Balance Sheet By Balance carried to Balance Sheet xiii Ose Ge 273 1 3 275 1 0 21 0 0 569 2 3 20 9 5& 2,828 17 3 £3,418 8 11 638 19 1 2,228 8 7 £2,767 7° 8 ——Se £422 1 8 £97 16 8 ee £1,000 0 0 ee xV FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1953 (Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting) The year 1953 witnessed the culmination of the preparations for tne Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature which in 1951 the Trust had decided to convene to meet at Copenhagen in July 1953 for the purpose of examining in detail all proposals submitted for the reform of those portions of the Régles, the consideration of which had been deferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for decision by the next (Fourteenth) Inter- national Congress at its meeting at Copenhagen in the year under review. It was always realised that the organisation and holding of a large international gathering such as the Colloquium and the publication of the decisions to be taken by the Congress in the light of the recommendations submitted to it by the International Commission in the light of the conclusions reached by the Colloquium would involve a heavy expenditure far beyond the capacity of the Trust to bear from current income and that it would only be possible for it to meet this expenditure by granting a subsidy towards the cost of the Colloquium from the Trust’s general reserves. This anticipation proved to be fully justified. = 2. Form of Account adopted for presenting particulars of the expenditure incurred on the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, Copenhagen, 19538 : Special consideration has been given by the Committee of Management as to the form of account in which particulars of the expenditure incurred by the Trust on the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature can most conveniently be presented. Either of two possible courses could have been adopted. First, it would have been possible to include in the Trust’s Income and Expenditure Account a single item showing the net expenditure incurred by the Trust on the Colloquium, the item so entered being supplemented by a separate state- ment giving detailed particulars showing the elements of which that item was composed. The second course would have been to distribute the various items concerned between the sub-heads adopted in the main Income and Expenditure Account under which the expenditure of the classes concerned are normally shown. The Committee of Management has adopted the first of these courses, partly because it provides a better and more detailed picture of the expenditure incurred on the Colloquium and partly because, by separating that expenditure from the normal expenditure incurred in the year under review, it affords a basis for comparing this latter expenditure with corres- ponding expenditure in previous years which would otherwise have been lacking. Xvi 8. Scope of the Publications issued in 1953 : Throughout the year 1953 the entire resources of the Office of the Commission were devoted, first, to the completion of the preparations for the Colloquium arranged to be held at Copenhagen in July of that year and, later, to the editing and publication of the volume containing the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomen- clature taken at Copenhagen by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology following the close of the meetings of the Colloquium. In consequence, no items belonging to the ‘‘ Opinions ” Series and no Parts of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature containing applications on individual cases submitted for decision were published in 1953. In the seven-month period January July there was published however a large number of Parts of the Bulletin devoted to one aspect or another of the Agenda for the Copenhagen Colloquium. In addition, the last day of the year witnessed the publication of the work entitled Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature which contained the Official Record of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress. 4. Publication in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’ of the Agenda for the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature summoned to meet at Copenhagen in July 1953 : It was decided in 1952 to devote a whole volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to the publication of the documents to be submitted to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature which the Trust had decided to convene to meet at Copenhagen in July 1953 immediately before the opening of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology. The volume so allotted for this purpose was volume 8. Later, the Trust took the view that, if the whole of the large documentation was to be printed in time to be considered before the opening of the Colloquium, it would be desirable to divide the documents so as to form two volumes of the Bulletin and to employ different printers for these volumes. Under this decision the documents for the Copenhagen Agenda were divided between volumes 8 and 10 of the Bulletin. At various dates in the earlier part of the year 24 Parts of the Bulletin, comprising a total of 796 pages, were published in connection with the Copenhagen Meetings. It has been gratifying to the Trust to learn that the ample documentation so provided was warmly welcomed by the zoologists attending the Copenhagen discussions and constituted a material factor in securing the due understanding by the Colloquium, the Commission and the Congress of the complicated issues involved. 5. Publication in December 1953 of the work ‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ’’ : Immediately after the close in August 1953 of the meeting of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, work was started on the editing of the document recording the outcome of the discussions at Copenhagen. In form that document was a Report by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In view however of the fact that all the meetings of the Colloquium were held jointly with the Commission, the Report adopted formed a Report by the Commission as well as by the Colloquium. XVil This Report was unanimously approved and adopted by the Copenhagen Congress at its Final Plenary Session held on 12th August 1953. While it was not possible to recast this document to constitute a direct record of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress it was decided to publish it under a title which would make it quite clear that the provisions set out in it were not only the recommendations of the Colloquium but were also the Official Record of the decisions taken by the Congress. At the same time it was considered that, as this work would inevitably be widely quoted, it was desirable that it should be given a convenient short title as well as a longer and more explanatory sub-title. It was with these considerations in mind that it was decided to publish this work under the title :—‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ’’, with the sub-title ‘“‘ Additions to, and modifications of, the Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, August 1953”. In view of the importance of placing this work in the hands of zoologists at the earliest possible moment it was decided by the Trust that in the second part of the year all other work should be put on one side in order that the preparations for its publication should be pressed forward with the utmost despatch. At the same time the Trust engaged the good offices of its printers, Messrs. Metcalfe & Cooper Ltd., to expedite the actual process of printing to the full extent practicable. As the result of these efforts this book was published very rapidly, appearing on 3lst December 1953, i.e. within a period of four and a half months of the date on which it was approved by the Copenhagen Congress. 6. The price fixed for the work ‘“‘ Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ’’ : In the past it has sometimes been argued that if only the Trust were to issue its publications at low prices and in large editions the demand would be so stimulated that a financial loss would be avoided. The Trust however has always taken the view that the subject matter of its pub- lications is so specialised that demand is extremely inelastic and therefore that the adoption of a policy of the kind described above would be bound to lead to substantial financial loss. The Trust has felt however for some time that this was a matter which ought to be put to the test at the first convenient oppor- tunity. When considering the question of the price to be charged for the Copenhagen Decisions, the Trust took the view that no more favourable oppor- tunity could be found for testing the elasticity of demand for publications on zoological nomenclature, for, in view of the fact that this work was concerned with important developments in the Régles, it was certain to excite much wider interest than either the Bulletin or an Opinion dealing with some specialised . problem relating to nomenclature in a particular group in the Animal Kingdom. The Trust accordingly decided to fix the price of this book at the nominal figure of five shillings. This figure was deliberately selected in order to determine the number of copies of an important work on zoological nomenclature which it would be possible to sell if that work were to be placed on the market at a very low price. It remains to be seen by how much demand will be stimulated by the price charged and therefore the amount by which sales will exceed xviii the normal level for Parts of the Bulletin and for Opinions. Even if, as the Trust expects, sales, though noticeably higher than the ordinary level, fail to reach a total sufficient to recoup the printing costs involved, the publication of this particular work at this cut price will have served a useful purpose by bringing the decisions of the Copenhagen Congress before a wider circle of zoologists than would otherwise have been possible. 7. Income from sales of publications : During the year 1953 income from the sale of the current volumes (volumes 8 and 10) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, supplemented to some extent by the sale of back sets, amounted to £2,754 2s. 3d., an increase of £288 6s. 10d. over the amount secured in 1952. Income from the sales of “‘ Opinions” amounted only to £8 6s. 8d., a decline of £23 7s. 9d. as compared with the previous year. It seems evident that further substantial sales of this series, the last item of which (Opinion 194) was published as long ago as 1947, are not to be expected until the publication of a further instalment of Opinions stimulates the demand for items already published. Sales of the Copenhagen Decisions amounted to £28 8s. 10d. Total income from the sale of publications during the year thus amounted to £2,790 17s. 9d. 8. Donation received from the Royal Entomological Society of London : The Trust desires gratefully to acknowledge the receipt during the year of a gift of £25 from the Royal Entomological Society of London and at the same time to express its appreciation of the manner in which over a long period of years this Society has shown its interest in the work of the International Commission not only by making annual gifts to the Trust but also by itself submitting numerous applications to the Commission for stabilising the names of important genera of insects on the British List. 9. Gift received from Mr. Francis Hemming : During the year Mr. Francis Hemming made available to the Trust a sum of £1,736 11s. 8d. as a contribution to its general funds. Mr. Hemming asked that the money so provided should be used by the Trust for the purpose of clearing-off arrears of work in the Office of the Commission. The Trust desires to express its warmest thanks for this benefaction which is by far the largest single gift ever received for the furtherance of its work. 10. Grant received through the International Union for Biological Sciences from U.N.E.S.C.0. : No grant was made during the year by the International Union for Biological Sciences and U.N.E.S.C.O. towards the general expenses of the Trust but a very valuable contribution amounting to £713 19s. 10d. was received from this source towards the cost of organising the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature convened by the Trust to meet at Copenhagen in July 1953 immediately prior to the opening of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology. As explained in paragraph 2 of the present Report, it has been considered that it would be more informative if a separate statement xix were to be submitted showing the expenditure incurred in connection with the Colloquium, the same statement showing also the sources of the funds from which this expenditure was met. Accordingly for the purposes of the main Income and Expenditure Account for the year under review, the gross expen- diture incurred on the Colloquium has been shown as a single item of expendi- ture, the net expenditure incurred by the Trust being obtained by the deduction from the foregoing figure of the grant received from the International Union (paragraph 15 below). 11. Total Income in 1953 : Total Income in 1953, made up of the income obtained from the sale of publications (paragraph 7), the donation received from the Royal Entomological Society of London (paragraph 8) and the bene- faction received from Mr. Hemming (paragraph 9), amounted to £4,552 9s. 5d. At this level income exceeded that in 1952 by £1,672 19s. 7d. As will be seen from the particulars given above, this difference is due, apart from the increase in income from sales, to differences between the amounts received by way of gifts in 1952 and 1953 respectively. 12. Administrative Expenses : Expenditure incurred on salaries and wages amounted in 1953 to £235 9s. 5d., a reduction of £37 11s. 10d. on the expenditure similarly incurred in 1952. This was due almost entirely to the fact that the copying of documents for inclusion in the Agenda for the Copen- hagen Colloquium was approaching completion by the end of 1952 and in consequence the expenditure on typing assistance in 1953 was considerably less than it had been in the previous year. It will be noted also that expendi- ture on salaries in 1953 included a small sum in respect of salary paid to the Administrative Officer appointed near the close of the year (paragraph 20 below). Normal Office Expenses, that is, expenses other than those incurred in con- nection with the preparations for the Colloquium, amounted in 1953 to £185 19s. 6d. This represents a reduction of £89 1s. 6d. on the expenditure incurred in 1952. This difference is however mainly formal in character owing to the fact that in 1952 office expenses incurred in connection with the prepara- tions for the Colloquium to be held in 1953 were not shown separately, being included with normal office expenses. Expenditure on postage was also much less in 1953 than in 1952 owing to the much smaller number of Voting Papers issued to Members of the Commission. During the year the Trust approved an increase of ten guineas in the fee paid to its auditors in recognition of the increase in the amount of work involved in the audit owing to the growth in the volume of sales of its publications and, in particular, in the number of individual transactions to be examined. Expenditure incurred under this head in 1953 accordingly amounted to £31 10s. Od. Total Administrative Expenses thus amounted in 1953 to the sum of £452 18s. 1ld. For the reasons explained above, this was less than the expenditure similarly incurred in 1952 by the sum of £116 3s, 4d. xx 13. Depreciation of Office Equipment : During the year 1953 the sum of £18 8s. 6d. was appropriated towards depreciation of office equipment. This was slightly less than the amount (£20 9s. 5d.) so appropriated in 1952. 14. Expenditure on printing scientific publications : Expenditure on the printing of scientific publications in 1953 fell under two heads :—(1) expenditure on printing further instalments in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of applications submitted to the Commission for decision ; (2) expenditure incurred in the printing of (a) the volumes of the Bulletin (volumes 8 and 10) containing the Agenda for the Copenhagen Meetings and (b) the work Copen- hagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, the volume containing the Official Record of the decisions taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. The expenditure incurred under this latter head is included in the general Copenhagen item in the accounts (paragraph 15 below). Thus, the only item in respect of the printing of scientific publications shown in the main Income and Expenditure Account is one of £684 10s. 1ld., which was entirely in respect of work in hand in connection with the printing of normal instalments of the Bulletin. If it had not been for the decision to include in the Copenhagen Account the expenditure incurred on the Colloquium volumes of the Bulletin, the total expenditure on the pro- duction of the Bulletin in 1953 would have appeared as £2,728 16s. 2d. At this level expenditure on the Bulletin in 1953 fell short of that in 1952 by almost exactly £100. 15. Net expenditure incurred on the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen- clature, Copenhagen, 1953 : The total gross expenditure incurred in connection with the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held at Copenhagen in July—August 1953 amounted to £3,482 2s. 9d. Towards this expenditure the Trust received a grant through the International Union for Biological Sciences from U.N.E.S.C.O. of $2,000 which realised the sum of £713 19s. 10d. The net expenditure incurred on the Colloquium by the Trust from its own funds thus amounted to £2,768 2s. 1ld. Full particulars of this expenditure are shown in the Colloquium Statement annexed to the Accounts. By far the largest single item of expenditure was that incurred on printing, which amounted to £2,664 10s. 6d. This consisted (a) of a sum of £2,044 5s. 3d. incurred on the printing of the two volumes (volumes 8 and 10) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature containing the Agenda for the Copenhagen Meetings, and (b) of an item of £620 5s. 3d. incurred on the production of the work Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature. In addition, a sum of £183 16s. 9d. was expended in the production of mimeographed documents for use by the Collo- -quium. Some of these documents were prepared in London prior to the opening of the Colloquium but most of them were prepared in Copenhagen during the meetings of that body. These latter documents were for the most part both written and reproduced at night in order that they might be available for the morning meeting of the Colloquium on the following day. The Trust is much indebted to the Typing Agencies in Copenhagen for their co-operation in xxi securing that the documents concerned were always available for the meeting at which they were required. The grant received from the International Union for Biological Sciences provided that in approved cases it might be used for making grants in respect of locomotion expenses incurred by zoologists attending the Colloquium. Use of the authority so granted was made only sparingly by the Trust, the total number of grants made amounting only to five. In four cases, these took the form of lump sum payments, while in the fifth, which was made on compassionate grounds, the grant made represented actual locomotion expenses between the United States and Copenhagen. The total sum expended on these grants amounted to £277 18s. 4d. The remaining items are all con- cerned with the establishment and maintenance of a temporary Office for the Commission and the Trust at Copenhagen during the sittings of the Colloquium. This group of items include payment of salary to a Staff Officer specially engaged for the duration of the Colloquium, a fee to a translator for translations of the correspondence reproduced in Part 2 of the work Copenhagen Decisions, casual typing assistance, subsistence allowance paid to the staff of the Secre- tariat while in Copenhagen, locomotion expenses between London and Copen- hagen, stationery and office requisites purchased in Copenhagen, postage and minor miscellaneous items. 16. Balance carried down: Total Income in 1954, including the gift made by Mr. Hemming, amounted to £4,552 9s. 5d. and Total Expenditure to £3,924 Is. 3d. The accounts accordingly show an Excess of Income over Expenditure amounting to £628 8s. 2d. which was carried down. For the purposes of comparison with previous years it would be reasonable to exclude from account the gift received from Mr. Hemming, both because of its large size and because of the wish expressed by the donor that this gift should be used for clearing-off arrears of normal work in the Office of the Commission. Accordingly, if the sum in question (£1,736 lls. 8d.) is ignored for the present purposes, normal income in 1953 is seen to have amounted only to £2,815 17s. 9d. Thus, if it had not been for the gift referred to above, there would have been an excess of expenditure over income of £1,108 3s. 6d. in 1953 instead of the excess of income over expenditure of £628 8s. 2d. shown in the accounts. In other words, the total net contribution made by the Trust to the expenses of the Colloquium (£2,768 2s. 11d.) could have been met by the Trust to the extent of £1,660 9s. 5d. out of its income for the year, while for the remainder (£1,108 3s. 6d.) it would have been necessary for the Trust to draw upon its Reserves. 17. Balance carried to Balance Sheet : The balance at 3lst December 1953 of the Trust’s Income and Expenditure Account amounted to £2,228 8s. 7d. At the end of the year this figure was increased by the excess of income over expenditure (£628 8s. 2d.) to £2,856 16s. 9d. During the year however the Trust had approved an increase of ten guineas in the fee payable to its Auditors not only for the current year (paragraph 12 above) but also retrospectively Xxii for the year 1952. Accordingly, the Balance of the Trust’s Income and Ex- penditure Account carried to the Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1953 amounted to £2,846 6s. 9d. 18. Expenditure from the “ International Code (Publication) ’’ Suspense Account : During the year 1953 a sum of £188 ls. 6d. was paid from the ‘International Code (Publication) *’ Suspense Account to the draftsmen by whom had been prepared the draft of the Régles as revised by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The balance in this Account which at the beginning of the year had stood at £1,000 was thus reduced to £811 18s. 6d. 19. Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1953: At 31st December 1953 the Trust’s total Revenue Reserves amounted to £3,366 5s. ld. This sum was made up of:—(a) the “ Official List’ Suspense Account, balance, £422 ls. Sd.; (b) Office Equipment Reserve, £97 16s. 8d.; (c) Income and Expenditure Account, balance, £2,846 6s. 9d. (paragraph 17 above). At the same date the provision made for the publication of the revised text of the Regles amounted to £811 18s. 6d. (paragraph 18 above). In addition, liabilities to sundry creditors (mostly to the Trust’s printers) amounted to £2,029 17s. 10d. On the other side of the Balance Sheet, Fixed Assets, less depreciation, were valued at £165 16s. 6d., while Current Assets amounted to £6,042 4s. 1ld. This latter item consisted of sums due to the Trust for publications valued at £193, and of the balance at the bank and cash in hand amounting to £5,849 4s. 11d. 20. Retrospect and Prospect : The year 1953 was one of great achievement in the field of zoological nomenclature, for in it the Congress at Copenhagen completed the revision of the Régles begun by the Paris Congress in 1948. For the success so achieved the Trust may claim credit both for having made the preparations and other arrangements which rendered that success possible and for having published the volume containing the decisions of the Copen- hagen Congress within a few months of the close of that meeting. The long period of preparation for the Congress and the consequent preoccupation with problems relating to the text of the Régles has necessarily led to delays in dealing with individual applications submitted to the Commission for decision. In particular, there has been a long period in which no Opinions have been published, although the Commission has taken a large number of decisions on individual cases which are awaiting promulgation in Opinions. It is the inten- tion of the Trust to concentrate upon this side of the work of the Commission in 1954. The large gift made to the Trust by Mr. Hemming for the purpose principally of dealing with arrears will enable the Trust to engage salaried staff to whom it will be possible for Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, to delegate a considerable part of the work which he has hitherto had to undertake and thus make it possible for him to concentrate his attention on the portion of the work which must be performed by him personally. A start in this direction — XXiii was made by the appointment in December 1953 of Mrs. Sheila Watkins to the newly established post of Administrative Officer. Already Mrs. Watkins has made her presence felt by relieving Mr. Hemming of various administrative duties, and this in turn has made it possible for him to complete a first instal- ment of Opinions embodying hitherto unpromulgated decisions taken by the Commission. The volume of work so performed may be judged by the fact that during the last eight months of the year Mr. Hemming, while remaining an Honorary Officer, has nevertheless been working regularly on a whole-time basis. 21. Presentation of the Accounts for the Year 1953 and Balance Sheet as at 3ist December 1953 : With the foregoing explanations, the Committee of Management has pleasure in presenting to the Trust the Accounts for the Year 1953 and the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1953. Mr. Francis Hemming has continued to discharge the duties of Managing Director and Secretary in an honorary capacity and the Trust is much indebted to him for the services so rendered which have been exceptionally onerous in the year under review, involving, as they have, the making of all the complex arrange- ments involved in holding the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature at Copenhagen and the establishment in that city of a temporary office for the duration of the Congress. The Trust is much indebted also to Mrs. C. Rosner, its Publications Officer, who has handled the greatly increased volume of work in the Publications Office with her accustomed care and enthusiasm. Finally, — it is desired to express on behalf of the Trust, its sense of obligation to its Auditors, Messrs. W. B. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants, and to their representative, Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, for the help and advice which they have at all times been ready to give during the year under review. Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7, England. Xxiv INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR © Incorporated under the Companies Ans Balance Sheet— 1952 ; aa: £ EU AS one £ —s. d Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)— 422 ** Official List ’’ Suspense Account Be BMAD 98 98 Office Equipment Reserve ¥E Bet ete D7 LG: 78 2,228 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 2,846 6 9 2,748 ——————— 3, 366 5 1 Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code— ‘International Code (Publication) ’? Suspense 1,000 Account (per separate account) edi i 811 18 6 Liabilities— 1,523 Sundry Creditors 2,029 17 10 £5,271 £6,208 1 5 We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by the Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1953, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view of the Finspury Circus Hovusr, BLOMFIELD STREET, Lonpov, E.C.2. 24th August 1954, xXXV ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) S8ist December 1953 1952 £ £ Sse di 2 ne Bs Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— 112 Book Value at Ist July 1948 cz ae 111 17 157 Additions since at cost ae i ‘are 157 18 269 269 15 9 Less Depreciation— £65 to 3lst December 1952 ww. - £86. 10" 9 20 for year to date ac a8 18 8 6 85 — —————=— 103 19 3 184 — 165 16 6 Current Assets— 675 Amounts due for Publications ete. Valued at ... 193 0 0 4,412 Balance at Bank and Cash in Hand ... ... 5,849 4 11 5,087 — ——_———. 6,042 4 1] (Note :—Stock of Publications not valued) FRANCIS HEMMING Members of the Committee FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN of cea £5,271 £6,208 1 5 necessary for the purposes of our audit. In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears and Expenditure Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of Companies Act 1948 in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year ended on that date. (Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants, Income and Expenditure Account for 1952 INCOME : £ £ £ aide $i) sed: To Sales of Publications— 31 Opinions and Declarations 56 ots 8 6 8 2,466 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature woe DhOe: 2 18. Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological _ Nomenclature oe ae ore ne 28 8 10 2,497 —— —————— 2,790 17 9 25 ;, Donations cae sag 30 ae ae 1,761 11 8 » Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. per the Inter- 357 national Union for Biological Sciences __... —-_—— » Balance carried down being Excess of Expen- ~ 539 diture over Income for year ee i —_-—— £3,418 £4,552 9 5 —- To Balance brought down hades ais Se 628 8 2 » Balance at 3lst December 1952 brought 2,767 * forward 2;228° S87 £2,767 £2,856 16 9 ** Official List ”’ To Balance at 31st December 1952 brought £422 forward £422 1 8 Office Equip To Balance at 3lst December 1952 brought £98 forward ie oy as ae ve £97 16 8 “International Code (Public To Balance at 3lst December 1952 brought 1,000 forward 1,000 0 0 £1,000 £1,000 0 0 i i ‘ the Year ended 31st December 1953 1952 EXPENDITURE £ £ £ 3s.d. By Administration Expenses— Salaries— £207 Publications Officer ... pier) | ORL =< BLES 66 Stenographer Secretary... 19 16 9 — Administrative Officer “F 10 9 0 273° —— 278 Office Expenses 21 Audit Fee 569 20 Depreciation of Office Equipment .. “ Publications—Bulletin of aan No- 2,829 menclature a. Colloquium on Zoological Nictnica slain Copenhagen— Expenditure Conese are ee and Decisions) . Less Donations per the Thighaitional —_— Union for Biological Sciences ... Balance carried down being Excess of — Income over Expenditure for year £3,418 539 By Balance brought down oo ;, Additional Audit Fee 1952 ... 2,228 ;» Balance carried to Balance Sheet £2,767 Suspens Account 422 By Balance carried to Balance Sheet ment Reserve £98 By Balance carried to Balance Sheet ation) ’’ Suspense Account — By Expenditure during year £1,000 »» Balance carried to Balance Sheet £1,000 8. 235 9 185 19 6 3110 0 713 19 10 XXvIl 5 452 18 11 18 8 6 684 10 11 3,482 2 9 2,768 2 11 628 8 2 £4,552 9 5 10 10 0 2,846 6 9 £2,856 16 9 £422 1 8 £97 16 8 188 1 6 811 18 6 £1,000 0 0 XXVIil INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR | Colloquium on Zoological INCOME Stace: £) . sik Donations— U.N.E.S.C.O. (per the International Union for Biological Sciences) 357 0 0 The International Union for Biological Sciences... es «oo, 006 19250 —————__ 713 19 10 Contribution by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2,768 2 11 £3,482 2 9 We have examined the foregoing statement with the books and vouchers Fiyspury Circus Hovuss, BLoMFIELD STREET, Lonpon, E.C.2. 24th August 1954. ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Nomenclature—Copenhagen 1953 EXPENDITURE Sirs Sa Salaries and Fees— Staff Officer re site he ea this Sis sis as 28 11 Translator (Fee)... Be ee ae Pe ae as Sigs 2 2 Typing Assistance Bt =e sled aes Sas aoe es 14 10 Subsistence Allowances— (Staff of Secretariat) Locomotion Expenses : Aireraft passages (Staff of Colloquium) ae soe sn oi CLA 0 Excess Baggage (documents for Colloquium) aa wate O56 34 16 Cars to and from air terminal and taxicabs between Secretariat and Colloquium ... ey Sake aa Bee See on oe 12 18 Grants to Members of the Colloquium (travelling and subsistence) ... Stationery and Office Requisites... Reproduction of documents for meetings of Colloquium Postage Printing : Agenda of Colloquium (Bull. zool. Nomencel., vols. 8 and 10) ... 2,044 5 Decisions of Colloquium aes ie aa sis ape Facey JOZO eo _ Official Hospitality - Miscellaneous ON ae > of the Trust and certify it to be in accordance therewith. ee XxXix d eA 0 45 310 103 17 0 0 6 161 14 10 Pv inel lhe are © tears “ee | 183 16 9 6 15 Il 3 3 2,664 10 6 15 14 10 tea 7-2 £3,482 2 9 (Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. VOLUME 9. Triple Part 1/3 "YESS -15th October 1952 f/ \" pp. 1-106. \\ ' }j THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 : Page Editorial Note regarding the arrangements made in regard to the Subjects to be dealt with in volumes 8 and 9 respectively .. 1 Notices prescribed by International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on is * Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications sine wee in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature oe : - z Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases ne + ie a if < a es 2 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature - and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature i” at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1952 Price One Pound Thirteen Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : (Vacant) Vice-President & Acting 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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (Ist January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) 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) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) 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. S. Pankhurst Publications 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, a N.W.1. m Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 PURGEHAL LU 16 OCT 1952 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Triple-Part 1/3 (pp. 1-106) 15th October 1952 EDITORIAL NOTE REGARDING THE ARRANGEMENTS - MADE IN REGARD TO THE SUBJECTS TO BE DEALT WITH IN VOLUMES 8 AND 9 OF THE “BULLETIN OF ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE” RESPECTIVELY In view of the fact that the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology will meet at Copenhagen in about a year’s time and that during that meeting the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will have under consideration, and will submit recommendations to the International Congress regarding, a number of general problems relating to zoological nomenclature, it is considered that it will be for the convenience of zoologists attending the foregoing meetings, if papers on general questions of this kind are grouped together in a single volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature rather than being distributed over two or more volumes where they would be inter- mingled with applications relating to individual names. 2. It has accordingly been decided to reserve Volume 8 of the Bulletin for papers on general nomenclatorial problems, this volume thus forming a companion volume to Volume 7, which is also concerned with certain of the general problems to be considered at Copenhagen next year. Within Volume 8 papers relating to the same subject received from various quarters will, so far as possible, be grouped together, thus further facilitating reference and discussion. It is hoped that the publication of this volume will start at an early date. 3. Since Volume 6 (the latest volume devoted to the publication of appli- cations relating to individual nomenclatorial problems) has now been completed (except for Part 12 containing the Title-Page and index, which is now in preparation) and, as explained above, Volumes 7 and 8 are being reserved for general nomenclatorial problems to be discussed at Copenhagen, the present volume (Volume 9) will be devoted to applications on individual names. This volume is therefore in a sense the immediate successor of Volume 6 and will contain also comments received from specialists on applications published in that volume. 4. The present Part is issued as a Triple Part, in order to render it possible to publish as a single unit all the available applications relating to the names of birds which have been received by the Commission. The majority of these have been submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature established in 1950 by the International Ornithological Congress “‘ to consider, on behalf of the International Ornithological Congress, problems arising in ornithological nomenclature, to formulate proposals in regard thereto designed to promote stability and uniformity in nomenclatorial practice, and, in the name of the International Congress, to present proposals, so formulated, A 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable consideration.” The appointment of this Standing Committee is warmly to be welcomed, representing, as it does, exactly that type of development which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had in mind when at Lisbon in 1935 it adopted a Resolution expressing its earnest hope that specialists in particular groups of the Animal Kingdom would organise themselves for the study of nomenclature in their respective groups (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 11). (int’d) F.H. 31st August 1952. NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. § : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Triple-Part (Vol. 9, Triple-Part 1/3) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Notice is hereby: given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Vol. 9, Triple-Part 1/3) in relation to the following names of birds :— (1) Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, and Gavia (all uses prior to Gavia Forster, 1788), suppression of (Z.N.(S8.)78) ; (2) caspicus Hablizl, 1783 (Colymbus), suppression of (Z.N.(S.)525) ; (3) cafra (Otis), cafer (Cuculus), sulphuratus (Cuculus), flavescens (Lanius), all of Lichtenstein, 1793, suppression of (Z.N.(8.)526) ; (4) nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (Fringilla), suppression of (Z.N.(S.)527) ; (5) natka (Lanius) and septentrionalis (Lanius), both of Gmelin, 1788, and eimeensis (Columba), unalaschkensis (Hirundo), borealis (Mota- cilla), cirrhatus (Pelecanus), australis (Sterna), all of Gmelin, 1789, suppression of (Z.N.(8.)454) ; (6) phaeus (Turdus), elegans (Motacilla), chlorotis (Muscicapa), all of Forster, 1794, and novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (Muscicapa), suppression of (Z.N.(S.)494) ; (7) Pyrrhocorar Tunstall, 1771, validation of, for the Chough (Z.N.(S.) 492) ; (8) philomelos Brehm, 1831 (T'urdus), validation of, for the Song Thrush : (Z.N.(S.)493) ; (9) generic name Vermivora and trivial names lutea (Muscicapa), pen- | sylvanica [sic] (Passer), americ. [sic] (Vermivora), all of Linnaeus, | 1776, suppression of (Z.N.(S.)502) ; (10) Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, validation of, for the Passenger Pigeon (Z.N.(S.)572) ; , (11) Bubo Duméril, 1806, Cotwrniz Bonnaterre, 1790, Egretta Forster, 1817, Oriolus Linnaeus, 1766, validation of, by suppression of senior homonyms published by Brisson in 1760 (Z.N.(S.)701) ; } (12) Capella Frenzel, 1801, validation of, by suppression of Gallinago Brisson, 1760 (Z.N.(S.)575) ; (13) Myiobius Darwin, 1839, validation of, and designation of type species for, in harmony with current practice (Z.N.(S.)676) ; (14) cyanea Hume, 1877 (Muscitrea), validation of, by suppression of cyanea Vieillot, 1818 (Muscicapa) (Z.N.(S8.)686) ; (15) ferruginea Hodgson, 1845 (Hemichelidon), validation of, by sup- pression of ferruginea Merrem, 1784 (Muscicapa) (Z.N.(8.)687). 2. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56) corresponding Notices have been issued to the serial publications ‘‘ Nature ” and “ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING, 28 Park Village East, Secretary to the International Commission Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1. on Zoological. Nomenclature, 15th October 1952, i 0 | 4 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ESTABLISHMENT BY THE TENTH INTERNATIONAL OR- NITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS OF A STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNITHOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Letter dated 20th October, 1951, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Z.N.(G.) 25) I write to inform you, as Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of certain important decisions taken by the Inter- national Ornithological Congress at its meeting held at Uppsala in June, 1950, with the object of promoting stability in ornithological nomenclature. I have to explain that, after a general discussion at one of the plenary sessions, at which the view was strongly expressed that there was an urgent need for devising effective means for bringing before the International Com- mission the collective wishes of the ornithologists represented at the Congress, it was decided that a further meeting, open to all members of the Congress, should be held for the purpose of drawing up, on behalf of the Congress, a definite plan for communication to the International Commission. This further meeting, which was attended by a large number of members of the Congress and was thoroughly representative in character, decided that there should be established forthwith, as a Permanent Committee of the Congress, a Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, charged with the duty of acting as the representative of the Congress in submitting proposals relating to ornithological nomenclature to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The duties entrusted to the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature are :— To consider, on behalf of the International Ornithological Congress, problems arising in ornithological nomenclature, to formulate proposals in regard thereto designed to promote stability and uniformity in nomen- clatorial practice, and, in the name of the International Congress, to transmit proposals, so formulated, to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable consideration. The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, of which I was appointed to act as the Chairman and intermediary between the Committee and the International Commission, is composed as follows :— 1. Colonel R. Meinertzhagen (Great Britain) (Chairman). 2. Professor E. Stresemann, Zoological Museum, Berlin (Germany). 3. Dr. J. Berlioz, National Museum of Natural History, Paris (France). 4. Dr. J. T. Zimmer, American Museum of Natural History, New York (U.8.A.). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952) ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 A number of important and urgent problems are already under consideration by the Standing Committee, which hopes to be in a position to submit a preliminary group of proposals to the International Commission at a very early date. I am to express the hope of the Standing Committee and of the Congress generally that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature will find it possible to deal promptly with applications submitted to it by the Standing Committee, for the value of the decisions taken will largely depend upon the speed with which they can be obtained. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PUT AN END TO THE CONFUSION ARISING FROM THE DIS- CORDANT USE OF THE GENERIC NAME “ COLYMBUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS AVES) Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)78) Covering letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October 1950, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. | As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the following recommendation relating to the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. For many years the name Colymbus Linnaeus has given rise to great con- fusion in ornithological nomenclature, for, owing to the lack of an authoritative ruling as to the type species of this genus, the generic name Colymbus, the family name COLYMBIDAE, and the ordinal name Colymbiformes have been used by one school of ornithologists for the Divers (Loons) and by another for the Grebes. From a preliminary discussion which took place first at one of the Plenary Sessions of the Ninth International Ornithological Congress at Uppsala in July 1950 and later at a special meeting, open to all members of the Congress, held at the suggestion of the Congress at one of its Plenary Sessions, it was apparent that there was an overwhelming desire, on the part of the ornitho- logists present, to secure a final settlement of the long-standing Colymbus controversy. The Colymbus problem was therefore among the first to which consideration was given by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. The recommendations now submitted represent, in the unanimous opinion of the Standing Committee, the best solution that is now obtainable and the one calculated to secure the widest possible measure of support from ornithologists of all schools of thought. ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 ENCLOSURE Proposals in regard to the generic name “ Colymbus” Linnaeus, 1758, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter- national Ornithological Congress recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed.10) 1: 135) for the purposes of Article 25 (Law of Priority) but not for those of Article 34 (Law of Homonymy) ; (b) to set aside all type selections hitherto made for the under- mentioned genera and to designate, as their respective type species, the species specified below :— Name of Species Species designated as type species Gavia Forster, 1788, Colymbus immer Briimnich, Enchiridion — Hist. 1764, Orn. boreal. 38 nat. 38 ~ Podiceps Latham, 1787, -Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus Gen. Synopsis Birds, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) Suppl. 1 : 294 1: 135 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic names Gavia Forster, 1788, and Podiceps Latham, 1787, with, as their respective type species, the species so designated in (1) above ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trural Names mn Zoology ;— (a) cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Colymbus cristatus) (b) immer Briimnich, 1764 (as published in the binominal com- bination Colymbus immer) ; (4) to place the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. R. MEINERTZHAGEN, Chairman of the Standing Committee. J. BERLIOZ, Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris. K. STRESEMANN, Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER, The American Museum of Natural History, New York. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPORT ON THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE GENERIC NAME “COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS AVES) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)78) At its Session held in Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had under consideration the problems raised by the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 185) (Class Aves). Differences of opinion among ornithologists as to whether Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, a Diver (Loon) or Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, a Grebe, was, or should be accepted as being, the type species of the genus has divided ornithologists for three full generations and has led to the most serious confusion and lack of uniformity not only at the genus-name level but also at the family- name and Ordinal-name levels. By the time of the Paris Session, the Inter- national Commission itself had had this matter under consideration for twenty- two years, an application on this subject having been submitted to it by the late Dr. (subsequently Commissioner) Witmer Stone (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) as far back as 1926. No progress of any kind had however been made towards securing a settlement of this question. 2. At Paris the Commission came to the conclusion that the views held on this subject by the two opposing groups of ornithologists were so strongly held and the practice of each so deeply entrenched that there seemed little prospect of realising the hope that it had long entertained that ornithologists generally or at least a representative group of ornithologists would come forward with agreed proposals designed to restore uniformity and stability in this branch of ornithological nomenclature. The Commission concluded, therefore, that its proper course was to reach with as little further delay as possible a decision on the issue submitted to it by Dr. Witmer Stone in 1926. The Commission decided, as a first step, to obtain a report on the nomenclatorial issues involved from “‘ a zoologist who was an authority on nomenclature but was not himself an ornithologist and who therefore had not had to prejudge the question in the course of his own work.’ Having reached this decision, the International Commission invited me to undertake this task in a personal capacity and I agreed to do so (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 361-362). The procedure so agreed upon was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress and by the Congress itself in Plenary Session. © 3. In view of the importance of making progress with this case as rapidly as possible, I began the investigation entrusted to me not long after the close of the Paris meeting. When I came to examine in detail the arguments that had been advanced at different times by various ornithologists, I realised that I could not complete my Report until the Official Record of the Proceedings in Paris had been agreed upon in the prescribed manner, for it was evident that, in order to put into their proper perspective some of the arguments which had been advanced in regard to the present case, it would be necessary to quote from the Official Record passages containing decisions taken in Paris in regard EEE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 to aspects of the Regles, the meaning of which had previously been open to doubt and which had a material bearing on the question referred to me for report. 4. The Official Record of the Proceedings in Paris was approved in January 1950, and I should thereupon have completed my Report and submitted it to the International Commission had it not been for the fact that I then received a letter from Commissioner Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) informing me that his attention had been drawn by the Danish ornithologist Dr. Finn Salomonsen to certain proposals for an agreed settlement of the Colymbus problem which had been put forward by Dr. Erwin Stresemann (Berlin) at the International Ornithological Congress held at Oxford in 1934; no definite action in this matter had transpired either then - or subsequently, but an International Ornithological Congress, the first since the war, was due to be held in Sweden at Uppsala later that year (1950), and it was possible that this question might be brought before that Congress. I regarded this suggestion as extremely valuable and one calculated to provide a solution of the Colymbus problem along the lines long desired by the Com- mission but so far never secured, namely through the presentation to the Commission by ornithologists themselves of a proposal for the solution of this problem. Later, I learnt, through Commissioner Lemche, that Dr. Salomonsen had himself decided to bring this matter before the Uppsala Congress, and he kindly furnished me with a copy of the communication which he proposed to make to that Congress on this subject. 5. Dr. Salomonsen’s decision to lay this matter before the Ornithological Congress created an entirely new situation, for, if that Congress were to agree upon proposals for submission to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the narrow issue on which in 1948 I had been invited to make a report might become of academic interest only. I accordingly decided to complete that Report but to withhold its submission to the Commission until after the meeting of the International Ornithological Congress at Uppsala later that year. 6. Shortly after the close of the Uppsala Congress I was informed by Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen that Dr. Salomonsen had duly presented his paper, that there had been a considerable discussion of a preliminary nature in regard to this and other individual cases of ornithological nomenclature at a public meeting specially convened for the purpose, that no decisions had been taken in regard to the name Colymbus, but that it had been decided to establish a Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature under his Chairmanship, that that Committee would as soon as possible take into detailed consideration the proposal in regard to the name Colymbus submitted to the Uppsala Congress by Dr. Salomonsen and that he hoped to be able to submit the recommendations of the Standing Committee on this case to the International Commission at an early date. On 19th October 1950 Colonel Meinertzhagen informed me by letter that the Standing Committee was unanimously agreed in asking the International Commission to use its plenary powers in such a way as to secure that, through the suppression of the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, the oldest available generic names for the Grebes and the Divers should be Podiceps Latham, 1787, and Gavia Forster, 1788, respectively. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. When the application from the Standing Committee was submitted to the customary routine examination, I found references to a generic name Gavia which, if an available name, would have had priority over the name Gavia Forster, 1788, the name recommended by the Standing Committee for stabilisation as the generic name for the Divers. The name in question was Gavia Nozemann & Vosmaer, 1758 (in Moehring, Geslach. Vogel. : 5, 54), a- name more commonly (though incorrectly) known as Gavia Moehring. Prior to the Session of the International Commission held in Paris in 1948, there was some doubt as to whether or not new names published in the Dutch edition of Moehring’s Aviwm Genera prepared by Nozemann & Vosmaer and published in 1758 under the title Geslachten der Vogelen were available names. In Paris, however, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature examined this question and decided that the names in this post-1757 edition of Moehring’s pre-1758 work had not been reinforced by adoption or acceptance, as prescribed originally in Opinion 5 and, since the Paris Congress in the Régles themselves (1950 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 150), and therefore that those names possessed no rights in zoological nomenclature (1950, ibid. 4: 566-568). Thus, the alleged name Gavia Nozemann & Vosmaer, 1758, does not preoccupy the name Gavia Forster, 1788, for the Divers. In order to dispose of this matter once and for all, it will, however, be desirable that Gavia Nozemann & Vosmaer, 1758, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with (as in similar cases) a note as to why this name is invalid. 8. The routine investigation of this case disclosed also the existence of three generic names consisting of the word Gavia, each published subsequent to Gavia Forster, 1788. The names in question are: (1) Gavia Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2): 537; (2) Gavia Boie, 1822, Oken’s Isis 10:563; (3) Gavia Gloger, 1842, Hand-und Hilfsbuch Naturgesch. 1 : 433. In accordance with the direction given to the International Commission by the International Congress of Zoology that decisions on individual applications are in future to cover all aspects of the problems submitted, the foregoing names should be added to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology at the same time that the name Gavia Forster, 1788, is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, if the proposal to that end submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithology is approved by the International Commission. At the same time there should also be added to the Official Index the two junior homonyms of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, namely: (1) Colymbus Paetel, 1875 (Fam. Gatt. Moll.: 50); (2) Colymbus Hadding, 1913 (Univ. Arssk. Lund (n.f.) 9(2) (No. 15) : 79). 9. During his last visit to England, Dr. Ernst Mayr (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) drew my attention to the reference by Hartert (1915, Die Vogel paliarkt. Fawna (2): 1456) to a generic name consisting of the word Gavia of older date than Gavia Forster, 1788, and suggested that this was a matter which should be investigated before the application relating to the Colymbus problem was considered by the International Commission. In the work referred to by Dr. Mayr, Hartert applied the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, to the Divers, treating Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species. As in the case of other nominal genera recognised by him Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 as representing taxonomically valid genera, Hartert cited under the name Colymbus Linnaeus, the names of nominal genera of later date which he regarded as junior synonyms. The first such entry reads as follows :— Gavia Forster 1788—non 8. G. Gmelin 1770!” It is unfortunate that Hartert did not cite a bibliographical reference for the name Gavia Gmelin, 1770, for this name is not noted either by Sherborn in his Index Animalium or by Neave in _ Nomenclator Zoologicus, and it has proved a matter of some difficulty to trace the original reference to it. This reference has however kindly been supplied by Dr. Mayr (in litt., 8th August 1952). It is as follows: Gavia Gmelin (8.G.), 1770, Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey Natur-Reiche 1 + 152. This name was there used by Gmelin for a gull. (In furnishing this information, Dr. Mayr drew attention to the fact that, although the name Gavia is not now used for any genus of gull, it was frequently so used in the XIXth Century and that this word or its stem appears in a number of compound words which have been published for genera of gulls, e.g. Gavina Bonaparte, 1854; Bruchi- gavia Bonaparte, 1855; Gabianus Bruch, 1853.) 10. At the same time that Dr. Mayr furnished the foregoing information, he drew attention also to the fact that the first use in the literature of the word Gavia as a generic name was by Brisson in 1760 (Ornithologie 6 : 196). Brisson clearly did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature in his Ornithologie—he was what in past times was called a “ binary author ”—but that work is of importance in ornithology and it is for this reason that in its Opinion 37 (1911, Smithson Publ. 2013 : 87-88) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ruled in favour of the acceptance, as available, of new generic names published in the Ornithologie and this ruling was validated and confirmed in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65). It is evident therefore that the name Gavia Brisson, 1760, will need to be disposed of, if the recommendation by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature is to be accepted. The fact that, as is now established, the word Gavia was used as a.generic name at least twice (Brisson, 1760 ; Gmelin (S.G.), 1770) before it was so used by Forster in 1788 suggests the possibility that more intensive bibliographical investigations might bring to light some other use of Gavia as a generic name prior to Forster, 1788. In these circumstances, the only means by which an unchallengeable title could be provided for Gavia Forster, 1788, would be for the International Commission, when accepting that name for the divers, to adopt a procedure similar to that employed when in similar circumstances it was desired to give an impregnable position to the generic name Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 526), that is, that the International Commission should use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and: of the Law of Homonymy all uses of the word Gavia as a generic name prior to Gavia Forster, 1788. At the same time it would be necessary to add to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the two names (consisting of the word Gavia (i.e. Gavia Brisson, 1760; Gavia Gmelin (8.G.), 1770) which are known to have been published before Gavia Forster, 1788. 11. Finally, it is necessary to note that under a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 it is necessary, 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature when any name is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, to note against that name the gender of the word of which that name is composed (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341). Such entries will therefore be needed, if, as proposed by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, the names Podiceps Lathem, 1787, and Gavia Forster, 1788, are now to be added to the Official List. The gender of the first of these names is masculine, that of the second, feminine, 12. I have consulted Colonel Meinertzhagen on the problem raised by the discovery of the generic names Gavia Brisson, 1760, Gavia Gmelin, 1770, and on the minor matters raised in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Report, having communicated to him for this purpose a copy of this Report in draft. In reply, Colonel Meinertzhagen has since informed me that he is in full agreement with the action suggested in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, and 11 above which, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, he considers necessary and desirable for the purpose of giving effect to the proposal submitted to the International Commission by the Standing Committee under cover of his letter of 19th October 1950. In agreement with Colonel Meinertz- hagen I have therefore prepared the revised form of request annexed to the present Report as Appendix 1. This form of request Colonel Meinertzhagen asks should be treated as constituting a textual revision of the application already submitted by the Standing Committee of which he is the Chairman. The Report on the narrow issue of the present position of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, under the Régles, which, as explained in paragraph 2 of the present Report, was prepared in response to the request addressed to me in 1948, is submitted as Appendix 2. It is submitted only for information, having been superseded, as the basis of possible action by the International Com- mission, by the proposal received later from the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature appointed by the International Ornithological ~ Congress. (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. 16th August 1952. t= GR > Rey, ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 APPENDIX 1 APPLICATION REGARDING THE NAME “COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758, SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNITHOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, AS REVISED IN CERTAIN MINOR RESPECTS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy any uses of the generic name Gavia prior to Gavia Forster, 1788 ; (c) to set aside all type selections hitherto made for the under- mentioned nominal genera and to designate, as their respective type species the nominal species specified below :— Species proposed to be Name of genus designated as type species of genus specified in Col. (1) 1) (2) Gavia Forster, 1788, Colymbus immer, Briinnich, Enchiridion Hist. nat. 1764, Orn. boreal. : 38 38 (gender of generic name: feminine) Podiceps Latham, 1787, Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, Suppl. gen. Synopsis 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) Birds [1]: 294 (gender 1: 135 of generic name : mas- culine) (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic names Gavia Forster, 1788, and Podiceps Latham, 1787, with, as their respective type species, the species designated, as proposed in (1)(c) above ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Colymbus cristatus) (trivial name of type species of Podiceps Latham, 1787) ; 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) immer Briinnich, 1764 (as published in the binominal com- bination Colymbus immer) (trivial name of type species of Gavia Forster, 1788) : (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— ; (a) Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 135), as pro- posed in (1)(a) above to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ; (b) Colymbus Paetel, 1875, Fam. Gatt. Moll. : 50) (junior homonym of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758) ; Colymbus Hadding, 1913 (Univ. Arssk. Lund (n.f.) 9(2) (No. 15) : 79) (junior homonym of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758) ; Gavia Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 6 : 196) (as proposed, under (1)(b) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ; Gavia Gmelin (S. G.), 1770 (Reise Russl. 1 : 152) (as proposed, under (1)(b) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ; Gavia, all other uses as a generic name prior to Gavia Forster, 1788 (as proposed under (1)(b) above to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ; Gavia Oken, 1816 (Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 537) (a junior homonym of Gavia Forster, 1788) ; Gavia Boie, 1822 (Oken’s Isis 10 : 563) (a junior honomym of Gavia Forster, 1788) ; Gavia Gloger, 1842 (Hand-und Hilfsbuch Naturgesch. 1 : 433) (a junior homonym of Gavia Forster, 1788). . : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 APPENDIX 2 REPORT ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS “ COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758, PREPARED BY MR. FRANCIS HEMMING IN RESPONSE TO AN INVITATION BY THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, 1948 To :— The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. 9th February 1950. In compliance with the request addressed to me as “a zoologist who was an authority on nomenclature but was not himself an ornithologist and who therefore had not had to prejudge the question in the course of his own work ” by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 153) on the recommendation of the International Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 361-362), a request later confirmed, with other recommendations submitted by the Section on Nomenclature and by the International Commission, by the International Congress in Plenary Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5: 131), I have the honour to submit the following Report on “ the question of the nominal species which, under the Reégles, is the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves).” 2. When the foregoing invitation was extended to me, the urgency of the problem remitted to me for examination was strongly stressed by the Inter- national Commission. I accordingly began this investigation as soon as possible after the close of the Paris Congress. In consequence, the first draft of the present Report was completed some time ago. It has not however been possible for me until now to complete and sign this Report, for it was necessary to wait until the Official Record of Proceedings at Paris both of the International Commission and of the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress had been approved in the prescribed manner, since it was essential in the present Report at certain points to be able to quote from the Official Record passages containing decisions which had a direct bearing upon the problem remitted to me for report. Now, however, that the Official Record in question has been finally approved and is in page proof and I am in consequence in a position to quote the passages in question, I have completed my Report which I now submit for consideration. _ 3. Arrangement of the present Report; In the present Report I first examine Article 30 of the Régles, the Article which governs the fixing of type species of nominal genera. Having thus established under which of the Rules in Article 30 the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, falls to be determined, I examine in turn the claims which at different times have been advanced on behalf of various authors for recognition as the author 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by whom the type species of this nominal genus was determined. I have not thought it either necessary or desirable to quote from the numerous papers which at different times have been published on this subject, in view especially of the fact that much of the argument adduced in the earlier of these papers is beside the point, those arguments being based upon the assumed existence of a ‘“‘ Law of Elimination,” a method for determining the type species of genera which, as is well known, had a considerable vogue prior to the adoption in 1901 of the present Régles, in which, however, such a provision found no place (see paragraph 16 below). I. QUESTION OF THE RULE IN ARTICLE 30 UNDER WHICH THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS “ COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758, WAS DETERMINED 4. The nature of the provisions in Article 30 relating to the deter- mination of the type species of nominal genera: Article 30, the Article in the Régles which governs the determination of the type species of nominal genera, contains a series of Rules for the foregoing purpose and prescribes that these Rules are to be applied successively. Thus, in order to make a start in determining the type species of any given nominal genus, it is necessary to examine the position of that nominal genus in relation to each Rule in turn, for it is not until it has been established that the type species of such a genus was not determined under any of the preceding Rules that the position of that genus in relation to any of the later Rules has any relevance whatever. Accord- ingly, in the present part of this Report, I examine the position of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, in relation to each successive Rule in Article 30 for the purpose of ascertaining which of those Rules is applicable to that generic name. 5. Rule (a) (type species by original designation): Rule (a) provides that, where the original author of a generic name himself designates a nominal species as the type species of the nominal genus so named, that action is final. When in 1758 Linnaeus published the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae, he did not designate type species for any of the nominal genera which he then established, for at that time the need for nomenclatorial purposes of such a concept as that of a “ type species ” for a nominal genus had not been recognised. Accordingly, Linnaeus did not in 1758 himself designate a type species for the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus. Rule (a) in Article 30 has therefore no bearing on the present case. 6. Rule (5) (type species by indication through the use of the words “typicus” or “typus” as the trivial name of one of the included species): None of the nominal species referred by Linnaeus to his genus Colymbus bore as its trivial name either the word “typicus” or the word ‘* typus.’’ Rule (b) has therefore no bearing on this case. 7. Rule (c) (type species by monotypy): Linnaeus placed more than one nominal species in the genus Celymbus. This genus is therefore not mono- typical, and Rule (c) has, in consequence, no relevance to this case. 8. Rule (d) (type species by absolute tautonymy): None of the nominal species referred by Linnaeus to the genus bore as its trivial name the alae ANA Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 word “‘ colymbus.”. In its simplest form Rule (d) therefore does not apply to the present case. Nor does this Rule so apply under either of the two extensions made by Opinions 16 and 18 respectively (for the current application of the former of which see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 154, and for the latter, bid. 4:153). For none of the nominal species cited by Linnaeus as belonging to the genus Colymbus either (1) was then cited with a synonym consisting of a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the word ‘ Colymbus”’ (Opinion 16) or (2) possesses a synonym having, as its trivial name, the word * colymbus ” (Opinion 18). 9.. Rule (ec): The application of the term ‘“‘ Rule”’ to this provision is a misnomer, for it does not provide a test for determining the type species to be applied after Rule (d) and before Rule (f). All that this provision does is to deny eligibility for consideration as candidates for the status of type species to three classes of nominal species, namely (a) nominal species not included in the nominal genus concerned at the time when its name was first published ; (6) nominal species which were species inquirendae from the standpoint of the author of the generic name concerned ; (c) nominal species which were only doubtfully referred to the genus concerned by the author of the name of that genus. None of the species referred by Linnaeus in 1758 to the genus Colymbus was a species inquirenda from his standpoint, nor was any of those species only doubtfully referred by him to that genus. Accordingly, neither the second nor the third of the provisions contained in the so-called Rule (e) has any bearing on the question of the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. The first of these provisions (that which excludes from eligibility as type species any species not placed in a given genus by the original author of the generic name concerned), especially as clarified by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948 (as to which see paragraph 22° below), does, as will be seen in later parts of this Report, have an important bearing upon the validity of the arguments that have been advanced by some of those who have taken part in the discussion regarding the species to be accepted as the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. 10. Rule (f) (type species (i) of a nominal genus established to _ provide a name for an older nominal genus possessing an invalid name and (ii) of a nominal genus the name of which has been replaced for the foregoing reason): The generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, was not published as a substitute for the name of an older nominal genus, nor has this name ever been replaced on the ground that it was invalid. Thus, Rule (f) has no bearing upon the present case. 11. Rule (g) (type species by subsequent selection): Having now examined in turn each of the Rules in Article 30 lettered (a) to (f) (both inclusive) and found that none of them is applicable to the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, we are left only with Rule (gq), the last of the mandatory provisions in the foregoing Article. We see therefore that, in order to ascertain what is the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, it is necessary to ascertain by reference to the literature which of the species included in this genus by Linnaeus in 1758 was first selected to be the type species in a manner which satisfies the requirements of Article 30 of the Régles. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952) 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Il. EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN AUTHORS FOR RECOGNITION AS HAVING, AT SPECIFIED DATES, BEEN THE FIRST AUTHOR VALIDLY TO SELECT A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS “ COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758 12. In the present Section I examine first the conditions which under Rule (g) in Article 30 must be satisfied in order to qualify the action of any given author to rank as constituting a valid selection of a type species for a nominal genus, the type species of which has not been determined under any of the earlier Rules in the foregoing Article. In the light of the survey so made, I then examine, in turn, the claims which have at different times been advanced for the recognition of particular authors as having, on specified dates, been the first author validly to select a type species for the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. (a) Provisions relating to the selection by an author of a type species for a given nominal genus prescribed in Rule (g) in Article - 30 of the “ Regles ” and associated provisions 13. In order both to shorten and to simplify the later consideration of the claims which have been advanced infavour of the recognition of particular authors as having at specified dates been the first author validly to select a type species for the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, I examine in the following paragraphs the conditions which must be satisfied in order to qualify the action of any given author for recognition as constituting a valid type selection under the Régles. This review appears to me essential, not only because in some of the arguments which have been advanced in regard to the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, those provisions have been misunderstood or even disregarded, but also because prior to 1948 some of the provisions concerned contained serious ambiguities which have now been removed as the result of decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in that year. The provisions of which it is necessary to take note are seven in number. Of these provisions the first consists of a qualification directly inserted into Rule (g) in Article 30 at the time (Boston, 1907) when that Article in its present form was inserted in the Régles : the second and third follow from interpretations of Rule (g) given by the Commission in Opinions rendered by the International Com- mission prior to 1939, each of which either in its original, or in some clarified, form was incorporated into the Régles by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948; the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of these provisions all relate to matters on which prior to 1948 the meaning of the Régles was in doubt and on which authoritative clarifications were in that year provided by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. (i) Provisions relating to the selection of the type species of a nominal genus contained in Rule (g) in Article 30 in the form in which that Article existed prior to July 1948 14. The expression “select the type species”: Rule (g) in Article 30, as that Article stood prior to July 1948, provided that, where the type species i i f 2 SS a Sa ee a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 of a given nominal genus had not been determined under any of the preceding Rules in that Article, its type species should be the first of the originally included species to be so selected by a subsequent author. This provision was accompanied by the following interpretation of the meaning to be attached to the expression “ select the type ” (an expression amended to “ select the type species’ by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology—see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 300): ‘The meaning of the expression ‘ select the type’ is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or example does not constitute a selection of a type.” (ii) Provisions relating to the selection of the type species of a nominal genus originally promulgated in “ Opinions” rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and in 1948 incorporated into the “ Régles ” either in their original or in a modified form 15. The Opinions relating to the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature prior to the meeting held in Paris in 1948 which have a bearing upon the present case are Opinions 6 and 62. The rulings given in these Opinions are discussed in the two immediately following paragraphs. 16. The so-called “Law of Elimination” not recognised in the “ Regles ” as a mandatory provision : Prior to the international regulation of zoological nomenclature (through the adoption of the present Régles: by the Fifth International Congress of Zoology at Berlin in 1901) zoologists possessed no authoritative guide as to how they should proceed when they desired to split up a previously established genus, save in those cases where the original author of the generic name concerned had himself specified a type species for the genus so named. For, although the concept of a “‘ type species ” in relation to genera was generally accepted, there was no agreement how to apply that concept in relation to nominal genera established without designated type species, for example, nominal genera, other than monotypical genera, established by Linnaeus and other authors of later date. Authors were forced therefore to make a choice for themselves as to how they should proceed in this matter. The result, as was inevitable, was that there was the greatest diversity of practice : some authors applied rules similar to those later embodied in the present Rule (g) in Article 30, under which the species first selected to be the type species of a given species was accepted as such; others accepted as the type species the first of any series of species placed in a given nominal genus by its author (the so-called “chef de file” system) ; others adopted a system under which it was assumed that, whenever an author on taxonomic grounds removed a species from a given previously established nominal genus by placing it in some other nominal genus, the species so removed ceased to be eligible to become the type species of the genus from which it had been removed ; in this way, it was argued, the field from which a type species could be selected was gradually narrowed until finally either only one of the original species was left in the genus and that species automatically became the type species or until some author selected as the type species of the genus one of the originally included 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species which had not yet been removed from that genus on taxonomic grounds. This method of determining the type species of a genus was known as the “ Law of Elimination.’ Theoretically, this system possessed advantages over any other system, for, if it could have been applied in a uniform manner, it would have avoided the confusing transfers of generic names from one genus to another which have often resulted from the acceptance as the type species of a genus of the first originally included species to be so selected. Unfortunately, however, insuperable difficulties were often encountered in applying this superficially simple rule owing to differences of opinion among specialists as to what action did or did not constitute the removal of a species from a given genus. The result was that, far from providing the stability which had been hoped for, this so-called ‘‘ Law ”’ often resulted in the adoption by specialists of totally different views as to the type species of any given genus. This method of determining the type species of a genus had the further weakness that its application was extemely laborious involving the examination of the entire literature of any group before a type-determination could even be attempted and thus placed a premium upon bibliographical investigations as contrasted with zoological investigations. It was for these reasons that, when the present Régles were adopted, the ‘‘ Law of Elimination ” was given no place in the mandatory provisions embodied in Article 30.. The only concession then granted to this former unofficial ‘‘ Law” was the insertion in the non-mandatory ‘Recommendations ” at the end of Article 30 of the advice to specialists when selecting the type species of a genus to bear in mind the importance of pro- moting stability by not selecting as the type species of genera species which on taxonomic grounds are currently treated as having been removed there- from. Even this “ Recommendation” occupies only the fourth place in the list of ‘“ Recommendations ” there given. Normally, practices in vogue before the adoption of the Régles which however failed to secure admittance to the Reégles are of historical interest only, but in the particular case of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus the application of the so-called ‘‘ Law of Elimina- tion ” bulked so largely in the early days—and, indeed, still forms the basis of the argument advanced by one large and important group of workers—that it seems essential in the present Report to make it perfectly clear that in its original form the “ Law of Elimination ” finds no place in the Regles. It should be noted at this point that in one extremely limited application official approval has been given to the principle of “ elimination”? in a mandatory provision enacted since the adoption of the Régles in 1901. This was in 1910, the year in which the Commission’s Opinion 6 was published (Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6), for in that Opinion the Commission ruled that, where a nominal genus was established with two nominal species but without a designated type species and later one of those nominal species was made the type species of a newly estab- lished monotypical genus, it was to be deemed for nomenclatorial purposes to have been removed by elimination from the earlier genus, which was thus. left with only one species which accordingly became the type species. In the years following the publication of this Opinion it was sometimes argued that the ruling there given need not be regarded as being confined to cases where a species was removed from a genus to a monotypical genus and further that the principle embodied in this Opinion was properly applicable also to cases where more than two species were placed in a genus and later authors removed — 7, —_ ~~" ’ ~~ ——— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 some of those species, either singly or in groups. This latter argument, if well founded, would have amounted to a full-scale recognition of the Law of Elimina- tion and would greatly have reduced the scope within which Rule (g) in Article 30 would operate and in some cases would have completely superceded that Rule. This matter was considered by the Commission and the Congress at Paris in 1948, and it was then decided to incorporate in the Regles the decision originally given in Opinion 6, clarified, however, in such a way as to make it absolutely clear that it applied only to the limited class of case originally specified in that Opinion (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 157). 17. A nominal species which is the type species of one genus eligible for selection as the type species of another genus: In the preceding para- graph we have considered the position of the so-called “ Law of Elimination ” in relation to the provisions of the Régles as adopted at Berlin in 1901, and have specially noted the one instance in which, through Opinion 6, mandatory force was given to the principle embodied in that so-called “ Law ,” which, as explained, had in its main form been rejected by the authors of the present Reégles. We have here to note a decision taken by the Commission in Opinion 62 (published in 1914) (Smithson Publ. 2256 : 147-149) rejecting an attempt to secure a further partial acceptance of the principle of elimination. Up to that time it had sometimes been argued that, where a nominal genus had been established with a number of included nominal species but without a designated type species, the species which were eligible for selection by a later author acting under Rule (g) in Article 30 were not all the originally included nominal species but only those species which had not in the meantime become the type species of other genera. This argument, which, it will be observed, relates to one of the situations which (as explained in paragraph 16) some authors had sought to argue could be brought. within the scope of the decision taken in Opinion 6, was rejected by the Commission which ruled that a species which was the type species of one genus was still eligible for selection as the type species of another genus. This decision was endorsed both by the Commission and the Congress in 1948 and was embodied by the latter in the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 156). (iii) Provisions relating to the selection of the type species of a nominal genus adopted by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 18. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature obtained the approval of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology for the insertion in the Régles of provisions clarifying the meaning of Rule (g) in Article 30 in four respects. Hach of these clarifications has, as will be seen, a bearing on the question of the species to be accepted as the type species-of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. These clarifications are accordingly described briefly in the following paragraphs. 19. Meaning to be attached to the word “ select” as used in the expression “select a type species” as used in Rule (sg) in Article 30: Reference has already been made (paragraph 14 above) to the supplementary provision in Rule (g) in Article 30 which makes it clear that that Rule is not satisfied if an author merely cites one of the species originally included in a 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nominal genus established by some earlier author as being an “ illustration ” or “‘ example ” of that genus and prescribes that the expression “ select a type ” is to be “ rigidly construed.’ This provision removed what otherwise would have been a serious ambiguity in that Rule, but it left obscure another matter which, as every worker in systematic zoology has occasion to know, constantly arose, whenever it was necessary to determine whether a type species had been validly selected for a given nominal genus. The problem involved was whether an author was to be deemed to have selected the type species of a given nominal genus when, while stating categorically that a given species was the type species, he made it clear also that he regarded himself, not as selecting that species to be the type species, but as doing no more than place on record that that species was the type species as the result of action taken by an earlier author or by earlier authors. The most frequent situation of this kind arises in the case of papers published before the adoption of the Régles where an author guiding himself by the so-called “ Law of Elimination” (see paragraph 16 above) came to the conclusion that, as the result of the removal of species to other genera, only one species remained eligible for the position of type species of the genus under examination and therefore that species had automatically become the type species ‘“‘ by elimination.” The same problem arises also where an author states that a given species is the type species of a genus because it had been so selected by a previous author, when on further examina- tion it is found that no such earlier selection had been made. In view of the very large number of currently accepted type selections which rest upon statements made in papers published before 1901 by authors working under the “Law of Elimination,” it was obvious that any ruling which deprived state- ments of the kind described above of the status of type selections would cause the utmost havoc and confusion. It was obvious also, however, that a definite ruling on this subject was required in order to make it impossible validly to question the acceptability of such type selections. Accordingly, in Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, agreed to insert in the Régles words making it clear that, “‘ for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30, an author is to be treated as having selected a given originally included nominal species to be the type species of a given nominal genus not only when he . . . states that he is so selecting that species but also when he does no more than state that a specified such species is the type species of the nominal genus concerned, irrespective, in the latter case, of whether he states or implies, either correctly or otherwise, that that nominal species had been selected by some previous author to be the type species of that nominal genus, or that the nominal species had become the type species of that genus through the operation of some rule (for example, the so-called “‘ Law of Elimination ”’) not recognised in the Régles as a mandatory provision, provided in such a case that the author concerned makes it clear that he himself accepts, for whatever reason, the species in question as the type species of the genus concerned ” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 181-182). 20. Action taken in regard to a given generic name prior to its first valid publication subsequent to 1757 irrelevant for the purposes of Article 30: Prior to 1948 it occasionally happened that, notwithstanding Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 the provision in Article 26 and the associated Opinion 3 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6) that for the purposes of the Régles zoological nomenclature has, as its starting point, the publication in 1758 of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus, an author would seek to support an argument in relation to some particular name by claiming that some action in regard to that name taken prior to 1758 had some bearing either upon the species to be regarded as the originally included species of the nominal genus so named or as regards the eligibility of such species for selection after 1757 as the type species of the genus in question. In order to dispose of fallacious arguments of this sort, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, on the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, decided to insert in the Regles words to make it clear that ‘Article 30 relates only to the designa- tion, indication, or selection of the type species of a nominal genus published subsequent to 3lst December 1757, that is to say to the name of a genus originally published subsequent to the above date by a given author in a given work and that the action then taken by that author is alone relevant to the question, (1) of what species are to be regarded as having been originally included in the genus concerned . . . or (ii) of whether the type species of the genus in question is to be treated as having been designated .. . at the time of the original publication of the generic name concerned ” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 347-348). 21. A type selection related to any place of publication other than. the original place of publication of a generic name invalid under the “ Régles” : Another argument occasionally advanced before 1948 in relation to particular cases (of which the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, was one) was that, where a given word had been used as a generic name prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature (as defined in Article 26) as well as at or after that starting point and some later author purported to select a type species for the genus as published before 1758, that action should be re- garded as constituting also aselection of a type species for the genus as established after the starting point of zoological nomenclature, i.e. after the close of the year 1757. This argument was considered and rejected in Paris, in 1948, when the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, on the advice of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, agreed to insert in the Regles words making it clear that “no selection of the type species of a given nominal genus, which is related to any publication of the name of that genus other than its first valid publication by its author . . . is to be accepted as a selection of the type species of that genus for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 348). 22. Nominal species eligible for selection as the type species of any given nominal genus: We have now examined the decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology for the purpose of clarifying the provisions regarding the method to be followed in selecting the type species of a nominal genus under Rule (g) in Article 30. But the obscurities which formerly marred that Rule and made its application uncertain and open to question in many cases were not the only difficulties which up to 1948 had confronted systematists in attempting either to determine what nominal ' species was the type species of a given nominal genus or what nominal species 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature were eligible for selection as such. For, although Article 30 contained (in the provision misnamed “ Rule (e) ’’) a provision excluding certain nominal species from consideration as possible type species for any given nominal genus, it unfortunately contained no positive provision specifying what nominal species were to be regarded as eligible for selection as type species. In particular, there was nothing in Article 30 to show whether the field of choice for an author selecting a type species was limited to those nominal species recognised as taxonomically valid by the original author of the generic name or whether in addition a nominal species cited by the original author of a generic name in the synonymy of any one of the nominal species placed by him in the genus as representing taxonomically valid species was also eligible for selection as the type genus. Moreover, there was no express provision in Article 30 on the question whether the selection as the type species of a genus of a nominal species not cited by the original author of a generic name should be accepted or rejected in those cases where later authors subjectively identified the nominal species so selected with one of the nominal species actually cited by the original author at the time when the generic name was first validly published. In 1948, however, these obscurities were removed when the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, on the advice of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature, decided to insert in the Régles words making it clear that “the nominal species to be regarded as having been included in a given nominal genus when the name of that genus was first published are (i) the nominal species cited by the original author as valid taxonomic species belonging to that nominal genus and (ii) any nominal species cited on that occasion as synonyms of nominal species falling in (i) above and that for such a nominal genus the foregoing nominal species were alone eligible for selection as the type species ” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179-180). (b) The field within which alone a valid type-selection for “ Colymbus ” Linnaeus, 1758, can be made under the “ Régles ” 23. The content of the nominal genus “ Colymbus” Linnaeus, 1758, for nomenclatorial purposes: The name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 135) was published for a nominal genus to which at that time Linnaeus referred four nominal species, namely :—(1) Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus (: 135); (2) Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus (: 135); (3) Colymbus auritus Linnaeus (: 135); (4) Colymbus podiceps Linnaeus (: 136). Under the clarification of the meaning to be attached to the expression “ originally included species” prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948 (see paragraph 22 above), the four nominal species bearing the foregoing specific trivial names are the only nominal species eligible to become the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. (c) The authors who, it has been claimed, either selected a type species for the nominal genus “ Colymbus ” Linnaeus, 1758, or took action having an equivalent effect - 24. Latham, 1707: The first author who, it has been claimed, took action having the effect of determining the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 Linnaeus, 1758, was Latham (1787, Suppl. gen. Synopsis Birds [1]: 294). The argument adduced runs as follows :—(1) The genus Colymbus as established by Linnaeus in 1758 was heterogeneous from the taxonomic standpoint, containing (a) one palmate-footed species (pedibus palmatis), the Northern Diver, Colymbus arcticus, and (b) three pinnate-footed species (pedibus lobatis), the Grebes Colymbus cristatus, auritus and podiceps. (2) Latham (1787) recognised the impropriety, from the systematic point of view, of including these disparate elements in a single genus and accordingly, as a first reviser, rectified the position (in the tabular statement at the end of his first supplementary volume) by erecting a new genus which he named Podiceps (: 294) and to which he assigned the three Grebes which Linnaeus had placed in Colymbus(i.e., C. cristatus, auritus and podiceps), together with other Grebes, and which he placed in his ‘‘ Order VIII. With pinnated feet’; at the same time Latham retained (: 295) the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, placing in it the only remaining species (Colymbus arcticus) that Linnaeus had placed in his genus Colymbus, together with other Divers. This genus Latham placed in his “ Order IX Webfooted.” (3) The removal by Latham from the genus Colymbus Linnaeus of the three Grebes placed in it by Linnaeus in 1758, by the transfer of those species to his new genus Podiceps, left, so it was argued, only one species in the genus Colymbus Linnaeus as constituted in 1758, namely the nominal species Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, and in consequence that species, by virtue of Latham’s action, automatically became the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, under the “‘ Law of Elimination.” This argument, which was originally advanced before the introduction of the present Reégles, is invalid, since those Régles do not recognise a “‘ Law of Elimination ” as a mandatory provision for the determination of the type species of genera (paragraphs 16 and 17 above). 25. Gray (G. R.), 1840: In 1840 (List Genera Birds: 76) Gray (G. R.) selected Colymbus glacialis Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(1) : 221) as the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, to which name Gray did not attribute a date. This nominal species was not one of the four such species placed by Linnaeus in the genus Colymbus in 1758 (see paragraph 23 above)— and, indeed, could not have been so included, for its name was not published until eight years later. Thus, this nominal species is ineligible to become the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, and Gray’s action in so selecting it is therefore invalid. 26. Gray (G. R.), 1841: In 1841 (List Genera Birds (ed. 2): 96) Gray again treated Colymbus glacialis Linnaeus, 1766, as the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, to which, as in the first edition he attributed no date. This type selection is invalid for the same reasons as is the same selection made by Gray in 1840 (see paragraph 25 above). 27. Gray (G.R.), 1842: In 1842 (Appendix List Genera Birds : 15) Gray published a sixteen-page pamphlet in which he added supplementary notes in regard to certain of the generic names included in the second edition of his Iist. Many of these notes consisted in the attribution of dates to generic names previously published without information on this point. In the case of the name Colymbus Linnaeus, the entry in the Appendix of 1842 was :—“ Colymbus, after L, add 1735,” From the point of view of nomenclature, this entry would 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature have been of great importance, if in other respects the type selection for the genus Colymbus Linnaeus made in the Second Kdition of Gray’s List had complied with the Régles (which, as we have seen—paragraph 26 above—it did not), for the insertion of the date “1735” after the name Colymbus L. shows that Gray was dealing not with the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae of 1758 (the starting point of zoological nomenclature) but with the use of that name by Linnaeus in 1735 in the First Edition of the Systema Naturae. Under the Régles action taken in respect of a name as published prior to 1758 is totally irrelevant from the point of view of determining the type species of a nominal genus established after the starting point of zoological nomenclature (i.e. a name published in, or after, 1758) (see paragraph 20 above) and the selection of a type species of a genus, if related to any place of publication other than the first place in which that name was validly published, is invalid, having no force under Article 30 (see paragraph 21 above). 28. Gray (G. R.), 1855 In 1855 there appeared what was, in effect, a third edition of the List of Genera of Birds, of which, as we have seen (paragraphs 25 and 26 above) the First and Second Editions were published respectively in 1840 and 1841 ; it was however published under a slightly different title and it accordingly ranks for bibliographical purposes as a separate work. In this latest work Gray (1) adhered to the dating of the name Colymbus Linnaeus adopted in his Appendix of 1842, that is, he attributed it to the First Edition of the Systema Naturae of 1735 and not to the Tenth Edition of 1758, and (2) made a fresh type selection for the genus Colymbus abandoning his earlier selection of Colymbus glacialis Linnaeus, 1766, adopting in its place Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758. If Gray’s action on this occasion had otherwise been in conformity with the Régles, the selection of C. arcticus Linnaeus would have been valid, since that nominal species is one of those referred to the genus Colymbus by Linnaeus in 1758. But the fact that Gray attributed the name Colymbus to a place of publication other than the place where that name was first validly published after the starting point of zoological nomenclature (i.e. other than the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae) renders his action in 1855 invalid for the reasons explained in paragraphs 20 and 21 above. 29. Fitzinger, 1865: In 1926 (Ibis (12)4: 819) Sclater advanced the view that in 1865 (SitzBer. Akad. wiss. Wien (Math-Naturw. K1.) 51 : 320) Fitzinger had selected Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus. As however was pointed out by Hellmayr & Conover in 1948 (Field Mus. Publ. Chicago (Zool.) 13 (Pt. 1) (No. 2): 18, footnote), Fitzinger expressly stated in the preface to his paper that what he intended to do was to cite for each of the genera and subgenera concerned one of the typical species. The supplementary provision annexed to Rule (9) in Article 30 lays it down that the citation of a species as an example of a genus does not, constitute the selection of that species as the type species of the genus concerned (see paragraph 14 above). Accordingly, Fitzinger’s action in 1865 does not constitute a valid selection of Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus as the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. 30. Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, 1884: In 1884 (Water Birds N. Amer. 2: 425) Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, when dealing with the genus Colymbus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 Linnaeus, 1758, stated that Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, was the “ Type, by elimination.” This species is, as we have seen (paragraph 23) one of these originally included by Linnaeus in the genus Colymbus in 1758, and, as in 1884 that genus was still without a validly determined type species, it was eligible for selection as such. The only argument which could at any time have been advanced against the acceptance of the action by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway as constituting a type-selection for the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, was that those authors did not look upon themselves as selecting Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus as the type species of this genus—indeed, they made it clear that they deplored the necessity of accepting it as such—but on the contrary considered that that species had already become the type species “‘ by elimination.” As explained in paragraph 19 above, consideration was given in 1948 both by the Commission and by the International Congress of Zoology to the question whether a definite statement that a given nominal species was the type species of a particular genus constituted a selection of that species as the type species when the author making the statement made it clear that he did not regard himself as so selecting the species in question, considering rather that for one reason or another that species had already become the type species as the result of action taken by earlier authors ; it was then decided that such a statement should be accepted as constituting a selection under Rule (g) in Article 30, provided that the author making the statement made it clear that he himself recognised the species in question as the type species of the genus concerned. Baird, Brewer & Ridgway made it perfectly clear that they regarded Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus as the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, and accord- ingly the possible objection to the acceptance of their action is now seen to be without foundation. _ 31. Action by authors subsequent to Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, 1884: Once a nominal genus has validly acquired a type species under the provisions of Article 30, no action by any later author can change the type species of that genus. In the present case, we have seen (paragraph 30 above) that in 1884 the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, which up to that time was without a type species under the Régles, acquired a type species through the selection as such of Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway. I have therefore considered unnecessary in the present Report to recapitulate the later history of the generic name Colymbus Lin- naeus, 1758. I have however examined later papers on this subject for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of them contain new evidence relevant to the present subject. I find that they do not. Those authors (e.g. Stejneger) who applied the name Colymbus Linnaeus to the Grebes have based themselves on the selection, as the type species of this genus, of Colymbus cristatus Lin- naeus, 1758, by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway (1884) or upon the later similar selection by the A.O.U. in 1886 (Check-List N.Amer. Birds : 73), while those authors who have applied this name to the Divers (Loons) have either (as did Witmer Stone in 1926) accepted Gray’s (1855) selection of Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, or (as did Lonnberg in 1927) have argued in favour of the view that the same species should be accepted as the type species as the result of the action taken in 1787 by Latham, when establishing the nominal genus Podiceps. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ill. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDING 32. Principal Conclusions: Having thus completed the survey of the problem involved in determining what species is, under the Régles, the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, which in Paris in 1948 I was invited to undertake, I now submit as follows the principal conclusions which I have reached :— (1) The type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, was neither designated under Rule (a) in Article 30 nor indicated under any of the Rules lettered (5), (c), (d) or (f) in that Article (paragraphs 5-10). (2) In view of (1) above, the type species of the foregoing nominal genus falls to be determined under Rule (g) in Article 30 (type species by subsequent selection) (paragraph 11). (3) Latham (1787), when establishing the nominal genus Podiceps and transferring thereto the three Grebes referred to the genus Colymbus by Linnaeus in 1758, thus leaving in the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, only one of the species referred thereto by Linnaeus in 1758, namely the Diver, Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, did not thereby make that species the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus. For Article 30 of the Régles does not recognise the so-called ‘‘ Law of Elimination ” and under the Reégles it was legitimate for any later author to select any of the originally included species to be the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, notwithstanding the action taken by Latham in 1787 (paragraph 24). (4) The selection by Gray in 1840 and again in 1841 of Colymbus glacialis Linnaeus, 1766, as the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, is invalid, because that nominal species was not one of the nominal species referred to the genus Colymbus by Linnaeus in 1758 and, indeed, could not have been so referred, as it was not named until eight years later (paragraphs 25 and 26). (5) The selection by Gray in 1855 of Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Colymbus is invalid, since that selection related not to the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, but to the pre-1758 nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1735 (paragraph 28). (6) Fitzinger (1865) cited Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, as one of \ the typical species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, but he did not select that species to be the unique type species of that genus. Accordingly, under the provision in Rule (9) in Article 30 that the expression “select the type” is to be “rigidly con- strued,” Fitzinger did not select a type species for Oolyrate Linnaeus, 1758 (paragraph 29). (7) Baird, Brewer & Ridgway in 1884 stated that Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. That nominal species is one of those originally included in the genus Colymbus by Linnaeus in 1758, and was therefore eligible for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 selection as the type species of that genus. Under Rule (g) in Article 30, as clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948, the validity of the action taken by the fore- going authors is not impaired by the fact that they regarded them- selves not as selecting the above species to be the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, but as merely recording (incorrectly) that it was already the type species “by elimination” (paragraph 30). 33. FINDING. In discharge of the duty entrusted to me in 1948, jointly by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I have to report that, in the light of the conclusions summarised in the preceding paragraph, my Finding on the question referred to me is as follows :— . Under the “ Régles” the type species of the nominal genus “Colymbus” Linnaeus, 1758, is the nominal species “ Colymbus cristatus ” Linnaeus, 1758, that nominal species being one of those included by Linnaeus in the nominal genus “ Colymbus ” in 1758 and being the first such species to be validly selected under Rule (g) in Article 30 to be the type species of this nominal genus, having been so selected by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway in 1884 (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING. 9th February 1950. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “ CASPICUS” HABLIZL, 1783 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “COLYMBUS CASPICUS”) (CLASS AVES) Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)525) Covermg letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October, 1950, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. . As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the annexed recommendation relating to the name Colymbus caspicus Hablizl, 1783, for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The circumstances of the present case were described in a note published by Dr. E. Stresemann, a Member of the Standing Committee, in 1948 (Strese- mann, 1948, Jbis 90 : 473-474), extracts from which are given in the Annexe to the application now submitted. The specific action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take is that it should: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name caspicus Hablizl, 1783 (as published in the com- bination Colymbus caspicus) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the trivial name nigricollis Brehm, 1831 (as published in the combination Podiceps nigricollis) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology: and (3) place the trivial name caspicus Hablizl, 1783 (as published’in the combination Colymbus caspicus) as proposed, under (1) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. ENCLOSURE The trivial name comprised in the specific name “ Colymbus caspicus”” Hablizl, 1783, ‘“‘ Neue nordische Beytrage” 4:9 It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Podiceps nigricollis Brehm (C.L.), 1831, Handb. Naturg. V 6g. Deutschl. : 963 ( Deutschland ”’), be made a nomen conservandum. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 The name Podiceps mgricollis has been used for the Black-necked Grebe from 1831 to 1948. The circumstances of the present case have been discussed by Stresemann in a note entitled “The earliest description of the Black- necked Grebe” published in 1948 (Jbis 90 : 473-474), from which extracts have been made for the information of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and are submitted in the Annexe to the present application. . R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee. E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York. ANNEXE TO APPLICATION Extract from a paper entitled “ The earliest description of the Black-necked Grebe ” (1948, “ Ibis,” 90 : 473-474) Changes in scientific nomenclature are becoming increasingly unpopular among ornithologists, and rightly so. It is especially awkward if a name of long standing and of very frequent use has to be discarded under present rules in favour of a quite unknown one. I see, however, no way for avoiding super- session of Podiceps nigricollis Brehm, 1831, by Podiceps caspicus (Hablizl, 1783). In his article ““ Bemerkungen in der persischen Landschaft Gilan und auf den Gilanischen Gebirgen in den Jahren 1773 und 1774,” published in vol. 4 (1783) of Pallas’s magazine “ Neue Nordische Beytrage,”’ Carl Hablizl on page 9 gave the following detailed description of a grebe which he had met by the end of November 1773 in the Bay of Enzeli, Caspian Sea, and which he proposed to call Colymbus caspicus: “‘ Magnitudo Columbae domesticae, Rostrum plumbeum pollicare, Caput et reiquum corpus supra fusco nigricat. Gula et genae, lateraque colli superioris alba ; collum inferius gryseum. Pectus, abdomen et venter albo-argentea. Alae complicatae ad uropygium protensae. Uropygium infimum albo-nigroque vatiegatum. Remiges a prima ad sectum immaculatae, fuscae, a sexta ad decimum candidae, uno latere fusco maculatae, a decima vero ad vigesimam primam usque immaculatae, candidae. Tectrices alarum fuscae. Pedes et digiti interius cinereo-virescentes, exterius fusco- nigricantes. Oculorum irides, ut et palpebrae, rubrae.” That this bird was undoubtedly a Black-necked, and not a Slavonian, Grebe (in the synonymy of which the name Colymbus caspicus had been sunk by all previous authors, Ogilvie-Grant and Hartert), is proved by the colour of the inner primaries, which are always entirely dark in P. awritus, not partially white (candidae, uno latere fusco-maculatae). 32 . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS FOUR TRIVIAL NAMES FOR BIRDS PUB- LISHED BY ANTON AUGUST HEINRICH LICHTENSTEIN IN 1793 Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)526) Covering letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October, 1950, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the annexed application relating to four trivial names for birds published by A. Lichenstein in 1793, for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The Standing Committee is unanimous in its view as regards the first and second of the names dealt with in the present application. In the case of the third name (Cuculus sulphuratus Lichtenstein (A.), 1793), one member of the Standing Committee (Dr. John T. Zimmer) does not support the proposal submitted. The problem dealt with in. the present application has been discussed by Meise & Stresemann in a paper entitled “‘ Notes on South African birds des- cribed in A. Lichtenstein’s ‘ Catalogus,’ 1793,” published earlier this year in the Ibis (Meise & Stresemann, 1950, Ibis 92 : 22-26), extracts from which are quoted in the application now submitted. I have to add that a slight amplification is necessary in the case of the third of the proposals now submitted to the International Commission by the Standing Committee. The object of that proposal is to provide a secure legal foundation for the trivial name flava Vieillot, 1817 (as published in the binominal combina- tion Campephaga flava), and for this purpose the Standing Committee propose in the annexed application that the International Commission should use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the earlier trivial name sulphuratus Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the binominal combination Cuculus sulphuratus). It must be noted however that, as shown by Meise and Strese- mann in their paper published in the Ibis in 1950 (extracts from which are incorporated in the application now submitted), Lichtenstein was in doubt as to whether the bird which he was describing was a cuckoo or a shrike. In addition to giving this bird the name Cuculus sulphuratus, he therefore gave it also the name Lanius flavescens. The application now submitted by the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 Standing Committee is therefore to be taken as constituting a request for the suppression, under the plenary powers, of the trivial name flavescens Lichten- stein, 1793, as well as of sulphuratus Lichtenstein, 1793. The specific action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to take is thus that it should :— (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned trivial names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— a) cafra Lichtenstem, 1793 (as published in the combination Otis cafra) ; (b) cafer Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the combination Cuculus cafer) ; | (c) sulphuratus Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the combination ; Cuculus sulphuratus) ; ; (d) flavescens Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the combination Lanius flavescens) ; (2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;— (a) barrowt Gray (J.E.), 1829 (as published in the combination Otis barrow?) ; (b) clamosus Latham, 1801 (as published in the combination Cuculus clamosus) ; c) flava Vieillot, 1817 (as published in the combination Campephaga flava) ; _ (3) place the four trivial names specified in (1) above, as there proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952) 34 . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ENCLOSURE Three trivial names published for birds by Lichenstein (A.) in 1793 proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers (1) The trivial name comprised in the specific name Otis cafra Lichten- stein (A.), 1793, Cat. Rer. nat. rarissim. : 36. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely, Otis barrowi Gray (J. E.), 1829, in Griffith’s Cuvier’s Animal Kingdom 8 Aves 3 : 304 (“Cape of Good Hope ”’), be made a nomen conservandum. (2) The trivial name comprised in the specific name Cuculus cafer Lichten- stein (A.), 1793, Cat. Reh. nat. rarissim. : 14. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Cuculus clamosus Latham, 1801, Index Orn., Suppl. 1 : XXX (“ Cape of Good Hope ”’), be made a nomen conservandum. (3) The trivial name comprised in the specific name Cuculus sulphuratus Lichtenstein (A.), 1793, Cat. Rer. nat. rarissim. : 15. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Campephaga flava Vieillot, 1817, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 10 : 49 (“ South Africa ’’), be made a nomen conservandum. The circumstances of the present case have been discussed by Meise and Stresemann in a paper published in 1950 (Ibis 92 : 22-26), from which extracts have been made for the information of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and are submitted in the Annexe to the present application. R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee. E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER* : The American Museum of Natural History, New York. (items 1 and 2 only). *Note by Dr. John T. Zimmer on Case No. 3 (extract from a letter dated 3rd April, 1951) : The case on which I differed from other members of the Standing Committee may be covered by a single statement. I did not feel that any serious confusion would result from the adoption of the newly discovered name. The change is perhaps unfortunate, as all such changes are, but is likely to cause no more than temporary inconvenience. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — . 35 ANNEXE TO APPLICATION Extract from a paper by Meise & Stresemann published in 1950 (“Ibis ” 92 : 22-26) During the last days of October 1793 a large collection of mounted birds. . . was dispersed by auction at Eimbeck’s sale house at Hamburg. The contents were made known to the public by a sale catalogue prepared by Dr. Anton August Heinrich Lichtenstein (1753-1816) . . . At the time of this sale, A. A. H. Lichtenstein was headmaster of a famous classical college at Hamburg. . . and his little pamphlet “‘ Catalogus Rerum naturalium rarissimarum,” containing the description of several new species, was commented upon in contemporary reviews. It has long been supposed that many of the specimens listed in the ‘ Cata- logus ” were collected in South Africa by Francois Levaillant during his stay from 1781-1784, yet Godman had to confess that he was quite at a loss regarding the former owner of this remarkable Cabinet. It is only now that the mystery of more than 150 years can be unveiled. All these valuable mammals, birds, shells, and insects had formed the Cabinet of L. F. Holthuizen, a wealthy Dutchman living at Amsterdam, whose collection had been praised by Levaillant (“* Oiseaux d’ Afrique, 1,” 1796, 4to, p. 56) in the following terms: “ & Amster- dam, on voit encore le cabinet trés-nombreux d’oiseaux, du citoyen Holthuyzen, qui posséde aussi une grande et belle suite de papillons et d’insectes.” A remark of the younger Lichtenstein, contained in the biography of his father . . . where it is expressly stated that the latter catalogued the Holthuizen collection, led to the final solution of the riddle . . . It has been this accidental discovery that induced us to study the catalogue with critical eyes, whereby it soon became apparent that this had only very seldom been done by others. Holthuizen seems to have bought his specimens from many sources; .. . A good many (47 species) came from Cayenne, but no other part of the world had contributed to it as much as South Africa: 60 species. It can hardly be doubted that most, if not all, of them had been collected there by Levaillant . . . Levaillant must have sold these birds to Holthuizen during the years 1785 to 1790—at the same time that another part of his collection went to Jacob Temminck and Joan Raye van Breukelerwaard, both equally of Amsterdam. A. Lichtenstein had but very little practice in determining birds, yet the number of new species he dared to describe . . . amounted to 38, 17 of which are stated to have come from South Africa. They are the following :— 5. Otis cafra nobis (p. 36), “ Caffernland.’’ Owing to the misinterpretation of A. Lichtenstein’s original description (1793) by H. Lichtenstein in 1823, the name Otis cafra has been accepted to designate the large “ Veld Paauw ”’ of the Boers. However from examination of the 1793 “ Cata- logus ’ it becomes apparent that a small species of Bustard was meant, and that the description exactly fits the species named Otis barrowi by Gray (though most inappropriately, since John Barrow’s “ Wild 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Peacock *’ was the large species hitherto called Otis cafra). Unless A. Lichtenstein’s Otis cafra is voted an obligatory synonym of the later Otis . . . , our discovery is going to have deplorable consequences. . . . 8. Cuculus cafer nobis (p. 14), “ terra Cafrirum.” This name was forgotten up to 1870, when Sharpe (“ Ibis,” 1870: 58) applied it to the species up to then incorrectly named Coccystes afer (Leach). Sharpe apparently never gave the reasons for his change in nomenclature, which soon was adopted by all ornithologists, although the original description at a glance reveals the error. In reality Lichtenstein had before him a bird which was not crested and “ corpore supra splendide atro, infra fusco undulato. Remiges et retrices splendide nigrae maculatis exalbidis . Kopf, Nacken und Riicken sind glinzend schwarz; Brust und Unterleib sind braun gewellet. . . .” Such barred specimens of Cuculus clamosus occur in South Africa (Stark & Sclater, ‘‘ Birds South Africa,” 3 (1903) : 192). Therefore the synonymy will be :— Cuculus cafer A. Lichtenstein Cuculus cafer A. Lichtenstein, “ Cat. Rer. nat.” 1793 : 14 Cuculus clamosus Latham, “‘ Ind. Orn.” Suppl. 1 (1801) : xxx Clamator levaillanti (Swainson) Cuculus afer Leach, “ Zool. Mise.” 1 (1814) : 72, tab. 31 nec Cuculus afer Gmelin, “ Syst. Nat.” 1 : 418, 1788 (which is Leptosomus discolor (Hermann 1783)) Coccyzus levaillanti Swainson, “ ‘Zool. Ill.” (2) 1:3, 1829, tab. 13 Cuculus cafer Sharpe 1870 et auct. seq., but not of A. Lichtenstein. % Cuculus sulphuratus nobis; vel potius Lanius flavescens?” (p. 15). “ Hab. in terra Caffrorum.” 'A. Lichtenstein had been in doubt whether this Cuckoo-shrike was really a cuckoo or rather a yellowish shrike. His description is clearly that of the female of Campephaga flava Vieillot. This implies the following change (unless the current name is ranked among the nomina conservanda by some international body). Campephaga sulphurata (A. Lichtenstein) Cuculus sulphuratus A. Lichtenstein 1793 (“terra Cafrorum,”’ descr. 9), Campephaga flava Vieillot 1817 (South Africa, ex Levaillant, descr. *). Campephaga nigra Vieillot 1817 (South Africa, ex Levaillant, descr. ¢). . . . . q Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 Suggestions In accordance with their postulate that changes in current nomenclature ought to be avoided as far as possible, the authors suggest :— 1. Discarding altogether those names which had been misinterpreted { for a century, instead of connecting them in future with their original, and therefore proper, species. If one applies this to the names Otis cafra (A. Lichtenstein) and Cuculus cafer (A. Lichtenstein), changes in the nomenclature of the genera Hupodotis and Cuculus will be prevented. 2. Ranking Campephaga flava Vieillot among the nomina conservanda, with Cuculus sulphuratus (A. Lichtenstein) an obligatory synonym of it. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP- PRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “ NORTONIENSIS ” GMELIN, 1789 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “ FRINGILLA NORTONIENSIS ” (CLASS AVES)) Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)527) Covering letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October, 1950, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the annexed recommendation relating to the name Fringilla nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789, for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The circumstances of the present case were described by Dr. E. Stresemann, a Member of the Standing Committee, in a paper entitled “‘ Birds collected in the North Pacific Area during Capt. James ‘Cook’s last Voyage (1778 and 1779),” published in 1949 (Stresemann, 1949, Jbis 91 : 252), an extract from which is given in the Annexe to the application now submitted. The specific action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take in this case is: (1) that it should use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Fringilla nortoniensis) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the trivial name pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876 (as published in the combination Emberiza pyrrhulinus) on the Official Inst of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (3) place the trivial name nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the com- _ bination Fringilla nortoniensis), as proposed, in (1) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. ENCLOSURE The trivial name comprised in the specific name “ Fringilla nortoniensis ” Gmelin, 1789 It is recommended that the trivial name (nortoniensis) comprised in the specific name Fringilla nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 922) be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name (pyrrhulina) comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 Emberiza pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876, Ibis (3) 5-: 333, pl. VIII, fig. 2 (‘‘ Hakodati’”’) be made a nomen conservandum. The trivial name pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876, has been in continuous use for three quarters of a century, while the name nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789, has been completely overlooked. The introduction of Gmelin’s long-forgotten name nortoniensis would give rise to confusion and would be open to strong objection. Attached to the present application is an extract from a paper by Dr. E. Stresemann published in 1949 (Ibis 91 : 252) in which the trivial name nortoniensis Gmelin was first synonymised with pyrrhulinus Swinhoe. R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee. E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitét, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York. ANNEXE TO APPLICATION Extract from a paper entitled “ Birds collected in the North Pacific Area during Capt. James Cook’s last Voyage (1778 and 1779) ” (Stresemann, 1949, “ Ibis ” 91 : 244-255) [The birds discussed in the above paper are grouped by reference to the localities in which they were observed, and the dates on which these localities were visited on Captain Cook’s voyage. The bird dealt with in the present application is discussed in the tenth of these _ groups which is lettered “J.” and is concerned with birds observed in Kamschatka.] J. KamtscuatKa: 28th April to 4th June, 1779 and 24th August to 9th October, 1779. (1) [Emberiza schoeniclus pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876] Fringilla norton- iensis Gmelin, 1(2) : 922 (1789), ex “ Norton Finch,” Pennant, 2: 376. “ Discovered in Norton Sound.” Locality wrong. The specimen described by Pennant is a male in fresh autumn plumage (lacking the outermost pair of tail feathers) of the Kamschatka race of the Reed Bunting. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP- PRESS SEVEN TRIVIAL NAMES PUBLISHED BY GMELIN IN 1788 AND 1789 FOR BIRDS WHICH UNTIL 1950 RE- MAINED UNIDENTIFIED Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 454) Covering letter, dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosure, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the following recommendations for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ._The recommendations now submitted relate to seven trivial names published by Gmelin in 1789 for birds taken on Captain Cook’s Last Expedition. None of these names has been used by ornithologists, for the species so named have always been considered unrecognizable until in 1950 Dr. Erwin Stresemann, a member of the Standing Committee, established the identity of the species in question (Stresemann, 1950, Awk 67 : 66-88). In the opinion of the majority of the members of the Committee it is desirable that all the seven names listed in the enclosure to the present letter should be suppressed by the International Commission, the corresponding names now in use for the species concerned being at the same time placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. One member of the Standing Committee (Dr. John T. Zimmer), while concurring with the other members of the Committee as regards five of the seven names concerned, does not support the recommendation submitted in the two other names, namely the trivial name ezmeensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination Columba eimeensis) and the trivial name australis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination Sterna australis). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take is that it should :— (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned trivial names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) eimeensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Columba evmeensis) ; (b) unalaschkensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Hirundo unalaschkensis) ; (c) natka Gmelin, 1788 (as published in the combination Lanius natka) ; (d) septentrionalis Gmelin, 1788 (as published in the combination Lanius septentrionalis) ; (e) borealis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Motacilla borealis) ; (f) cirrhatus Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Pele- canus cirrhatus) ; (g) australis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Sterna australis) ; (2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) stairi Gray (G.R.), 1856 (as published in the combination Caloenas (Phlegoenas) stair) ; (b) townsendi Oberholser, 1906 (as published in the combination Collocalla francica townsend) ; (c) pacificus Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination shir pacificus) ; (d) heinet Finsch & Hartlaub, 1870 (as published in the combination Myolestes heinet) ; (e) sepium Horsfield, 1821 (as published in the combination Ortho- tomus seprum) ; (f) albiventer Lesson, 1831 (as published in the combination Carbo albiventer) ; (g) cerulea Bennett (F.D.), 1840 (as published in the combination Sterna cerulea) ; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the seven trivial names specified in (1), as there proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ENCLOSURE Seven trivial names published for birds by Gmelin in 1789 bo proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers The trivial name comprised in the specific name Columba eimeensis Gmelin, 1789, 7m Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (2) : 784. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Caloenas (Phlegoenas) stairi Gray (G. R.), [1856], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 24 (301) : 7 (“‘ Samoa ”’) be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Auk 67: 75. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Hirundo unalaschkensis Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (2) : 1025. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the subspecific trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this subspecies, namely Collocalla francica townsendi Oberholser, 1906, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 58 : 181 (“ Tonga Islands ’’) be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Auk 67 : 74. . The trivial name comprised in the specific name Lanius natka Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus, abid. 1 (1) : 309. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Turdus pacificus Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, ibid. 1 (2): 813, be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Auk 67: 73. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Lanius septentrionalis Gmelin, 1788, 7x Linnaeus, tbid. 1 (1) : 306. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Myolestes heinei Finsch & Hartlaub, 1870, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1869 : 546 (‘‘ Tonga Islands”’), be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Awk 67 : 73-74. The trivial names comprised in the specific names Motacilla borealis Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, ibid. 1 (2) : 986, and Motacilla camtschat- kensis Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, 2bid. 1 (2) : 986. It is recommended that the above names (which apply to the same species) should be made nomina rejecta and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Orthotomus sepium Horsfield, 1821, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 13 (1) : 166 (“ Java’’) be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Auk 67 : 81-82. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 6. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Pelecanus cirrhatus Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, tbid. 1 (2) : 576. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Carbo albiventer Lesson, 1831, Traité Orn. (8): 604 (‘‘ Falkland Islands’), be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Auk 67 : 83. 7. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Sterna australis Gmelin, 1789, on Linnaeus, abid. 1 (2) : 608. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Sterna cerulea Bennett (F. D.), 1840, Narr. Whaling Voy. 2: 248 (‘‘ Christmas Island’) be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Awk 67 : 78. R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee. 0 E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitdt, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER* : The American Museum of Natural History, New York. i (except items | and 7) *Note by Dr. John T. Zimmer on Cases Nos. 1 and 7 (extract from a letter dated 3rd April, 1951): i The cases on which I differed from other members of the Standing Committee may be covered Fe by a single statement. I did not feel that any serious confusion would result from the adoption “| _ of the newly discovered name. The change is perhaps unfortunate, as all such ee are, but i is likely to cause no more than temporary inconvenience. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ELEGANS” GOULD, 1837 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “ MALURUS ELEGANS”) (CLASS AVES) By H. M. WHITTELL, 0O.B.E. (On behalf of the Checklist Committee of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)341) The Checklist Committee of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union petitions the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name elegans Forster (J.R.), 1794, Mag. merkwurd. neuen Reise Beschr. § : 128 (as published in the bominal combination Motacilla elegans) and thereby to validate the trivial name elegans Gould (J.), 1837, Birds Australia and adj. Islands (1): pl. 2 (as published in the binominal combination Malurus elegans), on the ground that the strict application of the Régles in this case would lead to confusion rather than stability. 2. In 1837, John Gould introduced the name Malurus elegans for a Western Australian bird, for which this name has been in use ever since—for a period of over 110 years. 3. In 1937, however, Mr. T. Iredale pointed out (The Emu 37 : 95-99) that in 1794 J. R. Forster, in his Magazin von merkwurdigen neuen Reise Beschrei- bungen applied the name Motacilla elegans to a different bird, namely that to which in 1783 (Gen. syn. Birds 2(2) : 581) Latham had applied the name Motacilla cyanea. 4. The two birds discussed above are currently regarded as belonging to the same genus, and in consequence the name elegans Gould, 1837, is invalid, being a junior secondary homonym of the name elegans Forster, 1794. The strict applications of the Régles in the present case would cause great con- fusion, for it would not only mean that the Western Australian bird would be deprived of the name by which it has been universally known since 1837 but would also involve the transfer of the name elegans to another species in the same genus. This would be a very high price to pay for the sake of bringing into use the name elegans Forster, 1794, which has never had any currency, virtually the only reference to it in the literature being in the account given in Iredale in 1937. 5. It is for the foregoing reasons that the International Commission is asked to take the action specified in the first paragraph of the present Commission. The Commission is asked at the same time (1) to place the trivial name elegans Gould, 1837 (as published in the binominal combination Malurus elegans) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (2) to place the trivial name elegans Forster, 1794 (as published in the binominal combination M otacilla elegans) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES A PAPER BY FOR- STER (J. R.) CONTAINING NEW NAMES FOR CERTAIN AUSTRALIAN BIRDS PUBLISHED IN 1794 IN VOLUME 5 OF THE “ MAGAZIN VON MERKWURDIGEN NEUEN REISE BESCHREIBUNGEN ” By ERNST MAYR (The American Museum of Natural History, New York), DEAN AMADON (The American Museum of Natural History, New York), JEAN DELACOUR (The American Mriseum of Natural History, New York), L. GLAVERT (Natural History Museum, Perth, Western Australia), ROBERT CUSHMAN MURPHY (The American Museum of Natural History, New York), D. L. SERVENTY (Nedlands, Western Australia), H. M. WHITTELL, O.B.E. (Bridgetown, Western Australia) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)494) (Communicated on 19th October, 1950, by Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress) The occasional discovery of long-forgotten scientific names has been exceedingly unsettling for scientific nomenclature. To correct this evil, the International Zoological Congress at Monaco adopted in 1913 the so-called Monaco Resolution which permits the setting aside of the Rule of Priority whenever its application results clearly in greater confusion than uniformity. Even though this opportunity to save well-established names has been available since 1913, ornithologists have only rarely taken advantage of it. The Inter- national Ornithological Congress at Uppsala, 1950, appointed a committee of bird taxonomists to collaborate with the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature and, in particular, to call attention to names which are In need of preservation in accordance with the Monaco Resolution. 2. The names of some Australian birds seem to require action under the ‘Monaco Resolution. In 1937 (Emu 37 : 95-99) Tom Iredale called attention to an overlooked paper by J. R. Forster published in 1794 in German as an appendix to a description of the new British colonies in Australia (Magazin von merkwiirdigen neuen Reise Beschreibungen 5:128). This publication contains fifteen new scientific names which were analysed by Iredale who found that only four have priority over names now in use. Furthermore, one of them, namely Alcedo collaris Forster, 1794, is a homonym of Alcedo collaris Scopoli, 1786 (Deliciae Florae Faunae insubricae 2:90) and was therefore stillborn at the time of its publication. Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 9 (October 1952) 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Iredale analysed in detail the status of the other three names with the following results :— (1) Turdus phaeus Forster, 1794, has seven years’ priority over Turdus harmonicus Latham, 1801 (Index Orn., Suppl. : xi), the well-known name of the Grey Shrikethrush called Colluricincla harmonica for over 130 years. To replace this well-established name at the present time would clearly be most unfortunate, and we request therefore the International Commission to make use of its plenary powers to place the name Turdus harmonicus Latham, 1801, on the list of nomina conservanda and the name Turdus phacus Forster, 1794, on the list of nomina rejecta. (2) Action in the second case is even more important. Forster gives the name Motacilla elegans to the bird now called Malurus cyaneus australis North, 1904. If Forster’s name is accepted this bird would receive the name Malurus cyaneus elegans Forster. However, Gould proposed the name Malurus elegans in 1837 for a Western Australian bird for which it has been in use for more than 100 years. A transfer of the name elegans from the Western Australian species to the eastern one would cause severe confusion. We request therefore the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make use of its plenary powers and place Malurus elegans Gould, 1837 (Birds Austr. (1) : pl. 2) on the list of nomina conservanda and Motacilla elegans Forster, 1794, on the list of nomina rejecta. (3). The third name is Muscicapa chlorotis Forster, 1794, for a bird generally called Muscicapa [=Meliphaga] chrysops (Latham, 1801) (=Sylvia chrysops Latham, 1801, Index Ornith., Suppl. : liv), but which Iredale states to be antedated by Muscicapa novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (Index Orn. : 478). 4. Recommendation ; The publication in which Forster proposes these names is apparently exceedingly rare. It does not appear to be in the library of the British Museum (Natural History), and these scientific names are not included in Sherborn’s Index Animalium. The simplest way to deal with this publication would be to classify all the names published in this volume as nomina rejecta. The ornithologists whose names appear at the head of this — application suggest this action to the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 ON THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE PLENARY POWERS SHOULD BE USED TO SUPPRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “ NOVAEHOLLANDIAE” LATHAM, 1790 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ MUSCI- CAPA NOVAEHOLLANDIAE”) IN ORDER TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ CHRYSOPS ” LATHAM, 1801 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “SYLVIA CHRYSOPS”) (CLASS AVES) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)494) 1. When I received the application submitted to the International Com- mission for the use of the plenary powers to suppress three trivial names published for Australian birds by Forster (J. R.) in 1794, it seemed to me that further clarification was needed as regards the third of the cases submitted, for it was not clear that the action recommended would be sufficient to secure the purpose of the applicants, namely to ensure that the trivial name chrysops Latham, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Sylvia chrysops) should be the oldest trivial name available (both objectively and subjectively) for the bird to which it is currently applied. For the applicants pointed out that the nominal species Sylvia chrysops Latham, 1801, had been subjectively identified by Iredale not only with the nominal species Muscicapa chlorotis Forster, 1794, but also with the older nominal species Muscicapa novaehollandiae Latham, 1790. The suppression (as proposed) of the trivial name chlorotis Forster, 1794, would, therefore, not suffice to provide availability for the trivial name chrysops Latham, 1801. 2. With the approval of Colonel R. Meinertzhagen (through whom this application had been submitted to the Commission), I accordingly decided. to raise this question with Dr. Ernst Mayr (American Museum of Natural History, New York), the first of the signatories to the application submitted to the International Commission. When my letter reached New York, Dr. | Mayr had left on a visit to Europe. On receiving my letter, he answered direct from Europe and at the same time sent my letter back to Dr. Dean Amadon at the American Museum. A little later Dr. Amadon wrote me a letter quoting the views expressed on this subject by Dr. D. L. Serventy (Nedlands, Western Australia) in a letter to Dr. Mayr and at the same time adding a note of his own views on the question at issue. The views of these specialists are set out in the following paragraphs. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. View of Dr. Ernst Mayr (letter dated 7th April, 1951): Dr. Mayr wrote :— What a pity your letter did not reach me before I left New York. .. . Most authors considered novahollandiae Latham, 1790, up to now as un- identifiable (a nomen dubium) and there are indeed somé outright con- tradictions in the description, if the name really applies to chrysops. However Serventy wrote me recently that the name was based on some paintings and that these paintings represent chrysops undoubtedly. You are therefore entirely correct that it would be wiser to outlaw also the name novae- hollandiae. This is indeed what Serventy proposed to me by letter. You have my full authority to act along the line of your suggestion. 4. View of Dr. D. L. Serventy, expressed in a letter to Dr. Ernst Mayr (communicated by Dr. Dean Amadon in a letter dated 11th April, 1951): Ina letter, dated 11th April, 1951, Dr. Dean Amadon quoted the following passage from a letter previously received by Dr. Ernst Mayr from Dr. D. L. Serventy :— Your paragraph on the name Muscicapa novaehollandiae is strictly logical if one can confine oneself to the written word. Unfortunately, the name is based also on the coloured plate and a textual description in a work by John White ‘“‘ Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales,” an extract from which I enclose. You will see that certain portions of White’s original description are omitted by Latham. The plate, which is in colour, is not a very good one but I think it can be accepted to represent the bird we now know as Meliphaga chrysops. In the plate the bill is shown as being down-curved and is black at the base and tip. The most striking discrepancy between the plate and the actual bird is the absence of the black lines at the side of the head but this may have been due to the fact that the head on the plate is very dark except for the yellow ear coverts. My copy of White was bought some years ago from Tom Iredale who told me that it was one of the original copies owned by Mathews. There are several annotations in pencil by Mathews in it and the plate of the Yellow-eared Flycatcher is labelled in Mathews’s hand-writing as M. ornata. This is the view which Mathews also held in his “ Birds of Australia,” vol. 2, but in the 1931 list he used novaehollandiae as the prior name for M. chrysops. It is quite impossible that the bird figured by White might have been M. ornata which is an inland bird in New South Wales. The only two possibilities are M. fusca or M. chrysops, and the bird represented to me appears to be the latter. I think that the only thing to do now is to endeavour to place the name Muscicapa novaehollandiae on the list of nomina rejecta. 5. Comment by Dr. Dean Amadon (letter dated 11th April, 1951): In the letter containing the foregoing extract from the letter from Dr. Serventy quoted in the preceding paragraph, Dr. Amadon added the following comment : You will see from this that Serventy believes that this name Muscicapa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 novaehollandiae Latham, 1790, applies to the bird now known as Meliphaga chrysops and thinks that the name novachollandiae, as well as chlorotis, should be declared nomina rejecta. It may be emphasised that there is some doubt still as to whether the name novaehollandiae actually does refer to the species in question. 6. Conclusion: It is evident from the foregoing statements that, although there is still room for difference of opinion regarding the identity of the species represented by the name Muscicapa novaehollandiae Latham, 1790, the likeli- hood of the species in question being the same as that represented by the nominal species Sylvia chrysops Latham, 1801, is so great that, so long as the first of these names remains available nomenclatorially, it will never be possible to secure the object sought by the applicants, namely that the trivial name chrysops Latham shall be unquestionably the oldest available trivial name for the bird now known as Meliphaga chrysops (Latham, 1801). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952) . 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNI- THOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. ERNST MAYR AND OTHERS FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES A PAPER CONTAINING NEW NAMES FOR CERTAIN AUSTRALIAN BIRDS PUB- LISHED BY FORSTER IN 1794 Communication received from the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)494) Letter dated 4th April 1952 from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress On 19th October 1950 I forwarded to you, for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, an application which had been sent to me, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, by Dr. Ernst Mayr and others, asking the International Com- mission to use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing, for nomen- clatorial purposes, a paper containing new names by J. R. Forster for certain Australian birds published in 1794 in volume 5 of the Magazin von merkwiirdigen neuen Reise Beschreibungen. I have now to inform you that the proposals drawn up by Dr. Mayr have since been examined by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature, each member of which has signed the attached copy of Dr. Mayr’s application. In the name of the Standing Committee (Professor Berlioz, Dr. Stresemann, Dr. Zimmer and myself) I accordingly beg to ask you to inform the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that the foregoing application has the full support of the Standing Committee. In the case of the third of the names dealt with in the foregoing application, the International Commission is asked to treat the application as one for the suppression not only of the trivial name chlorotis Forster, 1794 (as published in the binominal combination Muscicapa chlorotis) but also of the trivial name novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (as published in the binominal combination Muscicapa novaehollandiae), since, as explained in the application, the identi- fication by Iredale of Latham’s novaehollandiae constitutes just as much a threat to the name (chrysops) commonly applied to this species as does Forster’s name chlorotis. ~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take is that it should :-— (1) use its plenary powers to suppress :— (a) the trivial name elegans Forster, 1794 (as published in the combination Motacilla elegans) for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (>) the under-mentioned trivial names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) phaeus Forster, 1794 (as published in the combination Turdus phaeus); (ii) chlorotis Forster, 1794 (as published in the combination Muscicapa chlorotis) ; (iit) novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (as published in the combination Muscicapa novaehollandiae) ; (2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (2) harmonicus Latham, 1801 (as published in the combination Turdus harmonicus) ; (2) elegans Gould, 1837 (as published in the combination Malurus elegans) ; (c) chrysops Latham, 1801 (as published in the combination Sylvia chrysops) ; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the four trivial names specified in (1) above, as there proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED EMENDATION, UNDER ARTICLE 19, OF THE TRIVIAL NAMES OF THREE SPECIES OF BIRD WHICH, WHEN FIRST PUBLISHED, WERE INCORRECTLY SPELT Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)491) Covering letter dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosure, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the following recommendation relating to the acceptance of emendations of the trivial names of three bird species for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Each of the trivial names concerned is the oldest available for the species concerned, and it is accordingly recommended that these three names, when emended, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. ENCLOSURE Proposed correction of faulty orthography in the case of the trivial names of three species of bird Alauda brachydactila Leisler, 1814, Annalen der Wetterautschen Gesellschaft fiir die Gesammte Naturkunde 3(2) : 357. Vultur perenopterus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 87. Tringa ocrophus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 149. These names, as originally spelled, are faulty Latin, they offend the cultured mind and are meaningless. Under Article 19, these names should be regarded as cases of “ fautes d’orthographe”’ or “fautes d’impression ” and should be emended to read :— Alauda brachydactyla Leisler. Bpaxts__ short. daxtudos toe. Vultur percnopterus Linnaeus. “epxvos dusky. TTepov = Wing. Tringa ochropus Linnaeus.* —®xpos_ pale yellow. ovs foot. R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Commitiec. J. BERLIOZ: Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York. *See also in this connection pp, 75-76. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “ PYRRHOCORAX” TUNSTALL, 1771 (CLASS AVES) FOR THE CHOUGH Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)492) Covering letter, dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosures, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the following recommendation for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ENCLOSURE 1 Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the generic name “ Pyrrhocorax ” Tunstall, 1771 Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771, Orn. Brit. : 2. Type species of genus by monotypy : Upupa pyrrho- corax Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 188. Coracia Brisson, 1760, Orn. 2 : 3 (with same type species). The name Pyrrhocorax has been used for over one hundred years. Sharpe (1877, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 3: 146) rejects Coracia owing to its similarity with Coracias Linnaeus. It has since been rejected by many authors as being a faulty transliteration of Coracias. The B.0.U. List Committee (1947 Ibis 1947: 354) adopted the name Coracia Brisson as the correct name of the genus Pyrrhocorax Tunstall. This change can only lead to confusion. It is hoped that Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771 (type species: Upupa pyrr- hocoraz Linnaeus, 1758) be made a nomen conservandum and that Coracia Brisson be suppressed. R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee. E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitit, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York. 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ENCLOSURE 2 Note, dated 25th September, 1950, by Professor J. Berlioz (Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) As concerning Coracia, the question seems to me much more difficult [than the questions relating to the trivial name of the Song Thrush and the proposed emendation of certain other trivial names dealt with respectively in Applications Z.N.(S.)493 and Z.N.(S.)491, submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature]. Of course, I myself hate the unnecessary changes in nomenclature. But I believe that the use of the name Coracias for the Rollers was adopted at the time when all Brisson’s names were rejected. Since the generic names given by Brisson were considered as valid by a Zoological Congress, it seems that they must antedate Linné’s names given in 1766. So (most unfortunately, I agree) Coracia would have priority for the Choughs and Galgulus for the Rollers. Even Coracias cannot be accepted for the latter, as it is clearly stated by Brisson that the Latin Coracia is the same as the French “ Coracias,” and Galgulus is perfectly valid for the Rollers. ON THE APPLICATION RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAMES ‘“PYRRHOCORAX” TUNSTALL, 1771, AND “ CORACIA ” BRISSON, 1760 (CLASS AVES), SUBMITTED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNITHOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORNITHO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9 (,*4r°% By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)492) 1. The purpose of the present note is twofold: (1) to clear away certain misapprehensions which it appears from the second of the two enclosures submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature appear to exist regarding the action taken by the International Congress of Zoology and by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the status of generic names published in Brisson (M.J.), 1760, Ornithologie ; (2) to indicate the action which under the established procedure would be necessary in the event of the approval by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the recommendations in regard to the generic names Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771, and Coracia Brisson, 1760, submitted to it by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 (a) Action taken by the International Congress of Zoology and by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the status of generic names in Brisson, 1760, “ Ornithologie ” 2. The question of the availability of the generic names published in 1760 in Brisson’s Ornithologie was first brought before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the late Dr, Ernst Hartert. The exact date of this application is not known but it was presumably a year or more prior to 1911, the year in which the decision of the International Commission on this subject was published in Opinion 37. At that time the International Commission (in common with all other zoologists) was much preoccupied with the problem whether under the Régles any status attached to generic names published by authors who applied a so-called “ binary ” system of nomenclature but who did not apply a binominal system of nomenclature. Shortly before the publication of Opinion 37 (in regard to Brisson’s names), the International Commission adopted an Opinion—Opinion 20, published in July 1910 (Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 48-51)—in regard to the status of generic names published in 1763, by the “ binary ” but not binominal author Gronovius in his work entitled the Zoophylacium Gronovianum. In this Opinion the International Commission ruled in favour of the availability under the Régles of generic names published by “ binary ” but not binominal authors. Accord- ingly, when shortly afterwards, the International Commission come to consider Dr. Hartert’s application relating to the status of generic names published in 1760 by the “ binary ” but admittedly not binominal author M. J. Brisson, it ruled that those names were available under the Regles. This ruling, embodied (as already noted) in Opinion 37 (1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 87-88), was pub- lished exactly one year after Opinion 20, the Opinion on which, as the Opinion dealing with the question of principle involved, the validity of the ruling in Opinion 37 depended. 3. It is not necessary here to recapitulate in detail the long drawn-out controversy which followed the ruling (given in Opinion 20) in favour of the availability of generic names published after 1757 by authors who applied a so-called “ binary ” but not binominal system of nomenclature. It is sufficient to recall that, in the light of the proceedings at the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930, the Twelfth Congress at Lisbon in 1935 invited the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to prepare a comprehensive Report on the issues involved for consideration by the Thirteenth Congress and that the Report, so prepared by the International Commission, secured unanimous approval when it was submitted to the Thirteenth Congress at its meeting in Paris in July, 1948. It is in the light of that Report (for the text of which see, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 152-167) and of the decisions thereon taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the International Congress of Zoology that the present status of Brisson’s generic names must be judged. 4. As will be seen from the Report referred to above, the International Commission (1) reported that the apparently ambiguous phrase “‘ nomenclature binaire”’ as used in the substantive French text of the Regles was (for the reasons there explained) identical in meaning with the expression “ nomen- 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature clature binominale’”’ and recommended that the latter expression, being absolutely clear in meaning, should be substituted for the expression ‘“‘ nomen- clature binaire,”’ (2) cancelled those of its earlier Opinions (including Opinion 37, relating to the status of the generic names published by Brisson in 1760 in Ornithologia), which were dependent upon Opinion 20 and were therefore now seen to be incorrect, but (3) recognising that many of Brisson’s generic names were in general use by ornithologists and being anxious to avoid any action which would lead to unnecessary name-changing, recommended the Congress to make an exception in favour of Brisson’s generic names and to accord to them availability under the Reégles, notwithstanding the fact that Brisson had not (as required by the amended text of Proviso (a) to Article 25) in the Ornithologia applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. Readers who are interested in the detailed terms of the decision taken by the Inter- national Commission in this matter are referred to the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission at the Fourth of its Meetings held during its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63-66). 5. We see therefore that it was solely for the purpose of promoting stability in ornithological nomenclature and of avoiding unnecessary name-changing that in 1948 the International Commission took the special action described above to provide a legal basis of availability for the generic names published - in Brisson’s Ornithologie of 1760. Neither in this, nor in any other, case, where the International Commission gives a general ruling on the availability of a given book for the purposes of the Régles, does the Commission thereby commit itself on the question whether each and every name published in it is free from all objection from the standpoint of stability in zoological nomen- clature. For clearly decisions on such questions can only be taken on the basis of detailed information submitted in each individual case concerned. Thus, a decision by the International Commission on the general status of a given book for nomenclatorial purposes in no way fetters the liberty of action of the International Commission in dealing with applications for the use of the plenary powers in relation to individual names first published in the book in question or prejudices the action which at a later date the Commission, on being presented with a statement of the facts, may think it desirable to take for the purpose of furthering stability in nomenclature and preventing confusion. - 6. It will be seen therefore that the International Commission is perfectly _ free to take a decision such as that asked for by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature in relation to the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, if it considers such action desirable. It may be added indeed that, at the time when the Commission recommended the Congress to enter Brisson’s Ornithologia in the Schedule of available zoological works then agreed to be added to the Regles, it was aware that applications for the suppression of certain of the generic names published in the Ornithologie might later be received, for already the late Dr. James L. Peters (then Vice-President, later President, of the International Commission) had notified the Secretary that it might be necessary for the Commission to consider such action in individual cases. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature | 57 (b) Need for the decision on the application received from the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature in regard to the names “ Pyrrhocorax” Tunstall, 1771, and “ Coracia” Brisson, 1760, to cover all aspects of the problem involved 7. Two decisions taken in Paris in 1948 on questions of procedure affect the form and scope of the decision to be taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the application received from the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature in regard to the names Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771, and Coracia Brisson, 1760. The first of these decisions, a decision taken by the International Commission itself, is that, contrary to the practice adopted in the case of certain of its earlier Opinions, the decision to be taken in any given case is in future to cover all the points involved in the problem in question and not be confined to certain aspects of that problem of special interest to the applicant from whom the case had been received (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 355). The second of the decisions referred to above was that by which the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology laid upon the International Commission the duty of placing upon the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology (or, as the case may be, the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names) the name of any genus, on which a ruling is given by the Commission, and upon the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology (or, as the case may be, the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names) any trivial name in respect of which a decision may be given by the Commission (including the trivial names of the type species of genera, the names of which are placed on the Official List of Generic Names, except where any such trivial name is not the oldest available such name for the species in question) (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267-271, 334). 8. Under the decisions referred to above, the decision to be taken on the present application will need to deal with the following matters :— (1) Since the application involves the question of the status of the name Coracias Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 107) as the generic name for the Rollers in relation to the name of the objectively identical nominal genus Galgulus Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie : 1 : 30; 2 : 64) (see Enclosure 2 to application submitted), it will be necessary for this subject to be dealt with in the Opinion rendered on this application. Since Galgulus Brisson, 1760, is an objective junior synonym of Coracias Linnaeus, 1758 (type species, by subsequent selection by Sélby, [1825], ZU. brit. Orn. 1 (Landbirds) : xxvii): Coracias garrulus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 107), no difficulty of any kind arises, all that is necessary being (a) that the generic name Coracias Linnaeus, 1758 (type species as above) should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (b) that the name Galgulus Brisson, 1760, should be placed on the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names, and (c) that the trivial name garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Coracias garrulus) should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) If the International Commission decides to grant the principal part of the request addressed to it and therefore to suppress the name - Coracia Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 1:30; 2:3) under its plenary powers, thereby validating the name Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771 (Orn. Brit. : 2) (type species, by monotypy: Upupa pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 118), the first of these names will need to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names, the second, on the Official List of Generic Names. If, however, the Commission were to reject the present application, the name Pyrr- hocorax Tunstall, 1771, would need to be placed on the Official Index and Coracia Brisson, 1760, on the Official List. In either case, the trivial name pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Upupa pyrrhocoraz) will need to be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. (3) Next, it must be noted that in (for example) Neave’s Nomenclator zoologicus there is noted a generic name Pyrrhocorax Moehring, 1758 (Geslach. Vogel. (Nozem. & Vosm. ed.): 1, 15), which, if an available name, would invalidate the name Pyrrhocoraz Tunstall, 1771, which would then become a junior homonym. Fortunately, however, in this case also, no difficulty arises, since at its Session held in Paris in 1948 the Commission gave a ruling (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4: 566-568) that the Geslachten der Vogelen (the translation into Dutch of the pre-1758 work published by Moehring in 1752 under the title Aviwm Genera) is not available under the Régles, Nozeman and Vosmaer not having (as required by Opinion 5) reinforced the names in this book by adoption or acceptance. Accordingly, all that will be necessary in this connection will be that the invalid name Pyrrhocoraz Moehring, 1758, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names. (4) It must be noted also that, in addition to the name Pyrrhocorax Nozeman: & Vosmaer, 1758, discussed above, there is also a name Pyrrhocoraz Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 2: 30-31), of which due account must be taken. In considering this name two points must be noted: (a) that within any given assemblage of species treated by him as constituting a “ genus,” Brisson did not regard himself as in any way bound to cite all the included species under the name of the genus so accepted and indeed very frequently cited the included species under two or more generic (or subgeneric) names, (b) where a species had by previous (pre-1758) authors been known by a univerbal specific name and where Brisson adopted for the genus (or the sub- genus) concerned the same word as that by which the species in question had previously been known, Brisson, though a “ binary ” (but not binominal) author, himself cited the species under a scientific name consisting of the single word which thus denoted both the group (? subgenus) to which Brisson considered the species to belong and also the species itself. In the case with which we are here concerned, namely Brisson’s “Genus XIV,” the genus Corvus, Brisson included ten species but of these he cited only one under the ge ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 name “Corvus” (here used to denote tautonymy in the manner explained above), the other nine species being cited under the names Cornix (4 species), Pyrrhocorax (1 species), Monedula (4 species). The species to which Brisson applied the generic (or subgeneric) name Pyrrhocorax is, according to the synonymy given by Brisson, the “ Pyrrhocorax” of Gesner and of Aldrovandus. This species, called by Brisson in French “ Le Choucas des Alpes,”” was stated by him to be somewhat larger than the “Choucas ordinaire ” (the jackdaw) and was figured by him as fig. 2 on plate 1 of volume 2 of the Ornithologie. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, who, at my request, has kindly examined Brisson’s description and figure, has informed me (in litt., 13th September 1952) that this bird of Brisson’s is the Alpine Chough. If no action were now taken in connection with the name Pyrrhocorax Brisson, the suppression (as proposed by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature) of the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, would not (as is the purpose of the proposed suppression of this name) validate Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771, for the Chough, for that name, though no longer a junior objective synonym of Coracia Brisson, would still be an invalid name, as it would remain a junior homonym of Pyrrhocorax Brisson, 1760. Accordingly, in order to secure the object sought by the Standing Committee, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its plenary powers not only to suppress Coracia Brisson, 1760, but also to suppress the name Pyrrhocorax Brisson. (5) The rule that junior homonyms or junior objective synonyms, when encountered, should be placed on the appropriate Official Index will mean that the following names should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names ; (1) Coracias Herr- mannsen, 1847, Ind. Gen. Malac. 1 : 303; (2) Galgulus Latreille, [1802-1803], (in Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 252; (3) Galgulus Wagler, 1827, Syst. Avium 1 :sign. 21 (15); (4) Galgulus Kittlitz, 1832, Kupjfertaf. Nat. Végel (1):7; (5) Pyrr- hocorax Vieillot, 1816, Analyse : 36. (6) Finally, it must be recalled that the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology inserted in the provisions relating to the use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the plenary powers conferred upon it (now to be incorporated into the Régles) an instruction that, where those powers were used to suppress a name for the purpose of validating a name of later date, the sup- pression so made should be limited to the status of the name in question in relation to the Law of Priority and should not affect its status in relation to the Law of Homonymy (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 339). Under this decision (the purpose of which was to prevent the suppression of a name for the foregoing limited purpose from having the unintended effect of validating some homonym of later date that had previously been rejected or of making it possible to publish for some other taxonomic unit, as a valid name, a name consisting of the same word as that of the name suppressed), the 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature suppression of the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, if decided upon by the International Commission, will necessarily be confined to its status in relation to the Law of Priority, its position in relation to the Law of Homonymy remaining unaffected. Thus, the name Coracia Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (11) : 168) will remain an invalid junior homonym of Coracia Brisson, 1760, and should accordingly be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names, together with the later (inadvertently published) name Coracia Moerch, 1865 (J. Conchyliol. 13 : 385). 8. Having now examined the various subsidiary matters on which action will, under the rules of procedure, be required as part of the decision to be taken on the application regarding the names Pyrrhocorax and Coracia submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress, I summarise as. follows, in agreement with Colonel Meinertzhagen, the form and scope of the decision required in the event of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature deciding to approve the application so submitted. In that event, it would be necessary for the International Commission :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress :— (a) the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) the name Pyrrhocorax Brisson, 1760, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Coracias Linnaeus, 1758 {type species, by selection by Sélby, [1825]: Coracias garrulus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771 (type species, by monotypy : Upupa pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Coracias garrulus) (trivial name of type species of Coracias Linnaeus, 1758) (b) pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Upupa pyrrhocorax) (trivial name of type species of Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Coracia Brisson, 1760 (as proposed, under (1) (a) above,-to be suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 (b) Coracia Hiibner, [1819] (a junior homonym of Coracia Brisson, 1760) (c) Coracia Moerch, 1865 (a junior homonym of Coracia Brisson, 1760) : (d) Coracias Herrmannsen, 1847 (a junior homonym of Coracias Linnaeus 1758) (e) Galgulus Brisson, 1760 (a junior objective synonym of Coracias Linnaeus, 1758) (f) Galgulus Latreille, [1802-1803] (a junior homonym of Galgulus Brisson, 1760) (9g) Galgulus Wagler, 1827 (a junior homonym of Galgulus Brisson, 1760 (h) Galgulus Kitthtz, 1832 (a junior homonym of Galgulus Brisson, 1760) («) Pyrrhocorax Nozeman & Vosmaer, (in Moehring), 1758 (a name published in a book declared by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to possess no status in zoological nomenclature) (7) Pyrrhocoraz Brisson, 1760 (as proposed, under (1) (b) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers ; fi (k) Pyrrhocorax Vieillot, 1816 (a junior homonym of Pyrrhocorax : Tunstall, 1771). z 9. Having thus summarised the action required in the event of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature deciding to grant the application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature, it is necessary to consider also the action which would be required if the Commission were to take a decision in the opposite sense. This may be summarised as follows by reference to the four main Points enumerated in the immediately preceding paragraph :— (i) Point (1) in paragraph 8 would need to be replaced by a new sentence placing on record the refusal of the International Commission to 1760. use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Coracia Brisson, (u) Under Point (2) the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, would be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in place of Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771. The name Coracias Linnaeus, 1758, would still need to be placed on the Official Last, for it is not a homonym of Coracia Brisson, 1760 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 161-162, where are set out the criteria adopted by the International Congress of Zoology for determining whether any given pair of generic names are homonyms of one another). (ui) No change would need to be made in Point (3), except that it would be necessary to amend the note to the entry relating to the trivial name pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758, by substituting therein the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, for the name Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771. (iv) In Point (4) the only changes needed would be the deletion of the name Coracia Brisson, 1760 (sub-point (a)) and the insertion between the existing subpoints (h) and (i) of a new point reading: “ Pyrr- hocoraz Tunstall, 1771 (a junior objective synonym of Coracia Brisson, 1760).”’ 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “PHILOMELOS” BREHM, 1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “TURDUS PHILOMELOS”) AS THE TRIVIAL NAME OF . THE SONG THRUSH Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)493) Covering letter dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosure, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I beg to forward to you the following recommendation for favour of decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ENCLOSURE “ Turdus philomelos ” versus “ Turdus ericetorum ” Turdus philomelos Brehm, 1831 (Handb. Naturg. Vog. Deutschl. : 322) (“ Germany ”’) is the name which has been used for about forty-five years for the Song Thrush. Turdus ericetorum Turton, 1807 (Brit. Faun. 1: 35) (“ England ’’), founded on plate 63 of Lewin’s British Birds (2:68) published in 1796, was adopted without explanation in 1934 (bis 76 : 635) for the Song Thrush by the Nomen- clature Committee of the British Ornithologists’ Union, as it antedates T'urdus philomelos Brehm, 1831. In 1924 (Ibis 66 : 158) the British Committee had rejected Turton’s name, as Lewin’s figure is not definitely assignable to the Song Thrush and possibly represents an American Thrush. This doubt still remains, especially as Lewin states that his bird is perfectly distinguishable from the Song Thrush, with which he was well acquainted. Lewin also states that his bird “ has a short black mark passing through the eye,’ which is not a character of the Song Thrush. It is therefore hoped that Turdus ericetorum Turton be rejected, in favour of an old-established name Turdus philomelos Brehm, as indeterminable. R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee. J. BERLIOZ: Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris. E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitét, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York. Sad Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SECURE THAT THE TRIVIAL NAME “PHILOMELOS ” BREHM, 1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COM- BINATION “ TURDUS PHILOMELOS ”) SHALL BE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE SONG THRUSH By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 493) 1. The application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress is concerned to secure that the trivial name philomelos Brehm, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination T'urdus philomelos) shall become the undisputed oldest available trivial name for the Song Thrush. For this purpose it will be necessary to remove the competition of the older trivial name ericetorum Turton, 1807 (as published in the binominal combination Turdus ericetorum), a name which by some specialists has been identified as a senior subjective synonym of the trivial name philomelos Brehm, but by others is regarded as a nomen dubium. 2. Prior to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held in Paris in 1948, the provisions in the Régles relating to the method to be followed in determining the identity of the taxonomic species with which any given nominal species should be identified. were of the most primitive and inadequate kind, consisting only of Article 31 which laid down the following rule: ‘“ La subdivision d’une espéce en deux ou plusieurs autres est soumise aux mémes régles que la subsdivision d’un genre.” Thus, by the objectionable device of legislation by reference the Rules in Article 30, relating to the determination of the type species of a given nominal genus were applied (so far as applicable) to the determination of the type specimen of a nominal species. But the question of the trivial name to be applied to a given taxonomic species may sometimes depend (as in the case now submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature) upon an entirely different question, namely the procedure to be followed when there is a trivial name which all are agreed is applicable to the species in question but there is also an older trivial name which by some authors is regarded as being applicable to that species but by others as referring to some other known species or as being indeterminable. On this subject Article 31 was entirely silent. 3. During the revision of the Regles in Paris in 1948 particular attention was given to the need for substituting a clear and comprehensive set of rules in place of the totally inadequate provisions of the existing Article 31. This subject was discussed at length at the Fourth Public Meeting held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature during its Paris Session, when detailed proposals (subsequently approved by the Congress) were drawn up for an Article to replace the previous Article 31 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4: 73-76). These new rules deal specifically with both aspects of the question involved : first the new rules, provide expressly for the procedure to be followed in determining the lectotype of any given nominal species (or, in default of an actual lectotype, the single figure, illustration or previously published 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature description cited in the original description of the nominal species concerned, to represent the lectotype of that species) ; second, the new rules lay it down that “where some but not all specialists claim to be able to recognise the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species in question or where there is disagreement among specialists as to the taxonomic species so to be recognised, the question at issue is to be referred to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision.” 4. The present application falls to be dealt with under the provision quoted above. Under that provision, it is possible for the International Commission, according to the circumstances of the case, to put a stop to confusion, either (1) by prescribing the taxonomic species to which the disputed trivial name is to be held to be applicable, or (2) by using its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name in question. The second of these courses is that which the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature has asked the Inter- national Commission to adopt in the present instance. Accordingly, if the Commission approve the application submitted to it, it will be necessary for the Commission :— (1) to declare the specific name Turdus ericetorwm Turton, 1807, to be a nomen dubium, and to use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name ericetorum Turton, 1807 (as published in the binominal com- bination Turdus ericetorum) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the trivial name philomelos Brehm, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Turdus philomelos) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (3) to place the trivial name ericetorum Turton, 1807 (as published in the binominal combination Turdus ericetorum), as proposed, under (1) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP- PRESS THREE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED TRIVIAL NAMES APPLIED BY LINNAEUS TO NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS IN 1776, TOGETHER WITH AN EQUALLY OVER- LOOKED GENERIC NAME PUBLISHED ON THE SAME OCCASION Application submitted by Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)502) Covering letter dated 19th October 1950, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I have received an application signed by nine American ornithologists asking that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should permanently suppress three trivial names proposed by Linnaeus for North American birds, the publication of which in 1776 has been brought to light through papers by Mr. W. L. McAtee published in 1949 and 1950 respectively, The three names which form the subject of the foregoing application were published in a hitherto entirely overlooked list entitled “A Catalogue of the Birds, Beasts, Fishes, Insects, Plants, etc., contained in Edwards’ Natural History.” The application received in regard to these names is submitted herewith for consideration by the International Commission (Enclosure 1). That application has been considered by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, the statement prepared by which is now submitted as Enclosure 2. The three trivial names covered by the present application namely lutea Linnaeus, 1776 (as published in the combination M uscicapa lutea), pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1776 (as published in the combination Passer pensylvanica), and americ. [sic] Linnaeus, 1776 (as published in the combination Vermivora americ. [sic]) have never been used for the species concerned, apart from the occasion on which they were first published. The same is true of the generic name Vermivora Linnaeus, 1776, the name used as the generic name for the third of the foregoing species. The introduction at this date of the foregoing names _ Would cause much unnecessary confusion and would serve no useful purpose whatever. It is for this reason that the International Commission is accordingly asked (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes, both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy (a) the generic name Vermivora Linnaeus, 1776, and (b) the three specific trivial names specified above, (2) to place the foregoing names on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names, (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial names currently used for the species concerned, namely : (i) the name magnolia Wilson, 1811 (as published in the combination Sylvia magnolia), (ii) the name albicollis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Fringilla albicollis), (iii) the name vermivora Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Motacilla vermivora) ; (4) to place the name Helmitheros Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952) 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rafinesque, 1815 (gender of generic name : neuter) (type species, by monotypy ; Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789) on the Official Inst of Generre Names in Zoology. . ENCLOSURE 1 Application submitted by nine American ornithologists The International Zoological Congress at Monaco (1913) adopted a special article appended to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which gives the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature authority to suspend the rules if their application would result in greater confusion than uniformity. This rule is to be applied specifically in cases where long-forgotten names are unearthed that have priority over well-established names. At the International Ornithological Congress at Uppsala a committee was established at the suggestion of the Secretary of the International Commission, Mr. Francis Hemming, to collaborate with the International Commission with particular reference to the Monaco Resolution. The undersigned submit to this committee the following request for a suspension of the rule of priority in order to preserve three well-known names of North American birds. We ask the committee to endorse our application and to forward it to the Inter- national Commission. 2. The work in which the overlooked names occur is a publication by Linnaeus, consisting of a catalogue of the birds and other animals contained in Edwards’ Natural History, published in 1776. All the details about this publication are presented by Mr. James L. Peters, 1950 (Auk. 67 : 375-377). Eighteen new names are proposed in this publication, but many of them are actually only misspellings of established names. In only three cases is the nomenclature of accepted bird names threatened. They are as follows :— (1) Magnolia Warbler. The species name fragnolia Wilson, 1811 (Sylvia magnolia Wilson, 1811, Amer. Ornith. 3 : 63) has been applied to this species for many generations. The name is antedated by Muscicapa lutea Linnaeus, 1776 (: 11) in the recently discovered publication. (2) White-throated Sparrow. This species has been known for more than 150 years under the name albicollis Gmelin (Fringillo albicollis Gmelin, 1789, in Linneaus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2): 96). This name is antedated by Passer pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1776 (: 13). (3) Worm-eating Warbler. This species has been known under the name vermivora Gmelin, 1789 (Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2): 951). for more than 150 years. It is antedated by Vermivora americ. Linnaeus, 1776 (: 13). 3. So far as known, none of the three Linnaean names has been cited in the literature between 1776 and 1949 when Mr. McAtee first called attention to this publication. The names had thus been forgotten for-a period of 173 years. On the other hand, the names which they would replace are the well- established names of some of our most familiar birds. They have been listed literally in many thousands of publications. 4, This is clearly a case in which strict adherence to priority would result in greater confusion than uniformity. The International Commission is there- fore requested to place the Linnaean names Muscicapa lutea, Passer pensylvanica and Vermivora americ. on the list of nomina rejecta, and in turn to place the 2 AO epee 3 ey:. ¥ Pee -S 26.45 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 names Sylvia magnolia Wilson, 1811, Fringilla albicollis Gmelin, 1789, and Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 17 89, on the list of nomina conservanda. 5. Failure of speedy action on this re to the prestige of taxonomy. KE. R. BLAKE (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Ill.) H. G. DEIGNAN (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) JOHN J. EMLEN, Jr. (Zoological Laboratory, University of Wisconsin) ALDEN H. MILLER (California) FRANK A. PITELKA (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley) A. L. RAND (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Ill.) CHARLES H. ROGERS (Princeton, New Jersey) M. A. TRAYLOR, Jr. (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, II.) ALBERT WOLFSON (North Western University, Evanston, Il.) ENCLOSURE 2 Statement prepared by the Standing Committee on Ornithological a Nomenclature bi 1. The generic name Vermivora Linnaeus, 1776, Cat. Birds, Beasts, Fishes, Insects . . . in Edwards’ Natural History : 13. It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum and that the following name by which the genus concerned is now known should be made a nomen conservandum 3—Helmitheros Rafinesque, 1819, J. Physique 88 : 418 (type species, by monotypy: Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2)951). 2. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Muscicapa lutea Linnaeus, 1776, ibid. : 11. It is recommended that the above name be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely Sylvia magnolia Wilson, 1811, Amer. Ornith. 3: 63, be made a nomen conservandum. 3. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Passer pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1776, ibid.: 13. It is recommended that the above name be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the specific name currently accepted for this species, namely Fringilla albicollis Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 96 (“ Pennsylvania”), be made a nomen conservandum. 4. The trivial name comprised in the Linnaeus, 1776, ibid. : 13. £ It is recommended that the above quest would result in grave damage ee A ape TY on &, Viner «One ie a a ee a ee Sh oo a io on y= oe Oi ak) a, specific name Vermivora americ. [sic] name be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the specific name currently accepted 4 for this species, namely Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, : Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2): 951 (“ Pennsylvania”), be made a nomen ‘y conservandum. R. MEINERTZHAGEN, Chairman of the Standing Committee. K. STRESEMANN, Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin. JOHN T. ZIMMER, The American Museum of Natural History, New York. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE PROPOSAL BY THE NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK, FOR THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY pels a OF THE LINNEAN NAMES PUBLISHED IN 1776 IN THE “CATALOGUE OF EDWARDS’ NATURAL HISTORY” WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE NEW NAMES FOR BIRDS By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)502 and 649) When the International Commission comes to consider the application submitted by the Nomenclature Committee of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, that the plenary powers should be used to suppress all the new names by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 163), it will be necessary to consider two questions which would call for decision if it were proposed to take action in the sense recommended. 2. The points to be considered are :— (1) If this work were to be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes, should that suppression be absolute (i.e. should that suppression apply for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) | or should it be limited, either for all names in the book or for some of them, to the Law of Priority ? (2) If the whole work were to be suppressed for either or both of the foregoing purposes, what steps ought to be taken to give effect in this case to the general direction of the International Congress of Zoology that adequate measures should be taken to ensure that the decision so taken is clearly related to the individual names involved (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 334). 8. On Point (1) the position is, so far as I know, that in one group only has a detailed survey been made of the new names in this Catalogue. The group concerned is the birds, as regards which Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) has published (1950, Auk 67: 375-377) a complete list of the names involved. In view of the fact that the names concerned have thus acquired considerable prominence, I suggest that, if the Commission were to use its plenary powers to suppress this work, the logical course, as regards the bird names, would be to suppress them for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. The effect of such a decision would be to prevent these names or any of them from taking priority over names in current use but at the same time, by maintaining the status of these names for purposes of homonymy, to prevent the confusion which might arise if the same trivial names were later to be applied to other species in the genera concerned. In the case of the groups, other than birds, no publicity in modern times has, so far as I am aware, been given to the names in question ; it would seem appropriate, therefore, that, if the names in this Catalogue are to be rejected, the names of taxonomic units belonging to groups other than birds should be suppressed absolutely, that is, both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and also for those of the Law of Homonymy. 4. On Point (2), it would be necessary, if the Catalogue were to be suppressed, to ask specialists in the various groups concerned to examine that work and to report which names in it were new and would therefore be affected by the general decision taken. The names so reported would then be placed on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names. In the case of the bird names in the Catalogue the required information is already available through the paper by Dr. Peters referred to in paragraph 3 above, where it is shown that in the Catalogue there are one generic name and eighteen trivial names which are either new or have been so changed in spelling as, in Dr. Peters’ opinion, to rank as new names. Particulars regarding these names have been extracted from Dr. Peters’ paper and are given in the annexes attached hereto. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 ANNEXE 1 One new generic name for a bird by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the “ Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History ” Vermivora Linnaeus, 1776 (: 13); a name based upon plate 305. This name antedates the name Vermivora Swainson, 1827. ANNEXE 2 New trivial names for birds by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the “ Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History ” : Plate in ‘ rte ii » | Edwards’ Modern equivalent New Name where name | ° Nat. Hist.” (as worked out by given on which Dr. James L. Peters) name based americ, Vermivora 13 305 Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789 araracina, Psittacus 9 159 Psittacus ararauna Linnaeus, 1758 bicator, Coracias 13 320 considered to be unidentifiable calidris, Motacitta 8 121 species figured not [sic] recognisable cinereus, Todos [sic] 12 262 Todus cinereus Linnaeus, 1766 dominica, Loxia 8 127 Loxia dominicana : Linnaeus, 1758 falcolinus, Tetrao sh 246 Tetrao francolinus Linnaeus, 1766 globifera, Crax 13 295 Crax globicera Linnaeus, 1766 hybrida, Meleagris 14 337 Lyrurus tetrix x Phasianus colchicus lutea, Muscicapa ll 255 Sylvia magnolia Wilson, 1811 nyctelea, Strix 6 61 Strix nyctea Linnaeus, 1758 (Strix scandiaca Linnaeus, pensylvanica [sic], 1758) Passer 13 304 Fringilla albicollis Gmelin, 1789 senegallensis, Picus 9 182 Picus benghalenis Linnaeus, 1758 spectrum, Psittacus 13 315 Psittacus fuscus Miiller (P.L.S.), - 1776 spectrum, Psittacus 13 316 Psittacus aterrimus Gmelin, 1788 umbellatus, Tetrao 11 248 Tetrao umbellus Linnaeus, 1766 voarula, Motacilla 12 259 Motacilla boarula Linnaeus, 1771 zeylonicus, Turdus 13 321 Turdua zeylonus Linnaeus, 1766 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FIRST REPORT ON THE SPECIES WHICH UNDER THE “REGLES” ARE THE TYPE SPECIES OF CERTAIN GENERA OF BIRDS DISCUSSED, BUT LEFT UNSETTLED, IN “OPINION ” 16 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)274 During its Session of Meetings held in Paris in 1948, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided, in accordance with its earlier decision that names ought not to be discussed in its Opinions without decisions being given in regard to the questions at issue (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355), that steps should be taken as soon as possible to determine, and to render Opinions regarding, the species to be accepted as the type species of a long list of nominal genera enumerated in Opinion 16 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 31-39) as possibly having had their type species determined under Linnean tautonymy (i.e. by the citation of a tautonymous pre-1758 univerbal specific name for one, but not more than one, of the included nominal species), on which however no decision was given in that Opinion. The Commission decided (1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 580-583) to invite the Secretary to make inquiries in regard to each of the generic names concerned for ‘the purpose of ascertaining the views currently held by specialists on the question whether, as regards each of the genera so named, the generic name was available nomen- clatorially, the genus was a taxonomically valid genus, and the species accepted as its type species was the species which, as shown in the second paragraph of Opinion 16 (1947, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 259-261), would be the type species if Rule (d) in Article 30, as interpreted by Opinion 16, were in fact applicable to the name of the genus in question. The Commission agreed further that, where (1) the foregoing inquiry showed that the type species of any one of the nominal genera discussed in Opinion 16 was the species there provisionally indicated as such, (2) that the nominal genus in question was currently treated by specialists as being taxonomically valid and as having, as its type species, the species referred to above, the name of that genus should forthwith be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and that in any case where any of the foregoing conditions were not satisfied, the status of the name concerned should be determined separately as soon as possible after the receipt of the Secretary’s Report. 2. The present Report is concerned with the names of the. twenty-two nominal genera of birds covered by the foregoing decision. In each case I have investigated the position, as disclosed by the current literature, and, in doing so, I have conferred with a number of interested specialists. In order to secure the widest possible publicity for this investigation, I have in addition published a note on the issues to be determined, at the same time appealing to specialists for comments and assistance in regard to the names in question (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 201-202). ; j i i f Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 3. As a first step in the present investigation I examined the manner in which each of the nominal genera concerned was treated by Linnaeus in the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae, for the purpose of determining whether there was a prima facie case for considering that the type species of the genus concerned had there been “ indicated ” by Linnean tautonymy as defined in Opinion 16, as further clarified in 1948 by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the recommendation of the International Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 155). This investigation showed :— (1) that there were prima facie grounds for considering that the type species of the following eighteen nominal genera had been indicated in 1758 by Linnean tautonymy :—Caprimulgus ; Certhia ; Corvus ; Cuculus ; Fringilla; Fulica ; © Lowia ; Meleagris ; Merops ; Motacilla ; Pavo ; Pelecanus ; Phasianus ; Scolopax ; Sterna ; Strix ; Tringa ; Upupa : (2) that in the following cases it was a matter for consideration whether a single cautonymous univerbal specific name had been clearly cited in the synonymy of any of the included species: Otis ; Tetrao ; Vultur : (3) that in the case of the genus Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758, the tautony- mous univerbal pre-1758 specific name “Charadrius” had been cited in the synonymy of more than one of the included species (being so cited both for Charadrius hiaticula and for Charadrius oedicnemus) and therefore that the type species of the genus Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758, was not “ indicated” by Linnean tautonymy. 4. The names cited in paragraph 3(2) and (3) above (i.e. Otis Linnaeus, 1758 ; Tetrao Linnaeus, 1758; Vultur Linnaeus, 1758; Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758) are not dealt with in the present Report, being reserved for later con- sideration in the light of comments and advice received from specialists. 5. The second step in the inquiry remitted to me was to ascertain whether in each of the eighteen cases specified in paragraph 3(1) above the nominal species which there were prima facie grounds for considering as having been “indicated ” by Linnaeus in 1758 by Linnean tautonymy as the type species of the genus concerned was currently accepted by specialists as being the type species of the genus in question. This investigation showed that in every case except that of Strix Linnaeus, 1758, the nominal species indicated as the type species by Linnean tautonymy was currently accepted as such. The case of Strix Linnaeus is accordingly reserved, like that of the names referred to in paragraph 4 above, for further consideration in the light of comments and advice from specialists. In the remaining seventeen cases the generic name concerned is currently accepted by specialists as the name of a taxonomically valid genus. Further, the trivial name of the type species of each of these nominal genera is an available name and is currently accepted by specialists as the name of a taxonomically valid species. 6. Having now completed the first stage of the investigation remitted to 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature me, I submit the following conclusions for consideration :— (1) The seventeen generic names enumerated in Appendix 1 to the present Report are nomenclatorially available and are currently accepted by specialists as the names of taxonomically valid genera, and the species currently accepted as the type species of each of the nominal genera concerned is the nominal species indicated as such by Linnaeus in 1758 by Linnean tautonymy. Accordingly under the decision taken in 1948 by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool: Nomencl. 4 : 583, Point (3)(a)), these names are due now to be placed upon the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The seventeen specific trivial names enumerated in Appendix 2 to the present Report, being respectively the trivial names of the type species of the nominal genera referred to in (1) above, should, under the regulations governing the admission of names to the Official Lists (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4; 270), be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology at the same time that, under (1) above, the names of the nominal genera, of which the species bearing these trivial names are the respective type species, are placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (3) The five remaining generic names remitted to me for investigation (Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758 ; Otis Linnaeus, 1758 ; Striz Linnaeus, 1758; Tetrao Linnaeus, 1758; Vultur Linnaeus, 1758) will be dealt with in later Reports on the conclusion of consultations with interested specialists. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 17th Auqust 1952. by Dae A ae Sedan MS tie EBA ite Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 APPENDIX 1 Seventeen generic names in the Class Aves discussed but not settled in “ Opinion” 16, now proposed to be added to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 193 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Caprimulgus europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1: 193). Certhia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 118 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Certhia familiaris Linneaus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 118). Corvus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 105 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Corvus corax Linnaeus, 1758, bid. 1 : 105). Cuculus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 110 (gender of generic name : maculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Cuculus canorus Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1: 110). Fringilla Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 179 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 179). Fulica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 152 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758, aid. 1 : 152). Loxia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 171 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Lozia curvirostra Linnaeus, 1758, abd. 1 : 171). Meleagris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Meleagris gallopavo Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 156). Merops Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 117 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Merops apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, abid. 1 : 117). Motacilla Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 184 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species by Linnean tautonymy: Motacilla alba Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 185). Pavo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Pavo cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 156). Pelecanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 132 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Pelecanus onocrotalus Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 132). Phasianus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 158 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Phasianus colchicus Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 158). 74 Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature Scolopax Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 145 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Scolopax rusticola Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 146). Sterna Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 187 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Sterna hirundo Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 137). Tringa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 148 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Tringa ochropus (emend. of ocrophus) Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1: 149)*. Upupa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 117 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Upupa epops Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 117). APPENDIX 2 Seventeen specific trivial names, being the trivial names of the type species of the nominal genera enumerated in Appendix A, now proposed to be added to the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” alba Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 185 (as published in the combination Motacilla alba) (trivial name of type species of Motacilla Linnaeus, 1758). apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 117 (as published in the combina- tion Merops apiaster) (trivial name of type species of Merops Linnaeus, 1758). atra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 152 (as published in the combination Fulica atra) (trivial name of type species of Fulica Linnaeus, 1758). canorus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 110 (as published in the combina- tion Cuculus canorus) (trivial name of type species of Cuculus Linnaeus, 1758). coelebs Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 179 (as published in the combination Fringilla coelebs) (trivial name of type species of Fringilla Linnaeus, 1758). colchicus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 158 (as published in the combination Phasianus colchicus) (trivial name of type species of Phasianus Linnaeus, 1758). . corax Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 105 (as published in the combina- tion Corvus coraz) (trivial name of type species of Corvus Linnaeus, 1758). *For the reason why it is here suggested that the emended form of the trivial name of the type species of this genus should be accepted, see Note to Appendix 2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (as published in the combination Pavo cristatus) (trivial name of type species of Pavo Linnaeus, 1758). curvirostra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 171 (as published in the combination Loxia curvirostra) (trivial name of type species of Loma Linnaeus, 1758). — epops Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 117 (as published in the combina- tion Upupa epops) (trivial name of type species of Upwpa Linnaeus, 1758). europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1:193 (as published in the combination Caprimulgus europaeus) (trivial name of type species of Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758). familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 118 (as published in the combination Certhia familiaris) (trivial name of type species of Certhia Linnaeus, 1758). gallopavo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (as published in the combination Meleagris gallopavo) (trivial name of type species of Meleagris Linnaeus, 1758). hirundo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 137 (as published in the combina- tion Sterna hirundo) (trivial name of type species of Sterna Linnaeus, 1758). ochropus (emend. of ocrophus) Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 149 (as published in the combination T'ringa ocrophus) (trivial name of type species of Tringa Linnaeus, 1758). ‘ onocrotalus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1+ 132 (as published in the combination Pelecanus onocrotalus) (trivial name of type species of Pelecanus Linnaeus, 1758). rusticola Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 146 (as published in the combination Scolopax rusticola) (trivial name of type species of Scolopax Linnaeus, 1758). NOTE.—Attention is drawn to the fact that in the foregoing list the form in which it is suggested that the trivial name of the type species of Tringa Linnaeus, 1758, should be added to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology is “ ochropus” and not “ ocrophus,”’ the spelling employed by Linnaeus in 1758. Linnaeus evidently had no fixed ideas as to how this word should be spelt, for (as pointed out by Witherby, 1940, Handbook Brit. Birds 4: 310) Linnaeus used the spelling “ ocropus’’ in the Twelfth Edition of the Syst. Nat. In 1758 Linnaeus made it clear that, in applying this name to the Green Sandpiper, he was doing no more than copying it from Gesner (510, 511), reference to whose work shows that Linnaeus made an error in copying from Gesner (or the printer misread Linnaeus’ manuscript), for the spelling used by Gesner was “ochropus,” the currently accepted emendation of the incorrect version “‘ ocrophus”’ of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae. Since the foregoing conclusion was reached, the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress has submitted to the International Commission an application (Z.N.(S.)491) for the emendation under Article 19 of the trivial names of three species of bird, one of which is the name discussed above. (See page 52 of the present volume.) 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TYPE SPECIES OF CERTAIN GENERA OF BIRDS, DIS- CUSSED, BUT LEFT UNSETTLED, IN “OPINION” 16: SUPPORT FOR PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN THE SECRETARY’S REPORT By RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S.O. (London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)274) (Letter dated 20th August, 1952) Thank you for your letter of 18th August enclosing a copy of your Report to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genera of birds which were discussed in the Commission’s Opinion 16 but on which no decision was then taken. I am very much in favour of decisions being taken by the Commission in regard to these generic names, for the present position is very unsatisfactory, there being at present no method by which to ascertain with certainty whether the type species of these genera were determined by Linnean tautonymy under the ruling given in Opinion 16. I therefore welcome the proposal that the seventeen generic names set out in your Report, where it is clear that the type species of the genera concerned were settled in this way and where the species so indicated are those which are currently as being the type species of the genera in question, should now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The position as regards the five other generic names will, as you say, need to be considered further in greater detail. I see that in the case of the genus 7’ringa Linnaeus, 1758, you propose that the trivial name of the type species should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology in the form of the long-established emen- dation ‘“ ochropus” in place of the incorrect spelling ‘“ ocrophus ” used by Linnaeus in 1758. This proposal is certainly right, for any other course would lead to pointless name-changing and would serve no useful purpose. Moreover, as is clear, Linnaeus himself would have used the emended spelling if it had not been for the fact that he made an error of copying when he took this word over from Gesner. As you know, this trivial name is one of the three such names, recognition of the emendations made for which has been asked for in the application Z.N.(S.)491, which the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature has submitted to the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE TRIVIAL NAMES OF TWO SIBERIAN BIRDS By the late JAMES L. PETERS (Musewm of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 496) The present application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is concerned with the question of the trivial names properly applicable to two species of lark, each of which was originally described from Siberian material. The names and relevant synonyms of these species are as follows :— Species “A” Alauda yeltonensis Forster, 1767, Phil. Trans. 57 (2) : 350. Tanagra siberica Sparrman, 1786, Mus. carlson. (1): No. xix (et fig.). Species “B” Alauda sibirica Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (2) : 799. Alauda leucoptera Pallas, 1811, Zoogr. rosso-asiat. 1 : 518, pl. 33. 2. The two species are considered to be congeneric, both being referred to the genus Melanocorypha Boie, 1828 (Isis (Oken) 1828 : 322). For many years the first of these species was known as Melanocorypha yeltonensis (Forster) and the second as Melanocorypha sibirica (Gmelin). About twenty years ago, however, Hartert & Steinbacher (1932, Vég. pal. Fauna, Erganzungsband (1): 103) discarded the trivial name sibirica Gmelin for species “ B,” on the ground that it was a secondary homonym of the trivial name siberica Sparrman, _ 1786, which, as shown above, is a junior synonym of yeltonensis Forster, 1767, the oldest available name for species ‘‘ A.” These authors thereupon applied the trivial name lewcoptera Pallas, 1811, to species “ B.” Most recent authors have followed Hartert & Steinbacher in this matter and have used the trivial name leucoptera Pallas for species “ B.”’ 3. Doubts have been expressed as to the correctness of the action of these authors in rejecting the name sibirica Gmelin, having regard to the fact that the spelling of this name is not identical with that of the name (siberica Sparrman) for which it was rejected on the ground of secondary homonymy. In this connection it was pointed out, in particular, that the differences in _ spelling between these two names are not among the differences which the third paragraph of Article 35 prescribes are to be ignored in determining whether any given pair of trivial names are to be treated as being homonyms of one another. 4. If the considerations set forth above alone were relevant to this matter, the argument advanced above would be unanswerable, and there could be no doubt that, under the Rules, the practice of the last twenty years should be reversed and that species “ B”’ should in future be known by the trivial ~ name sthirica (Gmelin). 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. The foregomg argument does not however cover the whole of the field in a case of this kind, for it ignores the fact that, where we are concerned with two trivial names, each based upon the name of the same locality and differing from one another only in some small respect of spelling, the difference may be due to an error of orthography or of transcription or to a printers’ error and therefore that Article 19 may apply to one of the names in question. In such a case the effect of applying Article 19 may be to make the two names identical with one another and thus to make them homonyms of one another. This clearly was a possibility which it was necessary to examine, for although I should not consider the present case of sufficient importance to justify the use by the Commission of its plenary powers for the sake of preserving the practice which has grown up since the publication of the volume by Hartert & Steinbacher (1932), it is equally important to avoid any action which would disturb that practice unless it was clear that this was necessary under a strict application of the Rules. 6. At this stage therefore 1 consulted my colleague, Mr. Francis Hemming, | Secretary to the Commission, who has furnished to me the following Report (in litt, 6th May 1951) :— In approaching the question whether trivial names such as sibirica and siberica should, or should not, be treated as homonyms of one another, one cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that the late Charles D. Sherborn, the most learned bibliographer of his time, treated names spelt “ stberica”’ as misspellings for ‘ sibirica,” listing both together under the latter spelling (1902, Index Anim., Pars prima: 900). Although in the present case there was a strong presumption from the type localities of the two larks in question that the trivial names applied to these species by Sparrman (1786) and Gmelin (1789) respectively were each intended to indicate the same locality and therefore that the difference in spelling between the two names did not indicate a difference in meaning, being a matter of orthography only, it seemed to me, on receiving your inquiry, that the first step to be taken should be to investigate the question of the meaning attaching to these words. I accordingly applied for advice to Professor Charles Singer, Professor Emeritus of the History of Science in the University of London, than whom, in my opinion, no more authoritative adviser could be found on a question of this kind. Professor Singer kindly undertook to consider this question and in due course furnished the following report : ‘‘ The correct form of the adjective is undoubtedly ‘ sibir- ’ not ‘ siber-.’ Sibir was the name of a Tabar fort on the Irtish which was captured by Cossacks in 1581. The name ‘ Sibiria ’ was extended in the seventeenth century to the Muscovite dominions in the North-East. Thus, ‘sibirica’ is the proper | adjective.” In view of Professor Singer’s Report, it is clear that there was at no time any place named “ Siber,” as contrasted with the Tabar fort named “ Sibir ” and that, in view of the extension during the seventeenth century of the meaning attaching to the word “ Sibiria”’ (and thus, to the adjective “ sibirica’’), it must certainly be concluded that. where (as here) two species occurring in the portion of the Muscovite dominions known, in English, as “ Siberia” are named respectively “ sibirica’’ and “ siberica,’’ that difference in spelling is not due to any difference in the origin or meaning of the two trivial names in question but is attributable solely to difference in orthography. In the present case, Professor Singer has shown conclusively that the correct way of spelling the adjective in question is “ sibirica”’ and not “ siberica,”” thus endorsing the conclusion reached in this matter by Sherborn nearly fifty years ago, a conclusion which, it may be noted, no one in the intervening period has ever tried to dispute. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 The problem with which we are confronted here has therefore nothing to do with the question whether these two larks have the same word as their trivial name: it is quite clear that they have. The question to be considered is whether the difference in spelling adopted for these two names is a legitimate difference (in which case the two names would not be homonyms of one another) or, being due to error of spelling in the case of one of the names, is an illegitimate difference and one which calls for action under Article 19. In my view, the information furnished by Professor Singer, taken in conjunction with the considerations advanced above, would make it quite impossible to sustain an argument that there is a legitimate difference between the correctly spelt adjective “ sibirica ” and the incorrectly spelt adjective * siberica.”’ I conclude, therefore that, under the Rules, it is necessary to emend the defectively spelt trivial name “ siberica ” under Article 19, to “ sibirica ” before any consideration is given to the question of the relative status, for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, of the trivial names published respectively by Sparrman and Gmelin. Once the necessary emendation of Sparrman’s faultily spelt trivial name is made, we find that the name so emended is identical with the name later published by Gmelin. It is evident therefore that Hartert & Steinbacker were perfectly correct when in 1932 they rejected the trivial name sibirica Gmelin, 1789, as being, within the genus Melanocorypha Boie,-a junior secondary homonym of the trivial name sibirica (emend. of siberica) Sparrman, 1787. A name once validly rejected in this way as a junior secondary homonym cannot, as we know, ever again be used for the species to which it was originally given. Accordingly, ever since the publication in 1932 of Hartert’s and Steinbacher’s volume, the trivial name sibirica Gmelin has been a dead homonym, incapable in any circumstances of being brought back to life again. Since, as those authors pointed out—and as you confirm—the next name to be given to the species to which in 1789 Gmelin gave the invalid name Alauda sibirica was the name Alauda leucoptera Pallas, 1811, it follows that the oldest available trivial name, and therefore the valid trivial name for the species in question is leucoptera Pallas, the name by which that species is currently known. 