Ls eaten sie ne a “eal J ae i ne i i a Rea i Be aa ae Raantny he ree aia ae it o as a Bi inn tale A i a chi hy i ae 7 irae yy Mace at i a Rahs a hate i ait wie chy He ie ate " ae i“ 5 , ‘ ena Wad aN at it PASS ia Nave i 4 + rr ray tet ret ene 4 sky Uh pasta ie baits aeayngeys Ati at 3 ry res a i ded + sorpaeiy aad } , 7 Ay " 49 Yt “ity ayeyay rete Pon p} fame seta COMMISSION ‘ON WOMENCLATY wee RR Ok UNCTS WEMMING, €.0.0.) C20 : pis tae Coatondastiies oat Z ovreglont | Re tion mene ‘Kevan | * LOMDON 5 | Qurdey of She Witerttatenvel) Trin foe Beaorapie ttn a’ dane OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL 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 fer Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954—1955 (All rights reserved) ‘).|. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 2 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE * Oo , COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS PUBLISHED IN 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 : (vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (1st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (Ast January 1947). Dr. Norman R. StToLt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (1st January 1947). Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEmMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning Lemcue (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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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) (Sth July 1950). IV INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE (continued) 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. Administrative Officer: Mrs. S. C. Watkins, M.A. “Official Lists’? Section: Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. icine Mrs. J. H. Newman POET UES Miss D. G. Williams Indexer : Miss Mary Cosh, M.A. Translator : Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, 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 volume—the ninth of the present series— contains the second instalment of Opinions adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the period between the close of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and the opening of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. The Opinions concerned are Opinions 312—333. In addition the present volume contains five Declarations (Declarations 13—17) adopted by the International Commission in the same period. Each of these Declarations was submitted to, and approved by, the Copenhagen (1953) Congress. 2. The present volume comprises 490 pages (T.P.—XIV, i—lx, 1—416). The volume is thus somewhat larger than its immediate predecessor. 3. Of the twenty-two Opinions included in the present volume one of the applications relating to the cases concerned was submitted by three separate authors and three applications were submitted by two joint authors, thus bringing the total number of applicants to twenty-seven. 4. Three of the applications dealt with in this volume were concerned with the status of books and the remaining nineteen with individual names. Of this latter group, fourteen (73.5 per cent.) involved the use of the Plenary Powers. The use of these Powers was not involved in the applications relating to the status of individual books. VI 5. The nineteen applications relating to individual names dealt with in the Opinions 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 shown in the following table. In the same table the applications are arranged so as to distinguish those which involved the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers from those which did not. TABLE 1 Distribution of applications (a) by Classes of the Animal Kingdom and (b) whether they involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers Number of applications Name of Involving the Class use of the Others Plenary Powers Rhizopoda Rotifera Crustacea Insecta Merostomata Pelecypoda Cephalopoda Asteroidea Echinoidea Reptilia aes See We PRS KS elem ee | mee ee ee GK) DR OR eR Totals = is — \© 6. When the twenty-seven applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen Vil to have been received from the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) :— TABLE 2 Distribution of applicants by country of residence Country of Residence | Number of applicants Canada Germany Netherlands Norway Trinidad United Kingdom United States of America Total 7. Under the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the present volume, 45 names were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and 55 names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. In the same Opinions, 51 names were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and 30 names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Finally, the title of one work was placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Ayailable for Zoological Nomenclature and the titles of four works on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. Vil 8. The nineteen Opinions dealing with individual names published in the present volume contain 65 comments received from interested specialists. These comments were in many cases joint comments from a number of specialists. When account is taken of this consideration, the number of specialists who contributed comments in the foregoing block of Opinions is seen to number 158. In addition, 6 comments were received ~ in regard to the applications relating to the status of books. 9. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according to the Class in the Animal Kingdom to which the genus or species concerned belong, the distribution of the com- ments is found to be as follows :— TABLE 3 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of Comments Rhizopoda — Crustacea Insecta Merostomata Pelecypoda Cephalopoda Asteroidea Echinoidea Reptilia Total 10. When the authors of the comments on individual names dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume are IX _ grouped by reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :— TABLE 4 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by country of residence of the specialists concerned Country of Residence | Number of Comments Austria ‘ Denmark France Germany Netherlands Spain United Kingdom United States of America Total 11. As in the case of the preceding volume of this series, the Commission is indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A. for the prepara- tion of the indexes of the present volume. In style and scope these indexes follow exactly the models laid down for earlier volumes. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. 5th March 1955. piaaiyianss * Hee bE 4 a MRL RAD NOW Vi Aare e ks Mey i XI TABLE OF CONTENTS Declarations Page DECLARATION 13 Rejection of the distribution of a paper in microfilm, or on a microcard or the like, as a method of “ publication ” for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles .. BS cm Ae ae Ks, i DECLARATION 14 Clarification of the meaning of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Régles (Rule relating to the type species of a nominal genus established to replace an earlier nominal genus) ie or re XA DECLARATION 15 Clarification of the question of the nominal species to be regarded as eligible for selection as the type species of a nominal genus established without cited nominal species, in cases where a subse- quent author, without citing such a species, gives a bibliographical reference to a work in which such a species is cited .. cm us ate oe OL OXY, DECLARATION 16 Clarification of the question of the availability of a name having as its only “ indication ” a qualified synonymic reference to a_ previously published name a 50 a! ie Bee OKI DECLARATION 17 Clarification of the provision in the Régles relating to the conditions necessary to to establish a state of secondary homonymy between any two specific names .. ap i a ee KLiK Opinions OPINION 312 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the name Amoeba coli, as from Grassi, 1879, to be the name for the large non-dysenteric amoeba of Man and the designation of that species to be the type species of the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barba- gallo, 1895, and designation under the same Powers of the name Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, to be the name for the dysenteric amoeba of Man (Class Rhizopoda) (Opinion substituted for Opinion 99) 1 XII OPINION 313 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage OPINION 314 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific name acuminata Ioff & Tiflov, 1946, as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Recto- frontia) acuminata, as applied to the species numbered 66” by those authors cee Insecta, Order fo aptera) ae ee OPINION 315 Addition of the generic name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (Class Cephalopoda) to the Oe List of Generic Names in Zoology : OPINION 316 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the Tavola alfabetica delle Conchiglei Adriatiche and Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi of S. A. Renier commonly attributed to the year 1804. . %: OPINION 317 Addition of the name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) to the ne List of Generic Names in Zoology : OPINION 318 Addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology of the names for three nominal genera and for fourteen nominal species of the Class Pelecypoda included in a paper by La Rocque (A.) distributed in microfilm in 1948 .. OPINION 319 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of type species for the nominal genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed usage OPINION 320 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Limulus Miller (O.F.), 1785 (Class Merostomata) and confirmation of the entry of that name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (validation of an error in Opinion 104).. oe Page 61 va 81 ot 107 119 131 147 OPINION 321 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Spatangus striato-radiatus, the oldest available name for the fossil Echinoderm from the Limburg Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) commonly known as the Spatangue de Maestricht (Class Echinoidea) OPINION 322 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) and designation for the genus so named of a type species in harmony with current nomenclatorial practice OPINION 323 Validation and interpretation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific name angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus for the type species of the genus Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878 is woe Order Ammonoidea) OPINION 324 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of twenty-one nominal genera of Ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and matters incidental thereto. . OPINION 325 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda) ee OPINION 326 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854 (Class Rotifera) and matters incidental thereto OPINION 327 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the nominal genus Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789, in harmony with accustomed nomen- clatorial usage XIII Page 171 185 209 pei 251 267 283 XIV OPINION 328 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific name caesius Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combination Coluber caesius, for the purpose of validating the specific name irregularis Leach, 1819, as published in combination Coluber irregularis (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata) OPINION 329 Acceptance for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Giovanni Antonio Scopoli entitled Introductio ad Historiam Naturalem published in 1777 OPINION 330 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic names Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) and Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) : OPINION 331 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a lectotype for the nominal species Asterias quin- queloba Goldfuss, 1831 (Class Asteroidea) in mee with accustomed nomenclatorial usage OPINION 332 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by William Borlase entitled The Natural History of Cornwall published in 1758. . A: OPINION 333 Confirmation of Mytilus edulis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda) Ser ae of a ae given in Opinion 94) : 5 Corrigenda Index to authors of applications dealt with in the present volume and of comments on those applications Subject Index .. Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published Instructions to binders Page LOD 309 321 339 55 369 387 389 305 415 416 Printed in England by MrtcatFE & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 7. Pp. i—xii : DECLARATION 13 Rejection of the distribution of a paper in microfilm, or on a microcard or the like, as a method of “‘ publication ”’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 13 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 me Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) ({Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (Ast January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). - Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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), Touica (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). DECLARATION 13 REJECTION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PAPER IN MICROFILM, OR ON A MICROCARD OR THE LIKE, AS A METHOD OF ‘* PUBLICATION”? FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE ‘‘ REGLES ” DECLARATION :—There shall be added to the list of methods prescribed—by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (as recorded in Conclusion 15(1)(b)) of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Seventh Meeting held during its Paris Session in July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :219)—as being methods of distributing zoological books and papers which do not qualify a new name as having been made public in a publication (“‘divulgué dans une publication’’) the following new item :—* (iv) the inclusion of a new name in a book or paper distributed in microfilm, or on a microcard or the like ”’. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 6th February 1951, Professor G. Winston Sinclair (for the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America) and Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (for the Nomen- clature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology) addressed a joint letter to the International Commission, in which, on behalf of the bodies which they respectively represented, they (1) asked for a ruling that the distribution of a paper in the form of a microfilm does not constitute “ publication ”’ for the purposes of the Régles, and (2) cited, as an example of the practice against which they asked for a ruling, the case presented by a paper by La Rocque (A.) containing the names of three new nominal ‘1AN 191085. 1V OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS genera, and of fourteen new nominal species, of the Class Pelecypoda included in a paper which had been distributed in the form of a microfilm in 1948 but had not appeared in printed form until 1950. The following is the application so submitted :— Request for a ruling that the distribution of a microfilm does not constitute ‘* publication ’’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the ‘‘ Régles ”’ Application submitted jointly by the JOINT COMMITTEE ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR PALEONTOLOGY IN AMERICA and by the NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY (Letter, with enclosures, dated 6th February 1951, signed jointly by Dr. G. Winston Sinclair (for the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America) and Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (for the Nomenclature Committee, Society of Systematic Zoology).) 1. We enclose a petition which we would ask you to lay before the Commission for their opinion, and which we would ask you also to publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. We also enclose a list of zoologists who, having seen the petition and studied it, have indicated in writing that they wish to be recorded as supporting it. Dwight Davis (Chicago Natural History Museum) wishes to be recorded as opposing the petition. Enclosure 3. Within recent years there has arisen, at least in America, a commerce in copies of books or manuscripts photographically repro- duced on 35 mm. film, known as “ microfilm’. This practice was at first a convenience to scholars, who could thus obtain copies of rare or unobtainable works for study and reference, and the microfilm was usually supplied by large libraries. 4. From this beginning the practice has expanded, until now not only books but unpublished typescripts are being offered for sale, and microfilm is being advertised as a cheap and convenient method of ‘* publishing”? scholarly works which (because of their bulk or their lack of general appeal) would not be readily accepted by a regular publishing house. The distribution and offering for sale of such microfilm is held by some, including high academic officers, to constitute publication. —Ree (7 - Cr DECLARATION 13 Vv 5. We ask the Commission to rule that, regardless of its status for other purposes material which is available to the public only in the form of microfilm is not to be considered “‘ published ’’ within the meaning of the Régles. 6. Should the Commission prefer to have before them a definite example, may we suggest that the following case be considered : In 1948 a paper entitled “‘ Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan ”’, by Auréle La Rocque, was offered for sale as “* Univer- sity Microfilms Publication 1059’’, consisting of a microfilm copy of a typescript and accompanying plates of photographs. This offering was advertised to an extensive mailing-list of libraries and others, and the paper has been available to the public in this form since 1948. In 1950 the same paper was issued in printed form as: Con- tributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Volume 7, No. 10 (pp. 271—366, 19 plates). In this paper (in both forms) are described three new genera and fourteen new species of pelecypods. 7. We ask the Commission to rule that the names of these new taxonomic units are to be ignored until their appearance in printed form in 1950. Annex to Enclosure List of zoologists supporting the petition : a. Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. Members individually polled and unanimous in support, Miz. : Raymond C. Moore, University of Kansas, Lawrence A. S. Romer, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. David H. Dunkle, U.S. National Museum, Washington S. W. Muller, Stanford University, California J. Marvin Weller, Walker Museum, University of Chicago John B. Reeside, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D. L. Frizzell, Rolla, Missouri A. Myra Keen, Stanford University, California Katherine V. W. Palmer, Ithaca, New York J. Brookes Knight, U.S. National Museum, Washington John W. Wells, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York G. Winston Sinclair, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. V1 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Karl P. Schmidt Fritz Haas Bryan Patterson Rainer Zangerl Rupert Wenzel William Beecher Henry S. Dybas Robert H. Denison Robert F. Inger Emmett R. Blake Austin L. Rand Melvin A. Taylor, Jr. Colin Campbell Sanborn Eugene S. Richardson, Jr. c. Nomenclature Committee, Society of Systematic Members, individually polled ; all replies were approval : Ernst Mayr, American Museum Natural History Robert R. Miller, University of Michigan Robert L. Usinger, University of California John W. Wells, Cornell University Ellsworth C. Dougherty, University of California J. Brookes Knight, U.S. National Museum E. Raymond Hall, University of Kansas Richard E. Blackwelder, U.S. National Museum. b. Individual zoologists in Chicago, in favour of the petition : Zoology Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of the present application, the question whether the distribution of books or papers in the form of microfilm constitutes 66 publication ” for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 528. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer in April 1951 and on 28th September 1951 was published in Part 11 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Sinclair & Blackwelder, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 306—308). 4 DECLARATION 13 Vii 4. Support for the present application : The publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature elicited support from the under-mentioned groups of specialists and individual specialists. All the statements so received were published in 1951 and 1952 in the Bulletin, either in volume 2 or in volume 6. The references to the places where these statements were so published are given in each case in the following list. These communications were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in the normal manner and the substance of the representations so submitted were sum- marised in the note on this case included in the Agenda submitted to the Copenhagen Meetings of the Commission and the Colloquium (paragraph 11 below). For this reason these communications are not reprinted in full in the present Declaration. (1) Committee on Nomenclature of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 308): The above communication was signed by the following specialists :— Mont A. Cazier Edwin H. Colbert Norman D. Newall George H. H. Tate John T. Zimmer (Chairman) (2) E. H. Behre (Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, University Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 310) (3) “ Zoological Record’? Committee of the Zoological Society of London (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2. : 311—312) : This communication was approved at a meeting of the Committee attended by the following specialists :— Sheffield A. Neave, C.M.G., O.B.E., D.Sc. (Chairman) William J. Hall, M.C., D.Sc. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Sir Norman Kinnear, C.B. Terence Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., M.Sc. Malcolm Smith C. J. Stubblefield, D.Sc., F.R.S. L. Harrison-Matthews, Sc.D. (Scientific Director and Deputy Secretary, Zoological Society of London) Vili OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Sencken- berg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 223). 5. Objections to the present proposal : The under-mentioned specialists expressed themselves as being in opposition to the proposal submitted. For reasons similar to those explained in the preceding paragraph the communications so received are not reprinted in full in the present Declaration. (1) Charles H. Blake (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Biology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 309) (2) Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 223). I1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)38: On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)38) in regard to the present case was issued to the Members of the Commission. Two separate issues were submitted to the Commission in this Voting Paper, the first, the question of the acceptability under the Rég/es of the distribution of a paper in the form of a microfilm as a method of “ publica- tion’, second, the particular case of the names for new genera and species in the Class Pelecypoda contained in a paper by La Rocque distributed in the foregoing manner in 1948. Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137), general issues of principle such as those involved in the first of the problems referred to above are no longer to be dealt with by the Commission in the “ Opinions” Series but are to be the subject of Declarations. Accordingly, the question of the status of names in papers distributed in microfilm form falls to be dealt with in a Declaration and the particular case of DECLARATION 13 ix La Rocque’s Pelecypod names of 1948 in an Opinion. The first of these matters forms the subject of the present Declaration, the second, the subject of Opinion 318 rendered simultaneously with the present Declaration. The following is the text of the proposal relating to the first of these subjects on which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote, either affirmatively or negatively, on Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 :— There shall be added to the list of methods prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (as recorded in Con- clusion 15(1)(b) of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Seventh Meeting held during its Paris Session in July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 219)) as being methods of distributing zoological books and papers which do not qualify a new name contained therein as having been made public in a publication (“ divulgué dans une publication ’’) the following new item: “ (iv) the inclusion of a new name in a book or paper distributed in microfilm ”’. 7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. 8. Particulars of the Voting on the draft ‘* Declaration ”’ submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes on the draft “ Declaration”’ submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Hemming; Bradley ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Mertens ; Stoll ; Cabrera ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; ».4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 11th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)38, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph - 8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. IV.—APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT ‘“ DECLARATION ” BY THE FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953 10. By the time that the voting on the present Declaration was completed, the whole organisation of the Commission was being directed to the preparations for the discussions on zoological nomenclature which were due to take place at Copenhagen in July 1953, first at the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature then being organised by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, second, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and finally by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, both in its Section on Nomenclature and in Plenary Session. It was accordingly decided not to arrange, as would normally have been done, for the immediate publication of the present Declaration in the “‘ Declarations’”’ Series, but, in place of so doing, to include the subject matter of this Declaration as one of the items of the Agenda then being prepared for the Copenhagen meetings. 11. Under the foregoing decision, the question whether the distribution of a paper in the form of a microfilm constitutes *“ publication ” for the purposes of the Régles was entered as DECLARATION 13 xi Case No. 27 on the Agenda for the Copenhagen meetings. Two documents were submitted in connection with the foregoing item on the Copenhagen Agenda: (1) a note by the Secretary, (a) reporting the receipt of the joint application by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology, (b) giving particulars of the comments received in regard to this application consequent upon its pub- lication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and (c) setting out the terms of the Declaration adopted by the Commission in this matter; (2) a note by Professor J. Chester Bradley discussing the possibility of the acceptance of the distribution of microfilms as a method of “ publication ”’ at some later date, in the event of the development of techniques for publishing and distributing microfilm, for securing its continued availability, and for storing, cataloguing, recording and advertising the content of papers distributed in this form without giving rise to the opposition which in existing circumstances would, in his view, be inevitable. The documents relating to this item on the Copenhagen Agenda were published on 23rd July 1953 in the second of the two volumes of the Bulletin devoted to the Copenhagen meetings (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 270—274; Bradley, 1953, ibid. 10 : 275). 12. Case No. 27 on the Copenhagen Agenda was considered at a Joint Meeting between the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Meeting Room of the Academic Senate of the University of Copenhagen on Saturday, Ist August 1953 at 0900 hours. In the discussion on this item it was suggested that it would be advantageous to widen the scope of the provision proposed to be added to the Rég/es in such a way that it covered not only the distribution of papers in microfilm but also the distribution of papers on microcards or the like. The Commission accepted this suggestion and agreed to expand the terms of its Declaration accordingly. This and other Declarations adopted prior to the Copenhagen Session were submitted to the Congress by the Commission in the Report which it adopted at a Meeting held in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Monday, 3rd August 1953 at 1810 hours. This Report was approved by the Section on Nomenclature of the Fourteenth International Xil OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Congress of Zoology at a Meeting held jointly with the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Wednesday, 12th August 1953 at 0900 hours. The Report so approved was submitted to, and approved and adopted by, the International Congress of Zoology at its Final Plenary Session held on the afternoon of the same day. 13. The text of the decision relating to the status of papers distributed in microfilm or on microcards or the like (1) as finally adopted by the International Commission at its meeting held on Ist August 1953 (paragraph 12 above), and (2) as approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, is given at the head of the present Declaration. It was included also in the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomenclature taken by the foregoing Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 60—61, Decision 107). 14. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Thirteen (13) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Eighth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcatFe & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 12. Pp. xiii—xxiv DECLARATION 14 Clarification of the meaning of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Régles (Rule relating to the type species of a nominal genus established to replace an earlier nominal genus) FEB 15 1995 ] LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 14 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944 Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (Ast January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y.; U.S.A.) (ist January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The f Netherlands) (1st January 1947). ‘Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) \Mr. Francis” HEMMING (La don, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). r. Joseph PEARSON (Zasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). ~ . Dr. Henning ee (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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). DECLARATION 14 CLARIFICATION OF THE MEANING OF RULE (F) IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE “‘REGLES ” (RULE RELATING TO THE TYPE SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS ESTABLISHED TO REPLACE AN EARLIER NOMINAL GENUS) DECLARATION :—Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Régles is to be interpreted (a) as though the words “expressly published’ were inserted after the word “is”? in place of the word “ proposed”’, and (b) as though the words “some specified generic name of older date ” were substituted for the words “ another generic name’”’ I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE An application submitted to the Commission by Mr. R. G. Fennah (Jmperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad) in regard to the generic names Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, and Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera)! raised a general issue regarding the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30, relating to the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for an older nominal genus, the name of which is, or is believed to be, invalid. This general question was sub- mitted to the Commission by the Secretary concurrently with the submission of Mr. Fennah’s application in regard to the two names referred to above, since a definitive ruling by the Commission on the question of interpretation involved was an indispensible preliminary to the taking of a decision by the Commission on 1 See Opinion 322 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 185—208). ern 3 1955 Xvi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Mr. Fennah’s application. The following is the text of the application so submitted by Mr. Hemming :— Suggested adoption of a ‘‘ Declaration ’’ clarifying the meaning of Rule (f) in Article 30 (Rule relating to the type species of a nominal genus established to replace an earlier nominal genus) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The application relating to the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Mr. R. G. Fennah (Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad) raises in a direct manner a question relating to the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Régles. Any answer to the question submitted necessarily implies the giving of a ruling by the Commission on the interpretation of the foregoing Rule. Under the decisions on procedure taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in 1948, interpretative decisions of this kind are in future to be recorded by the Commission in the series ‘* Declarations’, the series “‘ Opinions’’ being reserved for decisions in regard to individual nomenclatorial problems not involving any new interpretation of the Régles (see, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 132—137). 2. Under the procedural decision referred to above, it will therefore be necessary in future for the International Commission, when con- sidering an application which is concerned primarily with obtaining a ruling in regard to some particular name, but which requires an interpretative decision on some aspect of the Régles as a condition precedent to the giving of a ruling on the individual case submitted, to deal first with the general question of principle involved, and, having done so, to deal with the individual problem of nomenclature sub- mitted. In the present case, therefore, a “ Declaration”’ will be needed on the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30, and also an “© Opinion’’ on the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, that Opinion being based, so far as concerns the meaning to be attached to Rule (f), on the Declaration to be decided upon immediately previously. 3. Rule(f)in Article 30: Rule (f) in Article 30 contains the following provision for determining (where applicable) the type species of a nominal genus, for which no such species was designated (Rule (a)) or DECLARATION 14 XVII indicated (Rules (b), (c), or (d)) by the author by whom the generic name in question was first published :—- (f) In case a generic name without originally designated type species is proposed as a substitute for another generic name, with or without type species, the type species of either, when established, becomes ipso facto type species of the other. 4. The twofold issue involved : In this, as in similar cases, a twofold issue is involved: First, what is the meaning of the provision, as it actually stands in the Régles? Second, is that meaning the one which it is desirable that the provision should have? Further, it is possible that, whatever answer is given to these questions, it may be considered desirable to amend or clarify the wording of the existing provision in the Régles ; an amendment of the wording would certainly be necessary if it were to be considered desirable to alter the meaning of the existing provision ; a verbal change might be considered necessary, if it were to be considered that the meaning of the existing provision was the desirable meaning but that it was not expressed in an absolutely unambiguous manner. In the following paragraphs the main issues involved are considered in turn. Finally, consideration is given to the question whether any, and, if so, what changes in wording are required in the existing provision. 5. The meaning of Rule (f) in Article 30, in its present form: The key word in Rule (f) in Article 30, as it exists at present, is the word ** proposed ’’, for the whole Rule is concerned to define the situation which arises when a new generic name “is proposed ”’ as a substitute for another generic name. It is necessary therefore carefully to consider the meaning which properly attaches to the word “ proposed’, as used in this Rule. When an author publishes a new generic name, he may adopt either of two courses: (1) he may state why he considers the new name to be necessary (e.g. because a name is needed for a previously unrecognised genus or for a genus, which, although already recognised, does not possess a nomenclatorially available name), or (2) the author concerned may simply publish the new generic name without any explanation as to why he does so or even without any indication that the name is a new name. Only in the case of names falling in the first of these classes is there any evidence as to the reason which led the author concerned to “‘ propose” (i.e. to publish) the new generic name: where the author either (a) adopts a formula, or (b) uses words, which either clearly state or definitely imply that the new name so published is intended to be a substitute for some previously published name, then and then only can it be stated as an ascertained fact that the new name was in fact “ proposed ”’ as a substitute for some other name. In the absence of such a formula or such words, it must always be a matter of subjective personal opinion whether or not the later name was intended by its author to be a substitute name or whether it was published inadvertently or through ignorance of the XVill OPINIONS AND: DECLARATIONS existence of the earlier name in question. Such a name may in par- ticular cases, have been intended to be a substitute name and it is possible sometimes to guess why it was that the author concerned published it in preference to using the older name already available (e.g. in the case of XVIIIth century zoologists, from aversion from absolute tautonomy between generic names and specific trivial names), but even in such a case the lack of direct evidence as to the reasons which prompted the author concerned to publish the new generic name makes it impossible to establish as a fact why it was that the author concerned “proposed”? that name. Accordingly, on any strict interpretation of the words used in Rule (f) in Article 30, it must be concluded that that Rule applies only to those cases, where an author, when publishing a new generic name, refers also to a previously published generic name and, either by the use of some formula or through explanatory words, indicates that the new name is a substitute (for whatever reason) for the older name in question. 6. The bearing of Opinion 10 on the meaning of Rule (f) in Article 30: While for the reasons given in the preceding paragraph, it is clear that the wording employed in Rule (f) in Article 30 is such as to bring within the scope of that Rule only generic names which, when first published, were accompanied by an express indication that they were substitutes for previously published generic names, there is fortunately direct evidence provided by the Commission itself very shortly after the enactment of Article 30 in its present form that the foregoing is not only the meaning which inevitably attaches to the words used in Rule (f) but is also the meaning which the Commission, as the body by which that Rule had been drafted and recommended to the Congress, intended that Rule to convey. This evidence is provided by the Commission’s Opinion 10. The date on which this Opinion was adopted is not known but it was first published in July 1910 (Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 15—16), together not only with the nine preceding Opinions (of which Opinions 6—9 were then published for the first time) but also with the next fifteen following Opinions (Opinions 11—25) : it is likely therefore that Opinion 10: was adopted not later than sometime in 1909 and possibly earlier, in any case within two years of the adoption of the present Article 30 by the Boston Congress in 1907. Opinion 10 is concerned to make clear what is (or may be) the type species of a genus established with limits identical with those of a previously established genus. If Rule (f)in Article 30 did not require that, in order to come within its scope, a generic name must be pub- lished. with an express indication that it was intended to be a substitute for some previously published name, a name published for a genus with limits identical with those of a genus having previously published name would fall within the scope of Rule (f) and in consequence the . selection of a type species for either of the nominal genera concerned would (under that Rule) automatically constitute also the selection of the same species to be the type species of the other genus. We see, DECLARATION [4 XIX however, from Opinion 10 that, where two nominal genera are estab- lished with identical limits, the type species of one is not automatically the type species of the other ; on the contrary, any author is free to select any of the originally included species to be the type species of either. Here therefore we have implicit evidence from the Commission itself to show that an express indication that a name is published as a substitute for another name is necessary, in order to bring the later published of the two names within the scope of Rule (f) in Article 30. 7. Question whether the present meaning of Rule (f) in Article 30 is the desirable meaning : Having now established, both by the normal method of interpretation and by reference to a governing decision already given by the Commission itself, what is the meaning properly attaching to Rule (f) in Article 30, as it at present stands, we may turn to consider whether that is the meaning which it is desirable that that Rule should bear. The choice is a simple one : Is it desirable (1) that (as at present) an author publishing a new generic name must expressly indicate (in some clear manner) that that name is a substitute for some specified earlier name, in order to bring the new name within the scope of Rule (f), or (2) that the wording of that Rule should be relaxed in such a way as to bring within the scope of that Rule not only any name expressly published as a substitute name, but also any name which, though not published with any such express indication, has the appearance of being intended to be a substitute name. It is only necessary to pose the question in order also to provide the answer. For a modification of Rule (f) in the sense indicated above would be to import into that Rule precisely that defect which it is the aim of draftsmen to avoid and which the Thirteenth International Congress at Paris in 1948 was at pains, as far as possible, to eradicate from the Régles, namely a provision which depends not upon some objective external fact, but on a subjective idea (in this case, an idea as to the intentions of a given author, when publishing a new name) to be formed by a person seeking to apply the provision in question. It is perfectly obvious that no provision that depends on a subjective criterion can ever lead to stability, for it is inevitable that some will apply that criterion in one way and others in the opposite way. It would therefore be a most retrograde step to substitute a subjective, for the present objective, basis for Rule (f) in Article 30. 8. Question whether any verbal amendment of Rule (f) in Article 30 is desirable for the purpose of eliminating possible misunderstandings as to the meaning of that Rule: Having now examined the question of the meaning properly applicable to Rule (f) in Article 30 and having concluded also that that meaning is greatly to be preferred to the only meaning that could be substituted for it, we must pause to consider whether any, and, if so, what verbal amendment of Rule (f) is desirable for the purpose of eliminating possible misunderstandings in the future as to the meaning of this Rule. On this question, there will, I think, be general agreement as to the need for a drafting amendment designed XX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to clarify the meaning of this Rule, in order to save zoologists in future from becoming involved in discussions such as those which have occurred in the past on the question whether the name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, should be regarded as the name of a genus then independently established by Linnaeus or whether it should be regarded as no more than a substitute name for the earlier name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, a question which plays an essential part in the application in regard to those names now submitted to the Commission by Mr. R. G. Fennah.? 9. Recommendation submitted: For the reasons set forth in the present note, I recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should render a Declaration (1) ruling that Rule (f) in Article 30 is to be interpreted (a) as though the words “‘ expressly published ’’ were inserted after the word “is” in place of the word “‘ proposed ”’, and (b) as though the words “‘ some specified generic name of older date ’’ were substituted for the words “ another generic name’”’, and (2) recommending that the foregoing changes be made in Rule (f) in Article 30 by the next International Congress of Zoology. NN Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application, the question of the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 so raised was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 539. 3. Publication of the present application: Mr. Hemming’s application was sent to the printer in May 1951, concurrently with Mr. Fennah’s application in regard to the names Laternaria Linnaeus and Fulgora Linnaeus, and was published on 28th September 1951 in Part 2 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 45—48). 4. Comment on the present application received from Dr. Ernst Mayr (American Museum of Natural History, New York) : The publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature elicited a letter of support from Dr. Ernst Mayr (then of the American Museum of Natural History, New York) (Mayr, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 244). 2 See footnote 1. DECLARATION 14 XXI I wonder whether the Rules should not have a reference to the status of generic names which are clearly substitute names for previously published generic names even though they do not conform with the new interpretation in Rule (f) in Article 30. Such a rule might merely be that all cases be submitted to the Commission. To leave these cases entirely up in the air—as it appears from the new restricted rulings—would seem unfortunate. II.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)46 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)46) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the adoption of a Declaration in the terms specified at the foot of the present Voting Paper, as recom- mended in paragraph 9 at the foot of page 48 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” {i.e. in paragraph 9 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration]. 6. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)46 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)46 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Hering ; Calman ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Bradley ; Hemming ; Esaki; Lemche ; Cabrera; Stoll; Boschma ; XXil OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2): Jaczewski ; Mertens. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)46, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 7 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. IV.—APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT “ DECLARATION ” BY THE FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953 9. By the time that the voting on the present Declaration was completed, the whole organisation of the Commission was being directed to the preparations for the discussions on zoological nomenclature which were due to take place at Copenhagen in July 1953, first at the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature then being organised by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, second, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and, finally, by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, both in its Section on Nomen- clature-and in Plenary Session. It was accordingly decided not to arrange, as would normally have been done, for the immediate publication of the present Declaration in the “ Declarations * Series, but, in place of so doing, to include the subject matter of this Declaration as one of the items of the Agenda then being prepared for the Copenhagen meetings. DECLARATION 14 XXili 10. Under the foregoing decision, the question of the inter- pretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Régles raised in the present application was entered as Case No. 42 on the Agenda for the Copenhagen meetings. The document submitted in connection with the foregoing item on the Copenhagen Agenda consisted of a note by the Secretary setting out the proposal submitted to the Commission and the result of the Commission’s vote thereon. This document was published on 24th July 1953 in the second of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature devoted to the Copenhagen meetings (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 400—401). 11. Case No. 42 on the Copenhagen Agenda was considered at a Joint Meeting between the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Meeting Room of the Academic Senate of the University of Copenhagen on Sunday, 2nd August 1953 at 0930 hours. The Joint Meeting concurred in the conclusion already reached by the Commission in this matter and it was agreed that a paragraph to this effect should be inserted in the Report to be submitted by the Colloquium to the Commission. This and other Declarations adopted prior to its Copenhagen Session were submitted to the Congress by the Commission in the Report which it adopted at a Meeting held in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Monday, 3rd August 1953 at 1810 hours. This Report was approved by the Section on Nomenclature of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at a Meeting held jointly with the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Wednesday, 12th August 1953 at 0900 hours. The Report so approved was submitted to, and approved and adopted by, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at its Final Plenary Session held on the afternoon of the same day. 12. The text of the decision in the present matter, as adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and as approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, is given at the head of the present Declaration. It was included also in the Official XXiV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Record of the decisions on zoological nomenclature taken by the foregoing Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 70—71, paragraph 132). 13. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Fourteen (14) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Seventh day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & CooprerR LimiTEpD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B-E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 18. Pp. xxv—xxxvi DECLARATION 15 Clarification of the question of the nominal species to be regarded as eligible for selection as the type species of a nominal genus established without cited nominal species, in cases where a subsequent author, without citing such a species, gives a bibliographical reference to a work in which such a species is cited LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Five Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 15 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (ist January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BOsCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). DECLARATION 15 CLARIFICATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES TO BE REGARDED AS ELIGIBLE FOR SELEC- TION AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS ESTABLISHED WITHOUT CITED NOMINAL SPECIES, IN CASES WHERE A SUBSEQUENT AUTHOR, WITHOUT CITING SUCH A SPECIES GIVES A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCE TO A WORK IN WHICH SUCH A SPECIES IS CITED DECLARATION : In the case of a nominal genus established prior to Ist January 1931, with an indication, definition or description but without citation of any nominal species, the citation by a later author in con- nection with the name of such a genus of a bibliographical reference to a book or paper containing the names of nominal species is not to be treated as constituting a distinct reference of the nominal species concerned to the genus in question, it being necessary for this purpose for an author explicitly to cite by name a nominal species as being referable to the genus in question. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE An application submitted to the Commission by Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) in regard to the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Pelecypoda)! raised a general issue regarding the interpretation of the provisions in the Régles which prescribe what species are to be deemed to be originally included species for a given nominal genus established without citation of nominal species and therefore what species are to be regarded as eligible for selection as the type species of a nominal 1 See Opinion 327 (pp. 283—298 of the present volume), XXVIll OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS genus so established. This general question was submitted to the Commission by the Secretary concurrently with the submission of Dr. Cox’s application in regard to the name Trigonia Bruguiere, since a definitive ruling by the Commission on the question of interpretation involved was an indispensable preliminary to the taking of a decision by the Commission on Di. Cox’s application. The following is the text of the application so submitted by Mr. Hemming :— Suggested adoption of a ‘‘ Declaration *’ relative to the nominal species to be regarded as eligible for selection as the type species of a genus established without cited nominal species, in cases where a subsequent author, without citing such a species, gives a bibliographical reference to a work in which such species are cited By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. In his application relating to the type species of the genus Trigonia Bruguiere, 1789 (Class Pelecypoda) Dr. L. R. Cox raises the question whether, in the case of a genus established without cited nominal species, a subsequent author who, while not citing any nominal species as being referable to the genus in question, gives a bibliographical reference to a previously published work or paper in which such species are cited by name is to be treated as having so referred the species in question and therefore as having created a situation in which those nominal species alone rank as originally included species and are accordingly alone eligible for selection as the type species of the genus by a subsequent author, acting under Rule (g) in Article 30. 2. Up to 1948, as Dr. Cox points out, the only ruling available regarding the species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus established without nominal species clearly referred thereto was that given in Opinion 46 (first published in the year 1912). That Opinion, as is well known, caused great difficulty (and much con- troversy), when attempts were made to apply its provisions in particular cases, owing partly to the mutually contradictory character of its component provisions and partly to the fact that those provisions rested not upon objective nomenclatorial facts but upon subjective (taxonomic) criteria and were therefore incapable of securing a result which would not be open to challenge by later authors holding different subjective (taxonomic) views. Having regard to these well-known defects in Opinion 46, the International Commission gave special DECLARATION 15 XXiX consideration to the problem dealt with in it, when in 1948 at its Paris Session, it had under consideration the question of recommending to the International Congress of Zoology the incorporation, subject to any necessary amendments or clarifications, in the Régles of the interpretations of individual Articles given in Opinions already rendered. The terms of the conclusions reached by the Commission in this matter, which were subsequently endorsed by the Congress, are set forth in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 159—160, 346). 3. The central feature of the decision referred to above is that, in the case of a nominal genus established prior to Ist January 1931 (a) with an indication, definition or description, (6) with no nominal species distinctly referred thereto, the first nominal species (whether one or more in number) to be distinctly referred to the genus by a subsequent author is, or are, to be treated as the sole originally included nominal species. Supplementary decisions flowing automatically from the foregoing decision were (1) that where only one nominal species was distinctly referred to such a genus on the first occasion on which any such species was so referred, that species automatically becomes the type species of that genus by monotypy, and (2) that, where two or more such species were so referred, those nominal species alone are eligible for selection as the type species of the genus by some later author. 4. In the case cited by Dr. Cox, an author (Lamarck), when dealing (1799) with a genus previously established without any nominal species referred to it (Jrigonia Bruguicre, 1789), did not himself cite any nominal species as belonging to the genus in question but did give a bibliographical reference to a previously published paper (Hermann, 1781) in which nominal species had been cited. The question to be considered is whether action such as that described above creates a situation in which a nominal species has been “ distinctly ’” referred to the genus in question. It seems to me that nothing less than the actual citation of the name of a nominal species as the name of a species belonging to the genus in question can properly be regarded as bringing a nominal species within the scope of the Paris decision, for, unless a nominal species is actually cited by name, it cannot be claimed to have been “ distinctly ’ referred to the genus in question. I should accordingly conclude that the citation of a bibliographical reference to a book or paper containing the names of nominal species does not constitute a “* distinct’? reference of those species to the genus concerned. 5. Having reached this point, it is necessary to consider whether, if the foregoing is the correct interpretation of the decision taken by the Paris Congress, that decision is the one best calculated for the purpose XXX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in view. One of the great difficulties which arose in the application of Opinion 46 in individual cases was the constant doubt as to what species were to be regarded as originally included species. It was for the purpose of overcoming this difficulty and of providing a simple and readily applicable rule that in Paris the Commission recommended, and the Congress agreed, that, in the case of a nominal genus established without any species distinctly referred thereto, two criteria must be satisfied before any subsequent author can be accepted as having referred a species or two or more species to the genus in question. These criteria were : (1) that the species concerned must be cited by name (i.e. that nominal species must be cited), (2) that those species must be “‘ distinctly referred ’’ to the genus in question. It would certainly be possible to relax the second of these criteria in such a way as to render it permissible to treat as having been distinctly referred to such a genus a nominal species which, although nowhere mentioned by name by the author concerned, was nevertheless so mentioned in some book or paper to which that author gave a bibliographical reference. My own feeling is that this would be a retrograde step. I hold this view for the following reasons. First, it would, I think, be a mistake, now that at last, as the result of the Paris decision, we have got a simple and easily applicable rule, to complicate that rule by admitting, as having been referred to a genus of the kind which we are considering, nominal species which were not in fact mentioned by the author and which it is only possible to infer that the author in question regarded as belonging to the genus, by reason of his having cited a bibliographical reference to a book or paper in which the names of those species appeared. In some cases, no doubt, such an inference would be fully justified, but in others the validity of such an inference might be very doubtful, for an early author— and we are concerned here almost exclusively with early authors— might easily give such a reference for the purpose of drawing attention to (say) some observation made by the author quoted without necessarily intending to refer to the genus with which he was dealing all the nominal species cited by the earlier author. Second, there is always the possibility in such cases that a bibliographical reference so given may be incorrectly cited (as Dr. Cox has shown actually happened in the case of TJrigonia when in similar circumstances Lamarck in 1801 gave one certainly erroneous bibliographical reference and a second probably erroneous reference). Third, the books or papers to which in such circumstances bibliographical references are likely to be made will in almost every case be old books, mainly books published in the XVIIIth century; descriptions and figures given in such books are, as is well known, often difficult to interpret and in consequence genera having, as their type species. species originally described and/or figured in such works are frequently indeterminate or at best are based upon an insecure foundation. 6. For the foregoing reasons, it seems to me that an undesirable element of instability and consequently of confusion would be intro- duced into nomenclature if the Paris decision in this matter were to be DECLARATION 15 XXX1 relaxed in such a way that a nominal species that is not cited by an author, when dealing with a genus established without any nominal species referred thereto, but is mentioned in a book or paper, to which a bibliographical reference is cited by that author were to be treated as an originally included species. Any hard case that might arise (as in the case of Trigonia) by the maintenance of the Paris decision could properly be dealt with under the Commission’s Plenary Powers. Such cases would, I am convinced, be much less numerous and the problems at issue much less complicated than would be those which would arise if the reverse procedure were to be adopted. Accordingly, I would suggest that, in order to remove any doubts which may exist in regard to the present position in this matter, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting under the procedure prescribed in such cases by the International Congress of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137), should render a Declaration stating that, in the case of a nominal genus established prior to Ist January 1931, with an indication, definition or description without citation of any nominal species, the citation by a later author in connection with the name of such a genus of a bibliographical reference to a book or paper containing the names of nominal species is not to be treated as constituting a distinct reference of the nominal species concerned to the genus in question, it being necessary for this purpose for an author explicitly to cite by name a nominal species as being referable to the genus in question. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Dr. Cox’s applica- tion relating to the name TJrigonia Bruguiére was, at the time of its receipt, allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S) 499, and, when it was decided, concurrently with the submission of that application, to seek a Declaration from the Commission on the question of the interpretation of Article 30 involved in Dr. Cox’s application, this latter problem was for a time dealt with under the same Registered Number. Later, however, it was judged that it would be more convenient to treat these questions as constituting distinct applications. Under this decision the problem involved by the name Trigonia Bruguiére continued XXXII OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to be dealt with under the foregoing Registered Number, while the associated problem of the interpretation of Article 30 was allotted the new Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 734. 3. Publication of the present application: Mr. Hemming’s application for a Declaration on the question of interpretation discussed above was sent to the printer in March 1951, con- currently with Dr. Cox’s application in regard to the name Trigonia Bruguiére, and was published on 28th September 1951 in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 85—88). II1—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)52 :. On 22nd. May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)52) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the adoption of a Declaration in the terms set out in the third to the tenth lines on page 88 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” {i.e. at the end of para- graph 6 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration]. 5. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 22nd August 1952. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)52 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)52 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following fifteen (15) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Calman; Hering; Dymond; MHank6; _ Bonnet; Vokes ; Pearson; Bradley; do Amaral; Hemming ; Esaki; Riley; Lemche; Stoll; Boschma ; DECLARATION 15 © XXXIli (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, three (3) ; Cabrera”; Jaczewski ; Mertens. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)52, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 6 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. IV.—APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT “ DECLARATION ” BY THE FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953 8. At the time that the Voting on the present Declaration was completed, the whole organisation of the Commission was being directed to the preparations for the discussions on zoological nomenclature which were due to take place at Copenhagen in July 1953, first, at the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature then being organised by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, second, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and, finally, by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, both.in its Section on Nomenclature and in Plenary Session. It was accordingly decided not to arrange, as would normally have been done, for 2 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period an affirmative Vote was received - (ist September 1952) from Commissioner Cabrera. XXXIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the immediate publication of the present Declaration in the “* Declarations ’’ Series, but, in place of so doing, to include the subject matter of this Declaration as one of the items of the Agenda then being prepared for the Copenhagen meetings. 9. Under the foregoing decision, the question of the inter- pretation of the provisions in Article 30 relating to the question of the nominal species to be treated as originally included species for a nominal genus established without citation of such species was entered as Case No. 39 on the Agenda for the Copenhagen meetings. The document submitted in connection with the foregoing item on the Copenhagen Agenda consisted of a note by the Secretary setting out the proposal submitted to the Commission and the result of the Commission’s vote thereon. This document was published on 24th July 1953 in the second of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature devoted to the Copenhagen meetings (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 392—393). 10. Case No. 39 on the Copenhagen Agenda was considered at a Joint Meeting between the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Meeting Room of the Academic Senate of the University of Copenhagen on Sunday, 2nd August 1953 at 0930 hours. The Joint Meeting concurred in the conclusion already reached by the Commission in this matter and it was agreed that a paragraph to this effect should be inserted in the Report to be submitted by the Colloquium to the Commission. This and other Declarations adopted prior to its Copenhagen Session were submitted to the Congress by the Commission in the Report which it adopted at a Meeting held in the University Buildings, Copenhagen on Monday, 3rd August 1953 at 1810 hours. This Report was approved by the Section on Nomenclature of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at a Meeting held jointly with the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature, in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Wednesday, 12th August 1953 at 0900 hours. The Report so approved was submitted to, and approved and adopted by, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at its Final Plenary Session held on the afternoon of the same day. DECLARATION 15 XXXV 11. The text of the decision in the present matter, as adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and as approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, is given at the head of the present Declaration. .It was included also in the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomenclature taken by the foregoing Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 67—68, paragraph 126). 12. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Fifteen (15) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Ninth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 21. Pp. xxxvii—xlviii DECLARATION 16 Clarification of the question of the availability of a name having as its only “ indication”’ a qualified synonymic reference to a previously published name ZEW SONIAS FEB 15 1955 Lif RARY LONDON : Printed by Order of the international Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Five Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued Tth January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 16 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (ist January 1947). Professop@ H. Boscun | (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The ; Neth rlands) (1st J npary.{947). Senor, Dr,. Angel CABRERA va Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Franeis Hemnanc (Lontion, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Jeseph PEARSON (Tasmaniqn Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). ° 1 A Dr. Henning Lemcue (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 Jnne 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JAcCZEWSKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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). DECLARATION 16 CLARIFICATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE AVAIL- ABILITY OF A NAME HAVING AS ITS ONLY ** INDICATION ” A QUALIFIED SYNONY- MIC REFERENCE TO A _ PRE- VIOUSLY PUBLISHED NAME DECLARATION: (1) A generic name published without citation of included nominal species and without descriptive matter of any kind, except a qualified (i.e. doubtful or provisional) synonymic reference to an older generic name which had been validly published with an indication, definition or description is to be treated as having been published without an “ indication” for the purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25. (2) A specific name published without descriptive matter of any kind, except a qualified synonymic reference to an older specific name that had been validly published with an indication, definition or description is to be treated as having been published without an “ indication ”’ for the purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25. (3) A generic name or a specific name so published is to be treated as a nomen nudum possessing no status in zoological nomenclature. xl OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS J.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE An application! submitted to the Commission jointly by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.) and Dr. Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) in regard to the subspecific name properly applicable to the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin raised, inter alia!, a general issue regarding the inter- pretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles. A decision on this general issue was an indispensable preliminary to the taking of a decision by the Commission on the particular case submitted by Dr. Woodbury and Dr. Hobart Smith. It was accordingly arranged that the Secretary should submit a request to the Commission for a Declaration on the foregoing question at the same time that the application relating to the rattlesnake referred to above was laid before that body. The following is the text of the application so submitted by Mr. Hemming :— Suggested adoption by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of a ‘‘ Declaration ’’ clarifying the question of the availability of a trivial name having as its only ‘‘ indication ” a qualified reference to a previously published trivial name By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. The application as originally submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Dr. Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.) asking for a ruling on the question of the oldest available trivial name for the race of yellow rattlesnakes of the Colorado River Basin raised a question of principle which, under the decisions regarding procedure taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137) can be resolved by the Commission only by the adoption of a Declaration formally interpreting the provision of the Régles in question, the series ““ Opinions’? being now reserved for decisions on individual nomen- clatorial questions not involving any novel interpretation of the Régles. 2. The question of principle at issue: The question of principle raised by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Dr. Hobart M. Smith may be stated shortly as follows : Where a trivial name is published without any descriptive matter of any kind, the sole “indication” given being that the name in question is doubtfully or provisionally synonym- 1 See paragraph 3 of the present Opinion. DECLARATION 16 xh ized with another trivial name that has been duly published with a * description, definition or indication ”’, is the trivial name so published (1) to be treated as having been published with an indication in virtue of the qualified synonymy given by its original author, or (2) is the name in question to be treated as having been published without an “indication ’’’ and therefore as a nomen nudum ? 3. Restriction of question to status of trivial names published as questionable synonyms before 1st January, 1931: The provisions in Article 25 relating to what constitutes an “‘indication’’ for specific trivial names (either names for new species or substitute names to replace invalid specific trivial names) were (as is well known) con- siderably tightened up, with effect from 3lst December, 1930/Ist January 1931, by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology, Budapest, 1927, by which a new proviso (Proviso (c)) was added to Article 25. Experience showed that this new proviso was in certain respects unduly restrictive in character, and, on the recommendation of the International Commission, the terms of this proviso were relaxed in various ways by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948. Neither under the Budapest Proviso nor under the modification of that Proviso, approved by the Paris Congress (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 68—71) could a trivial name possessing, as its sole “indication ’’, a qualified (7.e., a doubtful or provisional) synonymization with a previously published trivial name be regarded as having been published with an “indication’’. Thus, any trivial name published in the foregoing manner on or after 1st January 1931 is invalid (because it was published without an “indication’’) and accordingly possesses the status only of a nomen nudum. The question of principle upon which an answer is required in the light of Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Dr. Hobart M. Smith’s application is therefore confined to trivial names published on or before 31st December 1930. 