7. In the circumstances it is clear that it would not be in accordance with the Rules to resuscitate the trivial name sibirica Gmelin for the species which for the last twenty years has been known by the trivial name lewcoptera Pallas. Now that the position in this matter is clearly established, it is desirable that, in order to prevent any subsequent argument on the subject, the oldest available trivial names for each of these larks should be placed on the Official List, the invalid trivial name sibirica Gmelin being at the same time placed on the Official Index. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;— (a) yeltonensis Forster, 1767 (as published in the binominal com- bination Alauda yeltonensis) ; (6)-leucoptera Pallas, 1811 (as published in the binominal com- bination Alauda leucoptera) ; (2) to place the trivial name sibirica Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination Alauda sibirica) (the trivial name of a rejected junior secondary homonym in the genus Melanocorypha Boie, 1828) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in 4 Zoology. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SECURE THAT THE NAME “COLUMBA MIGRATORIA” LIN- NAEUS, 1766, SHALL BE THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE PASSENGER PIGEON, THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ECTOPISTES” SWAINSON, 1827 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)574) The subject matter of the present application came to notice in the course of the routine checking of the entries on the Official Lsit of Generic Names in Zoology in connection with the projected publication of the Official List in book form. It is concerned with the question of the name to be used for the Passenger Pigeon. This species, which is currently known by the name Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (1) : 285) is the type species of the genus Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 (Zool. J. 3 (11) : 362), by subsequent selection by Swainson in 1837 (a Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclop. 6 : 348—sometimes known by its sub-title Nat. Hist. Classif. Birds 2 : 348). The generic name Ectopistes Swainson, 1837, was placed on the Official Inst as Name No. 51 in the Com- mission’s Opinion 67 (published in 1916, Smathson Publ. 2409 : 180). 2. When I checked this entry on the Official List against. Peters’ Check-List of the Birds of the World, I found the following footnote on page 83 of volume 3 published in 1937 :— There can be no real doubt that Bangs (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash, 19, 1906, 43-44) was entirely correct in disposing of the Linnean names, Columba macrours, Columba migratoria and Columba marginata, as he did. On the other hand, his proposed changes have never been accepted, and since there is also room for argument contrary to Bangs’ reasoning, | feel that to depart from current usage would only cause needless confusion. 3. It was immediately apparent that, as the name Hctopistes Swainson, of which Columba migratoria is the type species had been placed on the Official Jist, this matter would need to be resubmitted to the Commission, for it would clearly be improper for the Commission to connive at the ignoring of the problem which had been raised by Bangs (1906, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 43-44). As a first step, I consulted Bangs’ short paper to ascertain exactly what it was that he had said. His presentation of the issue is very succinct. It reads as follows :— THE NAMES OF THE PASSENGER PIGEON AND MOURNING DOVE To those naturalists who . .. use the twelfth edition of Linnaeus (1766) as the starting point of binomial nomenclature, the names of the Passenger Pigeon and the Mourning Dove are clear and offer no complications. Not so, however, to the Americans and others who start with the tenth edition (1758), for here Linneaus unquestionably included both birds in the references under his Columba macroura. The A.O.U. committee on nomenclature and American ornithologists generally have of late years used this name for the Mourning Dove, and have called the Passenger Pigeon by the name that first appeared in the twelfth edition— Columba migratoria Linn. In my opinion, however, this is hardly correct. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 Linnaeus’ Columba macroura was based on Edwards p. 15, t. 15, and Catesby p. 23, t. 23. Edwards’ bird, carefully described and well figured, was, of course, a Mourning Dove, but it came from the West Indies, and Edwards tells us, ‘“‘ The Figure of this bird shows it of its natural Bigness.”” Measuring the various parts and comparing the results with specimens, I find it altogether too small for the continental form of the Mourning Dove, and to agree very well with the small form of Cuba (and other islands of the Greater Antilles ?), which has been lately named Zenaidura macroura bella by Palmer and Riley. The reference to Catesby applies wholly to the Passenger Pigeon and the plate shows a fine adult male. Now as all Linnaeus’ references were given chronologically it matters not which came first, and the important question is from which of these two distinct species, confused under one name, did Linnaeus take his brief diagnosis and his ‘Habitat ’. In this instance it is plain. Linnaeus’ diagnosis reads “ pectore purpurascente ’’, and he also says ‘‘ Habitat, in Canada: hybernat in Carolina ”’, both directly from Catesby and neither having anything whatever to do with Edwards. In the twelfth edition Linnaeus dropped Columba macroura, called the Pas- senger Pigeon Columba migratoria, the Carolina Mourning Dove Columba carolinensis, and named the bird of Edwards’ plate No. 15 Columba marginata. It is therefore my opinion that we who stand by the tenth edition must arrange the names of these Columbae as follows :— Ectopistes macrourus (Linn.) Passenger Pigeon Columba macroura Linn., S.N. ed. 10, p. 164, 1758. Zenaidura carolinensis carolinensis (Linn.) Carolina Mourning Dove Columba carolinensis Linn., S.N. ed. 12, p. 286, 1766. Zenaidura carolinensis marginata (Linn.)* West Indian Mourning Dove Columba marginata Linn., 8.N. ed. 12, p. 286, 1766. 4. My next step was to write as follows (on 14th October 1945) to my col- league, Dr. James L. Peters :— Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 : The type species of this genus is Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, that species having been so selected by Swainson in 1837. Inspired by your footnote on page 83 of volume 3 of your Check-List, I have read Bangs’ note in volume 19 of the Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. Naturally, I cannot express 4 any opinion on the validity of his contentions but, as you state that: ‘*‘ There can be no real doubt ”’ that he ‘‘ was entirely correct in disposing of the Linnean names, Columba macroura, Columba migratoria and Columba marginata, as he did ’’, I feel that the Commission can no longer leave things as they are, since to do so would be to cite in the Official [ist an incorrectly named species as the type species of the genus Ectopistes Swainson, 1827. It seems to me that the only way of avoiding the “‘ needless confusion ”’ referred to in your footnote, while at the same time avoiding an ostrich-like attitude of pretending not to see what *As to this latter name’s supplanting Zenaidura carolinensis bella (Palmer & Riley) I cannot help feeling regret that a good modern name founded on a bird from a definite region should give way to an old one without definite type locality. But I can see no help for it. Edwards distinctly says his bird was from the West “ Indies, and figures a very small example, and as the small size of the Cuban Mourning Dove is about its only distinctive character, I am afraid the Columba marginata Linn. must be the name by which it shall be known. 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is the matter would be for the Commission to use its plenary powers (1) to declare that Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, is the name to be used for the Passenger Pigeon, and (ii) to declare that the name Columba macroura Linnaeus, 1758, is the name to be used for the race of the Carolina Mourning Dove from the Greater Antilles. Such action would be in strict accord with Article 3 of the Plenary Powers Resolution (Declaration 5), which states that the prevention of the transference from one unit to another of generic and specific names is one of the particular objects of the Congress in granting the Commission these excep- tional powers. I shall be grateful for your views on this question, since some action will certainly have to be taken in view of the fact that Hctopistes Swainson is on the Official List. 5. In his reply (dated 6th December 1945) Dr. Peters wrote as follows :-— Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 : As long as Bangs’ suggestion has not been generally accepted, there is no confusion at present concerning the names of the Passenger Pigeon and the Mourning Dove. The suggestion was made 39 years ago and in the passage of time Bangs’ proposal has more or less receded into the background and the commonly accepted identity of the two Linnean species involved has become more firmly fixed. There is, however, always the danger that the case will be resurrected and I feel, as you do, that the Commission would de well definitely to use its Plenary Powers and settle the matter for all time. 6. Ever since the correspondence quoted above, I have intended to take the first convenient opportunity for laying the present case before the Commission. Such an opportunity has now arisen through the presentation to the Commission by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of a large number of applications relating to the names of birds. Before doing so, I have laid the draft of the present paper before Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, the Chairman of the Standing Committee. Colonel Meinertzhagen has informed me (in litt, 29th August 1952) that he considers that it is important that the Commission should now settle without further delay this long-outstanding question and that he is in agreement with the solution recommended in the present application. 7. Before I set out the action recommended, it will, I think, be repaying briefly to examine what Linnaeus wrote about his nominal species Columba macroura when in 1758 (: 164) he first published that name. It is extremely brief and reads as follows :— Columba macoura 16. C. cauda cuneiformi longa, pectore purpurascente Columba macroura. Edw. av. 15 t. 15. Palumbus migratorius. Catesb. car. 1 p. 23t. 23. Habitat in Canada ; hybernat in Carolina. 8. As in many Linnean descriptions there is nothing in the description given by Linnaeus for Columba macroura to show, or even to suggest, that he had ever had before him a specimen of the species to which he applied this name or was doing more than giving a name to the birds figured by Edwards and Catesby respectively, which he erroneously supposed were conspecific with one another. Thus, it is quite possible that there never was a type specimen of this nominal species. Whether there was or not, no such specimen is now extant and the only means of identifying the taxonomic species represented by this nominal species is through the two figures which Linnaeus cited. Of these figures, it is agreed by ornithologists that the figure given by Edwards represents the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 Mourning Dove and that by Catesby the Passenger Pigeon. Thus, the nominal species Columba macroura Linnaeus may be looked upon as having been initially a composite species. According to this view, the trivial name macrouwra Linnaeus would adhere to whichever of the two included species was first definitely so selected under the provisions of Article 31. Until 1948 this Article was so lacking in precision that it is often a matter of opinion whether action by a particular author on a particular date.can properly be regarded as a selection made under this Article. In the present instance Bangs quite definitely made such a selection by specifying Catesby’s plate 23 as the figure by which the nominal species Columba macroura should be identified, thus making Catesby’s plate the representative of a lectotype for this species (see 1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 74-76). This is not to say, however, that no ornithologist at an earlier date had not made a valid selection of Edwards’ plate 15 to represent the lectotype, though the fact that no evidence of any such prior selection has, so far as I am aware, been brought forward for the purpose of rebutting Bangs’ contention suggests at least that it is unlikely that any such selection is known to have been made. The present case is complicated, however, by the existence of another consideration which does not seem to have been advanced in express terms. This consideration arises from the fact that both the authors (Edwards and Catesby) cited by Linnaeus, though pre-1758 authors, nevertheless by accident applied binominal names to the birds which they figured and that the name used by Edwards was Columba macroura and was thus an absolute tautonym of the name selected by Linnaeus for his nominal species. It might therefore be argued that on this account Linnaeus should be treated as having himself “indicated ” by absolute tautonymy that he regarded Edwards’ bird as being (or his figure as representing) the type specimen of this nominal species, to the exclusion of Catesby’s bird, notwithstanding the fact that he took part of his description and the whole of his “ Habitat” from Catesby and not from Edwards. 9. It therefore seems legitimate to conclude that in this case (as in the case of the names of many other composite nominal species established long before the introduction of the Régles) it is a matter of real difficulty to determine under Article 31 to which of the included taxonomic species the trivial name macroura Linnaeus is properly applicable under the Régles. Nothing therefore but a ruling by the Commission could provide a definite settlement of the present case. In a case such as the present where on balance it seems likely that the result desired is the reverse of that which would result from a strict application of the ordinary provisions of the Régles, the only certain method of securing that solution is by the use by the Commission of its plenary powers. This is the procedure recommended by the late Dr. Peters and is also recommended by Colonel Meineitzhagen. This therefore is the recommendation which I now put forward for consideration. 10. The specific proposals now submitted are that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its plenary powers to designate the description given on page 15, and the figure given on plate 15 by Edwards (G.), Nat. Hist. Birds, for the species which that author called Columba macroura to represent the lectotype of the nominal species Columba macroura 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Linnaeus, 1758, the type locality thus to become that cited by Edwards, namely the “West Indies ” ; (2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a2) macroura Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Columba macroura), as proposed, under (1) above, to be defined under the plenary powers ; (b) migratoria Linnaeus, 1766 (as published in the combination Columba migratoria) (trivial name of type species of Ectopistes Swainson, 1827) ; (c) carolinensis Linnaeus, 1766 (as published in the combination Columba carolinensis) : (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name marginata Linnaeus, 1766 (as published in the combination Columba marginata) (a name which, being based upon Edwards’ plate 15, is an objective junior synonym of the trivial name macroura Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Columba macroura), as proposed, under (1) above, to be defined under the plenary powers). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 PROPOSED CORRECTION IN THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF INCORRECT DATES AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES GIVEN F OR THE GENERIC NAME “ BALAENICEPS ” GOULD, 1850, AND FOR THE NAME OF ITS TYPE SPECIES (CLASS AVES) (CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN “ OPINION ” 67) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)590) 1. The purpose of the present application is to draw attention to, and to propose the correction of, an erroneous entry in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the dates of publication of, and bibliographical references for, the generic name Balaeniceps Gould, 1850, and its type species (Class Aves), made in Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 179). The error in question was detected in the course of routine checking in connection with the preparation of the Official List for publication in book form. 2. The generic name Balaeniceps and the name of its type species (by monotypy), Balaeniceps rez, is commonly treated as having been first published in the volume of the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for the year 1852. It was on this basis that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was asked to place—and did place—the generic name Balaeniceps Gould on the Official List. The entry in Opinion 67 under which this name was placed on the Official List reads as follows: “ Balaeniceps Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1852, i. Mt., B. rex Gould.” 3. Before passing to the principal error involved, it must be noted (1)— that the volume of the Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. referred to above is numbered “19” and should be so cited, (2) that the page on which the name Balaeniceps first appeared was numbered “1” (as an Arabic numeral) not “i” (small Roman numeral), (3) that volume 19 was published in Parts over a period extending from October, 1852, to June, 1854, and therefore that the date of publication should be cited in square brackets. The correct citation of the foregoing publication of the name with which we are here concerned is therefore: Balaeniceps Gould, [1852], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 19 (iper 4. But the above is not the first occasion on which the names Balaeniceps Gould and Balaeniceps rex Gould were published, for as pointed out by Neave (1939, Nomencl. zool. 1 : 386) the generic name Balaeniceps Gould was first published in 1850 on page 1315 of the volume for that year of the serial publication Athenaeum. Reference to the page in the Athenaeum quoted shows that on it there is a brief description of Gould’s genus Balaeniceps and his species Balaeniceps rex. Accordingly both these names must in future be treated as having been first published in 1850 and not in 1852 and in the volume 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the Athenaeum for 1850 and not in volume 19 of the Proc. zool. Soe. Lond. The genus Balaeniceps Rex, 1850, was monotypical with the above species as type species, just as was also the genus Balaeniceps Gould, [1852]. 5. It is proposed to incorporate the foregoing correction in the Official List. SUGGESTED REVIEW OF THE ENTRIES ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE ENTRIES. RELATING TO THE NAMES “ OEDIC- NEMUS ” TEMMINCK, 1815, AND “ BURHINUS ” ILLIGER, 1811 (CLASS AVES) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) eae ee bok Z.N.(S.)591) In the course of the routine checking of the entries made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology undertaken as part of the preparations for the publication of the first instalment of the Official [ist in book-form, I encountered an anomaly in regard to the names of two genera in the Class Aves, which calls for further consideration by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The facts of this case are accordingly now laid before the Commission for decision. 2. The names with which the present application is concerned were both placed on the Official List in Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 175-182). The names in question are :— (1) Burhinus Illiger, 1811, Prodr. Syst. Mamm. Avium : 250 (type species, by monotypy: Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1801, Index ornith. Suppl. : xvi) (Name No. 30) (2) Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, Manuel Ornith. : 321 (type species, by monotypy : Oedicnemus crepitans Temminck, 1815, Manuel Ornith. : 322 (stated in Opinion 67 to be the same species as Charadrius oedicnemus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst, Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 151) (Name No. 76). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 3. Both the above names are available names in the sense that neither (1) is a junior homonym of an older generic name consisting of the same word nor (2) has, as its type species, a species which is also the type species of another nominal genus of older date. 4. The difficulty which arises in the present case is of a taxonomic character, for, according to Peters (J. L.) (1934, Check-List Birds World 2 : 293-297) the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Oedicnemus crepitans Temminck, 1815 (Charadrius oedienemus Linnaeus, 1758), the type species of Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, is congeneric with the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1801, the type species of the genus Burhinus Illiger, 1811. According to this taxonomic view, the nominal genera Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, and Burhinus Illiger, 1811, are subjectively identical with one another, and the name Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, is a junior subjective synonym of the name Burhinus Mlliger, 1811. 5. The purpose of the Official List is to give formal official recognition to generic names which are not only nomenclatorially available names but are also, in the opinion of specialists in the group concerned, the names of taxonomically valid genera. It is quite inappropriate that a name that is universally regarded by specialists as a subjective junior synonym of another name should find a place on the Official List. Clearly, therefore, any such name which by an oversight has been placed on the Official List should be removed therefrom. Accordingly, the name Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, should now be removed from the Official List, if ornithologists generally are agreed that the nominal genera Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, and Burhinus Illiger, 1811, as defined by their respective type species, are taxonomically identical with one another. If, however, specialists were not agreed on this subject, some recognising the genus Oedicnemus Temminck as the name of a taxonomically valid genus in addition to so recognising the name Burhinus Illiger, the most suitable solution would be to leave the name Oedicnemus Temminck on the Official Inst, but to add to the entry relating to that name a note stating that this name has been placed on the Official List for use by specialists who may consider that the type species of this genus is generically distinct from the type species of the genus Burhinus Illiger. It will be recalled that a procedure of this kind was deliberately adopted by the International Commission in Opinion 104, when dealing with the names of the genera published for the human malaria parasites (the generic name Laverania being then placed on the Official List with a note of the kind indicated above, in addition to the older name Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885), and that the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology expressly enjoined the Inter- national Commission to follow this course when considering the addition to the Official List of names which were available and well known but not accepted by all specialists as being taxonomically required (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 237). It will be appreciated that this procedure serves the twofold purpose of stabilising well-known names, without, in cases where specialists are divided on the question of the taxonomic status of allied nominal genera, involving the International Commission in expressing or implying (through the Official I’st) any view on the taxonomic issue involved, . 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. The International Ornithological Congress at its meeting held at Uppsala in 1950 appointed a Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature to co-operate. with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, - on questions affecting the names of birds; it appeared to me, therefore, that it would be helpful to seek the views of the Standing Committee on the question whether the name Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, should be removed from the Official List or alternatively whether it should be retained thereon, subject to the addition of a note that this name had been placed on the List for use only by authors who considered that the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Oedienemus crepitans Temminck, 1815, was generically distinct from that represented by Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1801, the type species of Burhinus Illiger, 1811. I accordingly asked Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee, if he would be so good as to obtain the views of his Committee on the relative merits of the alternative courses set out above. Colonel Meinertzhagen kindly consented to put this matter to the Standing Committee and on 2nd September, 1951, wrote me the following letter: ‘“‘ I have consulted the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature on the names Oedicnemus and Burhinus with reference to the Official List. M. Berlioz has not replied, but I am taking a majority vote by which we are agreed that Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, should be sunk to Burhinus Illiger, 1811, the respective type species being congeneric.”’ 7. In view of the consensus of opinion regarding the relative status of the two nominal genera concerned and of the recommendation received from the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I submit, for consideration, the proposal that the name Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, should now be removed from the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP- PRESS FOUR GENERIC NAMES FOR BIRDS PUBLISHED BY BRISSON IN 1760 WHICH HAVE LONG BEEN OVER- LOOKED AND WHICH INVALIDATE AS HOMONYMS FOUR NAMES PLACED ON THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” (CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS ENTRIES IN “ OPINION ” 67) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)701) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to validate four generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Commission’s Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 177-182), each of which it is now seen is an invalid junior homonym of a generic name consisting of the same word published by M. J. Brisson in 1760 in his Ornithologie but since then completely overlooked. 2. The position in regard to this matter is as follows: (1) Brisson was a non-binominal author of what was formerly called the “ binary ” school, that is, he recognised that the scientific name of an animal must be designed to denote two concepts, namely that represented by the species to which the name was applied and that represented by the next higher group (i.e. the genus) in which that species was placed, and that the generic concept must be denoted by a noun substantive in the nominative singular placed at the beginning of the name, but who did not consider it necessary that the species concept should also be denoted by a single word, regarding it as equally appropriate that this concept should be denoted by a phrase consisting of two or more Latin words. (2) In 1911, at a time when the International Commission considered that generic names published by authors who applied a “binary,” though non-binominal system of nomenclature satisfied the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles, the Commission published an Opinion, Opinion 37 (1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 87-88), in which it ruled that the generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologie satisfied the requirements of the Rules. (3) In 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65) the International Congress of Zoology substituted the word “ binominal ” for the word “ binary ” in Article 25, thereby making it clear that names published by non-binominal “ binary ” authors possessed no availability in nomenclature. (4) The foregoing decision would have destroyed the availability of all the generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologie, if it had not been decided to accompany it with a further provision expressly preserving the status previously accorded to those names under its Opinion 37 of 1911 (1950, ibid. 4 : 65, Point (3) (a) (iv)). It will be seen from the foregoing particulars that, other things being equal, every new generic - name in Brisson’s Ornithologie of 1760 is an available name. 3. The recent discovery that Brisson had published a generic name Gavia in the Ornithologie (see application Z.N.(S.)78, relating to the name Colymbus 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Linnaeus, 1758*) which had been completely overlooked in all zoological Nomenclators led me to think that it was desirable to make a thorough examination of Brisson’s Ornithologie, in order to make sure that none of the generic names for birds which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was preoccupied by generic names consisting of identical words published in 1760 in Brisson’s Ornithologie but since overlooked. I have accordingly examined the Ornithologie from this point of view, as the result of which it now appears that six generic names now on the Official List are invalid (because junior) homonyms of names published by Brisson in 1760. Of the names so found to be invalid, the following five were placed on the Official Last in Opinion 67 : (1) Bubo Duméril, 1806 ; (2) Coturniz Bonnaterre, 1790; (3) Egretta Forster, 1817; (4) Gallinago Koch, 1816; (5) Oriolus Linnaeus, 1766. The sixth name on the Official List now found to be preoccupied by an identical Brisson name is Grus Pallas, 1767, which was placed on the Official List by Opinion 103 (Smithson. mise. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 21-24). Special problems arise in connection with two of these names, namely Gallinago Koch and Grus Pallas. The first of these cases is dealt with in Application Z.N.(S.) 575 (see pp. 93-95 of the present volume) ; the second in Application Z.N.(8.) 558, which is at present still under discussion with specialists but which will be published as soon as possible. The present application is accordingly concerned only with the position of the names Bubo Duméril, Coturnix Bonna- terre, Egretta Forster, and Oriolus Linnaeus. 4. The decision to validate the names in Brisson’s Ornithologie was taken with the sole purpose of promoting stability in ornithological nomenclature and it would certainly not have been taken in the form then adopted if it had been made clear to the Commission by ornithologists that certain only of the new generic names published by Brisson in 1760 were in general use and required protection, while others had long been ignored and, if validated, would cause disturbance and confusion rather than contribute to uniformity and stability. Now that the actual position has been brought to light, it seems to me that the most reasonable course would be for the Commission so to use its plenary powers as to secure its original intention. In other words, the most appropriate course seems to be to suppress those of the Brisson names which were—as it were, inadvertently—validated when the ruling of 1911 (in Opinion 37) was confirmed by the Commission in 1948 in those cases where the names, so validated, would, it is now seen, merely lead to confusion and objectionable name-changing. The number of new names which will need to be examined for this purpose is large, and in view of the consultations with specialists which will need to be undertaken, the investigation involved will necessarily occupy a considerable time. It is for this reason that the four names dealt with in the present application have been picked out for advance con- sideration, since, until decisions have been taken in regard to these names, the publication of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in book form will inevitably be held up. 5. I have consulted Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature appointed in 1950 by the International Ornithological Congress (see pp. 4-5 of the present volume), *See page 11 of the present volume. PRLPTILERA OIE LOE A OO vail “i _ De (21) Trivial name cyanea Hume, 1877 (as published in the combination Muscitrea cyanea), proposed validation of, by suppression of cyanea Vieillot, 1818 (a5: “Slag published in the combination Muscicapa cyanea) under the plenary powers. 1 - By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) a8 (22) Trivial name ferruginea Hodgson, 1845 (as published in the combination Hemi- chelidon ferruginea), proposed validation of, by suppression of ferruginea Merrem, 1784 (as published in the combination Muscicapa ferruginea) under the plenary powers. By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum Of cea Natural History, New York) .. = AR ahs hie ae = 105 ia eee Ey YS ee Se eee eee es eee re es 4 _Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim anp Son Lrtp., Westminster, London Ls VOLUME 9. Double Part 4/5 Sask riecede 1050 - pp. 107-158, 1 pl. : -THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ee a “oe NOMENCLATURE ~ paine’. Edited by “a, 5B _ FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. _ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS : Page _ The Presidency of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Election of Professor J. Chester Bradley .. 107 Obituary: Dr. William Thomas Calman Me . we, GOS . iv. : Retirement of Mr. A. S. Pankhurst from the Office of alta be $ ef Registrar to the International Trust for Zoological Nomen- 5 clature .. oe 1s as bol Me ae 3s AOS (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : csimmags by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 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. 1952 Price Seventeen Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President: Professor J. Chester Bradley (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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (lst January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (President) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (lst January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) 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) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) 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. Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust W.1 _ Offices of the Trust: 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Double Part 4/5 (pp. 107-158, 1 pl.) 30th December 1952 V4 ' ; \ ¥ } » P / ee 7 B es THE PRESIDENCY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has pleasure _ in announcing the election of Professor James Chester Bradley, Professor J _ Emeritus of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A., one of the United States Representatives on the International Commission since 1944, 3 to be President of the International Commission, with effect from 27th , November 1952, in succession to the late Dr. James Lee Peters, Museum of 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature WILLIAM THOMAS CALMAN 1871-1952 It is announced with the greatest regret that the death occurred on 29th September 1952 of Dr. William Thomas Calman, C.B., D.Sc., F.R.S., one of the United Kingdom Representatives on the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature since 1935. An Obituary Notice will be published as soon as possible. Retirement of Mr. Albert Stanley Pankhurst from the Office of Honorary Registrar to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature It is with great regret that the International Trust for Zoological Nomen- clature announce that it has accepted the resignation of Mr. Albert Stanley Pankhurst, C.B.E., from the Office of Honorary Registrar to the Trust. Mr. Pankhurst was one of the original subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Trust at the time when it was incorporated in 1947, and ever since has held the office of Honorary Registrar, in which capacity he has rendered valuable service to the Trust. Mr. Pankhurst’s resignation is occasioned by his acceptance of a post under the United Nations in the Middle East, which will necessitate his living outside the United Kingdom for at least a year. At the request of the Committee of Management, Mr. Pankhurst has consented to remain a member of the Trust, whose hope it is that on the completion of the term of service in his new appointment, Mr. Pankhurst will be able to resume his active association with the work of the Trust. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel.5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 9, Double Part 4/5) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in be writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any Pa case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. | | (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Vol. 9, Double Part 4/5) in relation to the following names :— (a) Astacus Fabricius, 1775 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation of (correction of an error in Opinion 104) (Z.N.(S.)544) ; (6) Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation of (correction of an error in Opinion 73) (Z.N.(S.)557) ; (c) flavipes Olivier, 1795 (Dytiscus) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), validation of, by suppression of flavipes Fabricius, 1792 (Dytiscus) (Z.N.(S.)667). | Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- | 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2. The present Part contains also an application that the normal provisions of the Régles should be strictly applied to the generic names Portunus Weber, 1795, and Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and that those names should therefore be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758, and Portunus macro- pipus Prestandrea, 1833, as their respective type species, it not being desirable, in the opinion of the applicant, that the plenary powers should be used in this case (Z.N.(S.)642). 3. Comments on the foregoing applications should be addressed to the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (address : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England). If received in sufficient time, comments so received will be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; other comments, provided that they are received ' within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part, will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals “ Nature” and “‘ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 30th December 1952. ap lgedte ee Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 9 ; Plate | JAMES LEE PETERS 1889-1952 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 JAMES LEE PETERS 1889-1952 James Lee Peters, President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and author of seven volumes of the “ Check-List of Birds of the World,” died on Saturday, April 19, 1952, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. On April 10th he had suffered a severe coronary thrombosis, and this, compli- cated by pneumonia, rapidly brought death. Even in childhood his interest had been in birds, and much of his boyhood was spent with the great collections at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. These were not far from Jamaica Plan, a suburb of Boston, his first home and where he was born on August 13, 1889. He was the son of Austin Peters, and Frances Lee, both of whom encouraged him in his interest in birds. During school and college years he was making a collection of his own and shortly after graduation from Harvard he was collecting in Mexico for the Harvard University Museum. In later years he worked also in the West Indies, and in Central and South America. Except for a short time, during which he was employed by the Biological Survey of the United States Govern- ment, and service in the army in France during World War I, his connection with Harvard was never severed. In 1921 he was appointed Assistant in Ornithology, in 1927 Assistant Curator of Birds, and Curator ir. 1933. In that year he was married to Miss Eleanor K. Sweet, who had been Librarian there. They lived together on a quiet farm in the village of Harvard, Massachusetts. Little was allowed to distract him from his work. Occasionally he was tired after fighting a fire in the village. Editing “ Bird-Banding,” a magazine devoted to the ringing of birds, occupied some time during the years 1939 through 1950. He was secretary of the board of the local hospital, and although his apple orchard was of great interest to him for many years, he gave this up latterly. Just a year before his marriage and appointment as Curator, the first volume of the “‘ Check-List ’”’ appeared ; the succeeding books were published in 1934, 1937, 1940, 1945, 1948 and 1951. These are lists of the birds of the world, together with their geographical ranges and references to previous workers. Increasing demand for them indicates their value to zoologists. They are indeed a memorial to the meticulous habits of his working life. Although the biological implication of any list of animals may be severely criticised by future zoologists—and no doubt will be—such, in this case, can only be based on the limitations that nomenclature imposes upon biology. Peters’s mechanical accuracy within this framework can only be applauded. It illuminates a sense of compromise and an abnegation that were quite charac- teristic of its author. Less in his conversation, which contained little hint of the pedagogue, but often in his correspondence, appear the words “ caution ” and “ deliberation.”’ Accurate solution of the problem at hand was always important to him, never personal advancement. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952) 112 Bulletin of Zoological- Nomenclature And so, little by little and day by day, he was recognised by his peers. He was President of the American Ornithologists’ Union from 1943 through _ 1945, and a member of the Cooper Club of California, the Biological Society of Washington, the Washington Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Sciences, the American Society of Mammalogists, Sigma Xi, the Society of Systematic Zoologists, and the Nuttall Ornithological Club of Cambridge, of which he was President from 1942 until his death. In Europe and South America the Deutsche Ornithologische Gesellschaft of Berlin, Germany; the Ornithologische Gesellschaft Bayern of Munich, Germany; and the Sociedad Ornithologica del Plata of Buenos Aires elected him to membership. He was elected a member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in September 1933, succeeding Dr. David Starr Jordan. In March 1945 he became Vice-President and President in July 1948, succeeding Dr. Karl Jordan. His interest here were in the solution of specific problems of _ nomenclature rather than the multitude of distracting details of administration. Meticulous, selfless work and its result have brought him the respect and admiration of zoologists. eid J.C. G. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO CORRECT AN ERRONEOUS ENTRY RELATING TO THE NAME “ ASTACUS ” PALLAS, 1772 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA), MADE IN THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” IN “OPINION” 104 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)544) The subject matter of the present application came to notice in connection with the routine checking of the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in connection with the projected publication of the Official List in book form, and is concerned with the erroneous entry of the name Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) on that List made in the Commission’s Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 27). 2. Entry relating to the generic name “ Astacus” Pallas, 1772, made on the “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” in Opinion 104: In Opinion 104 (: 27) the reference given for the name Astacus was “ Pallas, 1772, p. 81.’ The reference so given is clearly to page 81 of Volume 9 of Pallas’s Spicilogia Zoologiae, where the name Astacus was in fact used by Pallas. The particulars given for the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, in Opinion 104 were as follows :—“tat. [type species by absolute tautonymy] Cancer astacus Linn. 1758a, 631, syn. fluviatilis Fab. 1775a, 413.” 3. Incorrect type species given for “ Astacus” Pallas, 1772, in * Opinion ” 104: On referring to Volume 9 of Pallas’s Spicil. Zool., I found that in the paper concerned Pallas confined himself to the description of a new Siberian species of crayfish, to which he gave the name Astacus dauuricus. No other species was mentioned by Pallas and the above nominal species is therefore unquestionably the type species of Astacus Pallas by monotypy, for, as will be recalled, the Commission had ruled in Opinion 47 as far back as 1912 (Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 108-109) that a genus is to be treated as mono- typical if one species only was cited by name by its original author, even if that author made it clear that he considered that other species which he did not cite by name belonged to the genus also, a decision which, in substance, was written into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 153). Accordingly, the statement in Opinion 104 that Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 631) is the type species of the genus Astacus Pallas, 1772, is incorrect. In his description of his new species Astacus dauuricus, Pallas said (in the first sentence): ‘‘ Forma atque proportione astaco nostrati minori persimilis est,” and it is possible that the applicant in the case which was decided upon in Opinion 104 may have interpreted Pallas’ reference to (translated into English) “our crayfish’ as constituting obliquely the inclusion of Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, in the genus Astacus Pallas, 1772. Whether or not this is the explanation of the statement in Opinion 104 regarding the type species of Astacus Pallas, that statement is, as we have seen, incorrect. It is necessary therefore to consider what action should now be taken to correct or validate the entry on the Official List relating to this name. Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952) 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. Two possible courses of action: When I first considered this matter, it seemed to me that, other things being equal, there were two courses of action open to the Commission, each of which involved the admission that the entry on the Official List relating to the name Astacus Pallas was defective. (1) The Commission might confine itself to correcting the mistake in Opinion 104, that is, to giving an emended ruling stating that the type species of Astacus Pallas, 1772, was Astacus dawuricus Pallas, 1772, by monotypy, and not (as incorrectly stated in the foregoing Opinion) Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy. Clearly, the practicability of this course would depend upon whether, in the opinion of specialists, Astacus dauuricus Pallas, 1772, and Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, were not only congeneric with one another but were also so closely allied that there was no reasonable risk that at some later date they would be placed in different genera with the result that Cancer astacus Linnaeus would cease to be subjectively referable to the genus Astacus Pallas. (2) It would be possible for the Commission to decide that it was so important to ensure that Cancer astacus Linnaeus should be permanently retained in the genus Astacus that the proper course for it to adopt would be to use its plenary powers to designate that species to be the type species of Astacus Pallas, thereby giving valid force to the until then invalid entry in regard to this generic name made in the Official Inst in Opinion 104. 5. Advice received from Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands): At this point I put this question (in a letter dated 6th June 1951) to Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijks- museum van Natuurlyke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). In his reply, dated 8th June 1951, which is being published simultaneously with the present paper, Dr. Holthuis informed me that the species Astacus dawuricus Pallas, 1772, was no longer considered to be congeneric with Cancer astacus Linnaeus, being currently referred to the genus Cambaroides Faxon, 1884 (Proc. Amer. Acad Arts Sci., Boston 20 : 149), of which the type species was Astacus japonicus De Haan, 1841 (Faun. japon., Crust. (5): 164, pl. 35, fig. 9), by subsequent selection by Faxon (1898, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 20 : 665). Dr. Holthuis accord- ingly considered that it was “ highly desirable that the Commission should take steps to prevent the confusion, which undoubtedly will arise if Astacus dauuricus Pallas is accepted as the type species of Astacus.” Of the two alternative courses outlined in my letter (i.e. the two alternatives set out in paragraph 4 above), Dr. Holthuis was altogether opposed to the first, and, if no other course were open, would favour the second. Dr. Holthuis went on, however, to outline a third course (which, like my alternative (2), would involve the use by the Commission of its plenary powers) which, in his opinion, offered the best solution obtainable. Dr. Holthuis pointed out that, notwithstanding the entry on the Official List of Astacus Pallas, 1772, under Opinion 104, most authors treated the name Astacus as having been first published by Fabricius in 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 413); if that practice could be validated, no difficulty would arise in regard to the type species of this genus, since the type species of Astacus Fabricius, 1775, was, by selection by Latreille (1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 422) the nominal species Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.: 413), — a nominal species which was objectively identical with the nominal species RC Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758 (the name Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius being only a nom. nov. for Cancer astacus Linnaeus). Dr. Holthuis accordingly sug- gested that the difficulty created by the mistake in Opinion 104 should be over- come by the Commission using its plenary powers to validate Astacus Fabricius, 1775 (Astacus Pallas, 1772, being at the same time removed from the Official List), rather than for the purpose of designating Cancer astacus Linnaeus to be the type species of Astacus Pallas, 1772. 6. Solution recommended : It is clearly essential that such steps as may be necessary should be taken to provide a legal foundation for the current use of such an important name as Astacus ; the only question therefore is how best this object can be secured. In view of the fact that (as Dr. Holthuis has ex- plained) the majority of specialists still attribute this name to Fabricius, there would be an obvious advantage in stabilising the name Astacus as from that author. The force of this consideration is greatly strengthened by the fact that, if this course were to be adopted, there would no longer be any problem to solve as regards the type species of this genus. Qn general principles, it will also, I think, be felt that it is better to use the plenary powers for the purpose of giving valid force to action taken by an early author (in this case, by Fabricius in 1775) rather than to use those powers for the purpose of securing the same end by designating as the type species of a genus a species not included in it by its original author (in this case, by Pallas in 17 72). My recommendation to the Commission is therefore that it should adopt Dr. Holthuis’ suggestion and, by suppressing the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, under the plenary powers, so provide a firm foundation for the name Astacus Fabricius, 1775. 7. Uses of the generic name “ Astacus ” prior to Fabricius, 1775 : In the case of generic names published in the immediate sub-Linnean age, it is essential to take special steps to secure that the usage which it is proposed to accept for any given generic name has not been anticipated by some earlier author, for, owing to the imperfect state of knowledge regarding many of these rare XVIIIth century works, it is still extremely easy to overlook an early usage of a generic name, especially one which was taken over from the pre- 1758 zoologists. In the present case I investigated this problem in conjunction with Dr. Karl Jordan, then President of the Commission, during the war (in 1944). From this investigation, it appeared that the name Astacus had been used as a generic name on three occasions prior to its use as such by Pallas in 1772. These uses were :—(1) Astacus Borlase, 1758, Nat. Hist. Cornwall : 274; (2) Astacus Gronovius, 1762, Acta Helv. 5 - 365 (not Vol. 4, published in 1760, as frequently stated in lists); (3) Gronovius, 1764, Zoophylac. gronov. : 227. At that time nothing was known as to the nature of Borlase’s book, while Gronovius was a non-binominal “ binary” author and, pending a decision (which was, in fact, taken in 1948) on the general problem of the meaning of the expression “ binary nomenclature ”, the status of generic names published in his books was a matter of doubt. Quite recently I examined the position as regards the status of names in Borlase’s Natural History of Cornwall, primarily as a general problem but partly also with special reference to the name Astacus. In the application which I have submitted to the Commission on this subject (Application Z.N.(S.)543), which was published in September 1951 (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool, Nomencl. 6 : 115-118), I showed that Borlase could in no sense 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature be regarded as a binominal author, and I recommended that.the name Astacus Borlase, 1758, and also the name Astacus as used by the non-binominal “ binary.”’ author Gronovius in 1762 and 1764 should be placed on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. For the present purposes these three old uses of the name Astacus may therefore be set on one side, no further action being necessary in regard to them. Needless to say, however, it will be necessary to suppress under the plenary powers. the undoubtedly available name Astacus Pallas, 1772, if the name Astacus Fabricius, 1775, is to be rendered available. For the reasons explained above, the possibility cannot be excluded that the investigation carried out by Dr. Jordan and myself in 1944 may have failed to detect every use of the name Astacus between 1758 and 1772, while it is possible also that this name may have been used by some author in the period 1772-1775, which was not covered by the survey which we then carried out. In these circumstances, it would, I think, be prudent to follow the precedent set in similar cases, e.g. the case of the Echinoid name Spatangus (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 526), that is, to use the plenary powers to suppress not only the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, but also any other use of that name prior to Fabricius, 1775, which would otherwise be available and would therefore invalidate Astacus Fabricius, 1775, as a junior homonym. 8. Name to be used for the type species of “ Astacus” Fabricius, 1775: As has already been noted (paragraph 5 above), (1) the nominal species which is the type species of Astacus Fabricius, 1775, is Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775, but (2) that nominal species is objectively identical with the nominal species Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, the name Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius being only a nom. nov. for the name Cancer astacus Linnaeus, coined by Fabricius when he introduced for it the generic name Astacus, this action being due, no doubt, to the dislike entertained by Fabricius, in common with most of his contemporaries, for tautonymy between generic names and specific trivial names. The Commission has in recent times made it a practice, when using the plenary powers in relation to a given generic name, to use those powers also to secure that the nominal species which is the type species of that genus shall be whatever nominal species has the oldest available name for the taxonomic species which is, or which it is desired to make, the type species of that genus. In view of the fact that it will be necessary to use the plenary powers to suppress the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, if the name Astacus Fabricius, 1775, is to be validated, it is suggested that at the same time those powers should be used to designate Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of this genus in ‘lieu of the objectively identical, but later estab- lished, nominal species Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775. 9. Urgency of the present case: In view of the fact that the present application is designed to secure a correction of an erroneous entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made in an earlier Opinion rendered by the Commission, the need for a decision is very pressing, for, until decisions have been taken by the Commission in this, and certain similar, cases, the publication of the Official List in book form will.inevitably be delayed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 - - 10. Action recommended: In the light of the foregoing considerations, the following recommendations are submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, namely that it should :— (1) delete the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, from the Oficial List of Generic Names in Zoology, Opinion 104 being at the same time amended to the extent necessary for this purpose ; One he ee (2) use its plenary powers :— (a) to suppress for the purposes, both of the Law of Priority and ‘ of the Law of Homonymy :— 7 (i) Astacus Pallas, 1772 ; & (ii) Astacus, any other otherwise available use of, as a generic | name prior to Astacus Fabricius, 1775 ; (6) to designate Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, in lieu of the objectively identical, but later established nominal species Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of Astacus Fabricius, 1775 ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;— (a) Astacus Fabricius, 1775 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, by designation, as proposed in (2) (b) above, under the plenary powers: Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758) (to be inserted on the Qffcial List in the place rendered vacant by the removal therefrom, under (1) above, of the name Astacus Pallas, 1772) ; (6) Cambaroides Faxon, 1884 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Faxon (1898) : Astacus japonicus ™ de Haan, 1841) ; z (4) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Trivial ES Names in Zoology ;— | (a) astacus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Cancer | astacus) (trivial name of species proposed, under (2) (b) above, to be designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Astacus Fabricius, 1775) ; | (6) japonicus de Haan, 1841 (as published in the combination * Astacus japonicus) (trivial name of type species of Cambaroides 3 ; Faxon, 1884) ; | Es (5) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid > Generic Names in Zoology ;— = (a) the names specified in (2) (a) above, as there proposed to be _ suppressed under the plenary Powers ; s (6) Astacus Erichson, 1847, Arch. Naturgesch. 13 (1) : 101 (a junior £ homonym of Astacus Fabricius, 1775) ; (6) place the trivial name fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the combination Astacus fluviatilis) (trivial name of an objective junior synonym of Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official Index | of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. wm 118 Bulletin of Zoological-Nomenclature . ON THE ACTION WHICH IT IS DESIRABLE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO CORRECT THE ERRONEOUS ENTRY RELATING TO THE NAME ““ ASTACUS” PALLAS, 1772 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) MADE IN THE “ CET toon on er NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)544) (Extract from a letter dated 8th June 1961) Thank you so much for your letter Z.N.(S.)544 of 6th June concerning Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Spicil. Zool. 9:81) type species: Astacus dauuricus Pallas, 1772 (Spicil. Zool. 9 : 81) monotypic. As to your questions concerning Pallas’s species I can give you the following information. .Astacus dauuricus Pallas is a well recognisable species and the trivial name dauuricus, being the oldest name available for the species, at present still is in common usage. The species, however, is no longer retained in the genus Astacus, but is placed in a separate genus Cambaroides Faxon (1884, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 20: 149) type: Ce ind he eee ‘ 7 3 0 bs ¥ % ; a Leh TRL ‘cere Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 PROPOSED RETENTION OF THE TRIVIAL NAME “DENTATUS” DIESING, 1839 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “STEPHANURUS DENTATUS”) (CLASS NEMATODA) By ALLEN McINTOSH (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Animal Industry,Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)188) (Letter dated 30th January, 1962) (For original application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 2: 282-291.) With reference to the name of the swine kidney worm (Commission’s Reference Z.N.(8.)188) I wish to go on record as advocating the preservation of the name Stephanurus dentatus Deising, 1839. To suppress the trivial name dentatus would, I believe, create a condition of endless confusion. The parasite is not only of considerable economic importance but has seldom been referred to by any other specific name. There are over 300 references to the parasite by this name and less than 25 references for the combined list of synonyms. It is of interest to note that the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, had never appeared in print in combination with the generic name Stephanurus until placed there by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencel., 2 : 286) in his discussion of the correct name for the swine kidney worm. Notwithstanding the excellont discussion by Dougherty (l.c., 2 : 282-291), I believe there is some question as to whether there has ever been a condition of homonymy with reference to Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. To have a condition of homonymy it is necessary that two species with the same trivial name must be brought together under the same genus ; that is, the two species must be congeneric or so regarded. In point (8) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4: 121) dealing with the rejection of secondary homonyms previous to Ist January, 1951, an author is excused from the requirement of regarding the two species as being congeneric. Although not so stated in point (8), one must presume that the Code requires that before an author can reject a trivial name of a species, the species in question must have been placed in a genus containing another species with the identical trivial name. I contend that the case of Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, does not meet this requirement ; and I will endeavour to show that there has never been a time when the two species of swine parasites, each with the trivial name dentatus, have been brought together under the same genus either by their common trivial name or by any other trivial name. Here are, arranged chronologically, certain pertinent facts about the two swine nematodes with the trivial name dentatus that should not be overlooked :— 1803. Rudolphi named and described Strongylus dentatus, a nodular worm of swine, 1809. Rudolphi listed dentatus Rud., 1803, under the genus Sclerostoma. Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809, is a synonym of Strongylus Mueller, 1780, both genera having the same type species. 1839. Diesing named and described Stephanurus dentatus, the kidney worm of swine, as a new genus and a new species. 1861. Molin proposed the genus Oesophagostomum with subulatum Molin, 1861 as type species, and placed dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, in the genus as a synonym of subulatum Molin, 1861. This action of Molin not only made the trivial name dentatus Rud., 1803, the valid type species of Oesophagostomum, but removed dentatus Rudolphi from future con- sideration under the genus Strongylus and its synonym Sclerostoma. 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1870. Verrill named and described Sclerostoma pinguicola, a synonym of Stephan- urus dentatus, Diesing, 1839. This date (1870) appears to be the earliest at which the kidney worm of swine was referred to the genus Sclerostoma (= Strongylus) nine years after dentatus Rud., 1803, had been removed from the genus Sclerostoma. At this date (1870) the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, was not mentioned in combination with the genus Sclero- stoma. 1874. Dean, in discussing the pathology of the kidney worm of swine, referred to the parasite as Strongylus dentatus, apparently a faulty determination, having confused the name of the parasite with the old name of the nodular worm of swine. 1894. de Magalhaées was apparently the first author to raise the question of homonymy. He regarded Stephanurus as a synonym of Strongylus and believed that as at one time Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, had been the name of a nodular worm of swine, the kidney worm of swine should take the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870. At this date (1894) the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, was not mentioned in combina- tion with the genus Strongylus. Since de Magalhées did not indicate that he regarded Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, (with dentatus Rudolphi as type species) as a synonym of Strongylus Mueller, 1780, he did not set up a condition of homonymy, as dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, had been removed from the genus Strongylus 33 years previously. 1896. Railliet’s brief reference to Stephanurus_as a synonym of Sclerostomum has been interpreted by Dougherty (l.c. : 285 (iii)) to mean that Railliet regarded the two species of swine parasites with the identical trivial name as being congeneric. This is contrary to the facts for Railliet not only in the paper of this date (1896 : 160), but in previous papers, as well as in later publications, recognised the genus Oesophagostomum which has dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as type species. 1900. Tayler also regarded Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, as a synonym of Sclero- stoma, but, contrary to the statement of Dougherty (l.c.), she did not regard the two parasites of swine with the same trivial name as being eongeneric. In her publication of this date (1900 : 624) she referred to the nodular worm of swine as “ (Oesophagostoma dentatum).” She did not use the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, in combination with Sclerostoma. At no time has any author placed the nodular worm of swine in the genus Stephanurus and at no time has any author placed the kidney worm of swine in the genus Oesophagostomum. In view of the above chronological facts it is difficult to comprehend how there can be a condition of homonymy envolving the species Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. ; Even should the views of the esteemed and learned members of the Commission, in this case, not agree with the interpretation outlined above, the writer desires to go on record as in favour of retaining the specific name Stephanurus dentatus Diesing. 1839, for the swine kidney worm. em b Bs Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 ON THE PROBLEM RELATING TO THE NAME “ STEPHAN- URUS” DIESING, 1839 (CLASS NEMATODA) RAISED BY DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY By JOHN M. LUCKER (Zoological Division, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)188) (Letter dated 6th February, 1952) (For original application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 2: 283-291.) In response to your “ appeal to parasitologists ’ (Comm. ref. Z.N.(S.)188) in connection with the scientific name of the kidney worm of swine, I recommend that the International Commission preserve the name, Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, for this worm, not by exercising its plenary powers, but by doing all in its power to see to it that the next International Congress shall revoke all provisions of the Rules which presently do apply, or in the past have applied, to so-called secondary homonymy and shall substitute therefor provisions which will ensure for the past and future, that the priority of a trivial name, which was, or is, originally perfectly valid and available when proposed in a genus which also was, or is, perfectly valid and available when proposed, cannot be permanently impaired by any action of any subsequent author and that any author who recognises the genus so pro- posed, but who recognises as congeneric with the animal bearing this originally valid and available trivial name, no other animal for which the same trivial name was earlier validly proposed, shall have the right and obligation to use this trivial name for the animal in that genus. ON THE TRIVIAL NAME TO BE USED FOR THE KIDNEY WORM OF SWINE (CLASS NEMATODA): COMMENT ON PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY By HAROLD W. MANTER (University of Nebraska, Department of Zoology, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 188) It is probably too late to count, but, as a taxonomic helminthologist, I wish to object to the proposal of Dougherty (1950) to replace the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839 (kidney worm of swine) with pinguicola of Verrill, 1870. The name veterinary medicine that it surely should be validated. Dougherty made his proposal in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 282-291 in August 1951, 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY IN REGARD TO THE TRIVIAL NAME “ DENTATUS” DIESING, 1839, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “STEPHANURUS DENTATUS ” (CLASS NEMATODA) By ROBERT PH. DOLLFUS (Laboratoire d’Helminthologie Coloniale et de Parasitologie Comparée, Museum National d@’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)188) (Letter dated 16th October 1952) (For application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 2 : 282-291) Je viens de recevoir un separatum de E. C. Dougherty concernant la question de la possibilité de rejeter appellation Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, parce qu’il existe un Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803. Comme Diesing d’une part, et Rudolphi d’autre part, n’ont pas employé le nom specifiqué dans le méme genre, il n’a eu aucune raison valable pour changer le nom spécifique employé par Diesing et toute controverse & ce sujet est, a mon avis, inutile; c’est du temps perdu de discuter la-dessus. En outre, comme il est impossible de confondre des Nematodes aussi differents que Stephanurus dentatus Diesing et Oesophagostomum dentatum (Rudolphi), tout changement de ces appella- tions pourrait étre nuisible. Si quelques auteurs ont confondu ces deux espéces, cela montre & quel point ils sont incompetents en matiére de Nematodes parasites et il n’y a pas & s’occuper de leur erreur. SUPPORT FOR PROFESSOR HAROLD E. VOKES’ PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME“ MYTILUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS PELECYPODA) By JOSEPH P. E. MORRISON (Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)193) (Letter dated 4th October 1951) — (For application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 2 : 31-32) Both as a specialist on the Mollusks, and as a former teacher of Zoology in High School, College, and University, may I go on record as wholeheartedly in support of Dr. Vokes’ petition to the International Commission to use its plenary powers in the case of Mytilus Linnaeus, to fix the species edulis Linnaeus as the type species. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of case for which the International Commission has been granted such plenary powers. Without such a nomen conservandum action as requested in this case, two Family or Subfamily names would have to be changed, as well as every High School Zoology text-book I have ever seen in the United States ! COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO _ THE GENERIC NAME “ SPHINX” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)280) (Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952.) In Part 10 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature just received, I note a number of requests for use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission by Dr. Paclt. I am submitting the following comments on them. Paragraph 2 of Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.)280 (p. 291) Stephens, 1828 (June) (Illustrations of British Entomology, Haustellata, vol. 1, p. 121) does not select a type species for Sphinx Linnaeus, 1758 ; however Curtis does select Sphinx ligustri Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Sphina Linnaeus, 1758, in 1828 (January) (British Entomology, vol. 5, p. 195). If Stephens had designated a type species, Curtis’ action would have antedated it. >, $ Pete etert ia eho ? ate Ke was ie hs 7= fe P P PR te ae ost A fabs ST MN? ae SS Nie DRT CN Nes wd 9 A Rotel ad Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “ DILOBA ” BOISDUVAL, 1840 (CLASS INSEC A, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)332) _ (Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952) In Part 10 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature just received, [ note a number of requests for use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission by Dr. Paclt. I am submitting the following comments on them. Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.)332 (pp. 315-317) This proposal ignores Heteromorpha Hiibner (1806) (Zentamen, p- [1]), for which see Opinion 97, and Heteromorpha Hiibner, 1822 (Systematisch-alphabetische Verzeichniss, etc., pp. 15 and 18). In the Tentamen the name included only caeruleo- cephala Linnaeus, 1758; while in the Systematisch-alphabetische Verzeichniss it included that species plus pantherina Hiibner [1800-1803]. Kirby in 1892 (Synoptic Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Heterocera, vol. 1, p. 585) selected Phalaena Bombyx cacruleocephala Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Heteromorpha Hiibner. Thus Heteromorpha Hiibner, 1822, antedates Diloba Boisduval, 1840, and takes pre- cedence over it, the genera being isogenotypic. Heteromorpha has been used for caeruleocephala by some authors. Stephens, 1828 (Illustrations of British Entomology, vol. 2, p. 14) did not select Phalaena Bombyx caeruleocephala Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Episema, but Duponchel, 1829 (March) (in Godart, Histoire naturelle des Lépidoptéres de France, vol. 7, Part 2, p. 71) did select this species as the type species of Episema Ochsemheimer, 1816. The present British Lists are using Episema for caeruleocephala, and this follows Hampson, 1913 (Catalogue of the Lepidoptera. Phalaenae in the British Museum, vol. 13, p. 593). In 1906 Hampson (Catalogue of the Lepidotera Phalaenae in the British Museum, vol. 6, p. 229) used Derthisa Walker, 1857, in the sense that Dr. Paclt calls, ‘“ quite unknown name ” ; it is also used in Seitz’s Macrolepidoptera of the World (vol. 3, p. 119, 1910). The zoological position assigned to caeruleocephala, while really outside the consideration of the problem at hand, is open to question. The THYATIRIDAE (TETHEIDAE) possess an abdominal tympanum, caeruleocephala possesses a thoracic tympanum like the Noctuoidea (Phalaenoidea), the venation of t SUPPORT FOR DR. GILBERT RANSON’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE NAME “ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1819 (CLASS PELECY PODA) By the Members of the Shellfish Sub-Committee of the International the Exploration of the Sea (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)365) (Letter dated 2nd April 1952, with enclosures, addressed by Dr. B. Havinga, Chairman of the Shellfish Sub-Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, to Dr. P. Korringa (Rijksinstituut voor Visscherijonderzoek, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands)) (Communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April 1952) Enclosed I am sending to you the answera which I have received in reply to the circular letter, which has been distributed among the members of the Shellfish Sub-committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. I should like to express my opinion on this subject as Chairman of the Com- ouncil for mnittee. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I wish to support strongly Dr. Korringa in his request for the retention of the generic name Gryphaca. This name is generally known and used, and the sup- pression of this name in favour of Crassostrea would load to confusion and great difficulties. Enclosure 1 Letter dated 16th January 1952 from Sven Segerstrale (Museum Zoologicum Universitatis, Helsinki, Finland) Thank you very much for your letter of 11th January about the nomenclature problem concerning the generic name of Gryphaea. Like you I agree with Dr. Korringa’s view that we should try to conserve the name Gryphaea for the Portuguese oyster and its closest allies. I have only too often regretted the perpetual changes in zoological nomenclature and am glad to contribute to conserving the status quo in this case. Enclosure 2 Letter dated 16th January 1952 from H. A. Cole (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Fisheries Experiment Station, Castle Bank, Conway, Caernarvonshire) Thank you for your letter of 11th January regarding the retention of the generic name Gryphaea for the Portuguese oyster and its nearest allies. I am, of course, aware of the controversy over its name and I have had some correspondence on the subject with American workers. I am pleased to support Dr. Korringa in his request for the retention of this well-established name. I believe that to suppress it in favour of Crassostrea would lead to additional confusion. Enclosure 3 Letter dated 17th January 1952 from M. Desbrosses (Office Scientifique et Technique des Péches Maritimes, 59, Avenue Raymond Poincaré, Paris (X VIe)) Je suis d’accord pour que le Sous-Comité du “Shellfish ** recommande de conserver le nom de Gryphaea pour l’Huitre Portugaise et les espéces voisines, & la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Enclosure 4 Letter dated 18th January 1952 from E. Leloup (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles 4, le Rue Vautier, 31) J’ai ’honneur de vous accuser réception de votre lettre du 11 janvier 1952 et de ses annexes. Comme je l’ai dit a la séance du Shellfish cotnoominitiee & Amsterdam, je ne suis pas partisan d’appliquer a la lettre les régles de nomenclature zoologique pour le cas Gryphaea. Je propose de maintenir le nom Gryphaea, consacré par lusage. A ce propos, j’ai consulté mes collégues malacologistes de l'Institut Royal des Sciences naturelles, MM. M. Glibert, Conservateur et W. Adam, conservateur adjoint. Ils sont du méme avis. Enclosure 5 Letter dated 22nd January 1952 from A. M. Ramalho (Instituto de Biologia Maritima, Caise do Sodré, Lisboa) In reply to your letter of the 11th January, I beg to inform you that I quite agree that the Shellfish Sub-committee should recommend the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to conserve the name Gryphaea for the Portuguese Oyster and its allied species. This means, if I understand correctly, that the Sub-committee will be in favour of the issue described as under (2) of S4 of the note by M. F. Hemming you so kindly sent with your letter. Enclosure 6 Letter dated 4th February 1952 from C. E. Lucas (Scottish Home Department, Marine Laboratory, Wood Street, Torry, Aberdeen) Turning now to the problem about the naming of the Portuguese oyster, in principle it seems that the name ought to be Crassostrea, but in practice there seems to be no doubt that we should favour the retention of the name Gryphaea. I hope, therefore, that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be able to conserve the name Gryphaea. SAI HY Shane aS ea oe a AOR Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “ PHALAENA” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND TO VALIDATE, AS FROM 1758, THE TERMS EM- PLOYED BY LINNAEUS FOR GROUPS OF THAT GENUS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED ADDITION OF “PHALAENA” LINNAEUS, 1758 TO THE “ pg Fe OF GENERIC NAMES IN By JIR{ PACLT (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462) (Letter dated 14th July 1952) i ee disagree with Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal (1952, Bull. zool. Yomencl. 6 : 304-312) for the validation, as of subgeneric status, of the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758, to denote the groups into which he divided the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758. My view in this matter is not confined to the particular terms discussed by Dr. Franclemont, but apply equally to all similar terms used by Linnaeus for subdivisions of genera established by him in 1758. See my paper on this subject published in 1947 (Acta Soc. ent. Cechosl. 44: 37). For if we accept any of these terms as being the names of subgenera, we should be bound logically to adopt the same course by analogy in the case of the terms used by Linnaeus for subdivisions of the genus Papilio. 2. In the case of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, there are six of these terms, namely :— (1) Barbarus ; (2) Eques ; (3) Heliconius ; (4) Danaus; (5) Nymphalis ; (6) Plebejus. Of these the first two have been disregarded for many years, but as regards each of the remainder we now have a generally accepted nomenclatorial usage, namely :— Heliconius Kluk, 1802 Type species: Papilio charithonia Linnaeus, 1758 Danaus Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 Nymphalis Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio polychloros Linnaeus, 1758 Plebejus Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758. 3. In these circumstances it will be evident that no useful purpose whatever would be served by validating as from 1758, the terms used by Linnaeus for sub- divisions of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, and, indeed, that nothing but confusion would result from such action. 4. When we turn to consider the parallel problem presented by the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 for subdivisions of the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, we find that, with a few exceptions these terms are generally accepted as generic names either as from Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.) or from Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Ankiind. syst. Werkes Schmett. Wienergegend). The usages so accepted are as follows :— Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 Type species : Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758 Geometra Denis & Schiff., 1775 do. Phalaena papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758 Tortrix Denis & Schiff., 1775 do. Phalaena viridana Linnaeus, 1758 Pyralis Fabricius, 1775 Lotda: Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 Tinea Fabricius, 1775 do. Phalaena pellionella Linnaeus, 1758 Alucita Fabricius, 1775 do. Phalaena pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758. 5. In the case of the names Bombyx and Pyralis, the foregoing usage is not in strict accord with the requirements of the Régles. In these cases proposals have been submitted to the International Commission for the use of the plenary powers to validate existing usage.. See my application Z.N.(S.)288 on Bombyx Fabricius (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 313-314) and Z.N.(8.)331 on Pyralis Fabricius (1952, ibid. 6 : 314-315). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952) 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. We have to note also that in the case of the term Noctua as used by Linnaeus to denote a group of the genus Phalaena there is (as in the case of Papilio Eques) a further problem which would require consideration, for it is clear that, if there were such a subgeneric name as Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, its type species would not be the same species as that of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, for the type species of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, would be Phalaena pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, while that of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, is Phalaena typica Linnaeus, 1758. 7. In these circumstances I must ask why Dr. Franclemont wishes to disturb the well-established practice of ignoring all the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 for subdivisions of genera then established. In this connection I must point out that Dr. Franclemont’s proposals would involve the cancellation, or at least the modification, of the Commission’s Opinion 124, which states: ‘‘ The various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of this date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the International Rules.” 8. If in despite of Opinion 124 we were to accept the terms used by Linnaeus to denote groups of species within his genera as being names of subgeneric status as from 1758, we should be confronted with serious and quite unnecessary difficulties. For example, we should probably have to take special steps to preserve the name Eques Bloch, 1793, the name of a well-known genus of fishes, which, in the absence of such action, would fall as a junior homonym of Eques Linnaeus, 1758. Again, we should be confronted with such-problems as those presented by the name ‘* Barbarus”’ (properly Papilio Barbarus), the position as regards which was discussed by Tutt in 1905 (Ent. Rec. 17: 211). No doubt also similar problems would arise in the case of groups of animals other than the Order Lepidoptera, with which alone we are here concerned. Unless serious reasons could be brought forward in favour of such a course, it would, indeed, in my opinion, be ridiculous to disturb the ruling given in Opinion 124, an Opinion which, though of relatively recent date, has made a substantial contribution to the central aim of the Régles, namely the stabilisation of zoological nomenclature. 9. Finally, I must make it clear that I am strongly opposed to Dr. Franclemont’s proposal for the suppression of the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758. Dr. Franclemont suggests that the family name (NocTUIDAE) derived from the generic name Noctua is ‘long-established and familiar.” In my view, however, there are two rivals | of that family name: for many decades the family name AGROTIDAE has been used in Europe for the family in question, while in America the name PHALAENIDAE prevails. 10. Like the name Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, is a well-known name, even though it has often been used in an ambiguous way. 1 think it desirable that this name should now be officially recognised and I accordingly ask the International Commission to do this by placing this name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The request now submitted is therefore that the International Commission should :— (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, under Rule (b) in Article 30 (use of the word typica as the trivial name of an included species): Phalaena typica Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 512) ; (2) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name typica Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Phalaena typica) (trivial name of type species of Phalaena Linnacus, 1758). — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 SUPPORT FOR DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSALS FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE NAME “ PHALAENA” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND TO VALIDATE, AS OF SUBGENERIC STATUS, THE TERMS THEN APPLIED TO GROUPS OF SPECIES OF THAT GENUS By WM. T. M. FORBES (New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462) (Extract from a letter dated 18th August 1952) (For the original application in this case, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304-312) I am writing you, at Dr. Franclemont’s suggestion, in connection with his paper on the Linnean subgenera and their type species. I feel that his solution, both as to names and as to type species, is highly advisable, with the possible exception of the name Aducita, which has been: used as nearly equally in two different families, that I think it might be thrown overboard, by whichever formal suspension of rules is practicable. ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “PHALAENA” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) AND TO VALIDATE, AS OF SUBGENERIC STATUS, CERTAIN TERMS THEN USED BY LINNAEUS FOR SUB- DIVISIONS OF THAT GENUS: REPLY TO CERTAIN CRITICISMS MADE BY DR. JIRI PACLT By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Entomology & Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462) (Enclosure to a letter dated 21st August 1952) I have seen Dr. Paclt’s objections (Paclt, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9: 147-148) to my proposal (Franclemont, 1952, ibid. 6 : 304-312) for a use of the Plenary Powers to validate the names used for the subgenera of Phalaena by Linnaeus in 1758. I feel that he has misunderstood the intent of my proposal. I do not wish to cancel or modify Opinion 124; I am merely acting within the intent of the published meaning of the Opinion, wherein it is stated: “..., but if any group of specialists finds that because of the literature on said group this Opinion will produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission is prepared to take up individual cases under the arguments which may be submitted.” If the Commission were to act favourably on these names, it would not impair Opinion 124 or its subsequent revision at Paris in 1948; it would not involve any names but those used as subgeneric categories by Linnaeus under Phalaena ; all other names, no matter what their status in Linnaeus, 1758, lie outside the boundaries of the question under consideration. I cannot agree with the statement that “ ... ., with few exceptions these terms are generally accepted as generic names either as from Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.) or from Denis and Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Ankiind. syst. Werkes Schmett. Wienergegend).’’ I think the reverse is true, for they are and were generally credited to Linnaeus with few exceptions. Fabricius does not credit the names to Linnaeus, but this can be readily understood because he has modified the application of the names in some cases, and he rather fancied himself as the originator of a new system. Denis and Schiffermiiller credit the names to Linnaeus. The Dictionnaire @’ Histoire Naturelle edited by d’Orbigny breaks with Latreille, who credited almost everything 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to Fabricius, by crediting the names to Linnaeus. Sherborn (Index Animalium, Pars prima (1758- 1800) : 740) credits the names to Linnaeus and says: ‘“ apparently used in a subgeneric sense.’”’ The workers in the United States have always thought of the names as originating with Linnaeus. Staudinger, 1901, credits them to Linnaeus, but cites them from the 12th edition instead of the 10th Edition of the Systema Naturae. As we all know, there was considerable discussion about whether to start with the Tenth or the Twelfth Edition, and it was the present Code that established the tenth edition as the starting point. With regard to Alucita Fabricius, 1775; as I have pointed out, this was used for twenty species, part of which were included by Linnaeus under T?nea in 1758 and 1767, but none that he included under Alucita. The type species suggested by Dr. Paclt is not included by Fabricius; it is under Pterophorus Fabricius, and this name must now date from Fabricius, 1775, because Geoffroy’s work in which this name is first proposed is not binominal. Walsingham in the Biologia centrali-americana, Insecta, Lepidoptera-Heterocera 4:89, 1911, pointed out the two different uses of Aluctta and selected as the type of Alucita Fabricius (nec Alucita Linnaeus) Phalaena Tinea DeGeerella— Alucita degeerella (Linnaeus). With regard to Phalaena and Noctua ; see Article 9, which states that if a genus is divided into subgenera the name of the typical subgenus must be the same as the name of the genus. One of the subgeneric names used by Linnaeus in 1758 must be the typical subgenus of Phalaena. Barnes and Benjamin in the 1923, Contributions to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America 5 (Part 2):55 have demonstrated that Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, both proposed as new and with Noctua as a subgeneric category, are isogenotypic with Phalaena Noctua typica Linnaeus, 1758, as type (see Article 30, Rule (6)). It comes as something of a surprise to learn that it was a well established practice to ignore the subgeneric names of Phalaena proposed by Linnaeus in 1758 and 1761, see my comments above on crediting of these names. The names were anything but ignored, they were used all or in part by all workers and credited to Linnaeus either directly or indirectly. Likewise to place the usage of Phalaena in the same class as that of Papilio is, to me, a misrepresentation of the facts, because Phalaéna was all but abandoned in the early 1800’s and the subgeneric terms, quite unlike those of Papilio, came to have more use than the generic term. I would take issue with ‘‘ (as published in the combination Phalaena typica),” the original combination as published is ‘“‘ P. Noctua typica,”’ Phalaena being abbreviated. I think we should be absolutely accurate in citing original combina- tions, even if parts are suppressed by the action of the Commission, in such cases we should refer to the Opinion in which the suppression is made. Finally with regard to the names NOCTUIDAE, AGROTIDAE and PHALAENIDAE ; in my original paper I made some mention of the usage of these names. I have tried to find some basis for Dr. Paclt’s statement that AGROTIDAE has been used in Europe for decades. The name seems to have had no vogue after Grote suggested the change in 1895; the present usage dates from Tams, 1935. Boursin was apparently the first worker on the Continent to change from NOCTUIDAE to AGROTIDAE, and this was in 1936. Kozhantshikov in 1937 (Faune de TUSSR, Insectes, Lépidoptéres 18 (No. 3)) used NoctuipaE. Warren and Draudt in Volume 3 and supplement of Seitz’s Grosschmetterlinge der Erde published from 1909-1914 and 1931-1938 use NocTUIDAE. Eckstein in 1920 in Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands Band 3, uses NOCTUIDAE, so does Gaede in Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 14, Schmetter- linge, oder Lepidoptera part 2 Nachtfalter (Heterocera). Macrolepidoptera.” Bourgogne in the Traité de Zoologie, Vol. 10, fascicule 1 published in 1951 uses NOCTUIDAE, so does Viette, also of the Paris Museum, use NOCTUIDAE in his recent apers. Bang-Haas used noctuIpAE in his Novitates Macrolepidopterologicae, Vol. 1-5 published from 1926-1930. The Zoological Record did not change from NOCTUIDAE to AGROTIDAE until Vol. 81 for 1944 published in 1947, the separate Insecta part appeared a year early, 1946. Perhaps Dr. Paclt can cite works I have overlooked, not that the above list is complete; it merely represents the titles of works which are on my desk. ees. — NE am SaaS a ee SEN he @ Nag oh PSE ay ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 SUPPORT FOR DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSALS FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “ PHALAENA ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND TO VALIDATE, AS OF SUBGENERIC STATUS, THE TERMS THEN USED TO DENOTE GROUPS OF THAT GENUS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By FREDERICK H. RINDGE (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462) (Letter dated 4th September 1952) (For Dr. Franclemont’s application, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304-312) Recently I received a letter from Mr. Franclemont of the United States National Museum informing me that you are interested in obtaining the opinions of qualified workers on his paper entitled “‘The Linnaean Subgeneric Names of Phalaena (Lepidoptera, Heterocera).” As I have charge of the Lepidoptera collection here at the American Museum of Natural History, and as I work primarily with the moths, I believe I would qualify. I agree with the conclusions expressed in the above-mentioned paper, and unless additional information is brought forth, I certainly hope that the Commission will take action on this question as indicated in this paper. Such action would certainly lead to a uniformity in the application of names in the Lepidoptera, and it would definitely lead to stability. SUPPORT FOR DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “ PHALAENA ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By A. DIAKONOFF (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462) (Letter dated 26th September 1952) Upon an invitation of Mr. Franclemont (addressed to Mr. Lempke) I am glad to comment upon his paper on the Linnean “ Subgeneric Names,” recently re- published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6 : 304-312). As you perhaps remember, I had the pleasure of discussing this paper with you during your visit to our Museum in August 1951; at that time I expressed myself entirely in agreement with Mr. Franclemont’s views, and thought that a proposal to the International Commission on the lines recommended by Dr. Franclemont would be most useful, and would contribute to uniformity and stability of the nomenclature of Lepidoptera. In the meantime I discovered that the validity of the well-known and familiar generic name Tortrix, and with it of the family name ToRTRICIDAE (with which group I am especially concerned !) is seriously endangered. Dr. Obraztsov of Sea Cliffe, N.Y., draws my attention to the fact that under the present Rules the first valid author of Tortrix appears to be not Thunberg, but Scopoli, 1777; conse- quently Tortrix might fall as a synonym of some horrible old name such as, e.g., Heterognomon Lederer, 1859 (Wien. ent. Monatsch. 3 : 242). To prevent this disaster I even more warmly advocate accepting Mr. Franclemont’s proposals. As to the familiar generic name Tinea, I may draw your attention to the paper by A. Steven Corbet and W. H. T. Tams published in the 1943 (Entomologist 76 (961) : 113-114), where those authors replace the name Tinea Linnaeus by that of Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762. Their view (and the changed spelling Tinaea and TINAEIDAE) has been accepted by several authors (among whom by myself), but it unavoidably leads to more confusion. The acceptance of Mr. Franclemont’s proposals would put an end to this instability as well. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAME “TINAEA” GEOFFROY, 1762 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPI- DOPTERA) WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED IN THE EVENT OF APPROVAL BEING GIVEN TO DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME “ TINEA” SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462) In a letter supporting Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304-312) that the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote groups of species of the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, Dr. A. Diakonoff has drawn attention (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 9 : 151) to.a paper by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet and Mr. W. H. T. Tams (1943, Entomologist 76 + 113-114), in which those authors, in an attempt to secure a stable foundation, if not for the name Tinea, at least for a name closely resembling it, brought forward the proposal that this genus should in future be known by the name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist, abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 2 : 25, 173), for which they then selected Phalaena Tinea pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species. 2. Geoffroy in his Histoire abrégée did not apply the principles of bimominal nomenclature, using instead the system formerly known as ‘“ binary nomenclature.” At the time when Corbet & Tams wrote their paper, the question whether a generic name published by a “ binary,’ but not, binominal author should be accepted as possessing any status of availability in virtue of having been so published was sub judice. The Corbet/Tams proposal relating to the name Tinaea Geoffroy was therefore necessarily provisional from the standpoint of the Régles until the under- lying question of principle had been settled. In 1948 the International Congress of ‘Zoology ruled against the acceptance of generic names published by non-binominal authors (1950, Bull..zool. Nomencl. 4: 63-66), and the Commission, which already had before it an application for a ruling on the availability of generic names first published in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée, thereupon ruled that those names were not available ; the Commission added at the same time that it would be prepared to entertain proposals for the validation of individual generic names in this book, where it could be shown that confusion would otherwise arise and asked the Secretary to confer with interested specialists on this subject (1950, ibid. 4 : 366-369). 3. It will be seen that the use of the plenary powers would be needed to secure the validation of the name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762, just as it would to provide a valid foundation for the name Tinea as from Linnaeus, 1758. From this point of view there is therefore nothing to choose between a proposal to validate T’inaea Geoffroy and one to validate Tinea Linnaeus. From the practical point of view the latter course has however important advantages, (1) because it would retain for this genus a name spelt in the traditional way (Tinea), avoiding the awkward and unaccustomed variant Jinaea and TINAEIDAE, and (2) because under it Linnaeus would become officially what he has long been unofficially regarded as being, namely, the author of this generic name. 4. Accordingly, my conclusion as between the two alternatives discussed above is that, if the plenary powers are to be used to regularise the position of this and the other important names covered by the application submitted to the Inter- national Commission by Dr. John G. Franclemont, the validation of Tinea as from Linnaeus, 1758, is greatly to be preferred to the validation, in its place, of Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762. I therefore recommend that, so far as this genus is concerned, the question on which consideration should be concentrated is whether in the interests of nomenclatorial stability the plenary powers should be used to validate the name Tinea, as of subgeneric status, as from Linnaeus, 1758, with Phalaena Tinea pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. In the event of that proposal being approved the only action that would be called for, as regards the name T'inaea Geoffroy, 1762, would be to place it upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, where, being an invalid name, it properly belongs. = Dee ne ay ies es gaalae P fe Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO. SUSPEND THE RULES TO (a) VALIDATE SEVEN GENERIC NAMES OF LINNAEUS AS OF 17958, AND DESIGNATE THEIR TYPE SPECIES (b) SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “ PHALAENA” LINNAEUS, 1758, GIVE PREFERENCE TO ITS TYPICAL SUBGENUS “ NOCTUA,” DECLARE “ NOCTUIDAE ” THE CORRECT NAME FOR THE FAMILY, AND (c) VALIDATE ONE GENERIC NAME OF LIN- NAEUS AS OF 1767 AND DESIGNATEITS TYPE SPECIES (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) : By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B. (Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462) (Enclosure to letter dated 14th October 1952) I desire to support the application made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. John G. Franclemont (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304-312) to suspend the rules, to validate the following generic names of Lin- naeus as of 1758: Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Pyralis, Tortrix, Tinea and Alucita, to designate their type species, to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, to give preference to its typical subgenus Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, to declare NOCTUIDAE the correct name for the family, to validate one generic name of Lin- naeus as of 1767, i.e., Attacws, and designate its type species, as set forth in detail in the said application, and in a paper published by Dr. Franclemont in 1950. 2. While Opinion 124 declares that the various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758, Systema Naturae, Tenth Edition, are not to be accepted as of that date as of subgeneric value under the rules, it was recognized that, if this Opinion would produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission would be prepared to consider individual cases submitted to them by the specialists concerned. 3. McDunnough’s Check List (1938, 1939), which is in current use in North America and probably elsewhere, uses all the generic names involved in this applica- tion, as set forth by Dr. Franclemont, with the exception of Noctua, for which Phalaena is used. The generic names in question, with the exception of Phalaena, have been in constant use for a very long time. To upset their usage now would cause greater confusion than uniformity. While it is unfortunate to suppress one of the three original generic names (Phalaena) of Linnaeus, not to do so will only result in suppressing an almost equally well-known name (Noctua). There is, therefore, good reason for not adhering strictly to the rules in this case. 4. Dr. Jiri Paclt in the same number of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6 : 313-315) under Commission’s references Z.N.(8.)288 and Z.N.(S.)331 has made partial parallel applications for the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758 to be the typé species of Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 and to designate Phalaena Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 to be the type species of Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, the only difference between Dr. Franclemont’s application and that of Dr. Paclt in these two cases being that in the former application these generic names are credited to Linnaeus, 1758, rather than Fabricius, 1775, as in the latter application. While the work of Fabricius was the first in which these names were used in a strictly generic sense, Dr. Franclemont (1952, tom. cit. : 306) has pointed out that, if these names were to be accepted from this work, considerable confusion would arise when all the generic names involved in his application are considered. Consequently, it is believed advisable to make a clean sweep of all later uses of these names and settle them all as of 1758. Commission’s references Z.N.(S8.)462, Z.N.(S.)288 and Z.N.(S8.)331 could well be consolidated and considered as one. 5. In Opinion 158 the Commission considered such a case, as are involved in the three above-mentioned applications, recognized that an exception should be made for Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, and designated the type species. Opinion 124 gives ample authority for granting this application and the case considered in Opinion 158 is a perfect precedent for a similar ruling in the instant case. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952) 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rk ae xh Literature Cited Fabricius, Johann Christian 1775. Systema Entomologiae, sistens Insectorum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. Flensburg and Leipzig, Kortii, [32] + 832 pp. Franclemont, John George 1950. The Linnaean subgeneric names of Phalaena (Lepidoptera, Heterocera). J. New York ent. Soc, 58 : 41-53. Linnaeus, Carolus [Carl von Linné] 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cwm Characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvii, 1: [4] + 824 pp. 1767. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio duodecima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvii, 1: [2] + 533-535, 356-357 [sic], 538, 359-360 [sic], 541-605, 506 [sic], 607-891, 902 [szc], 893-1328 + [36] pp. MecDunnough, James Halliday 1938. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Part I. Macrolepidoptera. Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci., 1: 1-272, 1-3 (corrigenda). 1939. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Part II. Microlepidoptera. Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 2: 1-171. COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “ BOMBYX” FABRICIUS, 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)288) (Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952) In Part 10 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature just received, I note a number of requests for use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission by Dr. Paclt. I am submitting the following comments on them. Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.)288 (pp. 313-314) Dr. Paclt’s remarks about Sericaria are, I think, incorrect. The name was first used in the vernacular Sericaire [sic !], by Latreille in 1825 (Famulles naturelles du Régne Animal, p. 474) in a descriptive key, but the name is coupled with Notodonte [sie !] without any means given for separating them. The Berthold 1827 work (Latreille’s Naturlich Familien des Thierrichs) is merely a translation into German of the Latreille 1825 work. On page 480 we find the same key, the same coupling of the two names, but now in the Latin form as Notodonta and Sericaria [sic !] There are no included species in either case. Since no way is provided to distin- guish Notodonta from Sericaria, I do not regard the Berthold “‘ proposal ”’ of the name as falling within the meaning and intent of the Régles and Opinions. Sericaria is defined by Latreille in Guvier, 1829 (Le Régne Animal, ed. 2, vol. 5, p. 404), and there he includes a single species, ‘‘ Bombyx dispar Fabricius,” the Gypsy Moth. s R . . » Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “ PYRALIS ” FABRICIUS, 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)331) (Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952) In Part 10 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature just received, I note a number of requests for use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission by Dr. Paclt. I am submitting the following comments on them. Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N (S.)331 (pp. 314-315) I have commented elsewhere (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 310) that Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, is equal to Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, and that it does not contain farinalis, the species that Dr. Paclt would have the Commission declare as type species. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. LAURENCE M. KLAUBER REGARDING THE TRIVIAL NAMES “ ATROX” BAIRD AND GIRARD, 1853 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “CROTALUS ATROX”) AND “POLYSTICTA” COPE, 1865 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ CAUDISONA POLYSTICTA”) RESPECTIVELY (CLASS REPTILIA, ORDER SQUAMATA) By HOWARD K. GLOYD (The Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, U wS.A.) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)523 and 524) (Letter dated 29th May 1952) I am writing to express my opinion on the following two cases of nomenclature of rattlesnakes submitted to the Commission by Dr. L. M. Klauber :— (1) Crotalus cinereous Le Conte in Hallowell, 1852, versus Crotalus atrox Baird & Girard, 1853; and (2) Crotalus multimaculatus Jan, 1863, versus Crotalus polystictus (Cope, 1865). In regard to the first, I still hold the opinion expressed in my paper of 1940 on the rattlesnakes (Chicago Acad. Sci., Special Publ. 4: 205, footnote). I do not think the first publication of the ‘‘ name ” cinereous was intended as a specific name, but rather as a descriptive adjective. In addition to this, the dropping of atrox Baird & Girard after nearly a hundred years of unquestioned application should be avoided, if possible. I have not personally studied the question of multimaculatus versus polystictus, but I have read Dr. Klauber’s discussion of the case with care and am quite content to accept his recommendations. 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR DR. LAURENCE M. KLAUBER’S PROPOSALS FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAMES “ ATROX” BAIRD & GIRARD, 1853, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINA- TION “ CROTALUS ATROX,” AND “ POLYSTICTA” COPE, 1865, AS PUB- LISHED IN THE aasacmaiiinge oy Cpanel POLYSTICTA” (CLASS By C. B. PERKINS (Zoological Society of San Diego, Balboa Park, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)523 (“ atrox ”) and Z.N.(S.)524 (“ polysticta ”)) (Letter dated 9th April 1952) - (For the applications concerned, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 234-236 and 236-238 respectively) I think L. M. Klauber is correct in his contention that Crotalus cinereous antedates Crotalus atrox and also that Crotalus multimaculatus is the correct name for the snake now known as Crotalus polystictus. However, Crotalus atrox and Crotalus polystictus have been used for many-years. Changing the names would cause confusion. Therefore, I believe the Commission should place Crotalus atrox and Crotalus polystictus on the Official. List and place Crotalus cinereous and Crotalus multimaculatus on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. SUPPORT FOR DR. LAURENCE M. KLAUBER’S PROPOSALS FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAMES “ATROX” BAIRD & GIRARD, 1853, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COM- BINATION “ CROTALUS ATROX,” AND “ POLYSTICTA” COPE, 1865, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “CAUDISONA POLYSTICTA” (CLASS REPTILIA) By EDWARD H. TAYLOR (University of Kansas, Department of Zoology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)523 (“ atrox”) and Z.N.(S.)524 . i (“ polysticta ”)) ) (Letter dated 16th April 1952) (For the applications concerned, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 234-236 and a 236-238 respectively) : I have recently received from Dr. L, M. Klauber two propositions :— (1) The Case Z.N.(8.)523 of Crotalus cinereous Le Conte in Hallowell, 1852, versus Crotalus atrox Baird and Girard, 1853, and (2) The Case Z.N.(8.)524 of Crotalus multimaculatus Jan, 1863, versus Crotalus polystictus (Cope), 1865. I heartily concur in Dr. Klauber’s proposals. These are the names that Dr, Hobart M. Smith and Taylor used in their work “ An Annotated Checklist and Key to the Snakes of Mexico.” I heartily trust that the Commission will accept the proposals. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 SUPPORT FOR THE GANS/LOVERIDGE PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ DASY- PELTIS ” WAGLER, 1830 (CLASS REPTILIA) By HOBART M. SMITH (University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana. Illinois, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)660) (Letter dated 22nd September 1952) Inasmuch as Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830, is a name rather widely referred to in zoological literature, as applying to an odd genus of peculiarly adapted egg-eating snakes, I am of the opinion that the proposal by Gans and Loveridge (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 347-348) for the validation by the Commission of this name in this sense should be upheld. SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ DASYPELTIS ” WAGLER, 1830, AND TO DETER- MINE THE IDENTITY OF THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL NAME “SIMUS” LINNAEUS, 1767 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION * COLUBER SIMUS”) SHOULD BE APPLIED (CLASS REPTILIA) By JAMES A. OLIVER (Curator of Reptiles, New York Zoological Society, Zoological Park, New Yorl:) (Commission references Z.N.(S.)660 (“ Dasypeltis ”) and Z.N.(S.)662 (“ simus ”) (Letter dated 22nd October 1952) (For the applications concerned, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 347-348 and 354-355 respectively) I am writing to support two recent requests for use of the plenary powers of the International Commission in regard to the nomenclature of Reptiles. I believe that both of these proposals are desirable from the standpoint of nomenclatorial stability. Both proposals apply to well-known forms and involve names that have been long in use. The proposals in question are :— (1) Validation of the generic name Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830, for the African Egg-eating Snake, by Carl Gans and Arthur Loveridge (Commission’s _ Yveference Z.N.(S.)660). (2) Determination of the species to which the trivial name si#mus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Coluber simus, is to be applied, by Richard A. Edgren (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662). I am in complete agreement with all of the requests made under each of these proposals. SUPPORT FOR DR. RICHARD A. EDGREN’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATION OF THE TRIVIAL NAME “SIMUS” LINNAEUS, 1767 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ COLUBER SIMUS”) (CLASS REPTILIA) By HOBART M. SMITH (University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662) . (Letter dated 22nd September 1952) In view of the stability which the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1867 (as pub- lished in the binominal combination Coluber simus) has enjoyed for such a long period and likewise in view of the acknowledged power of the Commission to associate any name with any species under justifiable circumstances, in my opinion the recommendation by Edgren (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 354-355) that the Com- mission perpetuate this name in the present application should be upheld. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR MR. RICHARD EDGREN’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRIVIAL NAME “SIMUS” LINNAEUS, 1767, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION 3 “ COLUBER SIMUS” (CLASS REPTILIA) By KARL P. SCHMIDT and CLIFFORD H. POPE (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662) (Letter dated 9th October 1952) We are entirely in favour of Mr. Richard Edgren’s proposal for action to con- firm the current usage of the names Heterodon simus and Heterodon platyrhinos and to place the trivial names simus and platyrhinos on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. This refers to your Z.N.(S.)662 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 354-355). SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DETERMINE THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL NAME “ SIMUS” LINNAEUS, Ay (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ COLUBER SIMUS” SHOULD APPLY (CLASS REPTILIA)) By LAURENCE M. KLAUBER (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662) (Letter dated 15th October 1952) I have reviewed the proposal set forth by Richard A. Edgren (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 6, p. 354) with regard to the allocation of certain trivial names in the genus Heterodon. I am fully in agreement with his proposal, believing that it will eliminate future confusion that would otherwise be inevitable. SUPPORT FOR DR. J. WYATT DURHAM’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ MELLITA” AS FROM AGASSIZ, 1841 (CLASS ECHINOIDEA) By H. ENGEL (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)677) (Letter dated Ist September 1952) I fully agree with the proposal (Z.N.(S.)677) of J. Wyatt Durham (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 359-360) to validate the generic name Mellita (Class Echinoidea) as from Agassiz, 1841, under the plenary powers. GOROT Sag: Prt io} ar" Contents (continued from front wrapper) Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature es ia ore As Pt: Ay Be 44 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature of its plenary powers in certain cases ; &. oh ie Obituary James Lee Peters, 1889-1952 New Applications (1) Proposed use of the plenary powers to correct an erroneous entry relating to the name Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 104. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : +s ie ye Ar be M3 (2) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (proposed correction of an error in Opinion 73). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ae nts ne (3) Proposed addition of the generic names Portunus Weber, 1795, and Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 3 A aa Se (4) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the trivial name flavipes Olivier, 1795 (as published in the combination Dytiscus flavipes) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Balfour-Browne (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) .. ie 3 a a Comments on applications already received (5) Astacus Fabricius, 1775 : comment by L. B. Holthuis (Leiden, The Netherlands) (6) Favus Lanchester, 1900: comments by: (1) L. B. Holthuis (Leiden, The Netherlands); (2) M. F. W. Tweedie (Singapore); (3) I. Gordon (London) ; (4) Heinrich Balss (Miinchen, Germany) .. 4h sh aid (7) Portunus Weber, 1795: comment by Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Washington, Dy Gog OSA.) 5 Pe Ric xf s. Bh. afs ae Ei (8) Acmea|Acmaea problem: comments by (1) A. Myra Keen & Siemon Muller (Stanford, California, U.S.A.) ; (2) Avery R. Test (Ann. Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) oh oe es < A. a an 40 Ae (9) Problem of trivial names of the adippe/cydippe/niobe complex : comments by : (1) B. J. Lempke (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) ; (2) Jiri Paclt (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia); (3) Felix Bryk (Stockholm, Sweden) ; (4) B. C. S. Warren (Folkestone, England); (5) Wm. T. M. Forbes (Ithaca, N. vee U.S.A.) ; (6) F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) 3 (7) Henry Beuret (Neuewelt, Basle, Switzerland); (8) Francis Hemming (London) ; (9) Ernest L. Bell (Flushing, N.Y., U.S.A.) ; (10) Eugene Munroe (Oztawa, Canada) ; (11) Elli Franz (Frankfurt a. M -» Germany) ; (12) Ernest Mayr (New York); (13) Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.); (14) Bryant Mather (¥ackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.)3 (15) T. N. Freeman (Ottawa, Canada) .. ee Wye he as ee Page 109 109 111 113 119 122 128 118 121 127 130 131 Contents (continued from overleaf) (10) Trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Papilio); comments by: (1) Bryant Mather (Fackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.); (2) T. N. Freeman (Oztawa, Canada) ; (3) F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) ; (4) Eugene Munroe (Ottawa, Canada); (5) L. P. Grey (Lincoln, Maine, U.S.A.) ; (6) Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) .. ot We (11) Trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839 (Stephanurus) :_ comments by: (1) Allen McIntosh (Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) ; (2) John M. Lucker (Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) ; (3) Harold W. Manter (Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) 5 (4) Robert Ph.Dollfus (Paris) rs eG is a % ne (12) Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758: comment by Joseph P. E. Morrison (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ies ie os is of aS ie She (13) Sphinx Linnaeus, 1758: comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ae he be ae ae ws = ap (14) ae teas 1840 : comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C., (15) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801: comments furnished by P. Korringa (Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands) on behalf of the Shellfish Sub-Committee, Inter- national Council for the Exploration of the Sea z¢ 3 se (16) Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and the terms used by Linnaeus to denote groups of cies of that genus: comments by: (1) Jiri Paclt (Bratislava, C. slovakia) ; (2) Wm. T. M. Forbes (Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) ; (3) John G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; (4) Frederick H. Rindge (New York); (5) A. Diakonoff (Leiden, The Netherlands); (6) Francis Hemming (London) ; (7) Cyril F. dos Passos (Mendham, N.7., U.S.A.) .. (17) Bombyx Fabricius, 1775: comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington, DiG Ups.) << Es a a Pr a ss (18) abd os as 1775 : comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C., - * . (19) Trivial name atrox Baird & Girard, 1853 (Crotalus): comments by: (1) Howard K. Gloyd (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.); (2) C. B. Perkins (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) ; (3) Edward H. Taylor (Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) (20) Trivial name polysticta Cope, 1865 (Caudisona) : comments by : (1) Howard K. Gloyd (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (2) C. B. Perkins (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) ; (3) Edward H. Taylor (Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) .. a (21) Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830: comments by: (1) Hobart M. Smith (Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (2) James A. Oliver (New York) ft ay te (22) Trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767 (Coluber) ; comments by : (1) James A. Oliver (New York) ; (2), Hobart M. Smith (Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (3) _ Karl P. Schmidt & Clifford H. Pope (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.); (4) © Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) .. Sa Bie (23) Mellita, as from Agassiz, 1841: comment by H. Engel (Amsterdam, The) Netherlands) .. as ah Ae é we 7 sf ee RPE ee Re Printed in Great Britein by Metcuim AND Son Lrp., Westminster, London VOLUME 9. Part 6 1 Zayas llth May 1954 pp. 159-190 PURGHASED THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 : iS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications nee in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 159 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Sly Powers in certain Page cases 159 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a by the International Trust as at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1954 a ee + = 4 eee eke Pe) ng wh (ee Se OS et PD! a ’ a a 7 . n ty ae eee t Rae a Pon re eee ee : oe Ma “5 Price Twelve Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) ; A = 4 e + ity, - < oH : : Rs AE gh: : iQ.‘ =~ INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th — July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, fapan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- “ge President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (fohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, ie —- U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanké (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, — | N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th — August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) oo BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, po 6 (PP 159- 190) “ith May 1954 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The followmg notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applic ations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (Vol. 9, Part 6) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases Norice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature in relation to the following names :— (1) immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Droso- phila immigrans (Cl. Insecta, Order Diptera), validation of (Z.N.(8.)711) ; (2) prunt Geoftroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis prune (Cl. Insecta, Order Hemiptera), validation of (Z.N.(8.)428) ; (3) Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Westwood, 1835, designation of type species for, in harmony with accustomed usage (Cl. Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S8.)174). 2. Comments received in sufticient time will be published in the Bulletin : other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part, will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 3. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the serial publications ** Nature ” and “‘ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commassion on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village Kast, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. llth May 1954. —— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP- PRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME “ BROUNI” HUTTON, 1901, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ DROSOPHILA BROUNI,” FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING THE SPECIFIC NAME “IMMIGRANS ” STURTEVANT, 1921, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ DROSOPHILA IMMI- GRANS” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) Joint Application by :— ERNST MAYR (Curator, Whitney-Rothschild Collection, The American Museum of Natural History, New York) J. T. PATTERSON (Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas) MARSHALL P. WHEELER (Assistant Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas) WARREN P. SPENCER (Professor of Biology, College of Wooster, Ohio) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)711) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name brouni Hutton, 1901, as published in the combination Drosophila brount, for the purpose of preserving the well-known name wnmigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans. The facts of this case are set out below. 2. In a recent study of New Zealand pRosoPHILIDAE (1952, Z'rans. Proc. Roy. Soc. New Zealand 79 : 514-515), Roy A. Harrison proposes to place the name Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant, 1921 (Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. No. 301 : 83) in the synonymy of Drosophila brount Hutton, 1901 (Trans. New Zealand Inst. 33:91). The present applicants believe that to accept this proposal would greatly disturb uniformity and stability of zoological nomen- clature, particularly since the zoological identity of the species on which these names are based is by no means unequivocally established. Any action on these names must take the following facts into consideration. 3. The original description of Drosophila brount Hutton is taxonomically worthless. It does not contain a single statement that would permit identi- fication of the nominal species Drosophila brouni as a member of the D. immagrans group, or even of the genus Drosophila. 4. The type specimen of D. browni is still in existence (Harrison, 1952), but it is a female. Females in several species in the Drosophila immagrans group cannot be distinguished on the basis of a study of external characters, even when they are alive, much less on the basis of a single, old, dried, pinned specimen. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 6. May, 1954. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. There are fifteen to twenty names available for presumed wnmigrans-like species in the Pacific area. The group has not yet been monographed, nor genetically or cytologically analysed. No one knows how many species there really are or what their proper names are. The Pacific appears to be the centre of diversity of this group. 6. The type specimen of Drosophila browni was collected more than fifty years ago. Although flies have recently been caught in New Zealand which produce fertile offspring with U.S. Drosophila immigrans and presumably belong to this species, this does not prove that they belong to the same species- population as the type specimen of Drosophila brount Hutton. It is not known how many members of the Pacific wmmigrans-group may occasionally reach New Zealand, and, in view of the rapid changes in the New Zealand biota, it is possible that different species of Drosophila were predominant fifty years ago than are now. 7. The name immigrans is not only the name of a well-known species, but it is also the “type species”’ of an important subdivision of the genus Drosophila, “‘ The immagrans group of species.” A revision of this group is now in progress and it is possible that the nominal species Drosophila immagrans Sturtevant will be found to be a composite of several sibling species. Never- theless, the name immigrans ought to be preserved for a species of this important group, regardless of the ultimate taxonomic definition of the species Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant. If necessary, an explanatory note should be added to the entry on the Official List of the name immigrans Sturtevant, as soon as the species so named has been fully defined. 8. The name Drosophila immagrans is universally known in the biological literature and has been used in literally hundreds of papers. For the entire period since 1921 during which the species has been studied in genetics no name other than immigrans has been used for it. The name immigrans is thus so firmly in the biological literature that it would be confusing in the extreme to replace it by the name browni, aside from the many above-mentioned uncertainties regarding the species to which the latter name applies. 9. The present applicants accordingly petition the International. Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to prevent the discard of the universally known name immigrans Sturtevant by suppressing the name brownt Hutton. The action which the International Commission is now asked to take is that it should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name brouwnt Hutton, 1901, as published in the combination Drosophila brouni, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the foregoing name on the Official Lndea of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (3) place the name wmmigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans, on the Official Inst of ore Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE SPECIFIC NAME “PRUNI” GEOFFROY, 1762, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ APHIS PRUNI” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) By F. C. HOTTES (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)428) The present application arises out of the decision taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in July 1948 that Geoffroy in his Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, published in 1762, did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore that no name published in the foregoing work acquires availability under the Law of Priority in virtue of having been so published (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366-369) and in particular from Point (2) of that decision where the International Commission agreed to consider separately, Order by Order, any cases where, as the result of the foregoing decision, names in common use were found not to be available and where therefore it was desirable that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to validate the names in question and so to avoid the confusion and name-changing which would otherwise be unavoidable. 2. Aphid taxonomists are not affected by the foregoing decisions, so far as they relate to generic names. They are, however, very much affected as regards one specific name which was published by Geoffroy in binominal form, although in the work in question he did not apply generally the principles of binominal nomenclature. This name is Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris 2: 497). This name is of importance, because it is the oldest name which unquestionably applies to the Mealy Plum Aphid. 3. Geoffroy did not actually describe the species to which he applied the name Aphis pruni, but he gave a reference to Réaumur (1737, Mém. Hist. Ins. 9 (3) : 317) who gave an excellent description of the Mealy Plum Aphid. The name Aphis pruni Geoffroy is thus firmly based upon an unquestionable identification. 4. The Mealy Plum Aphid is the type species of the genus Hyalopterus Koch, [1854] (Die Pflanzenliuse-Aphiden 1: 16), Aphis pruni Fabricius (an erroneous citation for Aphis pruni Geoffroy, since Fabricius did not publish this as a new name, merely using Geoffroy’s name) having been selected as the type species of this genus by Passerini (1860, Gli Afidi (ed. 2) : [27]). (The name Hyalopterus is commonly treated as having been published in 1857, but this is incorrect. Koch’s book was published in four Hefte, of which the last was published in 1857 and the first in 1854. The name Hyalopterus occurs in the first Heft and should therefore be dated 1854.) 5. The Mealy Plum Aphid has been known under a large number of different specific names, its nomenclature having been exceptionally unstable. Smith (L.M.) (1936, Hilgardia 10 (7) : 167-209), who applied the name Hyalopterus pruni (Geoffroy) to this species, made a careful review of the literature relating Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 6. May, 1954. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to this species, in the introduction to which he wrote: “ The scientific name of this species has been changed repeatedly ; in fact, if each of the following authors is recognised, the status of the name has been changed twenty-one times, in the course of which the species has been described eight times as new. This review of the taxonomy does not include many of the lesser notes of an economic nature, which give Hyalopterus arundinis (Fabr.) priority over H. pruni (Fabr.) and vice versa.’ It will be immediately evident, therefore, how urgent it is that the name to be applied to this important economic insect should be stabilised without further delay. 6. If the name Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762, were not now to be validated by the International Commission under the procedure foreshadowed at its Paris Session, it would be necessary to consider the question of the name Aphis arundinis Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.: 734). After giving this species the foregoing binominal name in the manner adopted throughout this work (i.e. with the generic name at the head of the page and the specific name in the margin opposite the description), Fabricius referred to this species as Aphis arundinis epigeios, giving its habitat as ‘“ Habitat in arundins epigeros foliis” and completing the description of this species with a short Latin diagnosis. Although in the past this nominal species has frequently been identified with the Mealy Plum Aphid, it is by no means established that this identification is correct. In particular, it must be noted that Fabricius gave Arundo epigeios as the host species of Aphis arundinis and that this plant. as Borner (1932, Anz. Schéidlingsk. 8 (8): 8-11) has shown, is a hard-leaved sandgrass belonging to the group Agrostideae, which is not at all closely related to the group Festuceae, to which belong the only known alternate host plants of the Mealy Plum Aphid. In spite of repeated search on plants of Calama- grostis epigeios (the currently accepted scientific name of the host species cited by Fabricius), Borner was unable to find the Mealy Plum Aphid on this species. For this reason and because of the nature of the plant, Borner concluded that it was not a host plant for this species. Smith (L.M.) (1936, Hilgardia 10 (7) : 196-203), after a most careful study of the host plants of this species, concluded (: 201) that Calamagrostis epigeios must be rejected as a host plant of the Mealy Plum Aphid. 7. For so long as any doubt remains regarding the identity of the species represented by the nominal species Aphis arundinis Fabricius, 1775, it would be undesirable in the highest degree to allow a situation to arise in which it could be claimed that the specific name arundinis Fabricius, 1775, is the oldest available specific name for the Mealy Plum Aphid, for there would always be the danger that later work might show that this name was not applicable to that species and, in consequence, that still another change would need to be made in the name to be used for this species. The extreme importance of providing a stable nomenclature for this species arises not only from the economic problems involved, wherever this species occurs, but also from its wide distribution. The importance of this latter factor is well brought out in the following passage in which Smith (L.M.) (1936, loc. cit. 10 (7) : 170-171) has shown how extremely widespread is this species: ‘‘ Hyalopterus prunt (Geoff.) has been frequently reported in many sections of the world, and particularly in the north temperate zone. It has been reported in Africa (Union of South Africa), Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, England, France, So ee I i ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Java, Latvia, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Palestine, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Scotland, Slavonia, Sweden and Switzerland ... In the United States this species was first reported from the vicinity of Carmel, California, in 1881. It was reported in Minnesota in 1885. At present it is known to occur in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Dakota and Utah.” 8. In view of the economic importance of the Mealy Plum Aphid, it is essential that there should be no room for doubt regarding its correct specific name. The specific name now accepted for this species is pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, but, as is now clear, that is not an available name, unless the International Commission steps in to make it so, by validating it under its Plenary Powers under the procedure envisaged in Paris in 1948. It is very important that the International Com- mission should intervene in this way, for confusion extending far outside the limits of systematic zoology would inevitably follow if it were necessary now to discard the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762. The risk of confusion and instability is always great when the name of an important economic species is changed for purely technical nomenclatorial reasons (such as those involved in the present instance) but the risk of such confusion and instability is greatly enhanced in the present instance by reason of the fact that, as explained in paragraph 6 above, the next oldest name after pruni Geoffroy, 1762, that has to be considered is a name (arundinis Fabricius, 1775, published in the binominal combination Aphis arundinis) applied to a species which cannot be identified with certainty with the Mealy Plum Aphid. Thus, if no action were to be taken by the International Commission, finality could not be obtained regarding the correct name to be applied to this species. 9. It is for the purpose of eliminating these dangers and avoiding these uncertainties that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked :— (1) under the procedure agreed upon by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for adoption in the case of names in common use that might be found to be invalid, con- sequent upon the substitution of the expression ‘nomenclature binominal” for the expression “nomenclature binaire” in Article 25, to use its Plenary Powers to validate the specific name prunt Geoffroy, 1762 (as published in the combination Aphis pruni and as interpreted by the reference given by Geoffroy to the description published by Réaumur in 1737 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 9 (3) : 317)) ; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name prunt Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis prunt and as interpreted by the reference to Réaumur (1737) specified by Geoffroy, as proposed, under (1) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers ; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Hyalopterus Koch, 1854 (type species, by selection by Passerini (1860): Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762). 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ PINI” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED IN THE . BINOMINAL COMBINATION “APHIS PINI” AND AS INTERPRETED BY DE GEER (1773) (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) By F. C. HOTTES (Grand Junction, Colorado. U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)547) I. Introductory In the present application I examine the various discordant ways in which the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, has been interpreted by sub- sequent authors and draw attention to the first occasion subsequent to Linnaeus (1758) on which a reviser definitely established the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and ask that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should now place the specific name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Aphis pint, as applied to the species referred to above, on the Official Last of Specific Names in Zoology. That an authoritative decision should be given on the foregoing question is of importance not only for the purpose of stabilising the manner in which the nominal species Aphis pind Linnaeus should be interpreted, but also from the wider point of view of determining the identity of the species commonly regarded as the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835, a subject on which also I have submitted an application to the International Commission (Z.N.(8.)174). 2. Before approaching the main subject of the present application, it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary matter relating to the status of the name Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 453). Linnaeus there gave no verbal description of this species, beyond saying “A. Pini sylvestris” and adding “ Habitat in Pino sylvestri.”” As will be seen a large part of the discussion which has since taken place regarding the identity of the Linnean species has turned on the impossibility of determining which of the several species which live on Pinus sylvestris Linnaeus had before him when he published the name Aphis pint. It must however be observed at this point that, if in fact Linnaeus had done nothing more than cite the host species of his Aphis pini, the name Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, would have to be regarded as a nomen nudum, for the International Congress of Zoology have ruled (and, indeed have decided to insert provisions in the Régles to make it clear) that “the citation of the name of a host species . . . unaccompanied by any other particulars does not constitute an ‘ indication’ for the purposes of Article 25” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 256). Fortunately, however, closer inspection of the entry in the Systema Naturae under the name Aphis pint shows that Linnaeus did give some additional particulars, for he there gave a bibliographical reference, as follows, to the first edition of his own Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 Fauna svecica ; “ Fn. svec. 718.” Reference to the passage quoted shows that, after repeating that this species lives in “ our Pinus 788,” added the following words descriptive of the species itself: “‘ Appendiculi brevissimi.” The citation in 1758 of a reference to his earlier Fawna svecica incorporates into the 10th edition of the Syst. Nat. the brief description given in the Fauna svecica of the species named Aphis pint in 1758. Thus, contrary to what has commonly been stated, the name Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, is not a nomen nudum, but is an available name, having been published with a brief “ indi- cation.” 3. It is necessary next to consider the status of a name (such as Aphis pim Linnaeus, 1758), which is an available name in the sense that it was published with an “ indication ” but which presents difficulties of interpretation, in view of the fact that the “indication” given is not sufficient, taken by itself, to make it possible to determine to which of several allied species the name should adhere. A means for determining a question of this kind has always existed in the form of Article 31 of the Régles, which applies to the subdivision of a composite nominal species the rules laid down in Article 30 for determining the type species of a genus, originally established without a designated or indicated type species. The interpretation of Article 31 has always been a matter of difficulty and it is fortunate, therefore, that this Article was re-written by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 73-76) and that the revision so adopted was completed by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 72-78). It is in the light of these provisions that the position of the name Aphis pint Linnaeus is examined in the present application. II. Historical account of the way in which the nominal species ** Aphis pini”’ Linnaeus, 1758, has been interpreted 4. The first author to examine the complex of species centred around Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, was the non-binominal author De Geer (1778, Meém. Hist. Ins. 3 (2) (Des Pucerons): 27-39). De Geer recognised and clearly described two species, to which he gave respectively the non-binominal names Aphis nudi pint and Aphis tomentosa pint. He devoted considerable space to the description of these species and their life histories. In the case of the species which he called Aphis nudi pint, he described the male as being apterous. As has been pointed out to me (7 litt.) by Dr. Ris Lambers, this is an extremely important observation, for it appears that there is only one European species of the genus Cinara Curtis which feeds on pine and in which the male is apterous. This is a character of critical importance, for it furnishes an indisputable criterion for identifying the species which De Geer called Aphis nudi pint and thus for disentangling the synonymy of this species in the later literature. 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Goeze in 1778 (Hnt. Beytr. Linn. 2 : 304-305) placed the name Aphis nudi pini De Geer, 1773, as a synonym of Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and was thus the first author definitely to select one particular species from among those covered by the Linnean diagnosis to be the species to which the name Aphis pint Linnaeus should be applied. 6. Fabricius in 1781 (Spec. Ins. 2 : 389) adopted the same line as that of Goeze and in addition gave the binominal name Aphis pineti to the species which De Geer had called Aphis tomentosa pini in 1773. Fabricius adopted the same treatment for these species in 1794 (Ent. syst. 4 : 219) and in 1803 (Syst. Rhyng : 300). 7. Villiers (1789, Zinn. Ent. 1: 549), like Fabricius in 1781, realised that a binominal name was needed for the species which De Geer (1773) had called Aphis tomentosa pint, and, being presumably unaware of the fact that Fabricius had already given it the name Aphis pineti. himself gave it the new name Aphis tomentosa. 8. Kaltenbach in 1843 (Mon. Fam. Pflanzenliiuse (Phytophythires) : 155-160) described a species of Lachnus Burmeister which he identified with Aphis pini Linnaeus. He also quoted at some length some of the observations made by De Geer in regard to his Aphis nudi pini. Kaltenbach incorrectly identified De Geer’s species with that which he himself was considering and attributed it to Linnaeus. 9. Walker in 1848 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 2 : 102) also described a species to which he applied the name Aphis pint Linnaeus. The identity of the species so described by Walker was later examined by Swain (1921). See paragraph 18 below. 10. In 1855 (Die Pflanzenliiuse Aphiden: 234-236) Koch described a species under the name Lachnus pini, which he attributed to Linnaeus and thus considered to be the same species as Aphis pint Linnaeus. The species so identified by Koch was later discussed both by Cholodkovsky (1898) and by del Guercio (1909). See paragraphs 14 and 15 below. In addition, Koch described a second species under the name Lachnus pineti Fabricius. Koch, however, misidentified the Fabrician species. The species which he so identified with the pineti of Fabricius has for the most part been incorrectly treated as having been so named by Koch. It is the species which Mordvilko, 1895 (Zool. Anz. 18 : 100) named Lachnus pineus. 11. Buckton in 1881 (Mon. brit. Aphid. 3 : 50) was the next author to describe a species under the specific name pint Linnaeus. The species so iden- tified by Buckton was later discussed by Swain (1921). See paragraph 18 below. 12. Weed in 1890 (Agric. Sci. 4 (No. 6) : 157, pl. 2) described the Scotch Pine Plant-Louse under the name Lachnus pini (Linnaeus). His action in this matter was later commented upon by Patch (1912). See paragraph 16 below. 13. In 1895 (Zool. Anz. 18 : 73-85, 93-104) Mordvilko rejected the name Aphis pini Linnaeus and gave a new name, Lachnus nudus (: 99) (which however he attributed to De Geer) to the species which De Geer (1773) had called Aphis nudi pini. Although De Geer was not a binominal author and had never used the term nudus as a specific name, Mordvilko attributed that name to De Geer ; Mordvilko himself must however be regarded as the author of this name, which Bulletin of Zoolegical Nomenclature 169 accordingly takes priority only from 1895. The following are the reasons given by Mordvilko for his rejection of the name Aphis pint Linnaeus: “ Einige frither beschriebene Lachnus Arten konnten in der Tabelle nicht aufgenommen werden. Hauptsichlich weil ihre Beschreibungen nicht ausfiirhlich sind. Diese sind folgende: L. hyalinus Koch, confinis Koch, laricis Koch 26, cupressi Buckt., macrocephalus Buckt. (ist hochst wahrscheinlich L. hyalinus Koch), pinicola Buckton 27, piniphila Ratz., 28, und L. pint nach Linné 29 und Fabricius 30.°’ As the nominal species Lachnus nudus Mordvilko was expressly based upon the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer, Mordvilko was the first modern author to recognise the species Aphis pini Linnaeus, as defined by Goeze and Fabricius. Mordvilko, it may be noted, was aware that the males of his Lachnus nudus were apterous. In the same paper Mordvilko treated, as Lachnus pint Kaltenbach, the species which in 1843 Kaltenbach had described under that name but which that author had identified with Aphis pint Linnaeus (para- graph 8 above). 14, Cholodkovsky in 1898 (Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 31: 7,32, 40-41) also considered the question of the species identified by Kaltenbach (paragraph 8 above) as Aphis pini Linnaeus. The conclusion that he reached was that it was a species very near to Lachnus taenvatus Koch, 1857. Cholodkovsky added that the observations by De Geer which Kaltenbach had cited as relating to the species which he was then describing did not in fact relate to that species, but to Lachnus nudus De Geer [sic] [recte Lachnus nudus Mordvilko]. Commenting on the species which Koch (paragraph 10 above) had called Lachnus pint (and which he had identified with Aphis pint Linnaeus), Cholodkovsky expressed the opinion that the species in question was the same as that which De Geer had called Aphis nudi pini. Cholodkovsky did not make use of the name Aphis pimti Linnaeus, holding, in regard to it, much the same view as that expressed by Mordvilko (1895) (see paragraph 13 above). 15. The identity of the species which Koch had described under the name Lachnus pini (Linnaeus) (i.e. as Aphis pint Linnaeus) was further discussed in 1909 (Redia 5 (2) 294-296) by del Guercio, who reached the same conclusion as that expressed by Cholodkovsky in 1898 (paragraph 14 above), namely that Koch’s species was the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer. 16. In 1912 (Maine agric. exper. Stat. Bull. 202 : 168-169) Patch described a species, to which she applied the name Lachnus pint. She attributed this name to Weed, who (as we have seen in paragraph 12 above) had described the Scotch Pine Plant-Louse under this name, which however he had attributed to Linnaeus. Patch said :—‘‘ This species seems to agree with Lachnus pineti Koch as discussed and figured by Cholodkovsky (1898) and may prove to be that species.” 17. Van den Goot in 1915 (Beitr. Kenntn. holléndisch. Blattliuse : 405-408) did not mention Aphis pint Linnaeus at all. From his remarks on Lachnus pineti Koch, it seems likely that he included under that name the species which later Theobald identified as pint Linnaeus, except that he described the alate viviparous female as having only one sensorium on the third antennal segment, instead of from seven to nine. 18. Swain in 1921 (Hnt. News. 32 : 228-229) reviewed both the Aphis pint Linnaeus of Walker (1848) (see paragraph 9 above) and the species, also identified with Aphis pini Linnaeus, described by Buckton in 1881 (see paragraph 11 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature above). His conclusion was that both the specimens described by Walker and those described by Buckton were referable to Lachnus taeneatus Koch, a species which he regarded as close to Lachnus nudus Mordvilko, 1895 (paragraph 13 above). 19. In 1923 (Guide Ins. Connecticut 4 (Hemipt. Fam. Aphididae) : 261-262) Wilson described the apterous and alate viviparous females of Lachnus pineus Mordvilko, 1895, under the name Dilachnus pini (Linnaeus). In this he was widely followed by later workers. 20. Davidson in 1925 (Last brit. Aphides : 63), when discussing what he called Lachniella pini (L.), added the following note: “ Aphis pini (L.) of Walker and L. pini of Buckton do not appear to be the same species.” Swain (1921), it will be recalled (paragraph 18 above), had already expressed the view that Walker and Buckton had misidentified another species (Swain suggested Lachnus taeniatus Koch) with Aphis pint Linnaeus. From Davidson’s remarks it may be concluded that the species with which he was dealing was the same as that which later Theobald (1929) was to identify with Aphis pini Linnaeus (paragraph 21 below), although it must be admitted that the fact that Davidson placed this species in the genus Lachniella (in which the media of the forewing is only once-branched) suggests otherwise. 21. In 1929 (Plant Lice Gt. Brit. 3: 145-147) Theobald treated Aphis pini Linnaeus as a member of the genus Panimerus Laing, 1926 (Entomologist 59 : 322), a name which in a footnote Laing changed to Neochmosis (1929, ibid. 3: 129). Of the species with which we are here concerned Theobald listed the following as synonyms: Aphis nudi pint De Geer, Aphis pint Linnaeus, Lachnus pini Kaltenbach, Lachnus nudus Mordvilko, together with others. Theobald described his species as having alate males, thus showing conclusively that the species before him was not the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer. the males of which are apterous (see paragraph 4 above) and consequently was not Aphis pini Linnaeus, as interpreted by Goeze. His description indicates that the species which he had before him was pineus Mordvilko. Thus, Theobald was in error not only when he cited Aphis nudi pint De Geer and Lachnus nudus Mordvilko in the synonymy of his species, but also when he so cited the Lachnus pini Linnaeus of Kaltenbach, 1843 (see paragraph 8 above).* The conclusion reached by Wilson (1923) (paragraph 19 above) and by Theobald (1929) exercised a considerable influence and was followed by a number of subsequent Aphid workers. 22. In a paper published in 1930 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 43 : 185-188) I expressed the view that Cinara nudus (Mordvilko, 1895) was not a synonym of Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and that the latter species was the species to which Koch (in 1855) had given the name Lachnus pineti. * The species which Kaltenbach (1843) erroneously identified with Aphis pini Linnaeus (see paragraph 8 of the present paper) cannot bear the name pini Kaltenbach, for the Régles expressly provide (Article 31) that a specific name based upon a misidentification cannot be accepted as an available name. Even if this were otherwise, the species of Kaltenbach could not bear the name pini in the genus Cinara Curtis, for in that combination the name would be a junior secondary homonym of Cinara pini (Linnaeus). I accordingly hereby give the name Cinara kaltenbachi nom. nov. to the species which Kaltenbach misidentified with Aphis pini Linnaeus, 1758... Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17] 23. In 1930 I received two interesting letters from Mordvilko bearing on the present problem. In the first of these letters (which was dated 3rd June 1930), Mordvilko wrote: “At present it is not possible to establish what Linné meant by his Aphis pint. There are four to six species of Lachnus at least that live on the branches and shoots of Pinus in Europe. Under the name of L. pini, J. Kaltenbach, 1841-1843, described already a certain Lachnus species of the group pint (L.) Kalt., to which the following species belonged : L. pint K., L. pineus Mordy. (=pineti Koch nec Fab.), L. hyperophilus Koch, ete. Lachnus nudus Deg. is certainly quite a peculiar Lachnus, to which group L. nudus Deg., L. taeniatus Koch, L. pinihabitans Mordvilko also belong. (See Mordvilko, 1894-1895; Zool. Anz., 1895; N. Cholodkovsky, Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross. 31, 1898.) In the second of the two letters (letter dated 18th July 1930) Mordvilko wrote: “‘ Today I am sending you two glass tubes with plant lice, Lachnus nudus Deg. and L. pineus Mordv. (=pineti Koch) (? =L. pint L.). In my opinion, under the name of A. pint, Linné meant one of the species of the group Mordv. pineus, curtiplosus, hyperophilus Koch, pim Kalt., because L. pineus f.e. is the most common species. If they proved to be one and the same species, this would be called L. pint 1.” From these quotations, we see that, while Mordvilko was still inclined to question whether the Aphis pint of Linnaeus could be recognised, he was willing to hazard a guess that this was possible. (I may mention here that in a letter dated 4th August 1948, Dr. Ris Lambers questioned whether Mordvilko was right in thinking that Z. pineus is the commonest species of the group. Perhaps Mordvilko thought of Z. pineus as being the most widely spread geographically of the species concerned, as Cholodkovsky (1898) had suggested was the case.) Looking at Mordvilko’s conclusion generally, we have to note that, in order to identify Aphis pini Linnaeus in the way that he did, he had to put out of his mind the fact that the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer has apterous males, while in his pint, which is the pint of Wilson and Theobald, the males are alate. 24. In 1932 (in Sorauer, Handb. Pflanzen. Krankh. (ed. 4) 5 : 568) Borner and Schilder placed the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer as a synonym of Ciara pint (Linnaeus), thus accepting Goeze’s interpretation of that species. 25. In 1939 (Arbeit. physiol. angewandt. Ent. 6 (1): 76), however, Borner erected a new genus to which he gave the name Cinaria, designating, as its type species, Cinuria kochiana nom. nov. for Aphis laricis Walker, 1848 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 2: 102). It appears that the chief characteristic of this genus is the presence of a well developed mesosternal tubercle. Lambers (1948 : 275), however, has since stated that such a tubercle is present in Cinara nudus (Mordvilko), that is, in the true Aphis pint of Linnaeus. Lambers has stated also in the same place that in 1939 Borner accepted the opinion of Theobald and others who described the aphid known as Lachnus pineus Mordvilko under the specific name pint Linnaeus. 26. Oestlund in 1942 (Syst. Aphid.:24) accepted the species Lachnus pineti Koch, as interpreted by Van den Goot (1915) (see paragraph 17 above) as being the same species as Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758. However, he described the male of this species as being alate, and it is evident, therefore, that he did not have before him the true Aphis pint of Linnaeus, as interpreted by Goeze (see paragraph 5 above). -. 27..The problem with which we are concerned was posed as follows very 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature clearly by Lambers in 1948 (Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 99 : 274-275): ** The description of pint by Linné is such that it may apply to at least five species living on Pinus silvestris. Therefore, the name is available for any of these species. It has alternately been used for two species, one also known as pineli Koch or pinea Mordvilko, the other as nuda De Geer or nuda Mordvilko. It is clear that De Geer believed that his Aphis nudi pini was pini L. Therefore Goeze and Gmelin were in all respects correct in placing Aphis nudi pini, an invalid name, as a synonym of pini L. As De Geer describes his species so clearly that a misunderstanding has never occurred as to what he meant, we have one very clear and distinct conception of Aphis pint L., which has the advantage of being the oldest interpretation.” III. Conclusions and Recommendations 28. Having now examined the principal occasions on which the specific name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Aphis pini, has been used, we may summarise our principal conclusions as follows: (1) The nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, may or may not have been a composite species but in any case its description is so scanty that it cannot be interpreted with certainty until some later author, acting under Article 31 of the Regles, definitely links the specific name pint Linnaeus to a clearly recognisable species which conforms with the description given by Linnaeus. De Geer (1773) clearly distinguished two species belonging to the pini-complex and it might easily be claimed that of these he definitely identified with Aphis pint Linnaeus the one to which he applied the non-binominal name Aphis nudi pint. Even if the view is taken that De Geer’s action was not sufficiently precise to bring it within the scope of Article 31, there can be no question but that five years later Goeze (1778) definitely identified Aphis nudi pini De Geer as the species described by Linnaeus as Aphis pint. It can certainly be concluded therefore that, under Article 31, the above is the manner in which the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus is to be interpreted. (2) It cannot be said that over the period as a whole there has been any consistently general use of the specific name pint Linnaeus. In the XVIIIth Century, it may be said that Aphis pint Linnaeus was consistently interpreted in the correct manner ; in the XI Xth Century the name pini Linnaeus was interpreted in a variety of inconsistent, and, in almost every case, incorrect ways, and in the last decade of the century a fresh impetus was given to the tendency to use this name in an incorrect manner through the influence exerted by Mordvilko (1895), the first modern author to recognise the species described by De Geer as Aphis nudi pint (=Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758), who unfortunately abandoned the use of the specific name pini Linnaeus, giving to that species the specific name nudus : the XXth Century also has witnessed considerable divergence of practice; Mordvilko’s influence persisted for a considerable time until it was replaced by that of Wilson (1923) and Theobald (1929), who restored the specific name pini Linnaeus but unfortunately associated that name not with Aphis nudi pini but with the species to which Mordvilko had given the name pineus. In the most recent period, however, there has been a move to restore the specific name pint Linnaeus to its correct usage. This course was followed by Bérner and Schilder (1932), by Oestlund (1942) (so Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 far as the bibliographical references, but not the description, are concerned) and by Lambers in 1948. 29. If it had been found that there had been a preponderating use of the specific name pini Linnaeus for some species, other than that to which, in conse- quence of the action of Goeze (1778) it applies under the Régles, there might well have been a case for asking the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to set aside the selection made, under Article 31, by Goeze in 1778, and to select in its place whatever other species had commonly been accepted as being the species represented by the nominal species Aphis pini Linnaeus. I have carefully considered whether such a course is called for in the present case, but, in view of the history of this name, as summarised in the preceding paragraph, and having regard also to the fact that the most recent authors who have treated of these species have applied the name pint Linnaeus in the manner required by the selection made by Goeze in 1778, I have reached the conclusion that the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of setting Goeze’s (1778) selection on one side would not be justified and that the course which would lead to the least confusion and inconvenience— for some is probably unavoidable—would be for the International Commission to register a definitive acceptance of Goeze’s interpretation of the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus. 30. L accordingly now ask the International Conimission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specitic name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bmominal com- bination Aphis pint, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to the description given by De Geer (1773) for Aphis nudi pini, as so selected by Goeze (1778) ; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names wn Zoology the specific name nudus Mordvilko, 1895, as published in the binominal combination Lachnus nudus (the specific name of a nominal species which, being based on Aphis nudi pin De Geer, 1773, is objectively identical with Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, under the selection made by Goeze (1778) under Article 31), 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIG- NATE, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF “LACHNUS” BUR- MEISTER, 1835, AND “ CINARA” CURTIS, 1835 (CLASS INSECTA,ORDER HEMIPTERA) A SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED NOMENCLATORIAL PRACTICE By F. C. HOTTES (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)174) Much confusion has arisen among Aphid taxonomists in connection with the generic names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835. Both these names were first published in the same year and it has not been found possible to establish with certainty the relative priority to be assigned to them. These two nominal genera have been treated as representing the same taxonomic genus, and Cinara has been treated as a junior synonym of Lachnus, notwithstanding the fact that the priority of these names in relation to one another was not definitely established. Both genera have been treated as having the same species as their respective type species, though incorrectly so. Moreover, the name Lachnus has until recently been associated with a group of aphids generically different from that to which is referable the species which under the Rules is the valid type species of that genus. Furthermore, the species which was designated as the type species of Cinara was distinguished by the addition of a question mark inserted after the author’s name, a procedure on the part of Curtis which naturally casts a cloud on the identity of the species so designated. 2. In the belief that this state of confusion should be brought to an end with as little further delay as possible, the present application has been prepared for the purpose of presenting the available facts to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and thereby of securing an authoritative ruling for the guidance of present and future taxonomists. (a) The generic name “ Lachnus ” Burmeister, 1835 3. In 1835 (on a date which is not precisely known) Burmeister published his generic name Lachnus (Handbuch der Entomologie 2: 91), which he attributed to Illiger. In this connection it is interesting to note the following statement entered in long hand at the bottom of page 91 in a copy of the second volume of Burmeister’s Handbuch which I have examined: “‘ Illiger never described the genus Lachnus, which he had put in manuscript. Burmeister adopted the name, credited it to Illiger, and described the genus.” (Theo. Pergande.) This statement is similar to one sent to me in 1930 by the late Dr. Walther Horn. Both authorities agree with the generally held opinion that Ilhger did not describe the genus, so that the name Lachnus should be credited to Burmeister. (It should be recalled at this point that in 1948 the International Congress of Zoology decided to insert in the Code a provision that, where a name has gained an irregular currency through having been in use in manuscript, that name is to be attributed to the first author by whom it is validly published with an indication and it is to rank for the purposes of priority from the date on which it is first so published—see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 259.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 4. Westwood in 1840 (2: 118) selected A phis roboris Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 452) as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, no species having been so designated or indicated at the time of the original publication of this generic name. This selection was, however, invalid, because Aphis roboris Linnaeus was not one of the nominal species included in the genus Lachnus by Burmeister when he first published the name Lachnus. 5. Schumacher in 1921 (Zool. Anz. 53: 185-186) attempted to establish the proposition that Aphis roboris Linnaeus was the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, by citing from the second edition of Burmeister’s Handbuch der Entomologie (2: 1006), where Burmeister stated that his Lachnus fasciatus of 1835 (Handb. Ent. 2 (1): 93) was a synonym of Cinara roboris (Linnaeus) and therefore became a synonym of Aplus roboris Linnaeus, as identified by Fabricius. It is significant that Burmeister here made use of the generic name Cimara and it should be noted also that he did not treat it as a synonym of Lachnus. This was in the year before that in which Westwood selected Aphis roboris Linnaeus as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister. However, Aphas roboris Linnaeus was not eligible for selection as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, since it is not one of the nominal species cited by Bur- meister when he first published that generic name. The fact that at a later date Burmeister treated the name Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister as a junior synonym of Aphis roboris Linnaeus is totally irrelevant for the purposes of Article 30. It does not alter in any way the fact that (as explained in paragraph 4 above) Westwood’s action in 1840 in selecting Aphis roboris Linnaeus as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister was invalid. 6. In 1860 Passerini (Gli Afidi con un Prospetti dei Generi ed alcune Specie nuova italiana : 29) indicated that he considered that Lachnus pinicola Kalten- bach, 1843 (Mon. Fam. Pflanzenliiuse : 154, 155) was typical of Lachnus Burmeister. It might be argued that his action on this occasion constituted a clear selection of that species as the type species (under Rule (g) in Article 30), but it is not necessary to consider this question in detail, for in 1863 Passerini (Arch. Zool. Anat. Fisiol. 2 (2) : 185) unequivocally selected the above species as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister. Passerini’s action was however invalid, for the species (Lachnus pinicola Kaltenbach) was not one of the nominal species included by Burmeister in the genus Lachnus at the time when he first published that generic name. Kaltenbach’s pinicola had, indeed, not even been described at that time. 7. In 1909 Mordvilko (Annu. Mus. zool. Acad. Sci. St. Petersh, 13 : 374) selected Lachnus nudus De Geer as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister. This selection, like those discussed above, was invalid, since the species selected Was not one of those included by Burmeister at the time when he first published the generic name Lachnus. 8. In 1910 Wilson (Ent. News 21: 151) selected Lachnus punctatus Bur- meister, 1835, as the type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister. This is one of the nominal species originally included in the genus Lachnus at the time when that generic name was first published and it is the first such species to have been selected as the type species of this genus. Wilson’s action was therefore perfectly valid (under Rule (g) in Article 30) and the nominal species Laechnus punctatus Burmeister is therefore, under the Regles the type species of 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the genus Lachnus Burmeister, 1835. It must be noted however that, at the time when Wilson made the foregomg type selection, the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Lachnus punctatus Burmeister was unknown. 9. Wilson reverted to this subject in 1911 (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 4: 51-54) in a paper in which he pointed out that there was a possibility that the species represented by the nominal species Lachnus punctatus Burmeister might be the same as that represented by the nominal species Aphis viminalis Boyer de Fanscolombe, 1841 (Ann. Soc. ent. France 10 (3): 184), which Mordvilko had designated as the type species of the genus Tuberolachnus Mordvilko, [1909] (Annu. Mus. zool. Acad. St. Petersb. 13 : 374). In the light of these con- siderations, Wilson sought to select Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835 (Handb. Ent. 2 (1): 93) as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister. Wilson’s action in this matter was naturally invalid, since he himself had in 1910 validly selected Lachnus punctatus Burmeister as the type species of this genus. At the time when he attempted to change the type species of Lachnus in this way Wilson was unaware that the true identity of the species represented by the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister was still unknown and he could not guess that that species would turn out to be Aphis roboris Linnaeus. There is little doubt that at that time Wilson interpreted the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister in the same manner as del Guercio who in 1909 (Redia 5 (2) : 294-296) had described in considerable detail a species which he had identified with Burmeister’s nominal species Lachnus fasciatus. Sub- sequent events have shown, however, that the species so identified by del Guercio with Burmeister’s fasciatus was an entirely different species. There is therefore no doubt that, when citing the name Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, as the name of the type species of the genus Lachnus, Wilson had in mind not the true fasciatus of Burmeister but a different species misidentified by him therewith. Nevertheless, under the Régles as clarified by the Paris Congress (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4158), his action would have constituted a valid selection of the true Lachnus fasciatus of Burmeister, if a valid type selection had not already been made for the genus Lachnus, for under the decision noted above an author is to be assumed, for the purposes of Article 30, to have correctly identified a species selected by him to be the type species of a previously established genus. This question does not however arise in the present case, since (as shown in paragraph 8 above) a different nominal species, Lachnus punctatus Burmeister, had already been validly selected to be the type species of the genus Lachnus. Most Aphid workers today identify the nominal species Lachnus viminalis Boyer with Lachnus punctatus Burmeister and accordingly treat the trivial name viminalis Boyer as a junior synonym of the name punctatus Burmeister. Further, it is now generally considered that the species represented by the nominal species Lachnus punctatus Bur- meister is the same as that represented by the nominal species Aphis saligna Gmelin, 1790 (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (4) : 2209), the specific name punctatus Burmeister being sunk therefore as a junior synonym of the name saligna Gmelin. It should be noted also that some Aphid workers consider the genus Tuberolachnus Mordvilko, [1909], as identical with the genus Pterochlorus (emend. of Pteroclorus) Rondani, 1848 (N. Ann. Sci. nat. Bologna [2] 9: 35), the type species of which is Aphis roboris Linnaeus (the first species 7 i J } 7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 to have been selected, though invalidly, as the type species of Lachnus Bur- meister). 10. In 1913 (Lidschr. Ent. 56 : 153) Van der Goot selected Aphis juncperi De Geer, 1773 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 3:2, 156) as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, but that selection was of course invalid for, quite apart from the fact that a valid type-selection (of Lachnus punctatus Burmeister) had already been made by Wilson in 1910. De Geer’s nominal species junipert was not one of Burmeister’s original species. Very inconsistently, Van der Goot in the same paper (loc. cit. 56 : 74) cited also Aphis nudus De Geer, 1773, as the type species of this genus. This selection also is invalid, and for the same reasons. (It may be noted incidentally that De Geer never described a species under the above name, the name which he used being Aphis nudi pint.) 11. Baker in 1920 (U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 826 : 15-16), after reviewing the various type selections for the genus Lachnus Burmeister that had been made up to that time, came to the conclusion that the generic name Lachnus would be lost to Aphid workers, unless the identity of the nominal species Lachnus punctatus Burmeister could be established or the Rules were suspended in this case. In order to save the name Lachnus, Baker thereupon, in deliberate disregard of the Rules, adopted Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister as the type species of the genus Lachnus. At the same time he stated that an application would be submitted to the International Commission asking it to use its Plenary Powers to preserve the long-established use of the generic name Lachnus. 1 am informed, however, by the Secretary to the Commission that there is no trace in the archives of the Commission of any such application having been submitted. It is clear from Baker’s paper that he followed del Guercio in his interpretation of the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister (see paragraph 9 above) and therefore did not have in mind the true Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, which (as already explained) is identical with Aphis roboris Linnaeus ; for he spoke of the media of the fore-wings of this species as being once-branched, whereas all known species of Lachnus, as universally understood, have the media of the fore-wings twice-branched. It is clear, therefore, that Baker’s concept of the genus Lachnus Burmeister was not that of Burmeister himself or that of subsequent workers. Having accepted Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, as interpreted by del Guercio, as the type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister, Baker sank the generic name Lachniella del Guercio, [1909] (Redia 5 : 286) as a junior synonym of Lachnus Burmeister. 12. In 1931 in a paper entitled ** El genotypo de Lachnus Burm. (Hemip. Aphid.) ” Orfila (R.N.) selected Lachnus lapidarius (Fabricius) (=Chermes lapidarius Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 306) as the type species of Lachnus (Orfila, 1931, Rev. Soc. ent. argent., B. Aires 3: 249-250). This is one of the species originally included in Lachnus by Burmeister. Schumacher in 1921 (Zool Anz. 53 : 182-183) gave a synonymy for Lachnus lapidarius (Fabricius). and came to the conclusion that the species so named was the same as Proct- philus xylostei De Geer, 1773. If Orfila’s selection of Chermes lapidarius Fabricius, as identified by Schumacher with Aphis zylostei De Geer, as the type species of Lachnus were to be accepted, a new concept would be created for the nominal genus Lachinus Burmeister, and the name Lachnus would replace the name Prociphilus Koch, 1857 (Die Pflanzenliuse Aphiden 9:279). The objections to such a solution are obvious. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13. Borner & Schilder in 1932 (i Sorauer’s Handbuch der Pflanzenkrank- heiten (ed. 4) 5 : 568) considered that the species which del Guercio had identified with Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister was the same as Cinara costata (Zetterstedt). 14. It should be noted that Kaltenbach in 1843 (Mon. Fam. Pflanzenléuse : 148) listed both Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister and Cinara roboris (Curtis) as synonyms of Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, which he assigned to the genus Lachnus Burmeister. Kaltenbach seems to have been the first author to have identified the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835, with Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, apart from Burmeister himself who in 1839 (Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (2): 1006) had sunk his own specific name fasciatus as a synonym of roboris Linnaeus. For some reason which it is impossible to explain, Kaltenbach went on to describe a different species under the name Lachnus fasciatus and credited that name, as used in this way, to Burmeister. Kalten- bach suggested that the species which he named in this way might turn out to be the same as Aphis costata Zetterstedt, 1828 (Fauna Ins. lapp. (1) : 559). 15. In Heft 7 of his Die Pflanzenliuse Aphiden, published in 1855, Koch, on page 226, treated both Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister and the Cinara roboris of Curtis as synonyms of Dryobius roboris (Linnaeus). Having done this, he then in Heft 8, published in 1857, proceeded, on page 237, to describe a species to which he applied the name Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister. Under this name he gave references both to the Handbuch of Burmeister and to Kaltenbach, and, like Kaltenbach, he suggested that this species might be identical with Aphis costata Zetterstedt, 1828. Koch illustrated this species by figures of alate and apterous viviparous females. The figure of the alate female shows the media of the forewings twice-branched ; moreover, the pigmented areas charac- teristic of costata Zetterstedt are lacking. However, in his description of the alate viviparous female Koch stated that the media were only once-branched ; he referred also to the presence of pigmented areas. We may, therefore, conclude that the species which he had before him was the costata of Zetterstedt and not the species to which Burmeister had given the name fasciatus. 16. Mordvilko (1895, Zool. Anz. 18: 80-102) and Cholodkovsky (1898, Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 31 : 48-52) took different views as to the species identified by Kaltenbach and Koch with the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister. Mordvilko held that Kaltenbach’s species was the same as that to which Cholod- kovsky had given the name Lachnus farinosus (1891. Rev. Sci. nat. 1891 (No. 8) : 294-306) and spoke of that species as Lachnus fasciatus Kalt. He identified in the same way the species which Koch had identified as Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister. Cholodkovsky. on the other hand, held that the species which he had named Lachnus farinosus was not the same species as that which Kalten- bach had identified with Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister. Cholodkovsky then proceeded as follows :—‘* Wenn also alle auf Nadelhélzern lebenden und mit dunkel gezeichneten Vorderfliigeln versehenen Lachnus-Arten identisch sein sollen, so miissen sie alle Lachnus costatus Zett. heissen.” 17. Borner (1930, Arch. klassif. phylogenet. Ent. 1 (2) : 125) did not select a type species for the genus Lachnus ; he identified Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister with Aphis roboris Linnaeus and recognised that Hyecies as the type pyecies of the genus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature \79 18. In my paper on this subject published in 1930 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 43: 185-188) I followed the same course, identifying Lachnus fasciatus Bur- meister with Aphis roboris Linnaeus and accepting that species as the type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister. 19. Oestlund (1942, Syst. Aphididae (1): 15-16) has also discussed this question. He followed Westwood in treating the generic name Cinara Curtis as a synonym of Lachnus Burmeister. His views on the type species of Lachnus are given in the following passage: ‘‘ The genus Canara, published during the last month of the same year as Lachnus, has been shown to be a synonym of Lachnus, but this does not invalidate Curtis setting Aphis pini as type and the setting of the type to Cinara does not invalidate its application to Lachnus as having priority.” The ‘* Aphis pint” which Oestlund had in mind is the species Aphis pini of Linnaeus, as interpreted by Goeze (1778), as is clearly indicated on the previous page of his paper. 20. We have now completed our review of the literature relating to the type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister. Before discussing the action which it is desirable that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature should take in this matter, it will be convenient to consider the associated problem relating to the generic name Cinara Curtis. 1835. (b) The generic name “ Cinara” Curtis, 1835 21. Curtis published his description of the genus Cinara in Section 576 of Volume 12 of his British Entomology. The pages in this Section are not numbered. The date of publication of this Section was December 1835 and the plate accompanying it is dated Ist December. Curtis described and figured Aphis roboris Linnaeus as belonging to his genus Cinara. In addition, he designated a type species for this genus. Unfortunately, however, in making this designation, Curtis cited his type species as follows: “ Aphis pint Linn. ?” 22. The fact that Curtis figured and described Aphis roboris Linnaeus as belonging to the genus Cinara has led some specialists to consider that species to be the actual type species of Cinara. Theobald (1929, Plant Lice Gt. Brit. 3: 352), for example, expressed the following view, quoting from Laing: “ The point is simply this, Curtis defines the genus Cinara and describes and figures roboris. Unfortunately, he says: ‘Typical species: Aphis pina? Linnaeus’. It was obvious, therefore, he knew nothing about pini and that he had in mind for his genotype what he was figuring and describing, namely roboris. It is my contention that you cannot base genera on species you do not know and that in nomenclature you must interpret what a man obviously meant.” It is not possible, however, to sustain the argument that Curtis did not have a clear idea of what Aphis pint Linnaeus was, for on the page following that on which the generic name Cinara first appeared he wrote: ‘‘ Nos. 20 to 30 enumerated in the Guide with the exception of No. 29 belong to this genus.” Reference to the Guide shows that Aphis pint Linnaeus was No, 22. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that Curtis considered the species Aphis pini Linnaeus (whatever he may have thought that species to be), belonged to his new genus Cinara.. Thus, the nominal species A phis pint Linnaeus is unquestion- ably the type species by original designation, if a satisfactory explanation can be found for the use by Curtis of a question mark, when he designated that species as the type species. Oestlund in 1942 (: 15-16) offered the following explana- 180 Bulletin of Zoological: Nomenclature tion of Curtis’ action: “The mark is not an expression of doubt that Aphis pini is the type, but refers to the fact that Aphis pint is a composite that includes the two species found in Sweden that were named Aphis nudi pina and tomentosa pini by De Geer, 1773. Curtis questions which of these two should be the type according to the binomial method, recognising that De Geer persisted in following the vernacular method of naming species.” One has to admit however that in a matter of this kind one guess is almost as good as another as to what Curtis meant by the question mark which he placed after the name of Linnaeus. In any case, Curtis’ action in this matter must be considered as a flaw in his designation of Aphis pint Linnaeus to be the type species of Cinara Curtis, and action is needed to remove this defect. 23. In 1840 (Introd. Class Ins. 2 (Syn.): 118) Westwood, who may be expected to have been familiar with the respective dates of publication of the works in which Burmeister and Curtis published the generic names discussed above, placed the name Cinara Curtis as a synonym of the name Lachnus Burmeister. In doing so, he probably acted on the basis of his knowledge of the priority of the name Lachnus. This action by Westwood has also con- tributed to the confusion which has occurred in regard to these two generic names. I can find no exact date for the appearance of Volume 2 of Burmeister’s Handbuch der Entomologis, other than given on the title page, where the date is given as 1835, and a reference in the Annales de la Societe entomologique de France (4 : exiv), published in 1835, where it appears that the foregoing volume of Burmeister’s Handbuch was published on some date between October Ist and December 31st, 1835. Burmeister himself (1836, Archiv. fiir Naturges- chichte 2 : 325) cited his Handbuch as having appeared in 1835. 24. Thus, on the meagre data available, it is possible that the name Lachnus Burmeister was published a few weeks before the name Ciara Curtis, for the Part containing the name Cinara is dated 1st December 1835, whereas, although it is possible that the name Lachnus was not published until the end of December 1835 (i.e. some four weeks after the publication of the name Cinara), it is possible also that it may have been published in 1835 as early as the beginning of October, i.e. two months before the publication of the name Cinara. As already observed (paragraph 22) it would be reasonable to expect that such an authority as Westwood, writing (in 1840) only five years after the publication of these names, would know which of the two names was the first to have been published, and the fact that he sank the name Cinara Curtis as a synonym of the name Lachnus Burmeister lends color to the view that the name Lachnus was published before the name Cinara. Up to 1948 the International Rules contained no provisions for determining the relative dates to be assigned, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, to names in cases where there was no definite evidence to show which of any given pair was the first to be published. In 1948 this defect in the Rules was remedied by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology when it was decided to incorporate in the Régles a series of provisions dealing with this subject, the general principle adopted being that in such a case each of the names concerned is to rank for the purposes of priority as from the earliest date as from which it is known with certainty to have been published, i.e. where a name is known to have been published between say Ist January Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 and 15th February of a given year, it is to rank for the purposes of priority as from 15th February of the year in question, that being the earliest date as from which it is definitely known to have been published (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 223-225). Applying these rules to the case here under considera- tion, we find (1) that 31st December 1835 is the earliest date by which it is known with certainty that the name Lachnus Burmeister was published and (2) that the name Crnara Curtis is to be treated as having been published on Ist December 1835, that date having been affixed to the portion of Curtis’ book in which this name first appeared. We see therefore that under the Reégles the name Cinara Curtis has several weeks priority over the name Lachnus Burmeister. 25. In 1910 (Ent. News 21: 149) Wilson selected what he called * pini Curtis to be the type species of Cinara Curtis. This action was invalid, for, quite apart from the fact that Curtis had (though defectively) designated Aphis pini Linnaeus as the type species of this genus, Curtis never described a species under the specific name pint and there is therefore no such specific name as pind Curtis. 26. In 1911] (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 4: 52-53) Wilson again discussed this subject, though without making any reference to his action in the previous year in selecting “ pint Curtis” as the type species of this genus. He now rejected Curtis’ selection of Aphis pini Linnaeus on account of the use by Curtis of a question mark, when so doing. Wilson thereupon suggested that Aphis roboris Linnaeus might be the species which should be regarded as being the type species, since this was the one species which Curtis described in full. In a footnote Wilson went on to make the following observation : “The question of the validity of this genus rests upon the fact that Curtis did not give roboris as the type and the other species is questioned. The author then concludes that the genus is in question and cannot be placed as a valid genus.” 27. Baker, in 1920 (U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 826: 15-18), without giving any discussion, gave the generic name Cinara Curtis (which he misspelt Cinaria and to which he attributed the erroneous date “‘ 1853”) as a questionable synonym of Hulachnus del Guercio, 1911. In the same paper, when discussing the genus Pterochlorus Rondani, Baker rejected Aphis roboris Linnaeus as the type species of Cinara Curtis, following Wilson (1911) in believing that Curtis placed only two species in that genus when he first published its name, overlooking the reference by Curtis to the species enumerated in the “ Guide.” In this paper Baker recognised his nominal genus Dilachnus Baker, 1919 (Canad. Ent. 51 : 253) as a good genus and characterised it as having the media of the forewings twice-branched. Thus, he took care of the two species which he had excluded from the genus Lachnus when he selected as the type species of that genus a species in which the media were only once-branched. 28. Borner in 1930 (Arch. Klassif. phylogenet. Ent. 1 (2) : 125) recognised Aphis pini Linnaeus as the type species of Cinara Curtis. I adopted the same course in my paper published in the same year (Hottes, 1930, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash, 43 : 185-186). While a student of Oestlund’s, 1 was assigned by him the task of studying the synonymy of the generic names Lachnus and Cinara and the question of the type species of those genera. Oecestlund 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature could never bring himself to recognise the generic name Cinara, because he wished to retain the name Lachnus for species congeneric with Aphis pina Linnaeus, as witnessed by his last contribution, published in 1942 (: 15-16), in which he treated the name Cinara as a synonym of Lachnus. (c) Conclusions 29. Having now brought to a close the story of the generic names Lachnus and Cinara, I turn to the question of the action which it is desired that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should take in the present case. As the application now submitted will have shown, the generic names Lachnus Burmeister 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835, are both very well-known names, but unfortunately the current use of the first of these names is entirely at variance with the provisions of the Régles, while, without a ruling from the International Commission, it is impossible to determine with certainty what species should, under the Reégles, be regarded as the type species of the second of the nominal genera in question. 30. In the case of Lachnus Burmeister, the type species, under the Reégles, is undoubtedly Lachnus punctatus Burmeister, 1835, that having been the first of the nominal species cited under the generic name Lachnus on the occasion when that name was first published to have been selected (by Wilson, 1910) as the type species of this genus. The nominal species Lachnus punctatus Burmeister, 1835, is now subjectively identified with Aphis seligna Gmelin, 1789. On the other hand, the universally accepted type species for this genus is Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, a nominal species not placed by Burmeister in the genus Lachnus, in which however he did include the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835, which is now generally regarded as being subjectively identical with Aphis roboris Linnaeus. The substitution of Lachnus punctatus Burmeister for Aphis roboris Linnaeus as the type species of this genus would lead to great confusion, and is a change which it is essential should be prevented from occurring. 31. The generic name Cinara Curtis, 1835, has been widely used for the species identified as Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and its allies, but, as already explained, the use by Curtis of a question mark, when designating that species as the type species of this genus has led some workers to reject that type designation. Workers who have taken this view have regarded Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Cinara, and, as those workers have also regarded that species as the type species Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, their action has had the effect of rendering (in their view) the nominal genera Lachnus and Cinara as objectively identical with one another and thus of making the names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835, objective synonyms of one another. Owing to the fact that these names were published at very nearly the same time, different views have been taken by workers as to which of these names should be treated as having priority over the other, there being until 1948 no provisions in the International Rules for determining the relative priority to be assigned in such circumstances to the names comprised in any given pair of names. Under the provisions inserted in the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948 it is now seen (paragraph 24 above) that the name Cinara Curtis possesses priority over the name Lachnus Burmeister. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 32. The greatest confusion would ensue if the names Cinara Curtis and Lachnus Burmeister were to become synonyms of one another and it is one of the principal purposes of the present application to secure a settlement which will eliminate this risk. The basis of the settlement now asked for is the acceptance, under the Plenary Powers, (1) of Aphis roboris Linnaeus. 1758. as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and (2) of Aphis pint Linnaeus. 1758, as the type species of Cinara Curtis, 1835, for it is believed that it is only by this action that the long-standing discussion of this subject can he brought to a satisfactory close. It is certain that, if no action were to be taken under the Plenary Powers and the Régles were to be strictly applied, the most serious confusion would be inevitable. In connection with the foregoing proposal, there is, it must be noted. a technical defect in the trivial name pimt Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination A phis pini) which will need to be remedied before the foregoing request can be granted. A recommendation on this subject is submitted to the International Com- mission in the immediately preceding application (Z.N.(S.)547). 33. The specific proposals which are submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature are that the Commission should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the genera Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis. 1835. made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken : (6) to designate the under-mentioned species to be the type species of the genera referred to in (a) above :— Name of genus Species recommended to be designated as the type species of the genera specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) (i) Lachnus Burmeister, 1835 Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758 (1) Cinara Curtis. 1835 Aphis pini Linnaeus, 1758 (defined, as recommended in application Z.N.(S.)547) (2) place the generic names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835, with the type species severally specified in (1) (b) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (3) place the specific name roboris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Aphis roboris) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (4) place the name Cinaria Baker, 1920 (an Invalid Subsequent Spelling of Cinara Curtis, 1835), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPORT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN RELATION TO THE GENERIC NAMES “LACHNUS” BURMEISTER, 1835, AND ‘“CINARA” CURTIS, 1835 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)174) The purpose of the present Report is to lay before the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature particulars of the comments so far received in regard to the application now before it in regard to the generic names Lachnus Burmeister. 1835. and Cinara Curtis. 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). 2. This question was first raised informally in a letter dated 24th February 1930 addressed by Professor F. C. Hottes (then of the James Millikin University, Decatur, Illmois, U.S.A.) to the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, my predecessor in the Office of Secretary to the International Commission. In this letter Professor Hottes drew attention to the difficulties arising from the fact that the first valid type selection for Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, was that by Wilson (1910) who had then selected Lachnus punctatus Burmeister, 1835, whereas the species commonly accepted as the type species of this genus was Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835, selected a year later (1911), also by Wilson. At the same time Professor Hottes drew attention to the difficulties which existed also in deter- mining the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835, in view of the fact that, when Curtis designated ‘‘ pint Linnaeus ”’ as the type species of this genus, he added a question mark after the word ‘“‘ Linnaeus ’’, thereby throwing into doubt the action which he conceived himself to be taking. The correspondence, which then ensued, did not lead to the submission of an application to the Commission. 3. Among the papers transferred to my charge on my becoming Secretary to the International Commission, I found references to a possible application to the International Commission on this subject but the actual documents handed over to me did not include any of the earlier correspondence relating to this case. When in 1944 I was able to turn my attention to this case, I wrote to Professor Hottes, referring to the correspondence which he had had on this subject with Dr. Stiles and asking whether he proposed to submit an application to the International Commission. At the same time I wrote to Dr. 8. A. Rohwer (Assistant Chief, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.), to whom it appeared (from other papers which had been transferred to me) that perhaps the earlier correspondence had been sent by Dr. Stiles; I asked that, if this was so, these papers should be returned for incorporation in the records of the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 4. In October 1944 I received a letter from Professor Hottes, with which he enclosed a copy of a paper entitled “The name Cinara versus the name Lachnus”’, which he had written shortly after the correspondence with Dr. Stiles referred to in paragraph 2 above and which had been published November 1930 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 43 : 185-188). In that paper Professor Hottes had set out the grounds which, as he then believed, justified the conclusion that Westwood. (1840) had effectively selected Aphis roboris Lin- naeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister. 1835. and that Curtis (1835) had validly designated Aphis pina Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835. Professor Hottes went on to say that he recognised that in a matter of this kind the opinion of an individual specialist possessed no official status ; he suggested, therefore. that the Inter- national Commission should review the findings which he had reached and. having done so, should render an Opinion on the questions at issue. Professor Hottes added that he would be happy to present to the Commission a biblio- graphy of the literature involved and to submit recommendations for the consideration of the Commission. 5. In December 1944 I received a letter from Dr. Rohwer enclosing the earlier correspondence relating to this case (which, as I had anticipated. had been filed in the records of the U.S. Department of Agriculture), together with a memorandum, dated 20th November 1944, on two cases, of which the present was one, which had been prepared by Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck, Officer in Charge, Division of Insect Identification, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The following is the text of the portion of that memorandum which relates to the present case : The case involving Lachnus and Cinara is not so easily settled. Following the exchange of correspondence between Hottes and Stiles, which is included among the papers I am returning, Hottes (Proceedings Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 43, p. 185, 1930) published a statement which indicated that he considered the question to have been entirely cleared up. ‘The significant passage in his note reads as follows: ‘‘ Schumacher (1921) clearly established the fact that Aphis roboris Linné was the correct type of the genus Lachnus by quoting from the second edition of Burmeister’s Handbuch der Entomologie, page 1006, wherein Burmeister states that his Lachnus fasciatus is a synonym of Aphis roboris Linné, the type set for Lachnus by Westwood in 1840. Unfor- tunately, he overlooked the requirement that for roboris to be eligible for type designation, it must have been included among the species originally cited by Burmeister when he proposed the generic name Lachnus. ‘The fact that Bur- meister himself later suppressed his fasciatus, an originally included species, as a synonym of roboris, does not alter the case, and Westwood’s 1840 designation is invalid. The first valid type designation seems to be that by Wilson, 1910, who cited punctatus Burmeister, a species which was unrecognisable at that time but which has subsequently been made a synonym of saligna Gmelin, the type of Tuberolachnus Mordvilko, 1908. This generic name has been considered by most recent authors as a synonym of Pterochlorus Rondani, 1848, the type of which is Aphis roboris. If the zoological conclusions involving the specific names here are correct, Pterochlorus and Tuberolachnus are synonyms of Lachnus. Cinara Curtis, 1835, was proposed with two included species, Aphis pini Linnaeus ? and Aphis roboris. Curtis himself definitely stated that “‘ pini ?”’ was the type of his genus. It has been contended, however, that he did not know pini and that his description and illustrations applied to roboris. This is apparently correct. Theobald (Aphididae of Great Britain, Vol. 3, p. 352, 1929) quotes Laing on this point, whose concluding statement is : ‘* It is my contention 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that you cannot base genera on species you do not know and that in nomenclature you must interpret what a man obviously meant,” and he supports Laing’s view. Accordingly, we have once more a troublesome problem resulting from the misidentification of a genotype. If the view held by Theobald and Laing is sustained by the Commission, the names Lachnus and Cinara are synonymous, but there still seems to be uncertainty as to which has priority, both having been published in 1835. If the Commission should agree with Theobald and Laing and then should find that Lachnus is the earlier name, some confusion would result from the necessity of treating, under Lachnus, the considerable number of Aphids now referred to the genus Cinara. It appears that greater stability would follow from the strict application of the Rules and the recognition of pini Linnaeus as type of Cynara, 6. At the time when the foregoing correspondence took place the world war was still in progress and it was impossible for the International Commission, either then or for some years thereafter, to take decisions on individual nomenclatorial cases. By 1947, however, the situation had sufficiently improved to make it possible to make a start in this direction and in November of that year advertise- ments in the prescribed form were issued in respect of a number of applications then awaiting attention, each of which involved a possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. Among the applications so advertised was that relating to the generic names Lachnus and Cinara, the advertisement issued making it clear that the application received involved the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to designate (1) Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and (2) Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of Cinara Curtis, 1835. 7. The foregoing advertisement elicited comments from two quarters :— (1) Professor Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado A. & M. College, Entomology Department, Fort Colorado, Colorado, U.S.A.) stated (in a letter dated 13th January 1948):—‘I am in full accord with both proposals under this file number.” (2) Mr. F. H. Jacob, M.Sc. (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, National Agricultural Advisory Service, Welsh Sub-Centre, Bangor, United Kingdom) reported (in a letter dated 10th November 1948) that, after the publication of the foregoing advertisement in Nature, he had had correspondence on this subject with Dr. Hille Ris Lambers, who had expressed the opinion (1) that the type species of Lachnus Burmeister was Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister (=Aphis roboris Linnaeus), by selection by Westwood (1840) and therefore that there was no need for the Plenary Powers to be used to secure this end; (2) that “ Cinara Curtis 1835 type ‘ pint L. 2’ is all right” and that he could not therefore under- stand why it should be considered that a suspension of the Rules was necessary in this case. As regards the application advertised in Nature, Mr. Jacob said: ‘‘ From the point of view of one interested in Aphids, I consider that it is highly desirable that this proposal should be carried out.’’ Mr. Jacob added: “ From the point of view of an economic entomologist it is always a good thing to have these nomenclatorial problems straightened out and fixed once and for all, because it helps to avoid needless confusion of the literature.’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 8. In 1948 Professor Hottes decided to recast somewhat his application in regard to this case and to resubmit it, together with an application asking the International Commission to issue directions as to the manner in which the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, should be interpreted. This latter question, though in itself entirely distinct from that which forms the subject of Professor Hottes’ earlier application, is nevertheless closely bound up with it, owing to the designation (or attempted designation) of the above species by Curtis as the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835. The application in regard to the interpretation of the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus was received in November 1948. It has been assigned the Registered Number Z.N.(S8.)547 (see pp. 166-173 of the present volume). 9. In the period 1948-1950 it was not possible for the International Com- mission to make any progress with the consideration of applications submitted to it for decision, partly because the Secretariat was fully engaged in the pre- paration and publication of the volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Volumes 3, 4 and 5) containing the Official Records of the discussions held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held concurrently in Paris in July 1948, and partly because in one way or another the decisions (procedura | and other) taken by the former body necessarily affected every application then awaiting consideration by the Commission. The Official Records of Proceedings in Paris were published in 1950. and, as soon as possible thereafter, Professor Hottes made such consequential changes in, and additions to, his two applica- tions as were then seen to be required. These applications, so revised. are accordingly now submitted to the Commission for concurrent consideration. 10. Professor Hottes’ application in regard to the names Lachnus and Ciara has, as its object, only the determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of the nominal genera so named. Incidentally, however, that application raises also a general question of principle in regard to the inter- pretation of Rule (a) in Article 30 in the Reégles. In accordance with the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress that, in future, decisions on such matters are not to be given in Opinions relating to individual names (in the present case, the names Lachnus and Cinara) but are to be recorded separately in the Series entitled ‘‘ Declarations * (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 132-137), the question of principle referred to above has been treated as constituting a separate problem and has been allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(8.)715.* A note examining the problem involved and putting forward a suggestion for dealing with it is submitted simultaneously with the present Report for consideration by the International Commission. * See pp. 188 to 190 in the present volume, L188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “DECLARATION” ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INSERTION OF A MARK OF INTERROGATION INVALIDATES A DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR A GENUS MADE UNDER RULE (a) IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE ‘“ REGLES” By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary lo the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)715) The application (File Z.N.(S.)174) submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the generic name Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), submitted by Professor F. C. Hottes, raises a small question of principle relating to the interpretation of Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Regles, which, in order to prevent the occurrence of similar problems, it would be convenient if the International Commission were to settle by the issue of a Declaration. 2. In the particular case in question Curtis established a new nominal genus to which he gave the name Cinara and of which he said that the type species was ~ pint Linnaeus ? ” 3. For over half a century the meaning of the action so taken by Curtis has been the subject of discussion among Aphid taxonomists. Some have argued that the insertion by Curtis of a mark of interrogation after the word ‘* Linnaeus ”* was intended to denote that Curtis only doubtfully designated Aphis pini Linnaeus as the type species of this genus; others have held this indicated that Curtis was not personally acquainted with the Linnean species, which was, therefore, from his point of view, a species inquirenda. One author put forward the explanation that the insertion of this question mark was designed by Curtis to show that, in his view, the original Aphis pint of Linnaeus Was a composite species and that, while he certainly intended that the type species of Cinara should be the species named Aphis pint by Linnaeus, whatever that species might turn out to be, he was not certain to which of two species confused together by Linnaeus the name Aphis pini was properly applicable. 4. As was inevitable, these discussions led to no finality and it was for the purpose of putting a term to these fruitless arguments that this case was submitted to the Commission for settlement. For purposes unconnected with the issue immediately under consideration, Professor Hottes has asked the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to settle the question of the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis: he has not therefore asked, as he might have done, for a ruling from the Commission on the question whether the qualification added by Curtis, through the insertion of a question mark in the manner indicated above, invalidated the designation which he then made of a type species for that genus. It is for the purpose of obtaining a ruling on this general question that the present supplementary application i is submitted to the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature L89 5. In the present case we are concerned with a type designation made under Rule («) in Article 30 and not with a type selection made under Rule (9) in the same Article. Nevertheless, it will be instructive to pause for a moment to examine what are the requirements laid down by Rule (g) and to compare those requirements with those prescribed in Rule (a). Rule (g) which provides a method of determining the type species of a genus, where the type species has not been determined by any of the preceding Rules (a) to (d) or Rule (f) by the selection of a type species by a later author. Attached to this Rule there is a supplementary provision that the expression * select a type species is to be “ rigidly construed.” If therefore, in the present case, Curtis had been a later author selecting a type species of a previously established genus (instead of an original author designating a type species for a genus then being established by himself for the first time), there is no doubt that the insertion by him of a question mark, such as that which he inserted when designating the type species of his own genus Cinara would have invalidated the selection so made. For it would clearly be impossible to sustain an argument that on a “rigid” construction of the expression ‘select a type species’ he had un- equivocally selected Aphis pini Linnaeus to be the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis. When, however, we turn to the Rule (Rule (a)) governing the designation of the type species of a genus by the original author of that genus at the time when the generic name in question is first published, we find that there is no supplementary provision analogous to that contained in Rule (g), prescribing that the expression “ designate a type species ” is to be “ rigidly construed.” . 6. The foregoing ditference between Rule (g) and Rule (a) is due mainly to the fact that the supplementary provision now incorporated in Rule (g) did not form part of the original draft of the present Article 30 (which was substituted for the earlier text of this Article by the Seventh International Congress of Zoology at Boston in 1907) but was added at a later stage during the discussion of that draft in order to meet a point raised by the late Com- missioner David Starr Jordan of Stanford University that it was essential that this Rule should be so drafted as to exclude from acceptance as type selections the numerous cases where authors had cited under a given previously published generic name a single species, either because that species alone was relevant to the purposes of the book or paper concerned (e.g. where a single species was so cited in a book or paper dealing only with a limited faunistic area) or because the author concerned wished to cite an example of the genus in question without reference to the purely nomenclatorial question of the species to be regarded as the type species of that genus. There is no evidence at all to suggest that, when this addition was made to Rule (g), any consideration was given to the question whether a corresponding addition should be made to Rule (a). Most probably no consideration was given to this question, for, whereas risk of doubtful cases arising under Rule (g), and consequently the need for special safeguards in that Rule was very great, the risk of similar cases arising under Rule (a) was very remote, for in the nature of the case the author of a new genus who wishes himself to designate a type species for that genus will almost invariably do so in a clear and unambiguous manner, cases where an author designates the type species of a genus established by himself in an obscure or qualified manner necessarily being extremely rare. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. ‘There is certainly nothing in Article 30 to suggest that a lower standard of precision is permissible under Rule (a) than that which is required under Rule (g). Accordingly. it may fairly be concluded even without any further clarification that Rule (a) should exclude from validity an original type desig- nation made in an ambiguous or qualified manner, just as Rule (g) clearly excludes from validity a subsequent type selection made in such a manner. 8. Nevertheless, the fact, as we have seen, that discussion on this subject las been proceeding among specialists for over fifty years in the case of the generic name Cinara Curtis pots strongly to the conclusion that, in order to avoid further waste of time of this sort, it is desirable that an express ruling should be given by the International Commission on this subject. 9. It is accordingly suggested, for the consideration of the International Commission, that it would be helpful if a Declaration were now to be rendered containing a ruling to the following effect: ‘‘ For the purposes of Rule (a) in Article 30, the expression * designate a type species ’ is to be rigidly construed and is not to be held cover a designation made in an ambiguous or qualified manner.” "7a 1 ZMAY 10654 PURCHASE CONTENTS OF THE PRESENT PART (continued from front wrapper) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name brount Hutton, 1901, as published in the combination Drosophila brount, for the purpose of preserving the specific name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Ernst Mayr (Cambridge, Mass.), J. T. Patterson (Austin, Texas), Marshall P. Wheeler (Austin, Texas), Warren P. Spencer (College of Wooster, Ohio) i i ry Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni (Class ae Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By F. C. Hottes (Grand function, ae Colorado, U.S.A.) =A 83 ee ae oF oi bs ae Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name pini Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Aphis pini and as interpreted by De Geer (1773) (Class Insecta, Order pau By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate, as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) a species in harmony with accepted nomen- eae clatorial practice. By F. C. Hottes (Grand function, Colorado, U.S.A.) 174 | Report on the application submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the generic names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission 2 a Ks Pe ee = Ai Proposed adoption of a Declaration on the question whether the insertion of a mark of interrogation invalidates a designation of a type species for a genus made under Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Regles. By “ Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission o> oo Sy IMPORTANT NOTICE All applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — ree should be addressed to Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Com- — Zoologists are particularly requested to assist the work of the Commission — >; by complying with the following requirements: (1) Applications should be submitted in duplicate ; (2) applications should be typed, double-spaced, on one side of the paper only and with wide margins. a OT Printed in Great Britain by Metcumm anp Son L1p., Westmin-ter, London & a At Se ong . chs VOLUME 9. Part 7 ieog A hey, 11th May 1954 pp. 191-222 PURCHASED _ THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL « NOMENCLATURE eas. The Official Organ of me: THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON Be ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by ____ FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. _ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ee ae CONTENTs : aN Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : ____ Date of commencement by the International Commission on ‘a Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published ay in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... re bs 191 Notice of the Possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases of SH iS a Rs os Page 192 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature a and ___ Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ie by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1954 Price Twelve Shillings and Sixpence (All righ reserved) 4: f ‘ee i, ~ Are 3 5 Jae ‘ ; ead fee eX ox 3 . +) oe t - a eer ie ™* ay ; \z f SERS. “> 7 . ae > . \ 4 Ate. Got ek ee 7 > ‘ INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurliyke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, fapan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) arene J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953 Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th — . August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (fohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 3 U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanké (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Part 7 (pp. 191-222) llth May 1954 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Norice is hereby given that normally the International Commission may start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 9, Part 7) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secre- tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases 1. Novice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers, is involved in appli- cations published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the following names :— (1) Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora) validation of, and designation of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage (Z.N.(8.) 261) ; (2) Melanargia Meigen, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) validation of (Z.N.(8.)708). 2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin : other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 3. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56) corresponding Notices have been sent to the serial publications “* Nature ~ and ‘ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village Kast, Regent's Park. Lonpon, N.W.1, England. llth May 1954. gel =~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF NEW NAMES PUBLISHED IN OKEN, [1815-1816], “‘LEHRBUCH DER NATURGESCHICHTE ” By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secrelary lo the International Comimission on Zoological Nomenclature (Reference : Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 13) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)153) I. Introductory In pursuance of the request addressed to me by the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature at the third of their Meetings held during their Paris Session on Monday 26th July 1948 (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 13), I submit herewith for the consideration of the Commission and of interested zoologists generally the following Report on the question of the status of new names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der N: aturgeschichte, Volume 3 (Zoologie), issued in two Abtheilungen, of which the first (‘‘ Fleischlose Thiere ”’, pp- xxvii, 842, xvui, iv, 40 pls.) appeared in 1815 and the second (‘ Fleisch- thiere’, xvi, 1270 [2], 1 tab, with pp. 843-50 supplementary to Abth. 1) in 1816. 