4. Relevance of Article 31 of the ‘‘ Régles’’ to the status of a trivial name published on or before 31st December, 1930, having as its sole “‘ indication”’ a qualified synonymic reference to a previously published trivialname. Itis important at this point to recall that at their meetings held in Paris, in 1948, both the International Commission and the International Congress gave special consideration to Article 31 of the Régles, the Article which prescribes the manner in which, on the analogy of Article 30 (which provides means for ascertaining the type species of a genus), the type specimen of a species is to be determined. It was agreed on all hands that the text of Article 31, as it existed at the time of the opening of the Paris Congress, was inadequate and obscure and it was for this reason that great attention was given to the devising of a revised text which would be both comprehensive in scope and clear in meaning. The recommendations agreed upon by the International Commission and subsequently approved by the Congress are recorded in the 11th Conclusion of the 4th Meeting of the International Commission during its Paris Session (see 1950, xl OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 73—76). As will be seen by reference to the foregoing Conclusion, the purpose of the amendment of Article 31, so undertaken, was to set out in express terms the provisions relating to the determination of the identity of the taxonomic species repre- sented by a given nominal species previously prescribed only obliquely by reference to the not altogether comparable provisions in Article 30. Under the reformed Article 31 provision is made for the selection, where no one specimen was originally designated or indicated as the holotype, of one of the original specimens (i.e., one of the syntypes) to be the lectotype of the species concerned, or, in certain circumstances, of a figure, illustration or previously published description cited in the original description of the nominal species concerned, to represent the lectotype. Article 31, as so revised, now contains an express provision (as the earlier text included by inference) for the exclusion of specimens, figures, illustrations and descriptions of certain categories from eligibility for selection either to be, or to represent, the lectotype of the species in question (provision analogous to Rule (e) in Article 30). This provision in Article 31 will be found in Conclusion 11 (@) () at the top of page 76 in vol. 4 of the Bulletin. This provision expressly excludes from eligibility for selection (i) to be, or (ii) to represent, the lectotype of a nominal species, a “specimen, illustration, figure, or description’ that was ‘“‘ only doubtfully referred to the nominal species by its original author ”’.? 5. A trivial name published without any descriptive matter, other than a qualified synonymic reference, invalid, because published without an “indication”? : When we apply the provision set forth above to the case of a trivial name published without any descriptive matter other than a qualified synonymic reference, we see at once that there is no means of providing for a nominal species so named a description (or reference) to represent the lectotype of that nominal species, for the sole reference given by the original author was given in a manner which excludes it from eligibility to be selected to represent the lecto- type. In other words there is no means by which such a nominal species can be identified, for its name was published without an “indication ”’ and is therefore an invalid nomen nudum. 6. Procedure recommended: Since (as we have seen) a decision in the form of an interpretative Declaration in regard to the status of a trivial name, which, when first published, was accompanied only by a qualified synonymic reference, is expressly asked for in the application by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Dr. Hobart M. Smith, it is suggested that, in the light of the considerations set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 2 Further drafting amendments were made in Article 31 by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 72—75, Decisions 136—141), but these did not a any ue alter the meaning of this Article in relation to the matter here iscusse DECLARATION 16 xl above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should render a Declaration in the terms set out below :— Suggested ‘* Declaration ”’ A trivial name published without descriptive matter of any kind, except a qualified (i.e. doubtful or provisional) synonymic reference to an older trivial name that had been validly published with an indication, definition or description, is to be treated as having been published without an “indication ’’ for the purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25. A trivial name so published is to be treated as a nomen nudum, possessing no status in zoological nomenclature. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: In the initial stages of its consideration the question which forms the subject of the present Declaration was dealt with jointly with the application regarding the subspecific name applicable to the Yellow Rattle- snake of the Colorado River Basin submitted by Dr. Woodbury and Dr. Hobart Smith. Accordingly, during that stage this problem bore the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 176. Later, however, it was agreed between the applicants and the Secretary that the question of principle which forms the subject of the present Declaration should be treated as constituting a separate application. The problem involved was thereupon registered separately under the Number Z.N.(S.) 349. 3. Publication of the present application: Mr. Hemming’s application for a Declaration on the question of interpretation discussed above was sent to the printer in January 1951, but, owing to uncertainties regarding the procedure to be adopted for dealing with the other question of principle raised in the Woodbury/Smith application (Z.N.(S.) 176) (namely, the question of the availability of specific names published in specific synony- mies without independent indications’, the publication both of 3 For the decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, see the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomenclature taken by that Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 63—64, Decision 115). xliv OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the foregoing application and of the application on which the present Declaration is based was'temporarily postponed. UlIti- mately, it was decided that the best course would be to publish these applications without further delay in order to permit of a decision being taken by the Commission on the proposed Declaration in sufficient time to permit of that Declaration being submitted to the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in August 1953. Under this decision these two applications were accordingly included in Part 4 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, which was published on 28th September 1951 (Woodbury & Smith*, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 :99—100; Hemming, 1951, ibid. © : 103—105). The publication of the second of these applications elicited no objection to the adoption of a Declaration in the sense proposed. IIi—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)54: On 22nd May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)54) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, | the proposal “ relating to the adoption of a Declaration in the terms set out in the concluding portion of paragraph 6 on page 105 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” {i.e. in paragraph 6 of the application reproduced in the first para- graph of the present Declaration]. 5. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 22nd August 1952. * The decision since taken on the Woodbury/Smith application regarding the name to be used for the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin has since been embodied in Opinion 339 (now in the press). DECLARATION 16 xlv 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)54 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)54 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received): Calman ; Hering ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; Bradley; do Amaral; Hemming; Esaki; Riley; Lemche ; Mertens; Pearson; Stoll; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2): Cabrera®; Jaczewski. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 23rd August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper - V.P.(52)54, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 6 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. IV. APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT “ DECLARATION ” BY THE FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953 8. At the time that the Voting on the present Declaration was completed, the whole organisation of the Commission was being directed to the preparations for the discussions on zoological nomenclature which were due to take place at Copenhagen in July 1953, first, at the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature ° After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period an affirmative Vote was received (on 1st September 1952) from Commissioner Cabrera. xlvi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS then being organised by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, second, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and, finally, by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, both in its Section on Nomen- clature and in Plenary Session. It was accordingly decided not to arrange, as would normally have been done, for the immediate publication of the present Declaration in the “ Declarations ” Series, but, in place of so doing, to include the subject matter of this Declaration as one of the items of the Agenda then being prepared for the Copenhagen meetings. 9. Under the foregoing decision, the question of the inter- pretation of the provisions in Article 25 relating to the status of specific names having as an indication only a qualified synonymic reference to a previously published specific name was entered as Case No. 37 on the Agenda for the Copenhagen meetings. The document submitted in connection with the foregoing item on the Copenhagen Agenda consisted of a note by the Secretary setting out the proposal submitted to the Commission and the result of the Commission’s vote thereon. This document was published on 23rd July 1953 in the second of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature devoted to the Copen- hagen meetings (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 374— 35): 10. Case No. 37 on the Copenhagen Agenda was considered at a Joint Meeting between the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Meeting Room of the Academic Senate of the University of Copenhagen on Saturday, Ist August 1953 at 1745 hours. The Joint Meeting concurred in the conclusion already reached by the Commission® in this matter but agreed to 6 In the application submitted in the present case the expression “‘ trivial name ’ was used, as then required by the Régles, to denote the second portion of a name of a species, the binominal combination of which such a name was composed being then termed the “ specific name” of the species. It was decided by the Copenhagen Congress (1) to substitute the expression “ specific name ”’ for the expression “ trivial name” and (2) to employ, as and when appropriate, the expression “‘ binomen ”’ in place of the expression “ specific name ”’ for the binominal combination of which the name of a species consists. These changes in terminology were introduced into the decision taken at Copenhagen in the present case and have been incorporated also in the present Declaration. DECLARATION 16 xlvit recommend that the interpretation given in this matter should be amplified by the inclusion of a paragraph similarly defining the status of a generic name based only upon a qualified synonymic reference. It was thereupon agreed that a paragraph embodying the foregoing amendment should be inserted in the Report to be submitted by the Colloquium to the Commission. This and other Declarations adopted prior to its Copenhagen Session were submitted to the Congress by the Commission in the Report which it adopted at a Meeting held in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Monday, 3rd August 1953 at 1810 hours. This ‘Report was approved by the Section on Nomenclature of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at a Meeting held jointly with the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Wednesday, 12th August 1953 at 0900 hours. The Report so approved was submitted to, and approved and adopted by, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at its Final Plenary Session held on the afternoon of the same day. 11. The text of the decision in the present matter, as adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and as approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, is given at the head of the present Declaration. \t was included also in the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomenclature taken by the foregoing Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66, Decision 122). 12. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Sixteen (16) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Tenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING oaen %y h iy ‘ bia i a‘ sil fi Me | OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.™.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 22. Pp. xlix—ix DECLARATION 17 Clarification of the provision in the Rég/es relating to the conditions necessary to establish a state of secondary homonymy between any two specific names Zan HSON/4y FEB 15 1958 = CARY LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Five Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 71th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 17 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944) Professor J. R. DyMoNnD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (ist January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). , Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. SToLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y.,.U.S.A:)-Ast January 1947). Profes€or: H.. Boserpys “Ri ksmuseu van Natuurlijke Hision? Leiden, The /Neétherlands) d Jahnaty 1947) Senor 1 Br; Angel (CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mg, Feome HEMtaNG ( (Londo , England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. “Joseph. PEARSON {Tas nian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July-1948). aryp 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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) (Sth July 1950). DECLARATION 17 CLARIFICATION OF THE PROVISION IN THE ““REGLES ” RELATING TO THE CONDI- TIONS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A STATE OF SECONDARY HOMONYMY BETWEEN ANY TWO SPECIFIC NAMES DECLARATION :—For the purposes of the provision in the Régles relating to the rejection of secondary homonyms, an author rejecting one name as a junior secondary homonym of another name is required to make it clear that he considers that the species bearing the specific name so rejected is congeneric with a species bearing a previously published identical specific name, but is free to indicate his view on this subject in whatever way he considers appropriate, provided that the method so adopted leaves no reasonable doubt that he considers that the two species concerned are congeneric with one another. 1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th July 1951, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary, submitted an application to the Commission asking for a Declaration clarifying the provision in the Régles relating to the conditions necessary to establish a state of secondary homonymy between any two specific names. A decision on this question was an indispensable preliminary to the taking of a decision by the Commission on the question of the correct specific name for the Kidney Worm of Swine, on which an application had previously been submitted by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of hi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 282—291)!. The application for a Declaration on the question of interpretation involved in Dr. Dougherty’s application, so submitted by Mr. Hemming, was as follows :— On the question whether it is desirable that words should be added to the ‘‘ Régles’’ expressly providing that for the purposes of establishing a condition of secondary homonymy between two specific names it is not necessary that an author should expressly cite the names in homonymous combinations before rejecting and replacing the later published of the two trivial names involved By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. In an application (Z.N.(S.) 188) relating to the question of the correct triyial name of the Kidney Worm of Swine (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 282—291), Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty alludes to, and rejects, the argument which, prior to the revision of the provisions (Articles 35 and 36) of the Régles relating to specific homonymy, was sometimes advanced to the effect that, in order to establish a condition of secondary homonymy, it is not sufficient that an author should place in a single genus two species, each having the same word as its trivial name, and should reject and replace the later published of the two trivial names in question. According to the argument referred to by Dr. Dougherty, it is—or should be—necessary for such an author actually to apply to each of the two species concerned the same homonymous specific name (combination of generic name and specific trivial name) as a preliminary to the rejection of the later published trivial name on grounds of secondary homonymy and to its replace- ment by some other trivial name applicable, either objectively or subjectively, to the species bearing the invalid trivial name so rejected. It will be appreciated that the object of the argument described above 1 Following the adoption by the Commission of a decision on the question of principle dealt with in the present Declaration, it was possible to proceed with the consideration of Dr. Dougherty’s application regarding the correct name of the Kidney Worm of Swine (File Z.N.(S). 188). A Voting Paper (V.P.(54)12) on this subject was issued to the Members of the Commission on 27th February 1954. The decision taken by the Commission in this matter has since been embodied in Opinion 340 (now in the press). DECLARATION 17 liti is to provide a justification for the revival of a trivial name that formed part of a specific name which had at one time been rejected as a secondary homonym, in cases where (as has almost invariably been the case) the author rejecting the trivial name in question did not, in so doing, apply the special procedure described above. In other words, the object of this argument is to provide a legal means for avoiding giving effect to the provision that a name, once rejected on grounds of homonymy, is to be regarded as having been permanently so rejected and accord- ingly as incapable of being brought back into use by any later author who may himself hold the taxonomic (and therefore subjective) view that the two species concerned are not congeneric with one another. 2. In a supplementary note to Dr. Dougherty’s application (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: : 291—293) I appealed to interested specialists to inform the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature whether, in their opinion, the replacement of the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, by the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, as the trivial name of the Kidney Worm of Swine would be likely to give rise to confusion, and, in doing so, I commented (: 292) on the con- tention regarding the Law of Homonymy as applied to secondary homonyms set out above. I recalled that, when at Paris in 1948 the Law of Homonymy was subjected to careful and prolonged con- sideration (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :97—105, 107—125) no voice was raised in favour of the incorporation in Articles 35 and 36 of a special limiting provision of the kind referred to above. As I there pointed out : “ Not only was no such argument advanced, but, on the contrary, the view was strongly expressed that great care must be taken in the revision of Article 35 to avoid the inclusion of formal provisions of a ‘ritualistic’ character of the kind which (as had previously been pointed out by Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) had marred the amendment to Article 25 made by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1927. For this reason therefore it was expressly agreed that no definition of the procedure to be adopted by an author in rejecting one name as a secondary homonym of another should be inserted in the new rule ’”’. 3. In my view, the criticism of the Budapest amendment of Article 25 advanced by Dr. Brookes Knight is well founded and the Paris Congress (and the International Commission as its adviser) took the only right decision in insisting upon the omission from the revised version of the Law of Homonymy of “ ritualistic’? provisions. In the particular case under consideration the insertion of a provision such as that discussed in paragraph 1 of the present note would not only have complicated and rendered less effective the provisions relating to secondary homonymy as regards all future cases but also, as regards rejections of names as secondary homonyms made prior to the intro- duction of the new rules, would have rendered virtually inoperative liv OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the provision which occupies the central position in. Article 36 (as also in the Paris revision), namely that a name once rejected as a homonym is to be permanently rejected and therefore to be incapable of being brought back into use at some later date by specialists who take a different view as to the generic relationship to one another of the two species concerned, from the view on this subject taken by the author rejecting the name of one of those species as a secondary homonym of the name of the other. It is evident therefore that, so long as it is the general wish of zoologists to maintain in the Régles the foregoing cardinal principle, it would be entirely inappropriate to include in the Régles a provision of the kind described in paragraph 1 above, for such a provision would be open to strong objection both on general grounds because of its “ ritualistic’ character but also on the specific ground that it would largely stultify the provision that a rejected homonym is never to be brought back into use, by very greatly restricting the number of cases where, for the purposes of the Régles, as contrasted with actual fact, one name had been rejected as a secondary homonym of another. 4. In general, it is, as is well known, a sign of bad drafting for a code, in addition to including provisions defining how a given condition or process (in this instance, the condition of secondary homonymy and the process of rejecting secondary homonyms) is to be recognised or effected, to include also provisions specifying one or more conditions or processés which do not comply with the substantive provision laid down. In the case of the rules of zoological nomenclature, such considerations may perhaps be of less force than in cases where any question of interpretation which may arise is subjected to expert scrutiny by persons trained in interpretative technique, whereas the object of the Régles must be to provide clear guidance to persons whose special expertise lies in other fields. For this reason it may be felt that, notwithstanding the general objection to which negative, as contrasted with positive, provisions must always be open, it would be to the general convenience that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should render a “‘ Declaration” stating that : ‘* For the purposes of the provision relating to the rejection of secondary homonyms, an author rejecting one name as a secondary homonym of another name is required to make it clear that he considers that the species bearing the trivial name so rejected is congeneric with another species bearing a previously published identical! trivial name but is free to indicate his view on this subject in whatever way he may consider appropriate, provided that the method so adopted leaves no reasonable doubt that he considers the two species concerned to be congeneric with one another ”’. 5. It would be of assistance to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature if any specialist interested in the problems raised by the Law of Homonymy would be so good as to send to the Secretary to the Commission (address : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s DECLARATION 17 lv Park, N.W.1, London, England) a statement of his views on the issue raised in the present note for consideration by the International Commission. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application, the question of the clarification of the provisions in the Rég/es relating to secondary homonymy so submitted was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 586. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion, being an application relating to the interpretation of the Régles on which it was desirable that a Declaration should be adopted by the Commission in sufficient time for it to be sub- mitted to the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, was treated as requiring special priority, and it was accordingly sent to the printer in August 1951 about a week after it had been received. Publication took place on 28th September 1951 in Part 4 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 120—122). The publication of this application elicited no objection to the adoption of a Declaration in the sense proposed. Ii.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)58 : On 22nd May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)58) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the adoption of a Declaration in the terms suggested at the end of paragraph 4 (last eight lines) on lvi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS page 122 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” [i.e. at the end of paragraph 4 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration]. 5. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 22nd August 1952. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)58 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)58 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following fifteen (15) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received): Calman ; Hering ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; Bradley; do Amaral; Hemming; Esaki; Riley ; Lemche ; Pearson ; Stoll ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, three (3): Cabrera?; Jaczewski ; Mertens. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 23rd August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, 2 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period an affirmative Vote was received (on Ist September 1952) from Commissioner Cabrera. _ DECLARATION 17 Ivii acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)58, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 6 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. IV._APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT “ DECLARATION ” BY THE FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953 8. At the time that the Voting on the present Declaration was completed, the whole organisation of the Commission was being directed to the preparations for the discussions on zoological nomenclature which were due to take place at Copenhagen in July 1953, first, at the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature then being organised by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, second, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and, finally, by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, both in its Section on Nomen- clature and in Plenary Session. It was accordingly decided not to arrange, as would normally have been done, for the immediate publication of the present Declaration in the “ Declarations” Series, but, in place of so doing, to include the subject matter of this Declaration as one of the items of the Agenda then being prepared for the Copenhagen meetings. 9. Under the foregoing decision, the question of the inter- pretation of the provisions in the Régles relating to the rejection of the names of species on the ground of secondary homonymy was entered as Case No. 55 on the Agenda for the Copenhagen meetings. The document submitted in connection -with the foregoing item consisted of a note by the Secretary setting out the Iviii OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS proposal submitted to the Commission and the result of the Commission’s vote thereon. This document was published on 24th July 1953 in the second of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature devoted to the Copenhagen meetings (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 432—433). 10. Case No. 55 on the Copenhagen Agenda was considered at a Joint Meeting between the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in the Meeting Room of the Academic Senate of the University of Copenhagen on Sunday, 2nd August 1953 at 0930 hours. The Joint Meeting concurred in the con- clusion already reached by the Commission® and it was agreed that a paragraph to this effect should be inserted in the Report to be submitted by the Colloquium to the Commission. This and other Declarations adopted prior to its Copenhagen Session were submitted to the Congress by the Commission in the Report which it adopted at a Meeting held in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Monday, 3rd August 1953 at 1810 hours. This Report was approved by the Section on Nomenclature of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at a Meeting held jointly with the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature in the University Buildings, Copenhagen, on Wednesday, 12th August 1953 at 0900 hours. The Report so approved was submitted to, and approved and adopted, by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at its Final Plenary Session held on the afternoon of the same day. 11. The text of the decision in the present matter, as adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and as approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International 3 In the application submitted in the present case the expression “ trivial name ”’ was used, as then required by the Rég/es, to denote the second portion of the name of a species, the binominal combination of which such a name was composed being then termed the “specific name” of the species. It was decided by the Copenhagen Congress (1) to substitute the expression “ specific name ”’ for the expression “ trivial name ”’ and (2) to employ, as and when appropriate, the expression “‘ binomen”’ in place of the expression “ specific name ”’ for the binominal combination of which the name of a species consists. These changes in terminology were introduced into the decision taken at Copenhagen in the present case and have been incorporated also in the present Declaration. DECLARATION 17 lix Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, is given at the head of the present Declaration. It was included also in the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomenclature taken by the: foregoing Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 82, Decision 161). 12. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Seventeen (17) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twelfth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., CBE. a. Secretary to the Commission > Sarre [= eee a icy A] 2 rjie | =z Nf @& VOLUME 9. Part 1. Pp. 1—60 j= => @ a SS —e OPINION 312 eat Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the name Amoeba coli as from Grassi, 1879, to be the name for the large non-dysenteric amoeba of Man and the designation of that species to be the type species of the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, and designa- tion under the same powers of the name Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, to be the name for the dysenteric amoeba of Man (Class Rhizopoda) (Opinion substituted for Opinion 99) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price One pound, ten shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 312 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944), Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J.\Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. StToLw (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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). OPINION 312 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAME ‘*‘ AMOEBA COLI” AS FROM GRASSI, 1879, TO BE THE NAME FOR THE LARGE NON-DYSENTERIC AMOEBA OF MAN AND DESIGNATION OF THAT SPECIES TO BE THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS ** ENTAMOEBA ” CASAGRANDI & BARBAGALLO, 1895, AND DESIGNATION UNDER THE SAME POWERS OF THE NAME ° ENTAMOEBA HISTOLYTICA ”’ SCHAUDINN, 1903, TO BE THE NAME FOR THE DYSENTERIC AMOEBA OF MAN (CLASS RHIZOPODA) (** OPINION *’ SUBSTITU- TED FOR “ OPINION ” 99) RULING :—(1) The Ruling given in Opinion 99 is hereby cancelled as being incorrect and misleading, and that Opinion is revoked for all except historical purposes. (2) The following action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :— (a) The specific name coli Lésch, 1875, as published in the combination Amoeba coli, is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. (b) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) urogenitalis Baelz, 1883, as published in the combination Amoeba urogenitalis ; (ii) vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the combination Amoeba vaginalis ; (iii) intestinalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the combination Amoeba intestinalis ; (iv) dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, as published in the combination Amoeba dysenterica ; (v) dysenteriae Councilman & Lafleur, 1891, as published in the combination Amoeba dysenteriae ; JAW 13 1055 4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) It is hereby directed that the specific name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as published in the combination Entamoeba histolytica, is to be applied to the dysenteric amoeba of Man described and figured by Dobell (C.C.), 1919, The Amoebae living in Man : 31—70, pl. I, figs, 1—6; pl. II, fig. 16; pl. Il; pl. IV, figs. 70—76. (d) It is hereby directed that the binomen Amoeba coli, as published by Grassi in 1879, is to be treated as being a scientific name (binominal combination) then published for the first time, and the specific name coli Grassi, 1879, so published is hereby validated. (e) It is hereby directed that the specific name co/i Grassi, 1879, as published in the combination Amoeba coli and as validated under (d) above, is to be applied to the large non-dysenteric amoeba of Man des- cribed and figured by Dobell (C.C.), 1919, The Amtoebae living in Man : 78—92, pl. I, figs. 12—15; pl. II, fig. 17; pl. IV, figs. 55—69. (f) The nominal species Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as validated under (d) above and as defined under (e) above, is hereby designated to be the type species of the nominal genus Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (a genus established upon a misidentified type species). (g) The nominal species Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, referred to in (f) above is to be accepted as the type species, by original designation, of the genus Léschia Chatton & Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912 (a genus estab- lished upon a misidentified type species). (3) It is hereby ruled that the generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, is not a homonym of the name Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. . OPINION 312 5 (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 754 and 755 respectively : (a) Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(f) above: Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as validated and defined, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(d) and (2)(e) above respectively) ; (b) Poneramoeba Ltihe, 1909 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as defined under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(c) above) (for use by those specialists who consider that the type species of this genus is generically distinct from the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895). (5S) The generic name Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under the Ruling given in Opinion 95, is hereby confirmed in its position on the said Official EISt. (6) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 159: Léschia Chatton & Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912 (a junior objective synonym of Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, consequent upon the designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(g) above, of Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, to be the type species of the nominal genus so named). (7) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 176 to 178 respectively: (a) blattae Biitschli, 1878, as published in the combination Amoeba blattae (specific name of type species of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879) ; (b) coli Grassi, 1879, as published in the combination Amoeba coli, as validated and defined, under- the Plenary Powers, under (2)(d) and (2)(e) respectively (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(f) above, of Entamoeba 6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895) ; (c) histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as published in the combination Entamoeba histolytica and as defined, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(c) above (specific name of type species of Poneramoeba Lihe, 1909). (8) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 80 to 85 respectively : (a) coli Loésch, 1875, as published in the combination Amoeba coli, as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(a) above ; (b) the five specific names specified in (2)(b) above, as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers. OPINION 312 q I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The problem involved in connection with the status of the generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Rhizopoda) and of the names to be used for the large non- dysenteric amoeba of Man was laid before the International Commission in three documents which together constituted a co-ordinated whole. The first of these documents was a paper submitted to the Commission on 17th January 1945 by Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Department of Zoology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Ut was not possible for the Commission at that time to arrange for the early publication of this paper in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and it was accordingly agreed between the Secretary to the Commis- sion and Professor Kirby that he should pursue his previous plan for the publication of this paper in the United States, without prejudice to the right of the Commission to re-publish it at a later date in the Bulletin as part of the documentation of this application to the Commission!. Professor Kirby’s paper was accordingly published in the Journal of Parasitology in June 1945 (Kirby, 1945, J. Parasit. 31 (3) : 177—184). Professor Kirby, at the request of the Secretary, inserted in his paper a footnote in which he invited interested specialists to communicate their views on the problem there discussed to the Secretariat of the Commis- sion for the information of the Members of the Commission when that body came to review—as it was clearly necessary that it should—the Ruling in regard to the name Entamoeba given in Opinion 99 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 4—8). Professor Kirby’s paper was not written in the form of an application to the Commission and accordingly did not contain definite proposals for the solution of the problems involved, being concerned only to expose certain defects both in the factual presentation of the problem given in Opinion 99 and in the Ruling 1 For an account of the arrangement made later for the publication of Professor Kirby’s paper see paragraph 10 of the present Opinion. 8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS embodied in that Opinion. Professor Kirby’s paper was as follows :— ** Entamoeba coli ’’ versus ‘‘ Endamoeba coli ”’ By HAROLD KIRBY (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) 1. In drawing up the argument for Opinion 99 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Stiles showed a wish to reject the name Entamoeba in the interest of clear distinction. He wrote : “It seems obvious that unless the name Entamoeba is definitely sup- pressed both the nomenclatorial and the taxonomic status of the species which come into consideration will become even more confused ”’. The result of his reasoning was rejection of the name, but the benefits that he hoped for have not been realised. There have been some who in following the Opinion have been influenced to take a position regarding the taxonomic status of the amoebae that is not in accord with clear distinction, because unless they took that position the necessary large nomenclatorial departure from the usage that is very widespread in the literature of medical zoology would indeed result in confusion. Retention of the two names Endamoeba and Entamoeba would permit a clear-cut taxonomic differentiation to be made at the same time that a minimum of departure from customary usage is necessitated. Therefore it seems to me that Opinion 99 has actually increased the difficulty that Stiles wished to avoid. I agree with Dobell (1938) that the Opinion in its present form should not be regarded as decisive. 2. The equivocal interpretation that some authors have made of Opinion 99 is illustrated by Craig’s criticism (1944) of Kudo’s retention of the name Entamoeba: “It would have been much better had he followed the ruling of the International Committee of Zoological Nomenclature and used the spelling recommended by it as preferable, i.e., “Endamoeba’’’. Kudo took the position that the species coli should not be put into the same genus as the species blattae, and his failure to follow Opinion 99 made it possible for him to choose Entamoeba as the generic name for coli. It is not a question of alternative spelling of the name of the genus: the Opinion does not constitute an approval of the spelling Endamoeba as against Entamoeba. There is no choice of orthography: Endamoeba is correct and has priority as the name of the genus typified by E. blattae ; all amoebae in that genus are called Endamoeba, and those not in that genus cannot be called Endamoeba. 3. The Opinion was published in 1928, and so far as I know, between - that time and this only two names have been used in connection with OPINION 312 9 the species coli, histolytica and gingivalis: Endamoeba by those who put the three amoebae into the same genus as blattae, and Entamoeba by those who do not. The authors in the former group do not accept the generic distinction ; whether or not they follow Opinion 99 does not properly enter into their adoption of Endamoeba. The authors in the latter group do recognise the generic distinction, and do not follow the Opinion. If there should be a third group of authors, who recognise generic distinction among these endozoic amoebae, and accept Opinion 99, it would be necessary for them to write Poneramoeba histolytica, Poneramoeba coli, and Poneramoeba gingivalis. 4. The following chronological summary of the history of this matter sets forth the important facts that need to be considered :— 1879. Leidy (1879a, p. 300) introduced the generic name Endamoeba, with the one species Endamoeba blattae, named Amoeba blattae by Bitschli in 1878. The same proposal was printed on 2nd December in Leidy, 1879b, p. 205. 1895. Casagrandi and Barbagallo introduced the generic name Entamoeba, giving as the included species Amoeba coli (L6sch) and Amoeba blattarum (Butschli). They were ignorant of Leidy’s name. 1897. Casagrandi and Barbagallo (p. 163) again printed the name Entamoeba, giving as the included species Entamoeba hominis and Entamoeba blattarum. 1903. Schaudinn, using the generic name Entamoeba C. & B., divided Amoeba coli of Lésch into two species, Entamoeba coli Losch and Entamoeba histolytica n. sp. He did not mention the species blattae, and probably was ignorant of Leidy’s name. 1910. Chatton assigned various endozoic amoeba to the genus “Entamoeba Leidy (1879)”. Among the included species were: _Entamoeba coli (Losch) 1875, emend. Schaudinn (1903); £E. blattae (Butschli) 1878 ; E. ranarum (Grassi) 1881 ; E. histolytica Schaudinn 1903. Chatton stated that the paternity of Entamoeba had been wrongly attributed by authors to Casagrandi and Barbagallo. He made no reference to the fact that Leidy’s name was actually Endamoeba. 1912. Séance du 14 f€vrier, mémoire paru le 5 mars (acc. to Clratton, 1912). Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire write (p. 142): “La dénomination non latine d’Entamibes appliquée aux amibes normale- ment parasites du tube digestif est d’un usage commode qui la fera conserver. Mais traduite en nom générique latin, elle ne peut plus s’'appliquer actuellement aux amibes du tube digestif des Vertébrés. Ce n’est pas, en effet, a ces derniéres qu’elle a été appliquée en premier lieu. C’est Leidy qui a créé le genre Entamoeba pour Vamibe de la Blatte, et ce n’est qu’en 1897 que Casagrandi et Barbagallo lont appliquée aux amibes intestinales des Verteébrés”. The authors 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS considered that the amoebae of vertebrates must be put in a separate separate genus, for which they proposed the name Léschia, to contain coli Lésch and other species. 1912. Séance du 26 mars. Chatton reported again the generic differentiation of endozoic amoebae made in the above paper. He definitely designated Léschia coli Losch, cysts 8 nuclei or more, as type of the genus Léschia. Remarking that protistologists had wrongly attributed the paternity of the genus Entamoeba to Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897, he wrote (p..111): ‘‘ Ces derniers avaient bien appliqué le nom d’Entamoeba a une Entamibe humaine, mais Leidy Pavait donné des 1879 a l’ Amoeba blattae de Biitschli’’. In a footnote to this statement he noted that Leidy’s spelling was “‘ Endamoeba’’, but dismissed that name as an orthographic variant. 1913. Brumpt wrote of the amoebae of Man under the name ‘“* Entamoeba Leidy, 1879’, making the same mistake for Endamoeba that Chatton as well as Alexeieff (1912) had previously made. In a footnote (p. 21) he wrote : ““Ce méme genre a été créé de nouveau en 1897 par Casagrandi et Barbagallo pour leur E. hominis, synonyme de E. coli”. That sentence has been accepted by Stiles and Boeck (1923, p. 122), Stiles and Hassall (1925, p. 8), and Stiles (1928 in Opinion 99) as a designation of the type E. coli (as E. hominis) for Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo. (In the third edition, 1922, Brumpt made the same error of “* Entamoeba Leidy’’ ; but in the next one, 1927, he used Entamoeba C. & B. and noted that Endamoeba Leidy should be reserved, in agreement with Wenyon, 1926, for the amoeba of the roach.) 1919. Dobell used Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, for E. blattae only, and Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, for E. coli, E. histolytica, and E. gingivalis. 1923. Stiles and Boeck, in a study of the nomenclatorial status of the protozoa of Man (p. 125), considered the genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, with two sub-genera: Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (type by monotypy E. blattae) and Poneramoeba Lihe, 1909 (type by monotypy and original designation EE. histolytica). They stated (p. 124) that ‘“ Entamoeba 1895 is not available because of Endamoeba 1879” ; evidently that is because they thought of Entamoeba as a homonym, or othographic variant, because here they dealt with a separate taxonomic category (the sub-genus) from Endamoeba. The type of Endamoeba 1895 is given (p. 122, 124) as E. hominis tsd.=coli and coli (s. hominis) ; type by subsequent designation is by Brumpt, 1913. 1925. Stiles and Hassall, in the “ Key-Catalogue of the Protozoa Reported for Man”’, list (p. 8) Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, type by subsequent designation hominis=coli, as a subjective synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. It appears from the definition of subjective synonym by Stiles and Boeck, 1923, that it is a category providing for OPINION 312 1] cases where the identity in question is not absolute, but depends on “the experience and judgment of the reviser” (p. 138). Since in the key-catalogue the types of Entamoeba and Endamoeba are given as different, although those two types are treated as members of the same genus, it is likely that the reference is to the difference of opinion about generic assignment. Otherwise Entamoeba would simply have been designated as a homonym ; that category is dealt with in the same paper. Reference to Entamoeba as a synonym is, therefore, evidently on the basis that its type, Ent. coli, belongs in the same genus as End. blattae, according to Stiles and Hassall. 1928. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature published Opinion 99 in response to an inquiry as to whether the names Endamoeba and Entamoeba should be considered homonyms. The summary of the Opinion reads: “ Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) designation, is absolute synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300 type blattae, and invalidates Entamoeba 1895, type by subsequent (1913) designation hominis=coli’’. The report also contained the decision that Entamoeba is a homonym of (“ philologically the same as”’) Endamoeba. St is presumably on that basis that the Secretary recommended that “‘the name Entamoeba 1895, either with type hominis=coli as definitely designated by Brumpt, 1913, pl. 21, or with blattae as accepted by Chatton and Lalung (1912, 111) and as implied by Chatton (1910, 282), be definitely invalidated by Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, irrespective of the point whether the type of Entamoeba be considered blattae or coli’’. (The reference to Chatton and Lalung, 1912, p. 111, is evidently a mistake for Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912, p. 142, or for Chatton, 1912, p. 111.) 5. It is evident from this summary that Stiles (1928) was justified in his statement that “the case has already produced considerable confusion in literature’. It is also evident, however, that this confusion need not have existed if authors had simply been attentive to the correct forms. Then Endamoeba Leidy would have been used for any generic concept including the species blattae ; and Entamoeba C. & B. would either have been rejected, or used solely for any generic concept omitting blattae and including coli. The errors made by earlier authors should not influence us in an effort to reach a solution of the problem. 6. The answer to the taxonomic problem is subject to differences of opinion. Many authors follow the usage of Stiles and Boeck, 1923, in writing Endamoeba coli; that usage has been almost universal in American compilations in medical zoology since it was adopted in 1926 by Craig (who in 1911 used Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo without reference to the genus Endamoeba Leidy). American writers who recognise generic distinction between blattae and coli include Kudo (1939, 1944), Wenrich (Entamoeba used for histolytica and coli in 1940, 1944, and other papers of similar date), Cleveland (Cleveland 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and Sanders, 1930, and other papers), Pearse (1942), and Meglitsch (1940, in connection with a profound study of blattae). And there are many in various parts of the world who follow the same course ; (for example, Wenyon, 1926; Dobell, 1919, 1938; Brumpt, 1936; Reichenow, 1928), so that it is not a question of individual or even minority disagreement in the question of taxonomic differentiation. 7. It is not my purpose in this paper to attempt to defend one position in taxonomy or attack the other. Because of the very large difference between the species blattae and coli in the nuclear structure of the trophic forms, I think that the burden of proof should rest on those who assert that the two amoebae belong in the same genus— especially when the same authors recognise as valid certain other genera of endozoic amoebae. A comprehensive analysis of the taxonomy of all amoebae, free living and endozoic, is much to be desired. Morris (1936) examined the problem so far as certain endozoic amoebae are concerned ; but the result of his study is not conclusive, for it omitted from consideration certain other endozoic amoebae that would also have to have the status of sub-genera of Endamoeba, according to his treatment. The purpose of the present paper is nomenclatorial: it is an attempt to show that the word Entamoeba should remain available for a genus which Ent. coli is the type. 8. Opinion 99 declares that those of us who think that the species coli and similar forms do not belong in the same genus as blattae cannot use the name Entamoeba for that different genus. There are two grounds upon which that declaration is based. One of them is that Entamoeba is a homonym of Endamoeba—that the two words are not sufficiently different from one another in orthography to be usable as separate words. The other is that Entamoeba has the same type species as Endamoeba, and therefore falls as a synonym. The latter decision is the only one given in the summary of Opinion 99 ; it is not necessary that it should be rendered after the generic name has been dismissed as a homonym, so evidently it is intended to provide a reserve in case of doubt. 9. That doubt certainly exists (Dobell, 1938). Obviously we are not here concerned with whether the words have the same meaning or not, but with whether one word is the same word as the other. There is a difference between inadvertent interchange of two names that have a status in zoological nomenclature, and the use synonymously of such words as endoplasm and entoplasm or endoderm and entoderm. There is nothing in the Articles of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature that justifies the conclusion that Entamoeba must be rejected as a homonym. Certainly Chatton’s statement, although cited as authoritative by Stiles, does not constitute justification ; it is merely an assertion in a one-line footnote, unsupported by reference to the Rules or anything else. It is only in the argument for Opinion 99 that evidence is given, but that evidence can as well be read in OPINION 312 13 support of the retention of the two names as different. Jordan’s report in the Opinion states that they come in the category of names of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight extent and which the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different. His reference is to Article 35, in which precise differences are given by which specific names of the same origin and meaning are insufficiently distinguished. There seems to be no indication that Article 35 is intended to establish a general category allowing interpretation of other differences than those specified ; and in that Article there is nothing whatever about the sort of difference that exists between the words Endamoeba and Entamoeba. Furthermore, there is evidence in Opinion 99 itself that the two words are not necessarily of the same origin, and that would exclude them from consideration under the rules given in Article 35. 10. Article 35 deals only with specific names, and it might seem possible that a different interpretation for generic names would be allowed. Now, however, a precise statement concerning differences in generic names has been given (Opinion 147, 1943). A generic name of the same origin and meaning as a previously published generic name is to be rejected as a homonym of the said name if it is distinguished therefrom only by certai specified differences which are the same as the ones given for specific names in Article 35. Opinion 99 was not mentioned by the Commission in the rendering of Opinion 147, although it dealt with the subject that was being considered. 11. It is not possible to find any definite reason in the Code, or any valid evidence in Opinion 99, for rejection of Entamoeba as a homonym; but the recommendation in Article 36 can, as Taliaferro remarked, be evoked in support of retention of both names. These facts have already been discussed by Dobell (1938). 12. In Opinion 99 the consideration that is apparently regarded as the more important one, since it alone is given in the summary, is that of synonymy—that Entamoeba C. & B. is an absolute synonym (or objective synonym, Stiles and Boeck, 1923, p. 135) of Endamoeba Leidy, because the names follow their types, and the same species, E. blattae, is the type of each. When Stiles presented the case so as to arrive at this conclusion, he changed his approach to the matter. In 1923 he evidently regarded Entamoeba as a homonym, in 1925 he designated it as a subjective synonym on the basis of the taxonomic assignment of its species, but in both papers he accepted E. hominis= coli as type of Entamoeba C. & B. by subsequent designation by Brumpt, 1913. In Opinion 99, after stating that Brumpt’s action was the first type designation in words, Stiles found it possible to interpret Chatton, 1912, as having designated blattae as type of Entamoeba C. & B. Stiles did not make clear the reason for this interpretation, except in that he cited Opinion 6 in support of it. 14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, is analogous to the hypothetical Genus A Linnaeus, 1758, in Opinion 6, in that when proposed it contained two species, which we now know as coli and Dblattae. Casagrandi and Barbagallo did not indicate which was the type. Opinion 6 declares that when an author has removed one of the two species to another monotypic genus, leaving only one species in the first genus, he is to be construed as having fixed the type of the first genus. Jordan’s report in Opinion 99 follows the parallel exactly, crediting Chatton with having removed coli from Entamoeba C. & B. to the genus Léschia, thereby leaving blattae as the type of Entamoeba. If that is so, there is probably no doubt about the validity of the conclusion ; but I think it is not true that Chatton really dealt with Entamoeba C. & B. in making the supposed division. 14. In every place in the three papers that Chatton wrote Entamoeba Leidy he was simply making a mistake for Endamoeba Leidy. Other authors before him who included b/attae, with or without other amoebae in Entamoeba C. & B. were also making a simple error ; they should have used Endamoeba Leidy. The acts of Chatton and Lalung- Bonnaire were on Endamoeba Leidy, given by mistake as Entamoeba Leidy, but not corresponding to Entamoeba C. & B. Chatton (1910) grouped various amoebae in this “‘ Entamoeba Leidy”’. Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) did not agree with that grouping, and removed coli and other species from it, leaving only blattae. That made no change in the situation, except to restore it as it was originally. The revision was of the group concept authors had held of “ Entamoeba Leidy ’” = Endamoeba Leidy, not of that genus itself, which was already attached to its type species. 15. The synonym argument in Opinion 99 depends upon crediting Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire or Chatton with having comprehended Entamoeba C. & B. in what they did with “ Entamoeba Leidy ”= Endamoeba Leidy. Stiles’ paragraph “‘d’”’ in the argument, puts it : *“* Chatton’s paper (1912, Bull. Zool. France, p. 113) is to be interpreted as designating blattae as type of ‘‘ Entamoeba” 1897(=1895) [emenda- tion of Endamoeba, but obviously construed as identical with Entamoeba]’’. (Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire had priority in this matter, and the page reference is wrong.) But Chatton’s “‘ emendation of’ (rather, error for) Endamoeba was “ Entamoeba Leidy’’, not ** Entamoeba 1897 (=1895)”’ ; Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, was not an emendation, but a separately proposed word. Stiles’ word “‘ obviously ”’ could have reference only to Chatton’s opinion (1912) that the two words are orthographic variants, and therefore identical. Thus we return to the question of whether or not it is to be admitted that Entamoeba is a homonym of Endamoeba; and in consequence it appears to me that the whole argument of Opinion 99 stands or falls with the decision about the homonym question, in spite of the fact that the summary neglects that decision. OPINION 312 15 16. The summary of Opinion 99 presents the nomenclatorial treatment accorded Entamoeba C. & B. by Brumpt in 1913 as opposed to and invalidated by the prior treatment of that genus in the 1912 paper. On the contrary, however, it seems that Chatton and Brumpt had then exactly the same understanding of Casagrandi and Barbagallo’s genus. In the historical account given above in 1897 Casagrandi and Barbagallo applied the name Entamoeba to intestinal amoebae of vertebrates, and the statement by Chatton (1912, p. 111) that those authors applied the name to a human amoeba. Those are the only references in the 1912 papers to the correct and original use of Entamoeba. Brumpt, who in 1913 wrote “‘ Entamoeba Leidy,” had adopted the nomenclature of amoebae used by Chatton in 1910. In the footnote that was accepted by Stiles as constituting the type designation he simply gave a different wording of what the 1912 authors had pointed out regarding the amoeba for which the genus Entamoeba C. & B. had been proposed ; but in that wording, and in printing the name “ FE. hominis synonyme de E. coli”? he was more specific. Brumpt has more recently used both Endamoeba and Entamoeba ; and it is likely that the 1912 authors would have used Casagrandi and Barbagallo’s name for the species coli and other amoebae of vertebrates instead of Léschia except for the fact that they considered Endamoeba and Entamoeba to be orthographic variants. Despite the fact that Chatton and Brumpt evidently had the same understanding of Entamoeba C. & B., Stiles found it possible to give the interpretation that Chatton had designated b/attae as its type before Brumpt designated coli as its type. Yet the only difference in the treatment the two authors gave the genus is that the former did not print the species name, whereas the latter did so. Brumpt, therefore, was not considered to have comprehended Entamoeba C. & B. in “ Entamoeba Leidy ’’, as regards type designation, whereas Chatton was considered to have done so. The interpretation given in this part of the argument in Opinion 99 is obviously greatly strained. CONCLUSION 17. Opinion 99 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature does not constitute proof that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, cannot be used as a generic name. Its argument rests on two points: that Entamoeba is a homonym of Endamoeba ; and that blattae is the type species of both, so that Entamoeba falls also as a synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. The latter point, which is the only one brought out in the summary of Opinion 99, is not acceptable: it rests on the interpretation that Entamoeba is a -homonym of the earlier name. The Opinion asserts, but does not demonstrate, that it is a homonym ; and there is nothing elsewhere in the Rules or Opinions that warrants the assertion. It is appropriate to place the species coli and blattae in separate genera ; and it is con- sidered that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, is available 16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS as a generic name for coli and congeneric species at the same time that Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, is used for blattae and congeneric species. References Alexeieff, A., 1912. Sur les caractéres cytologiques et la systématique des Amibes du group limax (Naegleria noy. gen. et Hartmannia nov. gen.) et des Amibes parasites des vert¢ébrés (Proctamoeba nov. gen.). Bull. Soc. zool. France 37 : 55—74 Brumpt, E., 1913. Précis de parasitologie 2. éd. Paris, Masson et Cie. Brumpt, E., 1922. Idem, 3. éd. = Brumpt, E., 1927. Idem, 4. éd. Brumpt, E., 1936. Jdem, 5. éd. Casagrandi, O. and Barbagallo, P., 1895. Ricerche biologiche e cliniche ‘sull’ Amoeba coli (Lésch). Seconda ed ultima nota pre- liminare. Bol. Accad. Gioenia Sci. nat. Catania (n.s.) 41 : 7—19. Casagrandi O. and Barbagallo, P., 1897. Entamoeba hominis s. Amoeba coli (Lésch). Studio biologico e clinico. Annali d’Igiene sperimentale 7 : 103—166 Chatton, E., 1910. Essai sur la structure du noyau et la mitose chez les Amoebiens. Faits et théories. Arch. Zool. expér. et gén. (5) 5207-357) Chatton, E., 1912. Sur quelques genres d’Amibes libres et parasites. Synonymies, homonymie, impropriété. Bull. Soc. zool. France 37 : 109—115 Chatton, E. and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912. Amibe limax (Vahlkampfia n. gen.) dans l’intestin humain. Son importance pour l’interprétation des amibes de culture. Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 5 : 135—143 Cleveland, L. R. and Sanders, E. P., 1930. Encystation, multiple fission without encystment, excystation, metacystic development and variation, in a pure line and nine strains of Entamoeba histolytica. Arch. Protistenk. 70 : 223—266 OPINION 312 7 Craig, C. F., 1911. The parasitic amoebae of Man. Philadelphia, Lippincott Craig, C. F., 1926. A manual of the parasitic Protozoa of Man, Philadelphia, Lippincott Craig, C. F., 1944. Review of Kudo: Manual of human protozoa. Amer. J. trop. Med. 24 : 330 Dobell, C., 1919. The amoebae living in Man. A zoological mono- graph. New York, Wm. Wood & Co. Dobell, C., 1938. Researches on the intestinal protozoa of monkeys and man. IX. The life-history of Entamoeba coli, with special reference to metacystic development. Parasitology 30 : 195—238 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1910. Opinion 6. Incase of a genus A Linnaeus, 1758, with two species, Ab and Ac. Smithsonian Publication 1938 : 7—9. Reprinted with editorial notes 1943 Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Int. Com. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 127—138 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1928. Opinion 99. Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. Smithson. Misc. Collect. 73 (5) : 4—8 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1943. Opinion 147. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meanings as names previously published. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Int. Com. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 123—132 Kudo, R. R., 1939. Protozoology. Springfield, Thomas. Kudo, R. R., 1944. Manual of human protozoa. Springfield, Thomas. Leidy, J., 1879a. Fresh-water rhizopods of North America. Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv. of Territories 12 : i—xi, 1—324 Leidy, J., 1879b. On Amoeba blattae. Prov. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila- delphia 31 : 204—205 Meglitsch, P. A., 1940. Cytological observations on Endamoeba blattae. Illinois biol. Monogr. 17 (4) : 1\—146 18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Morris, S., 1936. Studies of Endamoeba blattae (Biitschli). J. Morphol. 59 ; 225—263 Pearse, A. S., 1942. Introduction to parasitology. Springfield, Thomas. Reichenow, E., 1928. Doflein’s Lehrbuch der Protozoenkunde, ed. 5, Il. Teil. Jena, Fischer Schaudinn, F., 1903. Untersuchungen tiber die Fortpflanzung einiger Rhizopoden. Arb. K. Gsndhsamte. 19 : 547—576 Stiles, C. W., and Boeck, W. C., 1923. The nomenclatorial status of certain protozoa parasitic in Man. Bull. Hyg. Lab. U.S. Pub. Health Sery., 133 : 92—183 Stiles, C. W. and Hassall, A., 1925. Key-catalogue of the protozoa reported for Man. Bull. Hyg. Lab. U.S. Pub. Health Serv. 140: i—iv, 1—63 Wenrich, D. H., 1940. Nuclear structure and nuclear division im the trophic stages of Entamoeba muris (Protozoa Sarcodina). J. Morphol., 66 : 215—239 NN Wenrich, D. H., 1944. Studies on Dientamoeba fragilis (Protozoa). IV. Further observations, with an outline of present-day knowledge of this species. J. Parasitol. 30 : 322—338 Wenyon, C. M., 1926. Protozoology. New York, Wm. Wood & Co. 2. The second of the three documents which together constitute the application in the present case was a paper by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of California, Department of Zoology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Dougherty first submitted this paper in July 1946, but, as explained in paragraph 8 below, he decided in August 1948 to revise his paper in the light of the discussions then just closed which had taken place during the Public Sessions held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in July 1948. Dr. Dougherty completed the revision of his paper in May 1950. Correspondence ensued between the Secretary and Dr. Dougherty on certain points arising on the latter’s paper, but these were cleared up by the autumn of that year, thus making it possible for Dr. OPINION 312 19 Dougherty’s paper to be formally submitted on 11th October 1950. Dr. Dougherty’s paper was as follows :— On the problems embraced in ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 99 (relating to the names ‘*Endamoeba ’’ Leidy, 1879, and ‘‘ Entamoeba’? Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY, Ph.D., M.D. (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) 1. Introduction. Recently Professor Harold Kirby (1945) has written an able critique of the decisions embodied in Opinion 99 rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1928). He has concluded that, contrary to certain of these decisions, (1) Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, cannot be regarded as a homonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879; and (2) the species with the trivial name blattae of Biitschli (1878) should not, despite the conclusions embodied in Opinion 99, be regarded as the type species of both genera, but only of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. 2. I endorse Kirby’s thesis wholeheartedly, but I should like to restate the problem in order to emphasize what I consider to be certain fallacies in Opinion 99, which are not altogether covered by Kirby, and to make certain further proposals. Opinion 99 is a remarkable collection of contradictions and apparent misinterpretations of the Régles and certain preceding Opinions, as I am prepared to show here. 3. Originally a draft of the present paper was submitted to Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary of the International Commission, in 1946. Subsequently the author visited Mr. Hemming in August, 1948, and it was agreed between them that, in view of the extensive changes that the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, acting on the advice of the International Commission, brought about in the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique at the Paris Meetings of July, 1948, the paper should be examined in the light of any pertinent new decisions, revised, and submitted again. I have delayed doing this in anticipation of the publication of the “ Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Session, held in Paris in July, 1948”. Now that this has been done in Volume 4 of The Bulletin of Zoological 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Nomenclature, I have been able to redraft the present paper and am resubmitting it herewith. 4. One of the decisions taken by the International Commission at Paris was that Opinion 99 was to be considered sub judice and that specialists were to be invited “to communicate to the Commission their views on the action to be taken by way of confirming, modifying or reversing the decisions recorded in [the Opinion] ”’ (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 337—338). This was done on the basis of the recognition by the Secretary to the International Commission that Opinion 99 was “‘ very poor” and should be reconsidered (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 128). It is, therefore, particularly appropriate that the present paper be tendered for publication. 5. Moreover, it will be evident from the ensuing sections of this paper that it is of vital importance to the stability of the names of certain genera and species of amoebae parasitic in Man and other animals, that the International Commission not only revise Opinion 99, but consider such additional problems not originally raised therein as must be solved in order to give permanancy to the names of these parasites. This will require the exercise of the Plenary Powers to secure certain names and the placing of these and other names in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, as provided for at Paris (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267—271, 333—335). 6. To aid both in the revision of Opinion 99 and in the realization of stability for the names applied to important enteric amoebae, the present paper is organized into several sections: (I) the present introduction ; (II) the historical background of Opinion 99 ; (III) and (IV) analyses of the summary and body, respectively, of Opinion 99 ; (V) the status of the trivial names coli of Grassi (1879) and histolytica of Schaudinn (1903) as applied to certain amoebae of Man; and (VI) the status of the generic names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, En- tamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and certain others applied to enteric amoebae. Finally, in section (VII) are summarized the conclusions drawn from the studies of the preceding sections. If. Historical Background of ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 99. 7. Opinion 99 is entitled ‘‘ Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895’. Its summary reads as follows : “* Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) designa- tion, is absolute synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, and invalidates Entamoeba 1895, type by subsequent (1913) designation hominis=coli’’. OPINION 312 21 8. To recapitulate briefly, the following are the principal historical facts* of the case treated by Opinion 99, many of which were not, however, considered in the Opinion : (i) Lésch (1875) described in detail the clinical picture and lesions resulting from an amoebic infection in the large bowel of a young Russian and also provided a description (pp. 203—207) and figures (PI. x, figs. 1—3), of the causative organism from which it is quite evident that he was dealing with the species now generally called Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, histolytica. To this form he gave the name Amoeba coli ( : 208). (it) Biitschli (1878 : 273—277) described a new species, Amoeba blattae, from the gut of the oriental roach, Blatta orientalis Linnaeus, 1758—an insect stiJl known by that name. (iii) Grassi (1879) described amoebae from human faeces and identified them (p. 445) as representing the same species as observed by Lésch (1875). However, in the opinion of Dobell (1919), Grassi dealt primarily with the species now generally known as Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, coli, although some individuals, at least, of E. histolytica were apparently also seen. (iv) Leidy (1879 : 300) formed the new genus Endamoeba for the single species, hence type species (by monotypy: Article 30(c) of the current Régles}+) Amoeba blattae Bitschli, 1878. (v) Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1895 : 18) in a study of an intestinal amoeba of Man, which they called “‘ Amoeba coli Losch”’, erected a new genus Entamoeba in apparent ignorance of the existence of the name of Endamoebat Leidy, 1879. In it they placed “ Amoeba coli (Lésch)”’ and ‘“ Amoeba blattarum (Biitschli) ” [= Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878]. No type species was designated. It is evident from their paper that these * For a more detailed history the excellent monograph by Dobell (1919) should be consulted—also the less lucid, although more exhaustive, survey of Stiles and Boeck (1923). + The most recent presumably official edition of the Régles appeared in 1929 in the publication of the X[1927] International Congress of Zoology at Budapest (int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. 1929). A new official edition is now in preparation based on extensive changes adopted by the XIII International Congress of Zoology at its Paris Meeting in 1948, acting on the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. i In base a tutti questi dati, anzi, riteniamo necessario tornare sulla classifica delle Amebe, stabilendone un nuovo genere, che proponiamo di chiamare Entamoeba e vi collochiami subito l’ Amoeba coli (L6sch), e ’ Amoeba blatiarum (Butschli). 22 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS authors were dealing not with Lésch’s Amoeba coli, but with Grassi’s—the species today known generally as E. coli. They did not themselves form the combination Entamoeba coli, although it is credited to them by Dobell (1919) ; actually this was later done by Schaudinn (1903). In a subsequent paper they (Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897 : 103) renamed this species Entamoeba hominis. (vi) Schaudinn (1903) was responsible for fixing the usage of the trivial names now almost universally employed for the two species of amoebae in humans, originally designated Amoeba coli by Lésch (1875) and Amoeba coli by Grassi (1879)— what may aptly be termed the dysenteric and large non- dysenteric amoebae of Man, respectively. As Dobell (1919) has pointed out, by far the happiest solution would have been for Schaudinn to accept Lésch’s name for the dysenteric species, as would have been correct, and, in view of the fact that Grassi’s name was a homonym of Lésch’s, to take the next available name, Entamoeba hominis Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897, for the non-dysenteric species. His observations on morphology as well as nomenclature were on several counts erroneous and have been severely and justifiably criticised by Dobell. His nomenclatorial con- clusions were that the non-dysenteric species should be called “‘ Entamoeba coli Lésch emend. Schaudinn”’ ( : 564) and that the dysenteric species should be given a new name, for which he proposed ‘“ Entamoeba histolytica” ( : 564, 570). In so doing, he accepted the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, for both species. Schaudinn’s prestige was such that his determinations became entrenched in the literature, and today the trivial names, at least, dominate all fields concerned with amoebae in Man. (vii) Lithe (1909 : 421) erected the new genus Poneramoeba for the single species, Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, from Man; this he specifically designated as the type species of his new genus. It was the next new genus after Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, erected or used for amoebae in the vertebrate digestive tract. (vil) Chatton (1910: 282—284) placed in a genus “ Entamoeba Leidy (1879) ’’ seven supposed species. “* Entamoeba coli (Lésch) 1875” [=Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879], “‘ E. blattae (Biitschli) 1878” ; “‘ E. ranarum (Grassi) 1881” “ E. muris (Grassi) 1881” ; E. buccalis Prowazek, 1904; E. histolytica Schaudin, 1903; and “FE. tetragena Viereck 1906=E. africana Hartman 1908 ” [=E. histolytica]. The only mention of Casagrandi and Barbagallo’s work appearing in Chatton’s paper was in a footnote to the effect that “‘ Entamoeba” OPINION 312 23 had been incorrectly assigned by Doflein (1909) to the authorship of the Italian workers.* Chatton did not cite any species as the type species of his “‘ Entamoeba’’, nor did he mention the spelling “‘ Endamoeba’”’ used by Leidy. (ix) Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912: 142) removed the amoebae of the digestive tract of vertebrates from the genus ‘“* Entamoeba Leidy”’ into a new genus Léschia, stating that only the species, originally called Amoeba blattae by Biitschli (1878) should remain in Leidy’s genus. To Ldschia they transferred the following four species from Entamoeba : pe ecoln) Loseh;%) || Grassil\).2., tetragena) Viereck ”’ [=histolytica Schaudinn], “EE. ranarum Grassi’, and ‘*“ E. muris Grassi’, and for the forms with a fetragena- [=histolytica-| like nuclear picture they raised a new subgenus Viereckia. ‘“‘E. coli Lésch’’ was designated as the type species of the nominotypical subgenus, hence of the genus, Léschia.t They incorrectly claimed that Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1897) had applied Leidy’s genus to the amoebae of the vertebrate digestive tract. (x) Chatton (1912: 111) republished the conclusions already expressed in his paper with Lalung-Bonnaire, but mentioned only “‘ Léschia coli”? and “* Viereckia tetragena’”’ in the genus Léschia. For the first time he mentioned—in a footnote— the spelling Endamoeba,§ but dismissed it as an ortho- graphic variant. (xi) Brumpt (1913 : 25) referred the amoebae of Man to the genus “* Entamoeba Leidy, 1879’. He also stated—in a footnote— that the same genus had been created in “1897” by Casagrandi and Barbagallo fort “ FE. coli’’. (xii) Crawley (1913 : 185) listed “‘ Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 ”’ as the type species of the genus Entamoeba. * C’est a tort que Doflein (1910 [= 1909]) attribue la paternité du genre Entamoeba a Casagrandi et Barbagallo (1897 [sic]). 7 On pourra méme distinguer subgénériquement les Entamibes a 4 noyaux (type reiagend), des Entamibes a 8 noyaux (type coli), sous le nom de Viereckia n. subgen. { C’est Leidy qui a créé le genre Entamoeba pour l’amibe de la Blatte, et ce n’est qu’en 1897 que Casagrandi et Barbagallo l’ont appliquée aux amibes intestinales. des Vertebrés. § Avec la variante orthographique Endamoeba qui ne peut en aucune facon constituer un prétexte a conserver les deux noms simultanément. 1 Ce méme genre a été créé de nouveau en 1897 par Casagrandi et Barbagallo. pour leur E. hominis, synonyme de E. coli. 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (xiii) Dobell (1919 : 17—19) in a scholarly review of the nomenclature of the amoebae in Man accepted as valid for amoebae of the vertebrate digestive tract the genus Entamoeba Casa- grandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (non Endamoeba Leidy, 1879), formally (: 18) selected as its type species “ E. coli”, and included as congeneric with E. coli the species E. histolytica, among others. He confined the genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, to Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878. In later parts of his paper he reviewed in detail the nomenclatorial history of the species today generally known by the trivial names coli and histolytica. (xiv) Stiles and Boeck (1923 : 121—150) exhaustively discussed the nomenclature of the dysenteric and non-dysenteric amoebae of Man and dismissed ( : 124) Entamoeba Casagrandi and and Barbagallo, 1895, as a homonym* of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. Nevertheless they regarded Brumpt (1913) as having fixed the type species of the former as Entamoeba hominis [=Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879], and they also recognized a separate nominal genus Entamoeba Chatton, 1912 (over- looking Chatton’s 1910 paper and not recognising the priority of Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire’s paper) as an emendation of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, consequently with the same type species, Amoeba blattae Bitschli, 1878. They provisionally regarded Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878 (type species of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879—by monotypy), and Entamoeba hominis Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897 [=Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879] as congeneric. The foregoing conclusions were essentially followed by Stiles and Hassall (1925), except that they listed Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, as a synonym rather than a homonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. (xv) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 95 (1926) placed Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, with type species Amoeba blattae Bitschli, 1878 (by monotypy) en the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Later the International Commission (1928) reviewed some of the facts given here under paragraphs (i) to (xiv), and published Opinion 99. After much indecisive discussion it was finally concluded in the summary of the latter Opinion, that Chatton (1912) had selected a type species for “‘ Entamoeba 1895”, when he transferred Entamoeba coli and other species in vertebrates to the genus Léschia and thus left only Entamoeba blattae in the genus Entamoeba. ‘This conclusion was presumably based on Opinion 6, which was invoked in the body of the Opinion. Obviously, it was not questioned whether * [Entamoeba 1895 is not available because of Endamoeba 1879.) a a ee OPINION 312 25 Chatton actually was dealing with Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, when he supposedly fixed its type species. 9. I proposed herein to analyse in detail in Sections HI and IV, on the summary and body of Opinion 99 respectively, the question of the selection of a type species for the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and to show that from the historical facts it must be concluded that no one actually selected its type before Dobell (1919). II. Analysis of the Summary of ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 99. - 10. First of all it can be shown that the summary of the Opinion itself cannot be supported by the Régles and previous Opinions. The crux of this summary is based upon one point in the general conclusions. of the body of the Opinion, and in the report by Commissioner K. Jordan, which appears at the end of the discussion on the Opinion and was unanimously adopted by the Commissioners present at the Tenth International Congress of Zoology in Budapest, 1927. In this summary, as one can read in the quotation thereof already given, appears the following phrase: “‘ Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent designation (1912)”’. This is presumably based on the following statement in Jordan’s report (:8, under “A. Nomenclatorial Considerations”) : “‘ In 1912 Chatton separated from Entamoeba the species coli as genotype of his new genus Léschia, leaving blattae as only species in Entamoeba. As nobody had dealt, nomenclatorially, with Entamoeba prior to 1912, Chatton’s action made blattae the type of Entamoeba”. Actually Chatton and Lalung- Bonnaire (1912) were the first to do this; Chatton (1912) merely reaffirmed their earlier action. 11. Now the foregoing quotation is an important statement as it suggests that a species may become the “type by elimination’’. Yet in the present Régles (Article 30(k)) the designation of “type by elimination”? is only one of a number of non-mandatory Recom- mendations. It is true that under one limited condition the Opinions have established that elimination may fix a type species. Thus in Opinion 6* (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 1910, 1944b), the summary reads (in its most recent form—1944b) : “‘ When, in the case of a generic name published not later than 31st December 1930 a later author divided the genus ‘ A ’, Species ‘ A b——’ and *‘ A—— Cc leaving genus ‘ A ", only species * A Monet and genus “ C——’, monotypic with species ‘ C. (6 , the second 9 93 author is to be construed as having fixed the type of the genus *A——’. But, as pointed out by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, in his editorial notes on the new edition of Opinion 6 * Now cancelled, except for historical purposes, and its decisions incorporated into the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 157, 165—166), 26 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (1944b : 134—135), the above summary is explicit in limiting its jurisdiction to the case where the original genus ““ A———” has two species and two species only, and the second genus ““ C—” is monotypic.* 12. Let us suppose then, for the sake of argument, that Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) comprehended Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, when they transferred species from “‘ Entamoeba” to Léschia. In this light one finds that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, qualifies as genus “‘ A ” in the sense of Opinion 6—with two species ‘‘ Amoeba coli” and “ Amoeba blattarum”’. However, Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire’s genus ““C——” in the sense of Opinion 6 would be Léschia, which emphatically was not monotypic. The vital point here is that it was formed for four species in two subgenera : Léschia and Viereckia. 13. It may be claimed that, in effect, Opinion 99 established a new precedent and extended the application of selection of “type by elimination ’’ beyond Opinion 6. But it does not appear that such was the intention of Commissioner Jordan or of Secretary Stiles. Actually they were merely invoking Opinion 6 as the following quotations from the body of the discussion on the Opinion indicates : (p. 6, 7 3) “. . . accordingly, for Chatton Endamoeba 1879 and Entamoeba, 1897 were simple orthographic variants and it is not at all impossible (renaming and cf. Opinion 6) ”’ [italics mine—E. C. D.] “ to construe his papers (1910, 282, and 1912, 110) as a designation of blattae as type of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897” ; (P. 7, 7 2 (d)) “‘ since (under Opinion 6) Chatton’s paper (1912, Bull. Soc. zool. France : 113) is to be interpreted as designating blatiae as type of “‘ Entamoeba”’ 1897 (=1895), [emendation of Endamoeba, but obviously construed as identical with Entamoeba] ...”. But Opinion 6, as it is now understood, does not apply here. It is clear * Prior to the Congress of 1948, not all workers agreed with Mr. Hemming that Opinion 6 need be so narrowly interpreted. Thus Sabrosky (1947) analysed the body of the Opinion and pointed out that in paragraph 2 the statement was made that “cases which were as clear as the one given in the diagram [i.e., the scheme presented in the summary] should be construed under Article 30(g), namely, that the type of the original genus was fixed when, through a division of its species, it was definitely made into a monotypic genus”. It - was Sabrosky’s contention on the basis of this statement that a genus ““ A—— ”” need not have two species in order to come under the jurisdiction of Opinion 6, so long as all but one species have been removed by some subsequent worker, thus leaving ‘‘ A——”’ monotypic. Sabrosky’s interpretation is a reasonable one. However, the summary of Opinion 6, as it stands, conveys no such flexibility of interpretation and must, it seems to me, be the principal arbiter of the point. Moreover, the International Commission at Paris recommended in its report, which was accepted by the Thirteenth Congress, inter alia, the insertion in Article 30, Rule (g), of words to convey the substance of the summary of Opinion 6, i.e., only the limited interpretation thereof (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 157) ; moreover, Opinion 6 has now been cancelled for interpretative purposes (See previous footnote). OPINION 312 p37 that the Commission based the most vital part in the summary of Opinion 99 on an invocation of a previous ruling, which at the time was, at best, of questionable application and must now be regarded as erroneously applied.* IV. Analysis of the Body of ‘‘ Opinion ” 99. 14. Since it has been demonstrated that the summary of Opinion 99 and in effect its conclusions are based on false premises, it would be well to examine the other points discussed in the body of Opinion 99 and to analyse the historical facts to determine why, as I consider, (1) no other and justifiable grounds exist for an equivalent decision— namely, that the type of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, was fixed as Amoeba blattae Bitschli, 1878; and (2) why a type selection was not made until Dobell’s work (1919). 15. Dobell (1938) has published a critique of Opinion 99 in which he has pointed out certain fundamental inconsistencies in the presentation and body of the Opinion, but has not considered all of the basic nomenclatorial issues involved. Kirby (1945)? has aired most of the fallacies of the Opinion. My analysis is partly an extension of his, with additional observations on applications of certain provisions of the Régles and Opinions. Dobell’s works (1919, 1938) have been indispensable for their complete accounts of the history and zoology of the enteric amoebae of Man. 16. There are three principal statements or assumptions in the body of Opinion 99 that deserve attention. These may be summarised as follows :— (i) The point, not brought out in the ““ Summary ”’, but nevertheless expressed by Secretary Stiles in several places in his discussion —that Entamoeba is a virtual homonym of Endamoeba. This was summarised by Commissioner K. Jordan under “* Philogical Considerations ” ( : 8) as follows: “In zoology the prefixes Ento— and Endo— are frequently interchanged. In zoological terminology they are located as being identical. They come under the category of names of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight extent and which the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different, such as auctumnalis and autumnalis . . . Entamoeba is philologically the same as Endamoeba’’. Despite this conclusion, the body of the discussion ( : 5, 1 4) contains evidence that the prefixes * Cancelled except for historical purposes, and part of its decision to be incor- porated into the Regles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 161—162, 165—166). See also footnote to paragraph 11. 2 See para. 1 of the present Opinion, where Professor Kirby’s paper is reprinted. 28 ; OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS endo— and ento— can be regarded as of different Greek origin (from ~évdov and évtds respectively). (ii) The point that Chatton’s emendation Entamoeba (1910) of Leidy’s Endamoeba (1875) automatically takes the same type, Amoeba blattae (:6, 7 2). “‘ Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, has for its monotype Amoeba blattae. The generic name was emended by Chatton, 1910, Ann. Zool. exp. gén., 282, and 1912, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, p. 110, to read Entamoeba, and by Chatton and Lalung, 1912, BSPe, p. 142, in the same sense. Accordingly, there is a generic name Endamoeba and one Entamoeba with the same species (E. blattae) as type ”’. . (iii) The point that Brumpt (1913) among others may be regarded as having selected the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (: 6, 12). ‘“‘...The first type designa- tion in words was by Brumpt (1913, p. 21) as Entamoeba hominis which is Amoeba coli renamed ”’. 17. Of these three points the first has been demonstrated to be incorrect by Dobell (1938) and Kirby (1945); the second is demonstrably true ; and the third is equivocal. All three are taken up in order in the following three sub-sections ((a) to (c)). (a) Orthographic independence of Endamoeba and Entamoeba. 18. As Dobell (1938) pointed out, the Régles themselves provide a basis for accepting both Endamoeba and Entamoeba. Article 34 states that ‘a generic name is to be rejected as a homonym when it has previously been used for some other genus of animals”. In connection with rejection of such names as homonyms, Article 36 contains the following recommendation: “It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from generic names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in spelling. But when once introduced, such names are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: Picus, Pica...”. 19. But, if one may question the legal force of a ““ Recommendation ” then Opinion 147* (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 1943), as Kirby (1945) has pointed out, specifically delimits the categories of spellings that _ render generic names homonyms, to those differing by : (1) the use of ‘ae’, “ oe’, and ““e°’; the use of “e1*., “1°, and via Onmult use of “c” and “k”; (2) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant ; (3) the presence or absence of a “c” before a “t” ; * Cancelled, except for historical purposes, and part of its decision to be incorporated into the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 161—162, 165—166). OPINION 312 29 and (4) the use of a single or double consonant. The difference between the prefixes Endo— and Ento— thus lies outside of the limits imposed by Opinion 147.8 (b) Selection of type species for Entamoeba Chatton, 1910. 20. Kirby has pointed out that Chatton (1910) referred to the genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, as ““ Entamoeba Leidy’’. As used by Chatton, it included, as already noted, the type species of Leidy’s genus, Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878, and a number of other species, among them “ Amoeba coli Lésch’’ [= Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879]. I believe that Chatton unintentionally changed the spelling of Leidy’s genus, thus in effect creating a new name for it, which should be termed Entamoeba Chatton, 1910. (No previous author spelled Leidy’s genus in this way, Schaudinn (1903) and others that used the spelling Entamoeba having credited it to Casagrandi and Barbagallo.) Stiles and Boeck (1923 : 123) must have come essentially to the same conclusion when they recognised both Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and Entamoeba Chatton, 1912 [=1910]. Their action supports my contention that Chatton thus was actually not dealing with the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, his only reference to the latter being in error—namely that “ Entamoeba” should be credited to Leidy, not to the Italian workers. Entamoeba Chatton, 1910, is a homonyn of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 ; but there is no basis for asuming them to be objective synonyms, as the writers of Opinion 99 appear to have believed, inasmuch as the type species of the latter genus had not then been determined. 21. We thus actually have three nominal genera: Entamoeba Leidy, 1879 (monotypic), Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (2 species), and Entamoeba Chatton, 1910 (7 species, including those in the second genus). As Kirby has maintained, the consequence of any action by Chatton (1910, 1912) and Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) should affect only the genus with which Chatton originally dealt—which I call Entamoeba Chatton, 1910 (= Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, emended). This principle was expressly recognized by the Paris Congress of 1948 and is now to be incorporated in the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 347—348). 22. I wish now to take up. the second point raised by the body of Opinion 99, namely, whether Chatton (1910) can be construed as having fixed the type of Entamoeba Chatton, 1910. In this connection Article 30(f) is involved. 3 The provisions of Article 34 were further revised by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which adopted a provision that a generic name is to be treated as a homonym of another such name if it differs from it in spelling by even one letter (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 78, Decision 152). 30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 23. Article 30 Rule (f) states that “‘in case a generic name without originally designated type is proposed as a substitute for another generic name with or without type, the type of either, when established, becomes ipso facto type of the other’. Inasmuch as Entamoeba Chatton, 1910, is in effect a substitute for Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, it follows that blattae, type of the earlier genus by monotypy, automatically becomes type of the later genus. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the Commission, in the summary of Opinion 99, did not rely on this rule to establish the type species of Entamoeba of Chatton (1910) instead of invoking Opinion 6, which was not clearly applicable. Actually, Rule (f) in Article 30 has certain difficulties of application to which I hope to draw the attention of the Commission in a separate communication. Possibly it is on the basis of these difficulties that the Commissioners failed to invoke it in the summary of Opinion 99. In any event, the application of this rule seems straightforward in the case under consideration. (c) Selection of a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. 24. We can now examine the third point raised by the body of Opinion 99, namely, that Brumpt (1913) may be regarded as having made a statement that, were it not for Chatton’s earlier action (1912), would have had the effect of selecting a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. In this connection it also is desirable to determine when such a selection was validly made and also to explore further the consequences of Chatton’s treatment of his genus, Entamoeba (=Endamoeba Leidy, 1879). Aside from Opinion 6, which has already been shown to be inapplicable, one Article in the Régles and two Opinions are intimately involved in these problems— namely, Article 30 and Opinions 45 and 164. 25. Brumpt (1913), as already stated, made the following statement (in translation ; for original see last footnote on page 23): “* This same genus ”’ [as Entamoeba Chatton, 1910=Endamoeba Leidy, 1879] “‘was created de novo in 1897 by Casagrandi and Barbagallo for their E. hominis, synonym of E. coli’’. It was on this basis that Stiles and Boeck (1923), Stiles and Hassall (1925), and the Commission (in Opinion 99) concluded that what Brumpt’s statement amounted to was a potential selection of a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. 26. I feel that this position is inconsistent with the Régles and with the previously rendered Opinion 45 (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 1912). OPINION 312 31 27. Article 30, which deals with the designation, indication, and selection of type species of genera, contains a paragraph following paragraph (g) which reads as follows: “The meaning of the expression ‘ select the type’ is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not constitute a selection of type’’. Several Opinions have been rendered specifically dealing with the concept of type selection “rigidly construed ’’. Most of these do not apply to the present case except that all up to Opinion 99 demonstrate a strict approach to the question of type selection. Opinion 45, however, is of considerable significance to the question under consideration. 28. The summary of Opinion 45 reads as follows: “So far as one can judge from the premises submitted, the type of Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758, has never been definitely designated, and there is no objection to designating, as such, the species acus Linnaeus to accord with general custom and convenience ’’. Without going into the entire history of this case it can be briefly stated that the genus Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758, with seven original species was restricted by Rafinesque (1810b) to two species—a Linnean species, Syngnathus aequoreus, hence the only one of the original species, and a new species, Syngnathus punctatus Rafinesque, 1810. He did not select a type species, nor had any previous author. No type selection was made during the rest of the 19th century. However, Jordan and Evermann (1896 : 774) gave in the synonymy of “ Syngnathus, Linnaeus ’’ the following citation: “ Syngnathus, Rafinesque , Caratteri, 18, 1810 (restricted to aequoreus)”’. Actually, as is pointed out in Opinion 45, Rafinesque (1810a), in the reference cited by Jordan and Evermann, did not mention the genus Syngnathus ; this was done in the later work (1810b). It was the conclusion of the Commission that Jordan and Evermann did not thereby select a type species for the genus Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758. 29. Now it seems to me that in the cases of Syngnathus of Jordan and Evermann (1896) and Entamoeba of Brumpt (1913) are parallel. In both cases statements, not strictly accurate, were made by later authors about the genera of earlier workers. In neither case was there an unequivocal selection of a type species. Yet the Commission saw fit in the first case to determine that Jordan and Evermann’s statement, “restricted to aequoreus’’, was not, “‘ rigidly construed ’’,” a type selection, whereas Brumpt’s statement, “‘ created de novo ...for... E. hominis’ was such a selection. As indicated, Brumpt’s statement erred, for actually Casagrandi and Barbagallo raised Entamoeba for two species: “‘ Amoeba coli’’ and ‘“‘ Amoeba blattarum”’. 30. Opinions 45 and 99 are, I feel, in essential disharmony on the point discussed. Whereas Opinion 99 is the later and might be held as superseding Opinion 45, the point in which the latter is inconsistent with the former is the fundamental issue of its case and that of Opinion 32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 99 is a secondary issue. I do not believe that the International Commission meant, in effect, to reverse Opinion 45 in Opinion 99. Furthermore I feel that the decision that Brumpt (1913) selected a type species for the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, is inconsistent with the spirit of the phrase “rigidly construed” in Article 30. 31. Having considered Brumpt (1913), we can now return to Chatton (1910). A point, the significance of which has not so far been examined, is that the genus Entamoeba Chatton, 1910, actually included the two species placed by Casagrandi and Barbagallo in their genus. Some may argue that in so doing Chatton actually comprehended the Italian workers’ genus despite his designation “‘ Entamoeba Leidy’’. This is not necessarily so, however. A genus is rigidly defined by its type species ; unless or until a type species is designated or selected, a given genus is of necessity a plastic entity to a greater or lesser degree. Chatton in effect united both Leidy’s and Casagrandi and Barbagallo’s genus in his Entamoeba. 32. What happened, in effect, was that Chatton incorrectly—from the standpoint of priority—included Entamoeba Casagrandi and Bar- bagallo, 1895, in synonymy with his Entamoeba (1910) ; no objection from the standpoint of priority would, however, extend to synonymis- ing the Italian workers’ genus with Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, the action that he, in fact, meant to take. Despite the fact that Chatton (1910) must be considered as having automatically designated the type species of Entamoeba Chatton, 1910 (=Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, emended) as Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878, this should have no effect on the type of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, a genus which was named independently and not as an emendation of Leidy’s name ** Endamoeba’’ and which Chatton cannot reasonably be regarded as comprehending in his use of the generic name “ Entamoeba”. Opinion 164* (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 1945a) makes this point clear. 33. The summary of Opinion 164 states in part as follows : ““ When two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds, such action in no way effects the types of the genera concerned”. Thus, even though the type species of Entamoeba Chatton, 1910, may be regarded as having been designated, that designation cannot, according to Opinion 164, affect the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, which Chatton in effect united with his genus. 34. Although Crawley (1913 : 185) listed Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as type species of Entamoeba, this cannot be taken as a valid selection of a type species inasmuch as E. histolytica was not * Cancelled, except for historical purposes, and its decision incorporated into the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 157, 165—166). OPINION 312 33 an originally included species. It is true that the nominal species Amoeba coli Losch, 1875 [=E. histolytica], was placed in Entamoeba as originally proposed by Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1895), but the organism so identified by them was in actuality the modern E. coli. 35. The first unequivocal selection of a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, was made by Dobell (1919 : 17—18) as follows: “I shall therefore continue to refer three of the common amoebae of Man—namely E. coli, E. histolytica, E. gingivalis—to the, genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895; whilst pro- visionally I reserve the separate genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, for the amoeba of the cockroach. On this system, the type species of Entamoeba is E. coli, and the type of Endamoeba is E. blattae’’. Dobell specifically stated that the E. coli so cited was based on Grassi’s, not on Losch’s organism. For reasons given in Section VI even his selection encounters technical difficulties. VY. The status of the Trivial Names ‘coli’? of Grassi (1879) and “* histolytica ’’ of Schaudinn (1903). 36. It is desirable at this point to bring up two questions which are only partly related to Opinion 99, but are nevertheless of great sig- nificance in the nomenclature of amoebae in Man. These questions are respectively the validity of the trivial name coli for the large non- dysenteric amoebae of Man and the validity of the trivial name histolytica for the amoebae of human amoebic dysentery. 37. It is very important to ensure the status of the trivial name coli, inasmuch as it is universally applied today to the large non- dysenteric amoeba of Man, known as Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, coli—the species, moreover, which Dobell has designated as type of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. If this cannot be done under the existing rules, the International Commission must be called upon to exercise their Plenary Powers. 38. As already pointed out in paragraph 8(i), the trivial name coli appeared first in the description by Lésch (1875) of organisms from a patient suffering with dysentery ; these unquestionably represented the species now designated Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, histolytica. For detailed historical discussions of the nomenclature of E. coli and E. histolytica 1 refer to Dobell (1919) and Stiles and Boeck (1923). It should be remarked, however, that Stiles and Boeck (1923) regarded Amoeba coli Lésch, 1875, as representing a mixture of species and contended that Stiles (1892) was the first worker to restrict the name to a single component species—the large non-dysenteric amoeba. On this basis, they found it possible to accept the trivial name coli as valid under the rules for that form. However, Dobell (1919) has presented compelling evidence that Lésch (1875) dealt essentially with E. histo- lytica. It seems entirely logical on the basis of Lésch’s usage to regard 34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS coli as the correct trivial name for the dysenteric amoeba of Man. However, Dobell ingeniously found it possible to reject Losch’s selection on the basis of its being a vernacular name without nomenclatorial status. Ldsch wrote as follows: ‘‘ Da die von mir beschriebenen Amdbe, so viel mir bewusst, tiberhaupt mit keiner der bisher bekannten Formen vollkommen tibereinstimmt, so scheint es mir gerechtfertigt, dieselbe bis auf Weiteres mit einem besonderen Namen zu bezeichnen und nach ihrem Fundorte etwa Amoeba coli zu nennen”’. Dobell pointed out that Losch’s ‘‘ Amoeba coli ’’ was written in ordinary type, not italicised or spaced ; he further stated that “ there is nothing to indicate that Lésch did not employ it as a mere descriptive term”. In view of the wording of Lésch’s sentence this last statement by Dobell is considerably strained. However, the latter offered a rational solution to a vexing nomenclatorial problem, one which no reasonable systematist, lacking a legal means of rectifying the situation, would hesitate to follow if he wished to honour the Régles without con- travening general usage. The alternative without suspension of existing rules is to substitute coli for histolytica, a procedure which would today disrupt the firmly established practices of two generations of protozoologists and medical scientists. Since this cannot be done in harmony with the rules and since co/i is so firmly linked with the large non-dysenteric amoeba, there appears to be involved a clear case where strict application of the Rég/es would result in confusion rather than uniformity. It is therefore important that coli be secured for the large non-dysenteric amoeba of Man by the International Commission acting on the Plenary Powers. 39. It would seem quite illogical, however, in securing coli to this end for it to be attributed to the authorship of Lésch. Since Grassi (1879) was the first to apply this trivial name to the large non-dysenteric amoeba, it is reasonable to follow Dobell and attribute it to his author- ship. On this basis it is necessary to suppress coli of Losch (1875) and validate the otherwise homonymous coli of Grassi (1879). 40. It is very important to ensure the status of the trivial name histolytica inasmuch as it is universally applied today to the dysenteric amoeba of Man. 41. Though Dobell (1919), as mentioned, reviewed in detail the nomenclatorial history of the dysenteric amoeba of Man, I find it impossible to follow him in all of his conclusions. He discussed four names (aside from Amoeba coli) as possibly referring to this species, which antedate E. histolytica Schaudinn, 1903—Amoeba urogenitalis of Baelz (1883, p. 237), Amoeba vaginalis of Blanchard (1885, p. 15), Amoeba intestinalis of Blanchard (1885, p. 15) and “‘ amoeba dysenteriae’? of Councilman and Lafleur (1891, p. 405). Dobell advanced reasons for rejecting each of these—Baelz’s and Blanchard’s names as unidentifiable and Councilman and Lafleur’s as an obviously vernacular name. I have already pointed out that Dobell cannot be OPINION 312 35 followed in his rejection of Amoeba coli Loésch, 1875, as a systematic name ; I believe that the same thing can be said for Councilman and Lafleur’s “‘ amoeba dysenteriae”. They stated: “‘ We have called the organism, which was first described by Loésch under the name amoeba coli, the ‘ amoeba dysenteriae’.’ Inadvertently or through ignorance they merely neglected to capitalize “‘amoeba’’. In regard to the other names cited by Dobell, I have no essential disagreement with his disposition of them. However, even if his rejection of Councilman and Lafleur’s name were followed, the matter could not rest there, as can be seen by the following statement by him (: 28) : “Whilst it is true that the terms A. coli and A. dysenteriae were some- times used correctly as zoological names, yet they were never used with clear specific conceptions before the time of Schaudinn’”’. The first person to use Amoeba dysenteriae as an unquestionably systematic designation was Stiles (1892 : 524525) in a review of Councilman and Lafleur’s paper (1891). It is true that Stiles credited this name to the latter authors, but this fact makes it no less available. That this is so is demonstrated in Opinion 4* (Int. Comm. Nomencl., 1907, 1944a), the summary of which reads as follows : ““ Manuscript names acquire standing in nomenclature when printed in connection with the pro- visions of Article 25, and the question as to their validity is not influenced by the fact whether such names are accepted or rejected by the author responsible for their publication’’.t The discussion by Hemming in the second edition of this Opinion (1944a) makes the availability of such a name as Amoeba dysenteriae of Stiles (1892) doubly clear. 42. It might seem, therefore, that, if coli of Lésch is suppressed as the trivial name for the dysenteric amoeba, Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891 (or Stiles, 1892), would be the next available name. However, Dobell (1919) either did not know about, or ignored, the name Amoeba dysenterica used by Pfeiffer (1888 : 662) as a new name for Amoeba coli of Lésch.+ Stiles and Boeck (1923), in * To be cancelled, except for historical purposes, and its decision incorporated into the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 145—146, 165—166). } Pfeiffer wrote: ‘‘Im Jahr 1875 folgt alsdann die erste ausfthrliche und genaue Beschreibung von L6sch in St. Petersburg . . . Dessen Amoeba coli s. dysenterica Losch hat so viel Aehnichkeit mit den aus dem Blascheninhalt von Vaccine, Herpes, Varicella, etc., abgebildeten grossen Zellgebilden dass morphologisch und nach den Bewegungserscheinungen keine Trennung mOglich ist”. [‘‘ In 1875 then follows the first detailed and precise description—by L6sch in St. Petersburg . . . Amoeba coli or dysenterica Losch has so much similarity to the large cell structures that have been pictured with the vesicular inclusions of vaccinia, herpes, varicella, etc., that no distinction is possible, either morpho- logically or on the basis of the appearance of their movements ’”’.] In subsequent discussion Pfeiffer referred to L6sch’s form as Amoeba coli rather than Amoeba dysenterica. \6sch did not employ the word “* dysenterica ”’ as a trivial name ; that name must therefore be credited to Pfeiffer. * The Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, deleted from the Régles the portion of the Ruling given in Opinion 4 which conferred the status of availability upon names published in synonymies without independent descriptions (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 63— 64, Decision 115). 36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS accepting Lésch’s name as being restricted by Stiles (1892) to the non- dysenteric amoeba, found it possible also to reject Amoeba dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, and Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891, on the basis that these were renamings of Amoeba coli Loésch, 1879, and for that reason had to follow the last name. It is sufficient to point out, since Amoeba coli Lésch, 1875, actually applied to the dysenteric species, and on that account alone the other names cited did likewise, Stiles and Boeck’s contention is inappropriate. Thus, with the suppression of coli of Lésch (1875), Amoeba dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, is the next unquestionably and validly applied name for the dysenteric amoeba. However, it is impractical to consider substituting dysenterica of Pfeiffer (1888) for histolytica of Schaudinn (1903). This is clearly a case where strict application of the Régles would result in confusion rather than uniformity.° The best interests of science will be served by retention of the specific name Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 (the next available name for the dysenteric amoeba after Amoeba dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, and Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891), the trivial name histolytica now being universally employed in the zoological and medical fields. In so doing the International Commission must suppress all previous potential or actual synonyms of the trivial name histolytica. 43. It is highly important that the International Commission give attention to the names of these important amoebae in Man. A formal recommendation in that connection is made in the final section of this paper. VI. The status of the generic name ‘‘ Endamoeba”’ Leidy, 1879, ‘* Entamoeba ”’ Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and certain others applied to Enteric Amoebae. 44. The genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, with its type species Amoeba blattae Bitschli, 1878, has already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 95 (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 1926). This action is completely supported by the Régles. 45. The genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, has been shown to be independent of Endamoeba on an orthographic basis. However, its exact nomenclatorial status has not yet been considered herein. At this point it is necessary to consider the status of Entamoeba coli as type species of Entamoeba. We have already seen (paragraph 8 (v)) that the Italian workers originally included in their genus the species “Amoeba coli (Losch)”’ and ‘‘ Amoeba blattarum (Biitschli) ” [= Amoeba blattae Biitschli]. But the organism called “‘ Amoeba coli” by them and later (Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897) renamed 5 The expression “ greater confusion than uniformity ’’ here quoted was taken from the Plenary Powers provisions as it then existed. This phrase was deleted, and the scope of the provisions considerably widened, by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 22—23, Decision 20). OPINION 312 37 Entamoeba hominis was clearly not the dysenteric amoeba, to which Losch’s name applied, but the large non-dysenteric form. Thus Dobell in selecting Amoeba coli as the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, was so doing on the basis of an originally mis- identified species. It is true that he corrected the initial arror by properly identifying the species that the Italian workers had misidentified. However, the case still requires the attention of the Commission as prescribed in Opinion 168* (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. 1945b), the title of which reads “ On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the names of genera based upon erroneously determined species...” In the summary it is requested that, where such a case has been discovered, it “should be submitted with full details to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature and . . . that, pending their decision thereon, the genus should be regarded as of doubtful status”. It may be remarked here that what is true of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, is equally true of Léschia Chatton and Lalung- Bonnaire, 1912, for which “‘ E. coli Lésch”’ [=Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879] was also designated as the type species. 46. It therefore follows that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (as also Léschia Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912), as a genus based on a misidentified type species, is technically of doubtful status. Actually, there is no question of the practical application of either Entamoeba or Endamoeba to certain enteric amoebae of Man; such is essentially universal. But it is important that the matter be legally clarified. 47. The question may well arise in view of the general confusion in the medical literature over the spelling of the genus used for the dysenteric and large non-dysenteric amoebae of Man, Entamoeba being quite general in the United States and Entamoeba in Britain, whether there ought to be independent genera Endamoeba and Entamoeba, which have been accepted as such by Dobell (1938), Kirby (1945), and others. Admittedly the close similarity of the names is regrettable. However, from the practical standpoint, no real difficulty should be encountered, for Endamoeba blattae and its congeners, being parasitic in insects, are of no particular consequence to medical scientists. Those zoologists that deal with insect parasites can be expected to be familiar with their nomenclature and are not likely to confuse the two genera ; whereas the spelling Endamoeba as applied to amoebae in vertebrates may be some time a-dying in the general medical literature, this fact need not disturb scholars concerned with the real genus Endamoeba. There does not seem, therefore, to be any real objection to the co-existence of two independent genera with the names Endamoeba and Entamoeba. * Cancelled, except for historical purposes, and its decision incorporated into the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 158—159, 165—166). 38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 48. The way thus seems well indicated. The International Com- mission should validate Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, a genus based on an originally misidentified species as type species, for which the species Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879 (non Lésch, 1875) should be designated, Dobell’s selection being thereby validated. 49. Dobell (1938), expressed the conviction that the dysenteric and non-dysenteric amoebae of Man should be placed in separate genera. Although he has not himself done this formally, it would also be well for the International Commission to recognise the generic name that would be used for the dysenteric amoeba in case the proposed separa- tion becomes generally recognised. As mentioned in paragraph 8 (vii), Poneramoeba was erected by Lithe (1909) with Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as only species and therefore as type species. As first genus after Entamoeba available for the dysenteric amoeba, it would come into use. The International Commission might also permanently sink Léschia Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912, by validating Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as its type species, thereby rendering it an objective synonym of Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. 50. Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and Poneramoeba Lithe, 1909, with their respective type species, should therefore join Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. . VII. Conclusions and Recommendations. 51. The conclusions and recommendations of the present study are in three categories : those that relate to Opinion 99 itself ; those that relate to the trivial names coli and histolytica ; and those that relate to the generic names Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909. The first are covered under paragraph 52 ; the second under paragraphs 53—-55 ; and the third under paragraph 56. 52. I feel that it is necessary, and I hereby request, that the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should render an Opinion in which they first cancel Opinion 99 on the ground that the decision set forth therein is incorrect and misleading in certain impor- tant respects, and second make the following points, in substitution for those made in the Opinion so cancelled : (i) The nominal genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, was eStablished independently of the nominal genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, the name Entamoeba as used by Casagrandi and Barbagallo being neither an accidental misspelling nor an emendation of the name Endamoeba as OPINION 312 39 previously used by Leidy. Under Articles 34 and 36, the names Endamoeba and Entamoeba are not homonyms of one another. (ii) Chatton (1912) did not select a type species for the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. In fact, the supposed action of Chatton (1912) on the basis of which type selection was to be inferred according to the Opinion actually was originally carried out by Chatton and Lalung- Bonnaire (1912). The genus with which these authors had dealt was Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, to which Chatton himself in 1910 had applied the name Entamoeba as a tacit emendation of the name Endamoeba. Further, even if Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) had been dealing with Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, instead of with Entamoeba Chatton, 1910 (emend. pro Endamoeba Leidy, 1879), the action which they then took would not have constituted a valid selection of Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878, as the type species of that genus, for they did not make a definite type selection under Rule (g) in Article 30, nor did their action constitute such a selection under the special provisions of Opinion 6. (iti) Brumpt’s action in 1913 did not constitute a valid selection of a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, for Brumpt did not comply with the requirements of Rule (g) in Article 30. (iv) The first author definitely to select a type species for Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, was Dobell (1919), who so selected Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879. This selection has been accepted by subsequent authors, but it must be noted that Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1895) did not include this nominal species in the genus Entamoeba, the name which they did so include being “‘ Amoeba coli (Lésch)”’, which is the name for a different species, being the dysenteric amoeba of Man now universlly known as Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the species which Casagrandi and Barbagallo referred to as *“ Amoeba coli (Lésch)”’ was the species now universally identified as the large non-dysenteric amoeba of Man, Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879. Thus, the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, is one based on a mis- identified type species. In these circumstances the Commission acting under the instructions given to it by the International Congress of Zoology as to the action to be taken in any such case where the Commission is satisfied that confusion would result from the strict application of the Régles, should hereby use their Plenary Powers to designate Amoeba coli 40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Grassi, 1879, to be the type species of the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, thus validating Dobell’s selection. 53. It is necessary, if serious confusion is to be avoided, that the trivial names of the large non-dysenteric and the dysenteric amoebae of Man should be placed on an unassailable foundation. The problems arising in connection with the specific names Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, and Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, are accordingly summarized in the following paragraphs. 54. Two points arise in connection with the name Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879 : (1) whether this is an available name ; and (2) whether — it undoubtedly represents the large non-dysenteric amoeba of Man. As regards (1), the name Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, is not an available name because of the prior Amoeba coli Lésch, 1875, which applies to the dysenteric amoeba. However, in view of the universal use of coli for the non-dysenteric amoeba and the grave confusion which would result if this name had now to be discarded on technical nomenclatorial grounds, I recommend that this particular difficulty should be over- come by the Commission using its Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name coli Lésch, 1875, as published in the binominal combina- tion Amoeba coli, and validate the trivial name coli Grassi, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba coli. As regards (2), there is no reasonable doubt as to the principal species to which Grassi applied the name coli, but I recommend that, in order to settle this matter beyond dispute, the Commission should apply in this case the pro- cedure which they adopted in Paris for the purpose of determining the identity of the species to which the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris, should apply (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 359—361)—that is, that the Com- mission should use its Plenary Powers to direct that the name coli Grassi, 1879, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba coli, should be the trivial name of the large non-dysenteric amoeba of Man as definitively described and figured by Dobell (1919, pp. 78—92 ; pl. i, figs. 12—15 ; pl. u, fig. 17 ; pl. iv, fig. 55—69). 55. The name Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, is universally — applied to the dysenteric amoeba of Man and the greatest confusion would result if it were necessary to change this practice for some technical nomenclatorial reason. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there are at least three older names for this species, namely, _ Amoeba coli Lésch, 1875, Amoeba dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, and Amoeba dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891 (or Stiles, 1892). In addition, there are three other names which may have been applied to this species, namely: (1) Amoeba urogenitalis Baelz, 1883, (2) Amoeba vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, and (3) Amoeba intestinalis Blanchard, 1885. Accordingly, in order to provide an unquestionably valid title for the trivial name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as published OPINION 312 4] in the binominal combination Entamoeba histolytica, | recommend that the Commission, in addition to suppressing the trivial name coli Losch, 1875, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba coli, as recommended in paragraph 54 above, should use their Plenary Powers to suppress the under mentioned trivial names and, having done so, should place those names (with coli Lésch, 1875) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) urogenitalis Baelz, 1883, as published-in the binominal combination Amoeba urogenitalis ; (b) vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba vaginalis; (c)_ intestinalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba intestinalis ; (d) dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenterica; and (e) dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891 (or Stiles, 1892), as published in the binominal com- bination Amoeba dysenteriae. Finally, as in the case of the trivial name coli Grassi, 1879, I recommend that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers definitely to attach the trivial name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as published in the binominal combination Entamoeba histolytica, to the dysenteric amoeba of Man as now recognized by specialists. I recommend that this object should be secured by the Commission directing that the trivial name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, is to be the trivial name for the species as definitively described and figured by Dobell (1919, pp. 31—70; pl. i, figs. 1—6 ; pl. ii, fig. 16; pl. ii; pl. iv. figs. 70—76). 56. While it is of the first importance that the trivial names of these amoebae should be firmly established, it is also necessary that the generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, be stabilized by being placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (type species Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879 [syn. Entamoeba coli (Grassi, 1879) Schaudinn, 1903], to be validated by the International Commission through the invocation of their Plenary Powers). In view of the fact that such an authority as Dobell felt that generic separation of the dysenteric and large non-dysenteric amoebae of Man will have to be carried out, it would also be well for the Inter- national Commission to place Poneramoeba Lihe, 1909 (type species Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, by original designation), first genus available for the dysenteric amoeba of Man, on the Official List. These two generic names would thereby join Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (type species Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878 [syn. Endamoeba blattae (Butschli, 1878) Leidy, 1879], by monotypy), already placed on the Official List under a decision taken in Opinion 95. The foregoing actions are hereby recommended. References Baelz, E., 1883. Uber einige neue Parasiten des Menschen. Berl. klin. Wochenschr. 20 (16) : 234—238 42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Blanchard, R. A. E., 1885. Traité de zoologie médicale, vol. 1: Pro- tozaires, histoire de loeuf, coelentérés, échinodermes, vers (aneuriens, plathelminethes, nemathelminthes). Fasc. 1, pp. 1—192 Brumpt, E. J. A., 1913. Précis de parasitologie. 2nd ed., 1011 pp. Biitschli, O., 1878. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Flagellaten und einiger . verwandten Organismen. Zeit. wissensch. Zool. 30 (2) : 205—281 Casagrandi, O. G. V. and Barbagallo-Rapisardi, P., 1895. Richerche biologiche e cliniche sull’Amoeba coli (Lésch). Seconda ed ultima nota preliminare. Boll. Accad. Gioenia Sci. nat. Catania, (n.s.) (41) : 7—19 ——— , 1897. Entamoeba hominis s. Amoeba coli (Lésch). Studio biologico e clinico. Ann. Igiene sper. 7 (1) : 103—166 Chatton, E. P. L., 1910. Essai sur la structure du noyau et de la mitose chez les amoebiens. Faits et théories. Arch. Zool. exper. gen. 45 (6) : 267—337 ——, 1912. Sur quelques genres d’amibes libres et parasites. Synonymies, homonymie, impropriété. Bull. Soc. zool. France, 37 (3) : 109—115 ; erratum (4) : 168 —— and Lalung-Bonnaire, P., 1912. Amibe limax (Vahlkampfia n. gen.) dans l’intestin humain. Son importance pour l’interprétation des amibes de culture. Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 5 (2) : 135—143 Councilman, W. T. and Lafleur, H. A., 1891. Amoebic dysentery. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Rep. 2 (7/9) : 395—548 Crawley, H., 1913. List of parastic amoebae, arranged alphabetically. Trans. 15 Internat. Cong. Hyg. & Demography 2 (1) : 179—185 Dobell, C. C., 1919. The amoebae living in Man. A zoological mongraph. [vii] + 155 pp. ——, 1938. Researches on the intestinal Protozoa of monkeys and man. IX. The life-history of Entamoeba coli, with special reference to metacystic development. Parasitology 30 (2) : 195—238 Doflein, F. J. T., 1909. Lehrbuch der Protozoenkunde. Eine Darstellung der Naturgeschichte der Protozoen mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der parasitischen und pathogenen Formen. 2nd Ed. x + 914 pp. OPINION 312 43 Grassi, G. B., 1879. Dei protozoi parassiti e specialmente di quelli che sono nell’uomo. Gazz. Med. ital. Lomb. 39 (45) : 445—448 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1907. (Opinion 4.) Status of certain names published as manuscript names. P. 523 in: Stiles, C. W., Report on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Science (2) 26, No. 668. [Reprinted 1910. P. 6 in: Opin. Rend. Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., Opin. 1—25. Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6; see also : , 1944a} ——, 1910. Opinion 6. In the case of a genus A Linnaeus, 1758, with two species, Ab and Ac. Pp. 7—9 in: Opin. Rend. Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., Opin. 1—2S5. Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 7—9. [See also : , 1944b.)] ——, 1912. Opinion 45. The type of Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758. Pp. 101—103 in: Ibid. Opin. 38—51. Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 101—103 ——, 1926. Opinion 95. Two generic names of Protozoa placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Ibid., Opin. 91—97. Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (4) : 14—15 ——, 1928. Opinion 99. Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895. Ibid., Opin. 98—104. Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (5) : 4—8 ——, 1929. International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. [Publication of X International Congress of Zoology X*-Congrés International de Zoologie], Budapest, pt. 2, pp. 1583—1597 ——, 1943a. Opinion 147. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and sub-generic names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published. Opin. Decl. Rendered Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. 2 (14) : 123—132 ——, 1944a. Opinion 4. The status of names published as manuscript names. ibid. 1 (13) : 103—114. [2nd Ed. of 1907] —, 1944b. Opinion 6. On the type of a genus “ A——’’, containing two species, “* A b——’” and “ A c ”’, where the generic name in question was published on, or before, 31st December, 1930, ibid. 1 (15) : 127—138. [2nd Ed. of 1910.] ——, 1945a. Opinion 164. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the types of genera where two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds. ibid. 2 (34) : 347—358 44 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS , 1945b. Opinion 168. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the names of genera based upon erroneously determined species (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65). Ibid. 2 (38) : 411—430 Jordan, D. S. and Evermann, B. W., 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47, pt. 1, Ix + 1240 pp. Kirby, H., 1945. Entamoeba coli versus Endamoeba coli. J. Parasit. 31 (3) : 177—184 Leidy, J., 1879. On Amoeba blattae. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 31, (2) : 204205 Loésch, F., 1875. Massenhafte Entwickelung von Amoben im Dickdarm. Virchows Arch. path. Anat. [etc.] 65 (2) : 196—211 Lihe, M. F. H., 1909. Generationswechsel bei Protozoen. Schriften phys.-6kon. Gesellsch. Kénigsberg. (1908) 49 : 418—424 Pfeiffer, L., 1888. Weitere Untersuchungen tiber Parasiten im Blut und in der Lymphe bei den Pockenprocessen. Correspondenz- Blatter allg. artz!. Verein von Thiiringen (Weimar) 17 (11) : 644—667 Rafinesque, C. S., 1810a. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e piante della Silicia, con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi. 105 pp. ———, 1810b. Indice d’ittiologia siciliana ; ossia, catalogo metodico dei nomi latani, italiani, e sicilliani dei pesci, che si rinvengono in Sicha’. = 70npp: Sabrosky, C. W., 1947. The significance of the “‘ editorial notes ” in the reprints of the earlier opinions on zoological nomenclature. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 40 (1) : 152—153 Schaudinn, F., 1903. Untersuchungen tiber die Fortpflanzung einiger Rhizopoden. (Vorlaufige Mittheilung). Arbeiten aus dem kais. Gesundheitsamte 19 (3) : 547—576 Stiles, C. W., 1892. [Review] : Councilman, W. T. and Lafleur, H. A., Amoebic dysentery. (The Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 1891. II. p. 395—584). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 12 (15) : 524—525 OPINION 312 45 — and Boeck, W. C., 1923. The nomenclatorial status of certain protozoa parasitic in Man. Jn: Boeck, W. C. and Stiles, C. W. Studies on various intestinal parasites (especially amoebae) of Man. Bull. U.S. hyg. Lab. 133 : 92—188 and Hassall, A., 1925. Key-catalogue of the Protozoa reported for Man. Jbid. 140 : 67 pp. 3. The third and last of the documents which constitute the application in the present case was a Report by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, prepared in response to a request® addressed to him by the Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948. Mr. Hemming’s Report, which was based upon the review of the issues involved given in the papers previously submitted by Professor Harold Kirby and Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty recommended the cancellation of Opinion 99 as incorrect and misleading and contained a series of definite proposals designed to put upon a firm foundation the generic and specific nomenclature of the dysenteric and non- dysenteric amoebae of Man. Immediately upon completing his Report, Mr. Hemming communicated it in draft to Professor Kirby and Dr. Dougherty for observations. On both these specialists intimating that they were in agreement with the proposals set forth in the draft, Mr. Hemming signed the Report for submission to the Commission. Mr. Hemming’s Report was as follows :— Report on the investigation of the nomenclatorial problems associated with the generic names ‘‘ Endamoeba ”’ Leidy, 1879, and ‘‘ Entamoeba ’’? Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Rhizopoda) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. The need for a thorough review of the ruling in regard to the status of the generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Rhizopoda) in relation to the name Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, dealt with in the Opinion previously rendered by the International 6 For a fuller reference to the request here referred to see paragraph 6 of the present Opinion. 46 . OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as Opinion 99, was first formally brought to the attention of the Commission in January, 1945, when Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) submitted a paper entitled “‘ Entamoeba coli versus Endamoeba coli’’, in which he drew attention to what appeared to be a serious error in that Opinion. 2. Owing to wartime ditiiculties, it was not possible at that time at once to publish Professor Kirby’s paper in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and it was accordingly arranged that, in order to draw the attention of interested protozoologists to the nomenclatorial issues involved, Professor Kirby’s paper should (as already contem- plated) be published as soon as. possible in the Journal of Parasitology and that it should be republished in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as soon as it was possible to submit this case to the International Commission for consideration. Not long afterwards, Professor Kirby’s paper duly appeared (June, 1945, J. Parasit. 31: 177—184). At my suggestion, Professor Kirby added a footnote in which he explained that the problem dealt with in that paper had been submitted to the International Commission for decision and invited any specialist who might wish to comment on the conclusions reached in that paper to send those comments direct to myself, as Secretary to the Commission. 3. In July, 1946, Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) submitted to the Commission a paper in which he accepted the conclusions reached by Professor Kirby and brought forward additional matters which appeared to call for consideration. 4. Notice given in 1947 of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in the present case : Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in this case was given on November 1947 to the journals Science and Nature and was published shortly thereafter. This notice, like the footnote attached to Professor Kirby’s paper of 1945, failed to elicit any objections. Thus, by the time that the International Commission met in Paris in July, 1948, there were strong grounds for believing that a revision of Opinion 99 on the lines suggested would be in accordance with the general wishes of protozoologists. 5. Preliminary action taken by the International Commission in Paris in 1948 : The attention of the International Commission was drawn to this question during its Session held in Paris in 1948 in Commission Paper I.C. (48) 17 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 128), which was considered by the Commission at its Twelfth Meeting during that Session (Paris Sessions, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 22 (4)) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 338). The Commission then recommended—and the Congress agreed—that the decision in Opinion 99 (unlike the decisions in other Opinions) should not be recorded in the Schedule OPINION 312 47 to the Rég/es then established for the recording of such decisions, until after the subject matter of that Opinion had been thoroughly reviewed and that, pending the outcome of that review, the question dealt with in Opinion 99 were to be regarded as being sub judice. 6. Review of the decision given in ““ Opinion’? 99 : Since the Paris Congress Dr. Dougherty has thoroughly reviewed both the literature of the amoebae of Man dealt with in the present Report and the conclusions in regard to the names published for those species (both at the genus level and at the species level) given in Opinion 99. This investigation has confirmed the conclusions which he and Professor Kirby had previously reached and has brought to light certain other supplementary matters which will also need to be dealt with before the nomenclature of these species can be placed on a sound legal footing. Dr. Dougherty has accordingly revised his earlier paper to take account of these additional considerations. At the same time he has drafted the concluding recommendations, so as to secure that they deal with all the matters (relating to the placing on Official Lists and Official Indexes of names dealt with in Opinions) which the Paris Congress decided should in future be dealt with in cases of this kind. 7. Close parallel between the history of the names published for the amoebae of Man and that of the names published for the malaria parasites of Man: The data submitted by Professor Kirby and Dr. Dougherty amply justify the decision taken by the Commission in Paris to review the ruling given in Opinion 99, for they disclose a tissue of errors and misconceptions in that Opinion. The history of the names published for the amoebae of Man, as set forth in the documents now submitted, shows a remarkable similarity with the history of the names published for the malaria parasites of Man ; in each case, the universal practice of protozoologists for the last half-century has been totally at variance with the provisions of the Régles; in each case, it was Schaudinn who was principally responsible for the nomenclatorial errors which have become so deeply embedded in protozoological and medical literature ; in each case, the Commission attempted (in the case of the names of the amoebae of Man, in Opinion 99; in the case of the malaria parasites of Man, in Opinion 104) to reach a settlement without recourse to the Plenary Powers, the only difference in this regard between these two cases being that in the latter case the Commission sought to give valid force to the current practice of protozoologists, while in the former it did not. 8. Action recommended : During its Paris Session the International Commission corrected the errors previously made in regard to the names of the malaria parasites of Man (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 594624) and it is clearly desirable that a corresponding correction of the errors made in regard to the names of the dysenteric and non- dysenteric amoebae of Man should now be made as quickly as possible, in the light of the data submitted by Professor Kirby and Dr. Dougherty, 48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the object of the action so taken being to give valid force to the current nomenclatorial practice of protozoologists and to avoid the appalling confusion which would result from any attempt strictly to apply the Régles to those names. In order to correct the errors in Opinion 99 and to deal fully with the associated nomenclatorial problems (as was done when a corresponding correction was made of errors in regard to the names of the malaria parasites of Man), it would be necessary for the International Commission to take—and I recommend that it should take—action on the following lines :— (1) cancel Opinion 99 as incorrect and misleading ; (2) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress :-— (i) for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and also of the Law of Homonymy, the trivial name coli Loésch, 1875, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba coli ; (ii) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the under-mentioned trivial names :— (a) urogenitalis Baelz, 1883, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba urogenitalis ; (£) vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba vaginalis ; (y) intestinalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba intestinalis ; (5) dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenterica ; (<) dysenteriae Councilman and Lafleur, 1891, as pub- lished in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenteriae ; (b) to direct that the trivial name histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as published in the binominal combination Entamoeba histolytica, is to be applied to the large dysenteric amoeba of Man described and figured by Dobell (C.C.), 1919, The Amoebae living in Man: 31—70, Pl. I, figs. 1—6; pl. IL, fig. 16; Pl. TI1; Pl. [Vi figse70=2iee OPINION 312 49 (c) to direct that the specific name Amoeba coli, as published by Grassi in 1879, is to be treated as being a specific name then published for the first time and to validate the trivial name so published ; (d) to direct that the trivial name co/i Grassi, 1879, as pub- lished in the binominal combination Amoeba coli, as validated in (c) above, is to be applied to the large non- dysenteric amoeba of Man described and figured by Dobell (C.C.), 1919, loc. cit. : 78—92, PI. I, figs. 12—15; Pl. II, fig. 17 ; Pl. IV, fig. 55—69 ; (e) to designate Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as validated under (c) above and as defined in (d) above, as the type species of the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 (a genus based upon a misidentified type species) ; (f) to direct that Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, validated and defined as in (e) above, is to be accepted as the type species by original designation of Ldéschia Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912 (a genus based upon a mis- identified type species) ; (3) to declare that the name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, is not a homonym of the name Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (type species by designation under the Plenary Powers, under (2) (e) above: Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as validated and defined under (2) (c) and (2) (d) above respectively) (gender of generic name : feminine) ; (b) Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (type species, by original designation : Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903) (gender of generic name : feminine) (for use by workers who consider Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, to be generically distinct from Amoeba coli Grassi, the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895)i5 (5) to comfirm the position on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (type species, by mono- typy: Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878) (gender of generic name : feminine) ; 50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (6) to place the generic name Léschia Chatton & Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912 (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (2) (f) above: Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879 (a junior objective synonym of Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895)) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (7) to place the under-mentioned specific trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (a) blattae Biitschli, 1878, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba blattae (type species of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879) ; (b) coli Grassi, 1879, as published in the binominal com- bination Amoeba coli (as validated and defined under the Plenary Powers under (2) (c) and (2) (d) above respectively) (type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895) ; (c) histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, as published in the binominal combination Entamoeba histolytica (as defined under the Plenary Powers under (2) (b) above) (type species of Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909) ; (8) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology; (a) coli Lésch, 1875, as published in the. binominal combina™ tion Amoeba coli, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (2) (a) (i) above) ; (b) the under-mentioned trivial names suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (2) (a) (41) above :— (a) urogenitalis Baelz, 1883, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba urogenitalis ; (f)vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the combination Amoeba vaginalis ; (y) intestinalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba intestinalis ; (5) dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenterica ; (<) dysenteriae Councilman & Lafleur, 1891, as published in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenteriae. OPINION 312 51 9. Before signing the present Report, I submitted it in draft for comment to Professor Harold Kirby and Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty, the two specialists who had communicated with the Commission on this subject. Both have since informed me that they concur in the solution suggested. I.