2. An authoritative statement on the status of new names in the Lehrbuch is long overdue, for there has been great diversity of practice among zoologists in regard to this matter, specialists i in some branches (particularly in mamma- logy) having in recent decades taken to using some or all of these names, while specialists in other groups have largely ignored this work. The late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood of Chicago therefore rendered a valuable service when in 1944 he invited the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give an authoritative ruling on this subject. 3. It was evident from the outset that considerable difficulties must be anticipated, whatever the decision taken by the Commission. If the Commission were to rule that in the Lehrbuch Oken had complied with the requirements of the Regles, a great deal of work would be involved in many groups in deter- mining the application of the numerous names which would then be seen to possess availability either as generic or subgeneric names and, in view of the early date of the Lehrbuch, there was every likelihood that this investigation would show that some, possibly many, of the Oken names were applicable to, and were the oldest names for, genera for which later names were in common use. If, on the other hand, the Commission were to rule that in the Lehrbuch Oken had not complied with the requirements of the Régles, then also it was evident that well-known genera currently known by Oken names would be found to require new names under the Law of Priority. In either case therefore it was certain that important issues affecting the stability of nomenclature were involved in the status to be accorded to names published in the Lehrbuch. Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 9, Pt. 7, May, 1954. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. At the time when. Dr. Osgood submitted his application, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Commission to reach a conclusion on this matter, for a large part of the arguments which had been advanced for and against the acceptance of Oken’s names turned on the meaning to be attached to the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binaire ” which then figured in Proviso (b) to Article 25. This latter problem, which formerly had been the cause of much controversy, was, at the time of the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application, sub judice, the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Lisbon in 1935 having decided that it was essential that this matter should be settled once and for all at the next (Thirteenth) International Congress and having, to this end, instructed the Commission to prepare a comprehensive Report on this subject for consideration by the Thirteenth Congress. ae 5. ‘The question of the meaning of the expression * nomenclature binaire ”’. the settlement of which was—as already explained—a pre-requisite to the consideration of the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch names was disposed of by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in July 1948. On the unanimous recommendation of the Conmission, with the equally unanimous support of the Section on Nomenclature, the Congress, after rulmg that the foregoing expression had a meaning identical with that of the expression “nomenclature binominale ”’, decided to delete from Proviso (b) to Article 25 (and also from Article 26) the expression ‘“‘ nomenclature binaire”’ and to replace it by the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63-66). At the same time the Congress recognised that, where under the foregoing clarification of the Régles, it became evident that a given book did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25, rapid use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers would be needed to prevent instability from arismg in the nomenclature of any group in which names first published in the book concerned were in common use. For this purpose, the Congress decided that in such cases the prescribed period of waiting might be waived by the Commission which should therefore be free at once to act for the purpose of preventing well-known names from being discarded in favour of names hitherto treated as synonyms (see Proceedings of the Commission, Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 13(3)(a)(iii), published in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 65). 6. Later during its Paris meeting the Thirteenth Congress approved also a recommendation that words should be inserted in the Régles making clear the meaning of the expression ‘‘ les principes de la nomenclature binominale ”, as used in Proviso (b) to Article 25 (as amended earlier during the Congress). As so clarified, Proviso (b) to Article 25 provides that, in order to qualify as having applied “les principes de la nomenclature binominale” in any given work, an author must have consistently applied those principles in the book in question and not merely in a particular section or passage (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :175). | The purpose, and the effect, of this clarification of Article 25 is to make it clear that, when an author who does not use a binominal system of nomenclature nevertheless here or there in a given work applies to some species a name which, by reason of consisting of two words only, happens to constitute a binominal combination, the name in question is not to be treated as acquiring availability under the Régles. a a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 7. The late Dr. Osgood’s application regarding the status of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch was considered by the Commission at the third of its meetings. held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 365-366). In the discussion which then took plaee stress was laid upon the importance and urgency of the problem submitted by Dr. Osgood. It was then explained that the application had not been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:365); nor has it since been published, as it was considered that it would be more convenient if publication were to be delayed until the present Report was also available. It is now annexed as Appendix I. At the Paris meeting it was felt that a further opportunity for study was desirable, in which to examine the situation anew in the light of the decisions that had just been taken to amend and clarify Proviso (5) to Article 25. The situation was complicated both by the diversity of practice among zoologists in different parts of the Animal Kingdom and by the fact that. owing to its rarity, relatively few zoologists had had an opportunity of studying Oken’s Lehrbuch at tirst hand. The Commission therefore agreed (a) to take into consideration Dr. Osgood’s application in regard to Oken’s Lehrbuch as soon as possible after the close of the Paris Congress. and (), for the purpose of facilitating that consideration, to invite the Secretary to confer with specialists on the quéstion of the practice (whether acceptance or rejection) adopted in their respective groups, and to submit a Report thereon. II. On the question whether in the “Lehrbuch der Natur- geschichte”” Oken consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature 8. In the early part of 1944, shortly before the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application in regard to the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch, | had occasion myself to investigate this matter in connection with a proposal submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles that the names of genera of the Order Carnivora from species of which had been reported parasites common to Man should, because of their importance from the point of view of Public Health, be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. For among the names which thus became candidates for admission to the Official List there were three Oken names (Genetta Oken ; Grison Oken; Tayra Oken). At that time the principal scientific libraries had been evacuated from London to avoid risk of destruction by air-raids and it was therefore not possible for me personally either to examine the entries in Oken’s Lehrbuch in regard to the foregoing names or to review the conclusions in regard to the status to be accorded to that work which I had formed when before the outbreak of war I had had occasion to consider this question in the course of my survey of the generic names of the butterflies. There was however, as I knew, a copy of the Lehrbuch in the hbrary of the Zoological Museum, Tring, and I accordingly sought the assistance in this matter of Dr. Karl Jordan, at that time the President of the International Commission. Dr. Jordan at once undertook to investigate this matter and in a letter dated 10th June 1944 he very kindly furnished a detailed Report. This 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Report is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 2. At the same time I took the view that the general problem of the status of new names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch (which had been raised by Dr. Osgood) and the particular problem of how to stabilise the names of the three genera of Carnivora from which parasites common to Man had been reported and for which names had been published by Oken in the Lehrbuch (which had been raised by the late Dr. Stiles) were of such importance that they should at once be brought to the attention of interested specialists, even though the war conditions then obtaining would inevitably render such a consultation only preliminary in character. I accordingly prepared a short note on this subject, which, however, owing to the long delays in printing inevitable at that time was not actually published until July 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomenel. 1: 112-113). 9. The general character of Oken’s Lehrbuch is well illustrated by the analysis given by Dr. Jordan of the treatment accorded by Oken to what he called the first genus (1 Gattung) of his fifth tribe (5 Sippschaft). The genus is divided into six groups; no Latin name is applied to the genus which has for its title only the German word “ Muffer.’”’ Of the six groups into which the genus is divided four are headed both by a vernacular name and by a Latin noun, one is headed by a vernacular name (Stunk) and by two Latin nouns (Mephitis and Viverra), while the third group has only a vernacular name (Iltis). When we come to examine the terms applied to species (Arten), we find an equal lack of consistency of treatment. In the first group (Meles, Dachs) of the genus, each of the three species recognised is given an apparently binominal name, the first part of which consists of the word Meles. When we come to the second group (Stunk, Mephitis, Viverra), we find that each of the three species recognised is given a vernacular German name only (Zweistreifiger St. ; Fiinfstreifiger St. ; Einstreifiger St.). Finally we have to note that each species is in turn subdivided, the appellations given to these subdivisions being of every possible variety, e.g. (a) vernacular names such as Teufelskind ; (b) a vernacular word followed by a Latin noun (which may be either a generic name or a univerbal Latin specific name in the manner of Gesner and other writers of the pre-1758 age), an example of this kind being provided by the second subdivision of the first species of the second group (Stunk) of the genus ‘‘ Muffer ’’, where we find the entry “ Yaguare, Zorills, Muffer”’; (c) a Latin binominal name such as Gulo quitensis (first species, third subdivision) ; and (d) a Latin trinominal name such as Putorvus americanus striatus (second species, first subdivision). 10. The examples cited above show (1) that the system of nomenclature used by Oken in his Lehrbuch is utterly lacking in consistency ; (2) that it consists of the random use of Latin words and vernacular German words for the various categories recognised ; (3) that even if the terms applied to the genus (Gattwng) and species (Arten) are disregarded, there is absolutely no consistency in the use of the terms employed to denote the units into which the various species are subdivided, it being apparently pure chance whether (1) a vernacular German word or (ii) such a word cited in combination with a Latin noun or (iii) a binominal combination of the Linnean type or (iv) a trinominal of the pre- 1758 kind is used to denote the taxonomic unit in question. 11. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in reporting that in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the Lehrbuch der Naturesgeschichte Oken did not apply “les a —_—- ss Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 principes de la nomenclature binominale ”. Accordingly, no name appearing in the above volume of the Lehrbuch acquired any availability under the Régles in virtue of having been so published. 12. I have further to add that, prior to the clarification of Proviso (b) to Articles 25 of the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948, the question of the availability of the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch was examined by a number of authorities who rejected the claims advanced in favour of those names by Allen (J. A.) (1902). notwithstanding the fact that, before the Paris Congress, the presence in Proviso (b) of the ambiguous expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ” offered some scope for the defence of those names, which has disappeared now that that expression has been replaced by the unequivocal expression ‘“ nomenclature binominale.’’ These authorities include : (1) Stiles (C. W.) & Orleman, 1927, Hyg. Lab. Bull. 145 ; (2) Cabrera (A.), 1943, Ciencia 4 (Nos. 4-5): Hershkowitz (P.). 1949, J. Mammal. 30: 289-301. Of these authorities Dr. Cabrera. who is himself a member of the Commission, has kindly furnished me with a supplementary statement of his views, together with extracts from the salient portions of his paper of 1943. This statement is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 3. III. On the effects of alternative treatments to be accorded to the names published in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s “‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ” on stability in nomenclature 13. The late Dr. Osgood pointed out that a number of names which first appeared in volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte had come to be commonly accepted for well-known and important genera, instancing in this connection in the Class Mammalia the names Cttellus Oken (for the very large group of ground squirrels of Asia and America), Panthera Oken (as a subgeneric name for the large cats, including the lion, the tiger, the leopard and others) and Thos Oken for the jackals. Dr. Osgood himself (as he made clear in his letter to me of 13th September 1944, an extract from which is appended to his application) was strongly opposed to the acceptance of Oken’s names, but his references to the generic names cited above. coupled with the concluding remarks in his application, where he referred to the Commission’s Plenary Powers, suggests that he had in mind that the Commission, when rejecting Oken’s Lehrbuch, should make use of its Plenary Powers to preserve those of Oken’s names which had taken deep root in the literature of mammalogy. 14. If such were in fact the ideas which Dr. Osgood had in mind, he only anticipated by a few years the view widely held and strongly expressed both within the Commission and in the general body of the Section on Nomenclature of the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses that means should be found for pre- venting decisions on purely technical nomenclatorial matters from having the effect of upsetting well-established names. It was indeed because the Paris Congress recognised that the declaration against the availability of non- binominal works that had hitherto been accepted (in whole or in part) on the ground that the nomenclature used therein, though not ‘“ binominal” was “binary ” and therefore acceptable under the Régles might in some cases lead to the upsetting of well-known names that it took the action already described 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (paragraph 4) for simplifying the procedure to be followed by the Comnussion when using its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating generic names found to be invalid consequent upon the final rejection of the argument that the expression “ nomenclature binaire ” possessed a wider meaning than the expression “ nomenclature binominale.” 15. Oken’s Lehrbuch being, in my opinion, a book which must be rejected as not satisfying the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 (paragraph 11), it is necessary to consider whether any of the Oken names which, on the fore- going argument, are seen to be unavailable are nevertheless in such widespread use as to call for preservation under the Plenary Powers. This is a matter on which, for each group of the Animal Kingdom, only the specialists in that group are qualified to express an opinion, In the case of mammalogy it is already evident however that some authorities would be strongly opposed to the elimination of certain well-known Oken names now commonly used for important genera. Among these may be numbered first the late Dr. Osgood himself who would certainly have objected to the elimination of the names Citellus, Panthera and Thos (paragraph 13). Second, Mr. T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott (Deputy Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London), with whom and Dr. Edward Hindle (Scientific Director, Zoological Society of London) I had correspondence in 1946 and 1947 regarding the name Pan Oken as applied to the chimpanzee, has expressed himself as strongly opposed to the entire elimination of Oken’s generic names for mammals. The relevant part of Mr. Morrison-Scott’s letter is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 4. As will be there noted, Mr. Morrison-Scott points out that some of Oken’s generic names have been accepted in such important works as Allen (G. M.), 1939, Checklist of African Mammals and Simpson (G. G.), 1945, The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. 16. Where a book fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 25, but the names in it are in general use or, if not all in use, can readily be assigned to their appropriate position in synonymy, it would be possible for the Commission to secure stability in the nomenclature in the group concerned by validating the whole book under its Plenary Powers. Accordingly, any name in such a book which was the oldest available name for a given genus would become the valid name for that genus, wnile names applicable to genera, for which there were older available names would disappear in synonymy. Theoretically, it would be possible for the Commission, if it so thought fit, to deal with Oken’s Lehrbuch in this manner, that is, to validate it under the Plenary Powers. In fact, however, the adoption of this course would cause as much instability in nomenclature as would the disappearance of the Oken names, for the Lehrbuch would then need to be examined systematically, page by page, by specialists in all groups in the Animal Kingdom, since, although some Oken names have been brought into use, there are many more names included in the Lehrbuch which have been completely ignored and which it would then be necessary to take into account. This would be an extremely complicated and difficult task in view of the utter lack of consistency shown by Oken in the terminology applied by him to the species described in the Lehrbuch. This is well illustrated by the example given in the Report prepared by Dr. Jordan (Appendix 2). The virtual impossibility in many cases of determining whether a name was used as a generic name or was a Se git ~ten, 4 a 9 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 trivial name printed with a capital initial letter would lead -to endless difficulty in determining the status of the names in question, and at times would be virtually certain to lead to such confusion that the use of the Plenary Powers would be necessary to suppress the name in question. Moreover, even if ultimately, with occasional help from the Commission, the generic names employed in Oken’s work could be reduced to some kind of order, there would still remain the difficulty presented at the species level of the treatment to be accorded to the specific names used by Oken, for (as already explained) though many of these are binominal (e.g. Gulo quitensis, the name for one of the sub- units of Species | in Division “‘ b” of the first genus of the fifth Sippschaft), many also are trinominals (e.g. Putorius americanus striatus, the term applied to the first sub-unit of the second species of tne same Division of the genus referred to above). I conclude therefore that any action to be taken by the Commission to secure availability for those of Oken’s generic names which are in common use should certainly not take the form of using the Plenary Powers to validate Oken’s Lehrbuch as a whole, for that course would give rise to more numerous and more serious difficulties then would follow from the rejection of the Lehrbuch under the normal operation of the Régles and would be calculated to cause far greater instability and confusion in nomenclature. 17. If therefore express action is to be taken to prevent the confusion and instability which would follow the elimination in synonymy of certain of Oken’s generic names, that action must, it is suggested, be selective in character and directed exclusively towards meeting the particular ends in view. For- tunately, it is possible in this matter to draw upon the precedent set by the Commission when dealing with the very similar problem presented by the generic names used for insects by Geoffroy (EK. L.) in his celebrated Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, an admittedly non- binominal work published in 1762, many of the generic names published ‘in which are however in general use. The problem presented by this book was considered by the Commission in Paris (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusions 14-16) (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4: 366-370) ,and the decision then taken is, I consider, extremely relevant to the consideration of the action to be taken in regard to the Lehrbuch of Oken. The action taken by the Commission as regards Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée was threefold in character: (1) the Commission declared that this work did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and there- fore that names appearing in it were not available under the Régles; (2) the Commission at once used its Plenary Powers to validate one of the most important names thus found to be invalid (Corixa Geoffroy) ; (3) the Commis- sion placed on record its view that “certain of the generic names published in the foregoing work, being in wide use, should certainly be validated in the interests of stability in nomenclature.’ In accordance with the last of these conclusions the Commission invited me, as the Secretary to the Commission, to confer with specialists in the various Orders of insects concerned, with a view to “ the submission to the Commission ”’ of “ proposals for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of such of the names concerned, the rejection of which would lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned, so that, in the light of the statements so received, the Commission may validate such of the names concerned as may appear to it to be appro- priate.” The adoption of a similar procedure in the case of generic names 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature published by Oken in his Lehrbuch, when these are found to be im general use, would seem to me to be both highly appropriate and extremely desirable. 18. In addition to the names of the three genera of Carnivora published by Oken on which (as explained in paragraph 8 above) there is an outstanding application by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, the Commission has had before it for some time an application (Z.N.(8.)261) submitted by Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora). In agreement with Professor Kirby, the publication of this application was deferred until it could be published at the same time as the present Report. It is accordingly now published immediately after the present Report. 19. In March 1952 I issued a general appeal to specialists to furnish state- ments of their views on the question of the availability of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch and at the same time to furnish particulars of any generic names published by Oken currently in use in their respective groups which, in their opinion, ought to be preserved, if the Commission were to rule that in his Lehrbuch Oken did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that no name published in that work acquired the status of availability in virtue of having been so published (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 195-196). None of the specialists who responded to the foregoing appeal considered that Oken’s Lehrbuch was a nomenclatorially available work. A number of these specialists, however, furnished particulars relating to individual Oken names in common use for genera in their own groups which they recommended should be validated under the Plenary Powers, in order to prevent the disturbance and confusion in nomenclature which would other- wise be inevitable. These applications will be published in the Bulletin as soon as possible, Summary of Conclusions 20. In the light of the evidence examined, and of the considerations advanced in the present Report, I now summarise, as follows, the conclusions which I have formed on the subject of the availability of the names published in the period 1815-1816 in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Natur- geschichte ;— (1) In Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte which was published in the period 1815-1816, Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as required by Proviso (4) to Article 25 of the Régles, as clarified by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (paragraphs 9-10). —_— Ls Fr Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 (2) in consequence of (1) above, no name published by Oken in the fore- going work acquired any status in zoological nomenclature in virtue of having been so published (paragraph 11). (3) In some groups of the Animal Kingdom, e.g. in mammalogy, certain generic names are commonly accepted with priority from Oken’s Lehrbuch. In some cases genera to which these names are applied are well known and of wide distribution. The elimination of the Oken names for these genera would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the groups concerned (para- graphs 13-15). (4) Availability for the Oken generic names now in common use could be provided by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to render Volume 3 of Oken’s Lehrbuch available under the Régles and thus to validate en bloc the new names published in that book, The adoption of this course in the case of Oken’s Lehrbuch would however be open to strong objection, for the nomenclature employed by Oken in that work is so confused that the grant of availability to that work as a whole would be bound to give rise to numerous and serious difficulties by reason of the large number of names introduced by Oken which have hitherto been ignored (paragraph 16). (5) Availability could be secured for such of Oken’s generic names as are in common use and the disappearance of which in synonymy would give rise to instability and confusion by the selective use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers, in the same way that the Commission has already decided to use those powers in relation to the parallel case of the generic names published in 1762 by Geoffroy (E. L.) in his Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris. This is the course which I recommend should now be taken (paragraph 17). FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village Kast, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1, England. 9th March, 1954. we —) to Bulletin of Zoological, Nomenclature APPENDIX 1 APPLICATION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF THE NAMES IN OKEN’S “ LEHRBUCH DER NATURGESCHICHTE ” SUB- MITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY DR. WILFRED H. OSGOOD IN MAY 1944 Are the names in Oken, 1815-1816, ‘“‘ Lehrbuch der Natur- geschichte ” 3 (Zoologie), available under the Régles? By WILFRED H. OSGOOD (Chicago Natural History Museum. Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) Oken’s names were especially brought to attention by J. A. Allen in 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 16: 373-379). At this time Allen said: “ Oken was almost as erratic and irregular in nomenclatorial matters as was Zimmer- mann in his Specimen Zoologiae Geographicae published in 1777, but in some respects is less satisfactory, since he failed to cite authorities for the names used, and gave no reference to his sources of information. Both diagnosed generic, subgeneric and other groups, as well as species, under either vernacular or systematic names, as seemed to please their fancy, and employed the names given by previous authors as these authors used them, regardless of whether the generic portion of the name conformed or not to the genus to which they assigned the species. Yet they each had a ‘ system’,—sadly defective. however. when tried by the nomenclatorial usages of today.” Allen then discussed a number of Oken’s generic and specific names of mammals which might be adopted for use instead of those current at the time. Nowhere does he say that they must be used and his entire paper is factual rather than argumentative, his attitude being that of suspended judgment rather than conviction. In other words, his paper is that of a reporter rather than an advocate and what he says essentially is that, if Oken’s names are acceptable, then certain changes are necessary. Nevertheless, the Oken names have been accepted especially by British and American mammalogists and have been in general use for more than forty years. Among them are some of wide use not only in taxonomic but in general literature for some of the best known animals in the world. Examples are Citellus Oken, which replaced Spermophilus Cuvier for the very large group of ground squirrels of Asia and America, including species concerned in the transmission of disease and therefore dealt with in medical literature ; Panthera Oken, which has been adopted as a genus or subgenus for the larger cats including the lion, tiger, leopard and some others; and Thos Oken for the jackals. 'The Specimen Zoologiae of Zimmermann has since been rejected by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature as a work which does not comply with the requirements of Article 25, Proviso (b). See Opinion 257, es Bulletin of Zuvlogical Nomenclature 203 In 1904 (S.B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1904 : 55), only two years after Allen’s paper, the German mammalogist Matschie demurred by saying: ‘Die in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte verwendeten Bezeichnungen diirfen deshalb nicht gebraucht werden, weil die Grundsiétze der binaren Nomen- klatur in diesem Buche nicht befolgt sind.” In 1927 Stiles and Orlemann (Bull. U.S. hyg. Lab. 145: 29), in dealing with the Primates, said of Oken’s work: ‘“‘ From our viewpoint the nomen- clature used by Oken, 1816, pp. 1223-1232, is not in harmony with International Rules, is neither consistently binary nor consistently binominal, hence is not available under the Law of Priority.” In 1932 (Z'rab. Mus. Crenc. nat., Madrid (Zool.) 57: 106), Cabrera referred to Oken saying: “este autor no siguid la verdadera nomenclatura binaria, y por consiguiente sus nombres no deben admitirse.” (Since, this author has consistently refused to recognise Oken’s names and recently has issued a detailed defence of his position (1943, Ciencia, Mexico 4: 108-111). The fact remains that Oken’s names have attained wide currency in spite of expressed objection to them. They seem to be similar to the names of Gronovius, which were accepted by the Commission under Opinion 20 and later rejected by exercise of Plenary Power under Opinion 89. In fact it might well be argued that they are even less deserving than the names of Gronovius. Regardless of interpretation of the Code, a ruling on them appears to be necessary, since it is now a question of “‘ greater confusion than uniformity ” apparently subject only to the exercise of the Plenary Power.? Postscript (extract from a letter, dated 13th September 1944, to the Secretary to the Commission): In regard to Oken’s Lehrbuch, I would prefer to see it entirely suppressed. Allen, who first uncovered it and who has been followed considerably, did not make a very good case for it, and later authors, including both Stiles and Stejneger, I believe, have argued that it does not conform to the Code. * It should be noted that Opinion 20 was rendered at a date prior to the grant to the Inter- national Commission of Plenary Powers to suspend the rules in certain cases. That Opinion, therefore, dealt only with the sole question, with which the International Commission was then empowered to deal, namely the Interpretation of the Code, the question then submitted being whether Gronovius in 1763, Zoophylacium, had “‘ applied the principles of binary nomen- clature ” as required by proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code. | The question dealt with in Opinion 89 is entirely different from that dealt’ with in Opinion 20, since Opinion 89 is not concerned in any way with the interpretation of the Code but with the question whether or not the Plenary Powers conferred upon the International Commission at Monaco in 1913 should or should not be used to suppress Gronovius, 1763, Zoophylacium, and certain other works. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDIX 2 On the system of classification used by Oken (L.) in his “‘ Lehrbuch der Naturegeschichte ” of 1816 By KARL JORDAN, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring) (Extract from a letter dated 10th June 1944, from Dr. Karl Jordan (then President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) to the Secretary to the Commission) In order to understand Oken’s classification and nomenclature, two main points must be kept in mind. (1) Animals were created according to a definite plan : a tribe (which he calls Sippschaft) consists of four genera in every family (Oken’s Zunft); the number of species in each genus varies. Often there are so many kinds known that Oken subdivides the genus concerned. These divisions and subdivisions of a Gattwng are marked by letters (e.g. the letters “a,” “b,” “ce,” ete.). These are usually followed by one or more Latin names. The classification and nomenclature used are complicated. (2) Apart from the part relating to European animals, Oken’s Lehrbuch is mainly a compilation. When uncertain about the systematic position of an animal, Oken often refers to the same animal in different places and gives more than one Latin name for it. The names so given are usually taken from the literature. He cites no authors’ names and gives no bibliographical references for the Latin names cited. At the end of the volume he gives a short bibliography. The nature of Oken’s system of classification may be illustrated by an example. I therefore give below his classification for the first genus of his fifth tribe (5 Sippschaft, 1 Gattung), from which I have omitted his descriptions. Classification used by Oken for the first genus of his fifth tribe 5. Sippschaft 1. Gattung. Muffer [The German names—often spaced—are mostly Oken’s invention. | a. Dachse a. Meles, Dachs ; 1. Art. M. vulgaris, Ursus Meles, Taxus, gen. D., Graving ; 2. Art. M. americana, Ursus labradorius ; 3. Art. M. indica ; Der lang bekannte Meles indicus ist augenscheinlich Galeopi- thecus ! b. Stunk, Mephitis, Viverra, Stinthier, Muffer ; 1. Art. Zweistreifiger St. [No Latin name cited] a. Teufelskind oder Stinkthier (Viv. Mephitis) ; b. Yaguara, Zorilla, Muffer von Chili ; Here probably a Muffer from Chili, but the white on frons and occiput broader, more probably Grunzer or Blaser at Magellan’s Strait, Stinkfiichse, Putorius americanus. Stinkthier in Luisiana, Schweitzer, Ortohula, Teufelskind and Chinche. (translation) OOM. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 c. Gulo quitensis, Atok oder Zorra (Fuchs) ; As the Atok has been placed in Gulo, one should expect that its dentition would be the same ; but we doubt it. (translation) 2. Art. Fiinfstreifiger St. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Putorius americanus striatus (Viv. Putorius) ; At the end of the description of colour and habits there occurs— over the page--the name Putorius americanus striatus (int’d K.J.) ), [Oken made no entry under this sub-item. int’d K.J.] c. Conepate (Viv. Putorvus) ; [sei the equivalent of the Latin sew K.J.] Coneptl, amerik. Iltis gestreiften. 3. Art. Hinstreifiger St.; [no Latin name cited] a. Cinche (Viv. Mephitis) ; sei Yzquiepatl (schlechthin) ; b, Mapurito (Viv. Mapurito); . . . sei Viverra Putorius [The word ‘* Mapurito ”’ is here used as a specific name. int’d K.J.] c. ltis St. |. Art. Geflekter St. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Mapurito oder Mafutiliqua (Viv. Zorilla) ; [The word ‘‘ Mapurito ” is here used as a vernacular name. int’d K.J.] [If here Zorilla ? Query Zorinna or Anna ? (transl.) | b. Chingha (Viverra Chingha) ; c. Zorille ; sei eme mit Mafutilique und Ortohula d. Graving, Grison : [The word “ Graving”’ is slightly spaced. K.J.] 1. Art. Ziigel G.; [no Latin name cited] a. Chinche (Vw. vittata) ; Sei Maikal oder Yagiane.— b. Viverra vittata, Grison : Mustela gujanensis, Foine von Giiana ; Huron minor, Martes Grison : [Note : The above are not vittata but are two additional distinct species, each with its own description. int’d. K.J.] Perhaps here Yzquiepatl (Viv. Vulpecula), Teufelskind and Chinche from Brazil. Grison (Viv. vittata) and Galera belong together ?, the former probably here. (translation) ¢e. Schnopp, Tayra : 1. Art. Gelbkehliger Sch. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Mustela barbara, Tayra oder grose Wiesel ; Kinerlei Gr. Marder von Giiana, Must. poliocephalus. b. M. lanata, kl. Foina von Giiana ; c. Mustela canadensis, Pekan ; There are three animals in Paragay similar to the marten, pine marten and polecat, but larger ... They are Huron minor, major, Yaguare; Huron major (Furo m.); Martes Tayra; .. . Is Mustela barbara different? It seems to be Ichneumon de Yzquiepatl (Viv. Quasja), Pekan (Must. canadens.), kleine Foina von Giiana (Must. lanata), Tayra (M. barbara). (translation) 2. Art. Schwarzer Sch. [no Latin name cited] a. Yzquiepatl, seu Vulpecula quae Maizium. torrefactum semulatur colore (Viv. Vulpecula) ; 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature There are two other small foxes of this sort. One is generally called Yezquiepail . . . The other is called Conepatl seu Vulpecula . puerilis, . . . (translation) b. Stinkthier. (Viv. Putorius) 3. Art. Brauner Sch. ; Ichneumon de Lzquiepatl (Viv. Quasja) One could put ee here if anteriorly it has five toes. (trans- lation) f. Jarf, Gulo, Ursus : 1. Art. G. vulgaris, Urs. Gulo, Hyaena, Glouton, Rosomak, Filfrass (Rahmfrass), Schnopp, gem. J. ; APPENDIX 3 On the question of the status of names in Oken, 1815-1816, “Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ” 3 (Zoologie) By ANGEL CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (Extract from a letter dated 20th July 1950 from Dr. Cabrera to the Secretary to the Commission) I have read very attentively the fourth volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The question about the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch interests me very much. I received some time ago your request regarding my paper on this subject, but unfortunately I had not myself a copy of this paper and was therefore forced to ask for one from Mexico, where it was published seven years ago (in Ciencia 4 (Nos. 4-5) published on 20th October 1943). My reasons for rejecting Oken’s names are similar in every way to those advanced by Hershkowitz in 1949 (J. Mammal. 30: 289-301). The following is a translation of a part of my paper :— Vhough this book |Oken’s Lehrbuch} was published in L816, naturalists in general ignored Oken’s naines until 1902, when J. A. Allen gave a list of those which, in his opinion, ought to be accepted in Mammalogy. He did not do so, however, without giving the warning that Oken was “ erratic and irregular in nomenclatorial matters ~ and that his manner of naming animals was “ sadly defective when tried by the nomenclatorial uses of today.” From that date however North American zoologists began to use these names, and their example was soon followed by the Europeans. A noteworthy exception was Paul Matschie (1904), who rejected them on the ground that Oken never followed the true binary nomenclature, a very important opinion, coming, as it did, from a fellow- countryman of the author under criticism. Many years afterwards, when studying the nomenclature of the apes, Stiles and Orleman (1927) expressed the same views. ... As said_by Stiles and Orleman, the author of a book or publication must be “ consistently binary and consistently binominal”’ in order that the names in his book may be accepted. Indeed, if an author does not practise binary and binominal nomenclature, it would be absurd to accept one or two of his names, merely because they are accidentally formed of two words. This being so, it is not possible to consider Oken as an author applying the principles of binary nomenclature in his Lehrbuch. . . . Some of Oken’s genera (Gattungen) have a name composed of two words in violation of the principle established by Linnaeus and now embodied in Article 8 of the Régles. Among the genera of fishes, there is one named ** Regulecus lanceolatus *’ and another has as its name “ Lepidopus goranensis”’. Many of the genera have not even a technical name, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 bemg cited only under the vernacular German name, such as * Schlender- schwanz * among reptiles and * Muffer’* among mammals. In the genus “ Lepidopus goranensis ”’ there is found a species named ** Botrichthys sinensis ”’, whereas the name of another is “ Botrichthoides oculatus.”” ‘The genus of reptiles * Schlenderschwanz *” includes the species ‘ Stellio Lacerta caudiverbera,”’ “ Stellio fimbriatus ~ and * Stellio tetradactylus,” while later another genus is named Stellio and contains other different species. . . . Oken’s specific names are frequently binomial, but many of them are trinomial and even plurinomial. Thus, the orang outang appears as * Maunus indicus, rufus.” If we do not see here a trinomial denomination, we shall be forced to regard this expression not as a name at all, but as an abbreviated description such as those used by Seba, Brisson, etc. In the genus Cercopithecus, we find similar instances : among its species there is a “* Cercopithecus angolensis major,” a “* Cercopithecus angolensis alius ” and a“ Simia nigra magnitudinis mediae.” Other examples given in my paper are the same as those pointed out by Hershkowitz. To sum up, I conclude by saying that Oken’s nomenclature ‘is merely an irregular mixture of generic names, sometimes in Latin and sometimes in German. indistinctly composed of one or of two words. with Specific names as often binomial as uninomial or polynomial. It is impossible, in my opinion, to use the names belonging to such a system of nomenclature, if we reject those given by Frisch, Gronow or Catesby. To accept these names as valid, in clear breach of the principles of Article 25 of the Regles Interna- tionales, would be to declare the futility of the Régles themselves or, at least, to agree with those that ignore them” APPENDIX 4 On the question of the use of generic names published in Oken’s “Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ” (Extract from a letter, dated 18th January 1947, from Mr. T. C. S. Morrison- Scott. Deputy Keeper. Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) to the Secretary to the Commission) | think that the elimination of Oken’s Lehrbuch would be a very retrograde step, so far as mammals are concerned. At last we are getting some sort of order into things. Works like Allen (1939) Checklist of African Mammals and Simpson (1945) The Principles of Classification and a C ‘lassification of Mammals are the foundations on which we now build and there is a growing feeling among mammialogists that the foundations should not be diatiegbed. The need for stability in order to take stock of the mass of undigested knowledge overrides the following of rules for i sake of pedantic uniformity—or that is the way I see it. Both Allen and Simpson use Oken’s names—not merely Pan but Panthera, (renetla, ete,. and it would be crazy to ¢liminate these names. 5) A 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE NEED FOR VALIDATING THE NAME “ STENTOR ” OKEN, 1815 (CLASS CILIOPHORA) FOR USE IN ITS ACCUS- TOMED SENSE By HAROLD KIRBY (University of California, Berkeley, Califorma, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)261) Several species of well-known ciliates have for more than a century usually been placed in the genus Stentor, and because of the particular value of these ciliates for research and in class instruction, as well as the frequency with which they come to the attention of microscopists. there is a large literature under the name Stentor. The name has not yet been placed in the Officral List of Generic Names in Zoology. Examination of the nomenclatural status of the genus has shown that several points of confusion, hitherto usually ignored, must be cleared up. The name for the genus and its type species should be decisively established as soon as possible by appropriate action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The first record of observation of ciliates now included in Stentor was read by Abraham Trembley to the Royal Society of London in 1744 and was published in 1745 in the Philosophical Transactions, 43 : 180 ff. He reported having seen in fresh water animalcula which De Réaumur judged to belong to the general class of Polypi. Part of the paper is devoted to an account of clustering Polypi, which Trembley stated were named by De Réaumur “les Polypes en bouquet ’’; these were colonial vorticellids, probably Zoothamnium. Trembley also wrote of small Polypi of a different sort from those that are found in clusters, which De Réaumur thought proper to distinguish by the name of Tunnel-like Polypi. He gave a sufficiently informative account of these animalecula and their manner of division so that it is evident that he dealt with Stentor. He reported being acquainted with three species of these Polypi, which are respectively green, blue, and white. In Employment for the Microscope (1753, pp. 330-334) Henry Baker wrote of Funnel-Animals which he found attached to a parcel of snail’s eggs, and he quoted Trembley’s account, stating in a footnote that he was pleased to find that de Réaumur and Trembley had ideas of the creature so nearly like his own. He gave a figure (pl. 13, fig. 1) which evidently depicts a species of the genus known later as Stentor, though he supplied no sufficient information by means of which one could identify it with St. polymorphus, as did Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth, : 263). Figures of an organism of this group were published in 1755 by Rosel von Rosenhof (Insectenbelust., 3 : pl. 94, figs. 7, 8) who discussed it in the text (: 585) under the name “ der schallemeynaihnliche Affterpolyp.” The figures represent one of the colorless species, which Ehrenberg (1838, Jnfusionsth. : 262) considered to be the one that he later named St. miilleri : but the species represented by Résel cannot actually be identified. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 The scientific name first given to a ciliate that now belongs to the genus Stentor was Hydra stentoria Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 817). The name was applied to the representation of the organism by Roésel. Under the name, Linnaeus referred to four of Résel’s figures (Insectenbel., 3 : pl. 94, figs. 5. 6, 7, 8). Figures 5 and 6 depict a rotifer ; Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth. : 404) included a reference to thei in the synonymy of Lacinularis socialis. Thus the name given by Linnaeus in 1758 was applied both to a rotifer and the ciliate. Linnaeus later (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1321) published an emendation of the specific name as stentorea, and under H. stentorea referred to an extended list of references : the accounts by Trembley and Baker and the latter's figure which | have mentioned; Résel’s figs. 7 and 8 (not 5 and 6); references by Ledermuller and by Pallas. Linnaeus (1767) referred to Résel’s figures 5 and 6 under Hydra socialis. He had evidently restricted his concept of //. stentorea so far as the original reference of 1758 was concerned, to Rosel’s figures that. actually represented the ciliate. Pallas (1766) used the name Brachionus stentoreus, with varieties alba, viridis, and caeruleus ; he removed the stentorid of Linnaeus to that genus. along with some rotifers and vorticellids. O. F. Miiller, recognising that the ciliate dealt with by Linnaeus could not be put in the genera Hydra or Brachionus, included it in Vorticella. Under Vorticella stentorea (1773, Verm. terrest. fluviat. : 111), he quoted the description of Hydra stentorea by Linnaeus. In the genus he also treated of several species that were in Linnaeus’s genus Vorticella, together with a heterogeneous as- semblage of ciliates and some rotifers. In this work Miiller dealt with two other stentorid ciliates, which he named Vorticella nigra (op. cit. : 96) and V. poly- morpha (op. cit.: 98). Later (1786, Animale. Inf. : 262) he described a third species, Vorticella shes aude A peritrich dealt with in the latter work is Vorticella versatilis (op. cit. : 281, pl. 39, figs. 14-17). In that peritrich indivi- duals occur abundantly in the periphery of large, gelatinous masses. Vortacella stentorea was included in the genus Linza Schrank, 1802, by Schrank (1802, 1803). This genus contained the colonial peritrich, then widely known as Ulva pruniformis, which was Miiller’s Vorticella versatilis, and of which the currently used name is Ophrydium versatile ; Miiller’s’ Vorticella Jlosculosa (1786, Animale. Inf. : 304. pl. 43, figs. 16-20), which is the colonial rotifer known later as Lacinularia socialis : and Miiller’s Vorticella socialis (op. edt. : 304, pl. 43, figs. 13-15), which is in part also Lacinularia socialis. Schrank’s genus Linza was a complex of a peritrich, a rotifer, and a stentorid ciliate. Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus) lists Linza as in Rotifera. The stentorids that had been named by Miiller (1786) Vorticella nigra and V. polymorpha were placed by Schrank (1803) in the genus Eeelissa, as E. nigra and £. viridis, along with various species of Miiller’s Vorticella. Biitschli (1889 in Bronn, Klass. Ord. Thierreiches, 1: 1728) listed Ecclissa and Linza pp. Schrank in the synonymy of Stentor. Stein (1876, Organ. In. Justonsth, : 221) had written of the injustice of the neglect suffered by Schrank’s names, but recognised the futility of attempting to revive one or the other of 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature them for the stentorid ciliates. The history of those names is complicated and obscure, and they have never come into use. To complicate the matter still further, I find that Lamouroux et. al. (1824, Hist. nat. Zooph., 2: 291) refer to the genus Heclissa established by Ocken (sic) for vorticellids, and to Linze, a genus established by Guettard in sponges. Also there is Eelissa Modeer (A.), 1790. emended in Agassiz (1842-46, Nomenclator Zoologicus) to Ecclissa Modeer. in Vorticellina. These names are associated with the older history of the nomenclature of stentorid ciliates, and so have been discussed, but they are not necessarily important in relation to the present problem. The ty pe of Linza Schrank may be considered to be Vorticella flosculosa Miiller, which is the rotifer Lacinu- laria socialis ; and that of Keclissa Schrank may be considered to be one of the peritrichs he included in it. Thus these problems are removed to other groups than that which now concerns us, though it would be well if the Com- mission used its Plenary Powers to suppress the names Linza Schrank and Kechissa Schrank. as well as Eelissa Modeer. Oken (1815, Lehrb. Naturgesch., Theil 3, Abt. 1 : 45) applied the name Stentor to the same group of organisms as that in Schrank’s genus Linza, though he did not refer to that fact. In the genus he gave three species: St. solitarius Oken, 1815 (Vorticella stentorea renamed); St. socialis, which was the rotifer Lacinularia socialis ; and St. pruniformis otherwise known as Ulva pruniformis or Linza pruniformas (Ophrydium versatile). Oken (1815) also listed the genus Ecclissa, with E. nigra (Vorticella nigra) and E, viridis (Vorticella viridis) as the species. Oken had distributed the species within the group we now know as Stentor into two genera, Ecclissa in his listing containing only members of that group, Stentor containing a heterogeneous assemblage of organisms, one of which belonged to the group in which we are presently interested. The name Stentor Oken, 1815, was preoccupied. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1812, dan. Mus. Nat. Hist. 19 : 107) had proposed the name Stentor for a genus of South American monkeys, listing six species. For that group of howling monkeys. however, two generic names had already been supplied. Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812, is antedated by Alouatta Lacépéde, 1799, and by Mycetes Ilhger, 1811 (Palmer. 1904, Index generum mammalium, North Am. Fauna, No. 23). Consequently, Stenfor has never been in use among mammalogists, and is often neglected even as a synonym. A comparable case is that of Necator Stiles, 1903, which was dealt with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the 7th Meeting in Paris, July, 1948 (Off. Record Proceedings : 301-302)'. 1t was found by Mr. Hemming that the above generic name is a junior homonym of Necator Selater and Saunders. 1896, an emendation of Nicator, Finsch and Hartlaub. 1870, a genus in the Class Aves. Necator has not been in use by ornithologists, Nicator having always been the name by which the genus is known. At this meeting, the Commission used its Plenary Powers to suppress Necator Sclater and Saunders, 1896, and to validate the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903. ~ See Opinion 201 (194, Ops. Deels, int. Comm, zool. Nomencl, 3: 207-274). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 Another aspect of this problem is its relation to a matter that came to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its 13th Meeting in Paris, July, 1948 (Off. Record Proceedings : 365-366). It concerned a proposal that had been made by Stiles for addition to the Offcial List of Generic Names of three genera of Carnivora first published by Oken (1815-16) in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, and an application by Osgood for a ruling on the question of availability of names first published in Oken’s Lehrbuch. The Commission agreed to take into consideration as soon as possible the question of a ruling on the availability of Oken’s names, and to defer a decision on the application by Stiles for addition of three of Oken’s genera of Carnivora to the Official List until there had been a decision on the availability of those names. Since Stentor Oken, 1915, is a name also published in the Lehrbuch in question. its placement in the Official List of Generic Names is subject to the same consideration. Several other names have been proposed for the ciliates of this generic group. Bory (1824, Lamouroux, Bory de Saint-Vincent. et Eud. Deslong- champs, Enc. méth., Hist. nat. Zooph., 2 : 533, 697) gave the name Stentorina to a genus which included the stentorids which Miiller had grouped in Vorticella : V. polymorpha, V. nigra, and V. multiformis. This was the first bringing together of these species into a single independent genus. Bory’s concept of their relationship was obviously far superior to that of Oken. Bory did. however, carry on an error that others had made before him, in giving the names Stentorina Roéselii and S. biloba to a rotifer. the one later known as Lacinularia socialis. The generic name Tubaria was proposed by Thienemann (1828, Lehrbuch Zool. : 12), since the name Stentor had been used for a genus of apes by Geoffroy. He gave the species name 7. viridis, which according to Ehrenberg (1838) is Stentor polymorphus. I have not been able to refer to Thienemann’s book. but the name has no significance for the present nomenclatural problem. Reichenbach (1828, Zoologie in Allg. Taschenb. Naturw., Th. 5, 1:95) substituted the name Stentorella for Stentor Ok. non Geoffr. He did not refer to any species. This name was neglected for more than a century, not even being included in nomenclatural indices (Agassiz, 1842-6; Sherborn, 1902). Recently Bhatia (1936, Fauna Br. Ind., Prot: Ciliophora : 234) noted pre- occupation of Stentor for a genus of Mammalia and adopted instead Stentorella Reichenbach. Bhatia neglected the prior claim of Stentorina. if substitution is to be made, and his proposal to use Stentorella is invalid. Another problem exists in regard to identification of the type species of Stentor Oken, 1815. When proposed, it contained only the one heterotrich St. solitarius Oken, 1815, along with the peritrich and rotifer. St. solitarius is a name supplied as equivalent to Vorticella stentorea Miiller, 1773, so stated by Oken. It is also equivalent to Hydra stentoria Linnaeus, 1758. The trail of references occurring in the different authors’ works goes back to Linnaeus. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature But the same or equivalent names were not necessarily applied to the same organisms, and species identification of the ciliates, 2 as named and described by these authors is not possible. Khrenberg (1832, Abh. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1831 : 99) substituted the name Stentor miillert K. for Vorticella stentorea Miiller. A recognisable figure of Stentor miillert was published by Ehrenberg (1837, op. cit. 1835 : pl. 1, fig. 16). A full, illustrated account of the species was provided by Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth. : 262). In that work Ehrenberg listed Stentorina miilleri Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1824 in the synonymy of Stentor miillert. I have been unable to find that Bory used that name, though he did give Stentorina stentorea for Miiller’s Vorticella stentorea, a fact that Ehrenberg did not refer to in the synonymy in discussion. Khrenberg (1832, op. cit. : 99) stated that Stentor miilleri was Vorticella stentorea Miiller, and in 1838 he listed S/. soltarius Oken in the synonymy of St. miillert. St. solitarius is the type. being the only ciliate in Oken’s genus Stentor at the time it was proposed. Prior to Ehrenberg’s accounts of 1832. 1837, and especially 1838 it is impossible to tell what species of colourless stentorids are referred to by the names that were given. The description of Stentor miillert by Ehrenberg can, as Mr. Hemming suggested, be designated by the Commission as that to be accepted for the nominal type species of Stentor Oken, 1815. Since 1830 the specific names of this nominal species, solitariwm Oken or the older stentoria or stentorea, have not been in use. It would be undesirable to revive them. The Commission should consider suppressing those specific names and designating the type species of Stentor as St. malleri Ehrenberg, 1832 (Abh. Konig AleaWiee, Berlin. 1831 : 99). There is not complete agreement about the taxonomic status of Stentor miillert. Stein (1867, Org. Infusionsth. Abt. 2: 223, 229) maintained that St. miillert is no more than a colourless form of St. polymorphus (i.e., without zoo- chlorelle), and placed (: 247) Hydra stentorea L., 1758; Vorticella stentorea Miiller, 1773; Stentor solitarius Oken, 1815; and Stentorina stentorea Bory, 1824 in the synonymy of Stentor Roéselii Ehrbg. This species like St. miilleri is colourless and may occur in a gelatinous lorica. Stentor miilleri is recognised. however. in recent literature in protozoology. In his list of proposed Nomina Conservanda Apstein (1915, Sctzwngsber. Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1915 : 123) included Stentor Oken, 1815, and gave as the representative species (‘‘ eine art gennant, fiir welche die Gattung erhalten bleiben soll ”’) polymorphus Miill., 1773. However, under Article 30, that species is excluded as the type species of Stentor, since it was not included under the generic name at the time of publication. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is faced with a problem in considering the placing of the name of this important ciliate genus on the Official List of Generic Names. If it is decided that new names in Oken’s Lehrbuch axe available, Stentor Oken, 1815, may be preserved by suppression of Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812, If it is decided that the new names in lo — wo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Oken’s Lehrbuch are not available, the problem of selecting a name for these ciliates must be considered further. Perhaps Stentorina Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1824, could be adopted, with the type species Vorticella polymorpha Miiller, 1773. A change of so well-known and Jong used a generic name as Stentor should be avoided if possible. References Apstein, C., 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitzungsbericht der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1915 : 119-202. Baker, Henry. 1753. Hmployment for the microscope. (London.) Bhatia, B. L., 1936. Protozoa: Ciliophora. The fauna of British India. including Ceylon and Burma. (London, Taylor & Francis.) Bory de Saint-Vincent, J. B., 1824. Microscopiques 7 Lamouroux, Bory de 1 . . . . zZ Saint-Vincent, et Eud. Deslongchamps: Histoire naturelle des zoophytes. ou animaux rayonnes, pp. 515-543. Hneyclopedie Méthodique. (Paris.) Bory de Saint-Vincent, J. B.. 1824. Stentorine ; Sfegtorina in Lamouroux. Bory de Saint-Vincent, et Kud. Deslongchamps: Histoire naturelle des zoophytes, ou animaux rayonnés, pp. 697-700. Encyclopédie Methodique. (Paris.) Ehrenberg, C. G., 1832. Uber die Entwickelung und Lebensdauer der Infusions- thiere ; nebst ferneren Beitragen zu einer Vergleichung ihrer organischen Systeme. Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1831 : 1-154. Ehrenberg, C. G., 1837. Zusiitze zur Erkenntnis grosser organischer Ausbildung in den kleinsten thierischen Organismen. Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1835 : 151-180. Ehrenberg, C. G., 1838. Die Infusionsthierchen als vollkommene Organismen. (Leipzig, Leopold Voss.) Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I., 1812. Tableau des Quadrumanes, ou des Animaux composant le premier Ordre de la Classe des Mammiféres. Annales du Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, 19 : 85-122. Ledermuller, M. F., 1764. Amusement mocroscopique tant pour Vesprit. que pour les yeux. (Nuremberg.) Linnaeus, C., 1758. Systema Naturae, edition decima, Tomus I. (Holmiae.) Linné, Caroli A., 1767. Systema Naturae, ed. duodecima. (Holmiae.) Miiller, O. F., 1773. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium. (Hauniae et Lipsiae.) 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Miiller, O. F.. 1786. Animaleula imfusoria flumiatitia ct marina. (Hauniae.) Oken, L., 1815. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. Dritter Theil. Zoologique. Erste Abth. Fleischlose Thiere. (Jena, Schmid und Com.) Reichenbach, L., 1828. Zoologie oder Naturgeschichte des Tierreichs. Eystes Bd. in Allgemeine Taschenbibliothek der Naturwissenschaften, fiinfter Th. (Dresden, Hilschersche Buchh.) Résel von Rosenhof, A. J., 1755. Der monatlich-herausgegebenen Insecten- Belustiqung. 3 : 585-596. Vier fiinf und Sechs und Neunzigste Supplements- tabelle. Der gesellige. keulenférmige Affterpolyp. Tab. XCTV. XCV und XCVI. Schrank, F. von P. von., 1802. Briefe naturhistorische. physikalische und dkonomische Inhalts an Nau. (Krlangen.) Schrank. F. von P. von.. 1808. Fauna boica, 30. 2. (Niirnberg.) Sherborn. C.D... 1931. Inder Animalinm, pt. 25. (London. British Museum.) Stein. FL. 1867. Der Organismus der Infusionstlvere. 1. Abthteilung. (Leipzig, Engelmann.) Trembley, Abraham, 1745. Observations upon several newly discovered species of freshwater Polypi. Philosophical Transactions. London. 43 (Numb. 474) : 169-183. REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAME “STENTOR” OKEN, 1815 (CLASS CILIOPHORA, SUB- CLASS CILIATA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)261) In correspondence relating to the name Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, Cal., U.S.A.) drew my attention to the fact that the name universally applied to the well-known genus of Ciliates known as Stentor was invalid and suggested that the problems involved should be studied by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as a preliminary to name Stentor Oken, 1815, being placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I at once asked Professor Kirby to prepare a statement of the case for con- : § ! : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 sideration by the Commission, and this he kindly undertook to do at the first opportunity. The investigation has proved unexpectedly complicated, for it was found not only that the generic name Stentor Oken is invalid, being a junior homonym of the name Stentor St. Hilaire, 1812 (as was already known). but also that no effective type selection had apparently ever been made for the genus Stentor Oken and further that the identity of the only originally included species (Stentor solitarius Oken, 1815) that could be regarded as being a member of the genus as at present universally understood was open to doubt. All of these questions are dealt with fully in the paper prepared by Professor Kirby, which is now laid before the Commission for consideration. 2. In submitting this paper, Professor Kirby deliberately stopped short of formulating concrete proposals for the consideration of the Commission. asking me, as Secretary to the Commission. to undertake this task. This | consented to do and the present Report has accordingly been prepared for the consideration of the Commission. When the present Report was in draft. I submitted it to Professor Kirby. who notified me that he was in agreement with the conclusions and recommendations now submitted. 3. In approaching the present task, I started with the premise that in the case of a name such as Stentor Oken every responsible zoologist would recognise how grave would be the confusion if it were found necessary to reject that name for purely technical nomenclatorial reasons and would strongly support the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to prevent so diastrous a result. In the following paragraphs I deal briefly with each of the three problems which. as Professor Kirby explained. arise in the present case. 4. On the measures necessary to provide availability for the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815: The first step necessary in any plan to preserve the current use of the generic name Stentor would be the suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the older generic name Stentor St. Hilaire, 1812 ; no possible objection could be raised to this course, since, as Professor Kirby pointed out, the name Stentor St. Hilaire is a name that was applied to a genus of monkeys which has at least two older available names. Once St. Hilaire’s Stentor had been removed from the field in this way, the name Stentor Oken, 1815, would cease to be invalid, as the junior homonym of another generic name. The next question to be considered is whether Oken, in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature (as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25) and therefore whether the name Stentor Oken is an available name. On this general subject I have submitted a Report (Z.N. (S.)153) to¥ the Commission in accordance with a request addressed to me by it at its Paris Session, in which I reach the conclusion that Oken did not, in the Lehrbuch, satisfy the provision cited above and therefore that new names published in the Lehrbuch did not acquire any rights under the Law of Priority. At the same time I draw attention to the fact that, if the Commission accept the conclusion reached in my Report, the names in the Lehrbuch will fall to be dealt with under the special procedure laid down by the Thirteenth *See pp-198—201 of the present volume, 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature International Congress of Zoology for the purpose of validating with the utmost (despatch generic names of importance that might in such cases be found to he invalid (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4: 63-66). Clearly the name Stentor Oken, 1815, would come under this heading and I accordingly recommend that, simultaneously with the adoption of my Report on the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch, the name Stentor Oken should be validated under the Plenary Powers. 5. Certain old generic names associated with the Stentor problem : Professor Kirby pointed out that the name Linza Schrank, 1802, a name which has never been used, is a potential danger to the name Stentor Oken, since no type species has ever been selected for Schrank’s genus and some of the species originally included in it are stentorids. I fully support, therefore, the con- clusion reached by Professor Kirby that this name should now be suppressed under the Plenary Powers and thus rendered incapable of causing confusion in the literature. Similarly, I support Professor Kirby’s conclusion that the long-forgotten name Eclissa Modeer, 1790, and its variant Heclissa Schrank, 1802. should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. 6. On the type species of the genus Stentor Oken, 1815: As already noted in the present Report, no nominal species appears ever to have been validly selected to be the type species of the genus Stentor Oken, 1815; the selection of a type species is naturally an indispensable preliminary to the definition of the genus. Professor Kirby pointed out that Stentor solitarius Oken, 1815 is the only originally included species, the selection of which as the type species could secure the continued use of the name Sfenfor in its accustomed sense, but that there are substantial reasons which would render the selection of this species as the type species open to strong objection. In the first place, it must be noted that the name Stentor solitarius Oken was not based upon a description by Oken of a new species, but was published as a nom. nov. pro the species referred to by Miiller (O.F.) (1773) as Vorticella stentorea. Next, we have to note that Miiller never published this name as a new name; what he did was to place in the genus Vorticella the species which Linnaeus in 1758 had named Hydra stentoria (a name which in 1767 Linnaeus himself emended to stentorea). Thus, the identity of Oken’s Stentor solitarius turns entirely upon the identity of the species Hydra stentoria Linnaeus. Professor Kirby examined the taxonomic questions involved and reached the conclusion that, prior to Ehrenberg’s work, and, in particular, his Die Infusionsthierchen ot 1838, it is impossible to identify with certainty to what species should be applied to names published for colourless stentorids. It was to overcome these difficulties that (as explained in Professor Kirby’s paper) I suggested (in litt.) that the best course would be for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to secure that Ehrenberg’s figure for Stentor miilleri Ehrenberg, 1832, should be taken to define the nominal species, to be designated as the type species of Stentor Oken. The advantage of this course lies in the fact that Khrenberg’s name Stentor miillert is a substitute name for Miiller’s Vorticella stentoria, which (as already explained) is objectively identical with Oken’s Stentor solitarius. This suggestion commended itself to Professor Kirby and is included in the proposal submitted at the close of the present Report. It is naturally an essential part of that plan that the specific name miillert Ehrenberg Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 should be preserved for the species to which it is always applied. Accordingly it is proposed not only that the specific name stentorra Linnaeus, 1758 (and its emendation stentorea Linnaeus, 1767), both being specific names for species which cannot be certainly identified, should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, but also that the specific name solitarius Oken should be suppressed for similar reasons. The suppression of nomina dubia, when their clarification might give rise to confusion, is clearly the best means of promoting stability in nomenclature and of avoiding confusion. If these names are disposed of in this way, it will be necessary to designate some other nominal species to be the type species of the genus Stentor Oken. Clearly, the most appropriate choice would be the nominal species Stentor miilleri Ehrenberg, 1832, as defined by the description and figures published by that author in 1838. 7. The settlement of the Stentor problem on the foregoing lines would provide valid force for the current use of that name, without causing the slightest inconvenience or difficulty in any other field. I accordingly recommend the foregoing solution to the favourable consideration of the Commission. The detailed action recommended is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not of the Law of Homonymy the under-mentioned generic names :- (i) Helissa Modeer, 1790 ; (ul) Hechssa Schrank, 1802 ; (ii) Lanza Schrank, 1802 ; (b) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Stentor St. Hilaire, 1812 : (c) to validate the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (in the event of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte being declared unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes) : (d) to suppress the under-mentioned specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority :— (i) stentoria Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Hydra stentoria) ; (ii) stentorea (emend. of stentoria) Linnaeus, 1767 (as published in the binominal combination Hydra stentorea) ; (iii) solitarius Oken, 1815 (as published in the binominal com- bination Stentor solitarius) ; (e) to direct that the name Stentor miilleri Ehrenberg, 1832, is to be interpreted by reference to the description and figures published therefor by Ehrenberg in 1838 (Die Infusionsth. : 262) ; (f) to designate Stentor miilleri Ehrenberg, 1832, as defined in (e) above, to be the type species of Stentor Oken, 1815 ; 218 Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the name Stentor Oken, 1815 (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) (f) above: Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg. 1832, as defined under the Plenary Powers under (e) above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Loology :— (x) the four generic names proposed under (1) (a) above to be sup- pressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) the name Stentor St. Hilaire, 1812. proposed under (1) (b) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers : (c) the under-mentioned generic names which are junior objective synonyms of Stentor Oken, 1815 :- (1) Tubaria Thienemann. 1828 : (11) Stenforella Reichenbach. 1828 : (4) to place the specific name mueller? Ehrenberg. 1832. as published in the binominal combination Stentor muelleri, as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1) (e) above, on the Official Lnst of Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the three specific names specified in (1) (d) above. as there proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE QUESTION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF “ ANCILLA” LAMARCK, 1799 (CLASS GASTROPODA) By KATHERINE V. W. PALMER (Paleontological Research Institution. Ithaca. N.Y. U S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)170) Aneilla was proposed by Lamarck. 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1: 70. Following the description of the genus is ‘‘ Volute . . . Martini conch. 2, p. 359, t. 65, f. 722-724.” The species is not cited by name by Lamarck. but it had been named by Gmelin. 1792, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 6: 3467. Voluta ampla .. . Volute . . . Martini 2. t. 65, fig. 722-724 (the same reference as that of Lamarck). The species is still regarded as valid. Does not the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 the n become Voluta ampla Gmelin. 1792, by monotypy ? ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF “ ANCILLA ” LAMARCK, 1799 (CLASS GASTROPODA), A GENUS ESTABLISHED WITH NO CITED NOMINAL SPECIES By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G.. C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Loological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)170) When in 1937 Mrs. Katherine Palmer submitted her application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a ruling on the question of the type species of the genus Ancilla Lamarck, 1799, there existed no express provision in the Régles on the procedure to be followed in deter- mining the type species of a genus, to which species had been referred by the original author of the generic name but none of those species had on that oceasion been cited under a binominal name. The only guide then available 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was the feeble and uncertain light thrown by the Ruling given in Opinion 46 (1912, Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 104-107). 2. At Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, on the recommendation of the International Commission, substituted for the ambiguous provisions, of Opinion 46 a provision under which, in the case of a nominal genus established without any nominal species as being referable thereto, the nominal species first assigned to the genus by a subsequent author is, or are, to be treated as the sole species originally included in the genus ; where only one such species is cited by the first subsequent author that species is the type species by monotypy ; where two or more such species are so cited, the type species of the genus is whichever of those species is first so selected by a subsequent author acting under Rule (g) in Article 30 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 159-160, 346). It is in the light of this provision therefore that it is necessary to examine the problem submitted by Mrs. Palmer. 3. Following the publication of the Paris decision referred to above, | applied (18th March 1951) to Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) for information on the question of what was the first nominal species to be assigned to the genus Ancilla Lamarck. Dr. Cox replied on the following day as follows :— ‘This question seems easily settled. The first nominal species assigned to Ancilla was Ancilla cinnamomea Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 73), founded on Martini, Conch. 2, t. 65, fig. 731. This is therefore the type species by monotypy. It is a Recent Indo-Pacific species belonging to the same group as Voluta ampla Gmelin, so that the change in type-species has no effect on nomenclature. 4. When as in the present case the Congress clarifies a hitherto obscure provision in the Régles, there is always a danger that in individual cases the application of the revised provision will lead to a disturbance of existing nomenclatorial practice sufficiently serious to call for remedial action under the Plenary Powers. In the present case however it appears from the informa- tion furnished by Dr. Cox that, although the application of the Paris provision will lead to a change in the type species of the genus Ancilla Lamarck, the species (Ancilla cinnamomea Lamarck) which becomes the type species under the foregoing provision is considered by specialists to be congeneric with the species (Voluta ampla Gmelin, 1792) referred to, but not cited by name, by Lamarck when he established the nominal genus Ancilla. On the available evidence, therefore, there does not appear to be any ground for anticipating difficulties arising from the application of the Paris provision in this case. 5. In the circumstances, it appears that the action called for in answer to the question raised by Mrs. Palmer is a ruling by the Commission :—(1) stating that under the Reégles, as revised by the Paris Congress, Ancilla cinna- momea Lamarck, 1801, is the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799, by mono- typy; (2) placing the generic name Ancilla Lamarck, 1799, with the above species as type species, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) placing the specific name cinnamomea Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Ancilla cinnamomea, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. —- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE GENERIC NAME “ MELANARGIA” MEIGEN, 1828, BY SUPPRESSING THE NAME “ AGAPETES ” BILL- BERG, 1820 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By JIRL PACLT (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)708) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the name Agapetes Billberg, 1820. thereby validating the well- known name Melanargia Meigen, 1828. for the Palaearctic genus of SATYRIDAE which has borne this name continuously ever since its publication 125 years ago. The facts of this case are set out below. 2. The first name given to this genus was Arge Hiibner, [1819] (Ver:. bek. Schmett. (4): 60), but this name was invalid, being a junior homonym of Arge Schrank, 1802 (Faun. boica 2 (2) : 209). 3. A year later the name Agapetes Billberg, 1820 (Hnum. Lns.: 78) was published in a catalogue of the butterflies contained in Billberg’s collection ; no generic diagnosis was given, the only indication given by Billberg as to how he interpreted this genus being the citation of the names of two species now recognised as being congeneric and both placed by current authors in the genus Melanargia Meigen, 1828 (see paragraph 4 below). The two species so cited were: Pagilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 474) ; Papilio lachesis Hiibner, 1790 (Beitr. Schmett. 2 (3): 70, pl. 3, figs. P.1, 23). Of these species the former was selected as the type species of this genus by Seudder in 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 104). 4. The name which the present application is concerned to save, Melanargia Meigen was published in 1828 (Syst. Beschr. europ. Schmett. 1 (3) : 97), where it was applied to Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758, and to a number of its European alhes. Meigen did not designate a type species for this genus, but Kirby in 1894 (a Allen’s Nat. Inbr., Handbook Lepidoptera 1 Butt. 1 : 240) selected Papilio galathea Linnaeus to be its type species. 5. With the exception of a few authors who at one time erroneously applied the name Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (now placed on the Official List of Generic Names tn Zoology with Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], as type species) to this genus, all subsequent workers have, with a few very recent exceptions, called this genus by the name Melanargia Meigen. Further, up to 1948 they were perfectly correct in so doing, for it was not until that year that the International Congress of Zoology amended the definition of the expression “ indication ” as used in Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Reégles in such a way as to accord availability to the names of genera established without any verbal diagnosis and distinguished only by the citation thereunder of the names of previously established nominal species (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78-80). As the purpose of this change was to promote stability and uniformity in nomenclature by validating such of the names belonging to this class as were in general use, it must certainly be concluded conversely that it was intended also to give Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 9, Pt. 7. May, 1954. PURCHASED 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature relief in any case such as the present where the grant of this concession would have an exactly opposite result, that is, where it would itself directly contribute to instability and confusion. The present application is accordingly submitted as falling directly within the intention of the arrangements contemplated at the time when Article 25 of the Regles was modified in the manner described above. 6. The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is now asked to take is that it should :—- (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name dgapeles Billberg, 1820, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the generic name Melanargia Meigen, 1828 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species. by selection by Kirby (1894) : Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ¢ (3) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Last of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) galathea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papileo galathea (specific name of type species of Melanargia Meigen, 1828) : (b) lachesis Hiibner, 1790, as published in the combination Papilio lachesis : (4) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— («) Arge Hiibner, [1819] (invalid junior homonym of Arge Schrank, 1802) ; (b) Agapetes Billberg, 1820, as proposed, under (1) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. SUPPORT FOR DR. J. PACLT’S PROPOSAL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE GENERIC NAME « AGAPETES” BILLBERG, 1820 (CLASSINSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By N. D. RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)708) (Letter dated 7th November 1952) lL am interested to learn that Dr. Paclt has suggested to the Commission that they should use their Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Agapetes Billberg. As a lepidopterist, | am entirely in favour of this. This name has crept into the literature in a somewhat furtive way during the last quarter of a century, and its suppression would formally re-establish the much better known generic name Melanargia. All students of the Palaearctic Rhopalocera will, I am sure, be everlastingly grateful. The case seems to be a perfectly straightforward one in which only by the use of the Plenary Powers can a clear-cut decision be reached. a d CONTENTS OF THE PRESENT PART (continued from front wrapper) Report on the status of new names published in Oken [1815-1816], Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. By Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission .. ae ea aa 8 ee Appendix 1. By the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood i gueeiiels Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) Appendix 2. By Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural Histr), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.).. : Appendix 3. By Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F. CONGR, Argan Appendix 4. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott Latter Museum Nase History), London) .. On the need for validating the name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Cilio- phora) for use in its accustomed sense. By Harold sey (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) + Report on the status of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora, Sub-Class Ciliata). By Francis Easing. see to the International Commission ; Pe Request for a Ruling on the question of the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda). By Katherine V. W. Palmer (Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) «a On the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda), a genus established with no cited nominal species. By Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission ys Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Melan- argia Meigen, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), by sup- pressing the name Scie iia 1820. ee ae Paclt ee Czechoslovakia) .. Ne Support for Dr. J. Paclt’s proposal for the suppression of the generic name Agapetes Billberg, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) a Printed by Metchim & Son Limited, 8 Storey’s Gate, London, S.W.le VOLUME 9. Part 8 47 ARAW Af EA llth May 1954 s4 pp. 223-254 PU ROL IAS ED THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 at CONTENTS : ot : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page = _ Date of commencement by the International Commission on oi Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications hace in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 223 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its es Powers in certain cases de : 224 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1954 Price Twelve Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) s INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, — Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) ; Professor Béla Hanké (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Part 8 (pp. 223-254) 11th May 1954 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission may start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (Vol. 9, Part 8) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secre- tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 1. Novice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers, is involved in appli- cations published in the present Part of the Badlletin of Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the following names :— (1) Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, proposed validation of the following six names published in, for genera of the Order Diptera: Stratiomys, Stomoays, Volucella, Nemotelus, Scatopse, Bibio (Z.N.(S.)710) ; (2) Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Cl. Amphibia), proposed suppression of (Z.N.(S.)594) ; (3) Ammonites mammillatus Schlothenm, 1813, proposed designation of a neotype for, and Douwvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893 (Cl. Cepha- lopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of a type species for (Z.N.(8.)631). 2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin : other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 3. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56) corresponding Notices have been sent to the serial publications Nature and Science. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. llth May 1954 lai bo to or Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAMES IN THE ORDER DIPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) BY MEIGEN PUBLISHED IN 1800 IN THE “ NOU- VELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX AILES ” By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)191) (Enclosure to letter dated 9th October 1952) Following the publication on 15th April 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencel. 6: 131-141) of my paper entitled “ Meigen, 1800: A proposal for stability and uniformity,’ I distributed separates of that paper to 370 publishing dipterists throughout the world, together with a Questionnaire (annexed to the present paper as Appendix 1) designed to elicit their views on the action which it was desirable should be taken on the Meigen problem and a covering “‘ statement ”’ (annexed to the present paper as Appendix 2). The above documents were mailed in May 1952. At the time of this summary (October 9th 1952), replies had been received from 188 or 51 per cent. In order to show in a general way the distribution of the questionnaires and replies, seven divisions were adopted, as indicated in Table 1 and succeeding tables. The answers to questions one to five are summarised below in Tables 2 and 3. For all questions there were some blanks, and a few replies that could not readily be entered in the summaries. These non-classifiable answers, scattered throughout the geographical divisions, totalled 17 on the first question, 25 on the second, 24 on the third, 5 on the fourth, and 18 on the fifth. Question 6 is a general question which is not directly pertinent to the application and has been summarised separately. The summary is of course based only on those who replied specifically to the questionnaire, either by its return or by a letter relating to it. Of those who did not reply, some are known to use and favour the 1803 names and some the 1800 names. For many others, their present usage or preference is unknown to me. One can only assume that the reactions in the half that did not reply do not differ materially from those in the half that did. ° - Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 9, Pt. 8. May, 1954. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatwre Table 1. Distribution of Questionnaires and Replies Number Number of | Per Cent. Country or Region Sent Replies Replies United States* and Canada ae 112 71 63 Latin Americat .. i - 49 19 39 Great Britain 4] 24 59 Continental Europe? ¥ bid sac Ae 42 dd Africa ie MB wi rs 25 12 48 Asia§ ve a at Iss 30 10 33 Australasia ae a he 18 10 56 Totals... a 370 188 51 * Including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Panama Canal Zone. Fifteen were sent to Canada, with nine replies ; balance to United States and its possessions. 7 Questionnaires to 12 countries, the largest numbers to Brazil (26), Argentine (5) and Venezuela (5). ¢ Questionnaires to 17 countries, with greatest numbers to Germany (18), France (12), Netherlands and Belgium (21), and Scandinavia (15). Replies from 12 countries, with greatest numbers from Germany (14), Netherlands and Belgium (8), and Seandinavia (5). § Including the Philippines. — a ioe | | 6 Ze 81 LOT OL 6P PIL 08 ze 6c" = Beoy, pt ae eee ee ee | i = = = 6 O0T = 6 8L z bl oe rere | ’ ! 1 z = z 09 g wie ¢ 6 bi 5 pee oan & i Sees I Se L 06 I 6 ZB g Sane ei RR ei 7 a Sie L ia LI 6c 81 0G a ¢ ge f° 71 adorn pequeuru09 | on a lee 58 — = 0% 001 = ie G6 I Oe \°) .** aegeter aan = ipa = e 91 ¥8 ¢ Or 18 z a volo Wye it x | I ‘ar p 9¢ 6¢ GZ 9€ GL LI 1g UpeUe,) PUL soyEIg POHUL) | = a.) Sariea ads Ce oe eee ei ge — ot Ala ae rt ica 66 |e ees. Seal an eee | = gost | 0081 | oO lm OF 04 00st | S08I os | 008T | €08T cost | OOSt | Ost | Sx oN SOX \ imate: eee as ee. eae dINOG | asueyqy esuey) ON 4a) Jog “quay Jeg | | ¢ uworysent) Zz UoTsen?) ] worsen?) | (z xtpueddy) axzreuuorjsang? ul ¢ 0} [ suotjseng) 0} serjdey yo AreuruIng 7 CLA R Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 228 8¢ €1T f worsen?) U0 ON JON POM | asuvyD pom | ION 8 81 G OL OL LY PROM, esueyy PROM f Uolsen’) U0 sox g worsen?) G8 86 GcT OOT ns Or 8L G L 6 I IT L9 I 96 OOT = VG 68 G AT 98 Or 09 ex [oon | ox “quay Jeg F uorsen’y (penunuod) Z e194" S[BJO], RISBBIISNY BIsy i ld odomy [eyueUTyUO”D WIG ABAxS) BOLIOUry U4e'T epeury pus so4eqg peqtuQ aoInog LL <<_ =~. — oe Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE QUESTIONS Question 1: Four-fifths (80 per cent.) of the 171 who replied to this question indicated that their special fields of research involve the disputed Meigen 1800 names, and they may therefore be presumed to be familiar with and concerned with the controversy. Still others are also directly involved, of course, because they use the names in teaching or in identification services, as was brought out in questions 2(b) and 2(c). Question 2: Of the total of 163 replies to this question, 114 or 70 per cent. stated that they now use the 1803 names, and 49 or 30 per cent. the 1800 names. It is interesting to note that in the two largest divisions, the United States and Canada (61 replies) and Continental Europe (38 replies), the per cent. of authors using 1803 names is a little over half (59 and 53 per cent., respectively). On the other hand, the combined figures for the rest of the world show 64 replies to this question. with 58 or 91 per cent. indicating 1803 usage. Question 3: (Of the 166 replies, 125 showed no change in usage (LO7 with 1803 usage, [8 with 1800 usage). Thirty-two authors (22 of them in the United States and Canada) indicated that they had changed from 1803 to 1800, all of those in the United States and Canada changing after 1937 and nine of these after 1945. However, it should be noted that one of the nine changed back to 1803 names after one year, and another used 1800 names in one paper in 1952 through editorial policy rather than personal preference. Nine authors had changed from 1800 to 1803, at least six of these changing since 1945. Question 4: This key question, on approval or disapproval of the applica- tion to suppress the 1800 paper, elicited 183 replies. 155 (85 per cent.) supported the proposal, and 28 (15 per cent.) opposed it. It may be of interest to compare the replies with those to the second question, as follows : Table 3. Comparison of Replies received to Question 2 and Question 4 respectively Question 2 Question 4 Source F oad ]a0 Tie Per cent. RUbUn koe Per cent. 1803 | 1800 | 1803 Yes No Yes United States and Canada| 36 25 59 60 10 86 Continental Europe ..| 20 18 53 26 13 67 The rest of the world ..| 58 6 91 69 5 93 Totals ..|114 | 49 | 70 | 155 | 28 | 86 Thus, in the two geographical] divisions in which 1803 and 1800 usages are closest, 59 per cent. and 53 per cent. of the workers currently are using the 1803 names, but 86 per cent, and 67 per cent., respectively, support the proposal 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the 1800 paper. This willingness on the part of a number of workers to vote against their own current usage may reflect a desire to settle the question in the direction of the predominant usage (as reported in my application), a willingness to go along with the majority, or a willingness to change because ‘ their own change to 1800 usage was so recent that no great amount of literature has resulted and no confirmed habit has been fixed. In the rest of the world, with 91 per cent. 1803 usage, the proposal is supported by 93 per cent. of the replies. Question 5: There were 169 replies to this question, 141 by those who answered Question 4 in the affirmative and 28 by those who answered it in the negative. Of the 141 affirmative votes on the proposal, 113 or 80 per cent. would nevertheless agree to adopt the 1800 names if the Commission decided in their favour. Twenty-eight (20 per cent.) said they would not change. Of the 28 negative votes on the proposal, 24 (86 per cent.) would change to the 1803 names if the Commission decided in their favour, while 4 (14 per cent.) would not change. Thus on each side the percentage of those who would not change is not greatly different. It is indeed unfortunate that some workers decline to follow the Commission and majority opinion, whichever way these might go, for it means that we shall continue to have a certain amount of annoying and senseless confusion. Percent- agewise, both sides are about the same; numerically, those who oppose the proposal and would refuse to change are fewer in number (4). In a practical sense, therefore, suppression of the 1800 paper would result in less confusion in the sense of leaving fewer authors as exceptions to the majority practice. On the other hand, a number of the “ 1803” supporters who will not change are old or retired, and perhaps refusal to change should not be given too much weight in considering the best step for the future. AUTHORS’ COMMENTS Most authors replied to the questionnaire without comment. Among those who did comment, there were a number of enthusiastic expressions of appro- bation, of pleasure at a prospect of resolving the confusion, and of hope that the conflicting usage in Diptera could be ended, one way or the other. There were also several comments in some detail from supporters of the 1800 names who opposed the application, and almost all of these are thoughtful, considered statements of general principle which can be commended, and which should be given their due consideration by the International Commission, even though they represent a minority vote in this survey. Appendices The names and addresses of all the dipterists who, in replying to the Question- naire, stated (a ) that they were in favor of the proposed suppression of the “ Meigen 1800 ” names and (5) that they were opposed to the foregoing proposal are given in Appendix 3 in Lists A and B respectively. In the same Appendix there is given in List C particulars of those authors who, in reply to Question 3 ~ of the Questionnaire, stated that at one time or another they had changed their usage as between the “ 1800” and “ 1803’ names respectively. In Appendix 4 a summary is given of the reactions of dipterists to changing family names only when type genera are found to be homonyms (Question 6). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 APPENDIX 1 Text of Questionnaire issued in May 1952 QUESTIONNAIRE ON MEIGEN 1800 May 1952 The enclosed proposal is at once a comment on several individual cases already published (Bull. zool. Nomen.) and an all-inclusive counter-proposal. You are earnestly requested and urged to answer the questions below and to send this page as soon as possible to Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky, Bureau of Entomology & Plant Quarantine, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C., who has undertaken, at the request of Secretary Hemming, to assemble and tabulate the replies for the Commission. It is assumed that your name may be listed in the summary. Any comments you wish to make may also be quoted unless you request otherwise. If any dipterists do not receive this material. through unfortunate oversight or unknown address, copies may be had from Mr. Sabrosky. |. Do your special fields of research involve disputed Meigen 1800 names (including the family names affected) ?............ (Yes or No.) (Note: If your answer is No, you may still be interested in later questions.) 2. Which do you now use, the 1800 or the 1803 names ? (a) In publishng.......... (1800 or 1803 2?) (Answer any or all ques- (Opin tenenihe Woes) ee. (1800 or 1803 7) tions as appropriate.) (c) In identification or other services............ (1800 or 1803 7) 3. If you have changed usage durig your professional career, which way did you change and when............ (1800 to 1803) x (1803 to 1800) 2: -< +" +5 0777 4. Do you vote for the present proposal to suppress the Meigen 1800 paper ? Pt iinients rs: (Yes or No). 5. (a) If your answer to 4 is No, would you nevertheless change to the 1803 names, if the Commission should decide in their favour because of pre- ponderant literature, and if a significant majority of dipterists favour them ? odes Ee (Yes or No). (>) If your answer to 4 is Yes, would you nevertheless agree to adopt the 1800 . names if the Commission should decide in their favour after considering the (Yes or No). 6. A general question, whose solution would remove one objection to 1800 names, especially among teachers: Would you favour a general rule to require changing a family name only when the type genus is found to be a homonym, and not when it becomes a synonym ?............ (Yes or No). (Example: Larvaevora 1800 could be accepted, with Tachina 1803 in synonymy, but the family name Tachinidae would not need to be changed.) SOK APRE DB CHCA KCK OREO +H ERE ®= Signature. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDIX 2 Statement distributed with the Questionnaire reproduced in Appendix 1 I have been concerned for many years with the conflicting usage of the Meigen names in Diptera, the nuisance of explaining it to students, non- dipterists, economic entomologists, and zoologists, and the sterility and futility of the seemingly endless discussions about it. As far as the names themselves are concerned (and I have used both sets of names at various periods of my work), I am not a protagonist for either 1800 or 1803 names; rather, and above all, I wish the dispute settled once and for all, and be done with it. Whatever the solution may be, let us adopt it. If 1800, then let all change to those names promptly and completely, and achieve respectable stability and uniformity in the eyes of fellow entomologists and zoologists and biologists. If 1803, let us equally manfully change to those names to the same admirable ends. In other words, let us dipterists put our house in order ! Some may complain that the Commission has already passed upon a similar application, after a questionnaire conducted in 1932 by F. W. Edwards. However, that questionnaire showed that of the eighty-eight dipterists who replied to it (“including a very high percentage of the working dipterists of the world”), 87 per cent. were opposed to the 1800 names, but despite that fact the ad hoc committee of the Entomological Congress at Paris (1932) voted four to two (exactly in line with the way the individual members of the committee voted on the questionnaire !) in favour of a contrary resolution that “ This section is of the opinion that more confusion would result by now rejecting the generic names” of Meigen 1800 “than by retaining them,” and they therefore recommended their definite adoption. This resolution was later confirmed by the Congress. At Madrid in 1935, on a crowded agenda, the matter was passed on to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The latter had presented to it, in effect, a proposal that the 1800 names be adopted, coming from the Entomological Congress, to whose recommendations the I.C.Z.N. customarily gives great weight. This history shows clearly the danger of a local or prejudiced majority— a danger that is inherent in all actions taken by International Congresses, for in 1932 the resolution of the Paris Congress could not have been supported by any evidence. It flatly contradicted the survey made by Edwards among working dipterists, and at that date, twenty years ago, it had no basis in usage in the literature. Kertesz and Coquillett, two early supporters of the 1800 names, had died too soon after 1908 to leave much literature or to influence many workers ; others such as Kieffer and Townsend had changed back from 1800 to 1803 names ; Lindner’s great series was less than a decade old, having begun in 1923; the ‘‘ Faune de France” series had begun in 1924, but up to 1932, of the seven volumes that involved the disputed names, six used the 1803 names; the extensive American literature was overwhelmingly 1803, for Coquillett had died in 1910, E. P. Felt’s activity was limited to one family, and J. M. Aldrich, a staunch 1803 advocate, dominated the American scene ; and finally, the total amount of 1800 usage, measured against the backdrop of all literature from 1803 to 1908, and the bulk of that from 1908 to 1932 was insignificant, ee Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature 233 One important point made by 1800 advocates is that to make this exception would weaken further the Law of Priority and would lower the bars for more and more exceptions. This argument is very appealing. However, the history of the International Commission shows so many exceptions already that it is difficult to see how this one case by itself can be regarded as “ lowering the bars.” Furthermore, it is not my intention, and I hope that the case will not be so used by others, to use it as a precedent for making further exceptions in individual cases. Rather, because the Meigen 1800 paper is so far-reaching and important, and has been such a béte notre in Diptera, I believe that it should be considered as a case by itself, completely without prejudice to individual situations which are so often of such minor importance or limited application that the Law of Priority should be used without hesitation. If my application is used as a precedent in any way, it should be this: Any application should furnish full documentation and evidence of consequence, and not merely echo the cliché that greater confusion than uniformity would result if a certain decision were not made. I can also report the results of a survey of recent usage in papers reported in the latest volume (1951) of the Bibliography of Agriculture. This adds one year to the survey reported in Table 2 of my paper. Of ninety-one taxonomic publications, 62 per cent. used 1803 names ; of thirty-nine non- taxonomic, 82 per cent. used 1803: the totals: 130 papers, 68 per cent. with 1803 names. Of the ninety-seven authors of these 1930 papers, 72 per cent. used 1803 names. In each column, this represents a decrease from 1950, though in some cases slight. There are several points here: It was a year of considerable activity by such 1800 authors as D. E. Hardy and W. W. Wirth, and of little activity by such 1803 authors as C. P. Alexander and H. Oldroyd ; the percentage of taxonomic papers has fluctuated since 1939 (Table 2), probably reflecting the relative activity of various authors; the percentage of authors using 1803 names shows a steady decline since 1939, though the difference between 1939 and 1952 is stil] slight. One might argue interminably about significance and trends and time element ; the fact remains that the percentages of 1803 usage are still high. Furthermore, these refer largely to current periodical literature, and one must still consider the high proportion of 1803 usage represented in the major works (Table 1). Reprints of the enclosed application were furnished through the courtesy of Secretary Hemming and the International Trust for Zoological Nomen- clature, in order to make the circularisation of interested persons as complete and far-reaching as possible. Curtis W. Sabrosky 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDIX 3 Names and addresses of dipterists replying to the Questionnaire A. REPLIES IN FAVOUR OF THE PROPOSAL THAT THE MEIGEN “ 1800” NAMES SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED United States and Canada Alexander, C. P., U. of Mass., Amherst, Mass. Arnaud, Paul H., Jr., 60 Woodrow St., Redwood City, Calif. Belkin, J. N., U. of California, Los Angeles, Calif. Bellamy, R. E., U.S. Public Health Service, Bakersfield, Calif. Bequaert, J., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. Blanton, F. 8., Ft. Clayton, Panama Canal Zone Bohart, Geo. E., U.S. Bureau Ent. & Plant Quar., Logan, Utah Bohart, R. M., Univ. of California, Davis, Calif. Breland, O. P., Univ. of Texas, Austin, Texas Brookman, Bernard, U.S. Public Health Service, Bakersfield, Calif. Brooks, A. R., Dominion Ent. Lab., Saskatoon, Sask., Canada Brues, C. T., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. (retired) Camras, Sidney, 4407 N. Milwaukee Ave., Chicago, Ill. Coher, E. I., Univ. of Massachusetts,. Amherst, Mass. Cole, Frank R., P.O. Box 6, Redlands, Calif. Curran, C. H., American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. Dalmat, H. T., U.S. Public Health Service, Guatemala City, Guatemala Davies, D. M., McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ont., Canada Dodge, H. R., U.S. Public Health Service, Chamblee, Georgia Fairchild, G. B., Gorgas Memorial Lab., Ancon, Panama Canal Zone Ferris, G. F., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. Fluke, C. L., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. Freeborn, 8. B., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. Frick, K. E., Irrigation Experiment Station, Prosser, Wash. Hall, D. G., U.S. Bureau of Ent. & Plant Quar., Washington, D.C. Hull, F. M., Univ. of Mississippi, University, Miss. James, M. T., Washington State College, Pullman, Wash. Johannsen, O. A., Cornell Univ. (retired), Ithaca, N.Y. King, W. V., U.S. Bureau of Ent. & Plant Quar., Orlando, Fla. Komp, W. H. W., U.S. Public Health Service, Bethesda, Md. Laffoon, J. L., Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa Malloch, J. R., P.O. Box 1925, Tampa, Fla. (retired) Martin, Charles H., Oregon State College, Corvallis, Ore. Matheson, R., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. (retired) Middlekauff, W. W., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. Nicholson, H. P., 5020 Hildon Road, Chamblee, Georgia Painter, R. H., Kansas State College, Manhattan, Kans. Patterson, J. T., Univ. of Texas, Austin, Texas Philip, C. B., U.S. Public Health Service, Hamilton, Mont. Pritchard, A. E., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Calif. Quate, L. M., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr. Rapp, W. F., Jr., Doane College, Crete, Nebr. Reinhard, H. J., Texas A & M College, College Station, Texas Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 Roback, 8. 8., Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Penn. Rogers, J. 8., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Rozeboom, L. E., Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Md. Sabrosky, C. W., U.S. Bureau of Ent. & Plant Quar., Washington, D.C. Saunders, L. G., Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada Schlinger, E. I., Univ. of California, Davis, Calif. Shaw, F. R., Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. Snyder, F. M., 5604 Woodmont Ave., Baltimore, Md. Spencer, G. J., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Steyskal, G. C., 27253 West River Road, Grosse Isle, Mich. Strickland, E. H., Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Sturtevant, A. H., California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. Thompson, W. R., Commonwealth Bureau of Biological Control, Ottawa, Ont., Canada Weems, H. V.. Jr., Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio Wenzel, R. L., Chicago Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Ill. West, L. 8., Northern Michigan College of Education, Marquette, Michigan Wheeler, M. R., Univ. of Texas, Austin, Texas Zimmerman, E. C., Sugar Planters’ Assn. Experiment Station, Honolulu, Hawaii Latin America d’Andretta, M. A. Vulcano, Dept. de Zoologia, Sec. de Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brazil Anduze, Pablo J., Museo de Ciencias Naturales, Caracas, Venezuela Barretto, M. P., Univ. de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil Carrera, Messias, Dept. Zool., Sec. de Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brazil Correa, R. R., Univ. de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil Cortés, P. Ratl, Ministerio de Agricultura, Santiago, Chile Fernandez-Yepez, F., Division de Entomologia, Maracay, Est. Aragua, Venezuela Fonseca, J. Pinto da, Institute Biologico, Sao Paulo, Brazil Forattini, O. P., Univ. de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil Galvao, A. L. Ayrosa, Univ. de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil Lane, John, Univ. de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil Lima, A. da Costa, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Martinez Palacios, A., Instituto de Salubridad y Enfermedades Tropicales, Mexico, D.F., Mexico . Senior-White, R. A., Malaria Division, Port of Spain, Trinidad Stuardo, Carlos, Casilla 4019, Santiago, Chile Vargas, Luis, Instituto de Salubridad y Enfermedades Tropicales, Mexico, _ D.F., Mexico Wygodzinsky, Petr, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Tucuman, Argentina Great Britain Andrews, H. W., Christchurch, Hants., England Barnes, H. F., Rothamsted Experiment Station, Harpenden, Herts., England 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Buxton, P. A., London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England Christophers, Sir R., The Museums, Cambridge, England Clements, A. N., Trinity College, Cambridge Univ., Cambridge, England Coe, R. L., British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London, England Collin, J. E., Raylands, Newmarket, Suffolk, England Day, C. D., Dorchester, Dorset, England Downes, J. A., Univ. of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland Emden, F. I. van, Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London, England Fonseca, KE. C. M. d’Assis-, Henleaze, Bristol, England Freeman, Paul, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London, England Grensted, L. W., Oriel College, Oxford Univ., Oxford, England Hobby, B. M., University Museum. Oxford Univ., Oxford, England Hopkins, G. H. E., Tring. Herts., England Jobling, B., Wellcome Labs. of Tropical Medicine, London, England Kettle, D. 8., Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland Laurence, B. R., Luton, Beds., England Niblett, M., Wallington, Surrey, England Oldroyd, H., British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London, England Parmenter, L., Thornton Heath, Surrey, England Richards, O. W., Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, England Smart, John, Cambridge Univ.. Cambridge, England Thomas, EH. T., King’s College Hospital Medical School, London, England Continental Europe Benoit, P. L. G., Musée du Congo Belge, Tervuren, Belgrum Bequaert, M., Gand, Belgium Brundin, Lars, Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm, Sweden Collart, A., Musée Royal d’Histoire Naturelle, Bruxelles, Belgium Frey, R., Museum Zoologicum, Universitatis, Helsinki, Finland Ghesquiére, J., Insectarium International, Menton (A.M.), France Keiser, Fred, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basle, Switzerland Kroéber, O., Hudtwalckerstrasse 22hpt, Hamburg, Germany (retired) Kruseman, G., Jr., Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands Lengersdorf, F., 26 Combahnstrasse, Beuel-Bonn am Rhein, Germany Martini, E., Abendrotweg 21, Hamburg, Germany (retired) Mesnil, L. P., Commonwealth Bureau of Biological Control, 139 Seestrasse, Veldmeilen (Ziirich), Switzerland Nielsen, Peder, Silkeborg, Denmark Peris, 8. V., Estacion Experimental de * Aula Dei,” Zaragoza. Spain Sacca, Giuseppe, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Roma, Italy Sara, M. M., Istituto e Museo di Zoologia, Univ. di Napoli, Napoli, Italy Schmitz, H., Alosiuskolleg, Bad Godesberg, Germany Strenzke, K., Hydrobiologische Anstalt der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Plon. (Holstein), Germany Thienemann, A., Hydrobiologische Anstalt der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Plon (Holstein), Germany Tjeder, Bo, Falun, Sweden Tuomikoski, R. K., Temppelik, 7, Helsinki, Finland Tuxen, 8. L:, Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Kobenhavn, Denmark =" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 Vanschuytbroeck, Paul, Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium Venturi, F., Istituto di Entomologia Agraria, Univ. di Pisa, Pisa, Italy Verbeke, J., Commonwealth Bureau of Biological Control, Feldmeilen (Ziirich), Switzerland Weyer, Fritz, Institut fiir Schiffs und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg, Germany Africa i De Meillon, B., South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg, South Africa Kfflatoun, H. C., Faculty of Science, Fouad I University, Cairo, Egypt Heinz, H. J., South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg, South Africa Hesse, A. J., South African Museum, Cape Town, South Africa Machado, A. de Barros, Museu do Dundo, Diamang, Angola Munro, H. K., Dept. of Agriculture, Pretoria, Union of South Africa (comment indicated that the vote should be counted “* Yes ”’ in general) Muspratt, J., South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg, South Africa Parrot, L., Institut Pasteur d’Algerie, Algiers, Algeria Paterson, H. A., South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg, South Africa Vaillant, F., Université d’Alger, Algiers, Algeria Zumpt, F., South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg, South Africa Asia Baisas, F. E., Public Health Research Labs., Manila, Philippines Ksaki, Teiso, Kyushu Univ., Fukuoka, Japan Kato, Schizuo, National Agricultural Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan Lever, R. J. A. W., Dept. of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur, Malaya Menon, M. A. U., Public Health Lab., Trivandrum, Travancore, India Nayar, K. K., University College, Trivandrum, Travancore, India Reid, J. A., Institute for Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur, Malaya Australasia Hardy, G. H., Katoomba, New South Wales (retired) Harrison, R. A., Plant Diseases Division, Auckland, New Zealand Lee, David J., School of Public Health, The University, Sydney, Australia Lower, H. F., Univ. of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia Mackerras, I. M., Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Queens- land Marks, Miss E. N., University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Norris, K. R., Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Canberra, A.C.T. Paramonov, 8. J., Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Canberra, Le Salmon, J. T., Victoria Univ. College, Wellington, New Zealand Satchell, G. H., Univ. of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Womersley, H., South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature B. REPLIES OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL United States and Canada Hardy, D. E., Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii Kessel, E. L., Univ. of San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif. McAlpine, J. F., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont., Canada Pechuman, L. L., 7 Davison Road, Lockport, N.Y. Remington, C. L., Yale Univ., New Haven, Conn. Shewell, G. E., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont., Canada Stone, Alan, U.S. Bureau of Ent. & Plant Quar., Washington, D.C. Townes, H. K., North Carolina State College, Raleigh, N.C. Vockeroth, J. R., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont., Canada Wirth, W. W., U.S. Bureau of Ent. & Plant Quar., Washington, D.C. Latin America Aczél, M., Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina Barbosa, F. A. 8., Instituto Aggeu Magalhaes, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil Continental Europe d Aguilar, J., Station Centrale de Zoologie Agricole, Versailles, France Barendrecht, G., Zoologisch Laboratorium der Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands Doesburg, P. H. van, Sr., Cantonlaan 1, Baarn, Netherlands Dupuis, Claude, Laboratoire d’Helminthologie Coloniale et de Parasitologie Comparée, Paris, France Hennig, Willi, Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin-Friedrichshagen, Germany Laven, H., Bernhard-Nocht-Institut fiir Schiffs-und Tropenkrankheiten, Hamburg, Germany Mannheims, - Bernhard, Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn (Rhein), Germany Marcuzzi, G., Istituto ai Zoologia, Univ. di Padova, Padova, Italy Mayer, Karl, Biologische Zentralanstalt fiir Land und Forstwirtschaft, Klein- machnow bei Berlin, Berlin, Germany Peus, Fritz, Zoologisches Museum, Berlin, Germany Sachtleben, H., Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin-Friedric shshagen, Germany Séguy, E., Museum National d’ Histoire naturelle, Paris, France Theowald, Br., Stadhouderskade 60, Amsterdam, Netherlands Africa ‘Lumsden, W. H. R., Virus Research Institute, Entebbe, Uganda Asia Okada, Toyohi, Tokyo Metropolitan Univ., Tokyo, Japan Shiraki, Tokuichi, 20 Nagasaki-2 Chome, Tokyo, Japan Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 C. AUTHORS WHO HAVE CHANGED USAGE (QUESTION 3) 1803 to 1800 1800 to 1803 Source - —|————_—|- ~ Date Date Name Changed Name Changed | United States and) Belkin 1942 | Canada Bohart, G. E. 1945 | Brookman 1946 Brooks 1942 Hall, D. G. 1938 / ) Hardy, D. K. 1939 | James 194] Johannsen 1952 | Kessel 1940 ) King 1941 | Fluke 1949 Fluke 1950 Pechuman 1946 Philip 1937 | Pritchard 1939 Remington 1943 Roback 1950 Sabrosky 1945 | . Snyder 1938-40 Steyskal 1951 Stone 1941 Shewell “after the War.” Townes 1940 Great Britain Niblett 1949 Oldroyd By 1945 Continental Barendrecht c.1935 Collart 1939 | Kurope Dupuis By 1951 Mesnil 1951 Lengersdorf 1930 Vanschuytbroeck) 1950 Kréber 1910? Mayer 1940 Nielsen, Peder 1932 Soot-Ryen c. 1930 Africa Vaillant “lately” | Eftatoun 1945 Zumpt 2 Asia Okada 1936 Nayar Q Shiraki 1912 | = ES es 2 ae a ee 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDIX 4 Reaction of dipterists to changing family names only when type genera are found to be homonyms (Question 6) A question (the question whether it would be desirable that a family name should be liable to change only when the name of its type was found to be a homonym—Question 6) was added to the Meigen questionnaire as a general question to sample opinion of a body of practising taxonomists in a group where,the principle would be of importance. It is well illustrated by the family names based on Meigen 1803 names and their counterparts in the 1800 names. The point is not directly involved in the Meigen application, and some replies questioned whether the inclusion of the matter along with the survey would give a fair answer unprejudiced by attitudes on the controversial Meigen names. On the other hand, it might also be argued that the situation in Diptera in- volving the Meigen names and their associated family names is the best possible example of the value of having a rule that would avoid any more changes than are absolutely necessary. Replies to the question (question 6 on the Meigen questionnaire) totalled 166, of which 114 or 69% replied that they favoured a general rule that required changing a family name only when the type genus is found to be a homonym, and not when it is found to be a synonym. If the Meigen 1800 paper is suppressed, the point will not matter to dipterists, at least insofar as the 1800 vs. 1803 names are concerned. If the 1800 paper is not suppressed, then the point will be an important consideration. The voting on the question was distributed as follows : Summary of Answers received to Question 6 Source Yes No Per cent. Yes United States and Canada .. 48 17 74 Latin America 3 at 10 4 (fk Great Britain .. so a 15 8 65 Continental Europe .. = 21 5) 58 Africa, .. mn or eee 9 2 82 ARIST be es f 7 4 4 50 Australasia... 7 ee 7 2 78 Totals... 4; | 114 52 69 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 A REQUEST FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC NAMES IN GEOFFROY (1762) IN THE ORDER DIPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) By ALAN STONE, ©. W. SABROSKY, W. W. WIRTH and R. H. FOOTE (Division of Insect Detection and I dentification, Bureau of B ntomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, INCU S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)710) The decision of the Paris Congress to substitute the word “ binominal ” for the word “binary” in the Code, as applied retroactively to works that have long been accepted by taxonomists, will, in our opinion, cause many serious disturbances to stability and continuity. We accordingly disagree strongly with the decision taken at Paris. and feel that the previous wording of the Code, which has stood for nearly a half century, should have been left undisturbed. If problems existed in some groups, they could have been solved by exercise of the Plenary Powers of the Commission. However, we shail make no further issue of this, and we accept the decision, albeit reluctantly. 2. It becomes necessary, therefore, as the Commission itself has suggested (1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 368), to consider in the Order Diptera the status of the generic names uniformly accepted by dipterists as dating from Geoffroy. 3. The publication of immediate concern to us is the Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trowvent aux environs de Paris. All of the dipterous names occur in the second volume. This work was first published in 1762 without indication of authorship and republished in 1764 with Geoffroy given as the author. While some of the publications listed below have cited the names in question as from 1764, Sherborn (Index Animalium) adopted the date af 1762, and this is apparently correct. If a generic name is credited to Geoffroy, it must date back to 1762. As a matter of record, however, in the following list of references we indicate by (0) that no date was given, by (*) that the date 1764 was used, and by (!) that some other erroneous deviation from Geoffroy, 1762, was employed. Unmarked references cite the date correctly as 1762. 4. We have reviewed Geoffroy’s entire work and find only thirteen generic names of Diptera. These are first listed on pages 447-448 with the French vernacular names, followed by a diagnosis of each in French, and then on pages 449-450 the Latin names followed by Latin diagnoses. There follows ® section describing the genera more fully, with descriptions of the included species. These species are not named binominally, though some can be identified by the citations to the Linnaean species. Of the thirteen generic names, six are proposed for the first time in this publication. These are as follows :— (i) Stratiomys (: 449, 475). Kight species. Type species: J/usca chamaeleon Linnaeus, the first species, by selection of Latreille, 1810. (ii) Stomoxys (: 449, 538). One species. Type species : Conops calcitrans Linnaeus, monobasic. (ili) Volucella (: 449, 540). ° Three species. Type species: Musca pellucens Linnaeus, the first species, by selection of Curtis, 1833. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 9, Pt. 8. May, 1954. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (iv) Nemotelus (: 450, 542). Two species. Type species: JJusca pantherina Linnaeus, the first species, by selection of Latreille, 1810 (as uliginosus L. and marginatus L.). (v) Scatopse (: 450 and as Scathopse : 544-545). Two species. Type species: Tipula notata Linnaeus, the first species, by selection of Latreille, 1810. (‘The spelling Scatopse is preferred because it is currently and universally accepted, it has predominated in past years, and it has page precedence in the original.) (vi) Bibio (: 450, 568). Five species. Type species: Uipula hortulana Linnaeus, the third species, by selection of Latreille, 1810. 5. The overthrow of these common, widely used, and important generic names, which are the oldest in the Order Diptera next to the Linnaean names, would be most unfortunate and would upset or threaten stability in these long-established names. At the present time, and throughout virtually all the history of dipterology, the six names have been accepted as dating from Geoffroy, with rare exceptions that are in most cases undoubtedly lapses or typographical errors (e.g. Curran, 1927, and Walker, 1851, see below, under Stratiomys : Curran, 1934, see below under General Works). If the Geoffroy names were tu be eliminated, the consequences shown in the four immediately following paragraphs would result :— 6. A laborious search of the literature after 1762 would have to be carried out in order to determine the next use of each of these six names that would be acceptable under the Code, with the realisation that validation by citation in synonymy might also occur. We can think of no more barren labour than such a search, which should have been totally unnecessary (see introductory paragraph) and is certainly unwanted and undesirable. The result of such a search would be to change the dates and authorship of the six names, changes which, though apparently not serious, would nevertheless mean incorrect citations for many years to come. 7. The change of date and authorship would raise the question of whether a type designation for a Geoffroy genus can be accepted as a designation for the same name when it is dated from some other author. 8. The change of date and authorship would mean that a different species might be eligible for fixation as type species, with a possible change of concept that would set in motion some confusing changes. For example, if Bibio Geoffroy is eliminated, the next use of Bibio appears to be! that of Fabricius (1775, Systema Entomologiae : 756-759), in which the fourteen included species are now scattered among much younger genera in the three families sTRa- TIOMYIDAE, THEREVIDAE, and BOMBYLIIDAE. The generic name Bibio would thus supplant the name of some genus in another family. The fate of the family name BIBIONIDAE would no doubt be an argument in itself, but it certainly could not remain the BIBIONIDAE as we know the family today. Volucella offers another example, for the first valid use subsequent to Geoffroy (not counting references in specific synonymies) seems to be (1) that of Fabricius (1794, Entomologia systematica 4: 412-413), who used Voluccella (note the difference in spelling!) for three species, all now placed in the genus Usia Latreille, 1804, in the family BomByLitpar. Thus the name Volucella (and subfamily vOLUCELLINAE) would disappear from the SyRPHIDAE where it has long been one of the largest and best known genera. ; 1 These changes appear to be necessary, from our perusal of well-known works such as those of Fabricius, Scopoli, De Geer, etc. It will be impossible to make categorical statements without an extensive search of the literature. ——_” ---- ———u“@o™-™” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 9. The change of date and authorship may mean, even for that early period in entomological activity, that the names would be antedated by others that are now placed in the synonymy of the Geoffroy names. Example: If Stratiomys is eliminated from Geoffroy (1762), the next valid name for that genus is Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 (Entomologia carniolica : 367, monobasic for H. longicornis Scopoli), a change which would also result in changing the family name STRATIOMYIDAE to HIRTEIDAE. 10. In view of the uniform acceptance of these six names as dating from Geoffroy, 1762, and in view of the grave difficulties, either already known or suspected, that would arise from the elimination of that work, we propose that the Rules be suspended and that these six generic names be dated for purposes of priority from Geoffroy, 1762, with the type species as given in paragraph 4 above. 11. As examples of the wide usage of these names of Geoffroy, 1762. we may cite the following general works :— * 1862-64 Schiner, Fauna austriaca. Die Fliegen. 2 vols. 1877 Schneider, Enumeratio Insectorum norvegicum. (All but Bibio.) 1877 Van der Wulp, Diptera neerlandica. (All but Stomoxys.) 1878 Osten Sacken, Catalogue of the Described Diptera of North America, 2nd Edition. * 1882 Scudder, Nomenclator zoologicus. 1902 Sherborn, Index Animalium. * 1902-10 Kertesz, Catalogus Dipterorum. (All but Stomozys.) * 1903-07 Becker, Bezzi, Bischof, Kertesz, and Stein, Katalog der Paldéarktischen Dipteren. Vols. 1-3. * 1905 + Aldrich, A Catalogue of the North American Diptera. 0 1905-09 Wahlgren, Svensk Insektfauna. Tvavingar. Diptera. (All but Stomoxys). 1910 Coquillett, The Type Species of the North American Genera of Diptera. o 1925 Johnson, Fauna of New England 15, List of Diptera or Two-Winged Flies. 1926-39 Schulze and Kiikenthal, Nomenclator Animalium Generum et Subgenerum. o 1928 Johannsen, 7m Leonard, A List of the Insects of New York. o 1934 Curran, The Families and Genera of North American Diptera. (All but Bibio, which is credited to Latreille.) * 1936 Enderlein, Die Tierwelt Mittelewropas, Band 6, Teil 3, Lief. 2, Abt. 16 (Diptera). o 1938 Brimley, The Insects of North Carolina. 1939-40 Neave, Nomenclator zoologicus, vols. 1 and 8. 1945 Kloet and Hincks, A Check List of the British Insects. o 1946 Stuardo, O., Catalogo de los Dipteros de Chile. (All but Bibio.) *¥O 0 12. Examples of the specialised publications that have used these names are as follows :— (i) Stratiomys (Sometimes emended to Stratiomyia) ! 1851 Walker, Insecta britannica, Diptera 1:13. (Date given as 1784.) * 1895 Johnson, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 22 : 227. 0 1907 Lundbeck, Diptera danica, Part 1, p. 40. * 1907 Brunetti, Rec. Indian Mus. 1 : 125. * 1909 Verrall, British Flies 5 : 146. o 1917 Malloch, Bull. Illinois State Lab. nat. Hist. 12 : 318. * 1920 Brunetti, Fauna of British India, Diptera Brachycera 1:58. (It is interesting to note that the editor, Shipley, appended the following note: “In this work Geoffroy did not accept the binary system of nomenclature upon which all modern zoological classification is based ; 244 * * *0O #0 * * mR rRNED Gh 1923 1927 1930 1938 1851 1907 1907 1909 1917 * 1923 1927 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature it has therefore been ruled that all generic names therein proposed by him are just as invalid as pre-Linnaean names. The authorship of Stratiomys should thus be attributed to Fabricius.’’) Brunetti, Rec. Indian Mus. 25: 115. Curran, Trans. Roy Soc. Canada, 1927 Sec. V, p. 199. (As Stratiomys Latreille.) Aubertin, Dipt. Patagonia & S. Chile, Part 5, fase. 2, p. 97. Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, Bd. 4, Fam. 18, p. 47. (ii) Stomoxys Austen, African Blood-Sucking Flies, p. 141. Schnabl and Dziedzicki, Die Anthomyiden, p. 125. Stein, Die Anthomyidengattungen der Welt, . . .. Archiv. Naturgesch. A 1, 88, (1) : 102. Séguy, Faune de France, Diptéres, Anthomyides, p. 342. Karl, Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, Teil 18, Dipt. I1, Muscidae, p. 14. Malloch, Exotic Muscaridae 36 (World revision of Muscidae, Stomoxy- dinae), Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (10) 9: 381. Séguy, in Wytsman, Genera Insectorum, fase. 205, Diptera, Muscidae, p- 423. Zumpt, Das System der Stomoxydinae, Verh. VII. Internat. Kongr. Ent. 3 : 1732. James, The Flies That Cause Myiasis in Man, U.S. Dept. Agr. Misc. Publ. 681 : 132. Miller, Catalogue of the Diptera of the New Zealand Subregion, p. 125. Zumpt, Key to the Stomoxydinae of the Ethiopian Region, Anais do Inst. Med. Trop. 7: 401. Zimin, Muscidae, in Fauna U.S.S.R., 18 (4) : 249. (iii) Volucella Walker, Insecta britannica, Diptera 1 : 260 (Date given as 1776). Williston, Synopsis of North American Syrphidae, p. 134. Williston, Biologia centrali-americana, Diptera 3 : 43. Verrall, British Flies 8 : 482. Lundbeck, Diptera danica 5 : 395. Brunetti, Fauna of British India, Diptera 3: 144. Curran, J. Fed. Malay States Museum 14 : 160. Shriaki, Mem. Fac. Sci. Agric. Tathoku Imp. Univ. 1: 213. Curran, Amer. Mus. Novitates 418 : 6. Sack, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, Bd. 4, Fam. 31: 241. Shannon and Aubertin, Dipt. Patagonia & S. Chile, Pt. 6, fase. 3, p. 167. Hull, Trans. zool. Soc. Lond. 26 : 347. (iv) Nemotelus Walker, Insecta britannica, ae 1:25. (Date given as 1784.) Lundbeck, Diptera danica, part 1, p. 23. Brunetti, Rec. Indian Mus. 1: 7 Verrall, British Flies 5: 113. Malloch, Bull. Illinois State Lab. nat. Hist. 12 : 318. Brunetti, Rec. Indian Mus. 25: 87. Curran, Trans. Roy Soc, Canada, 1927 Sec. V, p. 223 = aI ow = * 1930 * 1945 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 Aubertin, Dipt. Patagonia d& SS. Chile, pt. 5, fase. 2, p. 97 (in key). Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palacarktischen Region, Bd. 4, Fam. 18, p. 107. (v) Scatopse Walker, Insecta britannica, Diptera 3 : 140. Brunetti, Fauna of British India, p. 179. Melander, “The Dipterous Family Scatopsidae,’’ State College of Washington Expt. Sta. Bull. 130: 6. McAtee, ‘ District of Columbia Diptera,’ Scatopsidae, Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 23 : 121. Edwards, ‘‘ A Synopsis of British Bibionidae and Scatopsidae,”’ Ann. Appl. Biol. 12 : 268. Duda, Beitrag zur Kenntnis der aussereuropdischen Scatopsiden, Knowia 7: 259. Duda, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, Bd. 2, Fam. 5, Scatopsidae, p. 9. Hennig, Die Larvenformen der Dipteren 1 : 90. (vi) Bibio Walker, Insecta britannica, Diptera 3 : 134. Bellardi, Saggio di Ditterologia Messicana 1: 16. Osten Sacken, Biologia centrali-americana, Diptera 1: 3. Brunetti, Fauna of British India, p. 166. McAtee, ‘‘ Notes on Nearctic bibionid flies,’ Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 60 (11) : 6. ; Edwards, “‘ A Synopsis of British Bibionidae and Scatopsidae,” Ann. Appl. Biol. 12 : 266. Duda, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, Bd. 2, Fam. 4, Bibionidae, p. 38. Hardy, ‘“‘ Revision of Nearctic Bibionidae . . .,” Kansas Univ. Sci. Bul. 30 : 444. 13. The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is now asked to take is therefore that it should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to validate the under-mentioned generic names with the type species specified below :— Name of genus Type species (a) Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, Musca chamaeleon Linnaeus, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 Paris. . 2:449,-. 475 589 (gender : feminine) (b) Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, Conops caleitrans Linnaeus, ibid. 2: 449, 538 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: (gender : feminine) 604 (c) Volucella Geoffroy, 1762, Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758, abid. 2: 449, 540 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 595 (gender: feminine) (d) Nemotelus Geoffroy, 1762, Musca pantherina Linnaeus, ibid. 2: 450, 542 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: (gender ; masculine) 590 246 Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature (e) Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762, hd. Tiqula notata Linnaeus, 1758, 2: 450 (as Scathopse on Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 588 pp. 544-545) (gender: feminine) (f) Bibio Geoffroy, 1762, ibid. Tipula hortulana Linnaeus, 2:450, 568 (gender: 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: masculine) 588 (2) place the six generic names specified in (1) above on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific names of the six species specified in (1) above as the type species of the genera there enumerated ; 4) place the name Scathopse Geoffroy, 1762 (: 544-545) (an incorrect spelling of the name Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762 (:450)) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. * al it a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP- PRESS “PALMATOTRITON” SMITH 1945 (CLASS AM- PHIBIA, ORDER CAUDATA) By HOBART M. SMITH (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S:A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)594) In a popular article (‘‘ Herpetological Collecting in Banana Fields of Mexico”) published in volume 19, number 1, 1945, page 4 of Ward’s Natural Science Bulletin (a widely distributed and regularly published journal of Ward’s Natural Science Establishment, Rochester, New York) there appeared for the first time the generic name Palmatotriton. This name occurs in the following verbatim context: ‘‘Commonest in central Veracruz are the salamanders especially Palmatotriton rufescens, a small, broad-footed species about two inches long. This species is incredibly common, generally several occurring under each stalk. Yet, before this habitat and method of hunting was discovered, the species was considered to be rather rare, for only seven specimens were known from Mexico and thirteen from all other countries within range ! ” 2. As author of that article and of the passage quoted, I know the species referred to is the one now recognised (by Smith and Taylor, 1948, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 194: 23; et al.) as Bolitogrossa rufescens (Cope), originally described as Ocdipus rufescens Cope, 1869 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 21: 104). The specific name has been cited under no other combination, so far as we are aware. 3. To other authors it may be equally as apparent as to me that the species referred to is the one cited above, but this is true only because of their knowledge of esoteric information: they know the fauna of central Veracruz, or the habitat of the species, or which species in that area would be two inches long and broad-footed (no other is), or which species having these characteristics was known at the time of the last monograph prior to 1945 (Dunn, Salamanders of the Family Plethodontidae, 1926, p. 418) from only seven Mexican and thirteen non-Mexican specimens. 4. The name Palmatotriton was used under the erroneous impression that it was to be published prior to the date this article appeared by another author who at one time intended that it should be used for the group of species to which rufescens Cope belongs, as distinct from other species now included with rufescens in Bolitoglossa. That author later, unknown to me, determined not to segregate generically rufescens and its relatives from Bolitoglossa. 5. That it was my intent in 1945 to utilise a name already available, and definitely not to anticipate the other author’s use, is not itself of significance, although if decision on the status of the name were not clearly indicated, intent might justifiably be considered. The status of the name is, on the contrary, clearly indicated. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 9. Pt. 8. May, 1954, 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. Mr. Francis Hemming has pointed out, in reply to my query on this matter, that “under the amendment of Article 25 adopted by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1927 (which came into operation as from Ist January 1931) a name published in the way in which the name Palmatotriton was published would have possessed no availability, for no type species was designated for this genus. This portion of Article 25 was however considered further by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 in the light of representations which had been received by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that to refuse availability on the foregoing ground to a generic name published for a genus for which one species only was cited was unduly legalistic. The Paris Congress decided to modify the decision of the Budapest Congress in such a way as to confer availability upon a generic name published after 31st December 1931 for a monotypic genus even if no type species was explicitly designated by the original author of the generic name in question (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4:72). The Paris Congress decided further to include in the Regles a provision making it clear that a noniinal genus established with only one cited species is to be treated as a monotypical genus (1950, ibid 4: 153). We see therefore that under the Régles the generic name Palmatotriton must be regarded as having been validly published—though inadvertently and in an irregular manner—as from Smith, 1945, for it was provided with an ‘ indication’ for the purposes of Article 25 by having been published with an ‘ indicated ’ type species (by monotypy). It is true that no author’s name was cited for the species indicated as type species under the name Palmatotriton rufescens and that a certain amount of specialised knowledge is necessary in order to identify that species with the nominal species Oedipus rufescens Cope, 1869, but this cannot be held out as an argument against the availability of the generic name Palmatotriton, for zoological literature abounds with instances of generic names—some of them extremely well-known names in very common use— which were published with cited species for which no author’s names were given by the original author of the name. Moreover, it is impossible to point to any provision in the Régles which would give any colour to the contention that a generic name so published does not possess availability.” 7. In the foregoing circumstances the name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945, cannot legitimately be regarded either as a nomen nudum or as a nomen dubium. On the other hand, the name was published inadvertently and it could not fail to give rise to confusion if it were permitted to retain availability for nomenclatorial purposes. It is accordingly recommended that, in order to avoid this undesirable situation from arising, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its Plenary Powers to suppress this name altogether. This name would then become available for use by any later author either as the name for a genus contaming Oedipus rufescens Cope or in any other sense. It is suggested also that it would be convenient to take the present opportunity to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name rufescens Cope, 1869, as published in the binominal combination Oedipus rufescens, that name being the oldest available specific name of an extremely common and well-known species of salamander, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 8. The proposal now submitted is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945, as proposed, under (1) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (3) place the specific name rufescens Cope, 1869, as published in the binominal combination Oedipus rufescens, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIG- NATE (i) A NEOTYPE FOR THE NOMINAL SPECIES “ AM- MONITES MAMMILLATUS ” SCHLOTHEIM, 1813, AND (ii) A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS “ DOUVILLEICERAS ” DE GROSSOUVRE, 1893 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By R. CASEY (Geological Survey and Museum, London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 631) The present application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature deals with the problem raised by Ammonites mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813. It was originally submitted in accordance with the extension of the Plenary Powers granted to the Commission by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 for the purpose of determining how the Régles should be applied in cases where it was doubtful to what species a given name should be held to apply (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 324). Since the Copenhagen Congress of 1953, this application has been 1e-written as a request for the designation of a neotype for the foregoing species. It is important for palaeontological and stratigraphical nomenclature that the name of the nominal species Ammonites mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813, should be stabilised in the sense in which it is now almost universally applied. It is particularly hoped that the International Commission will give this application all practicable priority, as a decision on it is urgently required in connection with the preparation of the forthcoming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. 2. Ammonites mammillatus Schlotheim is the type species of the genus Douvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893 (on which is based the family DOUVILLE- ICERATIDAE Parona and Bonarelli) and the name Douwvilleiceras mammillatum connotes one of the most familiar and important index fossils in Cretaceous stratigraphy. The Mammillatum Zone is world-wide and in using the term we follow the practice of four generations of geologists and stratigraphers. Yet, as is shown below, if the Régles are permitted to pursue the normal course, the name D. mammillatum would be virtually abandoned, the genus Dowvil- leiceras would remain forever taxonomically inassessable, and an unfamiliar zonal terminology would supplant the well-known “ Mammillatum Zone.” 3. When proposing the combination Ammonites mammillatus, Schlotheim (1813 : 111) did not himself illustrate or describe the species but referred to a figure in Walch (1774: 196, pl. ii, fig. 3). This indication renders the name available, and in so far as I have been unable to trace a use of the combination Ammonites mammillatus prior to that of Schlotheim, or any earlier indication for the original of the Walch figure in question, the name is an available name and the oldest such name for the species in question, Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 9, Pt. 8. May, 1954, i Ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 4. Unfortunately, Walch’s figure is defective in three respects: (a) It depicts a nucleus or an immature specimen, (b) it shows the specimen in side view only, and (c) it falls far short of what is required by modern standards of illustration. Owing to these facts, it is not possible to determine with certainty the taxonomic species represented by Walch’s figure. Hyatt (1903 - 108) observed that “‘ The figure given by Walch seems to apply to the young of the form usually cited by authors as mammillaris and figured by d’Orbigny under this revised name.’ In Spath’s view ‘“ Walch’s original figure . . . may be identical with the distantly ribbed D. imaequinodum (Quenstedt) ” (Spath, 1923: 67). To Breistroffer (1947 :64) Walch’s figure “appears to represent a specimen from the Ardennes analogous to D. orbignyt Hyatt.” In my opinion, the figure in question was probably based on one of the coarsely ribbed species of Douvilleiceras, such as D. inaequinodum (Quenstedt), D. orbignyt Hyatt, or D. baylet Spath, but 1 consider it unsafe to assume this : alternatively it could represent a member of the MANTELLICERATIDAE. 5. The original of Walch’s figure is of unknown provenance, and, if it still exists, its present whereabouts are not known. 6. For over a century palaeonotologists have ignored Walch’s figure and have based their conception of Ammonites mammallatus on figures supplied by later authors. Chief among these are the two plates of ammonites depicted in dOrbigny’s Paléontologie francaise (1841: pls. 72-3) under the name 4. mammillaris (an unjustified emendation of A. mammillatus). D’Orbigny’s interpretation of Schlotheim’s species was very broad and his figured examples of “ A. mammillaris”’ (with which he synonymised A. monile Sowerby (J.). 1816) have since been referred to several distinct species of Dowvilleiceras. This broad interpretation of A. mammillatus was current throughout most of the nineteenth century, but towards its close Parona and Bonarelli adopted the name D. inaequinodum (=A. monile inaequinodus Quenstedt, 1849) for the coarsely ribbed species of Dowvilleiceras, such as illustrated in d’Orbigny’s plate 73, restricting the name D. mammillatum to the forms with more closely spaced ribs, of which the originals of d’Orbigny’s plate 72 and J. Sowerby’s A. monile provided examples (Parona and Bonarelli, 1897: 95). Zittel in 1895 (: 429, fig. 429) had already chosen a specimen of this latter group to illustrate D. ** mammillare”’ and his figure, generalised but in agreement with D. mammillatum in its current conception, has been reproduced in all the many editions and translations of his well-known text-book. To this restriction of d’Orbigny’s comprehensive A. “ mammillaris,’ Hyatt (1903: 109) and Jacob (1907 : 370) added their authority. 7. De Grossouvre designated “A. mamillaris ”’[sie.] [recte A. mammallatus], . without an attached author’s name, as the type species of his nominal genus Douwilleiceras, and the suture-line alone was figured (de Grossouvre, 1893 : 23, 26). Hence there is no published evidence to show in what taxonomic sense de Grossouvre used the specific name A. mammillatus. Fortunately, specimens of Dowvilleiceras formerly in de Grossouvre’s collection and labelled by him are preserved both in the British Museum (Natural History) and in the Sedgwick Museum at Cambridge and inspection of these shows clearly that his interpretation of A. mammillatus agreed with that of Parona and Bonarelli. 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. Thus, the use of A. mammullatus for the closely ribbed Douvilleiceras, rather than for the coarsely ribbed species to which Walch’s original probably belonged, had become established even before the present century. In his monograph of the Gault Ammonoidea Spath wrote: “It seems desirable to employ the term D. mammillatum in the generally accepted interpretation of Parona and Bonarelli, excluding, however, the finely costate D. monile (J. Sowerby) ” (Spath, 1923: 69). At the same time Spath proposed the nominal species Douvillecceras albense, to which are now referred the originals of d’Orbigny’s plate 72, figs. 3-5 (Breistroffer, 1947: 65); he retained only the originals of d’Orbigny’s plate 72, figs. 1-2 im D. mammallatum. Spath’s mono- graph is the modern reference book for the student of Albian stratigraphy and ammonitology and the definition of D. mammallatum contained therein has become standardised throughout the world, the species being generally quoted as D. manmillatum (Schlothemm), emend. Spath. 9. In 1947, however, Breistroffer, acting strictly in accordance with the provisions of Article 25, adopted a different nomenclature for the species of Douvilleiceras. For D. mammillatum (Schlotheim) emend. Spath, he revived Quenstedt’s name aequinodus (originally published in the trinominal com- bination Ammonites monile aequinodus) and he proposed to call the zone of D. mammuillatum “the zone of D. monile and D. orbignyi” (Breistroffer, 1947 : 51). Breistroffer’s nomenclature has not been adopted by other ammonite specialists nor by stratigraphers, who have continued to use D. mammallatum as an index-fossil and in the taxonomic sense defined by Spath (see, for instance, Collignon, 1949: 76; Stoyanow, 1949: 36; Casey, 1950: 270, 292; 1951). 10. If, as proposed by Breistroffer, the Reégles be allowed to take their normal course, the situation would be as follows :— (a) Ammonites mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813, would be interpreted by the figure in Walch referred to above, and, since this is indeterminate, the name could be applied to no other specimen. (b) The genus Douwvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893, with type species by original designation Ammonites mammallatus Schlotheim, 1813 (cited by de Grossouvre in the incorrectly spelt, and im the unjustifiably emended, form mamillaris), would have an insecure foundation and would for ever be a source of uncertainty to the taxonomist. Established nomenclature could be upset at any time by an irresponsible author who might claim subjectively to have identified Walch’s figure with, say, a species of Mantelliceras or some other genus. (c) The family DOUVILLEICERATIDAE Parona and Bonarelli, would have a similar unsatisfactory basis. (d) Another, unfamiliar, name would be required for the taxonomic species to which the combination Dowvilleiceras mammuallatum is now almost universally applied. (ec) The term “ Mammillatum Zone ”’ could no longer be used in stratigraphy. 11. Serious confusion in stratigraphy and palaeontology would result from this situation. To avoid this confusion I recommend that the International Commission should make use of its Plenary Powers to designate the specimen Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 figured by Spath in 1923 (Monograph of the Gault Ammonoidea) as figures 3a and 3b on plate 4, to be the neotypé of the nominal species Ammonites mammallatus Schlotheim, 1813. In choosing this specimen, I am guided by the following considerations : () It is a clearly identifiable specimen of the species s accepted as representing (08 mammillatun by the overwhelming majority of workers. (b) It is accurately localised in the classic Albian section at Folkestone, Kent, itself a standard of comparison for Kurope ; topotype spec imens can be obtained in abundance (see Casey, 1950 : 272) and such specimens are represented in the principal museums, both in Britain and abroad. (c) It agrees with D. mam- millatum as conceived by de Grossouvre, the founder of the genus Dowvilleiceras. (d) It is the specimen selected to illustrate D. mammillatum by Roman in his monumental and widely-used Ammonite Synopsis (Roman 1938, pl. 43, fig. 411). (e) The specimen is extant, being preserved in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History) and is thus available for study by interested specialists. 12. The foregomg specimen is in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History). Affixed to the specimen are :— number label “* C 12491 ° — the official registration number of the specimen. f . °° 2710” — a supplementary MS catalogue number of the late G. C. Crick. ereen spot — indicating figured specimen. 13. Accompanying the specimen are the following labels :— (1) “ L.G.8. or basement bed of Gault (zone of Douvilleiceras mammil- latum) : Folkestone. F. G. H. Price coll. No. 17 (2) * Douvilleiceras mammillatum (Schloth.), Albian. Basement bed of Gault. Zone of Dowvilleiceras mammallatum. Folkestone, Kent. F. G. H. Price coll., purch. F. H. Butler, 26 Feby., 1910.” (3) * Douwvilleiceras mammillatum (Schlotheim), Middle Albian (Lower Gault) Mammillatus Bed, Folkestone, Kent. Figd. Spath, 1923, Mon. Gault. Ammonites (Pal. Soc.), pt. 1, pl. iv, fig. 3. F. G. H. Price coll. L910.” (4) “CC 12491. Neotype Casey.” 14, The proposal which | now submit is therefore that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (L) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to designate as the neotype of Ammonites mammiallatus Schlo- theim, 1813, the specimen figured by Spath in 1923, 4 Monograph of the Gault Ammonoidea, as figures 3a and 3b on plate 4 ; 4 JFuRRraAa 7 OBA PURCHASE re : : . 0 254 Bulletin of Zoological N OED aire (b) to set aside all type selections for the genus Dowvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893, made prior to the decision now to be taken and, having done so, to designate as the type species of that genus the nominal species Ammonites mammullatus Schlotheim, 1813, determined as in (a) above ; (2) place the generic name Dowvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893 (gender of generic name: neuter) (type species, by designation, as proposed under (1) (b) above, under the Plenary Powers: Am- monites mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813, determined, as proposed in (1) (a) above, under the Plenary Powers) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name mannallatus Schlothem, 1813, as published in the combination Ammonites mammallatus, as proposed, under (1) (a) above, to be interpreted under the Plenary Powers, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) place the under-mentioned invalid emendations of the specific name mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the combination Ammonites mammillatus, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (2) mammillaris VOrbigny, 1841, as published in the combination Ammonites mammallaris ; (6) mamillaris [sic] de Grossouvre, 1893, as published in the com- bination Douvillecceras mamillaris. References : Breistroffer, M., 1947: Trav. Lab. geol. Grenoble, 26, 1-88. Jasey, R., 1950: Proc. geol. Assoc., 61, 268-298. — 1951: Proc. geol. Assoc., 62, 95-99. Collignon, M., 1949: Ann. géol. Service des Mines (Madagascar), fasc. 16. De Grossouvre, A., 1893: Mém. Expl. Carte géol. de France, Les Ammonites de la Craie Supérieure. D’Orbigny, A., 1840-41: Paléontologie frangaise, Terrains Crétacées. Céphal- oposes. Hyatt, A., 1903 : Pseudoceratites of the Cretaceous. U.S. geol. Surv. Monograph. Parona, C. F., and Bonarelli, E. G., 1897: Pal. italica, 2, 53-112. Roman, F., 1938: Les Ammonites jurassiques et crétacées, Paris. Schlotheim, E. F. von, 1813: Min. Taschenbuch 7. Spath, L. F., 1923: A Monograph of the Gault Ammonoidea, Pt. 1, Palaeout. Soc. Stoyanow, A., 1949: Mem. geol. Soc. America 38. Walch, J. E., 1774: Lithologische Beobachtungen, Erstes Stuck. (a) Vom Vervengang der Ammoniten. Naturvforscher, 1, 197-199. Zittel, K. A., von, 1895: Grundziige der Palaeontologie. ote ee 2: we, re CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications A request for the use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic names in Geoffroy, 1762, in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta). By Dr. Alan Stone, Dr. C. W. Sabrosky, Dr. W. W. Wirth and Dr. R. H. Foote (Division of Insect Detection and Identification, Bureau of Entomology and Plant ae U.S. Dre @. sean Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Amphibia, Order Caudata). By Professor Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ~.. ie Ms a re i cf ee na Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate (i) a neotype for the eh eg species Ammonites mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813, and (ii) a type species for the genus Douvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Mr. R. Casey (Geological Survey and Museum, London) re ye = be Comments on previously published applications Meigen, 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes : Summary of Replies to a Questionnaire. By Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (Division of Insect Detection and Identification, Bureau of Entomology and Plant ae ste U.S. ee: oy ae a Washington, D.C., U.S. s oe ay Printed in Great Britain by Metcum anp Son Lrp., Westminster, London — Page 241 247 250 225 eas, | VOLUME 9. Part 9 yf ners 22nd October 1954 pp. 255-286 _ THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL | NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN CLATURE a Edited by q ; FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M. G., C.B.E. _ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTs : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on j Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications ie se in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. Er 255 ) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological oe of its eats roe in certain cases : a ee 256 (continued inside back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and a Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1954 Price Twelve Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) AY : MG INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. wet Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950 Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanko (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) ——_a- BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Part 9 (pp. 255-286) 22nd October 1954 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission may start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (Vol. 9, Part 9) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secre- tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases 1. Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in appli- cations published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the following names :— (1) Discoides ; Cerebratulus ; Polycitor ; Scolixedion ; all being generic names in Renier [1804] Prospetto (now rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), question of validation of (Z.N.(S.)832) ; (2) Aglaja ; Aleyonaria ; Cystia; Rodens; Tuba; Tubulanus ; all being generic names in Renier [1807] T'avola (now proposed to be rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), question of validation of (Z.N.(8.)688) ; (3) Names (generic and specific) given to aptychi of Ammonites, pro- posed suppression of (Z.N.(S.)589) ; (4) Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Cl. Osteichthyes, Order Cyprinida), proposed determination as of masculine gender of (Z.N.(S.)663) ; (5) Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903 (Cl. Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of type species for, in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage (Z.N.(8.)703) ; (6) Argus Bohadsch, 1761 (Cl. Gastropoda), proposed retention of status for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy (Z.N.(8.)714) ; (7) minimus Miller (J. S.), 1826, as published in the combination Belemnites minimus (Cl. Cephalopoda, Order Dibranchia), proposed validation of (Z.N.(S.)823). 2. Attention is drawn also to a request published in the present Part for the adoption of a Declaration that a generic or specific name based solely upon the “aptychus” of an ammonite be excluded from availability under Article 27 of the Régles (Z.N.(S.)589). 3. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin : other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part, -will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 4. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56) corresponding Notices have been sent to the serial publications Nature and Science. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 22nd October 1954 ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 APPLICATION FOR A RULING THAT WORKS CREDITED TO S. A. RENIER AS OF THE DATES 1804 AND 1807 WERE NOT PUBLISHED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE “ REGLES” By A. MYRA KEEN (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)688) In a recent petition Dr. L. R. Cox (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)432)1 asks that “the Prodromo of S. A. Renier and the Prospetto della Classe dei Verma (dated 1804) prepared by that author for inclusion in the Prodromo’”’ be rejected as not having been duly published. 2. The present petition requests that the Commission consider the larger problem of all of Renier’s uncompleted works dated 1804 and 1807. As Dr. Cox’s petition did not take into account the generic and specific names involved, it seems well to review these in some detail. 3. The term “ Prodromo”’ apparently was used only informally if at all by Renier, for the word does not appear in the photostatic copy of Renier’s works now in Stanford University library, a copy formerly owned by C. D. Sherborn. In his Index animalium (sect. 2, vol. 1, 1922), Sherborn cites the titles of these works thus : Prodr. osserv. Venezia 1804-7 (not published except as the three following) : Tavola alfab. Conch. Adriat. 1804. Prosp. classe dei Vermi. 1804. Compendium di Zoologia (does not exist except as the following) : TavoJa per serve. conosc. classif. Anim. 1807; (Ed. 2, 1820, quoted by Meneghini in Oss. post. 1847, 114). The Nomenclator Animalium Generum et Subgenerum of Schulze, Kiikenthal, and Heider (vol. 1, 1926) cites these titles somewhat differently : Tavola Alfabetica delle Conchiglie Adriatiche nominate dietro il sistema di Linneo, Edizione di Gmelin. Padua, 1788. Prodromo di Osservazioni sopra alcuni Esseri viventi della Classe dei Vermi abitanti nell’ Adriatico, nelle Lagune e Litorali Veneti—Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi. Padua, 1804. Tavole per servire alla classificazione e connoscenza degle animali. Padua, 1807. 4. The only contemporary mention of Renier’s work I have found is by G. B. Brocchi (1814, Conchiologia fossile Subappennina 1 : 55 [free translation]) : . . . Signor Renieri, professor of natural history at the University of Padua, having been engaged for several years in the study of the organisms of the Adriatic, has provided me the opportunity of consulting the very rich series of shells which he collected in this sea and on which he published the Catalogue in 1804. . . Brocchi’s book, published in Milan (not far from Padua), had wide circulation 1A decision has now been taken on Dr. Cox’s application (1951, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 2: 299-300) and has been embodied in Opinion 316, which it is hoped to publish at an early date. na ~s : ane eae Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954, 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in Europe, and hence it carried some of Renier’s zoological names with it. Save for citations from Brocchi, I find no further mention of Renier’s early papers until 1847 when in another nearby Italian city, Venice, two authors, Meneghini and Nardo, published works based on Renier’s manuscripts. As I have not been able to consult these, I quote the titles from Engelmann (Bibliotheca zool., Bd. 1, 1861 : 273-4) : Renier, St. A., Osservazioni postumi di zoologia Adriatica, pubblicati per cura dell’ I. R. Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti a studio del Prof. Meneghini. Con 16 tavole color, e 16 tavole nere. Venezia... 1847. Fol. In 100 Exemplaren gedriickt. Nardo, Giov. Domin., Fauna marina volgare del Veneto estuario. Venezia, 1847. 8. Prospetto della Fauna marina del Veneto Estuario. Venezia, 1847. 8. Hence, the date of validation of most of Renier’s zoological names would seem to be 1847. One may question whether even Brocchi considered the names to have been published, for he cited no page references for the names of the species that he attributed to Renier, in marked contrast to the careful documentation given the names of species described by previous authors. 5. Renier’s first work, the ‘‘ Tavola alfabetica . . .” is assigned the date 1788 by Engelmann (op. cit. : 831) and by Schulze, Kiikenthal, and Heider. This is manifestly incorrect, for the sections of Gmelin’s edition of Systema Naturae to which it refers did not appear until 1790. In this Tavola, which consists of plates numbered 1 to 13, no new generic names were proposed, but Renier credited to himself many new trivial names, with footnote discussions. Although most of his descriptions are inadequate, references to previously published figures document a number of names. Fortunately, most of the figures had already been acceptably named by other authors. At least three of Renier’s specific names, however, still crop up occasionally in lists—Tellina serrata, Solecurtus candidus, and Eulima incurva. The first two are absolute nomina nuda in the Tavola. Tellina serrata was validated by Brocchi, 1814, and should be attributed to him. For Solecurtus candidus (Solen candidus Renier) the synonym S. scopula Turton, 1822 has been adopted by Winckworth (1932, J. Conch. 19 : 246). Winckworth credited Eulima incurva (Helix incurva Renier, based on two published figures) to Bucquoy, Dautzenberg, and Dollfus, 1893, though one would wonder whether it may not have been validated earlier by Meneghini or Nardo. Some 40 other of Renier’s specific names are listed by Bucquoy, Dautzenberg and Dollfus (1882-1898, Mollusques Marins du Roussillon) as synonyms. Hence, none of the names in the Tavola alfab. seems in need of conservation. 6. The pages of the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi. . . are numbered as plates 15 to 26. Several new generic and trivial names are proposed : Discoides (sole species, D. nutans Renier, briefly described). Polycitor (based on four species of which two are previously described, Alcyonium schlosseri Pallas, 1766, and A. conicum Olivi, 1792, renamed by Renier). Scolixedion (sole species S. penulatum Renier =Serpula arenaria Linnaeus, 1758). Cerebratulus (based on two species, C. bilineatus Renier and C. marginatus Renier, both briefly described). * Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 Aglaia (sic), Rodens, Tricoelia (sic), Tubulanus (nomina nuda). 7. As I have shown elsewhere (1951, Nautilus 65 (No. 1) : 8-15), the third work of Renier, the ‘“‘ Tavole,” consists of eight synoptic tables covering five of the eleven classes into which he divided the animal kingdom. Names credited by Renier to himself appear in four of the tables : Alcyonaria (based on Alcyonium palmatum Pallas, 1766, and A. digitatum Linnaeus, 1758). Acicula (sole species, A. macula Renier, briefly described). Rodens (sole species, R. armillatus Renier, briefly described). Tricelia (sole species, T. variopadata Renier, briefly described). Tuba (sole species, T'. divisa Renier, briefly described). Tubulanus (sole species, T. polymorphus Renier, briefly described). Cystia (based on two species, C. nivea Renier, undescribed, and Ostrea bullata Born, 1778). Arenaria (homonym of Arenaria Brisson, 1760). Aglaja (based on two species, A. depicta Renier and A. tricolorata Renier, both described). Discoides (sole species, D. nutans Renier, briefly described). Cerebratulus, Marginella, Imisia, Scolixedion (nomina nuda). 8. Had these unfinished works of Renier been validly published in the years 1804 and 1807, the following generic names would be available for use : Acicula (1807), Aglaja (1807), Alcyonaria (1804), Cerebratulus (1804), Cystia (1807), Discordes (1807), Polycitor (1804), Rodens (1807), Scolixedion (1804), Tricelia (1807), Tuba (1807), and Tubulanus (1807). The question arises, how many have found their way into the literature? Of the names that fall within Mollusca—Aglaja, Cystia, Discoides, and Scolixedion—only Aglaja is in use, type genus of the family agLasIDAE (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchiata). It was adopted by Pilsbry in 1895 on the assumption, from the testimony of Meneghini, 1847, that it had priority over the long used Doridiwm Meckel, 1809. One may note that more specific names have been proposed under Doridium than under Aglaja, but readoption of Doridiwm might cause some confusion, as the family name pDoripipDAE Bergh, 1893, is regrettably similar to DORIDIDAE, name of another family of Opisthobranchiata (type genus, Doris). Rejection of Aglaja Renier might also have repercussions in other fields of zoology, for there is an Aglaja Eschscholtz, 1825 in Coelenterata and Aglaia Swainson, 1827, in Aves (fide Sherborn). The question of conserving the name Aglaja is here left open for the expression of opinion by interested persons. Discoides is a nomen dubium, usually regarded as a synonym of Pleurobranchus Cuvier, 1804. Cystia, if validated, would displace Limatula Wood, 1839, and Scolixedion would displace Serpulorbis Sassi, 1827. In Mollusca, then, only Aglaja might justifiably be made a nomen conservandum. Regarding other Phyla, I have thus far consulted only Dr. Olga Hartman, specialist in Annelida. She informs me that T'ricelia is considered a synonym of Chaetopterus [Cuvier, 1830] and that Cerebratulus is in use in Nemertea. According to Bronn’s Classen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, Tubulanus is also a genus of Nemertea, type of the family ruBuLANIDAE. I have no information on the present status of Acicula, Alcyonaria, Polycitor, Rodens, and Tuba. If they 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are in use, specialists may wish to petition for their preservation. The generic name Alcyonaria Renier seems to have been overlooked by most nomenclators. It is not the Alcyonaria of Milne-Edwards, a subclass of Coelenterata. 9. There is in the “ Tavole,’’ 1807, a further problem of dual nomenclature for molluscan genera. A sample entry is here quoted : Nome generico dei Nome generico delle Nome specifico di Molluschi conchiglie aleuni conchiglie 3. Fistulanigenus Fistulana Lam. Ter. clava Gmel. Thus, the names in Renier’s first column are compounded from the names in the second (the standard list of his day) by addition of the suffix-genus to denote the soft parts or the animal that resides in the shell. Perhaps these terms could be dismissed under Opinion 72 as formulae, not true zoological names. Although they have been cited as available names by modern nomenclators, none has yet been adopted, so far as I can discover, and none would seem to serve a useful purpose. (It may be remarked that several of these refer to groups that would not now be placed in Mollusca.) The following note explains the nature of Renier’s plates VII and VIII and the method used by him for numbering the terms which he employed :— Renier’s Tavole VII and VIII are really analytical charts, with descriptive text at the top and left side to group the organisms in morphologic categories. At the right were the series of columns described in my petition, listing common name, latin name, name of shell, name of animal, etc. The numerical arrangement began with an overall column followed immediately by a second which tallied all the genera in one of his selected morphologic categories. Major breaks in continuity in the second column here were caused by insertion, from time to time, of a group of ‘‘ naked *’ mollusks among those that were “‘ shelled.” Thus, in Tav. VII, the numbers run concurrently to 5, these being soft-bodied groups, then the shelled ones begin at 1 in the second column, opposite 6 in the first. I would not need to mention this complication except that if the Commission wishes to list the names by number and uses only the second column, there would appear to be two number 8’s, one opposite 13 of Tav. VII, the other opposite 95 of Tav. VIII. In making this transcript I have included several names to show you the system that should be omitted in the final version. These I have signalized by asterisks. It may be you will choose to use the numbers in the first column. In this case the numeration would begin at 6 and would omit 83, 94, and 96 as well as 152-160. But if you choose to use both or to use the set that is nearest to the generic names in question, some explanation will have to be given for the breaks in sequence between 87-88 and after 142. 10.The following is a complete list of the names ending in genus, in the order given by Renier :— Tav. VII—MOLLUSCHI *]. 1. Mammaria 13. 8. Sanguinolarigenus *2. 2. Pyrosoma Peron 14. 9. Glycimerigenus *3. 3., Salpa 15. 10. Myigenus *4, 4. Polycitor 16. 1}. Panopeigenus *5. 5. Ascidia 17. 12. Anatinigenus 6. 1. Teredigenus ls. 13. Mactrigenus Tin 2. Pholadigenus 19. 14. Lutrarigenus 8. 3. Fistulanigenus 20. 15. Crassatelligenus 9: 4. Saxicavigenus 21. 16. Ungulinigenus 10. 5. Rupellarigenus 22. 17. Tellinigenus iti le 6. Petricoligenus 23. 18. Donacigenus 12. 7, Solenigenus 24. 19, Cytherigenus ————EEeE——————— ee 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Venerigenus Erycinigenus Capsigenus Galateigenus Cycladigenus Lucinigenus Venericardigenus Cardigenus Isocardigenus Carditigenus Hippopigenus Tridacnigenus Trigonigenus Cucullaeigenus Archigenus Pectunculigenus Nuculigenus Anodontigenus Uniigenus Pandorigenus Corbuligenus Diceratigenus Chamigenus Etheriigenus Hirundigenus Malleigenus Pernigenus Tav. VIII—MOLLUSCHI Aspergilligenus Siliquarigenus Vermicularigenus Arenarigenus Scolixedion, Phyllidia Patelligenus Fissurelligenus Emarginuligenus Crepiduligenus Calyptraeigenus Stomatiigenus Haliotidigenus Concolepadigenus Planospirigenus Chitonigenus Parmacella Testacelligenus Limax Natichigenus Neritinigenus Helicinigenus Helicigenus Planorbigenus Ampullarigenus Auriculigenus Pyramidelligenus Melanigenus Lymneigenus Achatinigenus Phasianelligenus Volvarigenus Bulimigenus . Amphibulimigenus Tanthinigenus Turritelligenus Pupigenus Scalarigenus 116. 117; 118. 119. 120. 121. : 122. 123. 124, 125. 126. 127. 128, 129, 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137, 138. 139. 140. 141. 142, 143. 144, 145. 146, 147. 148, 149. 150. 151. 161. 162. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118, 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124, 125. Crenatuligenus Mytiligenus Modioligenus Pinnigenus Plancunigenus [sic] Marginelligenus Limigenus Pedigenus Cystigenus Imisigenus Pectinigenus Spondyligenus Plicatuligenus Gryphaeigenus Ostreigenus Vulselligenus Anomigenus Creniigenus Calceoligenus Radiolithigenus Orbiculigenus Terebratuligenus Liguligenus Anatifigenus Balanigenus Tubicinelligenus Coronuligenus Cyclostomigenus Monodontigenus Delphinuligenus Turbinigenus Solarigenus Trochigenus | Cerithiigeaus Clavatuligenus Pleurotomigenus Turbinelligenus Fasciolarigenus Pyruligenus Fusigenus Muricigenus Rostellariigenus .Pterocerigenus Strombigenus Cassigenus Harpigenus Doliigenus Terebrigenus Eburnigenus Buccinigenus Purpurigenus Nassigenus Cancellarigenus Marginelligenus Columbelligenus Mitrigenus Volutigenus Ancilligenus Olivigenus Terebelligenus Ovuligenus Cypraeigenus Conigenus Sigaretigenus Bulligenus 61 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11. I concur with Dr. Cox in the belief that these papers of Renier’s are “fragments of a work contemplated but never published.” The lack of an over-all title page, the preservation of only a single known copy of the works, at the library of the University of Padua, the lack of agreement among bibliographers as to exact titles and dates, and the omission of Renier’s generic names from nomenclators such as Agassiz (1842-46) and Herrmannsen (1846-49) [the name Aglaia is listed in the supplement to the latter (1852) as, ‘‘ Renier (21804) ’’], all suggest that prior to 1847 Renier’s works above discussed existed only as proof-sheets or as charts set up in type for class-room use. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to take the following action supplementary to the action in regard to the Tavola alfabetica delle Conchiglie Adriatiche and the Prospetto della Classe dei Verma prepared by Renier (8.A.) and commonly attributed to the year “ 1804 ” recommended in the application already submitted by Dr. L. R. Cox, namely that it should : (1) rule that the work by Renier (8.A.) entitled Tavole per servire alla classificazione e connescenza degli Animali and commonly attributed to the year “1807”? was not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles and therefore that no name acquired the status of availability by reason of appearing in the foregoing work ; (2) place the work specified in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ; (3) provide an opportunity to specialists to submit applications for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of any of the under- mentioned generic names which may be shown to be in current use ; (a) Names which first appeared in the Prospetto of 1804: (i) Discoides Renier ; (iu) Cerebratulus Renier ; (i) Polycitor Renier ; (iv) Scolixedion Renier ; (6) Names which first appeared in the Tavole of 1807 : (i) Aglaja Renier ; (ii) Aleyonaria Renier ; (i) Cystia Renier ; (iv) Rodens Renier ; (v) Tricelia Renier ; (vi) Tuba Renier ; (vil) T'ubulanus Renier ; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) any of the names enumerated in (3) above which are not validated under the Plenary Powers in response to the appeal there suggested ; (b) the generic names having the termination “ -genus ” listed in paragraph 10 of the present application (unless this is con- sidered impracticable, in which case a Ruling that these words are formulae and not zoological names is asked for) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific names enumerated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the present application as names newly-proposed by Renier in the works there specified, « aes —_ = « oh ae m= Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 QUESTION WHETHER IT IS DESIRABLE IN THE INTERESTS OF NOMENCLATORIAL STABILITY TO VALI- DATE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES AS FROM RENIER, [1804], “ PROSPETTO,” CON- SEQUENT UPON THE REJECTION OF THAT WORK FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)832) At the time when Dr. Myra Keen submitted her application asking for the rejection, as being unpublished, of certain works by Renier commonly attributed to the years “‘ 1804” and “* 1807,” she proposed that, concurrently with the rejection of these works, specialists should be given an opportunity to ask for the validation of certain generic names, in the event of their considering that this should be done in the interests of nomenclatorial stability. 2. One of the works covered by Dr. Keen’s application was the Prospetto of 1804, an application for the rejection of which had, as she pointed out, already been submitted by Dr. L. R. Cox (1951, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 2 : 299-300). Since then, Dr. Cox’s application has been approved by the Commission and the decision so taken has been embodied in Opinion 316 (now in the press). 3. Four of the names referred to by Dr. Keen first appeared in the Prospetto and under the foregoing decision are now invalid, as from Renier [1804]. These names are: Discoides Renier ; Cerebratulus Renier ; Polycitor Renier ; Scolizedion Renier. ' 4, Acting on Dr. Keen’s suggestion, I am now giving notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers to validate the foregoing names, and I appeal to interested specialists to inform the Commission whether they consider that any of these names should be so validated. Any of the names not so validated will in six month’s time be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology under the regulations governing that Indez. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature QUESTION OF VALIDATING CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, IN THE INTERESTS OF NOMENCLATORIAL STABILITY AS FROM RENIER, [1807], “ TAVOLA,” IN THE EVENT OF THE REJECTION OF THAT WORK FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)688) Dr. Myra Keen’s application in regard to the works of Renier (:257-262) raises a situation in relation to new generic names in the Tavola of Renier of 1807 exactly parallel to that discussed in the immediately preceding note in relation to the Prospetto of the same author, except that the latter work has already been rejected by the Commission, while no decision will be taken for six months in the case of the Tavola. 2. The generic names which first appeared in the Tavola and as regards which Dr. Keen has suggested that specialists should be given an opportunity to state whether they desire validation under the Plenary Powers as from Renier [1807] are (1) Aglaja Renier ; (2) Alcyonaria Renier ; (3) Cystia Renier ; (4) Rodens Renier ; (5) Tuba Renier ; (6) Tubulanus Renier. 3. Specialists are invited to inform the Commission whether they consider that any of the foregoing names ought to be validated in the interests of stability in nomenclature. Any name not validated in response to the foregoing appeal for advice will, at the expiry of a period of six months, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in respect of these names is being given in the prescribed manner. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. eS ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION CONCERNING THE SUPPRESSION OF WORKS BY S. A. RENIER (1804 AND 1807) By L. R. COX, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)688) An application for a ruling that the Prodromo and Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi of S. A. Renier (1804) should not rank as publications within the meaning of Article 25 has been submitted by the present applicant (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 299). 2. It was made clear that the application relating to the Prodromo covered the section entitled Tavola alfabetica delle Conchiglie Adriatiche. It is now proposed to extend the application to the same author’s work said to have been entitled Tavole per servire alla classificazione e connoscenza degle animali and to have been published in 1807, (The title page is wanting in the only extant copy.) 8. The statements made in the previous application concerning the doubtful status of Renier’s works as publications apply also to this last work. It is known only by a single printed copy in the library of the University of Padua and by two reduced photographic reproductions made for C. D. Sherborn. One reproduction is in the British Museum (Natural History), while the second has recently been acquired by the library of Stanford University, California. It is most improbable that this work was ever generally distributed. It consists of eight tables containing the outlines of schemes of classification, and in them a number of new generic and specific names are introduced. 4. The nomenclatural problems raised by the 1807 work have been discussed by Dr. A. Myra Keen (1951, Nautilus, 65: 8) in so far as they affect the mollusca. Renier introduced a scheme in which the soft parts received a distinct generic name ending in “ -genus,”’ derived from that of the shell (e.g. Teredigenus, derived from Teredo). Miss Keen states that ‘“‘I do not agree that’ these names ending in -genus are either validly proposed or valid emendations,”’ and her final conclusion is that “ Renier’s contributions to molluscan taxonomy can be reduced to four generic names, only one of which, Aglaja, is in current use. Two, Scolixedion and Cystia, will displace familiar names unless suppressed by action of the Inter- national Commission or unless it can be shown that the type species are species dubia. The fourth, Discoides, remains for specialists in Opisthobranchiata to evaluate.” 5. The generic name Aglaja Renier, which appeared both in his “ Prospetto ... Vermi” (1804) and his “‘ Tavole . . . animali’’ (1807?) has latterly been used for the genus formerly known generally as Doridium Meckel, 1809, type genus of a family DoRIDUDAE. A reversion to this name Doridiwm would not create confusion, for it is used for the genus in such standard works as P. Fischer’s “* Manuel de Conchyliologie ’”’ (1880-87) and A. H. Cooke’s ‘‘ Molluses ’’ (Cambridge Natural History, 1895). 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION ” THAT A GENERIC OR SPECIFIC NAME BASED SOLELY UPON THE “APTYCHUS” OF AN AMMONITE (CLASS CEPHALO- PODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) BE EXCLUDED FROM AVAILABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 27 OF THE “ REGLES ” AND PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN SUCH NAMES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)589 (proposed “Declaration ’’); Z.N.(S.)858 (“Official Lists’? and “Official Indexes’’) ) Sub-section (a) of Article 27 of the Reégles provides that “‘ the oldest available name is retained when any part of an animal is named before the animal itself.”’ The present application seeks a clarification of this provision in one particular. 2. Many nominal genera are based upon nominal species of which the type specimens are incomplete. The foregoing rule is therefore, in general, desirable. 3. There are however certain special cases where the application of the above rule would lead to highly undesirable disturbance of existing nomen- clature. Such cases can be dealt with either by the insertion of words in Article 27 ruling out from availability names based exclusively upon some specified part of an animal or can be eliminated individually by the names concerned being suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers, the names so suppressed being then placed on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. 4. An example of the undesirable disturbance of existing nomenclature which would arise from the strict application of Sub-section (a) of Article 27 is provided by the names bestowed upon the aptychi of ammonites, structures which are now generally admitted to be opercula, analogous with those of gastropods. In the first half of the XIXth century, the nature of these structures was not understood, and several nominal genera and nominal species were established for them in the belief, usually, that they were lammellibranchs. Subsequently, some of these opercula have been found in situ in the body- chamber of ammonites. In these cases the names currently used for the genera and species of ammonite concerned were not published until long after the names published for their aptychi. The names published for the aptychi being at present available names, there is a serious risk of disturbance in current nomenclatorial practice unless the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature takes preventive action. 5. One of the oldest nominal genera based upon aptychi is Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (Organic Remains former World : 184), for which a description and good figures were provided by Parkinson. No type species was designated Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. Ss rt” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 for this genus, the type species of which must however be one or other of the two originally included nominal species, Trigonellites latus Parkinson, 1811 (: 186, pl. 13, figs. 9, 12) and T. lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 (: 186, pl. 13, figs. 10, 11). Since Parkinson’s time, the nominal species 7. latus has been identified as having been based upon the aptychus of a species of the genus Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868, and 7’. lamellosus as having been based upon a species of the genus Oppelia Waagen, 1869. Thus, whichever of the foregoing species were to be selected as the type species of the nominal genus Trigonellites Parkinson, a serious situation would arise, for in the one case the name 7'r- gonellites Parkinson would replace the name Aspidoceras Zittel, while in the other case that name would replace Oppelia Waagen. These are both important genera and are the type genera of families ; the supersession of either of these names would give rise to confusion and would be open to strong objection. It is the object of the present application to prevent these and other names in current use from being invalidated by the resuscitation of these old names based upon aptychi. In the present case it is desirable that, as part of its decision in regard to the name Trigonellites Parkinson, the International Commission should place the name Aspidoceras Zittel on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In the case of Oppelia Waagen, 1869, a proposal for its addition to the Official List has already been submitted to the International Commission (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 (6-8) : 227) and no further action is therefore needed here?. It may be noted that Dr. F. Trauth (Vienna), the sole world authority on aptychi, does not recognise as an available name any generic name or specific name based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites. See Trauth, F., 1927-1936, Aptychenstudien I-VIII (Ann. naturh. Mus. Wien 41-48) (especially *«« Aptychenstudien I’, published in 1927 (loc. cit. 41 : 221-228)). It will be seen therefore that the action now recommended is in line with current usage both from the point of view of the study of ammonites and from that of the study of aptychi. 6. It is accordingly recommended that the International Commission should render a “ Declaration”? recommending the International Congress of Zoology to amend Article 27 of the Régles in such a way as to deprive of availability in zoological nomenclature any name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite. 7. The amendment of the Régles in the foregoing sense would completely dispose of the problem here under consideration, but in the nature of the case this is a remedy which cannot be secured until the suggested “ Declaration ”’ is reported to, and approved by, the next International Congress of Zoology. It would however be most undesirable that the particular names with which we are here concerned should be permitted to retain their present status until the next Congress, for, as matters now stand, it would otherwise be necessary to take account of them in the forthcoming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. It is therefore recommended that the immediate situation should be dealt with by the suppression of these names by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers, the names in question, when so suppressed, being placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. *This name has now been placed on the Official List of Generic wane in Zoology i in Opinion 311 (in the press). 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. The proposals which are now specifically submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :— (1) render a “ Declaration” recommending that Sub-Section (a) of Article 27 be amended by the addition of the following words excluding from its scope anygeneric name or specific name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite: “save that, where a nominal genus or nominal species of ammonites (Class Cepha- lopoda, Order Ammonoidea) has been established solely upon an aptychus or upon aptychi, the generic name or, as the case may be, the specific name published for the nominal genus or nominal species so established is to have no status in zoological nomenclature ”’ ; (2) in anticipation of the insertion in the Regles of the foregoing amend- ment of Article 27, use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under- mentioned names of generic and specific names of species, each of which is based solely upon the aptychus, or upon the aptychi, of ammonites :— (a) the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811, Organic Remains former World 3 : 184; (ii) Solennites Schlotheim, 1813, Tasch. Min. : 105 ; (ii) Solenites Schlotheim, 1820, Petref.: 180 (an emendation of Solennites Schlotheim, 1813) ; (iv) Aptychus Meyer, 1831, Jahrb. f. Min. 1831 : 393; ad., 1831, N. Acta Acad. Caes. Leopold. Car. 15 (No. 2) : 125; (v) Aptycus Deshayes, 1845, in Lamarck, Hist. Anim. sans Vertébr. (ed. 2) 11: 228 (an emendation of Aptychus Meyer, 1831) ; (vi) Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, Mém. Soc. linn. Normandie 5 : 61; (b) the under-mentioned specific names :— (i) lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binominal combination Trigonellites lamellosus ; (ii) latus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binominal com- bination Trigonellites latus ; (3) place the six generic names proposed, under (2) (a) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (4) place the two specific names proposed, under (2) (b) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) place the generic name Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868 (Pal. Mitt. Mus. Bayer. 2 (Abt. 1): 116) (gender of generic name: neuter) (type species, by monotypy: Ammonites rogoznikensis Zeuschner, 1868 (in Zittel, Pal. Mitt. Mus. Bayer. 2 (Abt. 1) : 116, pl. 24, fig. 5) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 (6) place the specific name rogozmikensis Zeuschner, 1868, as published in the combination Ammonites rogozntkensis (specific name of type species of Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF “ ANCILLA ” LAMARCK, 1799 (CLASS GASTROPODA) By KATHERINE V. W. PALMER (Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U WS.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N. (S.)170) SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME “STRATIOMYS ” GEOFEFRY, 1762 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By MAURICE T. JAMES (State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N. (S.)710) (For application see Stone (A.) et al., 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(8): 248-246) (Extract from a letter dated 20th May 1954) Proposal for the validation of certain generic names in the Order Diptera submitted by Stone and others : I wish to express my wish that this list of genera be added to the Oficial List. The one that concerns me particularly is Stratiomys. If this name dates from Geoffrey 1762, the family name sTRATIOMYIDAE will be saved; but if it dates from Geoffrey 1764, Hist. Nat. des Insectes, Hirtea Scopoli 1763 will have priority. In my opinion, Hirtea is a very feebly founded genus and I do not believe it can be maintained on a zoological basis. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE GENERIC NAME »“ XANTHO” LEACH, 1814 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlyke Historie, Leiden, the Netherlands) (Commission’ s reference Zi N. (S. )601) When studying the Indo-West Pouific XANTHIDAE with the object to rake a thorough revision of this group of crabs, the late Miss Alida M. Buitendijk, who was the Curator of Crustacea of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, encountered a nomenclatorial problem which she intended to lay before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Miss Buitendijk’s untimely death in‘September 1950, however, prevented her from carrying out her object. Since Miss Buitendijk on several occasions discussed the problem with me and placed me in the possession of all the data, I feel it my duty to bring this question to the attention of the Commission and to submit the undermentioned proposal. 2. According to the opinion of several of the foremost specialists of the family XANTHIDAE (Buitendijk, Gordon, Monod, Odhner) the generic names Xantho Leach, 1814, and Leptodius A. Milne Edwards, 1863, are synonyms. Since the type species of these two genera are not identical, the synonymy of Xantho and Leptodius is a subjective one. The authors who synonymize Xantho and Leptodius, use the former name for their genus, which seems to be perfectly correct as this name is the older of the two. However, Opinion 85 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1925, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (3) : 13-18) places the name Leptodius A. Milne Edwards, 1863, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, while till now the generic name Xantho Leach, 1814, has not been inserted in that Inst. The genus Xantho Leach is widely distributed in the tropical and subtropical seas of the world and contains a large number of species. The name Xantho has been used by practically all carcinologists and it is the name of the type genus of the family xantTHIDAE. Thus it is highly desirable that the name Xantho Leach, 1814, should be preserved. The International Commission is accordingly asked (1) to place the name Xantho Leach, 1814, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and (2) to add to the existing entry on that List relating to the name Leptodius A. Milne Edwards, 1863, a note (similar to that already inserted in the parallel case of the generic names of the human malaria parasites, Plasmodium and Laverania) that this name has been placed on the Official List for use only by those specialists who consider that the type species of this genus and that of Xantho Leach are generically distinct from one another. 3. The gender of the name Xantho provides some difficulties. The exact derivation of the name is unknown. Dutrochet (1819, Bull. Soc. philomat. Paris 1819 : 155), who gave a genus of Oligochaeta the generic name Xantho, which thus is a junior homonym of Xantho Leach, states it to be a “nom mythologique d’une naiade.” Agassiz (1843, Nomencl. Zool., Crust. : 28) Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. ————E————— ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 derived the name given by Leach from the Greek word avés (incorrectly spelled yav0ss by Agassiz) for yellow, and emended the name Xantho to Xanthus. It seems most probable that Leach indeed named the genus after a Naiad, since he treats the name Xantho as a feminine word (the type species Cancer incisus is named by Leach Xantho incisa). It would be logical therefore to accept the name Xantho Leach, 1814, as being of the feminine gender, but the question of the gender of this name will remain open to doubt until an authoritative Ruling is given by the Commission. Since the publication in 1834 of H. Milne Edwards’s first volume of his Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, the name Xantho Leach has been treated by almost all carcinologists as being of the masculine gender. In order not to cause changes in the usual spelling of the specific names employed in combination with the generic name Xantho Leach, the International Commission is therefore asked to place this generic name on the Official List as being of the male gender. 4. The concrete proposals which I now submit for consideration are that the International Commission should :— (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Xantho Leach, 1814 (in Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7 (2) : 430) (type species, by monotypy: Cancer incisus Leach, 1814, in Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7 (2):391) (gender of generic name to be treated as masculine) ; (2) add the following note to the entry in the foregoing Official List made by the Ruling given in Opinion 85 in relation to the name Leptodius Milne Edwards (A.), 1863: “ (generic name to be used by authors who consider Chlorodius exaratus Milne Edwards (H.), 1834, to be generically distinct from Cancer mmeisus Leach, 1814, the type species of Xantho Leach, 1814) ” ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name incisus Leach, 1814 (in Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7 (2): 391) as published in the binomen Cancer incisus : (4) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Xantho Dutrochet, 1819 (Bull. Soc. philomat. Paris 1819 : 155) (a junior homonym of Xantho Leach, 1814) ; (6) Xanthus Agassiz, 1843 (Nomencl. Zool., Crust. : 28) (an Invalid Emendation of Xantho Leach, 1814). 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REQUEST THAT THE GENERIC NAME “NOTROPIS” RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS OSTEICHTHYES, ORDER CYP- RINIDA, FAMILY CYPRINIDAE) BE PLACED ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”: QUESTION OF POSSIBLE USE OF THE COMMISSION’S PLENARY POWERS TO DETERMINE THE GENDER OF THIS GENERIC NAME By REEVE M. BAILEY and ROBERT RUSH MILLER (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)663) The generic name Notropis was introduced by Rafinesque (1818, Amer. Month. Mag. and Critical Review, 2: 204), with N. atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818 (: 204) from Lake Erie as its type species (by monotypy). As indicated by Rafinesque, the name was suggested by the keeled or carinated back (probably an artifact resulting from improper preservation). Although feminine by derivation, the word Notropis was treated as masculine by all authors known to us from 1818 until 1951. Recently, Hubbs (1951, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool., Univ. Mich., 530: 14) has noted that Notropis is classically feminine, and he accordingly altered a few adjectival trivial names to agree in gender with the generic name. This procedure conforms with the requirements of the Code. 2. Notropis is known to include some 250 specific names representing well in excess of 100 valid species, making it the largest genus of North American freshwater fishes. In addition to being large, the genus includes many of the most abundant and widespread species on the continent, some of them the subjects of a sizeable non-taxonomic literature. A change necessitating correction of all adjectival specific names (numbering half of the specific names in the genus) would result in misunderstanding and confusion for years, especially by students, editors, and biologists who are not taxonomic ichthy- ologists. Currently, American ichthyologists are divided in their opinion on the problem: some prefer to continue to treat Notropis as masculine ; others wish to be classically correct and to alter the gender of all the adjectival specific names concerned. However, we believe all investigators would welcome an unalterable answer to the problem. 3. Therefore, we request (1) that Notropis Rafinesque, 1818, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (type species, by monotypy : Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818), (2) that the specific name atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the combination Notropis atherinoides, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and (3) that the gender of Notropis be designated by the Commission. 4. Of the New World ichthyologists who have read this petition all are in agreement with the first two points. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 5. The following New World ichthyologists prefer that the Commission exercise its Plenary Powers and rule that the generic name Notropis be treated as a masculine word :— José Alvarez, Mexico Reeve M. Bailey William C. Beckman William Beebe Kelshaw Bonham C. M. Breder, Jr. Martin R. Brittan C. J. D. Brown Kenneth D. Carlander Wilbert M. Chapman Gerald P. Cooper Frank B. Cross Fernando de Buen, Uruguay Martin del Campo, Mexico Jack 8. Dendy J. R. Dymond, Canada R. W. Eschmeyer W. Harry Everhart Agustin Fernandez-Yepez, Venezuela Alcides Lourengo Gomes, Brazil Myron Gordon William A. Gosline John R. Greeley C. Willard Greene Marion Grey Gordon Gunter Robert W. Harrington, Jr. Earl 8. Herald Clark Hubbs Robert F. Inger Raymond E. Johnson William J. Koster Ernest A. Lachner Karl F. Lagler Francesca R. LaMonte Vianney Legendre, Canada William M. McLane Romeo Mansueti John C. Marr Nelson Marshall Robert Rush Miller George A. Moore George S. Myers John T. Nichols A. E. Parr Edward C. Raney 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature W. E. Ricker, Canada | Luis Revé Rivas Leonard P. Schultz Donald C. Scott W. B. Scott, Canada William F. Sigler James R. Simon Royal D. Suttkus John Tee-Van Milton B. Trautman Vadim D. Vladykov, Canada George F. Weisel Norman J. Wilimovsky Loren P. Woods 6. The following American ichthyologists prefer that the Commission rule that the name Notropis be treated as being of the feminine gender :— W. I. Follett Harry W. Freeman David G. Frey Shelby D. Gerking Carl L. Hubbs Frank T. Knapp William Ralph Taylor OBJECTION TO THE BAILEY/MILLER PROPOSAL THAT THE GENERIC NAME “NOTROPIS ” RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS OSTEICHTHYES) SHOULD BE TREATED AS BEING OF THE MASCULINE GENDER AND COUNTER-PROPOSAL THAT THIS NAME BE ACCEPTED AS BEING OF THE FEMININE GENDER By CARL L. HUBBS (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) and W. I. FOLLETT (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) {Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)663) (Letter dated 3rd August 1953) For the purpose of identification, we state that the first of the present applicants is the ichthyologist referred to by Dr. Reeve M. Bailey in his letter of 1st December 1949 (1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 228), where he states that “‘one of my dis- tinguished colleagues, who is in a purist frame of mind, proposed to revert to the classical feminine for Notropis’’’ Rafinesque, 1818.. Nae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 We emphatically urge that the Plenary Power be not invoked in this case for the following reasons :— (1) It is clear to us, and to ichthyologists in general, that the name Notropis is derived, by contractions, from vww7os (or vwrov), back, and tpoms, keel, for Rafinesque in his original description mentioned the keeled back (of a desiccated specimen). (The name of the orthotype, atherinoides, does not indicate gender.) (2) It is also clear to us, from our study as well as from Dr. Grensted’s contribution (16/3) that the gender of rpoms is feminine. We quote Dr. Grensted’s final conclusion*: “I can see no reasons why the word should not follow the natural indication of its ter- mination and be feminine.” (3) The name has recently been used, by at least four authors, as feminine, with the definite statement in two of the works (quoted below) that the proper gender is feminine. (4) It would be anomalous to have some generic names ending in -fropis regarded as masculine, while other names with this ending are treated, properly, as feminine. Such varied usage would lead to confusion and to a need for consulting the nomenclatorial records. (5) No possible confusion can result from spelling the quoted specific names cornuta, rubella, volucella, zonata, bella, and maculata, rather than as cornutus, rubellus, volucellus, zonatus, bellus, and maculatus. (6) These considerations seem to us sufficient to render unnecessary the suspension of the rules to justify the obviously crude blunder of authors. We ask that the name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, as feminine, with Notropis atherinoides as the type species, by orthotypy, and that Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. These generic and specific names are now and have long been in exclusive use for the genus and species concerned. References : Hubbs, Carl L., 1951. Notropis amnis, a new cyprinid fish of the Mississippi fauna, with two subspecies. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., 530 : 1-30, pl. 1, map. 1. . The American cyprinid fish Notropis germanus Hay interpreted as an inter- generic hybrid. Amer. Midland Nat., 45 (2) : 446-454. Hubbs, Carl L., and Kelshaw Bonham, 1951. New cyprinid fishes of the genus Notropis from Texas. Texas J. Sci. 1951 (1), 91-110, pls. 1-3. Hubbs, Clark, 1951. Records from East Texas of three species of fish, Semotilus atromaculatus, Notropis cornuta, and Microperca proelearis. Texas J. Sct. 1951 (3) : 490-492. Rafinesque, C. S., 1818. Amer. Mon. Mag. and Crit. Rev. 1818 : 204. 8See Grensted, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 230. 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE QUESTION OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE GENERIC NAME “NOTROPIS” RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS OSTEICHTHYES) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)663) The counter-proposal submitted jointly by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs and Mr. W. I. Follett in opposition to the proposal that the Plenary Powers should be used to direct that the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteich- thyes) should be treated as being of the masculine gender submitted jointly by Dr. Reeve M. Bailey and Dr. Robert Rush Miller contains references to other documents bearing on this case, and a brief explanation of the origin of this application and its subsequent history may therefore be helpful. 2. In December 1949 Dr. Reeve M. Bailey addressed a preliminary com- munication to the Commission on the subject of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Notropis Rafinesque. This was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)440. Later—in March 1952—Dr. Bailey, jointly with Dr. Robert Rush Miller, submitted a formal application for the use by the Com- mission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of directing that the foregoing generic name should be treated as being of the masculine gender. The application so received is that which is published in the present Part of the Bulletin. 3. When in the spring of 1953 I was preparing the Agenda for the Collo- quium on Zoological Nomenclature to be held at Copenhagen in July of that year, I took the view that Dr. Reeve M. Bailey’s letter of 1st December 1949 would provide a convenient opportunity for considering, not the particular case of the name Notropis Rafinesque, but the general question of principle underlying the issue involved in that case. Accordingly, that problem was entered on the Copenhagen Agenda as Case No. 16 “ Article 14 (or associated Article): Question of the gender attributable to generic names consisting of compound words of Greek or Latin origin.” Three documents were submitted in connection with Case No. 16, namely: Document 16/1, consisting of an explanatory note by myself as Secretary to the Commission (1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 226-227); Document 16/2, consisting of Dr. Bailey’s letter of lst December 1949, the letter referred to in paragraph 2 above (1953, «bid. 10 : 228); Document 16/3, consisting of an interesting and informative letter on the general issue involved which, in response to an appeal for advice, Dr. L. W. Grensted had addressed to me on this subject (1953, abid. 10 : 229-230). At the same time it was decided to retain the Registered Number Z.N.(8.)440 for the general question of principle raised by Dr. Bailey and to allot the new Registered Number Z.N.(S.)663 to the individual case of the name Notropis Rafinesque. i i ii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 4. The problem of the gender to be attributed to generic names consisting of words of Greek or Latin origin formed the subject of considerable discussion at Copenhagen and a detailed scheme was approved by the Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 49-51). 5. Under the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress there is no doubt that the correct gender of the name Notropis Rafinesque is feminine. The only question now in issue is, therefore, whether, as advocated by Dr. Reeve Bailey and Dr. Robert Rush Miller, the Plenary Powers should be invoked to secure a valid foundation for the widely adopted treatment of this word as being of the masculine gender or whether, as advocated by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs and Mr. W. I. Follett, the rules shall be strictly applied in this case and this generic name accepted as being feminine in gender. 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VARY THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ CHELONICERAS ” HYATT, 1903 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMO- NOIDEA), IN ORDER TO VALIDATE EXISTING NOMEN- CLATORIAL PRACTICE By R. CASEY (Geological Survey and Museum, London) and C. W. WRIGHT, M.A. (London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)703) The object of the present application is to seek the help of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in stabilising the nomenclature of the genus Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903. It is hoped that the Commission will be able to give early consideration to this case since a decision is required in connection with the preparation of the Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology. 2. The generic name Cheloniceras was published in 1903 in “ Pseudo- ceratites of the Cretaceous,” a posthumous monograph of A. Hyatt edited by T. W. Stanton. It was introduced in an editorial footnote (Hyatt, 1903 : 101), which reads as follows :— ‘‘ In the manuscript a sheet is inserted just before Vascoceras with the heading ‘ Cosmoceratida,’ followed by ‘In family. description notice resemblance of form to Aspidoc. of Jura as more remote than to Cheloniceras of the Cretacic.’ Another memorandum bears pencil-sketch copies of d’Orbigny’s figures of Ammonites royerianus (Pal. Fr. Terr. Crét., 1, pl. 112, figs. 3, 4) labeled Cheloniceras royerianus, indicating that he had probably selected this species as the type of a new genus. .. . T.W.S.” 3. Notwithstanding the somewhat unusual circumstances of its introduction, the nominal genus Cheloniceras, with authorship credited to Hyatt and with Ammonites royerianus dOrbigny (1841, Paléont. frangaise, Terr. crét. 1 Céphalopodes : 365, pl. 112, figs. 3-5) as type-species, has since been universally accepted by ammonite specialists (e.g. Spath, 1921: 316; Roman, 1938 : 426 ; Humphrey, 1949: 143). It has come to occupy an important position in Cretaceous ammonitology and has formed the base of the family name CHELONICERATIDAE (Spath, 1923 : 35). Nomenclatorial stability of the genus is threatened, however, by inability to assess satisfactorily the taxonomic characters of its type-species. 4. D’Orbigny’s holograph of Ammonites royerianus illustrates an immature ammonite from the Aptian of Bailly-aux-Forge, Wassy (Haute-Marne), France, which is stated (Orbigny, 1841 : 365-6) to be 12 mm. in diameter and to be represented in natural size. As noted by Stoyanow (1949: 104), however, the illustration is of 20 mm. diameter. In any case, the specimen is too Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 immature for positive determination below family level, and authors have been obliged to base their conception of Cheloniceras on such species as A. cornuelianus d’Orbigny, 1841 (Paléont. francaise, Terr. crét. 1 Céphalopodes : 364, pl. 112, figs. 1-2) and A. martin d’Orbigny, of which there is abundant well-illustrated material. Kilian (1913: 340) referred A. royerianus to the same group as A. ricordeanus d’Orbigny (now assigned to the genus Mega- tyloceras Humphrey, 1949, Bull. geol. Soc. Amer. 60 (No. 1) : 149), while Rodig- hiero (1922 : 63, 67, 69) even supposed it to belong to the genus Astiericeras Parona and Bonarelli (family ASTIERICERATIDAE). On the other hand, Nik- chitch (1915: 3, 4, 13, 50) asserted that C. royerianum is merely the young of C. cornuelianum, and supported this assertion by illustrations of the young stages of C. cornuelianum. Nikchitch’s views have been discussed by Stoyanow (1949 : 104), who has pointed out that in this connection it is probably sig- nificant that the type-specimens of A. royerianus and A. cornuelianus were obtained from the same area and from the same stratigraphical horizon and that they were described in immediate succession by d’Orbigny and figured on the same plate. Although we think it very likely that A. royerianus is the young stage of a species of the cornuelianum group, we do not consider its reference to C. cornuelianum to be beyond doubt. There are a number of allied species (e.g. C. crassum Spath and C. kiliani von Koenen) which are indistinguishable from A. royerianus and A. cornuelianus at 12 mm. diameter ; moreover, if d’Orbigny’s type-specimen of A. royerianus is indeed 20 mm. in diameter it is not possible to exclude certain species of Megatyloceras as being congeneric. Hence the nomenclature of both Cheloniceras and Mega- tyloceras is insecure. 5. Our efforts to trace the original specimen (or specimens) on which the holograph of A. royerianus is based have been unsuccessful. In reply to our enquiries (through Mme. E. Basse de Ménorval), M. Sornay of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, wherein the d’Orbigny Collection is housed, has informed us (in litt. 18.7.52) that the d’Orbigny Collection now contains nothing which could have served as the basis for the illustration of A. royertanus and that all possible topotype specimens have been destroyed by decomposition. It is suggested that the specimen may have been returned to the Royer Collection, but the whereabouts of this Collection, if it still exists, is not known. 6. From the foregoing it is clear that doubt exists, and will always exist, as to the identity of the taxonomic species which is represented by the nominal species Ammonites royerianus d’Orbigny, and so long as this species remains the type species of the genus Cheloniceras, the nomenclature of that genus, of Megatyloceras, and of the family CHELONICERATIDAE rests upon an insecure basis. In order to remove this insecurity and to validate existing nomen- clatorial practice in regard to the genus Cheloniceras, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :—- (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the specific name royerianus d’Orbigny, 1841, as published in the combination Ammonites royerianus (specific name of a species dubium) ; bese “a : 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) to set aside all selections of type-species for the genus Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903, made prior to the proposed decision, and to designate Ammonites cornuelianus d’Orbigny, 1841, to be the type-species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;— (a) Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903 (type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, as proposed in (1) (b) above : Ammonates cornuelianus d’Orbigny, 1841) (gender of name: neuter) ; (b) Megatyloceras Humphrey, 1949 (type-species by original desig- nation: Douvilleiceras coronatum Rouchadzé, 1932, Bull. Inst. géol. Géorgie 1 (3): 195, pl. 3, fig. 4; text-figs. 12, 13) (gender of name : neuter) ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) cornuelianus d’Orbigny, 1841, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites cornuelianus ; (b) coronatum Rouchadzé, 1932, as published in the binommnal combination Dowvilleiceras coronatum ; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific name royerianus d’Orbigny, 1841, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites royerianus, as proposed, under (1) (a) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. References Hyatt, A., 1903: Pseudoceratites of the Cretaceous, edited by T. W. Stanton. U.S. geol. Surv. Mon. 44. Humphrey, W. E., 1949: Geology of the Sierra de los Muertos Area, Mexico, ete. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer. 60 (No. 1) : 89-176. Kilian, W., 1913: im Frech, Lethaea geognostica, 2 (3). Nikchitch, J., 1915: Représentants du genre Douvilleiceras de lAptien, ete. Com. Géol. Mém. (n.s.) 121. Orbigny, A. d’, 1841: Paléont. frangaise, Terr. crét., 1, Céphalopodes. Rodighiero, A., 1922: Sistema Cretaceo Veneto Occidentale, etc. Palaeont. ual., 25 : 39-125. ; Roman, F., 1938: Les Ammonites jurassiques et crétacées. Essai de genera, Paris. Spath, L. F., 1921: On Cretaceous Cephalopoda from Zululand. Ann. South African Mus. 12 : 217-321. —— 1923: A Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Gault. Pt. 1. Palaeont. Soc. London. Stoyanow, A., 1949: Lower Cretaceous Stratigraphy in south-eastern Arizona. Mem. geol. Soc. Amer. 38. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 PROPOSED LIMITATION TO THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW OF PRIORITY OF THE SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME “ARGUS” BOHADSCH, 1761 (CLASS GASTROPODA) EFFECTED IN “ OPINION” 185, IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE CONFUSION WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE ARISE IN THE CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS (Research Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, The American Museum of Natural History, New York) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)714) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to limit to the purposes of the Law of Priority the suppression, under Opinion 185, of the generic name Argus Bohadsch, 1761 (De Quabusdam Anim. mar. : 56) (Class Gastropoda) in order to prevent the confusion which would otherwise be inevitable in the nomenclature of the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera through the emergence of the name Argus Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carn.: 176) as the oldest available name for a well-known genus of the family LycaEnrDar. The details of this case are set out briefly below. 2. By a decision dated 17th July 1944 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature unanimously adopted an Opinion under which it approved a proposal which had been submitted to it by Dr. H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) that, under suspension of the Rules, Bohadsch, 1761, De Quibusdam Animalium marinis, and the German translation of that work published by N. G. Leske in 1776 should be suppressed for all nomenclatorial purposes. This decision was embodied in the Commission’s Opinion 185 and published on 17th October 1944 (Ops. Deels. int. Comm. zool. Nomencel. 3 (4) : 37-52). 3. One of the effects of the foregoing decision was to suppress for all nomenclatorial purposes the generic name Avgus Bohadsch, 1761 (Class Gas- tropoda). This decision, in turn, meant that the name Argus Scopoli, 1763, was no longer an invalid junior homonym. Accordingly, unless action to the contrary is taken by the International Commission, the name Argus Scopoli becomes an available name, and by reason of its early date inevitably becomes the oldest available name for a genus of Lepidoptera. 4. The type species of Argus Scopoli, 1763 (by selection by Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 224) is Papilio coridon Poda, 1761 (Ins. Mus. graec. : 77). This well-known Palaearctic species and its congeners are now referred Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to the genus Lysandra Hemming, 1933 (Entomologist 66 : 277), except by those entomologists who prefer to regard these species, notwithstanding their structural differences, as congeneric with Papilio icarus Rottemburg, 1775 (Naturforscher 6 : 21), the type species of the well-known genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24 (Tab.) : 185, 200). This latter genus was originally based upon a misidentified type species (being referred to by Latreille under the specific name argus Fabricius, i.e. argus Linnaeus, 1758 (Papilio)), but this irregularity was put right by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers in Opinion 175 (1946, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 (45) : 509-520). In 1948 the name Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, which is a household word to all workers in the group concerned, was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the above species as type species (see Opinion 270, published in 1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencel. 6 : 25-40). 5. It will be seen from the foregoing particulars that, as matters now stand, the name Argus Scopoli, 1763, replaces, as an accidental by-product of the decision to suppress the names in Bohadsch, 1761, according to the taxonomic views held by the specialists concerned, either (1) the name Lysandra Hemming, 1933, or- (2) the name Polyommatus Latreille, 1804. Hither of these results would give rise to serious confusion, for the name Argus Scopoli, 1763, has never been used except by its author, when first publishing it 191 years ago, while even the later and invalid homonym Argus Boisduval, 1832 (Icon. hist. lépidopt. Europe 1 (5/6): 49), which was originally applied in a loose way (i.e. without a designated type species) to a large group of allied species, has not, so far as we are aware, been used for well over 100 years. 6. In similar and more recent cases, e.g. the names in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée (see 1950, Opinion 228, published in 1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 209-220) of 1762, the International Commission has recognised that the rejection, en bloc, of the names in a given book, though in general desirable, may give rise to undesirable consequences in individual cases and has accordingly signified its willingness to give sympathetic consideration to any applications which may be submitted by specialists for the validation of a given name in such a book. In the present instance we are concerned not with the possible validation of an objectively invalid name but with the much narrower problem of the grant of a partial exception in the case of a name included in a book suppressed under the Plenary Powers. The question of principle involved in these two types of case is however exactly the same, and it is submitted that this should be recognised in the present instance, for it is certain that, if, instead of suppressing en bloc the names in Bohadsch, 1761, the names in that book had been dealt with individually (a procedure towards which it appears from recently submitted proposals the general sentiment of zoologists is leaning), strong opposition would have been offered by lepidopterists to the suppression of the name Avgus Bohadsch, 1761, so far as concerns its status under the Law of Homonymy. The International Commission is accordingly now asked to restrict its previous decision in such a way as to prevent the confusion in the nomenclature of the Lepidoptera which would follow the rejection of the name Argus Bohadsch, 1761, for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy and the consequent sudden emergence of the name Argus Scopoli, 1763, as an available name. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 7. The specific proposals now submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :— (1) direct that the suppression of new names in the work by J. B. Bohadsch published in 1761 under the title De Quibusdam Animalium marinis effected under its Opinion 185 is not to be taken as involving the Suppression of the name Argus Bohadsch, 1761, for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the name Argus Bohadsch, 1761, suppressed under Opinion 185 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but, under the direction given in (1) above, not for those of the Law of Homonymy, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in (3) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lysandra Hemming, 1933 (type species, by original designation : Papilio coridon Poda, 1761), with a note that it is so placed for use by workers who consider that the type species of the genus so named is generically distinct from Papilio icarus Rottemburg, 1775, the type species of Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 (a name already placed on the Official List of Generic Names) ; (4) place the specific name coridon Poda, 1761, as published in the com- bination Papilio coridon (specific name of type species of Lysandra Hemming, 1933) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (5) place the emendation corydon of the name coridon Poda, referred to in (4) above (being an Invalid Emendation not now in current use), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. SUPPORT FOR THE HEMMING/DOS PASSOS PROPOSAL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE GENERIC NAME “ ates DOP TERay 1763 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER By N. D. RILEY, C.B.E. (British Museum (Natural H: astory) London) (Commiission’s reference Z.N.(S.)714) (Letter dated 7th November 1952) LYCAENIDAE, one of the features of which is their eye-spots, yet to do so at this 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE SPECIFIC NAME “ MINIMUS ” MILLER (J. S.), 1826, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “BELEMNITES MINIMUS” (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER DIBRANCHIA) By H. H. SWINNERTON, D.Sc. (Nottingham, England) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)823) The name Belemnites minimus, or more recently Neohabolites minimus, is in general current use for a belemnite of widespread and common occurrence in the Gault and Red Chalk (Cretaceous, Albian) of England and Northwest Europe. The name is also used eponymously in stratigraphical geology, e.g. the minimus Marls of Speeton, Yorkshire; the “argiles a@ minimus” of France ; the ‘‘ minimus Thon” of Northwest Germany. The species is further one of the standard fossils used in teaching palaeontology to students. 2. The name Belemnites minimus is commonly attributed to Martin Lister, but his usage (1678: Historia animalium Angliae : 227, pl. xxvii, fig. 32) was pre-Linnean and polynominal. He was describing a species from the Red Chalk of Lincolnshire which is the same as that for which the name is now used. 3. The first available name given to this species is Belemnates lastera G. A. Mantell (1822: The Fossils of the South Downs ; or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex : 88, pl. xix, figs. 17, 18, 23). The combination Belemnites minimus was first used binominally four years later by J. S. Miller (1826, Trans. geol. Soc. Lond. (2) 2 : 62, pl. ix, fig. 6), who cited B. listeri Mantell in his synonymy. B. minimus Miller and B. listeri Mantell are thus synonymous names for one species and they are so accepted by specialists. 4. Although there has recently been an increasing tendency for B. listert Mantell to be adopted, the name B. minimus has been used in 48 out of 57 post-Linnean references to the species quoted by von Biilow-Trummer (1920: Fossilium Catalogus I, part 11: 159). It is quoted as B. listeri in six of these references and in two as B. attenuatus Sowerby (J. de C.). A well-known work of reference on dibranchiate cephalopods also uses the specific name minimus (Naef (A.), 1926, Die Fossilen Tintenfische, Jena : 255). 5. In view of this evidence for the preponderant usage of the specific name minimus, it is held desirable that this name (as published in the combination Belemnites minimus by Miller (J. 8.), 1826) should be stabilised as the name to be used for this common fossil species. It is therefore requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the specific name listeri Mantell, 1822, as published in the combination Bull. zocl. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 9. October 1954. ol Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 Belemnites listeri, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the specific name listert Mantell, 1822, as published in the combination Belemnites listeri and as proposed, in (1) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name minimus Miller (J. 8.), 1826, as published in the combination Belemnites minimus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. SUPPORT FOR DR. J. PACLT’S PROPOSAL TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “‘MELANARGIA ” MEIGEN, 1828 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By ERICH. M. HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)708) (For Dr. Paclt’s application see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 (7); 221-222) (Letter dated 18th May 1954) Es ist drigend zu wunschen, da dieser seit mehr als 100 Jahren fast ausschlieBlich allein gebrauchte Name Melanargia auf die Official List gesetzt wird, zumal er durch die auffallende Erscheinung der Art besonders weitgehend Eingang in allgemeine Werke, Lehr-und Handbiicher gefunden hat. Der Vorschlag von Dr. J. Paclt entspricht besonders der Forderung der Praéambel der kiinftigen Revidierten Regeln auf Stabilitét und Universalitét der Nomenklatur, denen alle anderen Vorschriften unterzuordnen seien. A 286 Bulletin’ fa Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON PROFESSOR HOBART M. SMITH’S PROFOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “ pager ac fy. ches se i: 1945 (CLASS REPTILIA, ORDER By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)594) (For Professor Smith’s application see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 (8) : 247-249) (Extract from a letter dated 9th July 1954) Although I am not a herpetologist, Iam prompted by the general principle involved to comment on Hobart M. Smith’s “‘ Proposed Use of the Plenary Powers to Suppress Palmatotriton Smith 1945” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9: 247-249). It was specifically to prevent the validation of names in such an inadvertent manner (cf. Minutes of Nomenclature Section of the Budapest Congress) that Article 25 was amended at Budapest in 1927, not only by requiring, for generic names, the designation of a genotype (Article 25, c. 3) but also by requiring (Article 25, c. 1) a summary of characters for the taxon concerned. It appears to me that the latter proviso is the critical one in the case of Palmatotriton. The article in question contains no summary of the characters of the genus Palmatotriton, nor is the latter published “ with a statement in words indicating the characters of the genus . . . concerned ” (Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 71, revised wording for proviso 1). The species rufescens is briefly described as a “small, broadfooted species about two inches long” but there is no generic characterization. Accordingly, I do not believe that Palmatotriton has any status as of Smith (1945). To give it any recognition, by using the Plenary Powers to suppress it, would in my opinion be a retrogressive step in our long struggle to raise the level of taxonomic work. SUPPORT FOR PROFESSOR HOBART M. SMITH’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “PALMATOTRITON” SMITH, 1945 (CLASS REPTILIA, ORDER -CAUDATA) By ROBERT MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)594) (Letter dated 22nd July 1954) Mit den von Dr. H. M. Smith auf p. 249 des 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9, 8 veréffentlichten drei Vorschlagen iiber die Gattung Palmatotriton Smith, 1945, und den Species-Namen rufescens Cope, 1869, bin ich durchaus einverstanden. —— CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Page Application for a Ruling that works credited to S. A. Renier as of the dates 1804 and 1807 were not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles. By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) 257 Question whether it is desirable in the interests of nomenclatorial stability to validate under the Plenary Powers certain generic names as from Renier, [1804], Prospetto, consequent upon the rejection of that work for nomenclatorial purposes. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ay Me cr Ae Be os ¥ eat “ZOD Question of validating certain generic names, under the Plenary Powers, in the interests of nomenclatorial stability as from Renier, [1807], Tavola, in the event of the rejection of that work for nomenclatorial purposes. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) a a: a 264 Proposed adoption of a Declaration that a generic or specific name based solely upon the Aptychus of an Ammonite (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under Article 27 of the Régles and proposed suppression of certain such names under the Plenary Powers. By W. J. Arkell (Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) 266 Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Xantho Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) .. 270 Request that the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes, Order Cyprinida), be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; question of possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers to determine the gender of this generic name. By Reeve M. Bailey and Robert Rush Miller (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) .. ee, aaye272 On the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 276 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to vary the type species of the genus Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), in order to validate existing nomenclatorial practice. By R. Casey (Geological Survey and Museum, London) and C. W. Wright, M.A. (London) 278 _ Proposed limitation to the purposes of the Law of Priority of the suppression of the name Argus Bohadsch, 1761 (Class Gastropoda) effected in Opinion 185, in order to prevent the confusion which would otherwise arise in the Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and Cyril F. dos Passos (Research Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, The American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) B: £3 Le $% A Be > 281 _ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the specific name minimus Miller (J. S.), 1826, as published in the combination Belemnites minimus (Class Cephalopoda, Order Dibranchia). By H. H. Swinnerton, D.Sc. (Nottingham, England) 284 CONTENTS "ey (continued from overleaf) Comments on previously published applications Page Supplementary application concerning the suppression of works by S. A. Renier | (1804 and ya: Si d ba SG —— D.Sc., F.R.S. ne Museum ep ssing paste London) 265 Comment on the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda). By ug Katherine V. W. Palmer (Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) 269 Support for the proposed validation of the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Maurice T. ‘oe eae — “il Washington, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.) .. 269 Objection to the Bailey/Miller proposal that the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes) should be treated as being of the masculine gender and counter-proposal that this name be accepted as being of the feminine gender. By Sh arin Carl L. Hubbs (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Folla, California, U.S.A.) : and W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) 274 Support for the Hemming/dos Passos proposal for the suppression of the generic name Argus Scopoli, 1763 (Class Insecta, Order ae By N: D: | (British Museum (Natural History), London) .. 283 Support for Dr. J. Paclt’s proposal to validate the generic name Mela: ia Meigen, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich M. ae a 0 Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) : +» 285 Comment on Professor Hobart M. Smith’s proposal relating to the generic name ‘Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Reptilia, Order Caudata). By Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of abe seat Research fanaa sy Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) < 286 Yr Support for Professor Hobart M. Smith’s proposal Rictine to the generic name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Reptilia, Order Caudata). By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum uu. Forschungs-Institut, | Senckenberg, | Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) .. a a ae axe eS fe -. Seem IMPORTANT NOTICE Specialists proposing either to submit applications to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature or to furnish comments on applications by other specialists are reminded that the Commission possesses no whole-time s and that much time which might be devoted to other work for the Commission — will be saved if they will be so good as to submit applications or comments in — duplicate, typewritten, double-spaced, on one side of the page only and with wide margins. The Commission’s Reference Number, when — should © always be quoted. All communications relating to the scientific work of the Commission should be addressed to FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, ‘Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. a - Printed in Great Britain by METCHIM AND SON, Ltp. Westminster, London VOLUME 9. Part 10 30th December 1954 pp. 287-318 pieie a hw] i) THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL | NOMENCLATURE 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 : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page _ Date of commencement by the Internationa! Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications sie in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 287 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its iaiee Powers in certain cases 287 Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1954 Price Fifteen Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, fapan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. oa Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950 Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) . Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) aa J. R. Dymond (Uninersty of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th Bi Sie 1953 Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, NYG Uso. A) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanké (MezCgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) a Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th — August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Lelie: The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vetrebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v. Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) a : (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut, Der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Ferusalem, Israel) (1 Ith a November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, a Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGIAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Part 10 (pp. 287-318) 30 December 1954 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.5:5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Novice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (Vol. 9, Part 10) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature in relation to the following names :— (1) Dama Frisch, 1775 (Class Mammalia), proposed validation of, for use for the name for the Fallow Deer of Europe (Z.N.(8.)96) ; (2) Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda), proposed validation of (Z.N.(S.)214) ; (3) rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Formica rufa, validation of, and designation as type species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Z.N.(S.)776). 2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin : other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 3. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the serial publications “‘ Nature” and “ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 30th December 1954. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Retirement of Dr. Joseph Pearson The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature announces that it has accepted with regret the resignation of Dr. Joseph Pearson (Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) with effect from 8th October 1954. Dr. Pearson was elected to be a Member of the International Commission in June 1944 in succession to the late Mr. Frederick Chapman (National Museum, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). At that time Dr. Pearson was Director of the Tasmanian Museum, Hobart. Dr. Pearson has now retired from this post and has decided to settle in England. It is for this reason that he has intimated his desire to retire from the Commission, so as to make way for the election thereto of a zoologist resident in Australia. The International Commission desires to take this opportunity of wishing Dr. Pearson happiness and prosperity in his retirement. Election of Commissioners In accordance with the procedure prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology, the following elections to the Membership of the Commission have been made by the Executive Committee of the Commission, with effect from the dates severally stated below :— K. H. L. Key, Principal Research Officer, Division of Entomology, Common- wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia, in the room of Joseph Pearson (resigned) (15th October 1954). Alden H. Miller, Professor of Zoology and Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A., in the room of James L. Peters (deceased) (29th October 1954). Ferdinand Prantl, Vice-Director, Narodni Museum, Prague, Czechoslovakia (30th October 1954). 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Wilhelm Kiihnelt, Professor, Zoologisches Institut der Universitit, Vienna, Austria (6th November 1954). F. 8. Bodenheimer, Professor, Department of Zoology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel (11th November 1954). Ernst Mayr, Agassiz Professor, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge 38, Massachussets, U.S.A. (4th December 1954). FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 4th December 1954. ———— eS 1S Ae St fee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 ESTABLISHMENT BY THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OF A GROUP OF POLISH ZOOLOGISTS TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Letter dated 29th January 1954, from Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski, Member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission (Commission’s reference: Z.N.({G.)25) With reference to my former letter of Oct. 13th, 1953, and to your letter of Oct. 24th, 1953, I am glad to inform you that the Section of Biological Science of the Polish Academy of Science has approved, by decision Nr.II-05/196/54 of Jan. 28th, 1954, the formation of a Polish group for questions of zoological nomenclature at the Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Science. The following zoologists have been appointed as members of the group. I give below for your information the names, positions, addresses, and the special field of work of each of the members of this group : Prof. Dr. T. Jaczewski, Director of the Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science, Professor of Zoology, University of Warszawa (Heteroptera) (Chairman of the group). Dr. 8. Adamezewski, Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science (Lepidoptera). Assist. Prof. Dr. 8. Feliksiak, Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science (Malacozoology). Prof. Dr. E. Grabda, Professor of Zoology, Zootechnical Faculty, High School of Agriculture at Wroclaw, ul. Cybulskiego 30, Wroclaw, Poland (Helminthology). Prof. Dr. R. Kozlowski, Head, Laboratory of Palaeonzoology, Polish Academy of Science, Professor of Palaeontology, University of Warszawa, ul. Pasteura 1, Warszawa, Poland (Palaeonzoology, Brachi- opoda, Graptolithoidea). Mer. M. Mroczkowski, Assistant Scientific Worker, Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science (Coleoptera). Dr. J. Nast, Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science (Homoptera). Prof. Dr. J. Noskiewicz, Professor of Zoology, University of Wroclaw, ul.Sienkiewicza 21, Wroclaw, Poland (Hymenoptera). Prof. Dr. Z. Raabe, Head, Institute of Zoology, University of Warszawa, Krakowskie-Przedmiescie 26/28, Warszawa, Poland (Protozoology). Prof. Dr. J. Stach, Head, Krakéw Branch of the Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science, ul. Slawkowska 17, Krakéw, Poland (Apterygota, pleistocene mammals). 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Mer. Z. Swirski, Assistant Scientifie Worker, Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science (Ornithology). Prof. Dr. T. Wolski, Professor of Zoology, University of Lodz, ul. Narutowicze 68, Lodz, Poland (Crustacea, Ichthiology). The group will examine and discuss collectively questions concerning zoological nomenclature, in particular matters published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; it will co-operate closely with its Chairman, who is a member of the International Commission; it will promote knowledge of matters of zoological nomenclature among Polish zoologists. A Polish translation of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is planned as well. The address of the group will be at the Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Science. - a ——————EeSsi=‘=‘ESON#N#Céi‘(C(SYSrTCOCOCNCt‘NCS —_—— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 REPORT ON THE QUESTION OF THE GENERIC NAME TO BE USED FOR THE VIRGINIA DEER OF NORTH AMERICA AND THE FALLOW DEER OF EUROPE By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)96) When in Paris in 1948 the International Commission ruled in favour of the availability of Zimmermann’s Geographische Geschichte of 1780 but against that of Frisch’s Natur-System of 1775, it was realised that a problem remained in regard to the generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1780, for the type species of that genus, by monotypy, was Dama virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, and in consequence, if no remedial action were to be taken by the Commission, it would be necessary to transfer this generic name from the European list where it is used fcr the Fallow Deer to the American list for use for the Virginia Deer. It was recognised that such a transfer would be bound to give rise to confusion, and the Commission accordingly invited me, as Secretary, to confer with interested specialists on this subject and to submit a Report. Further, the Commission expressed the hope that, pending the receipt of the proposed Report, specialists would abstain from applying the name Dama Zimmermann to the Virginia Deer (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 551). 2. As a first step in this investigation, I prepared in 1951 a short note setting out the issues involved and appealing to specialists for advice. This note was published on 15th April 1952 (Hemming, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 197- 198). Already by this time I had received a proposal from Dr. T. C. 8. Morrison- Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London), for the settlement of the present case on the basis of the existing practice of mamma- logists in Europe and North America respectively. Notice of this application had already been given by Dr. Morrison-Scott through the publication of his proposals in the influential Journal of Mammalogy (Morrison-Scott, 1951, J. Mammal. 32 : 125-126). By these means everything possible has been done to bring this case to the attention of interested specialists, and the time is, I consider, ripe for the Commission to reach a decision on it. 3. The general basis of the settlement proposed by Dr. Morrison-Scott is that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Dama shall remain available for the Fallow Deer of Europe, the effect of this action being to secure, without further interposition of the Plenary Powers, that the name Odocoileus Rafinesque, 1832, would continue to be the oldest available generic name for the Virginia Deer of North America. 4. Seven specialists have furnished comments on the present case. These are: the following five specialists at the Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., namely (1) Karl P. Schmidt (Chief Curator of Zoology) ; (2) Colin Campbell Sanborn (Curator of Mammals); (3) D. Dwight Davis (Curator of Anatomy); (4) Bryan Patterson (Curator of Fossil Mammals) ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt.10. December, 1954 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) Rainer Zangerl (Curator of Fossil Reptiles) ; (6) Angel Cabrera (Cuidad Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina); (7) Robert K. Enders (Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.). The communications so received will be published in the Bulletin of PONIES Nomenclature at the same time as the present Report?. 5. All the eight specialists who have communicated with the Commission are in agreement regarding the general scheme of settlement, and all except one (Cabrera) are in agreement with the specific proposals submitted by Dr. Morrison-Scott. It can therefore be taken, I think, that the solution to be adopted by the Commission should follow the lines of the Morrison-Scott proposal. Accordingly, the chief question to be considered is which of the. alternative methods suggested offers the greater advantage. The difference between these alternatives is the following :— (a) The majority proposal (seven specialists) : Under the majority proposal the Commission would use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Dama Frisch, 1775, with Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. This solution would overcome the difficulty caused by the existence of the name Dama Zimmermann, 1780 (with Dama virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, as type species), for that generic name would an invalid junior homonym of Dama Frisch, 1775. This solution would follow also the general practice of zoologists prior to the rejection by the Commission in 1948 of Frisch’s Natur-System as a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature (see Opinion 258 published in 1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencel. 5 : 245-252). (b) The minority view (one specialist) : The objection to the action recommended in (a) above taken by Dr. Cabrera is that it would be illogical for the Commission, first, to reject Frisch’s Natur- System as a work possessing no status in zoological nomenclature, and, second, to pick out from Frisch’s book a particular name (Dama Frisch) and validate it under the Plenary Powers. Dr. Cabrera accordingly proposes, as an alternative, that the Commission, under its Plenary Powers, should suppress the name Dama Zimmermann, 1780, and, incidentally also the name Platyceros Zimmer- mann, 1780, and should determine the name Dama Hamilton Smith, 1827, as the generic name to be used for the Fallow Deer of Europe. 6. The question of principle raised in Dr. Cabrera’s counter-proposal was considered by the International Commission on two occasions during its Session held in Paris in 1948, and on each occasion the Commission, and sub- sequently the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, took the opposite view to that now advanced by Dr. Cabrera. On the first occasion, express provision was inserted in the Reégles for the purpese of facilitating the validation under the Plenary Powers of names in books which had been ruled to possess no status in zoological nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 65; 1950, ibid. 5: 23-26). On the second occasion the Commission, when considering the question raised by the Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trowvent aux Environs de Paris published by Geoffrey in 1762, were confronted with a work which, like Frisch’s Natur-System, was undoubtedly written by an author 1See pp. 298-300, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 7. It is necessary now to examine the concrete Suggestion put forward by Dr. Cabrera for securing the general object which all concerned are agreed to be which it was published for the Fallow Deer of Europe (ie. by Smith (C. Hk), 1827). This suggestion, like Dr. Cabrera’s objection discussed in the preceding paragraph, raises a general issue which has already been considered by the Commission. This matter arose at the Session held by the Commission at Lisbon in 1935, when consideration was given to proposals relating to a large later usage. In taking this decision, the Commission was prompted by two considerations : (a) There was always the risk that what was then believed 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to be the oldest subsequent usage was in fact antedated by some hitherto undetected usage with a type species other than that which it was desired to secure for the genus concerned. (b) Similarly, there was the risk that in the period intervening between the date of the invalid usage and that of the first subsequent usage in the desired sense, some totally different generic name might have been published for the genus in question, of which therefore the generic name which it was desired to stabilise would become a junior synonym. In either case the adoption of the “next later usage” principle would have meant that the first use of the Plenary Powers would have failed to secure the desired end and that a second use of those Powers would need to be made if the object sought, but not secured, by the first use of those Powers was to be attained (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1: 27-30). In the present case the fact that the span between the date of Frisch’s Natwr-System and the date on which the name Dama was published by Hamilton Smith (the usage favoured by Dr. Cabrera) extends over so Jong a period as fifty-two years clearly offers a sub- stantial risk that at some time during that half-century some author either (i) used the generic name Dama in a sense different from that now desired, or (ii) that some other (now undetected) generic name was published for the Fallow Deer. 8. In the light of the considerations outlined in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the opinion that the most advantageous course to adopt in the present course is to follow the precedent set by the Commission in 1935 and 1948 and by the Congress in the latter of those years, that is, that, while upholding in its entirety its decision that Frisch’s Natur-System is not a nomenclatorially available work, the Commission should nevertheless use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating one of the names in it, namely the name Dama Frisch, 1775, and that under those Powers it should at the same time designate Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus. This is the course recommended by Dr. Morrison-Scott and by six of the seven other specialists who have furnished the Commission with comments on this case. 9. In accordance with the instructions given to me in Paris in 1948 I now submit for the consideration of the International Commission the conclusions which, after consultation with interested specialists, I have reached in the present case. For the reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs these recommendations are substantially the same as those put forward by Dr. Morrison-Scott ; they differ however therefrom by the inclusion (as required by the Regulations prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) of proposals for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a) of the name Dama Zimmermann, 1780, which, under the proposals submitted, would become a junior homonym of Dama Frisch, 1775, (b) of the name Dama Zimmermann, 1777 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 257), and (ec) of three post-1780 usages of the name Dama. In this connection it may be noted that the pages on which the name Dama Zimmermann, 1777, and Dama Zimmermann, 1780, were respectively published have been reproduced in facsimile in Opinion 257 (: 238, 239). The recommendations now submitted are that the International Commission should :— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 (1) use its Plenary Powers (a) to validate the name Dama Frisch 1775 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 258) and (b) to designate Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus so named; (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (2) Dama Frisch, 1775, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) (a) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) (6) above : Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758) ; (6) Odocoileus Rafinesque, 1832 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Odocoileus speleus Rafinesque, 1832) ; (3) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Oficial List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (2) dama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cervus dama (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, under (1) (b) above, of Dama Frisch, 1775) ; (6) speleus Rafinesque, 1832, as published in the combination Odocoileus speleus (specific name of type species of Odocoileus Rafinesque, 1832) ; (c) virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the combina- tion Dama virginiana ; (4) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Dama Zimmermann, 1777 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 257) ; (6) the following names, each of which is a junior homonym of Dama Frisch, 1775, as validated under (1) (a) above :— (i) Dama Zimmermann, 1780 ; (ii) Dama Smith (C. H.); 1827 (ix Griffith’s Edition, Cuvier Anim. Kingd., Syn. : 306); (ili) Gray (J. E.), 1850, Gleanings Menagerie Aviary Knowsley Hall, Hoofed Quadrupeds 1: 5; (c) Dama Gray (J. E.), 1825 (Ann. Phil. 26: 342 (a nomen nudum)). 10. The genus Dama Frisch (or Zimmermann) is currently regarded as belonging to the nominate subfamily of the family cervipar. In consequence, no question connected with the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology arises in the present case. 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STABILISING THE NAME FOR THE VIRGINIA DEER By T. C. 8. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)96) I have examined the record of the discussion by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 on the question of the need for validating the names currently applied to the Virginia Deer of America and the Fallow Deer of Europe (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4: 551), and, in response to the appeal by the Secretary to the Commission for advice as to the action to be taken in this matter (Hemming, 1952, ibid. 7 : 197-198), I now ask the International Commission to prevent the very serious confusion which would result, if, as required by the strict application of the Regles, the generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1780, were to be transferred from the European species to the American species. 2. I accordingly request the International Commission :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to validate the generic name Dama Frisch, 1775, (Natur- Syst. vierf. There: 3) ; (b) to designate Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758, (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 67) as the type species of the foregoing genus. (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Dama Frisch, 1775, as validated under (1) (a) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) (b) above: Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Odocoileus Rafinesque, 1832 (Atlantic J. 1 (3) : 109) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Odocoileus speleus Rafinesque, 1832 (Atlantic J. 1 (3) : 109)); (3) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (2) dama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cervus dama ; (b) virginiana Zimmermann, 1780 (Geograph. Gesch. 2 : 129), as published in the combination Dama virgimana ; (c) speleus Rafinesque, 1832 (Atlantic J. 1 (3) : 109), as published in the combination Odocoileus speleus. 3. In order to further the discussion of this question, I recently prepared a short note setting out the foregoing proposals and inviting the comments of other zoologists. This note was published in the February 1951 issue of the Journal of Mammalogy (32 (1) : 125-126). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Part 10. December, 1954. —_— a ocean Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 SUPPORT FOR DR. MORRISON-SCOTT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE NAME FOR THE VIRGINIA DEER By KARL P. SCHMIDT (Chief Curator of Zoology), COLIN CAMPBELL SANBORN (Curator of Mammals), D. DWIGHT DAVIES (Curator of Anatomy), BRYAN PATTERSON (Curator of Fossil Mammals), and RAINER ZANGERL (Curator of Fossil Reptiles) (all of the Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)96) (Letter dated 26th February 1951) We concur with Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott in his request to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature concerning action on the names Dama and Odocoileus as published in 1951, .7. Mammal. 32 (1): 125-126. COUNTER-PROPOSAL TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF DR. T. C.S. MORRISON-SCOTT’S APPLICATION REGARDING THE STABILISATION OF THE GENERIC NAME FOR THE VIRGINIA DEER OF AMERICA By ANGEL CABRERA (Cuidad Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)96) (Extract from a letter dated 18th March 1951) I have seen in the last number (February 1951) of the Journal of Mammalogy a note by Dr. Morrison-Scott, stating that he has sent to you a request to the purpose of having Dama Frisch, 1775, validated, and at same time inviting other zoologists to express their concurrence. Of course, I am personally in accordance with the intention of this request as to the urgent necessity of a decision preventing the transfer of the generic name Dama from the European fallow deer to the Virginia, or White-Tailed, deer, and T am convinced that there is unanimity among specialists on the opinion that such a transfer is to be rejected. But, at same time, both as a mammalogist and as a member of the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I feel myself compelled to express my strong objection to the way proposed by Morrison-Scott for solving the question. At the Paris Congress of 1948, and, indeed, at the same meeting as that at which the name Dama was discussed, Frisch’s Natur-System was previously and very justly declared ‘ not available for nomenclatorial purposes,”’ the Commission agreeing “ that the names attributed to Frisch as from the foregoing work, possessed no nomenclatorial status therefrom.’’ Now, to violate a decision, and a so well justified one, almost as soon as promulgated, seems to me highly inadvisable to say the least. In my opinion, when a book has been declared not available for the purposes of nomenclature, all the names contained in it become unavailable as from that book, and we cannot validate any of these names under any pretext, not even for fiat purposes. In accordance with the principle set up by the Commission in the case of the ‘“‘ Erlangen List ” (Opinion 145), a work unavailable 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature for nomenclatorial purposes ‘“‘is to be treated as though it had never been published,” the names in it becoming available in case only that they are subsequently proposed, either by the same or by other author, and then having nomenclatorial status only ‘“‘from the date and place of their subsequent publication ’ (Opinions and Declarations, 2 : 12). In the case of the generic name Dama, it is evident that it cannot be validated as from a work declared ‘‘ to be treated as though it had never been published,” and, therefore, non-existent from the nomenclatorial point of view. Morrison- Scott’s invitation for reverting to Frisch is, moreover, somewhat dangerous. If we accept one of the Frisch’s names, I cannot see why we should not accept two of them, or three, or more, the decision of the Commission about Frisch’s book becoming in the end a dead letter. As shown by Hershkovitz (1948, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 61 : 41), the first available publication of the generic name Dama is that by Zimmermann, 1780. If we reject this on the ground of the difficulties and confusion arising from its transfer to the Virginia Deer, I think that we must search for the first subsequent publication of the same name in a more satisfactory sense, that is, one more in accordance with general use. This was done in the year 1827 by Hamilton Smith, in the fifth volume of the well-known work, Griffith’s The Animal Kingdom arranged in conformity with its organisation by the Baron Cuvier. In this book, Dama was proposed as a subgenus of the genus Cervus, to contain the living Cervus dama and three fossil species: C. giganteus, C. palaeodama, and C. somonensis. The fixing, by fiat, of Dama Hamilton Smith, 1827, as the generic name for the Fallow Deer, would, moreover, involve the suppression, under suspension of the Régles, of Platyceros Zimmermann, 1780, with type species P. plinit (=Cervus dama Linnaeus); but this name cannot do any harm, as it has been generally ignored by specialists, Dama being, on the other hand, used by almost every mammalogist for the genus, or subgenus, containing the European Fallow Deer. In consequence, I am proposing here to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress, under suspension of the Régles, the generic names Platyceros and Dama as used by Zimmermann, 1780 (Geogr. Gesch. 2 : 128-129) ; (b) to declare, under the Plenary Powers, the name Dama Hamilton Smith, 1827 (Grifith’s Anim. Kingd. 5: 306) to be the name for the genus containing the Fallow Deer of Europe ; (c) to designate Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 67) as the type species, by tautonomy, of the foregoing genus ; (d) to add the name Dama Hamilton Smith, 1827, validated by fiat as in (b) above, and with the type species designated as in (c) above, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. i As to the contents of paragraph (2) (6), and (3) (a) to (c) of the Morrison-Scott request, I am, of course, quite in agreement with them. SUPPORT FOR DR. MORRISON-SCOTT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE NAME FOR THE VIRGINIA DEER By ROBERT K. ENDERS (Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)96) (Letter dated 28th March 1951) We request the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Dama Frisch, 1775, as suggested by T. C, 8, Morrison-Scott, J, Mammal, 32 : 125-126, oo ie a eee eee on EOE Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature 301 PROPOSED VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME “HELICELLA” FERUSSAC, 1821 (CLASS GASTROPODA) By LOTHAR FORCART (Custos, Zoological Department, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)214) I hereby make application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a Ruling on the following question :— Are the “ Explications ”’ for plates 1 to 47 of Férussac’s Histoire Naturelle et particuliére des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, which were published on 6th April 1821 with Livraison 9 of the foregoing work, to be taken into account for nomenclatorual purposes under the provisions of the Régles? ' 2. If the answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, I desire to ask that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress these ‘ Explications ”’ for nomenclatorial purposes, in view both of the confusion and disturbance in nomenclature which their acceptance would involve and also of the extreme rarity of these “ Explications ” which consequently makes them inaccessible for study by the great majority of workers. 3. The facts in regard to this matter are as follows: A. 8. Kennard (1942: 12-17, 105-118) published particulars of the exact dates of publication of the Lnvraisons in which were published the successive instalments of Férussac’s Histoire naturelle et particuliére des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, together with that author’s Tableaux systématiques des Animaux Mollusques. In the paper referred to above Kennard showed that Livraison 9 was published on 6th April 1821 and contained (1) the “ Explications ” to plates 1 to 47 of the Histoire naturelle, and (2) pages 1 to 32 of the “ Tableau systématique de la Famille des Limacons, Cochlea ” (edition containing six pages of “ Avertissent ”’, which forms a part of Férussac’s Tableaux systématique des Animaux Mollusques. 4. The “ Explications”’ to plates 1 to 47 issued with Livraison 9 do not form an integral part either of the Histoire naturelle or of the Tableaux systéma- tiques des Animaux Mollusques. They were no more than a provisional explana- tion of the plates in question, distributed only to those persons who were subscribers to Férussac’s work as it appeared in parts. They were not included in the copies of the completed work sold after the last part had been issued. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that copies of these “ Explications ” are extremely scarce. Indeed, so far as I am aware, there are only two such copies now extant. One of these is in the library of the United States National Museum in Washington ; the other is in the possession of A. 8. Kennard at Beckenham (Kent, England). 5. Prior to the publication in 1941 of Kennard’s paper, no reference had ever been made in the literature to these “‘ Explications,” the existence of which was therefore quite unknown. Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol, 9, Part 10, December, 1954. 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. The acceptance, for nomenclatorial purposes, of the “ Explications ” to plates 1-47, if that were permitted, would involve confusing changes in zoological nomenclature, consequent upon the alteration which would be involved in the type species of the genus Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastro- poda, Order Stylommatophora) which would thereby be involved. The position in this matter is as shown in the following paragraphs. 7. The generic name Helicella was published by Férussac on page 28 of the Tableau syst. des Limacgons with a diagnosis but without any included species cited by name. This page, as explained above appeared in Lnvraison 9. In the “ Explications”’ to plates 1-47, published in the same Livraison, Férussac employed the generic name Helicella for two species, namely (1) “ Helicella (Heliomanes) subdentata Nobis ”’ (pl. 27, figs. 1 & 2) and “ Helicella (Heliomanes) planata Chemnitz ” (pl. 30, fig. 2). 8. The first author to select a type species for the genus Helicella Férussac, 1821, was A. N. Herrmannsen who in 1847 (1 : 507) so selected Helix ertcetorum Miiller, 1774. This species was included by Férussac in the genus Helicella on page 48 of the Tableau syst. des Limacons (species no. 281), which is now known to have been published in Livraison 10 on 26th May 1821; as already explained no species had been cited for this genus in the portion of the text which was included in Livraison 9, where this generic name first appeared. Under the provisions of Opinion 46 (since clarified by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948, as shown in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 159-160, 346), Herrmannsen was perfectly entitled to select Helix ericetorum as the type species of the genus Helicella Férussac, that genus having been established without any cited included species, provided that it is granted that the passage relied upon by Herrmannsen is the first place where the name Helicella was validly published, i.e. provided that it is permissible to ignore the “ Explications ” to plates 1-47. 9. On the other hand, Kennard (1941: 265), who treated the ‘‘ Explica- tions ’’ as the first place where the generic name Helicella Férussac was pub- lished, considered that the only species eligible for selection as the type species of this genus were the two species there cited under this generic name (in explanation respectively of plates 27 and 30). From these species he selected Helicella subdentata Férussac, 1821, as the type species of this genus. 10. The species Helicella subdentata Feérussac is currently treated by specialists as belonging to the genus Theba Risso, 1826 (type species: Helix pisana Miiller, 1774). Kennard’s selection of this species as the type species of Helicella Férussac is perfectly valid, if it is granted that the “ Explications ” are available for nomenclatorial purposes. On the other hand, the acceptance of Kennard’s action would lead to a most confusing transfer of the generic name Helicella Férussac, for instead of comprising as at present Helix ericetorum Miiller and its allies, it would in future comprise Helix pisana Miiller; the generic name Theba Risso would thus become a junior synonym of Helicella Férussac, while the generic name Planatella Clessin, 1876 (type species : Helia ericetorum Miiller, 1774) would need to be brought into use for the genus now universally known by the name Helicella Férussac, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 11. I accordingly ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to prevent this unnecessary confusion from arising. The desired object could be attained by the employment of those Powers either (1) to suppress the “ Explications ” for nomenclatorial purposes or (2) while leaving the “ Explica- tions ” available, to designate Helix ericetorum Miiller, 1774 (or, preferably, its senior subjective synonym, Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758), as the type species of * Helicella Férussac, 1821. In either case the result would be the same, since it is only in the case of the generic name Helicella that the acceptance of the “ Explications ” involves a change in current nomenclatorial practice. The Internationa] Commission may feel that, as the present application is concerned only to prevent the confusion which would arise if it were necessary to accept Helicella subdentata Férusac as the type species of the genus Helicella Férussac, the most convenient course would be to adopt the second of the two alternatives outined above. In that case, I ask that the International Commission should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all type selections for the genus Helicella Férussac, 1821, made prior to the proposed decision ; (b) to designate Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species specified below:— (a) Helicella Férussac, 1821 (gender: feminine) (type species, as designated under Plenary Powers under (1) (b) above: Helix itala Linnaeus, 17 58) ; (b) Theba Risso, 1826 (gender : feminine) (type species, designated by Gray 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 15: 173): Helix prsana Miiller, 1774) ; (3) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) tala Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix ttala : (6) pisana Miiller, 1774, as published in the combination Helix pisana. References Férussac, 1821-1822, Tableaux systématiques des Animaux Mollusques classés en familles naturelles. Paris et Londres. Férussac, 1820-1851, Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des Mollusques terrestres et fluriatiles. Paris. Herrmannsen, A. N., 1846-1847, Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia. Cassellis. Kennard, A. §., 1941, “ List of British non-marine Mollusca,” J. Conch., London 21: 260-274. Kennard, A. S., 1942, “ The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac,”’ Proc, malae, Soc. Lond. 25: 12-17, 105-118, 304° Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRE- SERVE THE GENERIC NAME “ HELICELLA ” FERUSSAC, 1821 (CLASS GASTROPODA) FOR USE IN ITS ACCUS- TOMED SENSE By A. E. ELLIS (Epsom College, Epsom, England) and R. WINCK WORTH (London, England) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)214) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of preserving the generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) for use in its accustomed sense. 2. The following is a summary of the generic names discussed in the present application :— (1) Euparypha Hartmann, 1844, Erd- u. Siisswasser-Gasteropoden : 204 (type species, by monotypy: Helix rhodostoma Draparnaud, [1801] (= Helix pisana Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2: 60) (2) Helicella Férussac, 1821, Tableaux systématiques des Animaux Mollusques . . suivis @’un Prodrome général pour tous les Mollusques terrestres et flurriatiles, vivants ou fossiles 28 (Livraison 9) (This work is cited by the author as Prodrome Limacons or as Prodrome Limaces.); Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, Explic. Planches 1-47 (type species, by selection by Kennard, 1941 (J. Conch.21: 265): Helicella subdentata Férussac, 1821). (There is also an alleged invalid selection by Herrmannsen, May 1847 (Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia 2: 507) of Helia ericetorum Miller (O.F.), 1774 (Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2: 33), a junior subjective synonym of Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 772). In addition, there is a subsequent, also invalid, selection by Gray (J. E.), Nov. 1847 (Proc. zool. Soe. Lond. 15 : 174) of Helix cellaria Miller (O. F.), 1774 (Verm.terrestr. flurat Hist. 2 : 28) as the type species of this genus). (3) Jacosta Gray (J. E.), March 1821, London Medical Repository 15: 239 (type species, by monotypy; Helix albella Draparnaud, [1801], Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France: 90 (= Helix explanata Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 26)). (4) Monacha Fitzinger, 1833, Bettréige zur Landesk. Oesterreich’s unter der Enns 3 : 95 (type species, by selection by Gray (J. E.), 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 173): Helix cartusiana Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hast. 2 : 15) (5) Oxychilus Fitzinger, 1833, Beitrége zwr Landesk. Oesterreich’s wnter der Enns 3 : 100 (type species, by selection by Herrmannsen, May 1847 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 2 : 183): Helix cellaria Miller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 28) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Part 10. December, 1954, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 (6) Planatella Clessin, 1876, Deutsche Excursions-Mollusken-Fauna : 143 (type species, by monotypy : Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1: 772) (7) Theba Risso, 1826, Histoire naturelle des principales Productions de ?Europe méridionale 4 : 73 (type species, by selection by Gray (J. E.), 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 173): Helix pisana Miiller (0. F.), 1774. Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 60) (8) Xerophila Held, 1837, Isis (Oken) 30 (12): 913 (type species by selection by Herrmannsen, 1849 (Indic. Gen. Malacooz. Primordia 2 : 712): Helix pisana Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2:60). (There is also a later—invalid—selection by Martens, 1860 (in Albers, Die Heliceen) of Helix ericetorum Miiller (0. F.), 1774 (= Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758) as the type species of this genus). 3. The genus Helicella Férussac, 1821, contains a large assemblage of species of snails, chiefly of the families zoNITIDAE and HELICIDAE (Subclass Pulmonata, Order Stylommatophora). For over fifty years the name has been in general use in the literature for the group typified by Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758, and we believe this use of the name is acceptable to the majority of workers. It has, however, been used for other groups, and a brief history of the name is given below. 4. Both the Prodrome and Histoire of Férussac appeared in parts. Helicella was published on 6 April 1821 (Prodrome, livr. 9) with a diagnosis but with no cited nominal species, and on the same date (Histoire, explication des planches) the species Helicella subdentata Férussac and H. planata (Chemnitz) are listed with reference to the figures. In the next livraison of the Prodrome, published on 26 May 1821, the full list of 164 species assigned to Helicella with references appeared. These facts were not known to recent workers until published by Kennard, 1942 (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 25: 115). In 1941 Kennard (J. Conch. 21 : 265) selected Helicella subdentata Férussac as the type species of Helicella Férussac, 1821, thus transferring the use of the name to the group of Helix pisana Miiller, 1774, an entirely new and confusing usage, and introduced (loc. cit.; 264) the little-known name Planatella Clessin, 1876, for Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758. Before this, Helicella Férussac had been very widely used for the group of Helix itala Linnaeus, of which Helix ericetorum Miiller is a junior synonym, following Herrmannsen’s selection (invalid according to Kennard but defended by some authors) in May 1847 of this species as the type species of Helicella Férussac, as restricted by Hartmann, 1842 (Erd- und Siisswasser- Gasteropoden, 143), while a very few authors had used Helicella for the group of Helix cellaria Miiller, 1774, following Gray’s type selection in November 1847. These two points of view are discussed by Pilsbry, 1922 (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 39) and by Kennard and Woodward (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 49). The transference of Helicella from the group of H. itala to that of H. pisana is adversely criticised by Watson, 1943 (J. Conch. 22 : 60), who emphasises the valid selection of Helix itala Linnaeus as the type species of Helicella Férussac by Herrmannsen, 1847, 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. If Helix itala Linnaeus is accepted as the type species of Helicella Férussac, then Theba Risso, 1826, and Oxychilus Fitzinger, 1833, come into use for the groups of Helix pisana Miiller and Helix cellaria Miiller respectively. Oxychilus Fitzinger is already in general use for the genus of ZONITIDAE typified by Helix cellaria Miiller, though Theba Risso until recently has been usually applied to the genus of HELICIDAE typified by Helix cartusiana Miller, Ewparypha Hartmann, 1844, being used for the group of Helix pisana Miiller. For Helix cartusiana Miiller and its allies the generic name Monacha Fitzinger, 1833, originally proposed for Helix sericea Miiller, H. incarnata Miiller and H. carthusianella Draparnaud (=H. cartusiana Miiller), is available and has now come into use. 6. The generic name Xerophila Held, 1837, has been used for Helix itala Linnaeus by some authors, e.g. Taylor, 1921 (Monograph of the Land and Freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles 4 : 112) and Kennard and Woodward, 1926 (Synonymy of the British non-marine Mollusca: 213), following the selection of Helix ericetorum Miiller, 1774 (=H. itala Linnaeus, 1758) as type species by Martens, 1860, but Helix pisana Miiller, 1774, had previously been selected as the type species of Xerophila Held by Herrmannsen, 1849, so Xerophila Held, like Euparypha Hartmann, is a junior synonym of Theba Risso, 1826. 7. The name Jacosta Gray, March 1821, was published as a sub-genus for Helix albella Draparnaud (non Linnaeus) (=H. explanata Miiller, a species which is at least subgenerically distinct from Helix itala Linnaeus, though probably most systematists would consider them congeneric). The name is conjectured to be a typographical error (such as abound in Gray’s writings) for Dacosta, after the 18th century conchologist, E. M. da Costa. Jacosta Gray has one month’s seniority over Helicella Férussac, so a rigid application of the Law of Priority would necessitate its adoption for this group, with a consequent change in the subfamily name (family of some authors). Such a change, involving the replacement of the widely used and familiar name Helicella by the obscure and ill-conceived name Jacosta, would introduce undesirable confusion and instability into the nomenclature of the group, and the SUN agers of Jacosta Gray 1 is urged in the best interests of taxonomy. 8. While fully recognising that under the Régles Kennard’s action in selecting Helicella subdentata Férussac as the type species of the genus Helicella Férussac was correct, we consider that the confusion and instability which would result from the change in the application of this generic name as a consequence of the acceptance of Kennard’s selection is altogether too heavy a price to pay in the service of the Law of Priority. 9. Before summarising the proposals which we desire to submit to the Commission, we must add the following note regarding the gender attributable to the names which we recommend should now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Of the four names concerned, three (Helicella ; Monacha ; Theba) are indisputably feminine in gender, and it is only the fourth (Oxychilus) as regards which any question arises. Fitzinger, when introducing this name, placed four species in this genus, namely :—O.lucidus (Draparnaud); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 O. cellaria (Miller); O. nitidulus (Draparnaud) ; O. ericetorum (Miiller). The last name, being a noun in the genitive plural, has no bearing on the present problem. Of the first three specific names, Fitzinger gave a feminine termination to one and a masculine termination to two. He was therefore inconsistent in his treatment of these names. It is probable however that he intended the name Oxychilus to be a masculine word and that it was through inadvertence that he omitted to change to -ws the termination used by Miiller for the second of the names concerned (cellaria). On etymological grounds the word Ozxychilus, being a compound word derived from the Greek and having the word meaning lip as its termination, should be a neuter word. In the circumstances we recom- mend that this generic name should be treated as of the neuter gender. [Later Note : Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, a generic name consisting of a compound word derived from the Greek and having the termination “‘-cheilus ” (or ‘‘-chilus ’’) is to be treated as being a neuter word (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 51, Decision 84(7) (c) (i)). Thus, the recommendation submitted in the case of the name Oxychilus is seen to be in accord with the latest revision of the Régles.] 10. The genus Helicella Férussac was made the type genus of a sub- family HELICELLINAE by Schlesch in 1927 (KorrespBl. Naturf.-Ver. Riga 59: 116). There is an older name HELICELLINAE Chenu, 1859 (Manuel Conchyliol. 1 421), but this must be regarded as being invalid, since Chenu based it upon the non-existent generi cname “ Helcella Lamarck, 1812.” Lamarck never pub- lished such a name, for he used only the vernacular word “ Helicelle ’’ (Lamarck, 1812, Extrait Cours Zool. Anim. sans Vertebr.: 115). 11. In the light of the considerations advanced in the present application we now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Jacosta Gray (J. E.), 1821, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to set aside all type selections for the genus Helicella Férussac, 1821, made prior to the Ruling now asked for, and to designate Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Helicella Férussac, 1821 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) (b) above : Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Monacha Fitzinger, 1833 (gender: feminine) (type species by selection by Gray (J. E.) (1847): Helix cartusiana Miiller (O. F.), 1774) ; (c) Oxychilus Fitzinger, 1833 (gender: neuter) (type species by selection by Herrmannsen (1847): Helix cellaria Miiller (O. F.), 1774) ; 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) Theba Risso, 1826 (gender: feminine) (type species by selection by Gray (J. E.), (1847) : Helix pisana Miiller (O. F.), 1774) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) cartusiana Miler (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Heliz cartusiana (specific name of type species of Monacha Fitzinger, 1833) ; (b) cellaria Miiller (O. F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix cellaria (specific name of type species of Ozxychilus Fitzinger, 1833) ; (c) itala Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix itala (specific name of type species of Helicella Férussac, 1821) ; (d) pisana Miiller (O. F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix pisana (specific name of type species of Theba Risso, 1826) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Jacosta Gray (J. E.), 1821 (as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) (a) above) ; (6) Planatella Clessin, 1876 (a junior objective synonym of Helicella Férussac, 1821, as defined by the type designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) (6) above) ; (c) Xerophila Held, 1837 (a junior objective synonym of Theba Risso, 1826). (d) Helicella Lamarck, 1812 (a cheironym cited by Chenu (1859); (5) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Famaly-Group Names in Zoology: HELICELLINAE Schlesch, 1927 (type genus : Helicella Férussac, 1821); (6) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official Inde of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— HELICELLINAE Chenu, 1859 (a nomen nudum because its alleged type genus, Helicella Lamarck, 1812, a cheironym. . ml ed ° 4 P } Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 “ FORMICA” LINNAEUS, 1758: REPORT ON PROPOSED ACTION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, TO GIVE VALID FORCE TO THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION IN PARIS: ACTION NEEDED BECAUSE OF CIRCUM- STANCES NOT THEN KNOWN TO THE COMMISSION By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)776) The purpose of the present Report is to draw attention to an unexpected difficulty which has arisen in the case of the name Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), on which a decision was taken in 1948, and to seek a supplementary decision from the Commission, in order to make it possible to prepare the required Opinion in this case. 2. This case was submitted to the Commission in August 1937 by the Royal Entomological Society of London on behalf of its Committee on Generic Nomenclature and the Hymenoptera Sub-Committee of that body. The application regarding Formica Linnaeus, 1758, had then just been published (1937, Gen. Names brit. Ins., Part 5: 86). The specialists by whom the applica- tion had been drafted were: R. B. Benson; Ch. Ferriére; O. W. Richards. In 1947 this application was re-published by the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 207). 3. In the application submitted, the foregoing specialists asked the Com- mission to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of providing a valid foundation for the established usage of the names Camponotus Mayr, 1861, and Formica Linnaeus, 1758. As the applicants observed, “ In the generally accepted sense [these] are both very large genera of world-wide distribution and any change in their generic nomenclature would cause great confusion.” According to the view held by the applicants, the foregoing nominal genera were, under a strict application of the ordinary rules, subjectively identical with one another, since, as it was considered, the type species of Formica Linnaeus (by selection by Latreille, 1810) was Formica herculanea Linnaeus, 1758, a species currently referred by specialists to the genus Camponotus Mayr. The applicants asked that this difficulty should be overcome by the Commission using its Plenary Powers to designate Formica rufa, Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus. 4. The proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the current usage of the foregoing generic names was advertised in the prescribed manner on 29th September 1947. As was only to be expected, the publication of this notice elicited no objections to the action proposed, no specialist feeling disposed to support the transfer of the name Formica Linnaeus to the genus now known as Camponotus Mayr. 5. At Paris the Commission did not use its Plenary Powers in this case, for it took the view that the end desired could be obtained without resort to those Powers, for it transpired that the selection by Latreille (1810) of F. herculeana Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Formica Linnaeus was defective and that the first valid type selection for this genus was that by Curtis (1839) who so Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Part 10. December, 1954. 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature selected Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758, a selection in complete harmony with current usage. Accordingly, the Commission then disposed of this case by placing the name Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (with the above species as type species) and Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (type species, by selection by Bingham (1903): Formica ligniperda Latreille, 1802) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 408-410). 6. The complication which has now been brought to notice by Dr. I. H. H. Yarrow (British Museum (Natural History), London) in a paper which will be published simultaneously with this Report (1954, Bull. zool. N omencl. 9: 313-317) is that the accepted interpretation of the nominal species Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 580) is incorrect. This is due to the fact that since 1893 all authors have followed the incorrect determination of the foregoing nominal species by Dalla Torre, who, in making that interpretation, disregarded the synonymy of Formica and Camponotus established by previous authors. Dr. Yarrow points out :— (1) that the description given by Linnaeus in 1758 for F’. rufa agrees with the worker caste of what is now known as Camponotus herculeana (Linnaeus, 1758) but in no way with the “ Formica rufa” of authors. (2) that Linnaeus in 1761 (Faun. svec. (ed. 2): 426) repeated his 1758 description of the worker but added descriptions of a male and a female and gave a supplementary description of the same worker. (3) that Linnaeus in 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2): 962) added to the reference for F. rufa a citation to a figure (Schaeffer, 1766, Ic. Ins. 1: pl. 5, fig. 3) which there can be no doubt represents Camponotus ligniperda (Latreille, 1802) ; (4) that Latreille in 1802 (Hist. nat. Fourmis : 143) expressed doubt as to the identity of F. rufa Linnaeus, 1758, and, “in order to retain that name for what we now know as ‘F. rufa’,” deliberately excluded both Linnaeus’ own description and the citation by Linnaeus (in 1767) of Schaeffer’s plate ; (5) that Zetterstedt in 1840 (Ins. lapp.: 488, no. 3 nec 450, no. 8 (which latter is a Myrmica)) interpreted F. rufa Linnaeus as a species now placed in the genus Camponotus ; (6) that Nylander in 1846 (Act. Soc. Sci. fenn. 2: 894) treated F. rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as interpreted by Linnaeus in 1761, and also F. rufa Linnaeus, as interpreted by Zetterstedt (1840) as synonyms of Formica herculeana Linnaeus (i.e. as a Camponotus) and in this he was followed by Forster (1850), Roger (1863) and Forel (1874) ; (7) that the series of F. rufa in the Linnean collection at Burlington House contains the following representatives of the species currently (but incorrectly) known as “ F. rufa”: (i) a single worker labelled “rufa ex desc.” ; (ii) two unlabelled winged females ; (iii) three unlabelled males ; that the unlabelled males and females could include the male and female described by Linnaeus in 1761 (these specimens agreeing with the somewhat cursory description then given for F. rufa) ; but that the labelled worker does not agree with the 1761 description. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 7. Dr. Yarrow points out that the need for preventing the confusion which would follow from the transfer of the name Formica Linnaeus to the genus now known as Camponotus Mayr is as great as it was when the Benson/ Ferriére/Richards proposal was published in 1937. He proposes that the end desired—namely the provision of a valid basis for the decision taken by the Commission in 1948—should be secured by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers (a) to suppress the specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Formica rufa, and (6) to designate Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 (which, on the suppression of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758, would become an available name) to be the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758, the nominal species so designated to be interpreted by reference to the unlabelled winged female preserved in the Linnean Collection in the series of Formica rufa which he has selected to be the lectotype in the event of the Commission approving his present proposals. Dr. Yarrow gives particulars of the distinguishing label which he has attached to the female lectotype—it will be recalled from paragraph 6 (7) above that there are two winged females in the Linnean Collection—and he has furnished also a reference to a description of the lectotype so chosen which sets out the characters shown by that specimen which indisputably show that it is referable to the species currently — but incorrectly—known as Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758. 8. While it is unfortunate that the information now received from Dr. Yarrow was not available at the time when the Commission decided to take such steps as might be necessary to prevent the transfer of the name Formica Linnaeus, 1758, to the genus currently known as Camponotus Mayr, 1861, the receipt of his communication at the present moment is very timely, for it has made it possible to postpone the preparation of the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission on this case until it has been able to consider the additional material now submitted. 9. It is clearly desirable that all outstanding matters connected with the name Formica Linnaeus should now be disposed of and I accordingly asked Dr. Yarrow to furnish particulars of the occasions on which this name has been taken as the basis of a family-group name. Ina letter dated 21st October 1954, Dr. Yarrow has kindly furnished the following particulars :— 1802. Formicariae (Formicaires) Latreille 1802, Histoire Naturelle générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes 3 : 352. 1805. Formicariae (Formicaires) Latreille 1805, ibid. 13 : 241. 1809. Formicariae (Formicaires) Latreille 1809, Genera Crustaceorum et Insect- orum 4: 124. 1810. Formicariae (Formicaires) Latreille 1810, Considérations générales sur Vordre naturel des Animeaux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes: 311. 1813. Formicariae. Fallén, 1813, Specimen Novam Hymenoptera disponendi methodum exhibens : 7, 40. 1815. Formicarides. Leach 1815 in Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9 pt. 1: 147. 1819. Formicadae. Leach in Samouelle 1819, The Entomologist’s useful Com- pendium : 272. 1820. Formicaedes. Billberg 1820, Enumeratio insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg : 104. Dr. Yarrow adds that the first use of the name FORMICIDAE that he has been able to trace is Stephens, J. F., 1829. A Systematic Catalogue of British Insects : 357, 312 Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature 10. On the question of procedure, it appears to me that the most convenient course would be for me to submit for consideration the draft of a Ruling— intended later to be embodied in an Opinion—which would include not only (a) the draft of a Ruling giving effect to the request now received from Dr. Yarrow, but also (b) the Rulings agreed upon by Commission at Paris in regard to the remaining aspects of this case. The draft Ruling so prepared is given in an Annexe to the present note. It will be appreciated that it is in Point (1) of the draft Ruling that the action proposed for dealing with Dr.Yarrow’s point is set out and that the remaining Points (Points (2) to (4) ) are concerned either with decisions on cther aspects of the case decided upon in Paris (Points (2) and (3) ) or (Point (4) ) deal with matters that are purely consequential upon the acceptance of the recommendation set out in Point (1), if that recommenda- tion is approved. ANNEXE Draft of Revised Ruling now submitted for consideration (1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Formica rufa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (d) the specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the same combination, is hereby validated and this name is to be interpreted by reference to the winged female specimen in the Linnean collection selected to be the lectotype by Yarrow (1954). (2) The under-mentioned names are hereby placed on the Official Last of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers : Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as validated and determined in (1) above; (b) Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Bingham (1903): Formica ligniperda Latreille, 1802). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Last of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Formica rufa and as validated and determined in (1) above ; (b) ligniperda Latreille, 1802, as published in the combination Formica ligniperda. (4) The specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the combination Formica rufa and as suppressed in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (5) The under-mentioned name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology:—¥FoRMICIDAE (correction of FORMICARIAE) Latreille, [1802-1803*] (first published in the correct form as FORMICIDAE by Stephens (J. F.), 1829) (type genus : Formica Linnaeus, 1758). (6) The under-mentioned names of family-group taxa, of each of which the type genus is Formica Linnaeus, 1758, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—(a) FORMI- CARIDES Leach, 1815; (b) FormIcADAE Leach, 1819; (c) FoRMICAEDES Bill- berg, 1820. *The work in which this name, though dated “‘ An X ” in the French Revolutionary Calendar, was not actually published until “An XI.” It was therefore published in the period September 1802-September 1803. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 APPLICATION FOR THE RE-EXAMINATION AND RE- PHRASING OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION REGARDING THE NAME OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF “ FORMICA” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By I. H. H. YARROW, M.A., Ph.D. (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)776) SYNOPSIS Benson, Ferriére and Richards in 1937 and 1947 submitted a case to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking for the preserva- tion of the existing usage of the generic names Formica Linnaeus, 1758 and Camponotus Mayr, 1861, by cancelling the selection by Latreille (1810) of Formica herculeana Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758, and in its place accepting the selection by Curtis (1839) of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 as type of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758. At their Meeting in Paris in J uly 1948 the Commission considered the above application and agreed that Latreille in 1810 made no type selection of Formica herculeana as type species of Formica within the meaning of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Régles and ruled that under the Regles the type of this genus was Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been the first of the originally included species to have been duly selected by Curtis ( 1839) and that therefore there was no necessity for the Commission to use their Plenary Powers to designate that species as type of the genus Formica. Furthermore, the Commission agreed to place Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 (type species Formica rufa Linnaeus 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as pub- lished in the binominal form Formica rufa, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Recent investigation has shown Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 and Formica herculeana to be conspecific, the former a worker, the latter a wingless female of Camponotus herculeanus Linnaeus, 1758. 2. If Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 is to be accepted as the type species of the genus Formica, then Camponotus Mayr, 1861 is a direct synonym and the very same confusion, of world-wide compass, which Benson, Ferriére and Richards set out to avoid must obtain. 3. This confusion can be avoided if the Commission will agree to use their Plenary Powers to place Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 on the list of permanently rejected names, and on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology to replace Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 with Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761, the occasion on which Linnaeus first described an individual of the species traditionally known as Formica rufa. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4. Linnaeus in 1758 (: 580, no. 2) proposed the name Formica rufa. The description he gives here agrees with the worker caste of Camponotus herculeanus Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol, 9, Part 10. December, 1954, 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Linnaeus 1758) but in no way with Formica rufa auctt. The description of the nest, on the other hand, cannot apply to Camponotus. 5. Linnaeus in 1761 (: 426, no. 1721) redescribed Formica rufa giving a description of the worker in the same words as in 1758 together with descriptions of a male and female and a supplementary description of the same worker. 6. Linnaeus in 1767 (: 962, no. 3) quoted the illustration given by Schaeffer in 1766 (pl. 5 fig. 3) under his Formica rufa, thus selecting the worker but not the female illustrated in that plate (fig. 4). There can be no doubt that these illustrations apply to Camponotus ligniperda (Latreille, 1802), a species not, distinguished from C. herculeanus (Linnaeus, 1758) at that time. This shows that Linnaeus still confused Camponotus workers with those found in thatched nests, a form of nest never made by Camponotus. 7.. Latreille in 1802 (: 143) was uncertain as to the identity of Formica rufa Linnaeus and deliberately excluded Linnaeus’s own description and quotation of Schaeffer’s illustration in order to retain the name for what we now know as “ F. rufa” ; at the same time he felt obliged to point out that he only supposed his “‘ rufa” to be the same as the Linnean species though in his opinion it might well be Linnaeus’s herculeana. 8. Zetterstedt in 1840 (: 488, no. 3 nec 450, no. 8 which is a Myrmica species) interpreted F. rufa Linnaeus as a species now placed in Camponotus Mayr. 1861, and an examination of his specimens has shown that both his “ F. rufa and F. rufa var.b.” are in fact Camponotus. 9. Nylander in 1846 (: 894) placed the worker F. rufa Linnaeus, 1761 and F. rufa Linnaeus Zetterstedt, 1840 as synonyms of Formica herculeana Linnaeus. F. rufa Linnaeus Nylander, 1846 (: 902) is based on the male and female of Linnaeus 1761. This was followed by Forster 1850 (: 9), Roger 1863 (: 1 no. 7, note :—misprint 2 for ¢ cf under F. rufa : 12, no. 357). Forel 1874 (: 96) synonymizes F’. rufa Linnaeus with Camponotus herculeanus and under Formica (: 98) quotes “ F. rufa i. sp. Linné (Faun. Svec.) Latreille. Mayr. Nylander.” 10. Nylander in 1846 (: 894) pointed out that Formica herculeana Linnaeus 1761 is a female ; in actual fact the description given by Linnaeus in 1758 also must refer to the (dealated) female. In the Linnean Collection at Burlington House, London, there is a specimen which, though unlabelled, could be the type of herculeana. Also in the Linnean Collection is a single unlabelled worker of Camponotus herculeanus agreeing with the description of F. rufa. A third specimen of Camponotus is a winged female bearing the label ‘‘ herculeanea [sic] ex desc.” Formica (modern sense) in the Linnean Collection is represented by a single worker bearing the label “ rufa ex descr.”, two unlabelled winged females and three unlabelled males. These last five could include the male and female specimens described by Linnaeus in the 2nd. edition of the Fauna Svecica (1761) and agree with the somewhat cursory description. The labelled worker on the other hand, does not agree at all with the description of rufa, which states “‘ Thorace compresso toto ferrugineo, capite abdonineque nigris ” (the thorax is not compressed, the head is not black but red—in fact this Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 specimen is copiously red-marked) and even less with the supplementary description of 1761 which states “ ... squama intergerina ferruginea, acumi- nata.”, which is typical of the worker of Camponotus herculeanus (Linnaeus, 1758), but effectively excludes any known Formica. No type of Formica rufa has previously been selected. 11. Dalla Torre in 1893 and later authors have disregarded this synonymy of Formica and Camponotus, indeed Donisthorpe (1927) goes even further and quotes the Linnean description of 1758 under “ Formica rufa” despite the fact that this description cannot possibly apply to any known Formica (nor in fact to any ant known in the British fauna). 12. It should be noted that Linnaeus intended to refer to the woodland thatch-building ants by his Formica rufa since he states in 1758 “ habitat in Kuropae acervis-acerosis sylvaticis ; in America septentrionali. Kalm,’” but unfortunately selected a superficially similar but in fact abundantly distinct specimen for description. His description of the rufa female in 1761 (: 426) removes any doubt on this matter. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Paris Meeting, July 1948, having had under consideration an application (file Z.N. (S.) 183) submitted by Mr. R. B. Benson (British Museum (Natural History) London) M. Ch. Ferriére (then of the Commonwealth (at that time Imperial) Institute of Entomology, London) and Dr. O. W. Richards (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) “ that the Commission should use their Plenary Powers to preserve the existing usage of the generic names Formica Linnaeus, 1758, and Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) by cancelling the selection by Latreille (1810) of Formica herculeana Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Benson, Ferriére and Richards, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 207); ” and agreed “ to place the undermentioned generic names with the type species severally specified below on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (type species, by selection by Curtis, 1839: Fornaca rufa Linnaeus, 1758) Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (type species, by selection by Bingham, 1903: Formica ligniperda Latreille, 1802) ;”’ and ** to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trial Names in Zoology” :— rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Formica rufa; hgniperda Latreille, 1802, as published in the binominal combination Formica ligniperda.” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 409-410). 14, This decision was taken in order to prevent the synonymizing of a Camponotus with Formica and to retain the use of Formica in the traditional sense. 15. From the above statement it will be seen that if Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 is retained for the type of Formica Linnaeus, 1758, then Camponotus Mayr, 1861 must be treated as a synonym, the very contingency that the Commission have sought to avoid. 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 16. As was stated in the original application (Benson, Ferriére and Richards, 1937, The Generic Names of British Insects, 5, Hymenoptera Aculeata, R. ent. Soc. Lond.: 86 and 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 207) “ Camponotus and Formica in the generally accepted sense are both very large genera of world- wide distribution and any change in their generic nomenclature would cause great confusion.” RECOMMENDATION 14. It is considered that the best solution of the difficulties discussed above will be for the Commission to direct that the name Formica rufa Linnaeus be identified as from the description published in 1761 which undoubtedly refers to the species commonly so known and of which two winged female specimens are preserved in the Linnean Collection at Burlington House, and that this identification should be made by reference to one of those specimens. In order to facilitate the adoption of this proposal, I have selected one of the foregoing specimens to be the lectotype and I hereby publish that selection as follows :— ‘“ Of the two unlabelled winged female specimens in the Linnean Collection, one is in better condition than the other, having the full complement of antennae, wings and legs, and this is the specimen which I now select as the lectotype of the foregoing species. I have attached to this specimen the following label for this purpose : ‘‘ Lectotype of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761, by selection by I. H. H. Yarrow, 1954.”’ The specimen stands in Box 192 in Drawer 54. An adequate diagnosis of the female of this species will be found under the synonym F. piniphila Schenck in Bondroit, 1918 (: 57)” 15. The proposals now submitted are :— (a) that the name rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Formica rufa, be permanently suppressed under the Plenary Powers and that under the same powers Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 (which under the action proposed would become an available name) should be designated the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758, the nominal species so designated to be interpreted by reference to the winged female specimen in the Linnean Collection at Burlington House which I have selected to be the lectotype ; (b) that the name rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Formica rufa, as validated above and as there interpreted be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology at the same time that the generic name Formica Linnaeus, 1758, is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 BIBLIOGRAPHY Benson, Robert B., Ferriére, Charles and Richards, Owen W. 1937. The Generic Names of British Insects, 5, Hymenoptera Aculeata, R. ent. Soc. Lond. —— 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 207. Bondroit, Jean, 1918, Les Fourmis de France et de Belgique. Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 87 : 1-174. Dalla Torre, Karl Wilhelm von, 1893, Catalogus Hymenopterorum 7 (Formicidae) Leipzig. Donisthorpe, Horace St. J. K., 1927, British Ants, Their Life-History and Classification, 2nd ed. London. Foerster, Arnold, 1850, Hymenopterologische Studien. Jahresber. hoh Burgerschule Aachen 1, Formicariae Aachen. Forel, Auguste, 1874, Les Fourmis de la Suisse. N. Denschr. allg. Schweiz. Ges. ges. Naturw. Ziirich. Latreille, Pierre A., 1802, Histoire Naturelle des Fourmis, et recueil de Mémoires et d’Observations sur les Abeilles, les Araignées, les Faucheurs et autres imsectes. De VImprimerie de Crapalet, Paris [XVI] + 455 pp. ; 12 pls. Linnaeus, Carolus [Carl von Linné] 1758, Systema Naturae. Hditio decima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvi, vol. 1. (4) 824 pp. —— 1761, Fauna Svecica. Editio altera, auctior. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvu. (45) + 578 pp. Fp. + 2 pls. —— 1767, Systema Naturae,Tom.1. Pars. IJ. Editio duodecima reformata. Stockholm, Lavro Salvii. [1] + 794 + [86]. Mayr, Gustav L., 1861, Die europaischen Formiciden. Vienna. Nylander, William, 1846, De Formicis Borealibus. Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 2: 875-944 1 pl. Roger, Julius, 1863, Verzeichnis der Formiciden-gattungen und-Arten. Berl. ent. Z. 6 (Supplement) : 1-65. Schaeffer, Jacob Christian, 1766, Jcones Insectorum circa Ratisbonam Indigenorum. Volume 1, Pars. 1. Regensburg. Frontispiece [10] + 100 pls. + [12] pp. Staercke, August, 1947, De boreale vorm van de roode boschmier (Formica rufa rufa Nyl.) op de Hooge Veluwe. Ent. ber. Amst. no. 275: 144-6. Zetterstedt, Johanne Wilhelmo, 1840, Insecta Lapponica. Leipzig. 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR DR. I. H. H. YARROW’S PROPOSAL FOR THE REPHRASING OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION REGARDING THE NAME OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF “FORMICA” LINNAEUS, 1758 By R. B. BENSON, M.A. (British Museum (Natural History), London), G. E. J. NIXON, B.A. (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London), J. F. PERKINS, B.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) and O. W. RICHARDS, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)776) (Enclosure to a letter dated 18th July 1953) We strongly support Dr. I. H. H. Yarrow’s application for the suppression of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758; the retention of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 with the type, a female ; and the retention of Formica Linnaeus, 1758, with the type species Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761. ————— a> eras ee ee ee ek CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) i 3 ¥ Election of Commissioners E Zoological Nomenclature New Applications ‘ Report on the question of the generic name to be used for the Virginia a Deer of North America and the Fallow Deer of Europe. By Francis - Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature) oh ay ot BS by Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of stabilising the name for the Virginia Deer. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, | be A M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) a% Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda). By Lothar Forcart (Custos, Zoological Department, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland)... a aX at a fe 7 ss Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name Heli- cella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) for use in its accustomed sense. By A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Epsom, England) and R. Winckworth (London, England) 4s i we a3 ue Formica Linnaeus, 1758 : Report on proposed action, under the Plenary Powers, to give valid force to the decision taken by the Commission in Paris : action needed because of circumstances not then known to the Commission. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secre- __ tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) _ Application for the re-examination and re-phrasing of the decision taken ™ by the International Commission regarding the name of the type species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenop- % tera). By I. H. H. Yarrow, M.A., Ph.D. (British Museum (Natural ; History), London) ae e% a ay Fe sts ot Comments on applications _ Support for Dr. Morrison-Scott’s proposal relating to the name for the _ Virginia Deer. By Karl P. Schmidt (Chief Curator of Zoology), Colvin Campbell Sanborn (Curator of Mammals), D. Dwight Davies (Curator of Anatomy), Bryan Patterson (Curator of Fossil Mammals), and Rainer Zangerl (Curator of Fossil Reptiles), all of the Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A... an a Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomencalture : Establishment by the Polish Academy of Science of a group of Polish Zoologists to co-operate with the International Commission on Page 289 291 293 298 301 304 309 313 299 CONTENTS (continued from overleaf) —— Page Counter-proposal to certain portions of Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott’s . application regarding the stabilisation of the generic name for the Virginia Deer of America. By Angel Cabrera (Cuidad Eva Peron, ze F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) ‘fe ms e } Be «ee ae Support for Dr. Morrison-Scott’s proposal relating to the name for the Virginia Deer. By Robert K. Enders (Swarthmore College, Swarth- . more, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) .. es os of see ‘a S00) Support for Dr. I. H. H. Yarrow’s proposal for the re-phrasing of the ana’ decision taken by the International Commission regarding the name ; 7 of the type species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758. By R. B. Benson, | M.A. (British Museum (Natural History), London), G. E. J. Nixon, B.A. (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London), J. F. Perkins, B.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) and O. W. Richards, D.Sc. (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) 318 Printed in Great Britain by METCHIM AND SON, LTD. Westminster, London _ _ VOLUME 9. Part 11 30th December 1954 pp. 319-350 PURCHASED te a THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL | NOMENCLATURE . ~* The Official Organ of _ THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 4 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE | | Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : CONTENTS : i. Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Gs : 319 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases m. ee Printed by Order of the International Trust for ‘Neils Zoological Nomenclature a re and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ie by the International Trust ea at its Publications Office, 41 Queen’s Gate, Loudon, S.W.7. 1954 Price Fifteen Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), a Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley ey University, Ithac«, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vic2-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Aeverel (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) a Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) 7 Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) ‘ doe Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Tziso Esaki (Kvushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) : Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) i Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, a Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) 7 a Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut a ; Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universi- + tat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) a. Senhor Dr. Asranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- ; President) re Professor J. R. Deon (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August ; 1953) ~ ae Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th a August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) ghar se Béla Hank6 (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 3 1953 . Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th © August 1953) — Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- — i lands) (12th August 1953) : Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) + Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, “EE Berkeley, California, U.S.A. (29th October 1954) ; Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v. Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) — (30th October 1954) a Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut, Der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ie Professor F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Tsraely (11h é November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Hara Colleg oi Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) “ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Part 11 (pp. 319-350) 30th December, 1954 ——————— NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 150, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission may start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 9, Part 11) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable to communication in question to reach the Secre- tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 7 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases 1. Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers, is involved in appli- cations published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the following names :— (1) Carinifex Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda), validation of (Z.N.(S.)224) ; (2) XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation of (Z.N.(S.)601) ; (3) Diseras Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation of (Z.N.(S.)829) ; (4) Upogebia Leach, 1814, and Processa Leach, 1815 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation of (Z.N.(S.)830) ; (5) UPOGEBLINAE Borradaile, 1903, and PROCESSIDAE Ortmann, 1896 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation of (Z.N.(S.)830). 2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin : other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 3. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56) corresponding Notices have been sent to the serial publications “ Nature’ and “ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 30th December 1954. * 4 . £ 4 i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE GENERIC NAME “ CARINIFEX ” BINNEY, 1865 (CLASS GASTROPODA) By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)224) In the course of an investigation on which I am engaged, the old matter of the relative status of the names Carinifex Binney, 1863, and Megasystropha Lea, 1864 (Class Gastropoda, Order Pulmonata, Suborder Basommatophora), has come up again, and I accordingly appeal to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a decision which will finally settle this question in favour of the name Carinifex Binney. 2. This question was submitted by Dr. W. H. Dall to the International Commission some years ago, and the Commission’s decision was given in Opinion 87. On re-reading that Opinion, I have, however, been led to the conclusion that not all the relevant data were before the Commission at the time when it gave the Ruling embodied in the foregoing Opinion. In any case that Opinion did not provide a definite answer on the question submitted of the availability of the generic name Carinifex Binney, by placing either that name or the name Megasystropha Lea on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 3. The following is a list of the papers which are relevant to the present problem :— (1) In 1858 Lea published a paper (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 10: 91) in which he gave a recognisable description of a species to which he applied the name Planorbis newberryi. The specimens on which the description of this species was based were taken at Klamath Lake and Canoe Creek, California. (2) In 1863 there appeared a pamphlet bearing the title “ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 000” [i.e. issued without a number], which bore the date 9th December 1863. In this pamphlet Binney, under the heading “ Planorbinae,” listed without comment the names of various species of Planorbis and Seg- mentina. At the same time Binney listed without comment what he called “ Carinifex newberryi Lea.” (3) In 1864 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 16: 5) Lea published a des- cription of his Planorbis newberryi (in supplement to that which he had published in 1858); at the conclusion of this paper, he added under the heading “Remarks”: “This is a very Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 9, Part 11. December, 1954, 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature remarkable shell, and I have placed it among the Planorbes, until the soft parts may be observed in a living state; they may be found to differ from the true Planorbes.”’ Furthe1, he added in a footnote: ‘‘ Provisionally it may be called Megasystropha . . . the umbilicus being large and vortex-like.” (4) In February 1865 Binney published a paper (Amer. J. Conch. 1: 50, pl. 7, figs. 6-7), which contained the first published figure of the species Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858. In this paper Binney referred to this species as Carinifex newberryi (Lea). (5) In September 1865 Binney published a further paper (“‘ Land and Freshwater Shells of North America”) (Smithson. misc. Coll. 143 (Pt. 2): 74-75), in which he defined the genus Carinifex and gave a figure of Carinifex newberryi (Lea) (fig. 120). (6) In 1867 Lea published a paper (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6) in which he gave a figure (pl. 23, fig. 68) of the species to which in 1858 he had given the name Planorbis newberryi and which he now referred to under the name Megasystropha newberryt. 4. The discussion of the generic name Carinifex has centered around the question whether Binney’s paper of 1863 can be regarded as having been duly published and whether the citation in that paper of the name “ Carinifex newberryi Lea,” without any supporting data is sufficient to identify the species to which Binney was referring. On both these questions an adverse view was taken by the Commission in Opinion 87. As regards the second of these questions it was pointed out in that Opinion that Lea had published other specific names comprising the trivial name newberryi, e.g. Ancylus newberryi, Goniobasis newberryi and Melania newberryi, and the view was expressed that, as Binney did not cite either the name of the genus in which Lea had originally published the species to which he (Binney) was referring or a bibliographical reference to the place where that name was published, it was not possible to determine the identity of the species cited by Binney as “ Carinifex newberryi Lea ” and therefore that the generic name Carinifex acquired no availability in virtue of being so cited. Considering that the species with which we are here concerned was originally described by Lea as belonging to the genus Planorbis and that the name “ Carinifex newberryi Lea” cited by Binney was placed by that author under the heading “ Planorbinae,” the foregoing objection advanced against the identification of the species referred to by Binney does not stand any close examination. The other ground on which in Opinion 87 the Commis- sion rejected Binney’s name Carinifex, namely that the document in which it appeared was a printers’ proof appears also to be open to question, for it was printed and distributed from the Smithsonian Institution in considerable numbers for comment by interested specialists, whereas a printers’ proof is a document printed in only a very small number of copies, its sole purpose being to enable the author to make such corrections as are necessary before the book or paper concerned is actually published. It would, therefore, as it seems to me, have been more appropriate to examine the availability of Binney’s book not from the standpoint of whether it existed only as a printers’ proof (as was done in Opinion 87) but from the more general standpoint of whether it had been TO eet ie ene ne ea anit SEE le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 duly published within the meaning of Article 25. Admittedly, such an approach to the problem would have been difficult at the time when the Commission considered Dr. Dall’s application in regard to the status of the name Carinifex Binney, for at that time there existed only the sketchiest definition of the criteria to be adopted in determining whether a given document should be regarded as having been “ published ” for the purposes of the Article referred to above. This was still the position when in 1946 I first submitted the present application to the Commission for decision. Since fhen, however, the position has been completely altered by the comprehensive definition of the expression “ divulgué dans une publication’ adopted by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) at Paris in July 1948. Under that definition (1950, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 4: 215-21) it is evident that the paper by Binney in which the name Carinifex first appeared, did not satisfy the conditions provided in the Regles as criteria for publication at the time it was printed, but the question then arises as to whether it acquired status as a publication within the meaning of the Régles when these conditions were later complied with by the distribution of quantities of printed copies to dealers for resale to the public, and the public advertising of the availability of the document in such a way as to secure universal circulation. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has never rendered an opinion as to whether a printed sheet not intended as a publication can subsequently become one by fulfillment of the requirements set out in a definition of what constitutes publication ; in the present instance we are not justified in concluding that the name Carinifex acquired no status in zoological nomenclature by virtue of having been included in that paper, but only that a reasonable doubt exists as to whether it may have done so. 5. Turning to Lea’s paper of 1864, no one will deny that the method there adopted for publishing the new generic name Megasystropha deserves the strongest censure, for the conditional publication of names in this way opens the door to serious abuses. Nevertheless, although there now exists in the Régles a Recommendation strongly deprecating the publication of names conditionally it is not prohibited (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 144-145), though, since the addition to Article 25 of Proviso (c) (which requires that a statement of the distinguishing characters must be published in order to render available any name published after 3lst December 1930), it has become impossible validly to publish a name in the manner adopted by Lea, when publishing the name Megasystropha. The name Megasystropha Lea, 1864, cannot therefore be ruled out of account ; it is true that Lea gave no characters for this genus but he did cite as belonging to it a species possessing a previously published specific name (Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858). The name Megasystropha therefore was published with an “ indication ” as required by Proviso (a) to Article 25 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 78-80). Further, its type species is Planorbis newberryt Lea, 1858, by monotypy. 6. We come next to Binney’s papers published in 1865, in each of which he used the generic name Carinifex. In the first of these papers—that pubished in February 1865 in the American Journal of Conchology—Binney, who in 1863 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had made clear that, in his view, his Catalog of the North Americar Pul- monates printed by the Smithsonian Institution (discussed earlier in the present application) could not properly be regarded as having been then published, seems now to have changed his mind, for on this occasion he wrote : “In the above catalog I proposed the generic name Carinifex for the species described as Planorbis newberryi Lea .... Two species of this genus have been described, C. newberryi and C. breweri, Newcomb. The latter may prove to be a variety of the former.” It is evident from these words that Binney did not look upon himself as then publishing the name Carinifex for the first time, but it is in fact from this paper that under the Regles the name Carinifex takes priority. It will be noted that Binney did not designate a type species for Carinifex, probably because he considered that as the result of his earlier (1863) action Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858, was already the type species by monotypy. 7. Under a strict application of the Régles Binney was free to designate as type species either of the two nominal species which he assigned to Carinifex in the first of his two papers published in 1865, but since Carinifex brewert was a species inquirienda it must be excluded for consideration by any subsequent writer as type. Therefore the type species must be Carinifex newberryi Lea, and the only problem is to determine who first so designated it. Baker (1945, The Molluscan family Planorbidae : 154) lists ten designations of this species, but examination of the works in which the supposed designations were made indicated that most of them cited the species only as an example. The first author to state unequivocally that Carinifex newberryi was the type species of Carinifex was Paul Fischer (1883, Man. de Conchyl. 1: 508). To be sure, Fischer did not state that he was designating a type species; the implication is that he was citing a species which he believed had already been designated type species, and which under the rules is the only one that can serve as such and I can see no reason why Fischer's statement “ Type: C. newberryi Lea” should not be accepted as a legitimate type designation. 9. In the light of the foregoing survey it appears that (1) under the Régles it is doubtful whether the generic name Carinifex in Binney’s 1863 paper has any nomenclatorial status ; (2) that in 1864 Lea established validly (though in an objectionable manner) the generic name Megasystropha and that the type species of this genus by monotypy is Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858; (3) that in 1865 Binney established the nominal genus Carinifex in conditions which satisfy the Reégles and that this genus also has the above species as its type species (by subsequent selection) ; (4) that, in consequence of (2) and (3) above, the nominal genera Megasystropha Lea, 1864, and Carinifex Binney, 1865, are objectively identical with one another and the name Carinifex Binney is a junior objective synonym of Megasystropha Lea. 9. Passing now from the question of the legal position of these names under the Reégles to the question of the nomenclatoria] practice of workers in this field, we find almost unanimous agreement in favour of Carinifer. This name has been used in the following works : Fischer, P. 1883. Manuel de Conchyliologie 1: 508 Tryon, G. W, 1884, Structural and Systematic Conch, 3; 105 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 Clessin, 8. 1886. ‘‘ Die Familie der Limniaden.” Syst. Conch. Cab. Cooke, A. H. 1895. Cambridge Natural History 3: 439} Walker, B. 1918. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., No. 6: 15, 106 Germain, L. 1923. Rec. Ind. Mus. 21: 188 Wenz, W. 1923. Fossil. Cat., pars 22: 1671 Pilsbry, H. A. 1926. Science 64: 248 Henderson, J. 1929. Univ. Colo. Studies 17 (2): 143 Chamberlin, R. V., and Jones, D. 1929. Bull. Univ. Utah 19 (4) : 155 Thiele, J. 1931. Handb. der Syst. Weichth. 1 (2): 480. Also, in an unpublished manuscript monograph of this genus by G. Dallas Hanna which I have had the privilege of examining, the name Carinifex is used, and H. B. Baker who kindly assisted me by consulting bibliographical references when I first submitted this application to the Commission, also prefers Carinifex. Four new species of the genus have been described in the present century, all under the name Carinifer ; not one of the specific names has ever been used in combination with the generic name Megasystropha. The only authors to use Megasystropha at all, so far as I have been able to learn are the following : Tryon, G. W., Jr. 1870. “ Continuation of Haldeman, Monograph of Fresh Water Gastropodes of the United States,” : 84 Dall, W. H. Prof. Paper U.S. gesl. Surv. No. 132 (G) : 112. Of these, Tryon published an additional instalment of the same work later in the same year, in which he restored the name Carinifex (: 187,214). Even Lea, the author of the name Megasystropha, ultimately abandoned it in favour of Binney’s Carinifez. 10. For the sake of completeness a misspelling of each of these names should be noted here. Keep (West Coast shells, edition of 1893, : 116) used Carnifex, the same spelling being used in the index. Further, the pronunciation is indicated so that this seems to be an intentional emendation. Also Walker (Synopsis of the Classification of Fresh Water Mollusca of North America, North of Mexico, Univ. of Mich. Publ. No. 6) uses the spelling Megastropha in the text, with the correct orthography in the index. This is clearly a typographical error. The name should be suppressed in such a way as to prevent its ever being used again, as there is a Megastrophia Carter 1939 (Bull. Amer. Paleont.,24: 137 (no. 83, 87)) and the similarity of these two is too close for comfort. 11. In view of the position which the name Carinifex has acquired for itself in the literature, its unquestioned use today and the fact that even in the past the name Megasystropha was only used on a few scattered occasions, it is clear that the interests of nomenclatorial stability would be promoted and unnecessary confusion avoided, if the Commission would now take such steps as are necessary to confer nomenclatorial availability upon the name Carinifex Binney. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic names Carinifer Binney, 1863 and Megasystropha Lea, 1858, for the purpose of the Law of Priority ; 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Carinifex Binney, 1865 (gender: feminine) (type species, by subsequent designations of P. Fischer, 1883 : Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858) ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name newberryt Lea, 1858, as published in the binomial combina- tion Planorbis newberryi ; (4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following : Carinifex Binney, 1863 Megasystropha Lea, 1864 Carnifex Keep, 1893 Megastropha Walker, 1918. COMMENT ON DR. JOSHUA L. BAILY JR.’"S PROPOSAL FOR THE VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME “ CAR- INIFEX ” BINNEY, 1865 (CLASS GASTROPODA) AND AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)224) Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. has shown in his application that the generic name Carinifex Binney, either as of 1863 or as of 1865, has been widely used in the literature, while its older and valid rival Megasystropha Lea, 1864, was not only published in a most unsatisfactory manner, but, in addition, has hardly been used at all. 2. Dr. Baily has therefore, I consider, established a strong case for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the name Carinifex Binney. There is however one passage in his paper upon which I feel bound to comment. This is where he seeks to establish the proposition that the Com- mission was in error when in 1925 in its Opinion 87 (Smithson. mise. Coll. 73 (No. 3) : 21-22) it rejected as not having been duly published for the purposes of Article 25 a paper by Binney, as distributed in 1863 in proof as a projected part of the Smithsonian miscellaneous Collections. Further, at the end of his paper Dr. Baily asks the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 for the purpose, infer alia, of suppressing the name Carinifex Binney, 1863, i.e. for suppressing this name as it appeared in the proof sheet dealt with in Opinion 87. While it is easy to criticise the oblique manner in which the Ruling given in Opinion 87 was phrased and not difficult also to find defects in some of the arguments used incidentally in the discussion of that case, this, I suggest, is today of no more than historical interest. Equally, it is, I feel, beside the point at this date to traverse again the wisdom of the adverse view taken by the Commission as to the availability of the proof of 1863, though, having regard to the fact (1) that the document in question was issued as an unnumbered proof and (2) that in the preface to this document Professor Henry expressly referred to it as “a mere proof,” it is difficult to see how the Com- mission, when judging this document against the provisions of Article 25, could possibly have taken any view other than that which it did. 3. The only point which arises today is, as it seems to me, whether there are any grounds which would justify the Commission at this time in reversing — or even in re-opening—the decision which it took in this matter nearly thirty years ago, a decision against which no murmur of dissent has till now ever reached the Office of the Commission. My view is that the Commission would be most ill-advised to take any such action. Moreover, as Secretary to the Commission, I take the view that it is irrelevant and inappropriate to raise such an issue incidentally in a case dealing with an individual name. My recommendation is that the Commission should (1) dispose of the general question by placing the Binney proof of 1863 forthwith on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, which, as will be recalled, was expressly established by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, for the purpose ot placing on record in the most formal manner Rulings given by the Commission in Opinions either suppressing given books under its Plenary Powers or rejecting given books as invalid under the Régles (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 23-24, Decision 23), and (2) deal on its merits with the particular case of the name Carinifex Binney , 1865, in the light of (1) above. 4. I accordingly submit for the consideration of the International Com- mission the following proposal as an alternative to that submitted by Dr. Baily, namely that the Commission should :— (1) place the under-mentioned work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature :— Binney (W. G.), Synopsis of the species of Air-breathing Mollusks of North America, dated 9th December 1863, a document printed on one side of the page and distributed as a proof of a projected and unnumbered part of the Smithsonian miscel- laneous Collections, bearing the heading ‘ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 000” (codification of Ruling given : in Opinion 87); (2) use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Megasystropha Lea, 1858, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—Carinifex Binney, 1865 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Fischer (P.) (1883): Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858) ; (4) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—newberryi Lea, 1858, as published in the combination Planorbis newberryi (specific name of type species of Carinifex Binney, 1865) ; (5) place the under-mentioned invalid generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Carinifec Binney, 1863 (a name included in a work rejected under (1) above as not having been published for the purposes of Article 25 of the Regles); (b) Megasystropha Lea, 1864, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (2) above ; (c) Carnifexr Keep, 1893 (an Invalid Subsequent Spelling of Carinifex Binney, 1865) ; (d) Megastropha Walker, 1918 (an Invalid Subsequent Spelling of Megasystropha Lea, 1864). 5. Postscript: Dr. Baily has informed me (im litt., 13th October, 1954) that the generic name Carinifex has not been taken as the basis for a family- group name. Accordingly, no question arises of placing such a name on the Official List of Family-Group Names wn Zoology. ; } Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME “ XANTHINAE” DANA, 1851 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By FRANCIS HEMMING C.M.G. C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)601) The decision by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology Copenhagen, 1953 to establish an Official List of Famaily-Group Names in Zoology and to apply to that List regulations corresponding with those pre- scribed for the Official Insts previously established makes it necessary to examine applications submitted prior to the Copenhagen Congress for the purpose of determining whether any problem relating to family-group names is involved therein. The present application is concerned with the family-group name based upon the name of the nominal genus Xantho Leach , 1814 (Class Crustacea,Order Decapoda), a proposal relating to which has been submitted to the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Ryksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). This application has recently been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Holthuis, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 9: 270-271). The present application has been written in close consultation with Dr. Holthuis and has his full support. 2. Dr. Holthuis’ application commences with a reference to the family XANTHIDAE, and, in order to complete the action required in this case (under the Copenhagen Congress’s decision referred to above), I recently applied to Dr. Holthuis, both for the reference for the place where the present family- group name was originally published and, also, for any other information regarding this family-group name, of which it would be necessary to take account in submitting this case to the Commission. The following is an extract from the reply (dated 27th September 1954) which I received from Dr. Holthuis :— Extract from a letter dated 27th September 1954 from Dr. L. B. Holthuis Family name based on “ Xantho ” 1. The reference to the original publication of the family XANTHIDAE is the following : XANTHINAE Dana, 1851, Amer. J. Sci. (2)12: 123, 124 (type genus: Xantho Leach, 1814). 2. There is a difficulty with this family name, because it is a more recent name than that of PILUMNIDAE Samouelle, 1819, Entomologist’s useful Compendium: 86 (type genus: Pilwmnus Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11: 321), a genus placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 85), for the genera Xantho Leach, 1814, and Pilumnus Leach, 1815, are currently considered to belong in the same family. Since the name XANTHIDAE is used for this family by practically all carcinologists, while the name PILUMNIDAE is ignored by them, it will be in the interest of nomenclatorial stability to have the name XANTHIDAE and not that of PILUMNIDAE placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Part 11. December, 1954. 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. It appears clear from Dr. Holthuis’ letter that the interests of stability and universality in zoological nomenclature require that the family group name XANTHIDAE should be preserved. The question for consideration is therefore the nature of the action required to secure this end. The difficulty to be resolved in this case arises from the fact that the genus Xantho Leach, 1814, was not made the type genus of a family-group until 1851 (when a subfamily XANTHINAE was erected by Dana), whereas the genus Pilumnus Leach, 1815, a genus currently regarded as belonging to the same family as Xantho Leach had been taken as the type genus of a family-group many years previously by Samouelle who in 1819 erected the family prLumNIDAE. The Copenhagen Congress, when revising the former (totally inadequate) provisions regarding family-group names, laid it down, that subject to the grant of relief in particular cases the principle of priority is to apply as between any two rival family-group names. In the present case therefore under the foregoing provision the family name PILUMNIDAE Samouelle, 1819, would take priority over the family name XANTHIDAE (ranking as from Dana, 1851). 4. The Copenhagen Congress recognised that the extension of the priority principle to family-group names, coupled with the provision that all family- group names having a given genus as type genus are co-ordinate with one another, might lead to undesirable name-changing, unless measures were taken to prevent this from happening. The Congress accordingly inserted in the Régles a provision (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 33, Decision 45) authorising taxonomists to set aside priority in this field in cases where, in their opinion, “ priority is in conflict with current usage,’ provided that an author taking such action sends a notification regarding it to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Action so taken by a taxonomist becomes valid provisionally upon the publication of the foregoing notification. It becomes definitive however only if during the ensuing two years no protest against the action so taken is lodged with the International Commission. Where a protest is so lodged, the final decision is to be taken by the Commission. The procedure described above offers conveniences in those cases where an immediate decision is not essential. In other cases, the desired end can be secured by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers, those Powers being applicable to every provision in the Régles. In the present instance the General Directives issued to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology (1) that every Opinion rendered by it must deal with all parts of the subject submitted and (2) that, whenever there is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology a name of a genus which is the type genus of a family-group, appropriate action in relation to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology is to be taken by the Commission, make it necessary to have resort to the Plenary Powers procedure. 5. The recommendation now submitted is that, in the interests of stability and universality in nomenclature at the family-name level, the Commission should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the family-group name PILUMNIDAE Samouelle, 1819 (type genus: Pzlwmnus Leach, 1815) for the Basten Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the family-group name XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 (type genus: * Xantho Leach, 1814) on the Official List of Family-Group Names im Zoology ; (3) place the family-group name PILUMNIDAE Samouelle, 1819, as sup- pressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. eM) Oo bo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE GENERIC NAME “DISCIAS” RATHBUN, 1902 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference : ZN. S.)829) In 1902 Miss M. J. Rathbun (Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. 4: 290) described a genus Discias from the Galapagos Islauds and made it the type of a new family that she named piscrpAk, but that at present more correctly is generally called DISCIADIDAE. After the original publication of this name by Rathbun, four more species of the genus were discovered, two in the Atlantic, and two in the Indo-West-Pacific region. Though the published records of these animals are rather few (because of their small size they probably have often been overlooked), the genus is well known to carcinologists because of its very peculiar features. 2. In 1893 Ortmann (Ergebn. Plankton Exped. 2(Gb) : 74) described from the Atlantic Ocean a larval Macruran, which he named Anisocaris dromedarius, erecting a monotypic new genus for it. Gurney’s (1939, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 3 : 388-393) and Lebour’s (1941, J. linn. Soc. Lond.(Zool.) 41 : 95-102) re- searches on larval Decapoda made it clear that Anisocaris dromedarius Ortmann, 1893, is the larva of a species of Discias Rathbun, 1902. A strict application of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature would require that the generic name Discias should be replaced by that of Anisocaris. The identity of the species Anisocaris dromedarius is not known, it may be the larva of either of the two Atlantic Discias species, but might as well be the larva of a species of which the adult form is still unknown. 3. In view of the fact (1) that the name Discias has become firmly established in carcinological literature, (2) that the name Anisocaris has hardly ever been used, and has never been employed for adult specimens, and (3) that it is undesirable that the family pisctaprpak should not contain a genus bearing the name Discias, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Anisocaris Ortmann, 1893 (Ergebn. Plankton Exped. 2 (Gb) : 72,74) (type species, by monotypy: Anisocaris dromedarius Ortmann, 1893, Ergebn. Plankton Exped. 2 (Gb): 74) ; (b) to validate the generic name Discias Rathbun, 1902 (Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., 4 : 290) (type species, by monotypy: Discias serrifer Rathbun, 1902, Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., 4: 290) (gender: masculine) ; Bull. Zool. Nomencl, Vol. 9, Part 11. December, 1954 TO Ee ee OO — —_ i i ee ee SE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Discias Rathbun, 1902, as validated under (1) (b) above ; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Anisocaris Ortmann, 1893, as suppressed under (1) (a) above ; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name serrifer Rathbun, 1902, as published in the binomen Discias serrifer ; (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name DISCIADIDAE (correction by Kemp (1920, Rec. ind. Mus. 19 : 137, 138) of piscrpaz) Rathbun, 1902 (Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. 4 : 289) (type genus: Discias Rathbun, 1902) ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the under-mentioned names :— (a) DiscipaE Rathbun, 1902 (an Invalid Original Spelling for DISCIADIDAE) ; (b) pisctrpar Lebour, 1949 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 118 (4): 1107 ) (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for piscraprpaz). 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE GENERIC NAMES “UPOGEBIA” LEACH, 1814, AND “ PROCESSA” LEACH, 1815 (CLASS CRUS- TACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)830) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers in order to suppress two long-forgotten generic names which are senior synonyms of two well- known names that have been, and still are, widely used in the literature dealing with macrurous Decapod Crustacea. 2. The original references for the generic names cited in the present applica- tion are the following : . Callianassa Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. 7 (2) : 400 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Cancer (Astacus) sub- terraneus Montagu, 1808 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 9 : 88) ; Calypso Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 74 (gender: feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Calypso periculosa Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 74 (= Cancer strigosus Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svec. (ed.2) : 495) ; Egeon Bose, 1813, Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris 3 (66) : 233 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Cancer cataphractus Olivi, 1792, Zool. adriat.: 50). (an invalid junior homonym of Egeon de Montfort, 1808 (Conchyl. syst. 1 : 166) ; Egeon Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 99 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Egeon loricatus Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 100 (= Cancer cataphractus Olivi, 1792, Zool. adriat. 50) an invalid junior homonym of Egeon de Montfort, 1808) ; Galathea Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2: 471 (gender : feminine) (type species, selected by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén.. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 422) : Cancer strigosus Linnaeus, 1761, Fawna svec. (ed. 2): 495) ; Gebia Leach, 1815, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 342 (gender: feminine) (type species, selected by Fowler, 1912 (Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 361): Cancer (Astacus) stellatus Montagu, 1808, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 9 : 89) (a junior objective synonym of Upogelna Leach, 1814) ; Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 9, Part 11, December, 1954, oe ee ee mee i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 Gebios Risso, 1822, J. Phys. Chim. Hist. nat. Arts 95: 243 (gender : femi- nine) (type species, by monotypy: Gebios davianus Risso, 1822, J. Phys. Chim. Hist. nat. Arts. Paris95 : 243 (= Astacus tyrrhenus Petagna, 1792, Institut. entom.: 418) ; Gerbios Bosc, 1813, Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris 3 (66) : 233 (gender : feminine) (type species, by present selection: Thalassina littoralis Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 76 (= Astacus pusillus Petagna, 1792, Institut. entom.: 418) ; Janira Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 175 (gender: feminine) (sub- stitute name for Calypso Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 74) (an invalid junior homonym of Janira Leach, 1814) ; Melia Bose, 1813, Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris 3 (66) : 233 (gender : feminine) (type species, by present selection : Calypso periculosa Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 74 (=Cancer strigosus Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svec. (ed. 2): 495) ; Nika Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 84 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Cuvier’s Régne anim. ed. 4, Disciples’ Ed.) 18 : pl. 52 fig. 1): Nika edulis Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 85) ; Processa Leach, 1815, Malac. podophth. Brit. (4): explanation of pl. 41 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Processa canaliculata Leach, 1815, Malac. podophth. Brit. (4) : explanation of pl. 41) ; Thalassalpes Bosc, 1813, Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris 3 (66): 233 gender: masculine) (type species, by present selection: Nika edulis Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice: 85) ; Thalassina Latreille, 1806, Gen. Crust. Ins. 1 : 51 (gender : feminine) (type species, by ees Thalassina scorpionides Latreille, 1806, Gen. Crust. Ins. 1 : 52 (= Cancer (Astacus) anomalus Herbst, 1804, Vers. Naturgesch. pero Krebse 3 (4): 45) ; Upogebia Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. T (2): 400 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Cancer (Astacus) stellatus Montagu, 1808, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 9 : 89). 3. In March 1813 (in Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris 3 (66) : 233, 234) a paper was published, entitled ‘“‘ Essai historique sur les Crustacés de la mer de Nice, par M. Rizzo. , (Extrait d’un rapport fait a l'Institut par M. Bosc.) ” As is shown by its title this publication is an extract of a report by L. A. G. Bose on a manuscript submitted by A. Risso (the spelling Rizzo is incorrect) to the Institut de France. Bosc must therefore be regarded as the author of the foregoing publication. In this paper four new genera (Gerbios, Melia, Thalas- salpes, and Egeon) are mentioned and briefly characterised. Though the genera evidently were originally proposed by Risso in his manuscript, the brief characterisations (which hardly can be given the name of definitions) are clearly made by Bosc in his own words ; there is no indication whatsoever that they have been made by Risso. Though it does not seem very fair, we must, I believe, treat Bosc as the author of these names. That this question is difficult 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is shown by the way in which the authorship of these four generic names is treated in Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus, where the author of two of the names (Egeon and Thalassalpes) is given as “ Risso,” of one (Gerbios) as “ Bosc,” while of the fourth (Melia) the author is indicated as “ Bosc in Risso.” 4. In 1816 Risso published his manuscript referred to above as a book under the title Histoire naturelle des Crustacés des environs de Nice. In this book the author used only one of the four generic names mentioned by Bosc (1813), namely, Egeon, which is treated by Risso as a name for a new genus. The name Calypso was used by Risso instead of that of Melia, probably because, as Bosc had pointed out in his 1813 paper, the name Melia has already been used fora genus of plants; in an Erratum in his 1816 publication Risso substituted the name Janira for Calpyso, because the latter name “ ayant déja employé par les Naturalistes’ (again for a genus of plants). Bosc’s (1813) remark that Gerbios “ parait infiniment se rapprocher des thalassines de Latreille ” probably made Risso (1816) abandon his name Gerbios and use Thalassina Latreille, 1806, instead. For unknown reasons Risso (1816) substituted the name Nrka for that of Thalassalpes. It is evident that Risso did not consider the four generic names mentioned in Bosc’s (1813) paper as validly published. In any case he entirely ignored Bose’s publication. 5. The name Egeon Bosc, 1813, as well as Egeon Risso, 1816, is mvalid, since it is preoccupied by the older generic name Egeon de Montfort, 1808. The names Melia Bosc, 1813, Calypso Risso, 1816, and Jana Risso, 1816, are objective synonyms of one another. They are based on an old figure of Rondelet’s which represents Galathea strigosa (L.); Bosc’s and Risso’s three generic names thus are junior (subjective) synonyms of Galathea Fabricius, 1793, a genus of which Galathea strigosa is the type species. 6. Bosc’s (1813) two other generic names Thalassalpes and Gerbios, however, prove to be the oldest available names for the genera concerned. Thalassalpes was very briefly characterised by Bosc: “n’ a de pinces qu’ 4 une des pattes antérieures.” This single character, however, is sufficient to distinguish the genus from all other European genera. Bosc does not name any species as belonging in his genus Thalassalpes, but since the latter is obviously identical with Nika Risso, 1816, the type species of the latter genus, Nika edulis Risso, 1816, should be regarded also as the type species of the former, and it is so selected here. In carcinological literature two different names have been regularly used for this genus. These two names are Processa Leach, 1815, and Nika Risso, 1816. The former name has been used by at least 64 authors (by 44 of these in papers published since 1914), the latter name by at least 114 authors (by about 22 of these in papers published since 1914). The name Processa, being the older of the two, has been generally accepted in modern literature and during the last forty years has been used by all specialists in the group. The name Thalassalpes Bosc, on the other hand, has been completely overlooked, and I do not know of a single author having used it since the original publication by Bosc in 1813. A substitution of the name Thalassalpes for Processa would greatly upset carcinological nomenclature and a suppression of the former name is, in my opinion, fully justified, a ie —— v ee eee ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 7. The case of the name Gerlios is very similar to that of Thalassalpes. Bose’s description of the genus Gerbios is very short, but makes it sufficiently clear that it is based on the species that Risso later (in 1816) described as Thalassina littoralis, and which at present is known as Upogebia pusilla (Petagna, 1792). The generic name Gerbios Bosc, 1813, thus becomes a senior (subjective) synonym of the name Upogebia Leach, 1814. For the genus in question several names have been used: (1) The oldest available name, Gerbios Bosc, 1813, as far as is known to me, has been used only by the original author. (2) The name Upogebia Leach, 1814, at present is currently adopted in carcino- logical literature. (3) The name Gebia Leach, 1815 a junior objective synonym of Upogebia Leach, 1814, during the previous century was practically exclusively used to indicate the present genus; later it was replaced more and more by the name Upogebia, while at present it is employed by very few authors only. It was Stebbing (1893, Hist. Crust. : 185) who first pointed out that the name Upogebia has priority over Gebia, and he consequently adopted the former of the two names. In this he was almost immediately followed by the majority of carcinologists and at present the name Upogebia has become firmly established. Judging by an unpublished bibliography which I have been preparing during the last few years, at least 100 authors used the name Gebia before 1900, and less than 5 authors during that period employed the name Upogebia. After 1920 more than 80 authors have used the name Upogebia, and about 15 that of Gebia (practically none of the latter being a specialist in Crustacea). In my opinion, stability of carcinological nomenclature would be greatly furthered by the suppression of the practically unknown generic name (rerbios and by the validation of the widely used name U pogebia. 8. The position of the generic name Gebios Risso, 1822, which generally is considered to be synonymous with Upogebia Leach should also be discussed here. Risso (1822 : 243) when using the name (ebvos for the first time, included two species init. One of these is the new species Gebios davianus, the other was not cited by name, but it was evidently Thalassina littoralis Risso, 1816, since it was referred to as the species which in Risso’s Hist. nat. Crust. Nice (1816) had been placed in the genus Thalassina Latreille. As Gebios daviana Risso, 1822, was the only nominal species assigned to Grebios in the original publication of that name, it becomes its type species by monotypy. Since Gebios daviana doubtless is identical with the species known at present under the name Callianassa tyrrhena (Petagna, 1792), the generic name Gebios Risso, 1822, becomes a junior subjective synonym of the name Callianassa Leach, 1814. It is possible that in using the name Grebios, Risso actually intended to restore the old genus Gerbios, but this cannot be proved. 9. The only two names that form a menace to the stability of the nomen- clature of the taxa discussed in the present application thus are Gerbios Bosc, 1813, and Thalassalpes Bosc, 1813, for which reason their suppression is requested. 10. The present opportunity is used to propose the insertion in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic names Callianassa, Galathea and Thalassina mentioned above. I have convinced myself that these three names are available in so far that they are not junior homonyms of other 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature generic names in zoology. Furthermore, they have been in general use in carcinological literature almost from the moment that they were first published, and their position has remained unchallenged throughout. All three are the names of type genera of well-known families and two of them (Galathea and Thalassina) are even the type genera of supra-familial groups. The insertion of these names in the Official List is therefore fully justified. 11. The genus Upogebia Leach, 1814, is currently considered the type of the sub-family UPoGEBIINAE Borradaile, 1903. An older name for this sub-family is GEBIINAE (correction of GEBIDAE) Dana, 1852. As the name UPOGEBIINAE is at present generally used, while its older objective synonym is not accepted, it seems advisable to me to place the name UPOGEBIINAE on the Official Inst and GEBIINAE on the Official Index of Family-Group Names. A similar case is offered by the family name pROcESSIDAE Ortmann, 1896. This name possesses two older, but subjective, synonyms, namely NIKIDAE Bate, 1888 (Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24: xii, xli, 480, 503) (type genus Nika Risso, 1816 (Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 84) and HECTARTHROPIDAE Bate, 1888 (Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 481, 883) (type genus Hectarthropus Bate, 1888 (Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 889)). The genera Nika Risso, 1816, and Hectarthropus Bate, 1888, are subjective junior synonyms of Processa Leach, 1814. As the name PROCES- SIDAE is widely used, while those of NIKIDAE and HECTARTHROPIDAE have been almost completely forgotten, I consider that it is advisable to give the name PROCESSIDAE Ortmann, 1896, priority over the names NIKIDAE Bate, 1888 and HECTARTHROPIDAE Bate, 1888, notwithstanding the fact that the latter are older. For this reason the insertion in the Official List of Family-Growp Names in Zoology of the name PROCESSIDAE has been requested. 12. The concrete proposals which I now submit for consideration are that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the undermentioned generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) Gerbios Bosc, 1813; (ii) Thalassalpes Bosc, 1813 ; (b) to validate the undermentioned generic names :— (i) Upogebia Leach, 1814 ; (1i) Processa Leach, 1815 ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the under- mentioned generic names with the type species and gender specified in paragraph 2 of the present application :— (a) Callianassa Leach, 1814 ; (b) Galathea Fabricius, 1793 ; (c) Processa Leach, 1815, as validated under (1) (0) (ii) above ; (d) Thalassina Latreille, 1806 ; (e) Upogebia Leach, 1814, as validated under (1) (6) (i) above ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the under-mentioned generic names :— (a) Calypso Risso, 1816 (an objective junior synonym of Melia Bose, 1813) ; (b) Egeon Bosc, 1813 (a junior homonym of Egeon de Montfort, 1808) ; (c) Egeon Risso, 1816 (a junior homonym of Egeon de Montfort, 1808) ; (d) Gebia Leach, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Upogebia Leach, 1814) ; (e) Gerbios Bosc, 1813, as suppressed under (1) (a) (i) above ; (f) Janira Risso, 1816 (a junior objective synonym of Melia Bosc, 1813, and a junior homonym of Janira Leach, 1814) ; (9) Thalassalpes Bosc, 1813, as suppressed under (1) (a) (ii) above ; (4) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the under- mentioned specific names :— (a) anomalus Herbst, 1804, as published in the combination Cancer (Astacus) anomalus ; (b) canaliculata Leach, 1815, as published in the combination Processa canaliculata ; (c) stellatus Montagu, 1808, as published in the combination Cancer (Astacus) stellatus : (d) strigosus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Cancer strigosus ; (e) subterraneus Montagu, 1808, as published in the combination Cancer (Astacus) subterraneus; (5) place on the Official List of Famaly-Group Names in Zoology the under- mentioned family-group names :— (4) CALLIANASSIDAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 12, 14, 19 (type genus: Callianassa Leach, 1814) ; (6) GALATHEIDAE (correction by White, 1847 (List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 65) of GALATEADAE) Samouelle, 1819 (Entomologist’s useful Compendium : 92 (type genus: Galathea Fabricius, 1793) ; (c) PROCESSIDAE Ortmann, 1896, Zool. Jb. Syst. 9 : 415, 424 (type genus: Processa Leach, 1815) ; (d) THALASSINIDAE (correction by White, 1847 (List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 70) of THALASSINIDES) Latreille, 1831, Cours @’Entomol.: 377) (type genus: Thalassina Latreille, 1806); (¢) UPOGEBIINAE Borradaile, 1903, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 12 : 542 (type genus : Upogebia Leach, 1814) ; (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Growp Names in Zoology the undermentioned names :— (a) GALATEADAE Samouelle, 1819, Entomologist’s useful Com- pendium : 92 (an Invalid Original Spelling for cava- THEIDAE) ; 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) GEBIIDAE (correction by Miers (1876, Catal. Crust. New Zealand: 70) of GeBIDAE) Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.6: 12, 13, 19 (type genus : Gebia Leach, 1815) (a family-group name, the type species, Cancer (Astacus) stellatus Montagu, 1808, of which is also the type specizs of Upogebia Leach, 1814 (a name proposed under (2) (é) above, to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology), which is the type genus of the sub-family UPOGEBIINAE Borradaile, 1903, proposed, under (5) (e) above, to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (c) GeBIDAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6: 12, 13, 19 (an Invalid Original Spelling of GEBIIDAE). (d) THALASSINIDES Latreille, 1831, Cours d’Entomol.: 377 (an Invalid Original Spelling for THALASSINIDAE). PROPOSED VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAMES “ PROCES- SIDAE” AND “UPOGEBIINAE” (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)830) The present application, which is concerned with the proposed validation of the family-group names PROCESSIDAE Ortmann, 1896, and UPOGEBIINAE Borrodaile, 1903 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), is in the nature of a supplement to the proposal by Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) that these family-group names should be placed on the Official List of Family-Growp Names in Zoology. It is concerned only with the question of the procedure required to give effect to Dr. Holthuis’ proposal. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 2. In a note on a similar problem which arises in connection with the family-group name XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 (Hemming, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9: 329-331) I have explained how, when the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, decided to insert in the Regles a provision applying the pnority principle to family-group names, it realised that, unless mitigated in some simple manner, this decision would be likely to give rise to undesirable name-changing. The Congress accordingly inserted in the Régles a provision under which, subject to the compliance with a simple procedure, an author who considers that in any given case the application of priority is “in conflict with current usage’ may set aside priority in the case concerned (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 33, Decision 54 (1)). Action so taken is liable to challenge and in any case does not become defini- tively valid for a period of two years. This procedure offers certain con- veniences but it is not appropriate in cases where the question of a family-group name arises in connection with an application for a given generic name to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, for, under the Regulations governing the Official Insts, the Commission is required in such a case to take account also of the position at the family-group level. Accordingly, in such cases, it is necessary to have resort to the Plenary Powers procedure, in order to secure the desired stability in family-group nomenclature. 3. Dr. Holthuis has explained (Holthuis, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9: 338) that the well-known family name pRocEssIDAE Ortmann, 1896, is a junior subjective synonym both of NIkIDAE Bate, 1888, and of HECTARTHROPIDAE Bate, 1888, while the UpoGEBIINAE Borrodaile, 1903, is a junior objective synomym of the family name GEBIDAE Dana, 1852. In each of these cases Dr. Holthuis proposes that, owing to the conflict of the principle of priority with current usage, the junior synonym currently in use should be accepted. ’ For the reasons which have been explained in paragraph 2 above, this end can be attained in the present case only by the suppression of the senior synonyms under the Plenary Powers. 4. It is accordingly proposed that in the interest of maintaining current usage at the family-group-name level (as enjoined by the Copenhagen Congress) the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned family-group names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :—(a) NIKIDAE Bate, 1888 (type genus: Nika Risso, 1816); (6) HECTARTHROPIDAE Bate, 1888 (type genus ; Hectarthropus Bate, 1888); (c) GEBIDAE Dana, 1852 (type genus: Gebia Leach, 1815). Dr. Holthuis has already asked that the name GEBIDAE Dana, 1852, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Similar action should now be taken as regards the two other names dealt with in the present application. 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF “TMMIGRANS” STURTEVANT, 1921, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “DROSOPHILA IMMIGRANS ” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By ROY A. HARRISON (Entomologist, Plant Diseases Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.)711) (Enclosure to a letter dated 13th August 1954) (For the proposal submitted in this case, see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 161-162) The application should be considered only in the light of the well-known and common usage of the name vmmigrans Sturtevant. All references in the application directed at raising doubt as to the identity of the species to which the name brouni Hutton is applied, are irrelevant and are commented on below. 2. Comment on Para. 2 in Z.N.(S.)711: The synonymy of wnmigrans Sturtevant with brouwni Hutton is established just as firmly as are the majority of synonyms published in modern taxonomic literature. For a synonymy to be unequivocally established implies that both the populations under consideration must be shown in actual fact to be interfertile—a set of circumstances rarely possible to prove and more rarely asked for. 8. Comment on Para. 3 in Z.N.(S.)711: The original description of Drosophila brouni Hutton is not taxonomically worthless particularly as regards the genus. Hutton described the species as a member of the genus Drosophila. 'The ability or otherwise of Hutton to recognise a member of the genus Drosophila is, of course, not under consideration. However, that Hutton was correct in placing browni in the genus Drosophila is substantiated by Harrison (1952, Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 79 : 514-515). 4. Comment on Para. 4 in Z.N.(S.)711: There is as yet no published evidence which shows that females in the immigrans group of species cannot be distinguished by means of a study of external characters. If, as is stated in para. 7 of Z.N.(S.)711 Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant will possibly be found to consist of several sibling species, it is entirely probable that with further conscientious study some differences of external morphological characters will be discovered for the separation of such species as has been done, for example, with the sibling species Drosophila pseudoobscura Frolova and Drosophila persimilis Dobzhansky and Epling. A museum specimen is of necessity dried and pinned and its age is of no concern. 5. Comment on Para. 5 in Z.N.(S.)711: This paragraph is irrelevant. 6. Comment on Para. 6 in Z.N.(S.)711: It is nowhere stated in published literature that because recent immigrans material collected in New Zealand has produced fertile offspring with U.S. immigrans that the synonymy of brouni and immigrans is established. In collections made over the last 15 years in the Auckland area no other member of the immigrans group has been discovered. The type specimen of Drosophila brouni Hutton was taken in Auckland which even 50 years ago was a city of no mean state and as such offered the domestic habitats suitable for Drosophila immigrans exactly as it does at the present time. 7. Sturtevant, A. H. (1921, Carnegie Inst. Wash., publ. 301 : 84) in commenting on his description of Drosophila immigrans sp. nov., states: ‘‘ It will not be surprising if an earlier name, applied in some other region, is discovered.”’ Thus, there was doubt as to the real identity of Drosophila immigrans at the time of its original description and it is unfortunate that the position was not clarified in 1921 or soon afterwards. t ‘ i 5 : s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 8. In conclusion I wish to state that in the interests of stability of zoological nomenclature, I agree that browni should be suppressed in favour of immigrans on the basis of the well-known and common usage of the name immigrans over the last thirty or more years. However, I wish to reiterate that the application should be judged on this aspect alone, and that the other arguments in the application aimed at raising doubts as to the correctness of the synonymy of browni and immigrans are irrelevant. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF “IMMIGRANS” STURTEVANT, 1921, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “DROSOPHILA IMMIGRANS ” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By E. B. BASDEN (Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh 9, Scotland) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)711) (Enclosure to a letter dated 11th September 1954) The group of Drosophila to which immigrans belongs has not yet been monographed (vide paras. 5, 7 in Mayr et al., 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 (6): 161-162). Therefore, it would be premature for the Commission to express an opinion before this has been done. 2. The 2 type specimen of D. browni Hutton (para. 4) and 2 “ gonotype ” specimens of D. immigrans are in existence. Therefore, these should be critically compared side by side by a competent independent observer. ‘‘ Comparison with the type ” is a fundamental precept in taxonomy, yet it appears this has not been done in this case, i.e. the two-type series have not been compared. 3. If a reliable difference is discovered, then D. browni and D. immigrans can be considered distinct and a ruling by the Commission will not be required. 4. If such a difference is not discovered, then (a) the two names are synonyms for one species ;° (6) the two names represent two distinct species, that are visually indistinguishable in the 2 sex (para. 4). 5. If no difference is found, and since 4 (b) applies (para. 4), and since there may be sibling (i.e. visually indistinguishable) species of D. immigrans (para. 7)— then it cannot be proved that D. immigrans is the same as or different from D. brouni. In such a case it would be incorrect to sink one species as a synonym of the other or to (para. 9 (1)) suppress the name brouni Hutton, 1901. 6. If, however, it be considered that D. brouni and D. immigrans are the same species, I do not see any valid reason why the name D. brouni should not replace the name D. immigrans. D. immigrans is well known in entomological and genetic literature but it is only of recent (33 years) introduction. The law of priority should not be spurned after this relatively short period. No name that floods the literature should be allowed automatically to supersede an older, lesser-known name, because of an oversight in systematic work ; provided that a reasonable period of years has not elapsed. I do not think this reasonable period has elapsed in this case. Credit is due to systematists who rectify such oversights. Sturtevant himself, Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 9, Part 11, December 1954. 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature after his description of D. immigrans (1921, The North American species of Drosophila Carneg. Instit. Washington, Publ. No. 301: 84) writes that it will not be surprising if an earlier name, applied in some other region, is discovered. This probably has now been accomplished by Harrison (1952, New Zealand Drosophilidae (Diptera), T'r. Proc. Roy. Soc. N.Z., 79 (3): 514). Future published reference to the species as “‘ D. brount Hutton (=D. immigrans Sturtevant) ”’ for a period of two or three years would remove any inconvenience or confusion caused by the change of name. 7. The labelling of a group of Drosophila, e.g. immigrans-group (para. 7), is a purely convenient and arbitrary affair and cannot be accepted as type designation. The change to “ brouni-group,” or to any other name, would not affect scientific research in the least. In fact, the name brouni, originating from New Zealand, would not be ill-fitting for the group, for it is stated (Patterson and Stone, 1952, Evolution in the Genus Drosophila, Macmillan Co., N.Y.: 39) that a majority of members of the immigrans-group has been recorded from the Australian and Oriental regions; and Sturtevant (op. cit.) writes that the data suggest that D. immigrans may have come from the Pacific region. Also the name brown, 1901, would have date priority over all other species in the group, which D. immigrans does not enjoy even when brouni is not considered. 8. Until my attention was drawn to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers in this case, I was unaware of Harrison’s paper (op. cit.), otherwise I would have had no hesitation in coupling the name brouni with immigrans in my two papers, *“Some Drosophilidae of the British Isles” (22.ix.1952, Ent. mon. Mag.) and “The Distribution and Biology of Drosophilidae in Scotland ” (28.vi.1954, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 62 (3), No. 15). SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION TO VALIDATE THE NAME “IMMIGRANS” STURTEVANT, 1921, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “DROSOPHILA IMMIGRANS ” By ERICH MARTIN HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.)711) (Translation of an enclosure to a letter dated 27th September 1954) I should like to support the application from Mayr, etc. for the placing of the name Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and of the name D. brouni Hutton, 1901, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology on the following grounds :— (1) The establishment of synonymy between two names of which one is based on a male type and the other on a female type can never claim to be absolutely assured, since a direct comparison of the types from a taxonomic point of view is in such a case not possible. (2) In cases where synonymy of two names cannot be definitely established for this reason, it is desirable on taxonomic grounds to give preference to the name which is based on the male type, since the genital characters make possible in this case an irrefutable determination of the species. (3) This case is particularly important in the present case of Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant, since the original publication of the name was accompanied, not only by a detailed description of the morphology of the Imago, but also by particulars about the first stages and the genetic characteristics. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 (4) The applicant has already drawn attention to the quite special conditions to be observed in this particular species in New Zealand. The special biotic factors prevailing in that country change immigrants in quite a small number of years, as Wise (1953, 1954) has shown in the alteration of the ecological balance of Lithocolletis messaniella Z. (Lep.). (5) Since Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, is a name which has for : decades played an important role in genetic publications, in which : Hutton’s name does not appear at all, it is evident that we have here . a case to which the Principle of Conservation announced in the Copenhagen Decisions would have been particularly applicable if only a longer period had elapsed since its publication. 2. For the above reasons I recommend urgently the acceptance of the applitation by Mayr, etc. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “IMMIGRANS ” STURTEVANT, 1921, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ DROSOPHILA IMMIGRANS ” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By F. VAN EMDEN, D.Sc. (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S).711) (Letter dated 2nd November 1954) From my experience with the identification and distribution of the species of the _ immigrans group (= sbg. Spinulophila) in the genus Drosophila I strongly support _ the application by Dr. E. Mayr and others for the total suppression of the name Drosophila brouni Hutton. If this cannot be attained I suggest that brouni Hutton should be treated as a doubtful synonym of D. immigrans Sturt., which seems to be the only way which is both scientifically exact and practical for dealing with this name if retained as valid, since it is impossible to prove at present that brouni is identical with immigrans but since it is, on the other hand, highly probable that this is the case. The substitu- tion of brouni for immigrans would therefore be scientifically incorrect and is to be entirely rejected, 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “IMMIGRANS ” STURTEVANT, 1921, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “DROSOPHILA IMMIGRANS ” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By JOHN SMART, Ph.D., D.Se. (Cambridge University, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) (Commision’s reference: Z.N.(S)711) (Letter dated 3rd November 1954) I have looked up the various papers concerning Drosophila brouni and have come to the conclusion that I would wish to support the application of Messrs. Mayr, Paterson, Wheeler, and Spencer. I think that it is very important that we do what we can to prevent confusions of this kind arising and I have already acted in another ease [Drosophila subobscura Collin. 1936] of this kind (Smart, 1945, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond., (B). 14: 53-6). OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “CAENISITES ” BUCKMAN (S. S.), 1925 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By L. F. SPATH, D.Se., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.)798) (Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd July 1954) (For the proposal submitted in this case, see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 364-366) 1. The proposal by Dr. Arkell and Dr. Donovan that the Plenary Powers be used to suppress the generic name Caenisites 8S. S. Buckman, 1925 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl., 6 : 364) was made principally on the grounds that the single specimen on which the genus was based is a pathological monstrosity. Objection was made at the same time to the present author’s usage of the name Caenisites for the group of ammonite species that includes Ammonites turneri J. de C. Sowerby (1824 : 75, pl. 452, upper figure). This proposal is opposed on the grounds stated below. 2. While it is true that the unique holotype of the type species of the monotypical nominal genus Caenisites, C. caeneus Buckman (1925 : pl. DLXXII) is a pathological monstrosity, the abnormality affects only the last half-whorl of . the specimen, from 68 to 85 mm. diameter. The remainder of the shell is perfectly normal and shows the characters of the species-group that includes Amm. turneri J. de C. Sowerby, Amm. brooki J. Sowerby (1818: 203, pl. 190) and Amm. plotti Reynés (1879: pl. 36, figs. 9-16) among others. The original figures of C. caeneus show these characters not only in lateral view but also in ventral view before the beginning of the deformed part of the shell. So long as the species-group in question is regarded as homogeneous, it is not seriously open to question whether C. caeneus is a member of it or not. mee, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 3. It is a matter of observation that deformed specimens are of common occurrence in this group. One was figured as Arietites turgescens by Buckman (1918 : pl. 29, figs. 2a, b) ; another, now considered to be a malformed Amm. plotti Reynés, was referred to by me as Arietites sp. nov. (1923: 76). The generic affinities of these and other deformed specimens are not obscured by their malformations. 4. Dr. Donovan (1953 : xiii), in proposing the generic name Luasteroceras for Amm. turneri J. de C. Sowerby, states that Caenisites caeneus does not correspond exactly with Amm. plotti, referring to my opinion (1946 : 496) that the former was a malformed specimen of the latter. Whatever the words “ correspond exactly ” ' may have been intended to mean (very few individuals of any ammonite species ever correspond exactly with each other), he has given no taxonomic reasons to justify the generic separation of Euasteroceras from Caenisites. He is wrong in stating that degeneration of ornament does not occur in the turneri-group. In large examples degeneration similar in type to that known in Asteroceras can be seen. 5. On a point of detail, the lectotype of Amm. turneri was not, as stated by Dr. Donovan, first designated by Buckman (1898 : 453), but by Oppel (1856 : 82). 6. The intention announced by Dr. Arkell and Dr. Donovan of reproducing the original figures of all type species of all ammonite genera in the forthcoming Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology is quite irrelevant to the nomenclatorial point under discussion. Special pleading of this sort cannot help the Commission to appreciate the essentials of the case. Many genera of ammonites are based on far less satisfactory figures than is Caenisites, Euasteroceras among them. 7. Many generic names may have been proposed in the mistaken belief that a pathological deformity was a normal morphological character, but most of these ' cases are so obvious that the subjective element in their interpretation is very small. Moreover, few of such names are involved in situations such as the present where it is generally agreed that a new generic name is needed (for taxonomic purposes) for the species-group to which the pathological specimen belongs. In the writer’s opinion, Dr. Arkell and Dr. Donovan are grossly exaggerating the extent of the subjective element in this case. It is claimed that the holotype of Caenisites caeneus shows all the characters needed for its generic assignation and that to claim that it is doubtful whether it is a member of the turneri-plotti group shows that the authors of the proposal that the generic name Caenisites be suppressed have inadequate experience of the many transitional forms in this group. 8. In so far as there is usage of a generic name for the species-group in question, that usage is in favour of maintaining the generic name Caenisites. The authors _ of the proposal to suppress that name have not shown any clear-cut necessity for doing so in the terms of Opinion 93. They are, on the other hand, relying on that subjective element in the case which was stressed in the Copenhagen decision to reject Dr. Arkell’s application for the inclusion in the Régles of a provision invalidating a generic name given to a nominal genus, the type species of which is, in the opinion of later workers, a monstrosity. 9. In the writer’s opinion, the nominal genus Euasteroceras Donovan, 1953 is a subjective synonym of Caenisites Buckman, 1925. It is, therefore, requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) reject the proposal to use their Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Caenisites Buckman, 1925 ; (2) reject the proposal to use their Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name caeneus Buckman, 1925, as published in the binomen Caenisites caeneus ; (3) place the generic name Caenisites Buckman, 1925 (type species, by monotypy: Caenisites caeneus Buckman) (gender of generic name : masculine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) place the specific name caeneus Buckman, 1925, as published in the binomen Caenisites caeneus on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) place the generic name Huasteroceras Donovan, 1953 (type species, by original designation, Ammonites turneri J. de C. Sowerby, 1824) (gender of generic name: neuter) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. References Arkell, W. J., and Donovan, D. T., 1954: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 364. Buckman, 8. 8., 1898: Quart. Journ. geol. Soc. Lond. 54: 442-62. 1918 : ebtdem, 73 : 257-327, pls. xxvi-xxxi. 1925, Type Ammonites, 5, Part LIL. London. Donovan, D. T., 1953: Proc. geol. Soc. Lond., No. 1503: xiii-xiv. Oppel, A.. 1856 (-58) : Die Juraformation. Stuttgart. Reynés, P., 1879: Monographie des Ammonites. Paris and Marseille. Sowerby, J., 1818: Mineral Conchology 2: 203, pl. 190. Sowerby, J. de C., 1824: Mineral Conchology 5: 75, pl. 452. Spath, L. F., 1923: Quart. Journ. geol. Soc. Lond. 79 : 66-90. —— 1946: Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 12 : 490-496. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “CAENISITES” BUCKMAN (S. S.), 1925 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By R. V. MELVILLE, M.Sc. (Geological Survey and Museum, London) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.)798) (Communication received 3rd August 1954) I have no claim to a specialist knowledge of ammonite-systematics, but from a general acquaintance with the group of ammonites in question, I feel that Dr. Spath’s objections to the proposal that Caenisites be suppressed, carry more weight than the arguments put forward by Dr. Arkell and Dr. Donovan. I find it difficult to understand how these specialists can, in view of their reputation for. scientific objectivity, question whether Caensites caeneus belongs to the turneri group of ammonite species. The close relationship between C. caeneus and this group seems to me as obvious as any point of a taxonomic nature in fossils can be. The malformation of the holotype does not obscure the features which betray this relationship and upon which the generic assignation is based. At the most it might make specific determination difficult in the case of a specimen showing no overlap with the normal portion of the holotype ; though even this difficulty is diminished if Dr. Spath’s view (that C. caeneus is a malformed variant of Ammonites plotti Reynés) is accepted. eS << - i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 I can see no danger to stability and uniformity of nomenclatorial usage in the perpetuation of the generic name COaenisites. An analogous case occurs in a group with which I am familiar. The echinoid genus Hagenowia Duncan, 1889 (Journ. Linn. Soc.—Zool. 23 : 210) has as type species (by monotypy) Cardiaster rostratus Forbes, 1852 (Mem. geol. Surv., Decade IV : 1-4, pl. x, figs. 19-24). The holotype of this species is malformed in that the anterior rostrum which is the outstanding generic feature has been shortened by injury during life and has healed without regaining its original length. No difficulty has ever arisen in the interpretation of the genus or of the species, either taxonomically or nomenclatorially as a result of this malformation. The case of Caenisites seems to me closely similar and I support Dr. Spath’s application for the official recognition of the name. SUPPORT FOR DR. ARKELL’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO “ CAENISITES ” BUCKMAN (S. S.), 1925 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By HELMUT HOLDER (Institut und Museum fiir Geologie und Paldontologie der Universitat Tiibingen, Germany) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.)798) (Letter dated 30th September 1954) Ich schliesse mich dem von W. J. Arkell und D, T. Donovan eingereichten Vorschlag zur Unterdriickung des Gattungs-Namens Caenisites Buckman, 1925 an. Denn der Genotypus der Gattung ist auf ein monstréses Exemplar (Specie-Typus von Caenisites caeneus Buckman) gegriindet, das nicht eindeutig bestimmt werden kann. Dieser Sachverhalt widerspricht daher der beabsichtigten Kontinuitat der zoologischen Nomenklatur. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “CAENISITES” BUCKMAN (S. S.), (CLASS CEPHA- LOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)798) (Communication received 30th September 1954) I wish to support the recommendation of Arkell and Donovan (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 364-365) that the Commission should suppress the name Caenisites Buckman, 1925. This name was never used since the date of its proposal until its resurrection in 1946, and has not even since then passed into general usage. No confusion can therefore follow its suppression. The name Euwasteroceras Donovan, 1953, which by some is considered a subjective synonym of Caenisites, is typified by a well-known species characteristic of a group of importance to both Jurassic stratigraphy and palacontology. Previously these species had been known by the now inadmissible name Arietites. Specialists disagree as to the synonymy of Euasteroceras and Caenisites and agreement can never be reached since the type species of Caenisites is known by only the holotype, which all agree to be a monstrosity. The existence of the two _ names is, therefore, a danger to both stability and universal usage, for stratigraphers who are not ammonite specialists are at a loss which name to use. The suppression of the name Caenisites is, therefore, in full accord with the general directive given at Copenhagen for the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23). 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR DR. ARKELL’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO “ CAENISITES ” BUCKMAN (S.S.),1925 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By OTTO H. HAAS (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) (Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 798) (Letter dated 18th October 1954) This is to express my full support of the proposal by Drs. Arkell and Donovan, published Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 6, pt. 12, Feb. 1954, to suppress the generic name Caenisites Buckman, 1925. SUPPORT FOR DR. ARKELL’S PROPOSAL FOR A “DECLARATION” THAT A GENERIC OR SPECIFIC NAME BASED SOLELY UPON THE “ APTYCHUS” OF AN AMMONITE BE EXCLUDED FROM AVAILABILITY UNDER THE “REGLES” By C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.)589) (For Dr. Arkell’s application see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 (9) : 266-269) (Letter dated 30th November 1954) As a specialist in Mesozoic Ammonoidea I should like to support strongly Dr. Arkell’s proposal for a Declaration that generic or specific names of ammonite Aptychi should have no validity in zoological nomenclature. SUPPORT FOR PROFESSOR SWINNERTON’S PROPOSAL TO VALIDATE, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, THE SPECIFIC NAME “MINIMUS” MILLER (J.S.), 1826, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “BELEMNITES MINIMUS” (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER DIBRANCHIA) By C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.)823) (For Professor Swinnerton’s application see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 (9) : 284-285) (Letter dated 30th November 1954) From the points of view both of palaeontology and of Cretaceous stratigraphy I should like to give strong support to Professor Swinnerton’s application for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name minimus as published in the combination Belemnites minimus. : or, i CONTENTS ’ (continued from front wrapper) pt iz New Applications Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Carinifex : Binney, 1865 (Class aay By ‘gio rE. ie i Sos Diego, Calijurnia, U.S.A.) Comment on Dr. Joshua L. Baily Jr.s proposal for the validation of the generic name Carinifex Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda) and an ‘ alternative proposal. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. : (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the family-group name XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International ~ Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Discias is Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van MS cops se an ae The Netherlands) az. v2 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic names Upogebia Leach, 1814, and Processa Leach, 1815 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis nn van acigabicl Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) a Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the family-group us names PROCESSIDAE and UPOGEBIINAE (Class Crustacez, Order Deca- a poda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Sec*etary to the - International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Q Comments on previously published applications Comment on the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of immi- —sgrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila ss ammigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Roy A. Harrison _ (Entomologist, Plant Diseases Division, Department of 5 See and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand) a Comment on the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of immi- grans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By E. B. Basden eae tute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh 9, Scotland) : __ Support for the application to validate the name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans. By Erich Martin Hering epee Museum der Humboldt- Universitat Bu ale er os Sci name immigrans Stacie 1921, as published in the com- q = bination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By ___ F. van Emden (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) 5 o ; +. eo ‘ ) Page 321 326 329 332 334 340 342 343 344 345 CONTENTS (continued from overleaf) Support for the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the © combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, Ph.D., D.Sc. eee saa eey of ae . Zoology, Cambridge) Objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Caenisites Buckman (S.S.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, © Order Ammonoidea). By L. F. Ss ge D.Sc., F.R. en Museum (Natural History), London) Comment on the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Caenisites Buckman (S.S.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By R. V. Melville, M.Sc. (Geological Survey and Museum, London) .. oh ae oo pe aa, a Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal relating to Caenisites Buckman (S32); 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Helmut Hélder (Institut und Museum fur leis und sae tar der Universitat wpe Tiibingen, Germany) oo sory 2 out for the proposed suppression under the Plenary Powses of the generic name Caenisites Buckman (S.S.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Crder Ammonoidea). By P. C. a rae as of Sheffield, Sheffield, England) ate x * 2 Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal relating to Caenisites Buckman (S.S.), _ 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Otto H. ‘Haas (The American Museum of Natural ges New York) oi — Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal for a Dedlatatiin that a generic or specific name based solely upon the Aptychus of an Ammonite be excluded from ibe je under the : a C. W. a, r (London) . Support for Professor Swinnerton’s proposal to validate, under the — Plenary Powers, the specific name minimus Miller (J.S.), 1826, as published in the combination Belemnites minimus (Class Cepha- lopoda, Order Dibranchia). By C. W. Wright (London) . ; Printed in Great Britain by MrevcHim & SON ‘.mmiTED, Westminster, Lonaon, S.W.1 “= a — a * a VOLUME 9. Part 12. +, ee Py ae BP AXXY FRANCIS HEMMING, es MG. CBE. aL as ly Ge piniaciond ng Sey = Pian: Date. of commencement by the International Commiss' ion. 0 me foe ae ay logical Nomenc of ations published inthe = nm of Zoological Nomenclature vv. eee BBL Note af the ible we by the Iterations Commision on Zo- euuas 3). logical Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in Py a ai pate) Hegel Ring rors) te Paes ffs ~ LONDO ON: pet lbenchs = cmnirang a at and ee Be caren tein Ghent Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Ome, high 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7, i * * ra ‘ ‘ . aoe : ~ " > wee! BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 9, Part 12 (pp. 351—442, [i]|—xxix,T.P—XXXV) 3lst January 1956 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5—13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the ‘‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’ Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon the application published in the present Part (Vol. 9, Part 12) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases Noricr is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in A 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) the following application published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature in relation to the following work :— Curtis (J.), 1837, A Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects (Ed. 2), suppression of, for the purpose of selection of type species of genera (Z.N.(S.) 298). 2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin : other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 3. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the serial publications Nature and Science. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 31st January 1956. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 353 PROPOSED REJECTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE (g) IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE SECOND EDITION OF CURTIS (J.), 1837, “A GUIDE TO AN ARRANGEMENT OF BRITISH INSECTS’? OR ALTERNATIVELY THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE ABOVE WORK UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE FOREGOING PURPOSES By C. W. SABROSKY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and RICHARD E. BLACKWELDER (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 298) In 1829 John Curtis published in London a small book entitled A Guide to an Arrangememt of British Insects; being a Catalogue of all the named species hitherto discovered in Great Britain and Ireland. The book was intended to serve as an exchange list and as an index to Curtis’ large British Entomology. In 1837 a second edition appeared, revised and enlarged. Perhaps because of their checklist nature, these works have never attracted much attention from entomologists and are infrequently referred to in synonymies and bibliographies. 2. Some time ago it was noticed that the preface to the second edition includes a passage which might be construed to indicate that in it Curtis selected type species for a number of genera. A letter received from a worker in another country shows that others are aware of this action by Curtis. It appears important to examine the case publicly in order to avoid the risk of opposing usages. 3. On pages v and vi of the Preface appears the following statement :— It need scarcely be added that the generic and specific names without numbers are considered as synonyms, although many of the former which intersect long genera will most probably be eventually adopted, and it may often happen that all the species following such generic names would not be considered by the author who proposed the name as belonging to his group, but the one immediately following is always a typical species .. . These “synonyms ” occur throughout the work but do not for the most part appear to involve genera of great importance either because of size or nomen- clatorial considerations. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 9, Part 12. January 1956. 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. In spite of the indecisive wording, it is perhaps possible to look upon these first-species placements as definite selections of type species, particularly because Curtis is known to have used the concept of type species in other works and might be presumed to have applied it to this work as well. However, in his other works, his manner of selecting type species is unambiguous and unquestionably acceptable. There is also another difference that seems to be significant. In his British Entomology (1824—1840) Curtis selected a type species for each of the seven hundred and seventy genera found in Britain, but the type species so selected is not always a British species and was not always available to Curtis. In the Guide, on the other hand, the first species cited is in each case British, and the first species following the generic name is sometimes not the one that Curtis himself had previously selected as the type species. There appears to be good reason to believe, therefore, that Curtis knew and used the type-species concept, but that in the Guide, a simple checklist, he meant exactly what he said, namely that the first species “‘ is always a typical species’ but that this species was not necessarily the type species of the genus. 5. There are thus two facts which together seem sufficient to refute the claim that type species were selected in the edition of the Guide published in 1837. These are :—(1) the indecisive wording, which is different from Curtis’ regular practice in his other works, and (2) the difference in treatment between the Guide and the British Entomology, the latter of which contains unques- tionably definite selections of type species. 6.-It appears to the writers that Curtis’ action in the Second Edition of his (, wide cannot be considered as amounting to type selections, rigidly construed as provided in Article 30. The expression “a typical species” appears to indicate an illustration or example of a genus and not the type species of the genus. However, in the event of the Commission taking the view that Curtis’ action in this matter ought under a strict application of the Reégles, to be accepted as amounting to type selections, it is asked to suppress the Second Edition of Curtis’ Guide under its Plenary Powers for the purposes of Article 30 and, having done so, to place on the Official Indea of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the title of this work, as suppressed to the extent indicated above. i elie 4 tie ———— ee eee a ee nes —_—s" - eS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355 SUPPORT FOR THE SABROSKY/BLACKWELDER PROPOSAL THAT THE SECOND (1837) EDITION OF CURTIS’ “ GUIDE TO AN ARRANGE- MENT OF BRITISH INSECTS ” BE REJECTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 30 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 298) (For the application submitted in this case see page 353 of the present volume) (Note dated 23rd August 1955) Two issues which require separate consideration arise on the application in regard to the status under Article 30 of the Second Edition of Curtis’ Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects published in 1837 submitted by Dr. Sabrosky and Dr. Blackwelder. These are :—(1) Did Curtis in the above work make type selections for genera within the meaning of Article 30? (2) What action on the part of the Commission is required to obviate the risk of these type selections upsetting established usage for the generic names concerned ? 2. On the first of these questions, I should like strongly to support the view expressed by Drs. Sabrosky and Blackwelder that in this work Curtis did no more than what he said he was going to dos namely cite ‘‘ a typical species’ and that it was no part of his intention to select type species for genera in his little Guide. When in the early thirties I was preparing my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies, I was very much struck by the clear and unequivocal manner in which Curtis selected type species for genera in his British Entomology, for in this matter he was far ahead of almost all of his contemporaries. In these circumstances it appears to me to be incredible that, if in the Guide of 1837 he had intended to select type species, he should have employed the ambiguous phrase “ a typical species ” in place of the clear phraseology used by him in his British Entomology. It is all the more incredible that at the date in question (1837) he should have acted in this manner, when we recall that at that time his British Entomology was still in process of being published, the last instalment not having been published until 1840, three years after the appearance of the Second Edition of the Guide. 3. The problem in the present case appears to me to be very similar to that presented by Lamarck’s Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres of 1801, for in that work Lamarck cited for each genus a typical species without clearly stating that that species was regarded by him as the type species of that genus, just as in his Guide of 1837 Curtis cited “ a typical species without stating that he was selecting that species to be the type species. In the case of Lamarck’s Systéme the Com- mission in its Opinion 79 (1924, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 2) : 15—16) gave a Ruling that the above work by Lamarck “ is not to be accepted as designation of type species "’. This is the course which, in effect, Drs. Sabrosky and Blackwelder recommend should be adopted in the present case, a recommendation which I strongly support. If on the other hand the view were to be taken that despite the similarities noted above, the Guide should be regarded as differing in this respect from the Systéme, I would strongly support the alternative proposal submitted by the above specialists, namely that the Plenary Powers should be used to disqualify the Guide of 1837 for the purposes of Article 30, for, as was clearly stressed in the discussions on the need for promoting stability in zoological nomen- clature held at Copenhagen in 1953, changes in the type species of genera resulting from the discovery of long-overlooked type selections are just as objectionable as the sinking of well-known names as synonyms of long-overlooked names of older date. Indeed, in some respects changes of the first of these classes are even more 356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature objectionable than those of the second class, for the element of confusion is greater when an established name has to be used in a new and unaccustomed sense than when an established and familiar name is sunk in synonymy. 4. In order to provide for the possibility that the view might be taken that in the Guide of 1837 Curtis did select type species for genera, the applicants in the present case, on my suggestion, inserted in their proposal a request that, if the foregoing view were to be taken, the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to prevent established type selections from being disturbed on this account. By this means the Plenary Powers machinery has been set in motion and will be available in the event of its use being considered necessary to secure the end desired. 5. There are thus two alternatives now laid before the Commission for considera- tion in this case. These are as follows :— Alternative “A ’’ Under this Alternative the Commission would :— (1) give a Ruling that in the Second Edition of the work entitled A Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects published in 1837 Curtis (J.) did not select type species for the genera there enumerated ; (2) place the title of the above work on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, with an endorsement in the terms of (1) above. Alternative “ B ’’ Under this Alternative the Commission would :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30 all entries in the Seeond Edition of the work by Curtis (J.) published in 1837 under the title A Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects ; (2) place the title of the foregoing work :— (a) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with an endorsement as in (1) above ; (b) on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, with an endorsement excepting from the above entry the portion suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above. For the reasons explained in their application Drs. Sabrosky and Blackwelder favour Alternative ‘‘ A” and I fully share their view. page 19. page 51. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 357 CORRIGENDA Paragraph 16, line 17: substitute “ given genus ”’ for “‘ given species ’’. Point (1) (b) (iii) : substitute “‘novae-hollandiae ” for “ novaehollandiae ae pages 53-60. Insert square brackets round the name ‘‘ Tunstall ” and also round page 54. page 60. page 66. page 66. page 66. page 71. page 73. page 80. page 82. page 86. page 92. page 92. page 92. page 93. page 98. page 100. the page reference wherever the name “‘ Pyrrhocorax ’’ Tunstall is cited. Last line of title : substitute ‘‘ CONGRESS ”’’ for “‘ NOMENCLATURE ”’. Line 9: substitute “13 : 385” for “13: 385”. First line : substitute “1819” for “1815”. Paragraph 2, Point (2), line 2: substitute “Fringilla”’ for ““Fringillo”’. Paragraph 2, Point (2), line 3: substitute “Nat.” for “ Nat.’ and 3 Bal” for 06". Paragraph 3, Point (2), line 2: substitute “ tautonymous’ ** cautonymous ”’, for Line 10: substitute ‘‘ Linnaeus ”’ for “ Linneaus ’’. First paragraph, line 2: substitute “Official List’’ for “ Official Lsit”’. Paragraph 7, line 6: substitute ‘“‘ macroura ’’ for “‘ macoura’”’. Line 2: substitute “‘Balaeniceps Gould” for “Balaeniceps Rex”. Point (3) (b) : substitute ‘‘ Nevroptéres ” for “‘ Nevropteres ’’. Point (3) (c), line 1 : substitute “ 1758 ” for “1858”. Point (3) (c), line 2: substitute “1752” for “‘ 1758”’. Paragraph 2, line 2: substitute “‘gallinago ’’ for ‘‘gallinaga’”’. Paragraph 2, line 7: substitute ‘1789’ for ‘“‘ 1788” and insert “(2)” before the colon. ~ Point (1) (b), line 4 and Point (2), line 3: substitute “1789” for 1788’. pages 102 and 103: substitute “ Buturlin ” for ‘‘ Buterlin”’ wherever this name page 103. page 105. page 106. page 116. page 122. page 127. occurs. Paragraph 4, Point (2), lines 3 and 7 : substitute “ yamashina”’ for ** yamashima”’. Point (2) (b), line 1, insert square brackets round “ 1776”’. Third line from end : substitute ‘‘ferruginea ” for “‘ ferrugineas’”’. Line 3: substitute “Index” for “‘List’’. Last line but five substitute “ [1833] ” for ‘‘ 1838 ”’. Point (2) (ce), line 1; insert square brackets round date “ 1833”. 358 page 134. page 163. page 165. page 183. page 204, page 210. page 214. page 216 page 218. page 222. page 246. Las page 25 page 269. page 269. page 286. page 297. page 304. page 307. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Address of author : substitute “‘Colorado”’ for ‘‘Colarodo”’’. Paragraph 3, line 3: substitute “: 296” for “: 317”. Last line but one: insert square brackets round date ‘‘ 1854’. Point (3), line 3: delete “Trivial ’’. Appendix 2, second line of title: substitute ‘“‘ Naturgeschichte ’’ for ‘* Naturegeschichte ”’. Line 17 from bottom : insert “‘ de” between ‘‘ Geoffroy ”. and “ Saint Hilaire °’. Line 13: substitute “3, pt. 2” for “‘ 30, 2”. > and 217. Substitute ‘“‘mwelleri’’ for ‘‘miilleri’? wherever this name occurs. Point (3) (a), line 1: substitute “ three’? for ‘“‘ four ”’. Point (4) line 1: substitute “Index” for ‘“‘ List’. Point (4) line 1: substitute ‘‘ Invalid Original Spelling ” for “‘ incorrect spelling ”’. ‘ Seventh line from bottom : substitute ‘‘ Taschenbuch Min.” for ‘‘ Min. Tasehenbuch ”’. Title of second Note, line 2: substitute ‘‘ GEOFFROY ” for “* GEOFEFRY ”. Second and third lines from bottom of page: substitute “ Geoffroy ” for “‘ Geoffrey ”’. Title, lme 2 of both Notes : substitute ““AMPHIBIA” for ‘“‘ REPTILIA”’ (similar correction of back cover). Point (4) (b), line 5 : insert ‘“‘Dama” before “ Gray ”’. Paragraph 2 (2), line 3: substitute ‘‘: 28” for “28”. Paragraph 10, line 5: substitute ‘‘Helicella”’ for ‘“‘Helcella”’. pages 325 and 327. In each case last line but one: after ‘‘ Lea” substitute page 326. page 340. page 341. “1864 ” for “ 1858 ”’. Point (4), line 1: substitute ‘Index * for “List ”’. Sixth line from bottom and page 341, Paragiipii 3, line 4: substitute “ Borradaile * for “‘ Borrodaile *’. Paragraph 3, line 5: substitute “synonym” for “ synomym ”. Special Note : Gmelin (J. F.), 1788-1792, 13th edition of Linnaeus Systema Naturae, tom. 1 (pars. 1-7): the dates of names in parts 2-7, commencing with page 501 (1789-1792) should be quoted in square brackets wherever they occur in the present volume and accordingly they are so cited in the Subject Index. ona 1 PORE AF NP ep pete — rd Cl yetaa 445) J PA a ns a, TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS AND Aczél, M. d’Aguilar, J. Alexander, (, P. Alvarez, J. Amadon, D. d’Andretta, M. A. V. Andrews, H. W... Anduze, P. J, Arkell, W. J. Arnaud, P. H., Jr. Bailey, R. M. Baily, J. L., Jr. Baisas, F. E, Balfour-Browne, Jr. Balss, H... Barbosa, F. A. S. Barendrecht, G.. . Barnes, H. F. Barretto, M. P, .. Basden, FE. B, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX ON APPLICATIONS Page 208 Beckman, W. C. pe -6 hs) Beebe, W. . 234 Beignan, H. G. 273 Belkin, J. N. Bell, E. L. . 235 Bellamy, R. E. E235 Benoit, P. L. G. 235 Benson, R. B. Bequaert, J. -. 234 Bequaert, M. Berlioz, J. 272-274. 321-326 Beuret, H. olen eer Blackwelder, R. EB. 128-130 Blake, EF. R. sali Blanton, F. §. -. 238 Bohart, G. FE. 238, 239 Bohart, R. M. + 235 Bonham, K. . 235 Breder, C. M., Jr. Breland, O. P, 359 OF COMMENTS 353-354 66-67 360 Brittan, M. R. .. Brookman, B. Brooks, A. R. Brown, C. J. D. Brown, F. M. Brues, C. T. Brundin, L. Bryk, F. Buxton, P. A. Cabrera, A. Camras, S. Carlander, K. D. Carrera, M. Casey, R. Chace, F. A. Chapman, W. M. Christophers, Sir R. Clements, A. N. Coe, R. L. Coher, E. I. Cole, F. R. Collart, A. “ue Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page 2 268 234, 239 234, 239 . 273 134, 139 . 236 . 206-207, 299-300 . 234 . 273 . 235 . 250-254, 278-280 =, baa . 273 .. 236, 239 Collin, J. E., Cooper, G. P. Correa, R. R. Cortés, P. R. Cox, L. R. Cross, F. R. Curran, C. H. Dalmat, H. T. Davies, D. Dwight Davies, D. M. Day, C. D. de Buen, F. Delacour, J. del Campo, M. .. De Meillon, B. .. Dendy, J. 8. Diakonoff, A. Dodge, H. R. Doesburg, P. H. van, Sr. Dollfus, R. Ph. .. Dos Passos, C, F. Page - 236 . 273 . 235 . 235 . 265 = ade . 234 . 234 . 299 1 B34 . 236 . 273 45-46 . 273 aa Te . 151 . 284 . 238 . 144 153-154, 281-285 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 Page Downes, J. A. .. $4 .. 236 Dupuis, C. 238, 239 Dymond, J. R. — ef: Efflatoun, H. ©... 237, 239 Ellis, A. E. 304-308 Emden, F. I. van. a sue, 200 Emlen, J. J., Jr. a 66-67 Enders, R. K. .. wh «3, B00 Engel, H. = iy -. 158 Baak. T ef i «5 ee Eschmeyer, R. W. Ss «>» Qi Everhart, W. H. ae eR: Fairchild, G. B. .. oi .. 234 Fernandez-Yepez, A. .. = is Fernandez-Yepez, F. .. .. 235 Ferris,G.F. ee ieee: Fluke, C. L. 234, 239 Follett, W. I. 274, 274-275 Fonseca, E. C. M. d’Assis- ~s . 236 Fonseca, J. Pintoda .. e286 WootesR.H, ., ++ 241-246 Page Forattini, O. P. .. i. os 235 Forbes, W. T. M. 133, 149 Forcart, L. 301-303 Freeborn, S. B. .. ine ae 294 Franclemont, J. G. 144, 145, 149. 150, 154, 155 Franz, E. oe as coaG Freeman, H. W. a Fe yp§ Freeman, P. ae .. 236 Freeman, T. N. Ce petty 2] Frey, D. G. Re ey. . aad Frey, R. .. oe ye .. 236 Back, KB: i... x 2 234 Galvao); A. Ty. .. ay BaD Gherking, S. D. N: ary (| Ghesquiére, J... a .. 236 Glavert, L. Mi eu 45-46 Gloyd, H. K. ... £ Bae 533 Gomes, A.L. .. Ri tenes Gordon, K. we Ret Bed Be Gordon, M. ap ah (298 Gosline, Weta t« Po {were 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Greeley, J.R. .. wi .» 273 Greene, C. W. .. &. eee 23. Grensted, L. W. Pe wee2eG Grey, L. P. se ieee Grey, M. = i .- 273 Gunter, G. as oF sae Haas, O. H. ee cngge Mentos A ee: eee ew fe 973 McLane, W.M... Aa ~ale Krober, O. y _. 286, 239 Machado, A. de B. te pee 2H Kruseman, G., Jr. a5 Pe muriecrenes, 1M. Pe ——— Malloch, J.R. .. Se ee: Lachner, E.Q. .. mr .. 273 Mannheims, B. .. a .. 238 Laffoon,J.L. .. A .. 234 Mansueti, R. .. ee -. 21d Lagler, K. F. a af iP ote Manter, H.W. .. = .. 143 La Monte, F. R. = 4 eye) Marcuzzi,G. .. rr s0 200 Lane, John BS ha _. 935 Marks, E.N. .. Sy Oh 1 Laurence, B. R. = .. 236 Marr, J. C. a Ai ete Laven, H. we x . S388 Marshall, N. nA ay 23 Lee, D. J. a me 12° 237 Martin,C.H. .. 2 .. 234 Legendre, V. .. ae ina Martinez Palacios, A. .. we 205 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Page Martini, E. we ie os (236 Myers, G. 8. .. 273 Mather, B. ee Ue ay MRS . Nayar, K. K. 237, 239 Matheson, RR... tie .. 234 3 Niblett, M. 236, 239 Mayer, K. ce . = 238,239 Nichols, J. T. > ordey Mayr, E... 45-46, 48, 137, 161-162 Nicholson, H. P. . 234 Meinertzhagen, R. 6-7, 30-31, 32-37, 38-39, 40- Nielsen, P. 236, 239 43, 50-51, 52, 53, 62, 65-67, 76, 91, 94-95, 96-97, 101 Nixon, G. E. J. . 318 Melville, R. V. .. 348-349 Norris, K. R. . 237 Menon, M. A. U. ae a Aa Okada, T. 238, 239 Mertens, R. ee =. with Callianassa Leach, 1814, as type genus Calman, William Thomas, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, Membership of Calypso Risso, 1816, an objective junior synonym of Melia Bosc, 1813, proposed addition of, to the sears Index ipaecse and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... ; Calyptraeigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the sea sks Index Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Cambaroides Faxon, 1884 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eee with Astacus japonicus de Haan, 1841, as type species gender of name ... camelus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Struthio camelus (Class Aves), ile addition of, to the on List he cise c Names in Zoology i Camponotus Mayr, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Sipe“end with Formica ligniperda Latreille, 1802, as type species AS gender of name ... canaliculata Leach, 1815, as published in the combination Processa canalicu- lata (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), eh aad addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ss Cancellarigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the Ofte Index a Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology candidus Renier, [1807], as published in the combination Solecurtus candidus, proposed addition of, to the roast Index of Rejected and Invalid — Names in Zoology ee ven vee Ris at 8 377 Page . 68-69 337-338 339 339 262 117 117 . 96-97 312 312 339 262 262 378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page canorus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cuculus canorus (Class Aves), a avast addition of, to the arnet List on west ihe Names in Zoology ; . 70-74 Capella Frenzel, 1801 (Class Aves), proposed validation of, under the phage Powers, with Capella coelestis Frenzel, 1801, as type species. . 4 . 93-95 advertisement of the above proposal ... 3 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 96 Capella Keyserling & Blasius, 1840, proposed addition of, to the Opa Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 95 Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in og ey with ca yale ened Linnaeus, 1758, as type species.. . 710-73 gender of name ... 713 Capsigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the cipteae Index iad Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 262 Cardigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the eee Index Ly Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : 262 Carditigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the Pikotal ols Index * Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 262 Carinifex Binney, 1863, proposed suppression of, under the ee Powers, for the purpose of the Law of Priority abe a «fe & 321-325 proposed addition of, to the eae Index of bist and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... ne 326, 328 Carinifex Binney, 1865 (Class pr aes eT Bere validation of, under the Plenary Powers rae 4 Mae wale ae 321-326 advertisement of the above proposal ... 320 gender of name ... wie wht Sed oN pte Kf Wy: 326, 328 comment on the above proposal fh 388 bee aes oa 326-328 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in iii es a with Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858, as type species .,. me 326, 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 379 Page Carnifex Keep, 1893, an Invalid Subsequent Spelling of Carinifex Binney, 1865, proposed addition of, to the mba: Index a Rega and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology oe : 326, 328 carolinensis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the combination Columba carolinensis (Class Aves), Lguatiin at addition of, to the es ak List “ Specific Names in Zoology aes 84 cartusiana Miller (O. F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix cartusiana (Class Gastropoda), specific name of the type species of Monacha Fitzinger, 1833, sap ag ge addition of, to the a ae List ah Specific Names in Zoology... 3 308 caspicus Hablizl, 1783, as published in the combination Colymbus caspicus, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy... ... 30-31 advertisement of the above proposal ee ais 45 wae ye 3 proposed addition of, to the ae Index of Sipe and Invalid sf eek Names in Zoology wa 30 Cassigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the i acelin Index Me Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 262 cellaria Miiller (O. F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix cellaria (Class Gastropoda), specific name of type species of Oxychilus Fitzinger, 1833, proposed addition of, to the aia Inst a eran Names in Zoology ... ne 3 308 Cerebratulus Renier, [1804], (Phylum Mollusca), an whether validation of, under the Plenary Powers desirable a aif .. 257-262, 263 advertisement of the above contingency un ails on a «. 266 proposed addition of, if not so validated, to the Oe icial Index sf Met and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... ay 262 Cerithiigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the Og cial Index ¢3 Rejected and Invalid Generte Names in Zoology ... 262 Certhia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in hiner with Certhia familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ... ss = =e aioe as - 70-73 gender of name ... ne ive oe Aas ve oe ee a 73 380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page cerulea Bennett (F. D.), 1840, as published in the combination Sterna cerulea (Class Aves), bic heaeie addition of, to the Ofieat List wl ie Mira 0 Names in Zoology ... 41 chamaeleon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Musca chamaeleon (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), cain addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 7? 246 Chamigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the sa tease Index bid Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 262 Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and designation of Ammonites cornuelianus dW’ pbignisd? 1841, to be the type speciesof ... = ie ee 278-280 advertisement of the above proposal ... Sat ae “te aa nee proposed addition of, to the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology ... 280 gender of name ... se aa eae 30, or Sony. suppression of, under the Plenary Powers for the above purposes.. cere a0 proposed addition of title of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, with an endorsement as recommended above ... ea ae aes _ ree bas bias See sSewugb4 support for adoption of the first of the alternatives proposed ser 355-356 proposed addition of title of, to the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, subject to the exclusion therefrom of the portion suiene as unavailable for the eo of Rule Pah in Article 30 a 356 eurvirostra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lozia curvirostra (Class Aves), AL Neaps addition of, to the niga List sel Gs hk Names in Zoology ... ; . 70-75 cyanea Miller, 1776, as published in the combination Muscicapa c yanea (Class Aves), tin addition of, to the dain List as ie aia Names in Zoology ... : 104-105 cyanea Vieillot, 1818, as published in the combination Muscicapa cyanea (Class Aves), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary ere for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy... oe nae noe a 4 proposed addition of, to the eo Index * cee and Invalid his Names in Zoology Pac 105 cyanea Hume, 1877, as published in the combination Muscitrea cyanea (Class Aves), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers and addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology aaa ae ates 104-105 advertisement of the above proposal ... 3 ue ret “a ae 3 Cycladigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the CRE Index af Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology — 262 Cyclostomigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the ada Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... vee 262 386 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Cypraeigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the Za pet Index ee Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ae 262 Cystia Renier, [1807] (Phylum Mollusca), miaiaear whether validation of, under the Plenary Powers desirable ... Bi 257-262 advertisement of the above proposal ... bn ce a ant eerie proposed addition of, if not so validated, to the aaa, Index of Foe and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... is ‘ 262, 264 Cystigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the ye Index hs Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ae 262 Cytherigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the Mga Index bel Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology diate 262 dama Linnaeus, 1758, Cervus (Class Mammalia), proposed designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Dama Frisch, 1775 297, 298, 300 proposed designation of, under the Plenary Sashes to be the ee bt of Dama Hamilton Smith, 1827 ... : 300 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 297, 298 Dama Frisch, 1775 (Class Mammalia), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers, with Cervus dama cE ane ae 1758, as the type species... aie ne ie a 35 a A . 293-297, 298 advertisement of the above proposal ... aes = oe Fic een 288 gender of name ... 75 siege bee ty. Ss Le es .. 297 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 297, 298 support for the above proposal... —... Hae sor “er Sop 299, 300 Dama Zimmermann, 1777, a name published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes, proposed addition of, to the Gea Index of cites and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology we 297 proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers... AS ie 299-300 Dama Zimmermann, 1780, a junior homonym of Dama Frisch, 1775, proposed addition of, to the i ae Index or re and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... a oa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dama Gray (J. E.), 1825, proposed addition of, to the Rival. A Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Dama Smith (C. H.), 1827, a junior homonym of Dama Frisch, 1775, proposed addition of, to the i Index of sila: and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : as counter-proposal, proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the name for the genus containing the Fallow Deer of Europe, with 387 Page 207 297 Cervus dama Linnaeus, 1758, as type species = ae bs 299-300 as counter-proposal, Bare * addition of, to the goa List ws Generic Names in Zoology... Dama Gray (J. E.), 1850, a junior homonym of Dama Frisch, 1775, proposed addition of, to the oe Index dd ssi and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830 (Class Reptilia), support for the proposed validation of ... sec she oe oH 8 eae eee fee abc ee Declarations containing interpretations of provisions in the Régles, proposed adoption of, see Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. Delphinuligenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the oe Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology . dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus ii eee comments Digeitates beet suppression 300 297 157 262 of . ... 141-142, 143, 144 depicta Renier, [1807], as published in the combination Aglaja depicta, proposed addition of, to the es ceamali Index e ase and Invalid Peaks be Names in Zoology Diceratigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the aes Index mn Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; Diloba Boisduval, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), comment regard- ing proposed validation of , oa ae “ie wax ate <3 DISCIADIDAE (emend. of DIScIDAE) Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group 262 262 145 Names in Zoology, with Discias Rathbun, 1902, as type genus__.... 332-333 388 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Discias Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order eee IS pores validation of, under the Plenary Powers... 332 advertisement of the above proposal ... Sa se he Bs .. 320 gender of name ... See ze 538 oP ae se rie ves SSSZ proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Spain with Discias serrifer Rathbun, 1902, as type species.. 333 DISCIDAE Rathbun, 1902, proposed addition of, to the ia es Index » Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology Pre 333 piscipA Lebour, 1949, proposed addition of, to the elias Index ot re and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology... : 333 Discoides Renier, [1804] (Phylum Mollusca), sate 4 whether validation of, under the Plenary Powers desirable ... =e . 257-262, 263 advertisement of the above contingency oe a: eae vas .. 253 proposed addition of, if not so validated, to the ee Index a sii and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology are 262 divisa Renier, [1807], as published in the combination Tuba divisa, proposed addition of, to the Cea Index al irises and Invalid recat Names in Zoology ... was 262 Doliigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the 2 gl Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ace 262 dominica Linnaeus, 1776, as published in the combination Loxia dominica, question of addition of, to the ri ag Index of Sci bigs and Invalid er Names in Zoology ri . 68-69 Donacigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the pati Index i Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology eae * 262 Douvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893 (Class Cephalopoda), proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of ail previous type selections for, and designation of Ammonites mammilatus Schlotheim, 1813, as type species 250-254 advertisement of the above proposal... atk vee ae ayy ry: gender of name ... ngs oe sat et i ar hj .. 264 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology w= 264 OO ES SS es | es | «ofr ee eee eee rl ee a a a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 389 Eburnigenus Renier, [ 1807], proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology aad an aa ae Ecclissa Schrank, 1802, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 208-214, 214-217 proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... a oats Eo ae ay : 218 Eclissa Modeer, 1790, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 208-214, 214-217 proposed addition of, to the Oficial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology nee aoe are oe aie ae 218 Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 (Class Aves), proposed determination under the Plenary Powers of identity of Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, type species of a ah So wa si wr -.. 80-83 Edwards (G.), Nat. Hist. Birds, proposed designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a description and a figure in, to represent the lectotype of Columba macroura Linnaeus, ETGSN: Jy, a oh ic : 83 Egeon Bosc, 1813, a junior homonym of Egeon de Montfort, 1808, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... aA ae si me aes Bes. so sae “s 339 Egeon Risso, 1816, a junior homonym of Egeon de Montfort, 1808, proposed addition of, to the Oficial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... iat st! ts s. as sieis arr ac «339 Egretta Brisson, 1760, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy 89-91 proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology “he oc nie wee mere sy: — ae 92 Egretta Forster, 1817 (Class Aves), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers and confirmation of position of, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology dn oe ae re “ one -.. 89-92 advertisement of the above proposal ... ve o% ie to vee 3 390 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page eimeensis Gmelin (J. F.), [1789], as published in the combination Columba eimeensis, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of seen shaadi but not for those of the Law of Homonymy es “3 .» 40-41 advertisement of the above proposal ... aos Sista eee a seid 3 proposed addition of, to the eet ® Index of rete and Invalid icicle Names in Zoology... 41 elegans Forster (J. R.), 1794, as published in the combination Motacilla elegans, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy 44, 45-46, 50-51 advertisement of the above proposal ... Te as ae 40 Ae 3 proposed addition of, to the eres Index of Baers and Invalid ROPES Names in Zoology... -.. 44, 51° elegans Gould (J.), 1837, as published in the combination Malurus elegans (Class Aves), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers ... 44, 45-46 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 44, 51 Emarginuligenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the Oficial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology . Sx 262 epops Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Upupa epops (Class Aves), penal addition of, to the hc List ie se five 2 Names in Zoology ... ‘ . 70-75 ericetorum Turton, 1807, as published in the combination Turdus ericetorum, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy... 62, 63-64 proposed addition of, to the eet Index g rai peed and Invalid Peeve Names in Zoology Erycinigenus Renier, {1807}, proposed addition of, to the Biciat Index nat Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology is 262 Etheriigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the en Index af Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology tie 262 Euasteroceras Donovan, 1953, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. ast ae w. 848 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 391 Page europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Caprimulgus europaeus (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ae aN ae es sa oo: ae --» 70-75 falcolinus Linnaeus, 1776, as published in the combination Tetrao falcolinus, question of addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Bak Lia be. shri net ae -.. 68-69 familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Certhia familiaris (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... ms aes 20k Te 0 eh mri ist ... 70-75 Fasciolarigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... te te? iy: Favus Schafheutel, 1850, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy 119-120 proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 120 Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers and confirmation of, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology... ante me “ie 119-120 gender of name ... 8 ves fel aS an oe at wot, advertisement of the above proposal... iS Jot hin us . al 409 support for the above proposal... ABS =i sie at ah eile! | ferruginea Merrem, 1784, as published in the combination Muscicapa ferruginea proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy 105-106 proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 106 ferruginea Hodgson, June 1844, as published in the combination Hemi- chelidon ferruginea Hodgson, 1844, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ... a ssey) » OG ferruginea Hodgson, 1845, as published in the combination Hemichelidon ferruginea (Class Aves), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 105-106 advertisement of the above proposal .., er was sealed aii 3 392 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Fissurelligenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the penne Index = Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology at 262 Fistulanigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the es Index us Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 262 flava Vieillot, 1817, as published in the combination Campephaga flava (Class Aves), a acai addition of, to the sh tai List ih Baik Names in Zoology ... te 32 flavescens Lichtenstein, 1793, as published in the combination Lanius P flavescens, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 32-33 advertisement of the above proposal... 452 Sic aac aoe SA 3 proposed addition of, to the Oo icial Index : ease and Invalid sect x Names in Zoology = 33 flavipes Fabricius, 1792, as published in the combination Dytiscus flavipes, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the i ea both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy... tee - 128-129 proposed addition of, to the a aa Index gi ie ee and Tavelid pia Names in Zoology... : 130 flavipes Olivier, 1795, as published in the combination Dytiscus flavipes (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers and addition of, to the Se List whl ees Names in Zoology ... 456 ; 128-130 advertisement of the above proposal... Lig Ast aoe ee va, OS fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775, Astacus, proposed suppression of, and addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 114-117 Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) proposed designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761, to be type species of ... xt: ay ase Ae fae sat sc) oO gender of name ... er ake ‘og Ae ue ei ay se proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ... 316 FORMICAEDES Billberg, 1820, proposed addition of, to the Official Index ri Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ee ve is 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FORMICARIDES Leach, 1815, proposed addition of, to the Official Index 0 Rejected and I nvalid Family-Group Names in Zoology wis 56: FORMICIDAE (correction of FORMICARIAE) Latreille, [1802-1803] (first pub- lished in the correct form as FORMICIDAE by Stephens (J.F.), 1829), proposed addition of, to the Official List of slg vee Names in Zoology, with Formica Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus.. oat Forster (J. R.), proposed suppression, for nomenclatorial purposes, of a paper containing new names for certain Australian birds published in Vol. 5 of Magazin von Merkwiirdigen neuen Reise Beschreibungen, 1794 ... Fringilla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official Inst of Generic Names in Pasion with Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus, 1758, as type species Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 437 Page umbellatus Linnaeus, 1776, as published in the combination Tetrao wmbel- latus (Class Aves), question of addition of, to the eer Index of re, and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology... Bt . 68-69 unalaschkensis Gmelin (J.F.), [1789], as published in the combination Hirundo unalaschkensis, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Sicyestgedl but not for those of the Law of Homonymy Be : ‘ p ... 40-41 advertisement of the above proposal ee ga ap: ine eer 3 proposed addition of, to the 65 comment on the above proposals’... as os ems ie --. 68-69 vermivora Gmelin (J.F.), [1789], as published in the combination Motacilla vermivora (Class Aves), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers to be the name of the Worm-Eating Warbler, and addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology wi p .. 65-67 virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the combination Dama vir- giniana (Class Mammalia), POPES. 2 addition of, to the fi wars List of Specific Names in Zoology a wd 297, 298 support for the above proposal ab ws ae Bus ae .. 300 voarula Linnaeus, 1776, as published in the combination Motacilla voarula (Class Aves), question of addition of, to the Onerd 4 Index oh acti and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology... : . 68-69 Volucella Geoffroy, 1762 (Class (rca Order st bets a eH validation of, under the Plenary Powers ... : : 241-245 advertisement of the above proposal 234 an Se Fat , were eee support for the above proposal Rae sat ae: “8 ss 1. tore gender of name ... ae he a ae SN siete “3 we = 245 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Peon y, with Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ... = 245-246 Volutigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the aioe? 4 Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology sis 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 439 Page Volwarigenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the dane Index oF Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ae 262 Vulselligenus Renier, [1807], proposed addition of, to the i Index i Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a ee Om XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 (Class Crustacea, Order Lapse: geute se aeaity valida- tion of, under the Plenary Powers ... ; , 329-331 advertisement of the above proposal ee Rev aoe ies sn ea proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- Kg oe Names in Zoo- logy, with Xantho Leach, 1814, as type genus... = wow Xantho Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Offi icial Inst of Generic Names in ape w» with Cancer incisus Leach, 1814, as type species... Sos ae ee coe aN 270-271 gender of name ... aac Aer at sive ree ar ais can ae Xantho Dutrochet, 1819, proposed addition of, to the aches Index bs Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a8 271 Xanthus Agassiz, 1843, proposed addition of, to the oe Index of ae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology oy 271 Xerophila Held, 1837, a junior objective synonym of Theba Risso, 1826, pro- posed addition of, to the pace Index of nigel and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; 308 yeltonensis Forster, 1767, as published in the combination Alauda yeltonensis (Class Aves), iS aang addition of, to the oe List a Sia Names in Zoology ... . 77-79 zeylonicus Linnaeus, 1776, as published in the combination Turdus zeylonicus (Class Aves), question of addition of, to the ee Index rat ees and Inwalid Specific Names in Zoology siete . 68-69 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44] PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS. PUBLISHED Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication (pages) 1/3 1-106 15th October 1952 4/5 107-158, 1 pl. 30th December 1952 6 159-190 11th May 1954 7 191-222 llth May 1954 8 223-254 11th May 1954 9 255-286 22nd October 1954 10 287-318 30th December 1954 ll 319-350 30th December 1954 12 351—442 a) {i]—xxix r 3ist January 1956 T.P.—XXXV J 442 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS The present Volume should be bound up as follows :—T.P.—XXXYV, [i]—xxix, 1—442 ; Note :—The wrappers (covers) of the twelve Parts in which this Volume was published should be bound in at the end of the Volume. RN eS le (New -Applieation) wee) Corts (1), 37, 4 Guide to an An rena ee 30. By i it SUE art- De. ae Tae r bok iain ote ‘Tees : ; phe fost 353 ‘Support fae sed au sores al relating to, the above iy ae OMG, aoe Sia ON ’ | De ta Undies od aaogied Horaincaes venclature) ... 355 Page Cogent, Authors and Sbjock Index > ig e i fe SORE a let a ‘Nocnubiile Gerait Aroctunte: ba aes yon ie bis 1953 and Reports of the Committee of Manage- és Title Ae Re Table of Contents we eee ; nee TP XxV é | 4 ‘Notice to Lerner ail prt ibe dovumena 0) 1 in 1953. grpstecieedye ring. Morpaacts - applications relating to ava | names or the status of books to be published pntdin phar pect il coalebaee eran ake Latsyons zie unity is taken also to draw attention to the important seri ons ”” and, in certain circumstances, rectin ho gees nions * rendered in the pre-Lisbon ae Lsiitockyiateemee h ip Reta Ore Nolume:t St se Ree * i? % -< * 4 ie MELE ; ‘? . . A r- sy S, 7 ti Peart» mf PE en! et ad & F 2 ne Wee eee Be ck . a Sys , : “4 iy as « a! *~ Ge 7a] " a Pa Oi ene ee Ny) Ate fh7 ig pis late e s's ‘sty blots eleteteres* iat ai$8 ? Feely bel deri Si gretat pete + 4 Ipitrenratate is isi : rinse este gh he