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 4. Registration of the present application : [Immediately upon the receipt of Professor Kirby’s preliminary communication of January 1945, the problem of the revision of Opinion 99 and, in particular, the question of the status to be accorded to the name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 185. 5. Discussions during the period 1945—1948: As has been explained in Section I of the present Opinion, difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes made it impossible in 1945 for the Commission to arrange for the immediate publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of Professor Kirby’s paper, but the addition then made to that paper, as then published in the Journal of Parasitology, of an appeal to interested specialists to furnish the Commission with statements of their views gave Public Notice that the question of the revision of Opinion 99 was under consideration. On 20th November 1947, this was supplemented by the formal issue of Public Notice of the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers in the present case to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. Neither the appeal published in 1945 with Professor Kirby’s paper nor the formal issue of Public Notice in 1947 elicited any objection to the suggested revision of Opinion 99. 6. Submission to the Commission in 1948 of a proposal that the problems raised by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 99 should be brought under review : When the International Commission met 52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in Paris in 1948, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, took the view that the issues involved in the proposal that the Ruling given in Opinion 99 should be brought under review-were so complex that it was desirable that this matter should be deferred until it was possible to publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature the paper received from Professor Kirby in 1945 and the application submitted by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty in the following year. Mr. Hemming decided therefore not to bring forward the present case at that Session. In view, however, of the fact that the Commission was then engaged in making arrangements for the codification of the Rulings given in its earlier Opinions, Mr. Hemming considered it desirable in this and certain other cases to suggest that the codification of the Rulings previously given should be deferred. Accordingly, in a paper (Paper I.C.(48)17) then laid before the Commission, Mr. Hemming submitted the following recommendation (Hem- ming, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 127—128) :— (90) Supplementary decisions needed in regard to matters dealt with in certain ‘“‘ Opinions’ before the contents of those ‘“‘ Opinions” can usefully be inserted in Schedules to the ““ Régles”’ :-— (d) Opinion 78 Name of the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Tick and (e) Opinion 99 Endamoeba and Entamoeba Both these Opinions are very poor, have been the subject of much criticism, and have been re- submitted by specialists for further consideration. It is accordingly proposed :— (a) that the Commission should announce that the matters dealt with in these two Opinions should be treated as being sub judice ; and (b) that, pending a review of the problems involved, the contents of neither of these Opinions should be entered in the Fourth Schedule to the Régles. 7. Decision taken by the International Commission in 1948 as to the procedure to be adopted in the matter of the review of OPINION 312 53 ‘“* Opinion’? 99: The problem raised by the objections which had been received in regard to the Ruling given in Opinion 99 was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Twelfth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948, at 1445 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission, setting out the decision then reached in regard to the present case (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 337—338) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (4) as regards Opinion 78 (“‘ Case of Dermacentor andersoni versus Dermacentor venustus’”’?) and Opinion 99 (‘ Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, versus Entamoeba Casa- grandi and Barbagallo, 1895’) :— (a) that the decisions given in the foregoing Opinions should be reviewed by the Commission as soon as possible ; (b) that, pending the conclusion of the review referred to in (a) above, the decisions recorded in the foregoing Opinions should not be incorporated in the Schedules to the Régles ; (c) that a statement should be issued announcing the decisions recorded in (a) and (b) above, stating that, pending the completion of the review specified in (a) above, the matters dealt with respectively in Opinion 78 and Opinion 99 are to be treated as being sub judice and inviting specialists to communicate to the Commission their views on the action to be taken by way of confirming, modifying or reversing the decisions recorded in those Opinions. 54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. Revision in 1950 by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty of his application for the review of the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 99 : Immediately after the close of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty visited London and on 6th August 1948 called at the Secretariat of the Com- mission for the purpose of discussing with Mr. Hemming the problems involved in the suggested revision of Opinion 99. It was then agreed that certain revisions of Dr. Dougherty’s application of 1946 were required, in order, for example, to take account of the decisions by the Paris Congress to establish an Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (then styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology) and Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names (both generic and specific). Dr. Dougherty’s application so revised was received in the Spring of 1950. It forms the second of the three documents which collectively constitute the documentation submitted to the Commission in the matter of the revision of Opinion 99. It has been reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present Opinion. 9. Submission of the Report called for in 1948 : In pursuance of the décision taken by the International Commission at its Paris Session (paragraph 7 above), Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, carried out in 1950 a review of the available material relating to the problems involved in the Ruling given in Opinion 99, and in the light of that review prepared a Report, with recommendations, for the consideration of the Commission. This Report, the recommendations in which were agreed in draft between Mr. Hemming, Professor Kirby and Dr. Dougherty, forms the third and concluding portion of the documentation relating to the present case. It has been reproduced in pararaph 3 of the present Opinion. 10. Publication of the documentation relating to the review of the Ruling given in “‘ Opinion’? 99: The three documents which constitute the documentation relating to the proposed review of the Ruling given in Opinion 99 were sent to the printer in December 1950 and were published on 15th August 1951 in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Kirby, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 243—252 ; Dougherty, 1951, ibid. 2 : 253—276; Hemming, 1951, ibid. 2 : 277—281). . OPINION 312 55 11. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements approved by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zoel. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 15th August 1951, both in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the Part in which the three papers which collectively constitute the application in the present case were published, and to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to certain other zoological and specialist serial publications. The publication of these Notices elicited only the comment reproduced in the immediately following paragraph. 12. Comment received from Dr. G. F. Otto (The Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Department of Parasitology, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) : On 21st December 1951 Dr. G. F. Otto (The Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Department of Parasitology, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) submitted the following letter commenting upon the proposals submitted for the revision of Opinion 99 :— I am rather belatedly writing to you concerning the announcement in the October 26 issue of Science to the effect that the International Commission will reconsider the question of the generic name of E. histolytica’. 1 should like to call attention to the fact that it seems to me that the earlier decision of the Commission as written by the late Dr. Charles W. Stiles, who was then the Secretary, transcended the authority of the Commission. In effect, the decision said that histo- lytica and coli of Man are in the same genus with blattae of the cockroach. It does not seem to me that the Commission has any such authority. All it could have done was to have said that, if those are in the same genus, then the spelling Endamoeba would be the correct generic name. Accordingly, it seems to me that that would be the appropriate decision for the present Commission but that the Commis- sion should go further and say that, if they are not in the same genus, then Entamoeba is the correct spelling for histolytica and coli of Man. If the cockroach and the two forms mentioned from Man are in 7 As it was evident from this passage that Dr. Otto had seen only the abbreviated notice published in Science, the Secretary, in replying (on 13th February, 1952) drew his attention to the detailed proposals which had been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 56 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS separate genera and Entamoeba is not to be retained for the amoeba of Man, then one of the other names such as Poneramoeba, not Endamoeba would be the correct name. It is perhaps unfortunate that the two spellings Entamoeba and Endamoeba are so similar, but one does not resolve the matter by attempting to suppress one genus which is in effect what the earlier ruling of the Commission has done. I am writing to you in this vein because it is not absolutely clear to me what the current recommendation of the Commission is. I gather that you are proposing to establish Entamoeba as a generic name for the organisms of Man and to this I wholly subscribe. On the other hand, since you use the statement “action designated to validate existing practices ’’, I might call you attention to the fact that existing practice in American medical literature is to use Endamoeba and that it is thoroughly entrenched. It is for that reason that I take the liberty of writing you since there is possible ambiguity in your phraseology. I grant that in most scientific circles in America and abroad Entamoeba is accepted as correct but it is not universally accepted. IIl—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 13. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)32: On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper V.P.(52)32) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against the proposal “relating to the name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, and associated problems, as specified in Points (1) to (8) in paragraph 8 on pages 279 to 281 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e., in paragraph 8 of the Secretary’s Report reproduced in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion]. 14. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. OPINION 312 D7 15. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)32 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)32 at the close of the prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— _ (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Boschma; Pearson®8; Hemming ; Bradley ; Esaki; Lemche; Stoll; Cabrera ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 16. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 10th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)32, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 15 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 17. On 25th March 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)32. 8’ Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which a Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority view, of other members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 50—S1). 58 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed or confirmed on Official Lists and placed on Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— blattae, Endamoeba, Leidy, 1878, Z. wiss. Zool. 30 (2) : 273—277 coli, Amoeba, Losch, 1875, Virchows Arch. path. Anat. 65 [6s, 5] (2) : 208 pl. 10 figs. 1—3 coli, Amoeba, Grassi, 1879, Gazz. med. lombarda 39 [8s. 1] (45) : 445 dysenteriae, Amoeba, Councilman & Lafleur, 1891, Johns Hopkins Hosp. Rep. 2 (7/9) : 405 dysenterica, Amoeba, Pfeiffer, 1888, Corresp. Bl. allgem. drztl. Ver. Thiiringen 17 (11) : 662 Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1879 : 205 Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, Boll. Acad. Gioenia Sci. nat. Catania (n.s.) 1895 (41) : 18 histolytica, Entamoeba, Schaudinn, 1903, Arb. Gesundheitsamt. Berlin 19 (3) : 564 intestinalis, Amoeba, Blanchard, 1885, Traité Zool. médic. 1 : 15 Léschia Chatton & Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912, Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 5 (2) : 142 Poneramoeba Lihe, 1909, Schr. phys.-ékon. Ges. Konigsb. 49 : 421 urogenitalis, Amoeba, Baelz, 1883, Berl. klin. Wschr. 20 (16) : 237 vaginalis, Amoeba, Blanchard, 1885, Traité Zool. médic. 1 : 15 19. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 75 has been allotted. 20. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific OPINION 312 59 Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial”? appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 21. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 22. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twelve (312) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Fifth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 2. Pp. 61—70 OPINION 313 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage PT 1055 Rerere ARYA LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London. S.W.7 . 1954 Price Four Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 17th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 313 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) ([st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (Ast January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 JACZEwSskKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut peat Es Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 313 DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS ‘“ EYSARCORIS ”’ - HAHN, 1834 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED NOMEN- CLATORIAL USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) all selections of type species for the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and (b) the nominal species Cimex aeneus Scopoli, 1763, is hereby designated to be the type species of the foregoing genus. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 756: FEysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above: Cimex aeneus Scopoli, 1763). (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 179: aeneus Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Cimex aeneus. I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 8th February 1946, Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) submitted an application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating a type JAN 13 toK5 =wecee tT 64 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS species for the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage. For the reasons explained in paragraph 3 below, it was found necessary later slightly to revise the application so sub- mitted. The application so revised was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to vary the type species of the genus ‘* Kysarcoris ’? Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in order to validate existing nomenclatorial practice By W. E. CHINA, Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) 1. The object of the present application is to seek the help of the ‘International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preventing the confusion which would inevitably arise if the Rég/es were strictly applied in the case of the generic name Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). 2. The relevant facts are as follows: The generic name Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Wanzenart. Ins. 2:66) was established without a designated or indicated type species ; one of the species included in it by Hahn was Cimex punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 444). This species was selected as the type species by Desmarest in 1845 (in Orbigny, Dict. univ. Hist. nat. (Disciples’ ed.) 5 : 526). This selection, being the first to have been made, is valid under the Régles. It has not, however, been accepted by hemipterists who have followed Distant, who in 1902 (Faun. Brit. Ind., Rhyn. 1 : 165) selected Cimex perlatus Fabricius, 1794 (Ent. syst. 4 : 125) (i.e., Cimex aeneus Scopoli, 1763 Ent. carn. : 122) as the type species of this genus. 3. The acceptance of Desmarest’s selection of Cimex punctatus Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Eysarcoris Hahn would cause much more confusion than uniformity in the generic names in the family PENTATOMIDAE, for it would involve not only the loss of the well- known generic name Rhacognathus Fieber, [1860] (Europ. Hem. : 81, 347) (which would be replaced by the name Eysarcoris Hahn), but also the transfer of the long-established generic name Eysarcoris Hahn from the sub-family PENTATOMINAE to the sub-family ASOPINAE, and the replacement in the PENTATOMINAE of the name Eysarcoris Hahn by the little-used generic name Stollia Ellenrieder, 1862 (Nat. Tijdschr. ned. Ind. 24 : 149). This latter genus has, as its type species by monotypy, an Oriental species Stollia fuliginosa Ellenrieder, 1862, which is only doubtfully congeneric with the European species now (incorrectly) referred to the genus Eysarcoris Hahn. an? OPINION 313 65 4. In order to avoid the confusion and uncertainties described above, ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— Leal (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834, made prior to the proposed decision ; (b) to designate Cimex aeneus Scopoli, 1763, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the generic name Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, as proposed in (1)(b) above : Cimex aeneus Scopoli, 1763) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (gender of generic name: masculine) ; (3) to place the trivial name aeneus Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binominal combination Cimex aeneus, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Dr. China’s application, the problem of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)212. 3. Situation in the period 1946—1950 : Owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes, it was not possible for the Commission to arrange for the publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in the period immediately following its receipt. In the short amount of time at its disposal during its Session held in Paris in 1948 the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature was not able to consider all the applications then awaiting attention, and the present was one of the applications which for this reason was not placed before the Commission on that occasion. For the next eighteen 66 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS months the preparation and publication of the Official Records of the Paris Meetings taxed the resources of the Commission to the uttermost, and it was accordingly not until the latter part of 1950 that it was possible to resume preparations for the pub- lication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of applications on individual nomenclatorial problems submitted by specialists for decision. The present was among the earliest of the applica- tions to be taken up in this way. In September 1950, the present application was revised to the small extent necessary in order to take account of the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, to establish an Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (then styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology). The application so revised was received on 23rd September 1950 and was sent to the printer on 4th December 1950. 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was published on 15th August 1951 in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (China, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 294—295). 5. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements approved by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 15th August 1951 both in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the Part in which Dr. China’s application was published, and also to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to certain entomological serial publications in Europe and America. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. IlI—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)33 : On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)33) was issued in which the Members of OPINION 313 67 the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the name Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834, as specified in Points (1) to (3) at the foot of page 294 and at the top of page 295 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e., in paragraph 4 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)33 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)33 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following fifteen (15) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Bradley; Boschma; Pearson! ; Hemming ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Stoll ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, three (3) : Cabrera ; Jaczewski ; Mertens. 1 Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which a Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority view, of other members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4 : 50—S1). 68 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 10th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)33, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 10. On 27th March 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Com- mission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)33. 11. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— aeneus, Cimex, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carn. : 122 Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834, Wanzenart. Ins. 2 : 66 12. The nominal genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834, is not the type genus of a family-group taxon and accordingly no question arises in the present case of placing any name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 13. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the OPINION 313 69 6 ° expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name ’”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 14. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Thirteen (313) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Seventh day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING eee ee eee eee ee ee SS ee Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limirep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by VOLUME 9. Part 3. Pp. 71—80 LE FRANCIS HEMMING, cmc,cas. (29 | Secretary to the Commission j= = a () Hy op) a | 28] | 1 JAN OPINION 314 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific - name acuminata loff & Tiflov, 1946, as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata, as applied to the species numbered ‘‘ 66’ by those authors (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Four Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 17th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 314 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. Sto. (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHmMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 314 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ACUMINATA” IOFF & TIFLOV, 1946, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘© RHADINOPSYLLA (RECTOFRONTIA) ACUMI- NATA *?, AS APPLIED TO THE SPECIES NUMBERED “‘ 66 ’?? BY THOSE AUTHORS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER SIPHONAPTERA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the specific name acuminata loft & Tiflov, 1946, as inad- vertently published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata and applied to the species there cited by those authors under the number 62 418 hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) the same specific name (i) as published by the foregoing authors on the same page of the same work and in the same combination and (ii) as deliberately applied by those authors to the species cited by them under the number “66” is hereby validated. (2) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. i180 and 181 respectively : (a) the specific name acuminata loft & Tiflov, 1946, as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata, as applied by the authors to the species there numbered “66”, and as validated, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above; (b) the subspecific name transbaikalica loff & Tiflov, 1946, as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica, as a substitute name for Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata, a name (i) applied in error to the species numbered “ 62” by the foregoing authors and (b) suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(a) above. . JON 1-3 1955 74 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 86 :—the specific name acuminata loff & Tiflov, 1946, as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata and applied by the foregoing authors to the species numbered “62” by them, as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(a) above. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 14th September 1950, Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) submitted the following application in which he drew attention to the fact by some inadvertence Ioff and Tiflov had in 1946 published the specific name acuminata in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata as a name for two species of fleas on the same page of the same work and asked that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the second of the two foregoing usages of the above name, it being evident that this was the usage which had been intended by these authors :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific trivial name ‘* acuminata ’’ Toff & Tiflov, as published in the combination ‘** Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata ’’ as applied to the species numbered ‘‘ 66 ’’ by those authors (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera) By G. H. E. HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.) 1. Toff (in Ioff, Tiflov, et al., 1946, Med. Parasitol. Moscow, 15 (No. 4) : 91) published a subgenus Ralipsylla of Rhadinopsylla. On the following page he and other authors published numerous new species or subspecies which are numbered, numbers 60, 61 and 63 being referred to the subgenus Ralipsylla and 64 to 68 inclusive to the sub- genus Rectofrontia. But both No. 62 and No. 66 are called “* Rhadinop- sylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata off et Tiflov ’’, and this is the first time OPINION 314 a5 this name has been published. Obviously one of these duplicate names must be a Japsus calami, and it is clear from the context which is the error, because No. 62 is sandwiched in among forms of Ralipsylla whereas No. 66 is correctly placed among forms of Rectofrontia ; it is, therefore No. 66 to which the name acuminata was intended to apply. Moreover, in the separates of the paper (but not in the original publication) the name of No. 62 is altered in manuscript, presumably by Professor Ioff, to Rhadinopsylla (Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica loft et Tiflov. This manuscript alteration does not, of course, constitute publication, but in No. 6 of the same periodical and volume, also pub- lished in 1946, there is ( :94) a list of corrections of misprints in the original paper, among which is the statement that the name of species No. 62 on p. 92 of the original paper should be Rhadinopsylla (Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica off et Tiflov, not Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata loff et Tiflov as printed. 2. In these circumstances the strict applications of the Rég/es to the present case would serve no useful purpose whatever: (1) it would involve the pedantic acceptance of something which was undoubtedly an error (namely, the application of the name Rhadinopsylla (Recto- frontia) acuminata off and Tiflov, 1946, to the species to which those authors applied the number “* 62 ’’) and the equally pedantic rejection, as a homonym, of the same name as deliberately applied by those authors to the entirely different species referred to by them as species number “ 66” ; (2) such action would lead to confusion in the nomen- clature of these fleas, since the Russian workers would certainly not follow the strict application of the Régles in this matter. The present is therefore, in my opinion, pre-eminently a case where it would be appropriate for the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to use its Plenary Powers to give valid force to the evident intention of loff and Tiflov, when they wrote their paper in 1946, and to the consequent current practice of specialists in this group, for such action would prompte uniformity and prevent the confusion which would otherwise occur in the nomenclature of this group. The proposal which I therefore now place before the Commission is that it should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy the trivial name acuminata loft and Tiflov, 1946, Med. Parasitol. Moscow 15 (No. 4) : 91 as inadvertently published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata, and applied to the species there cited by those authors under the number “ 62” ; (b) to validate the foregoing trivial name (a) as published by the foregoing authors on the same page of the same work and in the same combination and (b) as deliberately applied by those authors to the species cited by them under the number “‘ 66”’ ; 716 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (2) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology (i) the trivial name acuminata loff and Tiflov, 1946, as pub- lished in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acu- minata, aS validated under (1)(b) above ; (ii) the subspecific trivial name transbaikalica loft and Tiflov, 1946, as published in the trinominal combination Rhadinopsylla (Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica (1946, Med. Parisitol. Moscow, 15 (No. 6) : 94) as a substitute name for Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acu- minata applied in error to species No. 62 in Joc. cit. (No. 4) : 91, suppressed under 1(a) above. (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name acuminata loft and Tiflov, 1946, as inadvertently published in the combination Rha- dinopsylla (Rectofrentia) acuminata, as suppressed under (1)(a) above. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: Upon the receipt of Mr. Hopkins’ application, the problem of the accidental homonymy arising from the publication by Ioff and Tiflov in 1946 of the specific name acuminata in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata for two species of flea was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)386. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on Ist January 1951 and was published on 15th August 1951 in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hopkins, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 296—297). 4. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements approved by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 15th August 1951, both in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the Part in which Mr. Hopkins’ application was published, and also OPINION 314 Thal to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to a number of entomological serial publications in Europe and America. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. Iil—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5, Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(32)34: On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)34) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the name acuminata loft & Tiflov, 1946, as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata, as specified in Points (1) to (3) on page 297 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature”? [i.e., in the Points set out in paragraph 2 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 6. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)34 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)34 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering; Riley; Dymond; Calman; Hanko; Bonnet ; Vokes; do Amaral; Boschma ; Pearson!; Hemming; Bradley; Esaki; Lemche; Stoll; Cabrera ; 1 Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which a Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority view, of other members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 50—51). 78 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 10th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)34, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 7 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 9. On 27th March 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certifi- cate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)34. 10. The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— acuminata, Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia), loff & Tiflov, 1946, Med. Parasitol. Moscow 15 (No. 4) : 91, no. 62 acuminata, Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia), loff & Tiflov, 1946, Med. Parasitol. Moscow 15 (No. 4) : 91, no. 66 transbaikalica, Rhadinopsylla (Ralipsylla) li, loff & Tiflov, 1946, Med. Parasitol. Moscow 15 (No. 6) : 94 11. As the present case is concerned only with certain specific names and no question of the status of generic names is involved, the question of placing names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology does not arise. OPINION 314 719 12. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 13. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Fourteen (314) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Seventh day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING . TREE TER Ng } MK OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 4. Pp. 81—90 OPINION 315 Addition of the generic name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (Class Cephalopoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 40 IS55 LIBRARY LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Five Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 315 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (A[st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1[st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. SToLw (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van WNatuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 315 ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘* SPIRULA ”’ LAMARCK, 1799 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA) TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 757 :—Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Nautilus spirula Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Cephalopoda). (2) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 182 :—spirula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Nautilus spirula (specific name of type species of Spirula Lamarck, 1799). (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 160 and 161, and 167 to 169 respectively :—(a) Spirulea Péron & Lesueur, 1807 (an Invalid Emendation of Spirula Lamarck, 1799); (b) Spirulaea Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1845 (an Invalid Emendation of Spirula Lamarck, 1799) ; (c) Lituina Link, 1807 (a junior objective synonym of Spirula Lamarck, 1799); (d) Spirulaea Oken, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Spirula Lamarck, 1799) ; (e) Spirulaeus Duméril, 1806 (a junior objective synonym of Spirula Lamarck, 1799). (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 87 :—/ragilis Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Spirula fragilis (a junior objective synonym of spirula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Nautilus spirula). JAN 19 40Rc 84 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS L._THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 22nd March 1949, Mr. R. Winckworth (London) submitted to the Commission the following application for the addition of the generic name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (Class Cephalopoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Application for the addition of the name ‘‘ Spirula ’’ Lamarck, 1799 (Class Cephalopoda) to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ and matters incidental thereto By R. WINCKWORTH (London) 1. Application is hereby made for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 80) (gender of name : feminine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. ‘The only species then placed in this genus by Lamarck was Nautilus spirula Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 710), which is therefore the type species by monotypy. 2. Apart from the use of the spelling Spirulea by Péron and Lesueur in 1807 (Voy. Aust., Atlas 1 : pl. xxx) and by Oken in 1815 (Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3(1) : 333) and the emendation of that spelling to Spirulaea by Agassiz (L.) in 1845 (Nomencl. zool. (Moll.)), and the use for this genus of the name Lituus Cuvier, 1817 (Régn. anim. 2 : 369), by Gray in 1849 in a catalogue, the entire literature since the time of Lamarck refers to this genus under the name Spirula. The variants Spirulea and Spirulaea should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names at the same time that the name Spirula Lamarck is placed on the Official List. 3. The trivial name spirula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Nautilus spirula, is the oldest available name for the type species of Spirula Lamarck and should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names at the same time that the name Spirula Lamarck is placed on the Official List of Generic Names. In 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 102) Lamarck renamed this species Spirula fragilis; the invalid trivial name fragilis Lamarck, 1801, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Mr. Winckworth’s application, the question of the addition of the generic name Spirula Lamarck, 1799, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)416. OPINION 315 85 3. Publication of the present application: At the time of the receipt of Mr. Winckworth’s application the resources of the Commission were wholly devoted to the preparation and pub- lication of the Official Records of the Session held by the Commission in Paris in 1948 and it was not until the autumn of 1950 that it was possible to resume arrangements for the pub- lication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of applications relating to individual nomenclatorial problems. Mr. Winckworth’s application was sent to the printer in March 1951 and was published on 15th August 1951 in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin (Winckworth, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 298). The publication of this application elicited no objection to the action proposed. 4. Support received from Mr. Leslie Bairstow (British Museum (Natural History), London): On 29th March 1952 Mr. Leslie Bairstow (British Museum (Natural History), London) addressed to the Commission the following letter in support of the present application :— 1. If it is not too late, I should like to support Mr. R. Winckworth’s application (which has only recently come to my notice) for the addition of the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 2. Spirula is one of the genera the nomenclature of which I have had occasion to investigate for the section on dibranchiate cephalopods for the international Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. The conclusions that I have reached independently agree to a large extent with those of Mr. Winckworth, and only a few points call for comment. (a) L. Agassiz, 1845, was by no means the first author to introduce the generic name Spirulaea. This name had already been applied to Spirula by Oken, 1835 (Allgemeine Naturgeschichte 5(1) : 531), who had referred to the genus only the single nominal species Nautilus spirula. By monotypy, therefore, this species is type species of Spirulaea Oken, 1835, which is thus an objective synonym of Spirula Lamarck, 1799. Furhermore, however, Spirulaea Oken, 1835, is an absolute homonym of Spirulaea Bronn, 1828 (Taschenb. Min. 21(2) [Z. Min. 1827] : 544), which is either an annelid or a vermetid gastropod ; whilst under the revised Article 34, Spirulaea Bronn, 1828, is itself an effective homonym of Spirulea Péron and Lesueur, 1807.1 1This statement was correct at the time when it was written, but at Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology amended Article 34 to provide that: ““A generic name is not to be treated as a homonym of another such name if it differs from it in spelling by even one letter.”’ (1953, Copenhagen Decisions Zool. Nomencl. : 78, Decision 152). 86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) It is true that almost the entire literature since Lamarck, 1799, refers to the genus Spirula by that name, but Mr. Winckworth’s list of exceptions was by no means complete. In particular it should be noted that among the synonyms of Spirula are Spirularius, Lituina and Spirulites. 3. Spirularius Dumeéril, 1806 (Zoologie analytique : 157) was estab- lished with no nominal species distinctly referred to it, but in a trans- lation with additions published later in the same year by L. F. Froriep, 1806 (C. Duméril’s . . . Analytische Zoologie : 157) Nautilus spirula L. was quoted as sole example of Spirularius, and this species, as the first nominal species subsequently referred to Spirularius, is automatically its type species. Spirularius Duméril, 1806, is thus an objective synonym of Spirula Lamarck, 1799. 4. Lituina Link, 1807 (Beschreibung der Naturalien-Sammlung der Universitat zu Rostock. Abt. 2 : 84) was established with a single species L. spirula = Nautilus spirula Linnaeus, which is therefore type species by monotypy. Lituina Link, 1807, is thus an objective synonym of Spirula Lamarck, 1799. 5. Spirulites Parkinson, 1811 (Organic Remains of a Former World 3 : 110) was established for fossil shells of the genus Spirula Lamarck, and is thus an objective synonym of Spirula Lamarck, 1799, even though applied by.Parkinson to specimens, not specifically named, that would not now be regarded as falling within the limits of Spirula. 6. The names Spirularius, Lituina and Spirulites, as well as Spirulea and Spirulaea, should be put on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names at the same time that the name Spirula Lamarck is put on the Official List. I1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(82)35 : On 9th May 1952, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, issued a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)35) to the Members of the Commission in regard to the present applica- tion. In doing so, Mr. Hemming added a note that Mr. Winck- worth, the applicant in this case, had unfortunately died before having had an opportunity to formalise his application in a form convenient for the Commission to vote upon it, and that, to remedy this defect, he (Mr. Hemming) had prepared the required summary which he had caused to be typed at the foot of the OPINION 315 87 Voting Paper then issued. In that Voting Paper the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘ the proposal relating to the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799, submitted by the late Mr. R. Winckworth, as summarised at the foot of the present Voting Paper in the light of the application published on page 298 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature”’. The following is the summary referred to above :— Summary of Mr. Winckworth’s proposal in the present case : The International Commission is asked :— (1) to place the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Nautilus spirula Linnaeus, 1758), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the trivial name spirula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Nautilus spirula, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following objectively invalid spelling variants of the name Spirula Lamarck : (a) Spirulea Péron and Lesueur, 1807 ; (b) Spirulaea Agissiz (L.), 1845 ; (4) to place the trivial name fragilis Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Spirula fragilis, an objective junior synonym of spirula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Nautilus spirula, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 6. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August, 1952. 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)35 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)35 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hank6é ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Bradley; Boschma; Pearson ; Hemming ; Esaki; Lemche ; Mertens ; Stoll ; Cabrera; 88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None ; _ (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 10th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)35, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 7 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 9. Addition to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ of three junior objective synonyms of “¢ Spirula *’ Lamarck, 1799 : On 29th March 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed the following Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 416 :— *¢ Spirula ’’ Lamarck, 1799: addition of three junior objective synonyms to the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) I regret that through an oversight the recommendations submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(52)35 referred only to the proposals submitted by the late Mr. Winckworth and did not take account of the communica- tion received from Mr. Leslie Bairstow drawing attention to the existence of other junior objective synonyms of the generic name Spirula Lamarck, 1799. In view of the decision taken by the Com- mission on the foregoing Voting Paper these names must, under the General Directive given to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology, now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 2. I accordingly hereby direct that in the Ruling to be given in pursuance of the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(52)35 the following additional names, each of which is a junior OPINION 315 89 objective synonym of the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Spirularius Duméril, 1806 ; (b) Lituina Link, 1807; (c) Spirulaea Oken, 1815. As regards the last of the names mentioned by Mr. Bairstow, namely Spirulites Parkinson, 1811, the position is that, although established to represent a concept regarded by Parkinson as identical with that represented by Spirula Lamarck, the nominal genus Spirulites Parkinson, 1811, was expressly established for the reception of Fossil species of Lamarck’s genus Spirula, and there is no clear evidence that its type species is the same nominal species as that which is the type species of Spirula Lamarck, 1799. I therefore consider that at this time the name Spirulites Parkinson, 1811, should not be placed on the Official Index and I accordingly direct that it be not added thereto. 10. On 29th March 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commis- sion in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)35, subject to the amplification specified in the Minute by the Secretary dated 29th March 1954 reproduced in paragraph 9 of the present Opinion. 11. The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— fragilis, Spirula, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 102 Lituina Link, Beschr. Natur.-Samml. Univ. Rostock (2) : 84 Spirula Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 80 spirula, Nautilus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 710 Spirulaea Oken, 1815, Allgem. Naturgesch. 5(1) : 531 Spirulaea Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1845, Nomencl. zool. (Moll.) : 84 Spirulaeus Duméril, 1806, Zool. analyt. : 157 Spirulea Péron & Lesueur, 1807, Voy. Aust., Atlas 1 : pl. xxx 12. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, 90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 75 has been allotted. 13. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial”? appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 14. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Fifteen (315) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Ninth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcaLre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 5. Pp. 91—106 OPINION 316 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the Tavola alfabetica delle Conchiglei Adriatiche and Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi of S. A. Renier commonly attributed to the year 1804 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Seven Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Na ————————————————— | Issued 17th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 316 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) ({st January! 947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 Riey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEwsKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). —S—s - OPINION 316 REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF THE “TAVOLA ALFABETICA DELLE CONCHIGLEI ADRIATICHE ” AND ‘‘ PROSPETTO DELLA CLASSE DEI VERMI” OF S. A. RENIER COMMONLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE YEAR 1804 RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled that neither (a) the Tavola alfabetica delle Conchiglei Adriatiche of Renier (S.A.) nor (b) that author’s Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi, each of which is commonly attributed to the year 1804, was duly 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 either of the foregoing works. (2) The two works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under (1) above are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Works Nos. 24 and 25 respectively. (3) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 761: WNerinella Sharpe, 1850 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Cossmann (1896) : Nerinea dupiniana d’Orbigny, 1843). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 170 and 171 :—_(a) Nerinella Nardo, 1847 (a name published without an “‘indication”’); (b) Nerinoides Wenz, 1940 (a junior objective synonym of Nerinella Sharpe, 1850). 94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (5) The under-mentioned name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 194 :—dupiniana @Orbigny, 1843, as published in the combination Nerinea dupiniana (specific name of type species of Nerinella Sharpe, 1850). (6) The under-mentioned specific names or reputed specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 88 and 89 respectively :—(a)- chermesina Renier (erroneously alleged to have appeared in 1804 in the combination Amphinome chermesina in a work rejected, under (1) above, for nomenclatorial purposes) (a cheironym); (b) coccinea Renier (included in the combination Amphinome coccinea in a work reputed to have been prepared in 1804 rejected, under (1) above, for nomenclatorial purposes). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 8th November 1949 Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) submitted the following application for a ruling that the works by Renier (S.A.) entitled respectively the Tavola alfabetica delle Conchiglei Adriatiche (i.e., the work referred _to by Dr. Cox as the “* Prodromo’’)' and the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi reputed to have been prepared in the year 1804 1 See paragraph 15 below. OPINION 316 ai 95 had not been duly published for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles :— Application for a Ruling that the ‘‘ Prodromo ”’ of S. A. Renier and the ** Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi’’ (dated 1804) prepared for inclusion in the ‘‘ Prodromo ’’ were not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the ‘‘ Régles ”’ By L. .R..COX, Sc.D.,. F.R.S. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London) 1. The object of the present application is to secure from the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a ruling that the Prodromo of S. A. Renier and the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi (dated 1804) prepared by that author for inclusion in the Prodromo were never published within the meaning of Article 25 (as clarified by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948—see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 215—221). 2. The immediate cause of this application is the proposition by Wenz (W.) (1940, Handb. Paldozool., Gastropoda : 824) of the new generic name Nerinoides to replace the name Nerinella Sharpe, 1850 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 6 : 103), on the ground that that name is an invalid junior homonym of Nerinella Nardo, 1847 (Prospetto Faun. marin. volg. Veneto Estuario : 13), a name assumed by Wenz to possess rights under the Law of Priority. 3. Nardo (1847) gave no diagnosis for his Nerinella, to which he referred a single species only, namely Amphinome chermesina Renier, which he described as “un piccolo annelide’’. If in fact Renier had ever published the foregoing specific name with an indication, definition or description, the generic name Nerinella Nardo, 1847, would have been an available name, for the genus so named would have been monotypical and the name would therefore have satisfied the require- ments of Proviso (a) to Article 25—up to 1948, as defined by Opinion 1 and since that date, under the clarification of the foregoing Proviso adopted by the International Congress of Zoology (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80). 4. The name “ Amphinome chermesina Renier’’ rests, however, solely upon its having been included in the work cited by Nardo as the ** Prodromo, 1804’ of Renier, no reference of a more detailed kind being given by Nardo. Renier’s Prodromo appears to have been a work contemplated but never published. All that can be traced of it consists of printed copies, in single folio sheets, of two of its proposed 96 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Sections. These Sections are entitled respectively Tavola Alfabetica delle Conchiglie Adriatiche and Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi. Both are believed to have been printed in 1804. The copies traced are preserved in the Library of the University of Padua and appear to be the only original ones in existence. It is uncertain whether they are page-proofs or copies printed for circulation among _ students. Reduced photographic reproductions of these sheets, kindly furnished by the University Authorities for use by C. D. Sherborn, when pre- paring his Index Animalium, are in the British Museum (Natural History). The term ‘“‘ Amfinome chermesina ’”’ appears as a vernacular name (being rendered into Latin as Amphinome coccinea) on page xviii of the second of the Sections described above. 5. It is submitted that the existence of these unique fragments of a work contemplated but never published cannot be held to establish that even these fragments were ever “ published ’”’ within the meaning of that expression as used in Article 25, as clarified by the Paris Congress. The difficulties which have arisen in the present case through the lack of an authoritative ruling on this subject—and the risk that similar difficulties may arise in connection with other names—can only be removed when an Opinion on this subject is rendered by the International Commission. 6. If, as I conclude from the evidence summarised above, there existed in 1847 no specific name Amphinome chermesina that had been validly published with an indication, definition or description, the name Nerinella Nardo, 1847, is invalid, since that name depends for availability entirely upon the indication (if any) provided by the citation of the foregoing specific name. It must be concluded therefore that, contrary to the view advanced by Wenz (1940), the name Nerinella Sharpe, 1850, is an available name, so far as the Law of Homonymy is concerned. It is also an available name from the point of view of the Law of Priority, it being the oldest available generic name for Nerinea dupininana d’Orbigny, 1843 (Paléontolog. frang., Crét. 2 (Gastropod.) : 81), the type species of Nerinella Sharpe, by selection by Cossmann, 1896 (Ess. Paélontolog. comp. 2 : 36). The trivial name dupiniana d’Orbigny, 1843, is the oldest available name for the type species of this genus. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked :— (1) to declare, for the purpose of the removal of doubts, that neither the Prodromo of Renier (S.A.) nor the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi intended for inclusion therein was published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles and therefore that no OPINION 316 97 name acquired any status in zoological nomenclature by reason of having appeared in either of the foregoing works ; (2) to place the generic name Nerinella Sharpe, 1850 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by selection by Cossmann, 1896 : Nerinea dupiniana d’Orbigny, 1843) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the generic name Nerinella Nardo, 1847 (an invalid name because not published within the meaning of the Régles) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the trivial name dupiniana d’Orbigny, 1843, as published in the binominal combination Nerinea dupiniana, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following reputed or invalid trivial names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) the trivial name chermesina Renier (erroneously alleged to have appeared in 1804 in the combination Amphinome chermesina in a work by Renier (S.A.), which itself was not duly published as required by the Régles) (a cheironym) ; (b) the trivial name coccinea Renier (included in the com- bination Amphinome coccinea in a work dated 1804 which was not duly published as required by the Régles). Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Cox’s application, the problem of whether the so-called Prodromo of Renier as a whole or either of the component sections commonly known respectively as the Tavola alfabetica and the Prospetto satisfied the requirements in regard to “ publication ” prescribed in Article 25 of the Régles was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)432. 98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Support received from Mr. R. Winckworth (London) prior to the publication of the present application : On 10th November 1949 Mr. R. Winckworth (London) wrote the following letter in support of the present application :— I want to thank you for your letter of 2nd November about Cox’s application that the International Commission should give a ruling that S. A. Renier’s Prodromo? and the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi was not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles, and to say that I entirely concur with the proposals submitted. 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion and Mr. Winckworth’s letter of support were sent to the printer in March 1951 and were published on 15th August 1951 in Double-Part 9/10 and on 28th September 1951 in Part 11 respectively of Volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Cox, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 299—300 ; Winck- worth, 1951, ibid. 2 : 312). 5. Support received after publication : The publication of Dr. Cox’s application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature elicited support from the following specialists :—(a) The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America ; (b) Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Department of Geology, Stanford, California, U.S.A.). 6. Support received from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America : On 9th April 1952 there was received a number of letters relating to cases already published in the Bulletin from Professor G. Winston Sinclair (then of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. Included among these was the following letter, dated 18th February 1952, reporting the support of the present application by the Joint Committee :— - The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America has considered this subject, and I wish to inform you See paragraph 15 below. OPINION 316 | 99 that, being polled, they voted: To support the petition (eleven) :— (1) Katherine V. W. Palmer ; (2) Don L. Frizzell ; (3) Bobb Schaeffer ; (4) Siemon W. Muller; (5) Bryan Patterson; (6) A. Myra Keen ; (7) J. Marvin Weller ; (8) John B. Reeside, Jr. ; (9) John W. Wells ; (10) R. C. Moore ; (11) G. Winston Sinclair. To oppose the petition, HOME. ~ > 7. Support received from Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Department of Geology, Stanford, California, U.S.A.): On 9th June 1952 Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Department of Geology, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) addressed to the Com- mission the following letter in support of the present application (Keen, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 312) :— - I strongly support the proposal by Dr. L. R. Cox, that the works credited to Renier, 1804, be rejected. One wonders why any of these tabular summaries should have been considered published. Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)36: On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)36) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the nomenclatorial status of Renier’s. Prodromo® and Prospetto, as set out in Points (1) to (5) in para- graph 7 on page 300 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e., in paragraph 7 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the current Opinion]. 8 See paragraph 15 below. 100 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)36 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)36 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Bradley; Pearson; Hemming ; Esaki; Lemche; Stoll; Cabrera; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 10th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)36, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 10 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 12. At its meeting held at Copenhagen in August 1953, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology decided to insert a provision in the Régles establishing an “ Official List” to be styled the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and of a corresponding Official Index OPINION 316 101 of Rejected and Invalid Works of Zoological Nomenclature (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23—24). At the same time the Congress directed the insertion in the foregoing List of the title of any work which the International Commission might either validate under its Plenary Powers or declare to be an available work, and the insertion in the foregoing Index of the title of any work which the Commission might either reject under the foregoing powers or declare to be unavailable for nomen- clatorial purposes. Since the foregoing decisions apply to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International Commission in cases of this kind, the opportunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record the insertion in the foregoing Official Index of the titles of the works by Renier rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 13. At the same time the occasion has been taken to rectify another minor omission. ‘This is concerned with the name Nerinoides Wenz, 1940, which, as shown in Dr. Cox’s application, is a junior objective synonym of the name Nervinella Sharpe, 1850, which has been accepted in the present Opinion as being an available name. In accordance with the rule that the Commission should deal with all aspects of any problem submitted to it and should place on the appropriate Official Index any name which it rules to be objectively invalid or otherwise unavailable, the name Nerinoides Wenz, 1940, has been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 14. When Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, was engaged in the preparation of the customary list of original references for names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion, he noted that Sherborn (1925, Index Anim., Pars secund. (6) : 1376) attributed the name Amphinome coccinea not to the Prospetto (the work cited in Dr. Cox’s application) but to the Tavole, a title normally used to denote another of the fragments of the work projected by Renier. It was clearly important definitely to establish whether the foregoing name had been published in the Prospetto for, if it had not, it could not appropriately be dealt in the present Opinion and would 102 OPINIONS. AND DECLARATIONS need to be reserved for consideration in connection with an application received from Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Department of Geology, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) for a Ruling that the Tavole, as well as the Tavola alfabetica and the Prospetto of Renier, was not available for nomenclatorial purposes*. Knowing that Dr. Sherborn had obtained a photostat copy of the Tavola alfabetica and Prospetto from the University of Padua, Mr. Hemming asked Dr. Cox to investigate this matter further. The following is the reply (dated Sth April 1954) received from Dr. Cox :— Renier’s ‘‘ Prodromo ”’ ; ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 316 Thank you for your letter of the 3rd inst., which has led me to look up Renier’s works again. According to the Bibliography in Sherborn’s Index Animalium, Renier proposed to publish a work the title of which Sherborn unfortunately abbreviates to “‘ Prodr. osserv. Venezia ”’, but he actually produced only three sections, the first two respectively headed Tavola alfabetica delle conchiglie Adriatiche (pages numbered v—xii) and Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi (pages numbered xv—xxvi) and the last entitled (again according to Sherborn) Yavole per serv. conosc. classif. Anim. We have a photographic copy of everything lent to Sherborn, and there is no title page for the work as a whole and no heading or title page for the third item mentioned above. The titles given by Sherborn were from second-hand evidence, as were also the dates (1804 for the first two items and 1807 for the third), for there is no printed date anywhere. When I went into the matter I was led to doubt if the Tavole per serv. conosc. classif. Anim. were really intended to form part of the same work as the first two items, owing to the considerably larger size of the Tavole, and concluded that these two items were all that was ever printed of the projected Prodromo. When therefore, I drafted my application to the International Commission I wanted a ruling that neither the Prodromo as a whole nor either of its extant sections considered separately was ever published, but for some reason or other I mentioned one of these sections (the Prospetto), but not the other (the Tavola alfabetica conch. Adriatiche). Page xviil of the Prodromo is in section 2 (the Prospetto), so that Sherborn’s reference is definitely wrong. 15. Date to be attributed to Renier’s works and title of the first of those works : On the receipt of Dr. Cox’s letter of 5th April * Dr. Myra Keen’s application, which bears the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 688, was received at a considerably later date than the application dealt with in the present Opinion. It was published on 22nd October 1954 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 257—262). - OPINION 316° ~ 103 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed the following Minute regarding the dates to be attributed to the Renier fragments and on the title of the first of those fragments on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.)432 concerning the present case :— On the date of the works by Renier (S.A.) dealt with in Dr. L. R. Cox’s application and on the title of the first of those works Minute by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological-Nomenclature) Dr. Cox’s letter of 5th April 1954 clearly shows that the surviving fragments of Renier’s projected work do not bear any dates and therefore that the dates commonly assigned to those fragments are attributed dates based upon conclusions drawn from sources other than the fragments themselves. Accordingly, under the provisions adopted by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the dates assigned to these fragments need to be cited in square brackets (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 225—226). 2. Dr. Cox’s letter also brings to notice a further matter which requires to be considered in connection with the preparation of the Opinion embodying the Commission’s decision on his application. This is concerned with the title to be assigned to the first of the fragments of Renier’s work, namely that referred to as the “ Prodromo”’ by Dr. Cox in his application. It is clear from Dr. Cox’s letter—and the information so furnished is supplemented by the fuller particulars given in the British Museum Catalogue (1913, Cat. Books Manuscr. Maps Drawings Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) (4) : 1680)—(a) that none of the Renier fragments bears the title ““ Prodromo’’, (b) that this title must have been derived from some outside source, (c) that the first of the two fragments commonly attributed to the year “ 1804’’, namely that referred to in Dr. Cox’s application under the term “ Prodromo”’, in fact, bears only the title Tavola alfabetica delle Conchiglie Adriatiche. In these circumstances it will be necessary to amend the title of this fragment from “‘ Prodromo”’ to the foregoing form in the Opinion dealing with this case. 16. On 6th April 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a 104 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Com- mission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)36, as supplemented by the action prescribed by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, as specified in paragraph 12 above and as adjusted in paragraphs 13 to 15 above. 17. The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— chermesina, Amphinome, Renier, [1804], Prospetto: xviii (a cheironym consisting of .a vernacular and not a scientific term, used, moreover, in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Ruling (1) in the present Opinion) coccinea, Amphinome, Renier, [1804], Prospetto: xviii (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Ruling (1) in the present Opinion) dupiniana, Nerinea, d’Orbigny, 1843, Paléontolog. frang., Creét. 2 (Gastropod.) : 81 Nerinella Nardo, 1847, Prospetto Faun. marin. volg. Veneto Estuario : 13 (a nomen nudum, being based upon the cheironym Amphinome chermesina Renier, [1804]) Nerinella Sharpe, 1850, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 6 : 103 Nerinoides Wenz, 1940, Handb. Paldozool., Gastropoda : 824 18. The reference for the selection of a type species for Nerinella Sharpe, 1850, referred to in the Ruling given in the present Opinion is :—Cossmann, 1896, Ess. Paléontolog. comp. 2 : 36. 19. The nominal genus Nerinella Sharpe, 1850, is not the type genus of a family-group taxon and accordingly no question ~ arises in the present case of placing any name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 20. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present _ Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for OPINION 316 105 recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial “‘ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name ”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 21. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 22. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Sixteen (316) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Seventh day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING ee Printed in England by Metcarre & Coorer Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C..G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 6. Pp. 107—118 OPINION 317 Addition of the name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Five Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 17th December, 1954. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 317 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (\st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscuHmMa (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning Lemcue (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 Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEwSKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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, Germazy) (5th July 1950). OPINION 317 ADDITION OF THE NAME ‘“ CERCOPIS ”? FABRICIUS, 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) TO THE ‘° OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 762 :—Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810) : Cicada sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763). (2) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 195 :—sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Cicada sanguinolenta (specific name of type species of Cercopis Fabricius, 1775). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE Following upon correspondence between Professor Z. P. Metcalf (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A), Mr. Francis Hemming (Secretary to the ~ Commission) and Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London), Herr W. Wagner (Hamburg, Germany) on 30th January 1950 submitted to the Commission the following application for the addition of the generic name Cercopis 110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Proposed addition of ‘*‘ Cercopis ’’ Fabricius, 1775, and ‘‘ sanguino- lenta ’? Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binominal combination ‘* Cicada sanguinolenta ’’, te the Official Lists of Generic Names and Specific Trivial Names in Zoology respectively By WILHELM WAGNER (Hamburg-Fuhlsbiittel) 1. The genus Cercopis (belonging to the Homoptera Auchenor- rhyncha) was established by Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 688). The name was published in accordance with the Régles. It was accom- panied by a diagnosis, but Fabricius did not designate a type species. However, since the name was published before Ist January 1931, it is not invalidated by this omission. The name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, is not a homonyn of any previously published generic name. 2. Fabricius included nine species in this genus, which alone, according to Rule (g) in Article 30, are eligible for selection as the type species of the genus. Four different species have been cited as type species of this genus in the literature, and even in the most recent literature there appears to be confusion as to the validity of these type selections. A list of references is given in the Appendix to this paper to selections or reputed selections of a type species for the genus Cercopis Fabricius, which has been kindly furnished by Professor Z. P. Metcalf (in Jitt.). 3. The first type selection which was strictly in accordance with the Régles was that by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén, Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434). Opinions 11 and 136 declared that type selections made in this work in the case of all genera, for which one species only was cited, were to be accepted as valid. The only species cited in the case of the genus Cercopis was “ sanguinolenta Fab’, i.e., Cercopis sanguinolenta Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. - 688) ; this, as the reference given given by Fabricius shows, was not a new name published by Fabricius, but was the same as Cicada sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763 (Faun. carn. : 112). 4. Since the validity of this type selection is beyond question, it is not necessary here to examine further the more recent references. It should be noted that in the two earlier references cited in the Appendix (namely, Latreille, 1802, and Froriep, 1806) the species C. spumaria Fabricius was cited but only as an example of the genus, not specifically as its type species. Consequently, this species cannot be regarded as the type species by subsequent selection in accordance with Rule (g) in Article 30. The type species must therefore be accepted as Delle Cicada sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763. OPINION 317 111 5. Since, however, a number of different type species have been accepted for the genus Cercopis in the literature, various nomenclatorial difficulties have arisen. 6. Cercopis spumaria Linnaeus and Cercopis sanguinolenta Scopoli are now regarded as belonging to different genera. Hence the nomen- clature of both the genera concerned is insecure. In the case of the first (based on C. spumaria) it fluctuates between Cercopis Fabricius and Aphrophora Germar, 1821, and in the case of the second (based on C. sanguinolenta) it fluctuates between Cercopis Fabricius and Triecphora Amyot et Serville, 1843. Both genera include relatively large and prominent species, which for the most part are very widespread in the palaearctic region, and the names of which in consequence, occur frequently in textbooks and in popular literature. The first genus is represented by more than 40 species in the palaearctic region, and the second by more than 10. Stabilisation is therefore highly necessary, in view of the frequent use of these names. 7. The name Cercopis has formed the base of the family name CERCOPIDAE and the sub-family name CERCOPINAE. But Cercopis spumaria and Cercopis sanguinolenta belong to two different sub-families. Thus, so long as there is no certainty as to which is the type species of Cercopis, the application of the name of the sub-family must also remain uncertain. The two above-mentioned sub-families have been treated in the most recent literature as separate families. As a result, the uncertainty extends also to the use of the family name CERCOPIDAE. This is another reason why the stabilisation of the use of the name Cercopis is urgently necessary. 8. In view of the importance of the generic name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, which forms the basis for the family name CERCOPIDAE, I regard it as of great importance that the application of this name should be stabilised in accordance with the requirements of the Régles Inter- nationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. 1, therefore, request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 688) type species, by subsequent selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434): Cicada sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carn. : 112) (gender of generic name : feminine). (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binominal combination Cicada sanguinolenta. PAD 48 0 «aan 112 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Appendix Particulars of type selections and alleged type selections made for the genus Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 (Based upon material furnished by Professor Z. P. Metcalf.) Date of publica-| Author who selected or who is | Species selected or alleged tion containing | alleged to have selected a type to have been selected by a selection or species for Cercopis Fabricius, the author, and in the alleged selec- 1775. work specified in Col. tion of a type (2). species for Cercopis Fabri- cius, 1775. (1) (2) (3) 1802 LATREILLE Histoire naturelle || C. spumaria Fabricius. generale et particuliére des Crus- tacés et des Insectes 3 : 260. 1806 ~*~ | FRORIEP, L. F. C. Duméril’s. | C. spumaria Fabricius. Doctors und Professors an der Medicinischen Schule zu Paris, Analytische Zoologie. Weimar, Landes Industrie-Comptoir : 267. 1810 LATREILLE Considérations | C. sanguinolenta Fabricius. générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux... Paris, Schoell : 434. 1833 CURTIS British Entomology 10: | C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus. 461. 1840 WESTWOOD Synopsis of the | C. vulnerata Rossi. genera of British insects 2 : 116. 1844 BLANCHARD Dictionnaire | C. sanguinolenta Fabricius. universal d’histoire naturelle... 3: 296: 1862 CURTIS British Entomology : | C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus. 461. 1869 STAL Hemiptera Fabriciana : 11. | C. carnifex Fabricius. 1900 KIRKALDY “On the nomen- | C. snumaria Linnaeus. clature of the Rhynchota, Heter- optera and Auchenorrhynchous Homoptera ”. Entomologist 33 : Di. Date of publica- tion containing a selection or alleged selec- tion of a type species for Cercopis Fabri- cius, 1775. (1) 1900 1906 1906 1910 1912 1912 1921 1921 1929 1933 1934 1935 OPINION 317 Author who selected or who is alleged to have selected a type species for Cercopis Fabricius, TSE (2) KIRKALDY “On the nomen- clature of the genera of the Rhynchota ”’. Entomologist 33 : 263. KIRKALDY “ Leafhoppers and their natural enemies”. Bull. Hawaiian Sugar Pl. Assoc. Div. Ent. 1 : 379, 380. KIRKALDY “ Leafhoppers and their natural enemies’. Bull. Hawaiian Sugar PI. Assoc. Div. Ent. 1 : 379. SCHMIDT “Neue Gattungen und Arten der Subfamilie Cer- copinae...”’ Arch. Nat. 76: 103. LALLEMAND “‘ Cercopidae ”’. Gen. Ins. 143 : 58. VAN DUZEE “Hemipterological gleanings’’. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. 10 : 507. JACOBI “ Kritische Bemerkun- gen tiber die Cercopidae ”’. Arch. Nat. 87 : 5, 7. JACOBI Ibid. : 47. HAUPT “‘ Neueinteilung der Homoptera Cicadina...”’ Zool. Jahrb. Syst. Oek. 58 : 222. NAST “ Beitrage zur Morpho- logie und geographischen Ver- breitung der mitteleuropaischen und mediterranen Arten aus der Sub-familie Cercopinae”’. Ann. Mus. Zool. Polonici 10 : 7—13. METCALF and HORTON “ The Cercopoidea of China”. Ling- nam Sci J. 13 : 417. HAUPT Die Tierwelt Mitteleuro- pas 4: 154. 113 Species selected or alleged to have been selected by the author, and in the work specified in Col. (2). (3) C. Spumante Linnaeus. C. spumaria Linnaeus. C. carnifex Fabricius. C. carnifex Fabricius. C. spumaria Fabricius. C. carnifex Fabricius. C. spumaria Linnaeus. C. carnifex Fabricius. C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus. C. sanguinolenta Scopoli. C. spumaria Linnaeus. C. sanguinolenta Scopoli. 114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Herr Wagner’s application, the question of the addition of the name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)441. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer in December 1950 and was published on 15th August 1951 in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Wagner, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 301—304). 4. No objections received : The publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature elicited no objection to the action proposed. II1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)37: On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)37) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the name Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, as specified in Points (1) and (2) on page 302 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature’’ {i.e., 1n the Points so numbered in paragraph 8 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 6. The Prescribed Voting Period. As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. OPINION 317 115 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)37 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)37 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Hemming; Bradley ; Esau Wemche = Stolle) Cabrera, ;Boschma ° (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 11th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)37, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 7 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 9. On 7th April 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)37. 116 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 688 sanguinolenta, Cicada, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carn. : 112 11. The following is the reference for the selection of a type species for Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, referred to in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :—Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434, 264. 12. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.)75 has been allotted. 13. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. OPINION 317 Li 7 14. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Seventeen (317) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Seventh day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 8. Pp. 119—130 OPINION 318 Addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology of the names for three nominal genera and for fourteen nominal species of the Class Pelecypoda included in a paper by La Rocque (A.) distributed in : microfilm in 1948 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Five Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 17th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 318 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. VoKes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (Ast January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEeMcuHE (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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (A5th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950). OPINION 318 ADDITION TO THE ‘* OFFICIAL INDEXES OF REJECTED AND INVALID NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE NAMES FOR THREE NOMINAL GENERA AND FOR FOUR- TEEN NOMINAL SPECIES OF THE CLASS PELE- CYPODA INCLUDED IN A PAPER BY LA ROCQUE (A.) DISTRIBUTED IN MICROFILM IN 1948 RULING :—(1) (a) The new names proposed for three nominal genera and for fourteen nominal species in the Class Pelecypoda described in a paper by La Rocque (A.) entitled “‘ Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michi- gan ”’ possess no availability under the Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy as from the date in 1948 when the above paper in typescript form was distributed in microfilm under the heading “ University Microfilms Publication 1059’. (b) The names referred to in (a) above acquired the status of availability in zoological nomenclature only as from the date in 1950 when the foregoing paper by La Rocque was validly published in Section 10 of Volume 7 of the serial publication entitled Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. (2) The under-mentioned generic names included in the paper specified in (1)(a) above and as there rejected for nomenclatorial purposes are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 172 to 174 respectively :—(a) Diodontopteria La Rocque, 1948; (b) Liromytilus La Rocque, 1948 ; (c) Phenacocyclas La Rocque, 1948. (3) The under-mentioned specific names included in the paper specified in (1)(a) above and as there rejected for nomenclatorial purposes are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 90 to 103 respectively :—(a) calli- otis La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Actinopterella calliotis ; (b) coralliophila La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Panenka coralliophila ; (c) ehlersi La Rocque FAS FT 9. ear 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1948, in the combination Diodontopteria ehlersi; (d) furcistria La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Lepto- desma furcistria ; (e) kellumi La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Diodontopteria kellumi; (f) macrotis La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Cornellites macrotis ; (g) michiganensis La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Follmannella michiganensis ; (h) migrans La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Limoptera migrans ; (1) nucella La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Goniophora nucella ; (j) peninsularis La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Actinopterella peninsularis ; (ik) peninsularis La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Leiopteria peninsularis; (1) peninsularis La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Soleno- morpha peninsularis ; (m) pohli La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Phenacocyclas pohli; (n) sibleyense La Rocque, 1948, in the combination Conocardium sibleyense. J.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 6th February 1951, Professor G. Winston Sinclair (for the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America) and Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (for the Nomen- clature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology) addressed a joint letter to the International Commission, in which, on behalf of the bodies which they respectively represented, they (1) asked for a ruling that the distribution of a paper in the form of a microfilm does not constitute “ publication” for the purposes of the Régles, and (2) cited, as an example of the practice against which they asked for a Ruling, the case presented by a paper by La Rocque (A.) containing the names of three new nominal genera, and of fourteen new nominal species, of the Class Pelecypoda which had been distributed in the form of a microfilm in 1948 but which had not appeared in printed form until 1950. The following is an extract from the foregoing application of the passage relating to the foregoing paper :— eee ee we woe we eo ee oe wee ee ew 1. In 1948 a paper entitled “‘ Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan ”’; by Auréle La Rocque, was offered for sale as ““ University OPINION 318 123 Microfilms Publication 1059”, consisting of a microfilm copy of a typescript and accompanying plates of photographs. This offering was advertised to an extensive mailing-list of libraries and others, and the paper has been available to the public in this form since 1948. 2. In 1950 the same paper was issued in printed form as: Contribu- tions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Volume 7, No. 10 (pp. 271—366, 19 plates). 3. In this paper (in both forms) are described three new genera and fourteen new species of pelecypods. 4. We ask the Commission to rule that the names of these new taxonomic units are to be ignored until their appearance in printed form in 1950. ee ee ee © © © ew ew we ew ee eee eh ew ee Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt of the joint application by Professor Sinclair and Dr. Blackwelder, the problem whether the distribution of a paper in microfilm constitutes “‘ publication”’ for the purposes of the Régles was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 528. For the time being, the associated problem of the status of the new names for Pelecypod genera and species in the paper by La Rocque distributed in microfilm in 1948 was allotted the same Registered Number, but later, when the question of principle had been settled by the adoption of Declaration 13 (as explained in para- graph 6 below), the question of the status of the individual names included in La Rocque’s paper was re-registered as Z.N.(S.) 826. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer in April 1951, and was published on 28th September 1951 in Part 11 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Sinclair & Blackwelder, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 306—308). 4. Support for the proposal submitted : Support for the proposal submitted in this case was received from the under-mentioned 124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS groups of specialists and individual specialists. All the statements so received were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature either in 1951 in volume 2 or in 1952 in volume 6. The references to the places where these statements were so published are given in each case in the following list. The communications in question were, in addition, summarised in the Agenda pre- pared for the Copenhagen Meetings of the Commission and the Colloquium (1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 270—274). For these reasons these communications are not reprinted in full in the present Opinion. (1) E. H. Behre (Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton Rouge, U.S.A.) (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 310) (2) The Committee on Nomenclature of the American Museum of Natural History, New York (1951, ibid. 2 : 308) (Note: This communication was signed by: Mont A. Cazier ; Edwin H. Colbert ; Norman D. Newall; George H. H. Tate ; John T. Zimmerman (Chairman)) (3) The “* Zoological Record ’? Committee of the Zoological Society of London (1951, ibid. 2 : 311—312) (Note : This communica- tion\was approved at a meeting of the Committee attended by the following :—Sheffield A. Neave, C.M.G., O.B.E., D.Sc. (Chairman) ; William J. Hall, M.C., D.Sc. ; Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.; Sir Norman Kinnear, C.B.; Terence Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., M.Sc.; Malcolm Smith ; C. J. Stubblefield, D.Sc., F.R.S.; L. Harrison-Matthews, Sce.D. (Scientific Director and Deputy Secretary, Zoological - Society of London)) (4) Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Sencken- berg, Senckenberg-anlage, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (1952, ibid. 6 : 223). 5. Objections to the proposal submitted : The under-mentioned specialists expressed themselves as being in opposition to the proposal submitted. For reasons similar to those explained in the preceding paragraph, these communications are not reprinted in full in the present Opinion. (1) Charles H. Blake (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Depart- ment of Biology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 309) ; (2) Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 223). OPINION 318 125 III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 : On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)38) in regard to this case was issued to the Members of the Commission. Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137), questions relating to the interpretation of the Régles, when the subject of decisions by the International Commission, are no longer eligible for inclusion in the ‘“‘ Opinions ’’ Series, the Commission being required to render such decisions in the “ Declarations ”’ Series and to submit all Declarations so adopted to the next International Congress for approval. Accordingly, as the application submitted in the present case raised the individual case of the status of the names in the paper by La Rocque dis- tributed in microfilm in 1948, in addition to asking for a Ruling on the issue of principle involved in the question whether the distribution of papers in the foregoing manner constituted ‘‘ pub- lication’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles, it was decided to submit two proposals in the foregoing Voting Paper for consideration by the Commission. The first of these was concerned with the proposed adoption of a Declaration on the subject of the status of papers distributed in microfilm, the second with the proposed adoption of an Opinion on the particular problem of the status of the new names in the paper by La Rocque distributed in microfilm in 1948. The subsequent history of the portion of the Sinclair/Blackwelder proposal which was con- cerned with the question of the interpretation of Article 25 is given in the Commission’s Declaration 13 rendered simultaneously with the present Opinion.1 The following is the proposal relating to the names in the paper by La Rocque distributed in microfilm in 1948 which was submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 :— The new names proposed for three genera and fourteen species in the Class Pelecypoda described in a paper by Auréle La Rocque entitled *““Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan” possess no availability under the Law of Priority as from the date in 1948 when the above paper in typescript form was distributed in microfilm. The following three generic names so made known are hereby added to the 1 See pp. i—xii of the present volume. 126 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as being names possessing no status under either the Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy: [Here will be inserted the three generic names in question]. Similarly the following fourteen specific trivial names so made known are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology as being names possessing no status under either of the Laws specified above: [Here will be inserted the fourteen specific trivial names in question]. The above names acquired availability in zoological nomenclature only as from the date in 1950 when the foregoing paper by La Rocque was validly ~ published as Section 10 of Volume 7 of Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan. 7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. 8. Particulars of the Voting on the draft ‘* Opinion ”’ submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 : The state of the voting on the draft Opinion submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(52)38 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Hemming; Bradley ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Mertens ; Stoll ; Cabrera ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 11th August, 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as ~ OPINION 318 127. Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)38, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 8 above and declaring that the proposal for the adoption of the suggested Opinion submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 10. On 7th April 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on the draft Opinion submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(52)38. 11. The following are the numbers of the pages on which the under-mentioned names placed on the Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion appeared in the typescript version of the paper by La Rocque (A.) entitled “* Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan’ when distributed in micro- film in 1948 under the title University Microfilms Publication 1059 :— calliotis, Actinopterella, La Rocque, 1948, Univ. Microfilms Publ. 1059 : 22 (in microfilm) coralliophila, Panenka, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 118 Diodontopteria La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 36 ehlersi, Diodontopteria, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 39 furcistria, Leptodesma, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 33 kellumi, Diodontopteria, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 41 Liromytilus La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 51 macrotis, Cornellites, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 12 michiganensis, Follmanella, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 17 migrans, Limoptera, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 47 nucella, Goniophora, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 61 peninsularis, Actinopterella, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 21 peninsularis, Leiopteria, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 26 peninsularis, Solenomorpha, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 121 Phenacocyclas La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 89 pohli, Phenacocyclas, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 96 sibleyense, Conocardium, La Rocque, 1948, ibid. : 102 128 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’? appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “ trivial name ’’ and the corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisons zool. Nomencl.: 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 13. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Eighteen (318) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Eighth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINION 318 129 APPENDIX Note for purposes of record regarding the circumstances in which Professor Auréle La Rocque’s paper on the Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan was distributed in microfilm prior to its being published in printed form in the normal manner MINUTE, dated 8th October, 1954, by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The citation in the application for the banning of the dis- tribution of microfilm as a method of “ publishing ” zoological names submitted jointly by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and the Nomen- clature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology of the paper by Professor Auréle La Rocque on the Pre-Traverse - Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan distributed in microfilm in 1948 served the useful purpose of demonstrating that the problem raised by the applicant bodies was concerned not with a theoretical danger but with a problem which had actually arisen and on which it was important therefore that a decision should be taken at the earliest possible date. Nevertheless, the citation in this way of a paper by a particular author that had been dis- tributed in a manner which it was desired to ban inevitably placed the author concerned in a somewhat embarrassing position. 2. It accordingly appeared to me, as Secretary to the Com- mission, that it would be fair to afford an opportunity to Professor La Rocque to furnish a personal statement on this matter before the publication of the Opinion by the Commission placing on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names the new generic and specific names included in the version of the paper referred to above as distributed in 1948 in microfilm form. The following 130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS is an extract from the letter dated 2nd October 1954 which I received from Professor La Rocque on this subject :— I desire to emphasise certain aspects of the matter which have not been sufficiently stressed in the past. All parties involved acted in good faith. The Chairman of my doctoral committee directed my work with early publication in mind long before the question of microfilming was raised ; the editors of the Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, continued with their plans for conventional publication long after the dissertation had been microfilmed. The paper was printed in March 1950 as No. 10 of volume 7 of the Contributions. I should not like the suggestion, however faint or unintentional, that the dissertation was microfilmed to gain advantage over other workers. There was simply no advantage to be gained over anyone, because no one, to my knowledge, was working on this group of pelecypods at the time. For that matter, no one has worked on them since. - The Dean and Faculty of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies of the University of Michigan established the rule requiring microfilming of all dissertations within their jurisdiction with the praiseworthy aim of making the information contained in them more easily available than it was in typescript. My work happened to be the first to come under these rules in the field of paleontology. When my dissertation came up for approval, I was bound to observe the rules of the Graduate School and I had no means of preventing the microfilming of the dissertation, even if I had wanted to. My personal feeling is that microfilming should not be considered as publication and I think that the conventional printing of my dissertation is evidence enough of my opinion in that matter. It would be fair, I think, to mention these facts in the discussion of this case and I shall be much obliged if you will do so. 3. In replying on 7th October 1954, I assured Professor La Rocque that there had never at any time been any suggestion that any of the persons involved in this case had acted otherwise than in good faith. At the same time I gave an undertaking to Professor La Rocque that the information contained in his letter of 2nd October 1954 would be incorporated in the Opinion containing the Commission’s decision in the present case. 4. In accordance with the undertaking referred to in paragraph 3 above, I hereby direct that the present Minute be attached to Opinion 318 as an Appendix. Printed in England by MEtcaLFe & Cooper LimitTep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 9. Pp. 131—146 OPINION 319 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of type species for the nominal genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed usage \THSOWy, Seay FEB15 1°55 : LIBRARY LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 319 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. VoxKes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (Ast January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S:A.) (Ast January 1947). i ss -Proféssor Ay BoscumMa (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947). ,. © Senor, Dr. Angel Caprera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). X Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (A5th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 319 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENERA *“*NYSIUS ’? DALLAS, 1852, AND ** ARTHENEIS ”° SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) all type selections for the under-mentioned nominal genera made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and (b) the under-mentioned species are hereby designated to be their respective type species :—(i) Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804, to be the type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852; (11) Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837, to be the type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837. (2) The under-mentioned generic names (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 763 to 765 respectively :—(a) Nysius Dallas, 1852 (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b)(i) above: Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804) ; (b) Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b)(ii) above: Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837) ; (c) Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 196 to 198 respectively :—(a) thymi Wolff, 1804, as published in the combination Lygaeus thymi err Oo 4I0R5 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b)(i) above, of Nysius Dallas, 1852) ; (b) foveolata Spinola, 1837, as published in the combination Artheneis foveolata (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b)Gi) above, of Artheneis Spinola, 1837) ; (c) clavi- cornis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the combination Lygaeus clavicornis. (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 175 and 176 respectively :—(a) Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909 (a junior objective synonym of Artheneis Spinola, 1837, under the Ruling given, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b)(ii) above) ; (b) Myersia Evans, 1929 (a junior homonym of Myersia Viereck, 1912). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 12th January 1945 Dr. R. I. Sailer (United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) submitted an application for the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating type species for the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage. The application so submitted was a joint paper by Dr. Robert L. Usinger (at that time of the United States Public Health Service and now of the University of California, Division of Entomology and Parasitology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) and Dr. Sailer, which under the title “Nomenclature of the genus Lygaeus and its allies (Lygaeidae : Heteroptera)’ and had already been published in December 1944 (Usinger & Sailer, December 1944, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 46 : 260—262). The foregoing application, as slightly expanded OPINION 319 135 as the result of correspondence between the Secretary and the applicants, was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate type species for the genera ‘‘ Nysius ’’ Dallas, 1852, and ‘‘ Artheneis ’’ Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) By R. L. USINGER (United States Public Health Service) and R. I. SAILER (United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCR USA.) 1. China (1943, The Generic Names of British Insects, pt. 8 : 236), has shown that, under the International Rules of Zoological Nomen- clature the name Nysius Dallas, 1852 (List Specimens Hem. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 2 : 551), is not applicable to the genus universally known under that name. Through an oversight China cited Macroparius Stal, 1872 (Ofvers. Vetensk Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm 29 : 43), as the correct name instead of Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Ess. Ins. Hémipt. : 250), which he listed as a synonym. In subsequent correspondence he agreed that the latter name must be employed for this genus of LYGAEIDAE. Unfortunately, this change would produce much confusion in literature of economic entomology since the name Nysius has become virtually synonymous with “false chinch bug” and “ Rutherglen bug’’, two important pests of agricultural crops in Europe, North America, and Australia. It seems advisable, therefore, to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take appropriate action under suspension of the Rules in order tc maintain Nysius for the genus of bugs to which it has long been applied. 2. The change to either Macroparius or Artheneis is not made neces- sary through any misconception of the groups involved but simply through two unfortunate type selections. Distant (1903), ignoring the carefully defined subgenera of Stal (1874, (Enum. Hemipt. 4 : 119— 122,) and Horvath (1890, Rev. Ent. 9 : 185—191) considered the genus Nysius as a unit and selected Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852, as its type species. WN. zealandicus has previously been set apart by Stal (in 1868 (K. svensk. Vetensk Akad. Handl., Stockholm (n.f.) 7 No. 11) : 76) in a monotypic subgenus, Rhypodes, and Nysius was used for the cos- mopolitan group including Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804 UIcon. Cimicum (4) : 149) and its allies. This did not exclude zealandicus from con- sideration as the type species of Nysius, since Dallas included it as one of the original species. Distant continued to use the name Nysius for the false chinch bug and its allies until his death. However, Evans (1929) raised most of the subgenera, including Rhypodes, to full genera. This should have precipitated the matter, because the name Nysius should have been used in place of Rhypodes, and the next oldest synonym should have been selected for Nysius auct. nec Dallas. However, Distant’s type selection was overlooked, and it remained for Dr. China to point out the nomenclatural inconsistency in 1943, 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Meanwhile, Kirkaldy (1909) noted that, as Spinola himself had suggested, Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (a common European genus and the type of the sub-family ARTHENEINAE), actually comprised two genera. Instead of following general usage and selecting Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837 (Ess. Ins. Hémipt. : 253) as the type species of Artheneis, Kirkaldy cited “‘ (type eymoides), = Nysius Dallas, 1852”’ [sic], thus confusing the Nysius picture and necessitating a new name, Tyrrheneis, which .he proposed (1909, Canad. Ent. 41 : 31) for Artheneis auct., nec Kirkaldy. It is not clear whether Kirkaldy intended to replace Nysius with Artheneis or not. He described many new species of Nysius in 1910 but the paper was published post- humously. We have seen no evidence in his published works or in his private collection to,indicate that he contemplated a change in the name Nysius. 4. Oshanin (1912) ignored the earlier type fixations and selected type species designed to legalise current usage. Oshanin’s type selec- tions were accepted by Van Duzee in his “‘ Check List’ (1916) and “Catalogue ’’ (1917) and have been generally, though incorrectly, accepted by hemipterists up to the present time. 5. Thus we are faced with a situation in which two authors selected type species.which completely upset existing usage. The changes were entirely unnecessary and it seems clear that the authors had no intention of changing anything, because they failed to make the changes in their own subsequent work. Under the Rules their inten- tions are, of course, of no consequence, but considered in connection with the economic importance of the group and the universal accept- tance of the names in current usage, it seems justifiable to consider action under suspension of the Rules which would permit retention of the name Nysius for the concept with which it has been universally associated. 6. We, therefore, respectfully recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature exercise the Plenary Power conferred on it by the International Congress of Zoology and that the following actions be taken : (1) Reject Distant’s (1903) selection of Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852, in favour of Oshanin’s (1912) selection of Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804, as the type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852. (2) Reject Kirkaldy’s (1909) selection of Artheneis cymoides Spinola, 1837, in favour of Oshanin’s (1912) selection of Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837, as the type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837. OPINION 319 137 (3) Place the generic names Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837, with the respective type species specified above on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, together with the generic name Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (type species by monotypy : Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852). Conclusions Suppression of the Distant and Kirkaldy type selections will result in the following : Nysius Dallas, 1852, type species Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804 = Macroparius Stal, 1872, type species Heterogaster graminicola Kolenati, 1846. Rhypodes Stal, 1868, type species, Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852 = Lygaeus clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, (Ent. syst. 4 : 169) = Myersia Evans, 1929 Bull. ent. Res. 19 : 353, type species Lygaeus clavicornis Fabricius, 1794. Artheneis Spinola, 1837, type species, Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837 = Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1900, type species Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt of the application submitted by Dr. Usinger and Dr. Sailer, the problem of the type species to be accepted for the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 181. 3. Issue of Public Notices in 1947 : Owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes great delays were experienced in the period 1945—1947 in the printing of papers for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; throughout that period the printers were unable to give delivery of papers already in their hands for printing. In these circumstances it was judged at that time that no useful purpose would be served by sending further instalments of papers to the printers. For this reason it had proved impossible by the end of 1947 to arrange for the present application to be published. In order, however, to make some 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS progress in its consideration, particulars relating to it were included in a Public Notice which on 20th November 1947 was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913, when it conferred Plenary Powers upon the International Commission. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed in this case. 4. Postponement of consideration of the present application in Paris in 1948 : It had been hoped that, as no objection had been lodged against the proposed use of the Plenary Powers in the present case, it would be possible for the International Commission to reach a decision on it during its Session in Paris in 1948, and arrangements were made for its submission to the Commission at that Session. The time available in Paris was, however, so short and so much of it was devoted to considering proposals for the amendment, clarification and amplification of the Régles that it proved impossible for the Commission to deal with all the applications relating to individual names that were then awaiting attention. The present was one of the applications which for this reason it was impossible to lay before the Commis- sion at that Session. 5. Effect on the present application of certain decisions of a general character taken by the Paris Congress in 1948: In the period immediately following the Paris Session the whole of the resources of the Commission were directed to the preparation and publication of the Official Records of the Commission and the Congress in Paris in 1948. These were published in 1950 in which year therefore it was found possible to make arrangements for the resumption of publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of applications relating to individual names submitted by specialists to the Commission for decision. Every application outstanding at that time required either (1) to be, in part, redrafted in order to take account of the directions issued to the Commission - by the Paris Congress that in future it should place on the Official Lists ail names found to be the oldest available names for the taxonomic units dealt with in its Opinions, and on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names all names declared in those Opinions to be objectively invalid, or (2) when submitted to the Commission, to be accompanied by a supplementary note OPINION 319 139 indicating the action called for under the decisions referred to above. In the present case the second of these courses was adopted and the following supplementary note was prepared by the Secretary :— On the application for the use of the Plenary Powers to designate type species for the genera ‘‘ Nysius ’? Dallas, 1852, and ‘‘ Artheneis ”’ Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) submitted by Professor Robert L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. The application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of varying the type species of the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837, prepared jointly by Professor Robert L. Usinger (University of California, Berkeley, California, at that time of the United States Public Health Service) and Dr. R. I. Sailer (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) was received on 15th February 1945 under cover of a letter from Dr. Sailer, dated 12th January 1945. This application had already (December 1944) been published by these authors (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 46 : 260—262). Unfortunately wartime and post-war difficulties, including an unavoidable change in the Commission’s printers, made it impossible to publish this application before the meeting of the International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948, while since then it was necessary until recently to husband the financial resources of the Commission to secure the publication of the volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature containing the Paris records. 2. Three decisions taken by the Paris Congress slightly affect the present application. Of these, the first two arise from the establishment of the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology and the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Under the first of those decisions there is to be inscribed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, among other trivial names, the trivial name of the type species of each genus, the name of which is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, except where such a trivial name is not the oldest available trivial name for the species in question. In such a case the oldest such trivial name is to be placed on the Official List in lieu of the trivial name of the nominal species which is the type species of the genus concerned (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 269—271, 283—284). Under the second of these decisions, there are to be added to the Official Index names suppressed by the Commission or declared by the Commission to be invalid. Under the third of these decisions, it is necessary now to record the gender of every generic name placed on the Official List. 140 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Applying these decisions to the present case, we find that, if the Commission approve the proposals set forth in Professor Usinger’s and Dr. Sailer’s application, the trivial names thymi Wolff, 1804, as published in the combination Lygaeus thymi (which in that event will have become the type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852) and foveolata Spinola, 1837, as published in the combination Artheneis foveolata (which in that event will have become the type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837) will require to be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The trivial name zealandicus Dallas, 1852, as published in the combination Nysius zealandicus, of the type species of Rhypodes Stal, 1868, will not be added to the Official List, since it is not regarded by specialists as the oldest available trivial name for the species in question. The earlier name c/avicornis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the combination Lygaeus clavicornis, that being, as Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailer explain, the trivial name now regarded by specialists as the oldest such name either subjectively or objectively available for the species in question, will, however, need to be placed on the Official List. Under the decision (under the Plenary Powers) recommended by Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailer, the generic name TJyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909, will become a junior objective synonym of Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (the two genera having the same species as their respective type species) and will need therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. In their application Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailer point out that the generic name Myersia Evans, 1929 (Bull. ent. Res. 19 : 353) is a junior subjective synonym of Rhypodes Stal, 1868. In addition, it may be noted that the name Myersia Evans, 1929, is a junior homonym of Myersia Viereck, 1912 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 43 (No. 1942) : 575) ; as such, it should therefore also be placed on the Official Index. 4. As regards the form of action under the Plenary Powers which would be necessary to secure the objects sought by Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailer, it may be recalled that at its Session held in Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature took a decision on procedure in cases of this kind, when considering a long list of applications relating to the type species of genera in the Order Hymenoptera submitted by Professor J. Chester Bradley (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27—30). In view of the risk that, concealed in the literature, there might be some undetected type selection which, if not suppressed, might nullify the result sought to be obtained by the use of the Plenary Powers, if those powers were to be used solely to suppress some type designation or type selection that it was known would create confusion unless suppressed, the Commission formed the conclusion that it would be preferable to set aside all type selections made prior to the decision in question and itself to designate whatever species it was desired should be the type species of the genera concerned. The advantages of this procedure are so clear that it has become the standard practice in all cases of this kind. OPINION 319 141 5. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it may be convenient to summarise as follows the action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would need to take, in the event of its deciding to grant the substance of the application submitted to it in this matter, namely :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to set aside all type selections for the under-mentioned genera made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken and to designate the species specified below to be the type species of the genera concerned :-— Name of genus Nominal species proposed to be designated as the type species of the genus specified in Col. (1) 2 (1) ( (a) Nysius Dallas, 1852 Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804 (b) Artheneis Spinola, 1837 Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837 (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Nysius Dallas, 1852 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) (a) above, under the Plenary Powers: Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804) ; (b) Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by designation, as proposed in (1)(b) above, under the Plenary Powers: Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837) ; (c) Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) thymi Wolff, 1804, as published in the combination Lygaeus thymi (trivial name of species proposed, under (1)(a) above, to be designated under the Plenary Powers as type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852) ; (b) foveolata Spinola, 1837, as published in the combination Artheneis foveolata (trivial name of species proposed, under (1)(b) above, to be designated under the Plenary Powers as type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837) ; 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binominal combination Lygaeus clavicornis ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909 (a junior objective synonym of Artheneis Spinola, 1837, under the decision proposed in (1)(b) above) ; (b) Myersia Evans, 1929 (a junior homonym of Myersia Viereck, 1912). 6. Support received from Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London : On 30th May 1951 Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London), with whom Mr. Hemming had been in correspondence while preparing the supplementary note reproduced in the preceding paragraph, furnished the following statement in support of the proposals submitted by Dr. Usinger and Dr. Sailer :-— On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate type species for ** Nysius ’’ Dallas, 1852, and ‘‘ Artheneis ’’? Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera): support for the proposals submitted by Professor Robert L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer By W2E.*CEHINAs Sc.D: (Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Enclosure to a letter dated 30th May 1951) In my paper on the generic names of the British Heteroptera (1943, The gen. Names brit. Ins. (8) : 237) I pointed out (Note 1 to genus 2) that Distant (1903, Faun. brit. India, Rhyn. 2 : 17) was the first author validly to fix the type species of the genus Nysius Dallas, 1852 (List Spec. hemipt. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 2 : 551). In consequence the generic name Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (with type species Nysius zealandicus Dallas) became a synonym of Nysius Dallas, 1852, while Nysius auctt. nec Dallas had to take the next available name. By an extraordinary lapsus, 1 selected the relatively modern name Macroparius Stal, 1872 (type species: Heterogaster [sic] graminicola Kolenati), leaving the much older name Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (type species: Artheneis cymoides Spinola) as a synonym. By this mistaken sinking of Artheneis under Macroparius, I overlooked the serious consequences of trans- ferring the type genus of the Lygaeid subfamily ARTHENEINAE to another OPINION 319 143 subfamily LYGAEFINAE and even kept the subfamily ARTHENEINAE on page 238. The fact that the old genus Artheneis (type species: A. foveolata Spinola) does not occur in Britain made this error possible, as in my paper I tended to skim over non-British genera. When my attention was drawn to this slip by Dr. R. L. Usinger, I at once agreed with him that the case would have to be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in order to preserve the name of the type genus of the ARTHENEINAE and the well known generic concept Nysius. This case was set out by Usinger and Sailer in 1944 (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 46 (9) : 260—262) and I herewith express my complete concurrence with their opinions. 7. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion and Mr. Hemming’s supplementary note on the effect on that application of certain of the decisions taken by the Paris Congress in 1948 were sent to the printer at the end of May 1951. Immediately upon the receipt from Dr. China of the communica- tion reproduced in paragraph 6 above, special arrangements were made to ensure that it should be printed in time for it to be published simultaneously with the application to whichit related. All three documents were published on 28th September 1951 in Part 11 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Usinger & Sailer, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 313—314 ; Hemming, 1951, ibid. 2 : 315—317 ; China, 1951, ibid. 2 : 318). 8. Correction of a misprint in the proposal submitted in the Secretary’s Supplementary Note : Immediately upon the publica- tion of the papers referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Secretary placed the following Minute on the File relating to this case: “I note that through a slip of the pen the name Myersia Evans, 1929, is described in paragraph 5(4)(b) of my paper (Bull. 2 : 317) as a junior homonym of Rhypodes Stal, 1868. This, of course, is incorrect. This name is invalid, but this is because it is a junior homonym of the name Myersia Viereck, 1912. This mistake is to be corrected accordingly ”’. 9. Issue of Public Notices in 1951 : Under the revised arrange- ments prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951, both in Part 11 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the part in which 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the application submitted by Dr. Usinger and Dr. Sailer was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. As in the case of the Public Notice given in 1947 (paragraph 3 above), the publication of these Notices in 1951 elicited no objection to the action proposed. IJI—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 10. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)39 : On 9th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)39) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the names Nysius and Artheneis as set out in paragraph 5 (Points (1) to (4)) on pages 316 and 317 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ {i.e., in the concluding paragraph of the note by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion]. 11. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. 12. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)39: The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)39 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Hemming; Bradley ; Esaki; Lemche; Stoll; Cabrera; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; OPINION 319 145 (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 13. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 11th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)39, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 12 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 14. On 18th March 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)39. 15. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Artheneis Spinola, 1837, Essai Genres Ins. Ordre Hémipt. : 250 clavicornis, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794, Ent. syst. 4 : 169 foveolata, Artheneis, Spinola, 1837, Essai Genres Ins. Ordre Heémipt. : 253 Myersia Evans, 1929, Bull. ent. Res. 19 : 353 Nysius Dallas, 1852, List Spec. Hemipt. Ins. Brit. Mus. (2) : 551 Rhypodes Stal, 1868, K. svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl., Stockholm (n.f.) 7 (No. 11) : 76 thymi, Lygaeus, Wolff, 1804, Icon. Cimicum (4) : 149 Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909, Canad. Ent. 41 : 31 16. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(C.) 75 has been allotted. 146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 17. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen- hagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name’? was substituted for the expression “trivial name ”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 18. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Intetnational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. i 19. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Nineteen (319) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Eighteenth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MrtcatFe & CooprerR LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c™.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 10. Pp. 147—170 OPINION 320 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Limulus Miiller (O.F.), 1785 (Class Merostomata) and confirmation of the entry of that name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (validation of an error in Opinion 104) ZWtHSONi4y FEB15 1955 } LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological _ Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Eleven Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 320 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (A\st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CaBrERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LeMcueE (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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 320 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘* LIMULUS ”? MULLER (O.F.), 1785 (CLASS MEROSTOMATA) AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ENTRY OF THAT NAME ON THE ** OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY’ (VALIDATION OF AN ERROR IN ‘* OPINION ” 104) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the generic name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) In view of (1) above, the entry of the generic name Limulus Miller (O.F.), 1785, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made under the Ruling given in Opinion 104 is hereby confirmed. (3) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 177 to 181 respectively :—(a) Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764 (a name published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes) ; (b) Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1) above ; (c) Xiphosura Scopoli, 1777 (a junior homonym of Xipho- sura Briinnich, 1771); (d) Xiphosura Meuschen, 1778 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) ; (e) Xiphisura Briinnich, 1771 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1) above). (4) The under-mentioned name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 199 : polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Monoculus polyphemus (specific name of type species of Limulus Miller (O.F.), 1785). 4Aar Cc 150 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The case dealt with in the present Opinion arose independently in two ways. First, the approval of the application submitted by Mr. R. Winckworth for a Ruling that the work by Briinnich entitled Zoologiae Fundamenta: published in 1771 (not in 1772 as commonly stated)? by the Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 rendered Xiphosura Brunnich, 1771 (type species, by monotypy : Monoculus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758) an available name and a senior objective synonym of the well-known name Limulus Miller (O.F.), 1785. Second, this development called for immediate action by the International Commission, quite irrespective of the question whether, in the interests of nomen- clatorial stability, steps ought to be taken to preserve the name Limulus Miller, for the latter name had been placed by the Commission on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in 1928 under the Ruling given in its Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25—28) in the mistaken belief that it was an available and valid name. In the circumstances it was essential that the entry of this name on the Official List should be either validated or deleted. This question was brought to the attention of the Commission by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) at its Session held in Paris in 1948 (Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 5) immediately after it had taken a decision in favour of the availability of Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta. ‘The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at the foregoing meeting, giving the decision then taken in this matter (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 312) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— that consideration should be given as soon as possible after the close of the present (Paris) Congress to the 1 This decision has since been embodied in Opinion 236 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 329—342). 2 For a note on the correct date for Brunnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta, see paragraph 4 of Opinion 236. OPINION 320 151 question whether the name Limulus Miiller, 1785, errone- ously placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 104 should be validated under the Plenary Powers or alternatively be removed from the Official List, and that to this end the Secretary to the Commission be asked to prepare a Report on this subject, with recom- mendations, for the consideration of the Commission. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present case : As a preliminary to action being taken to initiate the investigation decided upon by the Commission at its Paris Session, the problem presented by the names Xiphosura Brinnich and Limulus Miller was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 506. 3. Preliminary consultations : The Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at its Paris Session was published in 1950 and, as soon as was practicable thereafter, the Secretary entered into consultations in regard to this case with interested specialists. These consultations elicited comments from (1) Professor H. Munro Fox (London University, Bedford College for Women, Department of Zoology, London) and (2) Dr. Carl O. Dunbar ( Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.). The communications so received are given in the immediately following paragraphs. 4. View expressed by Professor Munro Fox (London University) : The following is the text of a letter dated 12th March 1951 received from Professor H. Munro Fox (London University, Ss OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Bedford College for Women, Department of Zoology, London) in regard to the present case :— The case of ‘‘ Limulus ’’ Miiller, 1785 I am strongly of the opinion that the generic name Limulus Miiller should be validated and confirmed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. ‘The contrary course would be most undesirable both because of text-book usage and because of the undesirability of removing a name from the Official List. 5. View expressed by Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) : In a letter dated 23rd May 1951, Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) submitted the following statement of his views on the present case :— \ ‘* Limulus *’ Miller (O.F.), 1785 I think that both the Official List of Generic Names and the provision for the use of the Plenary Powers are desirable as a proper means of escape from unnecessary confusion, sometimes produced by rigid application of the rule of priority, against which a good many system- atists are inclined to rebel. It would seem to me therefore that the name Limulus Miiller, having been established by being placed on the Official List, cannot be displaced by Xiphosura Briinnich unless the Commission saw fit to take the positive action of removing it from the List. As for the merits of the case, I believe no useful purpose would be gained by replacing the name Limulus which is so well established in the literature of the world. On the other hand, definite confusion would result from use of the name Xiphosura for a genus within the Order Xiphosura. 6. Application submitted by Professor Leif Stermer (Paleonto- gisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway) : On 30th March 1951 Professor OPINION 320 153 Leif Stormer (Paleontologisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway) addressed a letter to the Commission expressing a wish for a ruling on the relative status of the names Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, and Limulus Miller (O.F.), 1785. Since this was precisely the question which in 1948 the Commission had invited Mr. Hemming to investigate, he took the view that the best means of discharging the duty so imposed upon him would be to invite Professor Stermer, as a specialist in the group concerned, to submit, for the consideration of the Commission, a statement of the- issues involved, with his recommendations as to the action which it was desirable should be taken. Professor Stormer consented to undertake this task and on 19th May 1951 he submitted the following application :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the entry on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ of the name ‘° Limulus ”’ Miller, 1785 (Class Merostomata*) : proposed correction of an error in ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 104 By LEIF STORMER (Paleontologisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway) 1. The object of the present application is to obtain from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the use of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Xiphosura Brimnich, 1771, in order thereby to render the name Limulus Miiller, 1785 (Class Merostomata*) the oldest available name for, and therefore the valid name of, the genus now habitually known by that name. From the point of view of the present applicant, who is engaged in preparing the chapter on Merostomata for the forthcoming International Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, the present case is one of exceptional urgency, for it is essential that a decision should be provided on the issue now submitted in time for it to be included in the relevant portion of the Treatise. It is particularly hoped, therefore, that it will be possible for the International Commission to reach a very early decision on the present application. 2. The facts of this case are as follows: In 1928, in Opinion 104 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25) the International Commission * Or Class Arachnida. 154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on Zoological Nomenclature placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Limulus Muller (O.F.), 1785 (type species, by monotypy: Monoculus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 634). This extremely well-known name, which was then in universal use—as it still is today—was regarded not only as a nomenclatorially valid name, but also as the oldest available name for the genus in question. In 1940, however, Mr. R. Winckworth submitted a request to the International Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 113—117) for a ruling on the question whether in his Zoologiae Fundamenta (then believed to have been published in 1772, but now known to have been first published in 1771) Briinnich had applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. Winckworth pointed out that, if the Commission were to give an affirmative answer to the foregoing question, there were a number of generic names which would in future rank for priority as from the Zool. Fund. and that one of these names, Xiphosura Briinnich (: 208), was older than, and would replace, the well-known name Limulus Miiller, 1785. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission ruled in favour of the availability of the names in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta, holding the view that in this work Briinnich had duly complied with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 307—310). 3. Having reached this general decision, the International Com- mission turned to consider the new names in the Fundamenta of Briinnich, of which it now became necessary to take account. When the Commission reached the name Xiphosura Briinnich, the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) drew attention to the fact that the acceptance of this generic name would be objectionable from two points of view (1950, Joc. cit. 4 : 311—312). First, that name, if accepted, would displace the time-honoured name Limulus Miller, which, moreover, had already been on the Official List for twenty years ; second, the use of this word as a generic name would be confusing, in view of the fact that it was in general use as the name of the Order to which this genus belonged. The Commission did not — feel able on that occasion to reach a decision on this question, but agreed that as soon as possible after the close of the Paris Congress consideration should be given to the question whether or not the Plenary Powers should be used for the purpose of validating the generic name Limulus Miller and thereby of regularising the position of that name on the Official List (1950, loc. cit. 4 : 312). At the same time the Commission asked the Secretary to confer with specialists and, having done so, to submit a Report to the Commission for consideration. 4. It will be seen, therefore, that the subject of the present application is one to which the Commission has already given preliminary OPINION 320 155 consideration and on which it has asked for the views of specialists. Thus, the present application, although prompted mainly by a different object, namely a desire to obtain a decision needed for the preparation of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, will serve also to provide a basis for the consideration of the question to which the Commission gave special consideration in Paris, namely whether the position on the Official List of the name Limulus Miiller should be regularised or, alternatively, whether that name should be removed from the Official List, the name Xiphosura Briinnich being added thereto in its place. 5. As has already been explained, the generic name Limulus Miiller is in general use for the genus to which it was first applied by Miiller, one hundred and sixty-six years ago. It is true that in 1902 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 9 : 260) Pocock sought to replace the name Limulus Miiller by the older name Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764 (Zoophylac. gron. 2 : 220) but this proposal of his won no support from other workers. Moreover, the Zoophylacium gronovianum, as from which Pocock dated the name Xiphosura was written by an author (Gronovius) who, though a so-called “‘ binary”’ author, did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. At the time that Pocock wrote his paper there was room for argument whether a generic name published by such an author possessed any status in zoological nomenclature and this doubt persisted until 1948 when the International Congress of Zoology made it quite clear that such names possess no status in zoological nomenclature, by deleting the ambiguous expression ““nomenclature binaire’’ from the Régles, inserting in its place the perfectly definite expression “‘ nomenclature binominale” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63—66). It is now perfectly clear that the alleged generic name Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764, possesses no standing in zoological nomenclature. This objection does not however apply to the name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, which is undoubtedly an availablename. In view of the current general acceptance of the generic name Limulus Miiller and the long period in which it has been in use, the desirability of promoting stability in nomenclature points strongly in favour of the preservation of the name Limulus Miiller, as against the name Xiphosura Briinnich. These considerations are enormously strengthened by the fact that for over twenty years the name Limulus Miiller has occupied an unchallenged position on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The arguments would need to be very strong to justify the dethronement of the name Limulus Miiller for the benefit of the unknown name Xiphosura Briinnich. In actual fact there are no arguments that can be advanced in favour of the overthrow of existing practice in this matter, apart from that based on the 3 The work by Gronovius entitled Museum gronovianum has since been formally rejected by the Commission in Opinion 261 (1954, Ops. Decls, int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 281—296). 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS consideration that Briinnich’s name Xiphosura was published fourteen years before Miiller’s name Limulus. The Law of Priority possesses many merits, but it is important always to remember that that Law was fashioned to promote stability and uniformity in nomenclature and consequently that the purpose of that Law is defeated if, by an unduly rigid application of its provisions, it is allowed to become an instrument for overturning well-established nomenclatorial practice. There are therefore very strong grounds in favour of the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers to preserve the name Limulus Miller. 6. This matter is not, however, the sole concern of the student of the taxonomy of the living and fossil forms concerned. For the name Limulus Miller is deeply embedded in the literature of the mor- phology and ontogeny of this interesting group, and to the workers in the field of applied biology changes of well-known names for narrow technical reasons of a purely nomenclatorial character are peculiarly irritating and incomprehensible. Moreover, the International Con- gress of Zoology has given express directions that the interests of this class of worker are to be given special consideration by the International Commission in considering cases involving the possible displacement of well-known names (see, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 234—235). For this reason also it is highly desirable that the International Com- mission should use its Plenary Powers to prevent the supercession of the name Limulus Miiller. 7. Finally, it must be observed that (as was pointed out in the dis- cussion of this case in Paris) we are confronted here also with a reason of quite a different kind which would make it most undesirable that the name Xiphosura Briinnich should replace the name Limulus Miller. This is because the word (Xiphosura) of which Briinnich’s name consists or derivatives of that word are commonly used to denote the higher categories to which the genus now known as Limulus belongs. Thus, according to the taxonomic view taken of the categories which should be recognised, the word “‘ Xiphosura”’ is in use as the name of the Sub-Class or Order concerned, while the word “‘ Xiphosurida ” is used as the name of the Order. The Commission has ruled Gn Opinion 102) that a generic name is not invalidated by the prior use, as an ordinal name, of the word of which that generic name is com- posed and this provision has since been incorporated in the Régles ; in deciding so to codify this provision, the International Congress of Zoology decided also to insert a Recommendation deprecating the selection, as generic names, of words previously used as the names of units of Sub-Ordinal or higher category (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :164—165). In the present case, the use of the word “* Xiphosura ” as a generic name could not fail to give rise to confusion in the nomen- clature of this group, and it is therefore extremely desirable from this OPINION 320 157 point of view alone that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771. 8. For the reasons set forth above, I ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) in view of (1) above, to confirm the generic name Limulus Miller, 1785, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:— (a) Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764 (an invalid name because published by an author who did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature) ; (b) Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771 (a name proposed, under (1) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers) ; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Monoculus polyphemus (trivial name of the type species of Limulus Miiller, 1785). 7. Publication of the present application : Professor Stermer’s application and the earlier comments received from Professor Munro Fox (paragraph 3) and Dr. Carl O. Dunbar (paragraph 4) were sent to the printer on 27th May 1951 and were published on 28th September 1951 in Part 11 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Stormer, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. = 319>—322 > Fox, 1951, ibid. 2 = 322; Dunbar, 1951, ibid. Drs 323). 8. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951 both in Part 11 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Professor Stermer’s application was published) and to the other prescribed serial publications. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection during the prescribed period. — 9. Support received for the present application : The publication of Professor Stermer’s application and of the Public Notices regarding it elicited support from the following specialists :— (1) Rudolf Richter (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Sencken- berg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany); (2) Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.). 10. Support received from Professor Dr. Rudolf Richter (Natur- Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a..M., Germany) : On 18th October 1951, Professor Dr. Rudolf Richter (Natur-Museum und _ Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. M.) addressed ~ to the Commission the following letter in support of Professor Stermer’s application (Richter, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 221) :— Begrundung : Der Internationale Zoologen-Kongress hat die Méglichkeit zur Suspension der Regeln mit der ausdriicklichen Absicht geschaffen, Namen von so allgemeiner Gebratichlichkeit wie Limulus su schiitzen. Eine andere Entscheidung wiirde nicht die Zustimmung der Zoologen und Paldontologen finden. Ausserdem wiirde die Autoritét der Internationalen Regeln und der Internationalen Kommission nicht befestigt werden, wenn der Name Limulus, nachdem er 1928 auf die Offizielle Liste gesetzt worden war, nicht den Schutz der Kommission finden wiirde. Ich verweise auf den Antrag (den ich sur gleichen zeit an die Kommission einreiche), dass siamtliche Namen, die auf die Offizielle OPINION 320 159 Liste gesetzt worden sind, unter Suspension der Regeln endgiiltig geschtitzt werden. (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 184—185.) 11. Support received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : On 24th October 1951, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Commission in which he furnished the following statement in support of the retention of the generic name Limulus Miller, 1785 (Baily, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 221—222) :— 1. Application Z.N.(S.) 506 is concerned with a name (Limulus) which has been on the Official List for more than two decades. Its reconsideration at this time would therefore weaken the value of the Official List, regardless of the nature of the action taken. The Official List is the greatest instrument for the stabilization of nomenclature that has yet been devised and any action likely to weaken it is to be deprecated. 2. Attention should here be called to application Z.N.(S.) 544 relating to the name Astacus,* which is essentially parallel. In each case a name has long been on the Official List; in each case an older name has been subsequently discovered which would have been available if discovered earlier ; in each case the petitioner fears the possibility of action which might jeopardize the status of the established name. In the latter case, however, the proponent of the application has not asked for the confirmation of the established name, but merely for the suppression of the older name which threatens it. 3. It would be quite in order for the Commission to issue an Opinion to the effect that Limulus and Astacus are closed cases which cannot be re-opened on any ground, but to reconsider these cases even for the purpose of confirming earlier actions would be objectionable, as such a course would establish a precedent for re-opening any case in which -a neglected name unexpectedly comes to light. It is true that I have asked the Commission several times to reconsider cases which they presumably considered closed, but | have never done so in the case of a name already on the Official List. Had these names been placed on the Official List I would have accepted that decision as irrevocable. 4. Other things being equal, the earlier published of two synonyms is entitled to priority, but in this case other things are not equal. Limulus is on the Official List ; Xiphosura is not, and the only way 4 The application here referred to has since been granted by the International Commission, and its decision has been embodied in Opinion 349 (in the press). 160 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in which parity for the two names can be achieved is for the Com- mission to place Xiphosura on the Official List with the same type. To me this action is unthinkable, but in order to preclude it absolutely, I would suggest either one (or even both) of the two following courses : The first of these would be to place Xiphosura on the List of Rejected Names. This action has been requested in the application and I am strongly in favour of it. The other course would be to issue a ruling that after a species has been recorded on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as the type of a genus placed on that list it will thereby become automatically ineligible for designation as type of a generic name later placed on the list. 5. Iam not a student of the group to which Limulus belongs, but this case is one that goes to the heart of all zoological nomenclature, and any student in any field of systematic zoology will feel the effect of the decision in this case. Therefore I am now requesting that the Commission take the latter course outlined above, and declare that Limulus can never be removed from the Official List, and that the species Monoculus polyphemus can never be legally designated as the type species of any other genus. 12. Appeal to specialists for advice issued in 1952: In the autumn of 1951, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, decided to publish a series of brief Reports on the stage reached in the various investigations which he had been invited to undertake by the Paris Congress of 1948 and to take advantage of the opportunity so presented of making a further appeal to interested specialists to furnish statements of their views as to the action which it was desirable should be taken in the present case (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 196). Case 2: Status of the generic name ‘‘ Limulus ’’? Muller (O.F.), 1785 (Class Merostomata) 4. The problem to be considered here is whether action should be taken under the Plenary Powers to prevent the very well-known generic name Limulus Miiller (O.F.), 1785 (Class Merostomata) from being replaced by the hitherto virtually unused name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, found to be an available name as the result of the decision that in his Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 (in which this name was published) Briinnich satisfied the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25. A subsidiary question involved in the foregoing problem arises from the fact that as long ago as 1928 the name Limulus Miller was placed on OPINION 320 161 the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. A comprehensive statement of the issues involved in this case, with recommendations as to the action which it is desirable should be taken, has been sub- mitted by Professor Leif Stormer (Os/o). This has now been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 319322); the proposals so submitted are supported by Professor Munro Fox (London University) (: 322) and Dr. Carl O. Dunbar ( Yale University) (: 323). 13. Support received from Professor H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) : On 12th April 1952, Professor H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Nether- lands) addressed a letter to the Commission in regard to this and a number of other cases on which appeals for advice had then just been published in volume 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (paragraph 12). The following extract relates to the present case :—‘‘In answer to your request in Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 7, Part 7/8, it is my opinion, as regards Case 2 (Z.N.(S.) 506) (page 196), that Limulus should not be replaced by Xiphosura.”’ I1I—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 14. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)40: On 9th May 1952 a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)40) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the name Limulus Miller, 1785, as set out in Points (1) to (4) in paragraph 8 on page 322 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature’? {i.e. for the Points, 162 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS numbered as shown above, set in the concluding paragraph of the application by Professor Leif Stormer reproduced in para- graph 6 of the present Opinion]. 15. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 9th August 1952. 16. Communication received during the Voting Period from Dr. John H. Lochhead (Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) : On 30th July 1952—1.e. within ten days of the close of the Prescribed Voting Period—there was received a letter, with enclosure, dated 21st July 1952 in regard to the present case from Dr. John H. Lochhead (Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). The document - so received was the following :— Some additional facts that should be considered in regard to the proposals that the name ‘‘ Limulus ’’? Muller, 1785, (Class Merostomata) be retained on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’, and that the alternative generic name ‘‘ Xiphosura ’’ be placed on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ By JOHN H. LOCHHEAD (Department of Zoology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A., and Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., U.S.A.) 1. Although the six-month period is now over, during which comments were invited on the Limulus versus Xiphosura controversy, I, like a great many other zoologists, have access to a large library but once a year. Thus it is only just recently that I have been able to see the published correspondence dealing with this dispute. Perhaps it is not too late for me to submit a few comments for consideration by the Commission. 2. First, I believe that the record should be set straight as to the extent that the generic name Xiphosura has come into use. Those who have written to Secretary Hemming on the case thus far either do - not discuss this point, or imply that the name Limulus is now employed almost universally (Stormer, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 319—322 ; Fox, ibid. 2 : 322 ; Dunbar, ibid 2 : 323 ; Richter, 1952, ibid. 6 : 221 ; OPINION 320 163 Baily, ibid. 6 : 221—222). Certainly it is true that a large majority of the published papers, chiefly physiological, use the name Limulus. But a number of papers, including especially the most recent authori- tative reviews, have used the generic name Xiphosura. I append a list of some of these papers, and would call attention particularly to those of Gerhardt, in Kukenthal’s Handbuch, Louis Page, in Grassé’s Traité de Zoologie, and Petrunkevitch, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. My own interest in the matter arose when I was asked to write the chapter on the animal in question in “* Selected Invertebrate Types’’. I quickly found that, as just indicated, those who seemed most likely to know were agreed in using the generic name Xiphosura, following Pocock (1902). Not being a taxonomist, I was unaware of the Commission’s actions in setting aside the names of Gronovius (Opinion 89) and in placing Limulus on the Official List (Opinion 104). Thus I added one more to the list of reviews employing the generic name Xiphosura. The situation at the present time is that anyone who turns to the literature for a reasonably detailed review of this animal, whether in English, French, or German, will find it referred to as Xiphosura. 3. My second point is in regard to early authors who have used the generic name Xiphosura prior to 1785, when Miiller proposed the name Limulus. Only two such authors have been mentioned in the present correspondence to date, namely Gronovius (1764) and Briinnich (1771). I believe that two others should be added. Shortly after ““ Selected Invertebrate Types’? was in the press, I discovered the presence of the name Limulus on the Official List. wrote to Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr., of the U.S. National Museum in Washington, to enquire about the legality of a name placed in error on the Official List (a point which has been happily cleared up by the amendment to the Régles reported, 1950, in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 268). In his very kind reply Dr. Chace mentioned that he had discovered a note in Miss Rathbun’s handwriting to the effect that in addition to Gronovius and Briinnich, two other early authors had employed the generic name Xiphosura, namely Scopoli, 1777 (Untroduc. Hist. nat. : 405) and Meuschen, 1778 (Mus. Gronoy. : 83). I have not been able to consult either of these two books, but if Miss Rathbun’s report is correct it should be taken into consideration when the Commission renders its Opinion. Meuschen’s names have already been set aside by the Commission (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 571—573), but Scopoli’s names seem likely to be accepted, if we may judge from the conclusions reached independently by Baily (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 68) and Hemming (ibid. 6 : 122—125).® 5 The application that Scopoli’s Introductio ad Historiam naturalem of 1777 be accepted for nomenclatorial purposes has since been approved by the International Commission, and its decision has been embodied in Opinion 329 (in the press). 164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. Despite the findings which I have reported above, I remain in full agreement with those who wish to see Limulus retained on the Official List and Xiphosura placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names. The latter action should be done in such a way as to cover Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, Xiphosura Scopoli, 1777, Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764, and Xiphosura Meuschen, 1778. Legally it perhaps would not be necessary to make specific mention of the two latter authors, since the Commission already has rejected their works in toto. Nevertheless I believe that it would be desirable to mention all four authors, for the benefit of zoologists not familiar with previous actions of the Commission. Alternatively, if there are no legal objections, it might be possible to reject Xiphosura as used or proposed by any author in or prior to the year 1785 (the date when Miller proposed Limulus). 5. In regard to the retention of names on an Official List, I am not in agreement with Baily (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 221—222) that a name once on that List should never be reconsidered. But I do feel that no names should be removed from an Official List for other than the most urgent reasons. In future years, after the Lists have been published and have gained reasonably wide circulation among zoologists, it should be considered progressively more difficult to remove a name the longer it has been on one of the Lists. 6. Those who have used the generic name Xiphosura in the recent past probably have done so either (like myself) in ignorance of the fact that Limulus had been placed on the Official List, or in the belief that because the Commission had acted in error its ruling was not legally binding. In this connection it may be noted that Opinion 104 gave none of the reasons that led to the placing of Limulus on the Official List, stating merely that the Secretary believed the name to be ““nomenclatorially available and valid’. When I first read this Opinion 1 was unaware that the Commission earlier had set aside the names of Gronovius. Thus I at once was in doubt as to the legal validity of the Commission’s action in placing Limulus on the Official List “‘in harmony with the Rules ”’. 7. In comparison with this record of confusion in the past, the future now looks much more hopeful. Full publication of the argu- ments involved in each case, the promised publication of Official Lists and of Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names, both for genera and species, and the suggested publication of an Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Books (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 164), all should go far towards securing a much greater uniformity and stability among zoologists in their use of taxonomic names. It is this hope for the future that has made it seem worth while to me to urge the OPINION 320 165 retention of Limulus on the Official List and the rejection of the generic name Xiphosura. Some recent papers using the generic name ‘‘* Xiphosura ”’ Fage, L. 1949. Classe des merostomacés (Merostomata, Woodward (1866). Grassé’s Traité de Zoologie 6 : 219—262. Gerhardt, U. 1932 and 1935. Erste Klasse der Chelicerata, Mero- stoma. Kiikenthal u. Krumbach’s Handbuch der Zool. 3 (H. 2, Lief. 3) : 10—32, and 3 (H. 2, Lief. 8) : 33—96. Gravier, ©; (929: Fae caudal des limules. Bull. Mus. nat. Hist. nat. Paris (2) 1 : 94—99. Gravier, C. 1929. Révision de la collection des limules du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle. Bull. Mus. nat. Hist. nat. Paris (2) Ls Bulge Bile Gravier, C. 1929. Les appendices fouisseurs des limules. Arch. Anat. micr. 25 : 270—279. Lafon, M. 1943. Sur la structure et la composition chimique du tegument de la limule (Xiphosura polyphemus L.). Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco, 40 (850) : 1—11. - Lochhead, J. H. 1950. Arthropoda. Xiphosura polyphemus. Selected Invertebrate Types (Ed. F. A. Brown, Jr.) : 360—381, 584—585. Wiley, New York. Petrunkevitch, A. 1947. Xiphosura. Encyclopaedia Britannica : App. Vachon, M. 1945—6. Remarques sur les appendices du prosoma des limules et leur arthrogenése. Arch. Zool. exp. gén. 84 : 271— 300. 17. Action taken on the supplementary point raised by Dr. John H. Lochhead : On receipt of the communication from Dr. John H. Lochhead reproduced in the immediately preceding para- graph, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed (on 31st July 1952) the following Minute in File Z.N.(S.) 506 :— ** Limulus ’? and ‘‘ Xiphosura ’? : an additional point brought out in the statement furnished by Dr. John H. Lochhead By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In the statement enclosed with his letter of 21st July 1952, Dr. John H. Lochhead has drawn attention to the fact that, in addition 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to the use of the generic name Xiphosura (1) by Briinnich, 1771, which Professor Leif Stormer has recommended should now be suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers and (2) by Gronovius in 1764 in the Zoophylacium Gronovianum (a name which is invalid by reason of having been published in a non-binominal work), there are two other uses of the name Xiphosura prior to the publication of the name Limulus Miiller (O.F.), 1785. These are :—(a) Xiphosura Scopoli, 1777, and Xiphosura Meuschen, 1778. Dr. Lochhead suggests that these names also should now be finally disposed of. 2. The proposal now before the Commission is that the name Xiphosura Brimnich, 1771, should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. Accordingly, under this proposal the two names mentioned by Dr. Lochhead will remain invalid names as being junior homonyms of Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771. Apart from this, the name Xiphosura Meuschen, 1778, is invalid for another reason, as the work in which this name was published—the Museum Gronovianum—has_ been declared by the Commission to be a work which is not available for zoological nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 571—5735). 3. In these circumstances the only action which is required in this matter is that the names Xiphosura Scopoli, 1777, and Xiphosura Meuschen, 1778, should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Under the Rules laid down in Paris (a) that in future the Ruling in every Opinion shall cover the whole of the subject matter of the application concerned and (b) that all invalid names involved in any case submitted to the Commission shall be placed on the appropriate Official Index, the two names referred to above fall now to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. It is hereby directed that entries to this effect be included in the Ruling to be given in the present case when, as the votes already cast clearly show will happen, the Commission approves the application submitted by Professor Stormer. 4. In addition, as Secretary, I take this opportunity to direct that the Invalid Original Spelling Xiphisura Briimnich, 1771 (Zool. Fund. : 184), to which attention was drawn by Mr. Winckworth in his original communication regarding Briinnich’s Fundamenta (Winckworth, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 116) be placed on the Official Index at the same time as the names referred to in paragraph 3 above. 8 The decision here referred to has since been embodied in Opinion 260 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 265—280). OPINION 320 167 18. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)40 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)40 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received): Hering ; Riley ; Dymond ; Calman ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Hemming; Bradley ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Mertens ; Stoll ; Cabrera ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1): Jaczewski. 19. Declaration of Result of Vote: On llth August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)40, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 18 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 20. On 23rd April 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certifi- cate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission 168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)40, and the points supple- mentary thereto specified in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 31st July 1952 (reproduced paragraph 17 of the present Opinion). 21. The following are the original references for the names on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion:— polyphemus, Monoculus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 634 Xiphisura Brunnich, 1771, Zool. Fund. : 184 Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764, Zoophylac. gronoy. 2 : 220 Xiphosura Brinnich, 1771, Zool. Fund. : 208 Xiphosura Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 405 Xiphosura Meuschen, 1778, Mus. gronoy. : 83 22. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 75 has been allotted. 23. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. OPINION 320 169 24. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 25. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty (320) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Third day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 11. Pp. 171—184 OPINION 321 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Spatangus striato-radiatus, the oldest available name for the fossil Echinoderm from the Limburg Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) commonly known as the Spatangue de Maestricht (Class Echinoidea) ENN HSON/4y) FEB15 1055 ] LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London. S.W.7 1955 Se Price Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 321 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History).. Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (1st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (Ast January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). 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) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). i 3 Dr.¢ Teeny PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th “July” 94 8). ] ‘Dr. Henning LemMcuHE (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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 321 ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘© STRIATORADIATUS ” LESKE, 1778, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ SPATANGUS STRIATO- RADIATUS ”, THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE FOSSIL ECHINODERM FROM THE LIMBURG CRETACEOUS (MAESTRICHTIAN) COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE “SPA- TANGUE DE MAESTRICHT” (CLASS ECHINOIDEA) RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 200 :—striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Spatangus striato-radiatus (a senior objective synonym of radiatus Gmelin, [1791], as published in the combination Echinus radiatus, the name of oy type species of Hemipneustes Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836). (2) The under-mentioned invalid or reputed but non- existent specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 104 and 105 respectively :—(a) radiatus Gmelin, [1791], as published in the combination Echinus radiatus (a junior objective synonym of striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Spatangus striato-radiatus) ; (b) scutatus Knorr, 1768, in the com- bination LEchinocerus scutatus (a reputed but non- existent name). (3) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Name No. 766: Hemipneustes Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Echinus radiatus Gmelin, [1791]) (a nominal species, the specific name of which is a junior objective synonym of striato- radiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Spatangus striato-radiatus). (4) The under-mentioned reputed but non-existent generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 182 to 184 respectively :—(a) Spatagoides Klein, 1778 ; (b) Spatagoides Leske, 1778 ; (c) Spatangoida Gmelin, [1791]. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 8th April 1946 Professsor H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) submitted a request for a ruling as to the oldest available specific name for the fossil sea urchin of the Limburg Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) commonly known as the ** Spatangue de Maestricht’’. As explained by Professor Engel in the supplementary note reproduced in paragraph 4 of the present Opinion, the form of this application was revised in 1950. The application so revised was as follows :— On the question of the correct scientific name for the Echinoderm fossil from the Limburg Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) commonly known as the ‘‘ Spatangue de Maestricht ’’ (Class Echinoidea, Order Spatangoidea) By H. ENGEL (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 1. In a paper entitled “‘Over de variatie van Hemipneustes striatoradiatus (Leske)”’ published in 1945 (Verhandl. Geol-Mijn- bouwk. Genootsch. Nederland en Kolon. (Geol. Ser.) 14 : 173—182) OPINION 321 175 I discussed the status of the name of the common and well known fossil sea-urchin from the Limburg Cretaceous (Maestrichtian) so aptly designated by the French as ‘“‘ Spatangue de Maestricht’”’. My conclusion was that the modern use by palaeontologists for this species of the generic name Spatagoides was incorrect under the Régles, as also was the use of the specific trivial name radiatus. The first name published for this species was Spatangus striatoradiatus Leske, 1778 ; the oldest generic name available for this species according to current taxonomic ideas was Hemipneustes Agassiz, 1836; the correct name for this species was therefore Hemipneustes striatoradiatus (Leske, 1778). 2. The generic name Hemipneustes Agassiz, 1836, was in general use for this species until Lambert & Thiéry (Essai de Nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides, (fasc. 6/7) : 411) substituted for it the name Spatagoides Klein, 1778. Lambert remarks in his “ Révision des Echinides fossiles de la Catalogne’’ (1927, Mem. Mus. Cienc. nat. Barcelona (Ser. Geol.) 1 : 42) that the name Spatagoides was adopted by Bayle as far back as 1878 (Explic. Carte géol. France 4 (Atlas)), while he himself had given in 1917 the arguments in favour of the use of this name in place of Hemipneustes in his ““ Note sur quelques Holasteridae ’’ (Bull. Soc. Sci. hist. nat. Yonne 70 : 196). The last- mentioned publications are not available to me but the grounds on which Lambert based his conclusions are quite clear from the state- ments made in the paper which he published in 1924 (Joc. cit.) jointly with Thiéry. The argument was: (1) that Klein in his Naturalis Dispositio Echinodermatum published in 1734 used ( : 35) the generic name Spatagoides for a species which he called Spatagoides andersonii and which he figured on his plate XXV from a specimen of the ““ Spatangue de Maestricht’ from Bemelen near Maestricht collected in 1715; (2) that Leske in 1778 conferred availability as from that date on Klein’s names by republishing that author’s Naturalis Dispositio. It is quite clear that in this new edition Leske did not reinforce Klein’s names “‘ by adoption and acceptance ’”’ (Opinion 5) and therefore that the republication of these names in this way did not confer any availability on them under the Rég/es ; I do not consider it necessary to argue this point in detail, for it was fully considered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1948 in con- nection with the generic name Arachnoides, another of Klein’s 1734 names which it was desired to make available as from Leske, 1778. The Commission then took the view that, in order to secure this end, it was necessary for it to use its Plenary Powers expressly to validate the name Arachnoides, its publication in 1778 in Leske’s reprint of Klein’s work having conferred no availability upon it (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 530—536). 3. The position is therefore that, under the Régles the name Spatagoides, originally of Klein, 1734, acquired no availability in virtue of the republication by Leske in 1778 of Klein’s Naturalis 176 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Dispositio. Among the synonyms quoted by Lambert & Thiéry (1924 : 411) is the alleged generic name Spatangoida attributed by those authors to Gmelin, [1791] (im Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (6) : 3197); but this term was used by Gmelin only to indicate that it had been employed by Klein for the group of species dealt with on page 3197. This term was not “reinforced”? by Gmelin “by adoption or acceptance” (Opinion 5) and accordingly acquired no availability by reason of having been republished in this way. It therefore has no existence as a generic name. The next name to be considered is Hemipneustes Agassiz, 1836 (Mém. Soc. Sci. nat. Neuchatel 1: 183); this is a validly published name, the nominal genus so named having, as its type species by monotypy, the nominal species Hemipneustes radiatus ; this name was not published by Agassiz as a new name but was attributed by him to Lamarck, by whom the trivial name radiatus had been employed in the binominal combination Spatangus radiatus (1816, Anim. sans Vertébr. 3:33). When however we turn to Lamarck, we find that he in turn was not the author of the trivial name radiatus, which he attributed to Gmelin, by whom it was published in the binominal combination Echinus radiatus (Gmelin, [1791], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (6) : 3174). Finally, we find that Gmelin himself did not regard the trivial name radiatus as a new name but merely as an emendation of the name striatoradiatus as published by Leske in 1778 in the binominal combination Spatangus striatoradiatus (Leske, 1778, Addit. Klein. nat. Disp. Ech. : 234) (also on page 170 in the edition which does not include the reprint of Klein). The species so named by Leske, and therefore also the species referred to by Agassiz in 1836 under the name Hemipneustes radiatus, is the *“* Spatangue de Maestricht’’. As the foregoing was the sole species referred to by Agassiz to the genus Hemipneustes, it is the type species of that genus by monotypy. The generic name Hemipneustes Agassiz, 1836, is the oldest available generic name for the “ Spatangue de Maestricht ’’, for that species is not congeneric with the species which is the type species of the genus Echinus Linnaeus, 1758, to which it was referred by Gmelin in 1791, while the International Commission has, under its Plenary Powers, suppressed all uses of the generic name Spatangus prior to Gray, 1825, in order to validate the name Spatangus Gray, 1825, with type species Spatagus purpureus Miller (O.F.), 1776, a species not congeneric with the “‘Spatangue de Maestricht ” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 522—530). We arrive therefore at the conclusion that, on the basis of current taxonomic ideas, the correct generic name for the species under consideration is Hemipneustes Agassiz, 1836. 4. As regards the trivial name applicable to this species, we have already seen that in 1778 Leske gave it the name striatoradiatus, in the binominal combination Spatangus striatoradiatus, and that in 1791 Gmelin, who referred this species to the genus Echinus Linnaeus, emended the trivial name given to this species by Leske by shortening it to the form radiatus. Goldfuss (G. A.) (1829, Petref. German. OPINION 321 77 1 (2) : 150) cites a number of authors under the name Spatangus radiatus, but of the references so given one only is prior to the publication in 1778 of the name Spatangus striatoradiatus. ‘This reference was cited by Goldfuss as “‘ Knorr, Petref. tab. E IV n. 41”’. This is clearly a reference to the work entitled “‘ Die Naturgeschichte der Versteinerungen zur Erlauterung der Knorrischen Sammlung von Merkwiirdigkeiten der Natur’? by Walch, J. E. I. In volume 2 of the above work there is a description on page 182 of the specimen figured on Plate E IV figs. 1 and 2, but neither on the plate where the number 41 (cited by Goldfuss) refers to four figures (figs. 1—4, of which only figs. 1 and 2 represent the “‘ Spantangue de Maestricht ’’) nor in the text (on page 182) nor on page 28 of Part IV (where a Systema is given) is there any trace of the name Echinocerus scutatus, alleged by Goldfuss to have been used by “ Knorr’’, i.e., by Walch, for the species under consideration. On the contrary, the specimen figured as figs. 1 and 2 on pl. EIV, which was collected in Maestricht, was cited by Walch under the name Spatangus. The only name cited by Walch (but not accepted by him) is from Klein: “ Spata- goides quaternis radiis, andersonii’’. We see therefore that Leske was the first author to apply a trivial name to the “Spatangue de Maestricht ”’. 5. In the light of the data given above, we find that the oldest available name for the foregoing species is Spatangus striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, that the oldest available generic name for this species is, according to current taxonomic ideas, the name Hemipneustes Agassiz, 1836, and therefore that, on the basis of those taxonomic ideas, the correct name, under the Régles, for this species is Hemipneustes striatoradiatus (Leske, 1778). In view of the misunderstanding and confusion in this matter created by the action by Lambert & Thiéry, it is desirable that these names should now be stabilised by being placed on the Official Lists established respectively for generic names and for specific trivial names. The request which I accordingly submit is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Hemipneustes Agassiz, 1836 (gender of generic neme: feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Echinus radiatus Gmelin, [1791]); (2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the under-mentioned reputed but non-existent generic names :— (a) Spatagoides Klein, 1778, Nat. Disp. Ech. (Leske’s ed.) : 234 (b) Spatagoides Leske, 1778, Add. Klein, Nat. Disp. Ech. : 9, 156) 175176. 178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Spatangoida Gmelin, [1791], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. iS) (Oo) S197: (3) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the binominal combination Spatangus striatoradiatus ; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the under-mentioned invalid or reputed but non-existent specific trivial names :— (a) radiatus Gmelin, [1791], as published in the binominal combination Echinus radiatus (an invalid name, being an invalid emendation of the trivial name striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the binominal combina- tion Spatangus striatoradiatus) ; (b) scutatus Knorr, 1768, in the binominal combination Echinocerus scutatus (a reputed but non-existent name). Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt of Professor Engel’s application in 1946 the problem of the oldest available specific name for the “‘ Spatangue de Maestricht ’’ was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 219. 3. Postponement of consideration of the present application in Paris in 1948 : It had been hoped that it would be possible for the International Commission to reach a decision on this applica- tion during its Session in Paris in 1948, and arrangements were made for its submission to the Commission at that Session. The time available in Paris was, however, so short and so much of it was devoted to considering proposals for the amendment, clarification and amplification of the Régles that it proved impossible for the Commission to deal with all the applications relating to individual names that were then awaiting attention. The present was one of the applications which for this reason it was impossible to lay before the Commission at that Session. OPINION 321 179 4. Revision of the present application in 1950: Certain of the decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, 1948, automatically called for a few minor adjustments in all applications which had been submitted to the Commission before that Congress and which were still outstanding. For this reason the present application was revised by Professor Engel in 1950 (the year in which the Official Record of the Paris decisions was published). To the application so revised, which is reproduced in the opening paragraph of the present Opinion, Professor Engel added (on 9th September 1950) the following explanatory postscript :— Postscript (dated 9th September 1950) : The present application was originally submitted in April 1946 at a time when the Commission had not given any ruling on the availability of generic names originally published by Klein in 1734 on their being republished in 1778 in Leske’s post-1757 edition of Klein’s Naturalis Dispositio Echinodermatum. In the application, as then submitted, I accordingly set out in detail the grounds on which I asked the Commission to give a ruling that in the foregoing re-issue of Klein’s work Leske had not complied with the requirements specified in Opinion 5 and therefore that Klein’s names acquired no availability in virtue of being so republished by Leske. I have since revised this application, in view of the fact that this question was the subject of a ruling (in the case of the alleged name Arachnoides Klein or Leske, 1778) by the Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948. At the same time I have redrafted the form of the application submitted to the Commission, in order to take account of the decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology to establish both an Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology and also an Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names and a cortes- ponding Official Index for similar specific trivial names. 5. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion, as revised by Professor Engel (paragraph 1 above), with the Postscript of 9th September 1950 (reproduced in paragraph 4 above), was sent to the printer in May 1951 and was published in Part 1 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 28th September of that year (Engel, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 3—46). 6. Support received from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America: In the following letter dated 6th February 1952 (received 9th April 1952) Professor 180 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS G. Winston Sinclair (then of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, reported that the present application had received the support of the Committee by seven votes to one vote. As the present application does not involve the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers, the problem to be considered in this case is solely one of the application of the normal provisions of the Régles and it was not stated in the letter given below on what ground the dissentient member of the Committee considered that the proposition submitted in this case was defective. The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in American has considered this subject, and I wish to inform you that, being polled, they voted: To support the petition (seven) :— (1) A. Myra Keen; (2) Katherine V. W. Palmer ; (3) Bob Schaeffer ; (4) John B. Reeside, Jr. ; (5) J. Marvin Weller ; (6) Bryan Patterson ; (7) G. Winston Sinclair. To oppose the petition (one) :—Don L. Frizzell. In so voting several of the members of the Committee (and other members who did not wish to vote) commented on the doubtful necessity for this petition. IIl—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)41 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)41) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the name for the Echinoderm fossil from the Limburg Cretaceous known popularly as the “ Spa- tangue de Maestricht ’’, as set out in Points (1) to (4) at the foot of page 5 and at the top of page 6 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ {i.e., in paragraph 5 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. OPINION 321 181 8. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)41 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)41 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Calman ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Bradley; Hemming; Esaki; Riley ; Lemche ; Cabrera; Stoll; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 10. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as. Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)41, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 9 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. On 24th April 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)41. 12. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Hemipneustes Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836, Mém. Soc. Sci. nat. NeuchdGtel 1 : 183—184 radiatus, Echinus, Gmelin, [1791], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (6) : 3174 scutatus, Echinocerus, Knorr, 1768, in Walch, Naturgesch. Versteinerung. z. Erlauterung. Knorr. Samml. 2 : 182, pl. E. IV. figs. 1, 2 Spatagoides Klein, 1778, Nat. Disp. Ech. (Leske’s Ed.) : 234 Spatagoides Leske, 1778, in Klein, Nat. Disp. Ech. (aew Ed.) : 234 Spatangoida Gmelin, [1791], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (6) : 3197 striatoradiatus, Spatangus, Leske, 1778, Addit. Klein. nat. Disp. Ech. : 170 (also in the alternative edition, including the reprint of Klein, 7.e., Leske, 1778, in Klein, Nat. Disp. Ech. : 234) 13. The nominal genus Hemipneustes Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836, is not the type genus of a family-group taxon and accordingly no question arises in the present case. of placing any name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 14. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name’ and corresponding changes were OPINION 321 183 made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 15. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-One (321) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Fourth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 13. Pp. 185—208 OPINION 322 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) and designation for the genus so named of a type species in harmony with current nomenclatorial practice ZANTHSON gy FEB15 ee LIBRARY s LONDON : Ses Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Twelve Shillings (All rights reserved) EE. Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 322 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. ‘Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) ({[st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. StToLu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (ist January 1947). 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) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON p asinanian 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 322 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘*‘ FULGORA ” LINNAEUS, 1767 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) AND DESIGNATION FOR THE GENUS SO NAMED OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT NOMEN- CLATORIAL PRACTICE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) all type selections for the nominal genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside; (c) the nominal species Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767. (2) It is hereby declared that the alleged generic name Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766, is a cheironym. (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 767 and 768 respectively :—(a) Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(c) above : Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Dictyo- phara Germar, 1833 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Desmarest (1845): Fulgora europaea Lin- naeus, 1767). (4) The under-mentioned generic names and alleged generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 185 to 187 respectively :—(a) Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764 (as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under 188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (1)(a) above) ; (b) Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766 (declared, under (2) above, to be a cheironym) ; (c) Dictyophora Burmeister, 1835 (an Invalid Emendation of Dictyo- phara Germar, 1833). (5) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 201 and 202 respectively :—(a) Jaternaria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cicada laternaria (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(c) above, of Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767); (b) europaea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Fulgora europaea (specific name of type species of Dictyophara Germar, 1833). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 10th August 1944 a preliminary communication regarding the relative status of the generic names Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, and Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemip- tera) was received from Mr. R. G. Fennah (Jmperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad). Correspondence between the applicant, the Secretary and Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) led to the submission by Mr. Fennah on 8th November 1944 of a formal application to the Commission in regard to the foregoing names. For the reasons explained in paragraph 5 below, the form of this application was later some- what revised. The application so revised was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species for the genus ‘‘ Fulgora ’’ Linnaeus, 1767, and to suppress the generic name ‘‘ Laternaria ’’ Linnaeus, 1764 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) By R. G. FENNAH . Umperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad) The object of the present application is to secure a legal foundation for the use of the generic name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, in its currently OPINION 322 189 accepted sense. Two distinct problems are involved ; these are dealt with separately as Cases | and 2 respectively. Case 1 2. Aim of present application: The aim of the present application is to secure that the type species of Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, shall be Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758. The relevant references are :— (a) The generic name Fulgora Linnaeus was first published in 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 703, no. 1. (b) Claims have been advanced on behalf of each of the following authors to be regarded as the author by whom the type species of Fulgora Linnaeus was first either designated or selected :— (i) Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 703: type species designated under Rule (f) in Article 30 : Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758 ; Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 434, no. 1; (ii) Sulzer, 1776, Dr. Sulzers abgek. Gesch. Ins. : 85, Tab. 9, fig. 5 : type species selected under Rule (g) in Article 30 : Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2): 704, no. 9 ; (iii) Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434: type species selected under Rule (g) in Article 30, as interpreted by Opinions 11 and 136: Fulgora europaea Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 674 (=Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767). 3. Discussion of the case: The generic name Fulgora was published with a description but with no type designation. The following nine nominal species were placed in this genus: Jaternaria; diadema; candelaria; phosphorea; noctivida; lucernaria; flammea; truncata; europaea. Two of these species, namely F. /aternaria and F. candelaria, by evidence of identical description and references, belong to the genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764 (Mus. Lud. Ulr. : 152), and were the only two species included in that genus. The former is the type species of Laternaria by absolute tautonymy. 4. The relation of the name Fu/gora Linnaeus, 1767, to Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, must be either that of a nomen novum for a supposedly invalid name, Laternaria, or a simple substitution, as it cannot be a restriction of Laternaria, since it includes all the species originally placed in that genus. In his treatment of Cicada in 1764 (which there follows immediately after the genus Laternaria), Linnaeus did not include a single one of the species which three years later he listed under the generic name Fulgora. It is clear that what Linnaeus had decided upon and what he attempted to do with the limited material available to him in 1764 and with the fuller material available in 1776, 190 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS was to erect a genus to contain the species which in 1758 he had placed in the section ‘“‘ Noctilucae’’ (capite antice protracta in yesicam oblongam) of the genus Cicada. It was merely an accident that in 1764 he did not have before him all the species which he had originally included in the ‘“‘ Noctilucae’’, namely C. Jaternaria, C. candelaria, C. phosphorea, C. noctivida, and C. lucernaria, the only two then at his disposal being the first two. 5. The generic name Laternaria was published without a description, but two nominal species were included in it, of which the first is the type species by absolute tautonymy. This generic name accordingly satisfies the requirements of Article 25 and is an available name. The name Fulgora cannot therefore be interpreted as a nomen novum for an unavailable name. It must accordingly be regarded as a substitute name for Laternaria, and, as it was published without a type designa- tion, it may be argued that, by application of Rule (/) in Article 30, the genus Fulgora takes, as its type species, the type species of the genus which it replaces, namely Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758. 6. If the foregoing contention is not upheld, it becomes necessary to examine the argument advanced by Kirkaldy in 1913 (Bull. Hawaii. Sug. Ass. (Ent. Ser.) 12:11) that Sulzer (1776) selected Fulgora europaea Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Fulgora by publishing an unambiguous figure of that species (pl. 9, fig. 5) with the following statement (: 85) :— Wir haben in unserer Tafel die Kegelstirn nicht gewahlt, als wenn sie dem Leser den vollstandigsten und richtigsten Begriff von diesem Geschlechte geben kénnte, sondern weil sie noch wirgends abgebildet worden, und gleichwohl nicht nur eine Europaerin, sondern wol gar eine Schweizerin ist; wenn man aber beliebt Rdésel’s vorteftliche Abbildungen des grossen Laterntragers und des Kleinern, der sich in Kennzeichen Tab. X fig. 62a befindet, mit dieser Beschreibung zusammen zu halten, so wird man eine genugsame Kenntniss davon erlangen. Linne beschreibt 9 Arten.* * The following is a translation of the passage quoted from Sulzer (1776) :— For our plate we have not selected the Cone-Face as giving the reader the most complete and most correct idea of this genus, but a species which, although nowhere hitherto figured, is not only a European, but even a Swiss insect ; but, if the reader wishes to compare ROsel’s striking illustration of the large Lanternbearer which appears on plate 10, fig. 62a with this description, he will gain an adequate idea therefrom. Linnaeus described nine species. 1 As the names of previously established nominal species were cited in connection with the generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, that name, notwithstanding the fact that it was published with no diagnosis for the genus so named, would, under the liberalisation of Article 25 adopted by the Paris (1948) Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 80), have been an available name, even if no type species had been designated or indicated for the genus so named. OPINION 322 191 7. It is considered that the foregoing action by Sulzer closely resembles the statement made by Lamarck in 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébres) regarding the purpose of citing representative species for the genera which he was then discussing. Accordingly, under the precedent set by the rejection of Lamarck’s action as constituting selections of type species by the ruling given by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in its Opinion 79, Sulzer’s action in the present case must be rejected as insufficient to constitute a type selection for the genus Fulgora, under Rule (g) in Article 30. 8. We have now to consider the action taken by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434), where he cited “ Fulgora europaea Fab.”’ as the type species of “‘ Fulgore,’’ which earlier (: 262) in the same work he had defined under both the French and Latin forms of this generic name (‘“‘ Fulgore’’ and Fulgora). The species so cited by Latreille, by description, by bibliographic citation and by geographical distribution is unquestionably Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767. Latreille’s action in the Consid. gén. has been ruled by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as constituting rigorous selections of type species for the genera there dealt with (Opinions 11 and 136) and accordingly his selection of Fulgora europaea Linnaeus as the type species of Fu/gora Linnaeus must be accepted as complying with the Rules, if it is held that no type species had been designated or validly selected for that genus prior to Latreille’s action in 1810. 9. It is urged however that, quite irrespective of the merits of the claims advanced on behalf of the foregoing authors to have designated or selected a type species for the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, there is strong historical reason for conserving this generic name for the species (Cicada laternaria Linnaeus) which Linnaeus considered to be luminous. By the use of such terms as Jaternaria (which he thought sufficiently striking to adopt from Merian), phosphorea and Fulgora, by the note which he inserted in the description regarding the alleged nocturnal luminosity of this species, and by the first place which he consistently gave to this species in all his writings on Homoptera, Linnaeus clearly revealed that his conception (1) of the Section “ Noctilucae”’ of the genus Cicada, (2) of the genus Laternaria, and (3) of the genus Fulgora was based upon this insect and extended to other species, in so far only as they possessed what he supposed to be the essential organ of luminosity, a cephalic process. 10. Action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature desired: The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked, either, if it thinks it proper, to declare that Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, under Rule (f) in Article 30, or, if it does not consider this to be the case, to use its Plenary Powers to designate the foregoing species as the type species of this genus. 192 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Case 2 11. Aim of present application: The aim of the present application is to secure the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, in favour of the name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767. 12. Discussion of the case: With the exception of Kirkaldy and Haupt, who based their classification upon the belief that Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767, was the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, students of Homoptera have universally employed the generic name Fulgora for 184 years as the generic name either of the Neotropical species Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, or of the Oriental species Cicada candelaria Linnaeus, 1758. Further, the generic name Fulgora formed the basis of the first group names to be adopted (namely Fulgorellae Latreille, 1807 ; Fulgoridae Leach, 1817 ; Fulgorina Burmeister, 1835 ; Fulgorelles, Fulgorites and Fulogoroides Spinola, 1839) and their later modifications. 13. Scrutiny of the type designations and type selections made for the genera Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, and Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, strongly suggests that these genera have the same species, Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1767, as their respective type species and almost the universal practice of students of this group has been to treat as the type species of Fulgora the above species which certainly is the type species of Laternaria. 14. It is considered that in this case the application of the Law of Priority, which was designed to stabilise nomenclature, would have the opposite effect. It would lead to the suppression, as a synonym, of one of the earliest and best known generic names in zoology (Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767) and with it the series of supergeneric terms founded upon it, and would leave in its stead a name (Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764) which only students of the Hemiptera are likely to recognise and which only two or three have used as the basis of the name for a supergeneric unit. The name Fulgora Linnaeus presents a clear case of a name which should be preserved for the sake of avoiding confusion. 15. Action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature desired: The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are asked (1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to suppress the generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, and (b) to validate the generic name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, and (2) to place the latter generic name (with Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, as type species) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. OPINION 322 193 I—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Mr. Fennah’s application, the question of the relative status of the generic names Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, and Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S) 162. 3. Issue of Public Notices in 1947 : On 20th November 1947 Public Notice of the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given in the manner prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The issue of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 4. Postponement of consideration of the present application in Paris in 1948 : In view of the fact that a question of the inter- pretation of Article 30 was bound up in the present case, it was judged better at Paris in 1948 to defer action on the present applica- tion until it would be possible to put forward definite proposals for the amendment or interpretation of the foregoing Article simultaneously with the taking of a decision by the Commission in regard to the two names involved in Mr. Fennah’s application. 5. Revision of Mr. Fennah’s application in 1951 : A number of the decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, affected the form and scope of Opinions to be rendered in future by the Commission, and to this extent necessitated a partial revision of all applications which had been submitted prior to the Paris Congress and which were at that date still outstanding. The necessary revision of the present application was carried out in May 1951. 6. Separate submission of a request for a ‘‘ Declaration ”’ clarifying the meaning of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the ‘‘ Régles ”’ : Under a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the International Commission was instructed in future to restrict Opinions to Rulings given on questions relating to individual names and to individual books and to include in the ‘‘ Declarations’ Series any decision which it might take of a general character affecting the interpretation 194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Régles and therefore of direct concern to the general body of zoologists. In pursuance of the foregoing directions, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, prepared in 1951 the following papers for submission to the Commission: (1) an application for the adoption of a Declaration clarifying Rule (f) in Article 30 (the Rule relating to the determination of the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously estab- lished nominal genus, the name of which is, or is believed to be, invalid) ; (2) a Report on the remaining issues calling for decision in the light of Mr. Fennah’s application regarding the generic names Laternaria Linnaeus and Fulgora Linnaeus. The first of these papers has been reproduced in Declaration 14, the Declaration in which the Commission gave a Ruling on the question of interpretation referred to above.? 7. Issues arising in the present case after the removal! therefrom of the problem of the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 : The second of the two documents referred to above, namely the Report by the Secretary on the issues arising in the present case after the removal therefrom of the problem of the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30, was as follows :— Report on the proposal that the generic name ‘‘ Fulgora ’’ Linnaeus 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) should be validated under ; the Plenary Powers By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Mr. R. C. Fennah has asked the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) and thus to avoid the serious confusion which would be likely to arise if that name were to be discarded in favour of the virtually unknown name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764. Mr. Fennah first wrote to the Commission on this subject in August 1944. After expressing the belief that, under the Régles, Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, was an objective synonym of Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, the two genera having the same species as their respective type species, Mr. Fennah then pointed out that the question at issue involved not only the status of the generic name Fulgora itself, for within the previous 137 years a large number 2 For the text of Declaration 14 see pp. xili—xxiv of the present volume. OPINION 322 | 195 of terms had been applied to units of higher taxonomic rank based upon the word “‘ Fulgora’’. In this connection he cited the terms : Fulgorellae, Fulgorida, Fulgorides, Fulgorelles, Fulgorina, Fulgoriens, Fulgoritae, Fulgoridea and Fulgoridae. Mr. Fennah continued as follows :—‘‘In the interests of nomenclatorial stability I consider that the group names based on Fulgora Linnaeus should be preserved, on either or both of the following grounds : (1) The group name based on Fulgora has been universally employed for 137 years, and should be conserved on the basis of long usage ; (2) The group name based on Fulgora is the oldest supergeneric name, based on a valid genus, and therefore should take priority over any other existing or potential supergeneric name.” In the foregoing communication Mr. Fennah did not formulate concrete proposals for securing the object which he had in view, but not long afterwards, following upon a correspondence between Mr. Fennah, Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History)) (with whom Mr. Fennah had been in communication before he approached the Commission on this case) and myself, Mr. Fennah’s present application was formally submitted to the Commission. The possible use of the Plenary Powers in the present case was advertised in the prescribed manner in December 1947. No objection of any kind was received in response to this advertisement. 2. The purpose of the present Report is to discuss two matters arising out of Mr. Fennah’s application: first to examine in closer detail what is the position under the Rég/es, as regards the type species of the nominal genera Laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, and Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 ; second, to elaborate to such extent as may be necessary, the recommendations submitted regarding the action required, if the Commission decides to approve the stabilisation of the generic name Fulgora in its accustomed sense, in order that that action may comply with the decisions taken in Paris in 1948 by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in regard to the manner in which cases of this kind are to be dealt with. (1) The type species of the nominal genera ‘‘ Laternaria ’’ Linnaeus, 1764, and ‘‘ Fulgora ’’ Linnaeus, 1767 3. The type species of the nominal genus “‘ Laternaria”’ Linnaeus, 1764: This nominal genus as originally established by Linnaeus contained two nominal species, namely: (1) Cicada phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758 ; (2) Cicada candelaria Linnaeus, 1758. The first of these nominal species is subjectively identified by specialists with the nominal species Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, and, on the basis of this subjective identification, the argument has been advanced that the latter species is automatically the type species of the nominal genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) of Article 30. This particular argument is fallacious, for it assumes that 196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS it is possible for the type species of a genus to be a nominal species - not included in the genus concerned at the time when the generic name was first published. Fortunately, however, a closer inspection of the Museum Ludovicae Ulricae of Linnaeus shows that at the time when Linnaeus first published the generic name Laternaria, he included, in the synonymy of the first of the two nominal species which he then referred to that genus (Cicada phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758) the reference ‘““ Syst. Nat. 434 No. 1”. This reference is to page 434 of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae, where the species bearing the number “* 1”? is Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758. 4. Thus, the nominal species Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, was included by Linnaeus in the genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, as a synonym of one of the nominal species then recognised by him as belonging to that genus. The point which has next to be considered is whether the inclusion in a specific synonymy of the name of a nominal species constitutes, for the purposes of Article 30, the citation of that nominal species as one of the species originally included in the genus concerned. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then in the present case the nominal species Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species of the genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, by absolute tautonymy ; if on the other hand, the answer to this question is in the negative, then the above nominal species is not one of the originally included species of the genus Laternaria, and, as the subjective identifica- tion of Laternaria phosphorea (Linnaeus) (Cicada phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758) with Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, by later authors is irrelevant, when considering what is the type species of this genus, it would be necessary in that event to turn to the later literature to find out which of the two originally included species had first been selected as the type species of Laternaria by a subsequent author. 5. At the time when Mr. Fennah’s application was submitted to the Commission there existed no authoritative ruling on the question discussed above ; in consequence, it was not possible to ascertain, without special reference to the International Commission, whether or not Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of the genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764. It was not until July 1948 that the question of principle involved was settled by the Thirteenth International Con- gress of Zoology, when it defined the species which, for the purposes of Article 30, were to be regarded as the nominal species originally included in any given nominal genus and which alone therefore were eligible to become the type species of that genus. On this question the Congress decided that words should be inserted in the Régles “to make it clear that the nominal species to be regarded as having been included in a given nominal genus at the time 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 OPINION 322 197 of nominal species falling in (i) above, and that the foregoing nominal species are alone eligible for selection as the type species ’’ (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179—180). 6. In the light of the foregoing decision by the Paris Congress, we see at once that Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, is to be regarded as one of the nominal species included in the genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, at the time when that generic name was first published. Now that this proposition has been established, it follows automatically, under Rule (d) in Article 30, that Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, is the type species of the nominal genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, by absolute tautonymy. 7. The type species of the nominal genus “* Fulgora’’ Linnaeus, 1767 : As pointed out by Mr. Fennah, Linnaeus in 1767 included in the new genus Fulgora (i) the two nominal species which, three years earlier he had placed in the then newly named genus Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, and (ii) seven other nominal species not mentioned by Linnaeus at the time when he published the generic name Laternaria. From a practical point of view Linnaeus may certainly be regarded as having substituted in 1767 the new generic name Fulgora for the generic name Laternaria which he had first published three years earlier (in 1764). Nor is the reason far to seek: throughout his writings Linnaeus invariably rejected a generic name that was tautonymous with the trivial name of one of the included species. This problem did not, from his point of view, arise in 1764, when he first published the generic name Laternaria, for on that occasion he applied the trivial name phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758, originally published in the binominal combination Cicada phosphorea to the species to which in-1758 he had applied the trivial name /aternaria Linnaeus, 1758, in the binominal combination Cicada laternaria. In 1767, however, Linnaeus decided to discard the name phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758, as the trivial name of the species in question and to restore to it the trivial name /aternaria Linnaeus, 1758. If Linnaeus had taken no other action in 1767, this species would then have had the tautonymous name Laternaria laternaria (Linnaeus, 1758). But this would have offended against Linnaeus’ rule that tautonymy of this kind was to be barred and it can hardly be doubted that it was to get over this difficulty that he dropped the generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, and applied to the genus in question the new generic name Fulgora, the name of the species with which we are here concerned thus becoming Fulgora laternaria (Linnaeus, 1758). 8. While the above is, I am convinced, the correct explanation of the action taken by Linnaeus in this matter, we are concerned, from the point of view of nomenclature, not with the reasons which prompted the action taken by Linnaeus but with the nomenclatorial consequences of that action, judged solely by the wording used in the Régles. Rule (f) in Article 30 contains a provision that Mr. Fennah has argued is, 198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and which I myself formerly considered could be held to be, applicable to the present case. This Rule reads: “In case a generic name without originally designated type species is proposed as a substitute for another generic name, with or without type species, the type species of either, when established, becomes ipso facto the type species of the other.”” We are accordingly confronted here, with the need for an interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30, for, in the absence of such an interpretation, it is impossible to make any progress with the consideration of the question of the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus. The Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 decided that, in future, general questions relating to the interpretation of the Régles are not to be dealt with by the Commission in Opinions relating to individual nomenclatorial problems but are to be considered separately, decisions reached on such matters being recorded in Declarations (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137). In accordance with the procedure so prescribed, I have prepared a separate application (File Z.N.(S.) 539),3 in which I discuss what appear to me to be the relevant considerations in this matter and arrive at the conclusion, which I there submit for the favourable consideration of the International Commission, that, in order to be brought within the scope of Rule (f) of Article 30, a generic name must have been published with an express intimation that it was put forward as a substitute for some other name. It is necessary, for the purposes of the present application, to make some assumption as to the meaning to be attached to the foregoing Rule, and I have therefore assumed that that Rule has the meaning which, for the reasons explained in application Z.N.(S.) 539, I believe that it has and which I therefore recommend the Commission to endorse. Naturally, if the Commission were to take a different view, it would be necessary to re-examine the case of the name Fulgora Linnaeus in the light of the decision so taken. Mean- while, the provisional adoption of the foregoing assumption renders it possible to make progress with the present case. 9. The type species of the genus Fu/gora Linnaeus was not designated or indicated under any of the Rules lettered (a) to (d) in Article 30 ; nor, on the assumption adopted in paragraph 8 above, was the type species of this genus determined under Rule (f) in Article 30, for, when Linnaeus published the generic name Fu/gora in 1767, he said nothing to imply that it was a substitute for the earlier name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764. Accordingly (subject to the reserve specified in the preceding paragraph) we reach the conclusion that the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, can only be determined under 3 See first paragraph of Declaration 14, pp. xiii—xxiv of the present volume. 4 The assumption here made has since been endorsed by the International Commission in its Declaration 14 (see p. xx of the present volume). OPINION 322 199 the one remaining Rule in Article 30, namely Rule (g) (type species by subsequent selection). 10. When in 1767 he established the nominal genus Fulgora, Linnaeus placed in it altogether nine nominal species, namely (1) the five nominal species which in 1758 he had described as belonging to the Section “Noctilucae’’ of the genus Cicada—of which three (phosphorea, laternaria (then treated as identical with phosphorea) and candelaria) were in 1764 placed in the genus Laternaria—and (2) four nominal species then named for the first time (namely Fulgora diadema nov. sp. ; Fulgora flammea nov. sp. ; Fulgora truncata nov. sp. ; Fulgora europaea nov. sp.). Any one of these nominal species is, therefore, eligible to be selected as the type species of the genus Fu/gora Linnaeus by a later author, acting under Rule (g) in Article 30. It is necessary therefore to examine the literature, to determine which of these nine nominal species was first so selected. 11. The first author on whose behalf a claim has been advanced that he selected a type species for the genus Fulgora Linnaeus is Sulzer (1776). This claim, which was advanced first by Kirkaldy in 1913, is examined by Mr. Fennah in the application which he has submitted to the Commission, where the passage in Sulzer relied upon by Kirkaldy is quoted in full. Mr. Fennah concludes that Sulzer’s action cannot possibly be regarded as constituting the selection of a type species for the genus Fulgora Linnaeus ; I entirely share his view. 12. The next work which has to be considered is Latreille’s Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. of 1810, the entries in which, as noted by Mr. Fennah, have been accepted by the International Commission as constituting selections of type species for the genera there enumerated in every case where one species only was specified by Latreille (Opinion 136). On turning to this work, we find that Latreille cited one species only, ““Fulgora europaea Fab.” under the generic name “ Fulgore ”’ (French) and Fulgora (Latin). Fabricius himself never published the binominal combination Fulgora europaea as a new name and there is thus nomenclatorially no such name as Fulgora europaea Fabricius. What he did do in 1775 (in the Systema Entomologiae : 674) was to cite a nominal species under the binominal combination Fulgora europaea which he correctly attributed to Linnaeus. The nominal species Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767, is therefore the species which was selected by Latreille as the type species of Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767. As that species was (as we know) one of the species originally included by Linnaeus in the genus Fulgora and as no type species had been designated, indicated or selected for this genus prior to the action taken by Latreille in 1810, that author’s selection of Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767, is valid under the Régles and that species is therefore the type species of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767. 200 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. It is important in this connection to note that the nominal species Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767, is currently referred to the genus Dictyophara Germar, 1833 (Rey. Ent. 1(4) : 175), of which indeed it is the type species by subsequent selection by Desmarest (1845) (in d’Orbigny, Dict. univ. Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 5 : 121). Further as Mr. Fennah has pointed out (in /itt., 1945), the above genus is the type genus of a currently recognised family, the DICTYOPHARIDAE. It follows from what has been said in paragraph 12 above that the generic name Dictyophara Germar, 1833, is under the Régles a junior objective synonym of the generic name Fu/gora Linnaeus, 1767, each of these nominal genera having the same species as its type species. The confusion likely to follow the loss by the species concerned of so well known a generic name as that of Fulgora would naturally be very greatly aggravated if in addition that name remained a valid name but had to be applied to some entirely different genus (in this case, the genus Dictyophara Germar). Serious as in any circumstances such consequences would be, they would be very seriously intensified in the present case through the necessity of using the family name FULGORIDAE for the family at present known as the DICTYOPHARIDAE. In this connection, it will be recalled that at the time when the International Congress of Zoology first granted Plenary Powers to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suspend the operation of the Régles, the avoidance of transfers of generic names from one genus to another (as the application of the Régles in the present case would require) was specifically cited as one of the purposes for which the Plenary Powers were granted to the Commission. (11) The reputed generic name ‘‘ Noctiluca ’’ Houttuyn, 1766, in relation to the generic name ‘‘ Fulgora ’’? Linnaeus, 1767 14. In the year 1947 attention was drawn in connection with the present case to a reputed generic name Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766, stated to have been published in 1766 in that author’s Natuurlyke Historie ; this name, it was claimed, had priority over, and should therefore under the Régles replace, the generic name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767. In these circumstances it was obvious that this was a matter which must at once be investigated, for it would clearly be pointless to ask the Commission to validate the name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, as against the name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, while still leaving Fulgora Linnaeus liable to be replaced by the earlier name Noctiluca Houttuyn. 15. At Mr. Fennah’s request this matter was therefore at once investigated by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History) ). who, on consulting Houttuyn’s Natuurlyke Historie, found that that author had not employed the term Noctiluca as a generic name and had not used it in the nominative singular. What he did was to employ 29 6 this word in the nominative plural, i.e. as ““ Noctilucae”’, “ in exactly OPINION 322 201 the same sense as did Linnaeus in the Syst. Nat. of 1758, that is, as a subdivision of Cicada’’. ‘This discovery put an end to all threat to Fulgora from this quarter, for already in 1944 the Commission had rendered an Opinion (Opinion 183) in which it had ruled that, in order to acquire availability as a generic name, a word must not only be a noun substantive, but must also have been published in the nominative ~ singular. This ruling was in 1948 incorporated into the Régles by a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 139—140). It will be seen therefore that the alleged generic name Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766, possesses no existence under the Rég/les, being a mere cheironym. As such, it should, like other cheironyms which have given trouble in the past, be put finally to rest by being registered in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Summary of Conclusions reached on the data available 16. We may now summarise as follows the conclusions which may be drawn from the data available in regard to the present case :— (1) The generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, is an available name and the nominal genus in question has Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, as its type species by absolute tautonymy (paragraph 6). (2) There is no such generic name as the alleged generic name Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766, which is a mere cheironym (para- graph 15). (3) The generic name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, is an available name and the nominal genus in question has, as its type species, Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767, by subsequent selection by Latreille in 1810 (paragraph 12). (4) The nominal species Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1767, is currently referred to the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, the older generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, not being in use. As employed in this sense, the generic name Ful/gora Linnaeus has formed the basis of the family name FULGORIDAE, which is in universal use (paragraph 1). (5) The nominal species Cicada europaea Linnaeus, 1767 (the type species, under the Rég/es, of the genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767) is currently placed in the genus Dictyophara Germar, 1833, of which it is the type species. As employed in this sense, the generic name Dictyophara Germar has formed the basis of the family name DICTYOPHARIDAE, which, like the family name FULGORIDAE, is now in general use (paragraph 13). 202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (6) The strict application of the Rég/es in the present case would thus (a) deprive the species universally known as Fulgora of the generic name which has been for so long applied to them, and (b) involve the confusing transfer of that generic name to the genus now known by the name Dictyophara Germar. A further result of the strict application of the Régles would be that the family now known by the name FULGORIDAE would need to be known by the name LATERNARIDAE, while the family name FULGORIDAE would need to be transferred to the family now known by the name DICTYOPHARIDAE. 17. The question which it will, therefore, be necessary for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to consider is whether the undoubted prima facie case advanced by Mr. Fennah, with the support of Dr. China, is such that the use of the Plenary Powers would be justified in order to preserve the accustomed use of the generic name Fulgora Linnaeus and of the family name FULGORIDAE and to prevent those names from being transferred respectively to the genus now known by the name Dictyophara Germar and the family now known as DICTYOPHARIDAE. 18. In the event of the Commission deciding that this is certainly a case where the strict application of the Régles would give rise to quite unjustified confusion and therefore that the Plenary Powers should be used in the interests of nomenclatorial stability, the detailed action which the Commission would need to take would be the following :— (1) use the Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to set aside all selections of type species for the nominal genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, made prior to the proposed decision ; (c) to designate the nominal species Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the nominal genus Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 ; (2) declare the alleged generic name Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766, to be a cheironym ; (3) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified below :— (a) Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, as designated under the OPINION 322 203 Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above : Cicada laternaria Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Dictyophara Germar, 1833 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by selection by Desmarest (1845) : Fulgora europaea Linnaeus, 1767) ; (4) place the under-mentioned generic names and alleged generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) the generic name Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, as suppressed under (1)(a) above ; (b) the alleged generic name Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766, declared to be a cheironym under (2) above ; (5) place the under-mentioned specific trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) laternaria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Cicada laternaria ; (b) europaea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binominal combination Fulgora europaea. 8. Question of the correct spelling of the generic name ** Dictyophara ’’ Germar, 1833: At the time when the Report reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph was com- pleted, the Secretary placed the following Minute (dated 19th May 1951) on the File Z.N.(S.) 162, in regard to the question of the correct spelling of the name Dictyophara Germar, 1833, a generic name which it had been necessary to deal with in that Report :— Question of the spelling to be adopted for the generic name ** Dictyophara ’’, Germar, 1833 MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In preparing my Report to the Commission on the problems associated with the name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, I have had to include 204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS a proposal that the name Dictyophara Germar, 1833, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, this being necessary in order to comply with the directions given to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that in future Rulings given in Opinions should cover the whole field involved. 2. In preparing this portion of my Report I found that the foregoing generic name had been emended to Dictyophora on linguistic grounds by Burmeister in 1835 (Handb. Ent. 2 (1) : 159). I accordingly con- sulted Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London). In the enclosure to a letter dated 11th September 1950, Dr. China expressed the opinion that ‘‘ Dictyophora is an unnecessary emendation by Burmeister ’’. In a further letter dated 20th September 1950, Dr. China wrote as follows: ‘“ Dictyophara versus Dictyophora: In the history of this genus the spelling ‘ -phara ’ has been used by seventy-nine authors, whereas the spelling ‘-phora’ has been used by only forty- three authors. In the principal monograph of the family by Melichar (1912, Abh. K. K. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 7 (1) : 1—221, 5 pls.) the emendation Dictyophora is used, but in the most recent catalogue—by Metcalf (1946, Gen. Cat. Hemipt. Fasc. 4, Part 8 : 1—246)—the original Dictyophara is used. The tendency is for modern authors to use the original spelling rather than the emendation, following the idea that the correct classical spelling does not matter in a generic name. Dictyophora; of course, means ‘ Net-bearer’, presumably referring to the net-like venation, and is etymologically correct. Burmeister’s assumption was that Dictyophara Germar was a misspelling for Dictyophora but it is possible that Germar, thinking of the supposed luminous properties of the FULGORIDAE, had in mind the Greek word ai): dapos, a lighthouse and transliterated it ‘ -phara’. 3. It is evident from the information furnished by Dr. China that Germar’s own paper contains no evidence to suggest that the spelling ‘* Dictyophara’’, as used by him, was a “ faute’’ of any of the three kinds recognised by the present Article 19. It is evident also that the emendation Dictyophora has not won general acceptance—rather the reverse. In these circumstances there can be no case for discarding the original spelling Dictyophara under Article 19 or for asking the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to give valid force to the emendation Dictyophora published by Burmeister in 1835. 9. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion and Mr. Hemming’s Report on the issues involved, together with Mr. Hemming’s separate application for a Declaration interpreting Article 30, Rule (f), were sent to the printer in May 1951 and were published on 28th September 1951 in Part 2 of OPINION 322 205 volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Fennah, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 34—37; Hemming, 1951, ibid. 6 : 37—44 (Report on the case of Laternaria and Fulgora) ; id., 1951, ibid. 6 : 45—48 (application for a Declaration inter- preting Rule (f) in Article 30)). 10. Issue of Public Notices in 1951 : Under the revised arrange- ments prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951 both in Part 2 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Mr. Fennah’s application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. As in the case of the Public Notice given in 1947 (paragraph 3 above), the publication of these Notices in 1951 elicited no objection to the action proposed. Ill—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 11. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)45 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper V.P.(52)45 was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the name Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, as set out in Points (1) to (5) in paragraph 18 on page 44 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” {i.e., in the Report reproduced in paragraph 7 of the present Opinion]. 12. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)45 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)45 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Hering; Calman; Dymond; Hanko; Bonnet; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Bradley ; Hemming ; Esaki; Lemche; Cabrera; Stoll; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 14. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)45, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 13 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 15. The decision taken by the Commission when voting on the present application to place the generic name Dictyophara Germar, 1833, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the foregoing spelling, that is, in the original spelling used by Germar, involved the rejection of the emended spelling Dictyo- phora published by Burmeister in 1835 (paragraph 8 above), but by inadvertence an express proposal that this latter spelling should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid ~ OPINION 322 ~ 207 Generic Names in Zoology was not included in the recommenda- tion submitted, though the recording in this way of every name rejected by the Commission is obligatory under the regulations governing the placing of names on the Official Lists and Official Indexes. The opportunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to make good this accidental omission. 16. On 28th April 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)45, as amplified in the manner specified in paragraph 15 above. 17. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Dictyophara Germar, 1833, Rev. Ent. 1 (4) : 175 Dictyophora Burmeister, 1835, Handb. Ent. 2 (1) : 159 europaea, Fulgora, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 704 Fulgora Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 703 Laternaria Linnaeus, 1764, Mus. Lud. Ulr. : 152 laternaria, Cicada, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 434 Noctiluca Houttuyn, 1766, Natuurl. Hist. : 245 The reference for the selection of a type species for the genus Dictyophara Germar, 1833, referred to in the Ruling given in the present Opinion is: Desmarest, 1845, in d’Orbigny, Dict. univ. Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 5 : 121. 18. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.)75 has been allotted. 208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 19. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name ”’ and correcponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 20. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 21. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-Two (322) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Eighth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrtcatre & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 14. Pp. 209—226 OPINION 323 Validation and interpretation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific name angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus for the type species of the genus Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 323 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (\st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell Giniversicy, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). ‘Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). j 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 323 VALIDATION AND INTERPRETATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE SPECIFIC NAME **ANGULATUS” SCHLOTHEIM, 1820, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “AMMONITES ANGULATUS ” FOR THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS *“SCHLOTHEIMIA” BAYLE, 1878 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) RULING : (1) Under the Plenary Powers, the specific name angulatus Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy, and the specific name angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus, is hereby validated. (2) It is hereby directed that the nominal species Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, is to be inter- preted by reference to the lectotype from the Schlotheim collection so selected and figured by Lange in 1951. (3) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 769 :—Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as validated, under the Plenary Powers, under (1) above and as interpreted under (2) above). (4) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 188 :—Scamnoceras Lange, 1924 (a junior objective synonym of Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, as defined under (3) above). 212 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (5) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 203 and 204 respectively : (a) angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus, as validated under the Plenary Powers, under (1) above and as defined under (2) above (specific name of type species of Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878) ; (b) princeps Buckman, 1923, as published in the combination Schlotheimia princeps. (6) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 106 :—angulatus Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus and as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1) above. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The problem represented by the nominal genus Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, was first brought to the attention of the International Commission by Dr. W. J. Arkell (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) in June 1949, and 19th February 1950, Dr. Arkell submitted the following application in regard to it for the consideration of the Commission :— On the generic names ‘‘ Schlotheimia ’’ Bayle, 1878, and ‘‘ Scamnoceras’’ Lange, 1924 ; proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the name ‘‘Ammonites angulatus ’’ Schlotheim, 1820 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic) By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) _ 1. The generic name Schlotheimia was introduced by Bayle in 1878 in the explanation of his pl. 65, fig. 1, in the combination Schlotheimia OPINION 323 213 angulata Schlotheim. No text was published. In the following year a list of the type species of Bayle’s genera was published by H. Douvillé (1879 : 91) and in this A. angulatus Schlotheim was categorically stated to be the type species of Schlotheimia Bayle. 2. The figure given by Bayle in illustration of this species is commonly believed to differ from Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim at least subgenerically. It was therefore renamed S. princeps by Buckman (1923: pl. cccxcv, where Bayle’s figure is reproduced and labelled ** genotype’). 3. In accordance with the general practice of the 1920s, Bayle’s genus was considered to have been based on the material handled by him, and S. princeps has been cited as type species of Schlotheimia by Buckman (1923, Joc. cit.), by Spath (1924 : 197; 1925 : 201) and by Lange (1925 : 469). Lange (1924 : 198) proposed the generic name Scamnoceras for Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim. 4. The position stated in para. 3 could only be legalised by suspension of the Rules. As the Rules stand, A. angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, is the type species of Schlotheimia by monotypy, and the generic name Scamnoceras Lange, 1924, is an objective synonym of Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878. 5. The combination Schlotheimia angulata had been familiar and had become current in the literature for 45 years before the refinements introduced in the 1920s (see para. 3), and many authors have continued to use it since. So familiar is this combination, and so important the species A. angulatus Schlotheim, that a permanent settlement of the question is urgently needed. (See paras. 6 and 7.) 6. The zone of Ammonites angulatus was set up by Oppel (1856 : 14) and has been constantly used in stratigraphical geology ever since. It represents an important series of strata which are developed through- out Europe and also elsewhere. From the geologist’s point of view a change of the name of this zone cannot be contemplated. 7. The family ANGULATIDAE was founded by Hyatt (1874 : 15) for A. angulatus and its allies, and is still in general use under the corrected name SCHLOTHEIMIDAE Spath (1925 : 201). SCHLOTHEIMIDAE having comparatively recently replaced ANGULATIDAE in the literature, it is obviously desirable that the type species of Schlotheimia should be A. angulatus, which was in fact Hyatt’s original type although he made a technical error in basing a family upon a species. 214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. There are, however, the following difficulties in recognising the species A. angulatus Schlotheim and upholding it as the type species of the genus Schlotheimia and thence of the family SCHLOTHEIMIDAE, and as index of the Angulatus Zone. (See paras. 9, 10.) 9. Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim (1820 : 70) was at publication a homonym of A. angulatus J. Sowerby (1815 : 2 : 9, pl. cvii, fig. 1), an ammonite described by Sowerby as “‘ a rare and curious specimen ”’, from the Upper Lias and belonging to an entirely different genus (Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867: p. 95. Type species: A. annulatus Sowerby, selected by Buckman, 1911). There never has been and never can be any risk of confusion, for the two genera belong to different families and the homonymy has not hitherto been noticed. The name Dactylioceras angulatum (Sowerby) is unknown in the literature. Quenstedt (1846: 173) considered it a synonym of D. commune (J. Sowerby, 1815) and was probably right. 10. A. angulatus Schlotheim (1820 : 70) was never figured by its author. Its validity rests on (a) a brief description and localities, and (b) citations of four figures: Scheuchzer, 1718, fig. 50, and Bourget, 1742, figs. 272, 273, 275. Mr. D. T. Donovan points out that all Bourget’s three figures are copies of figures in Scheuchzer, and that in particular Bourget’s fig. 272 is a copy of Scheuchzer’s fig. 50; and that therefore only three figures have to be considered. He also points out that Bourget’s figs. 272 and 273 are described in their explanations as having keels, a point evidently not noticed by Schlotheim whose description of A. angulatus specifies that there is no keel or furrow on the venter. These two figures therefore should be > ruled out, leaving Bourget’s fig. 275 (copied from Scheuchzer’s fig. 24) as the only eligible syntype among the cited figures. But, like the figure of the type species of the genus Ammonites Bruguiére, this figure is unrecognisable ; it could be a Cretaceous Hoplitid. 11. A. angulatus Schlotheim therefore must rest solely on Schlotheim’s description, supported by his localities. These are “From the neighbourhood of Coburg, from Heinberg and the Bamberg region’, and the description which reads “ Distinguished from other ammonites by its ribbing, which is strongly developed and joined to make an acute angle on the sharp venter, without any ventral line.”’ 12. Schlotheim mentioned that his material consisted of 15 specimens. None of these has since been figured, and the present whereabouts of the collection is unknown. The first author to use Schlotheim’s name, however, Quenstedt (1845 : 74, pl. iv, fig. 2), consulted the type material, for he wrote “‘ That this alone is Schlotheim’s angulatus OPINION 323 DAS is proved by the specimens in Schlotheim’s collection in Berlin, and the short but exact description in the Petrifactenkunde, p. 71”. It is therefore proposed that Quenstedt’s pl. iv, fig. 2c, 2d should be taken as the basis for the recognition of Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim. The locality is Bempflingen, Swabia. 13. The considerations mentioned in paras. 6 and 7 make this a clear case where it is desirable that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to set aside an earlier homonym of no use in nomen- clature in order to save a later homonym of over a century’s standing in the literature and a key name in stratigraphical geology as well as in ammonite systematics. (Cf. Sphaeroceras Bayle dealt with in Commission file Z.N.(S.) 405).2 14. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for all purposes the trivial name angulatus Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus ; (b) to validate the trivial name angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the combination Ammonites angulatus ; (c) to direct that the trivial name angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the foregoing combination, is to be applied to the species figured by Quenstedt under the above name in 1845 (Die Cephalopoden) as figs. 2c and 2d on plate iv of the above work ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim 1820, validated as in (1)(b), and defined as in (1)(c) above) ; (3) place the generic name Scamnoceras Lange, 1924, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; 1 See Opinion 300 (1954, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 8 : 237—248). 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) place the under-mentioned specific trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the com- bination Ammonites angulatus, as validated and defined in (1) above ; (b) princeps Buckman, 1923, as published in the combination Schlotheimia princeps ; (5) place the trivial name angulatus Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonities angulatus, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. References Bayle, E., 1878. Explication de la Carte géologique de France, vol. 4. Atlas only. [Bourget, ee 1742. Traité des Pétrifications. Paris. Buckman, S. S., 1923. Type Ammonites, 4 : pl. cccxcv. Douvillé, H., 1879. [Presentation of Bayle’s ‘“Atlas”’.] Bull. Soc. géol. France, (3)7 : 91 (C. R. séance du 13 Janvier). Hyatt, A., 1867. ‘° The fossil cephalopods of the Museum of Com- parative Zoology’, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard, 3 : 71. Hyatt, A., 1874. ‘“‘ Genetic relations of the Angulatidae”’, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 17 : 15. Lange, W., 1924. ‘‘ Uber die Psilonotenstufe...’’, Jahrb. preuss. geol. Landesanst, 44 : 176. Lange, W., 1925. ‘“‘ Zur Paldogeographie und Ammonitenfauna des Liasa....”, Z. Deutsch. geol. Gesellsch., 77 : 439. Oppel, A., 1856—58. Die Juraformation. Stuttgart. Quenstedt, F. A., 1845—9. Die Cephalopoden. Atlas, 1849. Scheuchzer, J. J., 1718. Natur-Historie des Schweizerlandes, Part 3. Zurich, OPINION 323 PAG) Schlotheim, E. F. von, 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte. Gotha. Sowerby, J., 1815. Mineral Conchology, 2 : 9. Spath, L. F., 1924. ‘‘ The Ammonites of the Blue Lias’’, Proc. geol. Assoc., 35 : 186. Spath, L. F., 1925. “‘ Notes on Yorkshire Ammonites”’, The Naturalist, 1925 : 201. I1—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Arkell’s preliminary communication in June 1949, the problem involved in connection with the name Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, was. allotted the Registration Number Z.N.(S.) 422. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer in December 1950 and it was published on 4th May 1951 in Triple-Part 6/8 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Arkell, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 204—207). 4. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 4th May 1951, both in Triple-Part 6/8 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the Part in which Dr. Arkell’s application was published, and also to the other serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to certain palaeontological serial publications in Europe and 218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS America. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 5. Support received for the present application : Support for the present application was received from the following special- ists :—(a) Dr. D. T. Donovan (University of Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol); (b) Dr. Helmut Holder (Geologisch- Paldontologisches Institut der Universitdt Tiibingen, Germany) ; (c) the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleonto- logy in America. The communications so received are given in the immediately following paragraphs. 6. Support received from Dr. D. T. Donovan (University of Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol) : On 28th May 1951, Dr. D. T. Donovan (University of Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol) addressed a letter to the Commission commenting upon a number of applications, including the present one. The following is an extract from the foregoing letter of the passage in which Dr. Donovan indicated his support for the present application (Donovan, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 335— 336) :— (2) Page 204. The trivial name angulatus Schlotheim, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus (Z.N.(S.) 422) :— I agree with the proposal to suppress the trivial name angulatus Sowerby, 1815, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus, in favour of angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the same binominal combination, as it will bring the legal position into line with universal usage. Any possible doubt as to the identity of Schlotheim’s species has been removed since Dr. Arkell’s paragraphs 10—12 were written, by the publication of type material by Lange (1951, Palaeontographica 100 (Abt A): pl. 1, fig. 2 (lectotype), also fig. 6 and pl. 2, fig. 13). OPINION 323 219 7. Support received from Dr. Helmut Hélder (Geologisch- Paldontologisches Institut der Universitat Tiibingen, Germany) : On 23rd October 1951, Dr. Helmut Holder (Geologisch-Paldonto- logisches Institut der Universitat Tiibingen) submitted a statement through Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) setting out his views on the applications relating to the names of ammonites submitted by Dr. Arkell which had been published in Triple-Part 6/8 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The following is an extract from Dr. Hélder’s communication of the passage in which he indicated his support for the present application :— Dieser zuletzt genannte Fall liegt bei der Fixierung von Schlotheimia angulata ((10), vgl. Bull. S. 206) durch Quenstedt 1845—49, Taf. 4, Fig. 2c u. d vor. Denn hier ist der Anschluss an die Absicht des Autors Schlotheim durch Quenstedt’s Kenntnis der Schlotheim’schen Sammlung und den ausdriicklichen Hinweis auf die Stiicke dieser Sammlung gewdahrleistet. Trotzdem k6énnte auch hier ein Zusatz wie “ Schlotheimia angulata Schloth. I.C. 51” eine Erleichterung fiir den Leser kiinftiger Publikationen bedeuten. 8. Support received from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America : On 9th April 1952 there was received a large number of letters commenting on various applications previously published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature from Professor G. Winston Sinclair (then of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Pale- onotology in America. Included among these was a letter, reporting that the members of the Joint Committee supported the present application by six votes to five. The foregoing letter was dated 6th February 1952, and its late receipt was apparently due to a decision to defer the despatch to the Commission of the letters containing comments by members of the Joint Committee until all the letters in question had been prepared. By the date on which this letter was received the Prescribed Period of Public Notice had expired and the Voting Paper (V.P.(52)24) had been prepared. It was therefore impossible to include in that Voting Paper a reference to Professor Sinclair’s letter, but, when the Voting Paper was despatched (24th April), a supplementary 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS sheet containing the particulars furnished by Professor Sinclair was issued to the Members of the Commission, who were thus placed in possession of the views of the members of the Joint Committee at the same time that they received the Voting Paper relating to the present case. The following is the text of Professor Sinclair’s letter :— The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America has considered this subject, and I wish to inform you that, being polled, they voted : To support the petition (six) :—(1) Katherine V. W. Palmer ; (2) Bryan Patterson ; (3) Bobb Schaeffer ; (4) J. Marvin Weller ; (5) John B. Reeside, Jr. ; (6) R. C. Moore. To oppose the petition (five) :—(1) Don L. Frizzell ; (2) A. Myra Keen ; (3) Siemon W. Muller ; (4) John W. Wells ; (5) G. Winston Sinclair. III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)24: On 24th April 1952 a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)24) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the names Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, and Scamnoceras Lange, 1924, as specified in Points (1) to (5) on page 206 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature’. [i.e. in paragraph 14 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 10. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 24th July 1952. OPINION 323 921 - 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)24: The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)24 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received): Calman: Hering; Dymond; Esaki; do Amaral ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Lemche ; Vokes ; Cabrera ; Pearson ; Bradley ; Boschma; Mertens; Hemming; Riley ; (b) Negative Vote, one (1) : Stoll ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski. 12. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 25th July 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)24, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 11 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 13. Selection of a lectotype for ‘‘Ammonites angulatus ”’ Schlotheim, 1820, by Lange in 1951: On 18th March 1954, Dr. W. J. Arkell (the applicant in the present case) addressed a letter to the Commission drawing attention to the selection by Lange in 1951 of a specimen of Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, from the Schlotheim collection, to be the lectotype of the foregoing species. At the time of the receipt of this letter, the 222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS draft of an Opinion giving effect to the Vote on this case by the Commission in 1952 had already been prepared, but Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, took the view that the informaiion so received created a new situation in which it was desirable that a further consultation with the Commission should be held. Accordingly, on 3rd April 1954, Mr. Hemming despatched a memorandum to the Members of the Commission, in which, after recalling the Vote already taken in this case, he proceeded as follows :— Name of the type species of ‘‘ Schlotheimia ’’ Bayle, 1878 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Extract from a memorandum dated 3rd April 1954) 4. I have recently been engaged in preparing the Opinion required to give effect to the foregoing decision and I have been in correspondence in regard to it with Dr. Arkell. Dr. Arkell has now informed me that he has learnt of the publication of a paper by Lange (March 1951, Palaeontographica 100 (Abt A) : pl. 1, fig. 2) on this subject which appeared after the submission to the Commission of his application, in which Lange (a) figured a specimen of Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, from the Schlotheim collection, and (b) designated this specimen to be the lectotype of this nominal species. Dr. Arkell considers that the selection of the above previously unfigured specimen from the Schlotheim collection satisfactorily defines the nominal species Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim and he no longer desires that his proposal that this species should be defined by reference to Quenstedt’s figures should be proceeded with, this not now being necessary in view of the discovery of the specimen in the Schlothemm collection and its designation as the lectotype of this species. 5. If it had not been for the delay which occurred in the preparation of Opinions giving effect to the decisions taken by the Commission in 1952—a delay which in the conditions then obtaining was inevitable OPINION 323 223 in view of the need for concentrating upon preparations for the Copenhagen meeting—the Opinion embodying the Commission’s decision in the present case would have been rendered long ago. In view, however, of the fact that the Opinion on this case which was recently prepared has not yet been published, it is still possible to modify the Ruling given in it, if this is considered desirable. It is thought that in the circumstances now disclosed, the Commission may take the view that, as the object sought in this application—the obtaining of an authoritative interpretation of the nominal species Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820—is now obtainable by reference to the lectotype which has been selected and in consequence the use of the Plenary Powers is no longer required, it would be better to modify the portion of the previous decision under which those Powers were invoked for this purpose. 6. The question now submitted to the Commission is thus :— (1) whether the decision to use the Plenary Powers for the purpose of determining the nominal species Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, should be replaced by a decision that the nominal species shall be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected by Lange in 1951 (this latter decision being one which does not involve the use of the ~ Plenary Powers) or (2) whether the existing decision for the deter- mination of the taxonomic species represented by the foregoing nominal species (i.e. the use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the foregoing nominal species should be interpreted by reference to the figures published by Quenstedt in 1845) shall remain unaltered. 14. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1 : Simultaneously with the submission to the Commission on 3rd April 1954 of the memorandum, an extract from which has been given in the immediately preceding paragraph, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.) (54)1) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote affirmatively for one or other of the alterna- tives. The alternatives so submitted were as follows :— ALTERNATIVE “A” Substitution for the existing decision to use the Plenary Powers (to secure the interpretation of Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, by reference to certain figures published by Quenstedt in 1845) of a revised decision that the species Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, is to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype from the Schlotheim collection so selected and figured by Lange in 1951. 224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ALTERNATIVE “B” Retention of the existing decision to use the Plenary Powers to secure the identification of the above species by reference to the figures 2c and 2d on pl. iv of the work by Quenstedt entitled Die Cephalopoden published in 1845. 15. The Prescribed Voting Period for the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 3rd May 1954. 16. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1 : At the close of the Voting Period on 3rd May 1954 the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1 was as follows :— (a) Votes in favour of Alternative “A” (acceptance of Lange’s selection of a lectotype for “Ammonites angulatus ” Schlotheim, 1820) had been given by the following fifteen(15) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received”) :— Holthuis ; Lemche ; Vokes ; Hering ; Sylvester-Bradley; Bonnet ; Mertens; Cabrera; Riley; Stoll; Pearson ; Hemming ; Jaczewski; Bradley (J.C.) ; Boschma ; (b) Votes in favour of Alternative “‘ B’’ (retention of decision to define ““Ammonites angulatus”’ Schlotheim, 1820, by reference to certain figures published by Quenstedt in 1845) had been given by the following two (2) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which votes were received):— Dymond ; Esaki ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2)?:— do Amaral ; Hanko. 2 The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1 were not Members of the Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)24 :— Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). 5 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, votes in favour of Alternative “A”? were received from Commissioners do Amaral (on 19th May 1954) and Hanko (on 25th May 1954). OPINION 323 225 17. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1 : On 4th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, as Returning Officer for the vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1, signed a Certificate that the votes cast were as set out in paragraph 16 above and declaring that the proposal submitted as Alternative ““A”’ in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 18. On 4th May 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Com- mission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)24, as amended by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)1. 19. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the Ruling given in the present Opinion:— angulatus, Ammonites, Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 2:9, pl. cvu, fig. 1 angulatus, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820, Die Petrefactenk. : 70 princeps, Schlotheimia, Buckman, 1923, Type Ammonites 4 : pl. CCCXCV Scamnoceras Lange, 1924, Jahrb. preuss. geol. Landesanst. 44 : 198 Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, Explic. Carte géol. France 4 (Atlas) : pl. 65, fig. 1 20. The following is the reference for the selection of a lecto- type for the nominal species Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, specified in the second paragraph of the Ruling given in the present Opinion:—Lange (1951, Palaeontographica 100 Gabi) =) (23) —expl. tol pl); ply itis 2: 21. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in 226 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 864 has been allotted. 22. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression ‘‘ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 23. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary: to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 24. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-Three (323) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcarre & Cooper Limirep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C..c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 15. Pp. 227—250 OPINION 324 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of twenty-one nominal genera of Ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and matters incidental thereto AN HSONi4 FEB 15 1955 | LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Twelve Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued Tth January, 1955 - INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON | ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 324 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (\1st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. VoKEs (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CAaLMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (1st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. SToLt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New Yerk, - N.Y.,U.S.A.) (ist January 1947). , " Professor Hs BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The " Netherlands} 1st January 1947). y = Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Fraticis ‘HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 324 ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE NAMES OF TWENTY-ONE NOMINAL GENERA OF AMMONITES (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) AND MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO RULING: (1) The correct spelling of the name published both as Oecotraustes and as Oekotraustes by Waagen in 1869 is Oecotraustes. (2) The correct spelling of the name published by Hyatt in 1877 as Quenstedioceras is Quenstedtoceras. (6) he under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 770 to 790 respectively :— (a) Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Buckman (S.) (1894) : Ammonites scipionianus @’Orbigny, 1844) (b) Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Lange (1924): Ammonites lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844) (c) Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Buckman (S.), 1911: Ammonites stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815) (d) Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Nicolesco (1931) : Bigotella petri Nicolesco, 1917) (e) Cadoceras Fischer, 1882 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Spath (1932) : Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814) 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (f) Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (gender : mascu- line) (type species, by original designation : Ammonites deslongchampsi @Orbigny, 1846) (g) Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Bonarelli (1900) : Ammo- nites kridion Hehl, [18301) (h) Echioceras Bayle, 1878 (gender: neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites raricostatus Zieten, [1831}) (i) Garantiana Mascke, 1907 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation: Ammonites garantianus V@Orbigny, 1846) (j) Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 (gender : neuter) (type species, .by original designation : Ammoz- nites lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819) (k) Ludwigella Buckman (S.), 1901 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815) (1) Oecotraustus Waagen, 1869 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Munier-Chalmas (1892) : Oecotraustes genicularis Waagen, 1869) (m) Oppelia Waagen, 1869 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Douvillé (H.), (1884) : Ammonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823) (n) Phiyseogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901 (gender : neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites dispansus Lycett, 1860) (0) Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Fischer (1882) : Ammo- nites spinatus Bruguiére, 1789) -(p) Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901 (gender : neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann, 1887) OPINION 324 231 (q) Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Peri- sphinctes rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911) (r) Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Spath (1924): Ammo- nites planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824) (s) Quenstedtoceras (emend. of Quenstedioceras) Hyatt, 1877 (gender.: neuter) (type species, by mono- typy : Ammonites leachi Sowerby (J.), 1819) (t) Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900 (gender: neuter) (type species, by original designation: Ammonites calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815) (u) Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Buckman (S.) (1898) : Ammonites humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de @>). 1325): (4) The under-mentioned names, being the specific names of the type species of the nominal genera enumer- ated in (3) above as there severally so specified, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 205 to 225 respectively :—(a) calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonites calloviensis; (b) concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonites concavus; (c) deslongchampsi dOrbigny, 1846, as published in the combination Ammonites deslongchampsi ;_ (d) dispansus Lycett, 1860, as published in the combination Ammonites dispansus ; (e) garantianus d@Orbigny, 1846, as published in the combination Am- monites garantianus ; (f) genicularis Waagen, 1869, as published in the combination Oecotraustes genicularis ; (g) humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825, as published in the combination Ammonites humphriesianus ; (h) kridion Hehl in Zieten, [1830], as published in the com- bination Ammonites kridion ; (i) lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, as published in the combination Ammonites lacu- natus ; (j) lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1818, as published in 232 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the combination Ammonites lamberti ; (k) leachi Sowerby (J.), 1819, as published in the combination Ammonites leachi ; (1) petri Nicolesco, 1917, as published in the combination Bigotella petri; (m) planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, as published in the combination Ammonites planorbis ; (n) raricostatus Zieten, [1831], as published in the combination Ammonites roricostatus ; (0) rotund- atus Roemer (J.), 1911, as published in the combination Perisphinctes rotundatus ; (p) scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844, as published in the combination Ammonites scipionianus ; (q) spinatus Bruguiere, 1789, as published in the com- bination Ammonites spinatus ; (r) stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonites stellaris ; (s) struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, as published in the combination Ammonites struckmanni; (t) sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Ammonites sublaevis ; (au) subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, as published in the combination Ammonites sub- radiatus. (5) The. under-mentioned generic names or alleged generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 189 to 197 respectively :—(a) Bourkelamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 (a junior objective synonym of Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920) ; (b) Garantia Rollier, 1909 (an Invalid Emendation of Garantiana Mascke, 1907) ; (c) Garantiana Hyatt, 1900 (a nomen nudum) ; (d) Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910 (a nomen nudum); (e) Oekotraustes Waagen, 1869 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Oecotraustes Waagen, 1869); (f) Paltopleuroceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (a junior objective synonym of Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867) ; (g) Quenstedticeras Teisseyre, 1889 (an Invalid Emendation of the defective form, Quenstedioceras, 1n which the name Quenstedtoceras Hyatt, 1877, was originally published) ; (h) Quenstedio- ceras Hyatt, 1877 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Quenstedtoceras Hyatt, 1877) ; (4) Stepheoceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (a junior objective synonym of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869). OPINION 324 233 I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 20th September 1950, Dr. W. J. Arkell (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) submitted a list of names of nominal genera of ammonites for admission to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Correspondence ensued between the Secretary and Dr. Arkell in regard to various matters in connection with this application. These were concluded on 20th February 1951, when the following application was sub- mitted :— Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ of the names of twenty-one genera of Jurassic Ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and matters incidental thereto By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) 1. I submit herewith to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a list of the names of twenty-one genera of Jurassic -ammonites which I recommend should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Each of these names is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym of any generic name previously published as the valid name of a genus in the Animal Kingdom. The species cited in the list now submitted as the type species of each of the genera in question is believed to have been correctly so determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Régles, being the type species either by original designation (Rule (a)), or by monotypy (Rule (c)), or by subsequent selection (Rule (g) ). 2. The twenty-one names now submitted have been selected because in the past there have been differences of opinion among specialists in regard either to the species which should be accepted as the type species of the genera concerned or to other questions relating to these names. In view of these inconsistencies in the literature, it is very desirable that the use of these names in the sense required by the Régles should be stabilised as soon as possible by these names being placed upon the Official List with their correct type species. The nature of the inconsistencies referred to above and the grounds on which it is considered that the solutions now recommended for recognition in the Official List are in strict accordance with the provisions of the Régles, is explained (so far as is necessary) in the series of notes Ewen in the Appendix to the present application. 234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. In seven cases, points calling for some special action arise. These cases are set out below :— (1) Cadoceras Fischer, 1882: As explained in the Appendix, no valid type selection has ever been made for this genus. I accordingly now select, as its type species, Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814 (=Cadoceras sublaeve (Sowerby, 1814) ). (2) Garantiana Mascke, 1907: Prior to the valid publication of this name by Mascke in 1907, it had been published as a nomen nudum by Hyatt in 1900 (in Eastman’s Zittel, Textb. Paleont. - 1 : 583). This invalid earlier use of the name Garantiana appears in Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus (2 : 440), where its invalid status is correctly noted ; unfortunately, however, Mascke’s valid use of this name is not noted in that work. It is desirable, therefore, that, in order to obviate the risk of future misunderstandings, the nomenclatorially non- existent name Garantiana Hyatt, 1900, should now be finally disposed of by being placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. At the same time the uncalled-for emendation Garantia Rollier, 1909 (Arch. Sci. phys. nat. Genéve (4) 28 : 613, 615) should also be placed on the Official Index. The type species of the genus Garantiana Mascke has been used as a zonal index fossil and is therefore of special importance in stratigraphy. (3) Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 : The name Lamberticeras was first published as a nomen nudum by Kilian in 1910 (Lethaea geognostica 3 (No. 1) (Lief. 2) : 194). Possessing no status in zoological nomenclature, the name Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910, does not invalidate the later name Lamberticeras Buckman, 1920. On erroneous information that the opposite was the case Buckman (1920, Type Ammonites 3 : 17) renamed his genus Bourkelamberticeras. Both the nomen nudum Lamberti- ceras Kilian, 1910, and the junior objective synonym Bourke- lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920, should now be relegated to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (4) Oecotraustes Waagen, 1869 : When Waagen first published this name, he used two different spellings, namely Oecotraustes and Oekotraustes. Most subsequent authors have adopted the first of these spellings, which is clearly the more correct. In order to promote uniformity in nomenclatorial practice, it is desirable that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should rule in favour of this spelling, at the same time placing the spelling Oekotraustes on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (5) Pleuroceras Hyatt (A.), 1867: In the mistaken belief that this name was unavailable by reason of generic homonymy, OPINION 324 235 Buckman (S.), in 1898 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54 : 453) replaced it by the name Paltopleuroceras, which is therefore an invalid objective synonym. This error was pointed out by Jaworski, 1931 (Neues Jahrb. fiir. Min., Beil.-Band 65 : 86). The name Paltopleuroceras has been widely used but not to an extent which would, in my view, justify asking the International Commission to validate it under its Plenary Powers. When the name Pleuroceras Buckman is placed on the Official List, the name Paltopleuroceras should therefore be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The type species of the nominal genus Pleuroceras Buckman has been used as a zonal index fossil and is therefore of special importance in stratigraphy. (6) Quenstedtoceras Hyatt, 1877 : When this name was first published, it appeared in the spelling “‘ Quenstedioceras’’. The name of the geologist after whom this genus was name was, however, Quenstedt. It is evident, therefore, that the original spelling (quoted above) was due to a printer’s error or to a slip of the pen on the part of Hyatt in 1877. The original error was first detected by Pompeckj in 1899 (Cape Flora : 96); in the following year it was silently corrected to “‘ Quenstedtoceras ”’ by Hyatt himself (1900, in Eastman’s Zittel, Textb. Paleont. 1: 580). Since then the corrected spelling has been generally used in the English-speaking countries (see Arkell, 1939, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 95: 151). In Continental literature, a third spelling, “‘ Quenstedticeras’’ is generally used, this having been first introduced by Teisseyre in 1889 (Neues Jahrb. fiir Min. Beil-Band 6 : 148). This was, however, an unwarranted emendation of Hyatt’s name, the termination *“* -oceras ’’, which is open to no objection, having always been used for this name. The error represented by the original spelling clearly falls within the classes of error specified in Article 19 of the Régles, and it is accordingly recommended that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, when placing this generic name on the Official List, should expressly emend the spelling to Quenstedtoceras. It would be desirable that at the same time the erroneous spelling Quenstedioceras and also the erroneous spelling Quenstedticeras should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (7) Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 : Buckman (S.) in 1898 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54 : 454) changed this name to Stepheoceras, on the mistaken assumption that it was invalidated by Stephano- ceros Ehrenberg, 1832 (Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1831 : 125) (Rotifera) and, as the more recent of the two names, was accordingly invalid. Both the name Stephanoceras Waagen and its invalid substitute Stepheoceras Buckman are often misused in Continental literature. See Spath, 1944 (Geol. 236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Mag. 81: 230). The name Stepheoceras Buckman, 1898, being an invalid junior objective synonym of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology at the same time that Waagen’s Stephanoceras is placed on the Official List. The type species of the genus Stephanoceras Waagen has been used as a zonal index fossil and is therefore of special import- ance in stratigraphy. 4, The following is the list of generic names which it is recommended should now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: — Names recommended for addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 17 : 225 (type species, by selection by Buckman (S.), 1894 (Geol. Mag. (4) 1 : 361) : Ammonites scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844, Pal. francaise, Terr. jurass. : 207, pl. 51, figs. 7, 8) (gender of generic name : neuter). Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883, Ammoniten schwab. Jura: 26 (type species, by selection by Lange, 1924 (Jahrb. preuss. geol. Landesanst. 44 : 176) : Ammonites lacunatas Buckman (J.), 1844, Geol. Chelten- ham : 105) (gender of generic name : neuter). Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3 : 78, 80 (type species, by selection by Buckman (S.), 1911 (Type Ammonites 1 : v) : Am- monites stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1: 211, pl. 93) (gender of generic name : neuter). Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918, C. R. Sommaire Soc. géol. France (4) 18 : 36 (type species, by selection by Nicolesco, 1931 (Mém. Soc. géol. France 17 : 23): Bigotella petri Nicolesco, 1917, Bull. Soc. géol. France (4) 16: 167, pl. 4, figs. 4, 5) (gender of generic name : masculine). Cadoceras Fischer, 1882, Manuel Conchyl. : 394 (type species by selection by Arkell in the present application : Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 117, pl. 54) (gender of generic name : neuter). Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 20 C. R. : clxx (type species, by original designation: Ammonites deslong- champsi (Defrance MS) d’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. francaise, Terr. jurass. : 405, pl. 138, figs. 1, 2) (gender of generic name : masculine). Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3 : 77 (type species, by selection by Bonarelli, 1900 (Pal. ital. 5:58): Ammonites kridion Hehl, in Zieten, [1830], Verstein. Wiirttemb. (1) : 4, pl. 3, fig. 2) (gender of generic name : neuter). OPINION 324 237 Echioceras Bayle, 1878, Explic. Carte géol. France 4 : explic. pl. 77, figs. 2, 3 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites raricostatus Zieten, [1831], Verstein. Wiirttemb. (3) : 18, pl. 13, fig. 4) (gender of generic name : neuter). Garantiana Mascke, 1907, Die Stephanoceras-Verwandt. Coronatensch. Nord-deutschl.: 24, 34 (type species, by original designation : Ammonites garantianus d@’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. frangaise, Terr. jurass. : 377, pl. 123) (gender of generic name : feminine). Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920, Type Ammonites 3: 14, pl. 154 (type species, by original designation : Ammonites lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3 : 73, pl. 242, figs. 1—3) (gender of generic name : neuter). Ludwigella Buckman (S.), 1901, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 13 : 266 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1 : 214, pl. 94 (holotype refigured by Buckman (S.), 1887, Mon. Inf. Ool. Ammonites: pl. 2, figs. 6, 7)) (gender of generic name : feminine). Oecostraustes Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 251 (type species, by selection by Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 20 C. R. : clxxi): Ocecotraustes genicularis Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 227, pl. 20, figs. 4a—c) (gender of generic name : masculine). Oppelia Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 200 (type species, by selection by Douvillé (H.), 1884 (Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 13 : 32): Ammonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, Min. Conch. 5 : 23, pl. 421, fig. 2) (gender of generic name : feminine). Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 13 : 266 (type species, by monotypy: Ammonites dispansus Lycett, 1860, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 2 : 146 (holotype refigured by Buckman (S.), 1922, Type Ammonites 4: pl. 340) ) (gender of generic name : neuter). Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 1 : 89 ine species, by selection by Fischer, 1882 (Manuel Conchyl. : 388) : Ammonites spinatus Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) : 40) (gender of generic name : neuter). Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 13 : 266 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, Fauna Doernten, Abh. geol. Specialkarte Preussen 8 : 72, pl. iii. fig. 1) (gender of generic name : neuter). Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923, Centralbl. Min. 23 : 346 (type species, by monotypy : Perisphinctes rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911, Fauna Aspidoides-Schichten Lechstedt, Ynaug.-Dissert. GOttingen : 44, pl. 8, fig. 2, as defined by the selection of a lectotype by Arkell, 1950 (J. ’Palaeont. 24 : 363) ) (gender of generic name : masculine). 238 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3: 72 (type species, by selection by Spath, 1924 (Proc. geol. Assoc. 35 : 191) : Ammonites planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, Min. Conch. 5 : 69, pl. 448, fig. 1) (gender of generic name : neuter). Quenstedtoceras (emend. of Quenstedioceras) Hyatt, 1877, Proc. Boston nat. Hist. Soc. 18 : 391 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites leachi Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3 : 73, pl. 242, fig. 4) (gender of generic name : neuter). Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900, in Eastman’s Zittel, Textb. Pal. 1 : 587 (type species, by original designation : Ammonites calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 2:3, pl. 104) (gender of generic name : neuter). Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 248 (type species, by selection by Buckman (S.), 1898 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54 : 454) : Ammonites humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825, Min. Conch. 5 : 161, pl. 500, fig. 1) (gender of generic name : neuter). 5. The trivial names of the type species of the genera specified in the preceding paragraph are all valid names, and each is the oldest available name for the species concerned. It is recommended that these trivial names, as listed below, should now be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology:— Names recommended for addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 2 : 3, pl. 104, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites calloviensis. concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1 : 214, pl. 94, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites concavus. deslongchampsi (Defrance MS), d’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. francaise, Terr. jurass.: 405, pl. 138, figs. 1, 2, as published in the binominal com- bination Ammonites deslongchampsi. dispansus Lycett, 1860, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 2 : 146, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites dispansus. garantianus d’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. francaise, Terr. jurass. : 377, pl. 123, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites garantianus. ‘genicularis Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost.-Pal. Beitrdge 2 : 227, pl. 20, figs. 4a—c, as published in the binominal combination Oecotraustes genicularis. humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825, Min. Conch. 5 : 161, pl. 500, fig. 1, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites humphriesianus. OPINION 324 239 kridion Hehl in Zieten, [1830], Verstein. Wiirttemb. (1) : 4, pl. 3, fig. 2, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites kridion. lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, Geol. Cheltenham : 105, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites lacunatus. lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3 : 73, pl. 242, figs. 1—3, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites lamberti. leachi Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3 : 73, pl. 242, fig. 4, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites leachi. petri Nicolesco, 1917, Bull. Soc. géol. France (4) 16 : 167, pl. 4, figs. 4, 5, as published in the binominal combination Bigotella petri. planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, Min. Conch. 5 : 69, pl. 448, fig. 1, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites planorbis. raricostatus Zieten, [1831], Verstein. Wiirttemb. (3): 18, pl. 13, fig. 4, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites raricostatus. rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911, Fauna Aspidoides-Schichten Lechstedt, Inaug. Dissert. G6ttingen : 44, pl. 8, fig. 2, as published in the binominal combination Perisphinctes rotundatus. scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844, Pal. francaise, Terr. jurass. : 207, pl. 51, figs. 7, 8, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites scipionianus. spinatus Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) : 40, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites spinatus. stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1 : 211, pl. 93, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites stellaris. struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, Fauna Doernten, Abh. geol. Specialkarte Preussen 8 : 72, pl. 3, fig. 1, as published in the binominal combina- tion Ammonites struckmanni. sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 117, pl. 54, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites sublaevis. subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, Min. Conch. 5 : 23, pl. 421, fig. 2, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites subradiatus. 6. The recommendations which I therefore now submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :— (1) declare that under Article 19 :— (a) the correct spelling of the generic name published by Waagen in 1869 both as Oécecotraustes and as Oekotraustes is Oecotraustes ; 240 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) the correct spelling of the generic name published by Hyatt in 1877 as Quenstedioceras is Quenstedtoceras; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the twenty- one generic names specified in paragraph 4 of the present application ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the twenty-one trivial names specified in paragraph 5 of the present application ; (4) place the under-mentioned names or alleged names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:— (a) Bourkelamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 (an objective junior synonym of Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920) ; (b) Garantia Rollier, 1909 (an unjustified emendation of Garantiana Mascke, 1907) ; (c) Garantiana Hyatt, 1900 (a nomen nudum) ; (d) Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910 (a nomen nudum) ; (e) Oekotraustes Waagen, 1869 (an erroneous spelling of Oecotraustes Waagen, 1869) ; (f) Paltopleuroceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (an objective junior synonym of Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867) ; ; (g) Quenstedticeras Teisseyre, 1889 (an incorrect emendation of the defective form, Quenstedioceras, in which the name Quenstedtoceras was originally published) ; (h) Quenstedioceras Hyatt, 1877 (an erroneous spelling of Quenstedtoceras Hyatt, 1877) ; (i) Stepheoceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (an objective junior synonym of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 ). APPENDIX Explanatory notes regarding certain of the generic names proposed to be added to the ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ The sign * prefixed before the name of a genus indicates that the type species of that genus has been used as a zonal index fossil and is therefore of special importance in stratigraphy. * Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875: Although in 1894 he had selected Ammonites scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844, as the type species of this genus, Buckman (S.) later (1909, Type Ammonites 1: ii) sought to change the type species of this genus to Ammonites striaries Quenstedt, OPINION 324 241 1858. See also Buckman, 1924, op. cit.5 : 33. Roman (1938, Ammon- ites jurass. crét. : 102) wrongly gave Ammonites laevigatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827, as the type species. Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883 : The only originally included species in this genus were Ammonites lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, and Ammonites boucaultianus d’Orbigny, 1844. Buckman (S.) in 1906 (Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 15 : 233) selected as typical of this genus “the group of Am. lacunatas Quenstedt’’. This cannot be accepted as the selection of a type species under Rule (g) in Article 30 “rigidly construed’’. Accordingly, the first valid type-selection for this genus is that cited in the present application, namely that by Lange (1924). * Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866: As stated in the application, the first type-selection for this genus was that of Ammonites stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, by Buckman (1911). Roman, 1938 (Ammonites jurass. crét. : 91) was therefore in error when he stated that Ammonites obtusus Sowerby (J.), 1817, was the type species. Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918: Roman (overlooking the action by Nicolesco in 1931) erroneously stated (1938, Ammonites jurass. crét. : 240) that Bigotella haugi Nicolesco, 1917, was the type species of this genus. Cadoceras Fischer, 1882 : Fischer cited as sole species of this genus, the pre-1758 name Nautilites modiolaris Luidius, 1699 (Lithophyl. Brit. : 18, pl. vi, fig. 292), which has commonly been treated by authors as applying to the same species as Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814. The first author to cite nominal species under the generic name Cadoceras Fischer appears to have been Nikitin (1884, Cephalopoden- fauna der Jurabildungen des Gouv. Kostroma : 21), who after stating incorrectly that the generic name Cadoceras was chosen by Fischer for Am. sublaevis and similar forms of Stephanoceras described three species as belonging to this genus and mentioned several others. Under the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, when incorporating in the Régles a clarified and amended version of the ruling previously given by the Commission in Opinion 46 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 159—160, 340), the nominal species cited by Nikitin are alone eligible for selection as the type species of Cadoceras. Fortunately, as shown above, Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby, which is commonly regarded as representative of Cadoceras (through its identification with the modiolaris of Luidius) was one of the species cited by Nikitin and is therefore eligible for selection as the type species of this genus. Neither Nikitin nor Pompeckj (1899) nor any subsequent author has, so far as I can ascertain, ever selected a type species for Cadoceras Fischer. Accordingly, in order to regularise existing practice, I have now (: 224) selected Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby, 1814 (=Cadoceras sublaeve (Sowerby (J.), 1814)) to be the type species of Cadoceras Fischer, 1882. 242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892: This generic name has been wrongly used in many French works for the genus, the correct name of which is Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 (q.v.). The lectotype of Ammonites deslongchampsi d’Orbigny, 1846 (the type species of this genus) was refigured in 1909 (Palaeont. univ. 1909 : pl. 132). Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867: As stated in the present application, Bonarelli in 1900 selected Ammonites kridion Hehl, 1830, as the type species of this genus. The later action by Buckman (S.) (1911, Type Ammonites 1 : vi) in so selecting Ammonites coronaries Quenstedt, 1858, was therefore invalid. It has however, led to some misuse of the generic name Coroniceras. * Echioceras Bayle, 1878: The type species of this genus is (as stated in the present application) Ammonites raricostatus Zieten, [1831], by monotypy. Buckman (S.) (1914, Type Ammonites 2 : ix) was therefore in error when he stated that the type species was Echio- ceras raricostatoides Vadasz, 1908, this being the name of the species erronously figured by Bayle as Echioceras rarecostatum |sic] (Zieten). This action by Buckman has led to some confusion in later works. * Ludwigella Buckman (S.), 1901 : Although the type species of this genus is Ammonites concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815, by monotypy, Buckman twice later attempted invalidly to change the type species (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm., Suppl. : Ixxxiv ; 1923, Type Ammonites 4: 56). Oppelia Waagen, 1869 : The type species of this genus is (as stated in the present application) Ammonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, by selection by Douvillé (H.) in 1884. The later action by Buckman (S.) (1920, Type Ammonites 3:25) in selecting one of Waagen’s figured specimens as “ genolectype ’’ was therefore invalid. * Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901: Although (as stated in the present application) the type species of this genus is Ammonites dispansus Lycett, 1860, Buckman (S.) erroneously attempted (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm., Suppl. : cliv) to change the type species to Ammonites metallarius Dumorttier, 1874. * Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901 : This is another mono- typical genus (type species: Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann, 1887), the type species of which Buckman later (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm., Suppl. : cxliii) attempted incorrectly to alter. * Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923: This case is similar to that of Pseudogrammoceras, Schindewolf in 1925 (Neues Jahrb. fiir Min. 1925 : 319) attempting to alter the type species, OPINION 324 243 * Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867: Buckman (S.) (1924, Type Ammonites 5 : 34) criticised Spath’s action in the same year in selecting Ammon- ites planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, and erroneously rejected that action, arguing that Ammonites psilonotus Quenstedt, 1845, was the type species by virtual tautonymy. * Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900: This is a case where the original author of the generic name designated a type species, citing, for this purpose, a specific name (Ammonites calloviensis) previously published by Sowerby (J.) in 1815, but attributing it to another author (d’Orbigny). The specimens treated by d’Orbigny as belonging to Sowerby’s species have not yet been examined and it is therefore not known whether they were correctly determined. In any case, authors have treated Sowerby’s species as being the type species of this genus (thereby conforming to the requirements of Opinions 65 and 168, the decisions in which were confirmed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948—see Bull. zool. Zool. 4 : 158—159). Accord- ingly, there are in this case no grounds for asking the International Commission to change the type species. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt of Dr. Arkell’s application, the question of adding a block of generic names of ammonites to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 477. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer in March 1951 and it was published on 4th May 1951 in Triple-Part 6/8 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Arkell, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 224—233). 4. Support received for the present application : The publication of Dr. Arkell’s application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature elicited ‘support from the following specialists :—(a) Dr. D. T. Donovan (University of Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol), (b) the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. 244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. Support received from Dr. D. T. Donovan (University of Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol) : In a letter dated 28th May 1951, which was mainly concerned with other applica- tions submitted by Dr. Arkell in regard to the names of ammon- ites, Dr. D. T. Donovan (University of Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol) indicated his support as follows for the present application :—* Bull., vol. 2, p. 224. Addition of names to the * Official List” (Z.N.(S.) 477). I propose to employ such of these names as concern my own work in their properly defined sense, as given by Dr. Arkell’. 6. Support received from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America : On 9th April 1952 there was received a large number of letters commenting on various applications previously published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature from Professor G. Winston Sinclair (then of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Michigan, U.S.A.), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. Included among these was axletter, reporting that the Committee supported the present application by nine votes to one. The foregoing letter was dated 18th February 1952, and its late receipt was apparently due to a decision to defer the despatch to the Commission of the letters containing comments by members of the Joint Committee until all the letters in question had been prepared. By the date on which this letter was received, the Prescribed Period of Public Notice had expired and the Voting Paper (V.P.(52)29) had been prepared. It was therefore impossible to include in that Voting Paper a reference to Professor Sinclair’s letter, but, when the Voting Paper was despatched (on 24th April), a supplementary sheet containing the particulars furnished by Professor Sinclair was issued to the Members of the Commission, who were thus placed in possession of the views of the members of the Joint Committee at the same time that they received the Voting Paper relating to the present case. The following is the text of Professor Sinclair’s letter :— The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America has considered this subject and I wish to inform you that, being polled, they voted: To support the petition (nine) :—() Katherine V. W. Palmer ; (2) A. Myra Keen ; (3) Siemon W. Muller ; OPINION 324 245 (4) John B. Reeside, Jr. ; (5) Don L. Frizzell ; (6) J. Marvin Weller ; (7) Bryan Patterson ; (8) Bobb Schaeffer ; (9) G. Winston Sinclair. To oppose the petition (one) :—John W. Wells. In voting to support the petitions some members of the committee made it clear that their support was based on an assumption that the brief as presented was correct. Mrs. Palmer thinks that the authorship of Pleuroceras was wrongly ascribed in the published brief. Ill—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)29: On 24th April 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)29) was issued in which the Members of the Commission wete invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal for “ the Official Lists and Official Indexes of certain ammonite names and matters incidental thereto, as specified in Points (1) to (4) in paragraph 6 on page 230 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature [i.e. in paragraph 6 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 8. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 24th July 1952. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)29 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)29 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received): Calman; Hering; Dymond; Esaki; do Amaral ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Lemche ; Vokes ; Cabrera ; Pearson ; Boschma; Stoll; Bradley; Hemming; Mertens; Riley ; , 246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski. 10. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 25th July 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)29, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 9 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 11. Receipt of additional information regarding the selection of a type species for the nominal genus ‘‘ Cadoceras ”’’ Fischer, 1882 : On 25th March 1954, Dr. W. J. Arkell (the applicant in the present case) reported to the Commission that he had now ascertained that in 1932 Spath (L.F.) had published a statement that Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, was the type species of the nominal genus Cadoceras Fischer, 1882, and therefore that the selection so made anticipated the selection of the same species made by himself in his own application to the Com- mission. The information so received from Dr. Arkell was reported to the Commission by the Secretary in the following memorandum which was issued on 3rd April 1954 :— Case of the generic name ‘‘ Cadoceras ”’ Fischer, 1882 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Among the generic names of ammonites which Dr. W. J. Arkell recommended should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (1951, Bull. zool. Nomecl. 2 : 224—233) was the name Cadoceras Fischer, 1882. The use of this name was well established, but at that time Dr. Arkell had been unable to find in the literature that any previous author had formally selected a type-species for this genus under Rule (g) in Article 30. Accordingly, in the application to the Commission he himself selected Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby OPINION 324 247 (J.), 1814, to be the type species of this genus, thus fixing this generic name for use in its accustomed sense. Dr. Arkell’s proposals for the _addition of this, and of a number of other, well-known generic names of ammonites to the Official List were put to the Commission in 1952 in Voting Paper (52)29. As the result of this vote, these proposals were unanimously approved by the Commission. 2. I have recently been engaged in preparing the Opinion required to give effect to the foregoing decision and I have been in correspond- ence in regard to it with Dr. Arkell. I have now been informed by Dr. Arkell that he has found that, contrary to his belief at the time when he submitted his application, there was already a valid type selection for the foregoing nominal species, namely, by Spath (L.F.) (1932, Meddelelser om Gronland 87 (No. 7) : 58), who had selected the same species to be the type species of Cadoceras. 3. In these circumstances, it will be necessary in the Opinion to be rendered in this case to substitute ‘* Spath (1932) ” for “Arkell (1951) ” as the reference to the author by whom the type selection for the above genus was first validly made. As no question of principle is involved and we are concerned here only with making a small correction on a question of fact, I might not have considered it necessary to resubmit this case to the Commission, but I am doing so now, because it is necessary also to submit one or two other matters, and I feel that this provides a convenient opportunity for bringing this particular matter to notice. 12. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)2 : Simultaneously with the submission to the Commission on 3rd April 1954 of the memorandum reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)2 was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to sign the following statement :— I take note that the type selection for the nominal genus Cadoceras Fischer, 1882, by Spath (L.F.) in 1932 of Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, takes precedence over the selection of the same species by Arkell (1951) the selection stated to be first valid type selection in the application approved by the Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)29 ; I accordingly agree that the Secretary be authorised and requested to make the foregoing correction when preparing the Opinion required to give effect to the decision referred to above. 13. The Prescribed Voting Period for the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)2 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 3rd May 1954. 248 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)2 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)2 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received)+ ; Holthuis ; Lemche ; Vokes ; Hering ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Bonnet ; Dymond ; Mertens ; Cabrera; Riley ; Esaki ; Stoll ; Pearson ; Hemming ; Jaczewski ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2)? : do Amaral ; Hanko. 15. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (54)2 : On 4th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)2, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 14 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 16. On 4th May 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those ran The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)2 were not Members” of the Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)29 :— Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, affirmative votes were received from Commissioners do Amaral and Hanko. OPINION 324 249 of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)29, as amended, in respect of the name Cadoceras Fischer, 1882, by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)2. _ 17. The original references for the names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion are as set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 respectively in the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion. 18. The references for the type selections for the nominal genera, the names of which are added to the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion, are as set out in paragraph 4 of the application, save as respects the type selection for the nominal genus Cadoceras Fischer, 1882. As explained in para- graph 11 of the present Opinion, the nominal species Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, is, as stated in the application, the type species of the foregoing nominal genus, but it was first validly selected as such not by Dr. Arkell in the application which forms the subject of the present Opinion but by Spath (L.F.) in 1932 (Meddelelser om Gronland 87 (No. 7) : 58). 19. The original references for the names or alleged names placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion are as follows :— Bourkelamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920, Type Ammonites 3 : 17 Garantia Rollier, 1909, Arch. Sci. phys. nat. Genéve (4) 28 : 613, 615 Garantiana Hyatt, 1900, in Eastman’s Zittel, Textb. Paleont. ins .583 Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910, Lethaea geognostica 3 (No. 1) (Lief 2) : 194 Oekotraustes Waagen, 1869, Geogn.-pal. Beitr. 2 (Heft 2) : 251 Paltopleuroceras Buckman (S.), 1898, Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54 : 453 Quenstedticeras Teisseyre, 1889, Neues Jahrb. fiir Min. Beil.-Band 6 : 148 Quenstedioceras Hyatt, 1877, Proc. Boston nat. Hist. Soc. 18 : 39 Stepheoceras Buckman (S.), 1898, Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54 : 454 250 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 864 has been allotted. 21. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “‘ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 22. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 23. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-Four (324) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercatre & Cooper Limirep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 16. Pp. 251—266 OPINION 325 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda) FEB 15 1955 L IBRARY, y, LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Seven Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued Tth January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON — ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 325 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). . 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 (8. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMonD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January 1944). Professor J. Ghester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (1st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (ist January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA. (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA he Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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). OPINION 325 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘*‘ MODIOLUS ” LAMARCK, 1799 ~ (CLASS PELECYPODA) RULING: (1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the generic name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) the generic name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda) is hereby validated. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 791 and 792 respectively :—(a) Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, as validated, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above (gender: masculine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy: Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Vulsella Roding, 1798 (gender: feminine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy: Mya _ vulsella Linnaeus, 1758). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 226 and 227 respectively :—(a) modiolus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mytilus modiolus (specific name of type species of Modiolus Lamarck, 1799) ; (b) vulsella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mya vulsella (specific name of type species of Vulsella Réding, 1798). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 198 to 202 respectively :—(a) Modiola Lamarck, 1801 (a junior 254 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS objective synonym of Modiolus Lamarck, 1799); (b) Volsella Scopoli, 1777, as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(a) above ; (c) Volsella Modeer, 1793 (a junior homonym of Volsella Scopoli, 1777); (d) Vulsella [Humphreys], 1797 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes (Opinion 51)) ; (e) Vulsella Lamarck, 1799 (a junior homonym of Vulsella Roding, 1798). _J—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE In March 1946 Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) submitted an application asking for a Ruling regarding the status to be accorded to the generic name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, in relation to its senior synonym Volsella Scopoli, 1777. For the reasons explained in paragraph 4 of the present Opinion it was necessary at a later stage somewhat to revise the form of the foregoing application. The application so revised was as follows :— : Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name ‘* Modiolus ’’? Lamarck, 1799, by suppressing the generic name ** Volsella ”’ Scopoli, 1777 (Class Pelecypoda) and matters incidental thereto ! By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr., (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) 1. The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Volsella Scopoli, 1777 UIntrod. Hist. nat. : 397) (Class Pelecypoda) and thereby forstall the serious confusion which the resuscitation of this long-neglected name would inevitably cause. This confusion would be of a peculiarly aggravated character, for the acceptance of the name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, would not only lead to the disappearance into synonymy of the well-known name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris, 1799 : 87) ~ but would also make it necessary to employ in the Class Pelecypoda two generic names (Volsella Scopoli, 1777, and Vulsella Roding, 1798 (Mus. bolten. (2) : 156)) so similar to one another that confusion would OPINION: 325 : 255 be quite unavoidable. This latter consideration is all the more import- ant, in view of the fact that species of both these genera may occur in the same strata. 2. The genus Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, has, as its type species, Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 706), by absolute tautonymy. The name Modiolus Lamarck has been in almost universal use for this genus for the past twenty-five years, while, prior to that, the same name in the invalid (because later published) variant form Modiola Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 113) (with the same type species) had been in general use for upwards of a century. This name is therefore deeply entrenched in the literature and very well known to all students of this group. The abandonment of this name on no more than technical nomenclatorial grounds would therefore be open to very strong objection. 3. The name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, was published as the name of a genus to which three nominal species were assigned. The first of these species, Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758, was selected as the type species of this genus by Gray in 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 (178): 198). The nominal genera Volsella Scopoli, 1777, and Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, are thus objectively identical with one another, each having the same species as its type species. The name Modiolus Lamarck is accordingly invalid, being a junior objective synonym of Volsella Scopoli, 1777. 4. In spite of the undoubted priority which it possesses over the name Modiolus Lamarck (and its variant Modiola Lamarck), the name Volsella Scopoli never won any acceptance for itself, even after Gray (1847) had clearly defined the content of this genus by selecting a type species for it. Some authors rejected this name on the ground that in the Introd. Hist. nat., in which it was first published, Scopoli did not satisfy the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles, i.e. on the ground that in this work Scopoli did not apply the principles of (formerly “binary”, now) binominal nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63—66); other authors have merely ignored the name Volsella Scopoli ; others again have argued that this generic name cannot properly be used for Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, since the shell of that species has an edentulous hinge, although Scopoli erected the genus Volsella for the denticulate species placed by Linnaeus in his genus Mytilus, while leaving in that genus the edentulous species. Those authors who have advanced this argument have concluded either that Scopoli, when introducing his new genus Volsella, misidentified some other species with Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, when he cited that species as belonging to his new genus or that, if Scopoli did not actually make a misidentification, he included the above species in Volsella in error through having mis- understood its characters. 256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. Neither the foregoing argument against the acceptance of the generic name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, nor that against the acceptance of Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of that genus can be accepted as having any validity under the Régles. The first of these arguments is completely disposed of by the decision taken by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948, with reference to Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 (a work which, like Scopoli’s Jntroductio, was primarily concerned with classification down — to the genus level but no further) that a generic name published in such ~ a work is not to be rejected on the ground that in it the author did not comply with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25, provided that it is evident (as it is in the case both of Briinnich’s and Scopoli’s books) that the author concerned would have applied the principles of binominal nomenclature if in the book concerned he had dealt with taxonomic units below the genus level (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 307—310).1. The second of the arguments discussed above is shown to be fallacious by the decision taken by the Congress that the original author of a genus is to be deemed to have correctly identified the species referred by him thereto, except where the International Commission is satisfied that an error of identification was committed by the original author of the genus and is of the opinion that greater confusion than uniformity would result if the species represented by the nominal species in question were to be accepted as the type species of the genus (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). ~ 6. It is clear therefore that, as argued by Dr. Ralph B. Stewart in 1939 (Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. Spec. Publ. 3 : 98), no technical objection can be estabiished against the name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, and in consequence that, as that nominal genus has the same type species — (Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758) as the nominal genus Modiolus Lamarck, 1798, it must, under the Régles, replace the name Modiolus Lamarck. It does not follow, however, from this conclusion that the use of the name Modiolus Lamarck must be abandoned in favour of the long-neglected and confusing name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, for ever since 1913 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been clothed by the International Congress of Zoology with Plenary Powers to suspend the operation of the normal Rules in cases where it is satisfied that otherwise greater confusion than uniformity will result. For nearly forty years therefore there has been a means by which In cases of the foregoing type the strict application of the Régles may be officially waived. The position in this matter was emphasised in 1948 by the decision of the Congress to incorporate the provisions relating to the Plenary Powers into the Régles in the revision which it was then decided to make. For the reasons set out 1 Since this passage was written, the Commission has given a Ruling that Scopoli complied with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles in his Introductio ad Historiam naturalem and has placed the title of that work on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. See Opinion 329 (pp. 309—320 in the present volume). OPINION 325 257 in the opening part of the present application the case now under consideration appears pre-eminently to be one which calls for action by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers, if far-reaching and, as regards the concurrent use of the names Volsella Scopoli and Vulsella ROding, permanent, confusion is to be avoided. -J.. 1 accordingly ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, by suppressing the earlier name Volsella Scopoli, 1777. It is important that the suppression of the latter name should be limited to its status under the Law of Priority and should not extend to its status under the Law of Homonymy, since, if the name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, were to be suppressed for all purposes, the effect would be to render available as a generic name the word Volsella as from the next subsequent occasion on which it was published as the name of a new genus. It is particularly fortunate in the present case that the need for this distinction in those cases where the Plenary Powers are used solely for the purpose of validating some other name of later date has already been recognised by the International Congress of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 338339), since otherwise the suppression of the name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, would have conferred availability upon the name Volsella Modeer, 1793 (K. Vetensk. Akad. Nya Handl., Stockholm 14 : 179), a name which is at present an invalid junior homonym the resuscitation of which would almost inevitably give rise to a fresh wave of confusion in some other direction. 8. Since part of the object of the present application is to protect the name Vulsella Roding, 1798 (a name commonly attributed to Bolten), from the confusion which would be inevitable if within the same Class there were to be also a valid generic name consisting of the word Volsella (Volsella Scopoli, 1777), it is desirable that the present opportunity should be taken to place the name Vulsella Réding, 1798, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The type-species of this nominal genus is Mya vulsella Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 671), by absolute tautonymy. 9. Under the procedural decisions taken by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :269—27]1), the trivial names of the species which are respectively the type species of the genera Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, and of Vulsella R6ding, 1789, should now be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, as each of these names is considered by specialists to be the oldest available name for the species in question. 10. Finally, the decision taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 that in future each Opinion rendered is to deal with all aspects of the problem submitted (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355) will make it necessary 258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS that in the Opinion to be rendered in the present case certain names which are either junior homonyms of, or are junior objective synonyms of, names now proposed to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology should be finally disposed of by being placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 11. The proposal which I now submit is therefore that the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Volsella Scopoli, 1777, and (b) to validate the name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799 ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, as proposed under (1)(b) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Vulsella R6ding, 1798 (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Mya vulsella Linnaeus, 1758) ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic, or reputed generic, names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Modiola Lamarck, 1801 (a junior objective synonym of Modiolus Lamarck, 1798) ; (b) Volsella Scopoli, 1777 (proposed, under (1)(a) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy) ; (c) Volsella Modeer, 1793 (a junior homonym of Volsella Scopoli, 1777) ; (d) Vulsella [Humphreys], 1797, Mus. calonn.: 44 (a name published in a book rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 51) ; (e) Vulsella Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 82 (a junior homonym of Vulsella Roding, 1798) ; OPINION 325 259 (4) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) modiolus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Mytilus modiolus (trivial name of the type species of Modiolus Lamarck, 1799) ; (b) vulsella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination M ya vulsella (trivial name of the type species of See Réding, 1798). 12. I should like, if I may, to express the hope that it will be possible for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to reach a decision on the present application at a very early date, for the genera the names of which form the subject of this application will certainly appear in the forthcoming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, which will inevitably be a standard work for many years to come and in which therefore it is particularly desirable that the nomenclature employed should be both correct under the Régles and also in harmony with established usage. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On receipt of Dr. Baily’s application, the problem of the relative status to be accorded to the generic names Modiolus Lamarck, 1799 and Volsella Scopoli, 1777, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 213. 3. Postponement of the present application at Paris in 1948 : At the time when the Agenda was being prepared for the Session of the Commission to be held in Paris in 1948 it was evident that the greater part of the time of the Commission at that Session would be required for the consideration of the proposals for the clarification, amendment and expansion of the Régles which had been submitted and that the time remaining for the consideration of applications relating to individual names would not be suf- ficient to permit of decisions being taken on all the applications then awaiting attention. It was inevitable therefore that some of 260- OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS those applications would need to be postponed. The present was one of the applications which for the foregoing reason was not brought before the Commission at its Paris Session. 4. Revision of the present application in 1951: A number of the decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948—notably the decisions taken in relation to the placing of names on Official Lists and Official Indexes— affected the form and scope of Opinions to be rendered in future by the Commission and to this extent called for the revision of all applications received prior to that Congress and still awaiting attention. In the period immediately following the Paris Congress the whole of the resources of the Commission were devoted to the preparation and publication of the Official Records of the Proceedings at the Paris Meetings. It was accordingly not until after the publication in 1950 of Volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the volumes devoted to the publica- tion of the Paris Records) that it was possible to resume prepara- tions for the publication in the Bulletin of applications relating to individual names submitted to the Commission for decision. The revision of the present application in the directions indicated above was undertaken at the beginning of 1951, and was completed on 17th March of that year. 5. Support received, prior to publication, from Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) : While, as explained in the preceding paragraph, the present application was under revision in the early part of 1951, correspondence on certain aspects of this case took place between the Secretary and Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) and this led to the submission by Dr. Cox on 21st March 1951 of the following statement supporting Dr. Baily’s proposals :— I strongly support Mr. Joshua L. Baily’s application for the suppression of the generic name Vo/sella Scopoli, 1777, for the following reasons. 1. The name has been adopted by only a small handful of authors in comparison with the many who have employed the name Modiola Lamarck, 1801, or Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, for the genus typified by the well-known living mussel Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, 1758. This OPINION 325 261 is a most important group both for palaeontologists and neontologists and it is desirable that the name by which it has long been known (whether in the form Modiola or the slightly earlier form Modiolus) should be stabilized. 2. Scopoli referred three species to Volsella when founding the genus, but, of these, Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus was the only nominal species, the other two being cited by the pre-Linnean names “‘ Gula Soricis Lister ’’ and “ Mytilus L. Aber Adans’”’. M. modiolus is thus type species of Volsella by monotypy. It is, however, evident that Scopoli based his conception of this species on wrongly determined specimens. Mytilus modiolus and all species which have been referred to Modiolus [vel Modiola] differ from Mytilus s.str (type species Mytilus edulis Linnaeus, 1758) in the absence of hinge-teeth. Scopoli, however, divided his Gens Bivalvia into two groups, “ Distributio I”? and ‘** Distributio II ’’, the former characterized as ‘‘ cardine edentato ”’ and the latter as “ cardine dentato’’. He included the genus Mytilus (of which he cited no species) in the former and Volsella in the latter. Moreover, the generic diagnosis of Vo/sella states “‘ cardo . . . terminant denticuli exigui’’, and Mytilus modiolus Linnaeus, is described by Scopoli as “ dente unico’. Scopoli’s whole treatment of these mussels is, therefore, most confused, and it seems obvious that he did not intend to apply the name Volsella to the group ee known as Modiolus or Modiola. ; 3. Vulsella is a very familiar name for a genus of Tertiary and living pelecypods and a family name VULSELLIDAE is derived from it; it is highly desirable that it should be stabilized and placed on the Official List of Generic Names. 6. Publication of the present application : Dr. Baily’s application and Dr. Cox’s paper supporting that application were sent to the printer in April 1951 and were published on 28th September 1951 in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Baily, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 67—71, Cox, 1951, ibid. 6 : 71—72). 7. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—-56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given 262 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on 28th September 1951, both in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the application submitted by Dr. Baily was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. The publication of these Notices elicited only the statement from the Joint Committee on Zoo- logical Nomenclature for Paleontology in America reproduced in the immediately following paragraph. | 8. Views of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America: On 9th April 1952 there was received the following letter, dated 8th February 1952 from Professor G. Winston Sinclair (then of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, reporting that the present application was supported by six members of the Joint Committee but was opposed by five members :— The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America has considered this subject, and I wish to inform you that, being polled, they voted : To support the petition (six) :—(1) Katherine V. W. Palmer; (2) Bryan Patterson; (3) John B. Reeside, Jr. ; (4) Bobb Schaeffer ; (5) J. Marvin Weller; (6) R. C. Moore. To oppose the petition (five) :—(1) A. Myra Keen ; (2) Don L. Frizzell ; (3) Siemon W. Muller ; (4) John W. Wells ; (5) G. Winston Sinclair. Miss Keen and Dr. Muller comment that in their opinion Volsella is well established. Dr. Reeside, in supporting the petition, notes that in his opinion little harm would be done by using Volsella. WJI—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)49 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)49) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against the proposal “ relating to the name Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, etc., WOPINIONNO25"00 263 as set out in Points (1) to (4) in paragraph 11 on pages 70 and 71 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” [i.e. in paragraph 11 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 10. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)29 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)49 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following fifteen (15) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Hering ; Calman ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson? ; Bradley ; Hemming ; Esaki; Lemche; Cabrera; Boschma ; (b) Negative Vote, One (1): Stolle; _(c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 12. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as 2 Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which a Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority view, of other members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 50—51). 264 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)49, signed a certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 11 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 13. On 8th May 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)49. 14. The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Modiola Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 113 Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 87 modiolus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 706 Volsella Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 397 Volsella Modeer, 1793, K. Vetensk. Acad. Nya Handl., Stockholm 14 : 179 Vulsella [Humphreys], 1797, Mus. calonn. : 44 Vulsella Roding, 1798, Mus. bolten. (2) : 156 Vulsella Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 82 vulsella, Mya, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 671 15. The gender of the generic names Modiolus Lamarck, 1799, and Vulsella Réding, 1798, is masculine and feminine respectively. 16. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was — published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has been ascertained that an addition, or additions, to the foregoing Official List and/or the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology will need to be made in order to complete the action which, under the General Directives given to the International Commission by the International Congress of Zoology, is required OPINION 325 265 to be taken in the present case. This question is now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 75 has been allotted. 17. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion _ of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 18. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 19. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-Five (325) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Eighth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING ea Lan tie tne aU eel ee EE eat ee ee Printed in England by METcALFE & Cooprr LimITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 17. Pp. 267—282 OPINION 326 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854 (Class Rotifera) and matters incidental thereto LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Seven Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 326 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (\st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. VoKes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (1st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) ({st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CaBRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 326 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ HEXARTHRA ”’ SCHMARDA, 1854 (CLASS ROTIFERA) AND MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO RULING : (1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the specific name polyptera Schmarda, 1854, as published in the combination Hexarthra polyptera, is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) the indication, by monotypy, of Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda, 1854, as the type species of Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854, is hereby set aside and the nominal species Pedalion fennicum Levander, 1892, is hereby designated as the type species of Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 793 :—Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854 (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above : Pedalion fennicum Levander, 1892). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 228 to 230 respectively :—({a) fennicum Levander, 1892, as published in the combination Pedalion 270 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS fennicum (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above, of Hex-- arthra Schmarda, 1854); (b) intermedia Wiszniewski, 1929, as published in the combination Pedalia intermedia ; (c) mira Hudson, 1871, as published in the combination Pedalion mira. (4) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 203 to 206 respectively :—(a) Pedalia Barrois, 1878 (a reputed but non-existent name) ; (b) Pedalion Swainson 1838 (a junior homonym of Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817) ; (c) Pedalion Hudson, 1871 (a junior homonym of Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817); (d) Pedalion Buckton, 1903 (a junior homonym of Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817). (5) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 107 :—polyptera Schmarda, 1854, as published in the combination Hex- arthra polyptera, as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(a) above. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 9th April 1948 Dr. G. M. Neal (University of Toronto, Department of Zoology, Toronto, Canada) submitted a preliminary communication on the subject of the name properly applicable to the genus of the Class Rotifera formerly known as Pedalion Hudson, 1871, or as Pedalia Barrois, 1878. For the reasons explained in paragraph 3 below this communication was later converted into a formal application to the Commission and was in addition revised in various respects. The application so revised OPINION 326 DTM was submitted by Dr. Neal on 27th April 1951. It was as follows :— Application for the stabilisation of the name for the genus of the Class Rotifera formerly known as ‘‘ Pedalion ’? Hudson, 1871, or ‘‘ Pedalia ”’ Barrois, 1878, including a request for the use of the Plenary Powers to vary the type species of the genus ‘‘ Hexarthra ’’? Schmarda, 1854, and to suppress the trivial name ‘‘ polyptera ’? Schmarda, 1854, published in combination with that generic name, and matters incidental thereto By G. M. NEAL (Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Canada) 1. The object of the present application is to invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to stabilise the name for the genus of the Class Rotifera formerly known as Pedalion Hudson, 1871, or as Pedalia Barrois, 1878, by designating a recognisable species to be the type species of the genus Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854. The facts of this rather complicated case are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. The generic name Pedalion Hudson, 1871 (Mon. microscop. J. 6 : 121, pl. 94) was established for a monotypical genus for a new species then named Pedalion mira. The name Pedalion Hudson, 1871, is invalid, because it is a junior homonym both of Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817 (Descr. Cat. Shells : 282) and of Pedalion Swainson, 1838 (Nat. Hist. Fishes 1: 199). It will be convenient if, before considering whether there is any subjectively identical nominal genus, the name of which should replace the invalid name Pedalion Hudson, 1871, we examine briefly the subsequent history of Hudson’s name Pedalion. 3. In 1877 Barrois gave a paper at the Sixth Session of the ‘“ Association francaise pour l’Avancement des Sciences”’ held at Le Havre, entitled: ‘Sur l’anatomie et le developpement du Pedalia mira’’. This paper was published in 1878. Although, as noted above, the generic name was written in the form Pedalia in the title of Barrois’ paper, that name appeared in the form Pedalion at every point at which it appeared in the body of that paper. Rousselet in 1914 (Association francaise pour Il’ Avancement des Sciences, 43e Session, Le Havre, C. R. : 535—536) drew attention to this inconsistency and raised the question whether it was due to an editorial error or whether it should be explained on the ground that Barrois was aware of the fact that the name Pedalion Hudson, 1871, was invalid and tried to get over this difficulty by substituting the variant form Pedalia in the title of his paper. It must be noted, however, that an abstract of this paper of Barrois’ was published in the issue of the Revue scientifique 272 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of 29th September 1877, and that in this paper only the spelling Pedalion occurs. In this abstract no title was given for this paper and it is possible that it is for this reason that the spelling Pedalia did not appear on this occasion, for (as noted above) it was only in the title of Barrois’ paper that the spelling Pedalia was used. It may be noted incidentally at this point that the species dealt with by Barrois in the foregoing paper is not only not (as he supposed) the species which in 1871 Hudson had named Pedalion mira; it is not even referable to the same genus ; it is actually a marine species of the genus Synchaeta Ehrenberg, [1832] (Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1831 : 135). 4. Since 1913 the genus named Pedalion by Hudson has been called both by that name and by the reputed name Pedalia Barrois, 1878, the latter having even made its way into Neave’s Nomenclator zoologicus (3 : 632), where it is quoted as a substitute name for Pedalion Hudson, 1871, the reference being given as ‘“‘ Pedalia Barrois, 1878, C.R. Ass. Franc. 6 (1877 Le Havre), 661 ”’. 5. I am bound to say that, in my view, it is impossible to accept, as a valid substitute name, a name (such as Pedalia) which appears only in the title of a paper, the correct spelling (in this case, Pedalion) occurring at every point in the body of the paper itself, where, if Barrois had intended to emend Hudson’s name Pedalion in this way, he would certainly have used the spelling “‘ Pedalia’’. It is clear, however, that no progress can be made in the stabilisation of the name of this important genus until this preliminary question has been disposed of. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a ruling that the use of the word Pedalia in the title (but not in the text) of Barrois’ paper does not constitute the publication of a generic name consisting of this word, the spelling “‘ Pedalia”’ being due, it must be concluded, to some inadvertence on the part of the editor of Barrois’ paper or on that of the printer. 6. It is necessary now to consider whether there is any nominal genus possessing a valid name, the type species of which can be regarded as belonging to the genus Pedalion (or Pedalia) as hitherto understood. An examination of the literature shows that there is such a nominal genus, which does, or may, satisfy this condition. This is the genus Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854 (Denskr. Acad. Wiss. Wien (Math.- natur. K1.) 7 (No. 2) : 15). This genus is monotypical, its sole species being Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda, 1854, a then newly described (: 15) nominal species. This species is therefore the type species of the genus Hexarthra Schmarda by monotypy. 7. Our next step must be to consider the claims of the nominal species Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda to be regarded as representing a OPINION 326 273 species of Pedalion (or Pedalia). The specimen upon which Schmarda based his description and figures of this nominal species, which was hardly visible to the naked eye, was discovered by him in a pool at El Kab in Egypt. At first Schmarda mistook this animal for a crustacean larva, but the ““ Raderorgan”’ and jaws showed that it was a Rotifer. The jaws had seven teeth on each side. Schmarda’s type specimen is missing, and the species which he described has not been reported by any subsequent worker. 8. In drawing up his description and preparing his figures of this species, Schmarda was severely handicapped by reason of the fact that he was working under field conditions and had no opportunity for studying the animal at leisure. This stand is taken also by Daday, 1903 (Mikroskopische Siisswassertiere aus Kleinasien. Wien. Sitzungs- ber. (Math.-Natur. KI.) 112 (Abth. 1) : 139—168). When after the publication of the name Pedalion, the view was advanced that the genus so named was indistinguishable taxonomically from the genus Hexarthra Schmarda, Hudson objected on the ground that Schmarda had described the six plumose appendages as originating from the ventral side, as in a nauplius larva, while in his genus Pedalion these appendages were arranged around the animal. Hudson admitted, however, the difficulty of studying the arrangement of the hairs on the appendages of Pedalion species, a difficulty which may be illustrated by the mistakes which he himself made in some of his own figures and descriptions. 9. Daday (1886, Morph. Physiolog. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda. Termeszetraize Fuzetek 10 : 214—249, pls. VIII, IX) believed that, in representing the appendages of Hexarthra polyptera as arising from the ventral side of the animal, Schmarda had been influenced by the apparant similarity between members of the genus Pedalion and the nauplius larva of Crustacea, a resemblance which, though apparent at first glance, is found on closer examination to be entirely superficial in character. 10. Levander (1894, Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Pedalion Arten mit einer Tafel. Soc. Faun. Flor. fenn. 11 : 1—34, figs. 1, 2, 3) considered that, if one were to identify Pedalion with Hexarthra, it would be necessary to attribute to Schmarda a lack of observation which, in his view, there was no ground for assuming. Levander quoted the opinion of Plate—that, if Schmarda could show (as he did) the arrangement of the hairs on the appendages (which in Pedalion are found only on the ventral appendage) and the number of teeth in the jaws, he could not possibly have made the mistake of representing appendages as arising from the ventral side of the animal instead of being arranged in a circle around it. Plate concluded that, in view of these facts, the presence of hooks on appendages other than the ventral appendage, and the origin of the appendages from the ventral side of the animal, it was impossible to synonymise Hexarthra with Pedalion. As regards Plate’s comment on these lateral hooks on the appendages, it is, 274 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS however, worth noting that Daday recorded the presence of similar hooks on the dorsal appendage in his figure of his Pedalion mucronatum Daday, 1909 (Tray. Soc. Nat. Petersb. 39 : 9—-38, pl. 1, figs. 2—6), a nominal species which has been identified with Pedalion oxyure Sernov, 1903 (Turkestanskago Otd. imp. russ. georgr. Obsch. 4 (Pt. 3) : 9, pl. 1, figs. 2, 3), in the figures of which no lateral hooks are shown on the dorsal appendage. This difference between the illustrations given by Sernov and Daday, to which attention has not so far been drawn, has not prevented authors from accepting Pedalion mucronatum Daday and Pedalion oxyure Sernov as being no more than different names for a single species. I have never noted lateral hooks on any but the ventral appendage. Daday’s (1909) representa- tion of hooks on the dorsal appendage may be due to incorrect interpretation. (See below.) 11. Thus against the view that Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda is a species of the genus that Hudson named Pedalion is the observation by Schmarda that the appendages arise from the ventral surface and that there are lateral hooks on appendages other than the ventral appendage. As already noted, however, Daday himself showed incorrectly the presence of such hooks in his P. mucronatum (=P. oxyure Sernov). It must be noted also that at times the fold of the integument on the appendages can give a somewhat laddered appearance which under low magnifications may be mistaken for hooks. The presence of jaws in H. polyptera speaks for its being a rotifer. In view of the absence of posterior digitiform appendages (such as are found in Pedalion mira Hudson), Schmarda’s species might well belong to the fennicum-group of the genus Pedalion. The arrange- ment of the hairs on the appendages is very similar to that found in a species of Pedalion which occurs in the Saskatchewan lakes of Canada. The principal objection to the acceptance of Schmarda’s species as belonging to the genus Pedalion is therefore his statement that the appendages come from the ventral side of the animal. As regards this, it must be noted, however, that a similar appearance can be obtained by placing a specimen of an undoubted species of Pedalion under a cover slip, the weight of which has flattened the animal (Schmarda’s figure seems to have been drawn from a flattened specimen) ; unless one constantly alters the focus while drawing the animal as a whole or one of its appendages in order to obtain the correct relation, it is very easy to arrive at the same conclusion as that reached by Schmarda. An inaccuracy of this kind on the part of Schmarda would not be surprising if we recall the difficulties with which he was faced, by reason of having to examine his material in the field instead of in a laboratory. 12. The next point which it is important to note is that Schmarda found his species Hexarthra polyptera in abundance in the waters which he examined. This fact suggests that that species, whatever it was, would have been found again by subsequent workers. The OPINION 326 DTS species Pedalion fennicum Levander, 1892 (Zool. Anz. 15 : 403) has, in fact, been reported from North Africa, where it appears to be rather widely distributed. Recent observations show that this species shows considerable variation in the arrangement of the hairs and some variation in the tooth formula—a fact which may account, in part, for some of the special features shown in Schmarda’s figures. Further, Bryce in his paper on the Rotifera of Devil and Stump Lakes (1924, J. Quekett microscop. Club 15 : 81—108) mentioned having examined a slide of Pedalia from El Kab (the type locality of Schmarda’s species) that had been prepared by Rousselet. I have myself examined a slide of a specimen from this locality that was bought from Rousselet by the United States National Museum. The specimen mounted on this . slide is a Pedalion. 13. The conclusion which I draw from an examination of Schmarda’s (admittedly poor) description and figure is that the species which he described as Hexarthra polyptera belongs to Hudson’s genus Pedalion. This conclusion becomes a virtual certainty, now that we have an actual specimen of a Pedalion from the very pond in which Schmarda took his polyptera but in spite of the abundance of that species noted by Schmarda no specimen of a species belonging to a separate genus recognisable from Schmarda’s description as Hexarthra is known from that very restricted locality Schmarda’s description of the arrangement of the hairs on the ventral appendages, the number of hooks on the ventral appendage that he noted, as also the number of teeth (seven) in each uncus, all place the animal described by Schmarda in the fennicum-group of the genus Pedalion. 14. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I reach the con- clusion that the nominal genera Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854, and Pedalion Hudson, 1871, must, on taxonomic grounds, be regarded as subjectively identical with one another. Accordingly, the name which under the Code should be applied to this genus is Hexarthra Schmarda and, as it is the older of the two names, would still be the correct name for this genus, even if Pedalion Hudson, 1871, were not an invalid homonym. In view of the considerable discussion that has taken place in regard to this question and also of the importance and interest of this genus, I think that it is important that this subject should now be closed by the name Hexarthra Schmarda being placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the invalid name Pedalion Hudson, 1871, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, together with the reputed, but non-existent, name Pedalia Barrois, 1878. It would be useful also if all other invalid uses of the name Pedalion subsequent to the name Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817 (Class Pisces) were at the same time to be relegated to the Official Index. 15. At this point we encounter a difficulty of quite a different order. The nominal species Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda, though incorrectly 276 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and inadequately described, must be regarded as belonging to the highly variable group represented by Pedalion fennicum Levander, 1892. Accordingly, under the Code the trivial name po/yptera Schmarda, 1854, being much older than fennicum Levander, would replace the latter name. The trivial name fennicum Levander is, however, so deeply entrenched in the literature that its replacement by the hitherto con- tentious name polyptera Schmarda would certainly give rise to confusion and would be open to strong objection. In order to prevent this confusion, I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name polyptera Schmarda, thereby validating the later name fennicum Levander for the same species. As part of this proposal, I ask the International Commission to use the same powers to designate Pedalion fennicum Levander, 1892, to be the type species of Hexarthra Schmarda, in place of the older nominal species Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda, the name of which it is now proposed should be suppressed. The trivial name fennicum Levander, 1892, as published in the binominal combination Pedalion fennicum should then be placed upon the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Incidentally, it would be helpful if at the same time the International Commission were to place on this Official List the trivial names, each an available name and the oldest name for the species concerned, of two other well-known species of this genus. These trivial names are: (1) the trivial name mira Hudson, 1871 (Mon. microscop. J. 6: 121), as published in‘the binominal combination Pedalion mira ; (2) the trivial name intermedia Wiszniewski, 1929 (Bull. Acad. pol. Sci. Lettr. (Cl Sci. math. nat.) (B) 1929 (2) : 137)), as published in the binominal combination Pedalia intermedia. 16. The specific proposals which I now therefore lay before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :— (1) 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 trivial name polyptera Schmarda, 1854, as published in the binominal combination Hexarthra polyptera ; (b) to set aside the indication, by monotypy, of Hexarthra polyptera Schmarda, 1854, as the type species of the genus Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854, and having done so, designate Pedalion fennicum Levander, 1892, to be the type species of that genus ; (2) place the generic name Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854 (type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) (6) above, under the Plenary Powers : Pedalion fennicum Levander, 1892) (gender of generic name: feminine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; OPINION 326 277 (3) place the under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Pedalia Barrois, 1878 (a reputed but non-existent name) ; (b) Pedalion Swainson, 1838 (a junior homonym of Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817) ; (c) Pedalion Hudson, 1871 (a junior homonym of Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817) ; (d) Pedalion Buckton, 1903 (Monogr. Membr. No. 6: 251) (a junior homonym of Pedalion Dillwyn, 1817) ; (4) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) fennicum Levander, 1892, as published in the binominal combination Pedalion fennicum (trivial name of species proposed, under (1)(b) above, to be designated as the type species of Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854) ; (b) intermedia Wiszniewski, 1929, as published in the binominal combination Pedalia intermedia ; (c) mira Hudson, 1871, as published in the binominal combina- tion Pedalion mira ; (5) place the trivial name polyptera Schmarda, 1854, as published in the binominal combination Hexarthra polyptera (a name proposed, under (1)(a) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt ‘of Dr. Neal’s preliminary communication in April 1948, the problem of the name to be accepted for the genus formerly known either as Pedalion Hudson, 1871, or as Pedalia Barrois, 1878, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 340. 278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Submission of a revised application in 1951 : The examination of the issues involved in the present case had not reached a stage at which it would have been possible to submit it to the Commission at its Session held in Paris in July 1948. Thereafter for some eighteen months the whole resources of the Commission were devoted to the preparation and publication of the Official Records of the Paris Meetings and it was not until the publication in 1950 of volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the volumes devoted to the foregoing Records) that it was possible to resume preparations for the publication in the Bulletin of applications relating to individual names submitted for decision. Discussions in regard to the present case between the Secretary and Dr. Neal began in November 1950 and were completed on 27th April 1951, when the present formal application was submitted to the Commission. This application covered all the matters dealt with in the original communication of April 1948, together with certain others, notably the proposed addition of names to the Official Lists and Official Indexes in conformity with the General Directive given to the Commission on this subject by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris 1948. ~ 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer in May 1951 and was published on 28th September of that year in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Neal, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 73—78). 5. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 5|0—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951, both in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Neal’s application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed in this case. OPINION 326 279 II.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)50 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)50) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the name Pedalion Hudson, 1871, and associated names as set out in Points (1) to (5) in paragraph 16 on page 78 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e. in paragraph 16 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)50 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)50 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— oy Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Hering ; Calman ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson!; Bradley ; Hemming ; ‘Esaki ; Lemche ; Cabrera; Stoll ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; = Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the _. Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which a . Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority view, of other members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl: 4 : 50—51).° 280 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Jaczewski ; Mertens. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)50, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 10. On 9th May 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)50. 11. The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— fennicum, Pedalion, Levander, 1892, Zool. Anz. 15 : 403 | Hexarthra Schmarda, 1854, Denskr. Acad. Wiss. Wien (Math.- natur. KI.) 7 (No. 2) : 15 intermedia, Pedalia, Wiszniewski, 1929, Bull. Acad. pol. Sci. Lettr. (Cl. Sci. math. nat.) (B) 1929 (2) : 137 mira, Pedalion, Hudson, 1871, Mon. microscop. J. 6 : 121 Pedalia Barrois, 1878, C.R. Ass. franc. Avancem. Sci. 6 (1877, Le Havre) : 661 Pedalion Swainson, 1838, Nat. Hist. Fishes 1 : 199 Pedalion Hudson, 1871, Mon. microscop. J. 6 : 121 Pedalion Buckton, 1903, Monogr. Membr. No. 6 : 251 polyptera, Hexarthra, Schmarda, 1854, Denskr. Acad. Wiss. Wien (Math.-natur. KI.) 7 (No. 2) : 15 12. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, OPINION 326 281 Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 75 has been allotted. 13. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 14. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-Six (326) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Ninth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcaLtre & Cooper LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C™.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 19. Pp. 283—298 OPINION 327 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the nominal genus Trigonia Bruguiere, 1789, in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage ZAMASON ig FEB15 1955 | ) AR A LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 71th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 327 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (ist January 1947). Professor. H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist*January 1947). Senor. Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasyranian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Wiivensiierets 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 (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 327 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS ** TRIGONIA ”? BRUGUIERE, 1789, IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) all type designations or selections for the genus Trigonia Bruguicre, 1789 (Class Pelecypoda) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781, is hereby designated as the type species of the foregoing genus, and (b) the specific name nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Trigonia nodulosa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 794 and 795 respectively :—(a) Trigonia Bruguiere, 1789 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above: Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781); (b) Neotrigonia Cossmann, 1912 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation: Trigonia margaritacea Lamarck, 1804). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 231 to 233 respectively :—(a) sulcata Hermann, 1781, as published in the combination Venus sulcata, as defined by its lectotype (figs. 9 and 10 (representing the same specimen) on pl. IV of Hermann, 1781), selected by Cox (1951)(specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above, of Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789); (b) margaritacea Lamarck, 1804, as published in the combination Trigonia margaritacea (specific name of type species of Neotrigonia Cossmann, 1912) ; (c) aspera Lamarck, 1819, as published in the combination Trigonia aspera. 286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 108 :—nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Trigonia nodulosa, as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above. ~1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 30th October 1950, Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) submitted an application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of providing a valid basis for the accustomed usage of the generic name Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Pelecypoda). The form of this application was, as explained in paragraph 4 below, revised in certain directions in the early part of 1951. The application, so revised, was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species for the genus ‘‘ Trigonia’’ Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Eulamellibranchiata) By lv. RY COX, Sc.D: E:R:s: (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London) The object of the present application is to seek the assistance of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in securing, by the use of its Plenary Powers, that the type species of the important and well-known genus, Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789 (Ency. méth. (Vers) 1 : xiv) shall be a clearly identifiable species of the genus universally known by that name. It is hoped that it will be possible for the — International Commission to give an early decision on the present application, since that decision is urgently required in connection with the preparation of the relevant portion of the forthcoming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. 2. In order to make clear the nature of the problem involved, I set out below particulars of the way in which the name Trigonia was OPINION 327 287 used on each of the first five occasions on which that name appeared in print :— (1) Original publication by Bruguiére in 1789 A short generic diagnosis was given; no bibliographical references were given; no nominal species was cited as belonging to the genus. (2) As used by Bruguiére in 1797 (Ency. méth. (Vers) 2 : pls. 237, 238) The name Trigonia appeared at the head of the foregoing plates, on which were figured several species of what are now known as Trigonia. No names were cited for those species. (3) As used by Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 86) Lamarck gave a short diagnosis for the genus and in addition cited the following reference : ‘‘ Trigonia . . . Encycl. t.237. Naturforsch. 15e livraison, t. iv’’. At the time of the publication of the foregoing paper by Lamarck, the species figured on the plate in the Encyclop. méth. were still unnamed, but the second of the plates cited by Lamarck belongs to a paper by Hermann (1781, “ Brief liber einige Petrefacten”’, Naturforscher 15 : 115—134, pls. 4, 5), who was an undoubtedly binominal author, which does contain binominal names for the species figured, namely :— (1) Cardium tortuosum; (2) Venus oder Donax sulcata ; (3) Venus oder Donax tuberculata; (4) Venus oder Donax nodosa ; (5) Venus oder Donax dubia. (4) As used by Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 116) On this occasion Lamarck gave a generic diagnosis, repeated the reference to “‘ Naturf. 15e livraison t.4 ’’, and cited without specific diagnosis one nominal species, as follows :—* Trigonia nodulosa n. Knorr. Foss. p. 11, t.17, f.8. Encyclop. t.237, f.4’’. (5) As used by Lamarck, 1804 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 4 : 354) Lamarck again gave a generic diagnosis. He cited one nominal species only, the Recent 7. margaritacea Lamarck (then named for the first time—on page 355). 3. As the name Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789, was published prior to Ist January 1931, with a generic diagnosis, the fact that no nominal species was cited as belonging to this genus does not invalidate it. Accordingly this name is available as from Bruguiére, 1789. In order to ascertain what nominal species is, under the Régles, the type species of Trigonia Bruguiére, it is necessary to apply the rules laid down for determining the type species of a genus established without any nominal species cited as belonging thereto, Until 1948, the only rules dealing 288 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS with this subject were those laid down in the Commission’s Opinion 46 (1912, Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 104—107). At its Session held in Paris in July 1948, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, when drawing up, for submission to the International Congress of Zoology, proposals for the incorporation in the Régles of inter- pretative rulings given in previously published Opinions, gave special consideration to the problem dealt with in Opinion 46. The con- clusions then reached by the Commission, which were approved by the Congress, involved both the amendment and clarification of the ruling previously given in the foregoing Opinion. The terms of the decision then taken have since been published in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 159—160, 346). It is therefore in the light of the foregoing decisions that the type species of Trigonia Bruguiére must be determined. 4. In the first of the decisions cited above, it was provided that ““ where, prior to Ist January 1931, a generic name was published for a genus established (a) with an indication, definition or description, (b) with no nominal species distinctly referred to it, the first nominal species to be subsequently so referred to it by the same or another author is to be deemed to have been an originally included species and that species automatically becomes the type species of the genus in question’’. At the same time Opinion 46 was cancelled. In the later of the decisions cited above, provision was made for the case where on the first occasion on which any nominal species was sub- sequently referred to such a genus, two or more such species were referred, it being then provided that in such a case all the nominal species so referred to the genus in question were to be treated as originally included species and that it was from those species alone that a subsequent author, acting under Rule (g) in Article 30, could validly select a type species for the geuns. 5. Applying the foregoing decisions to the case of Trigonia, we see at once that the action by Bruguiére in 1797 (case (2) above) in applying the name Trigonia to certain unnamed species figured on-plates has no bearing on the present problem, for, as no names were applied to those species, Bruguiére did not on that occasion ‘“‘ distinctly refer’ any nominal species to this genus. 6. We have next to consider whether Lamarck’s action in 1799 (case (3) above) has any bearing on the present problem. In this case, it will be recalled, Lamarck cited no nominal species as belonging to this genus but he did give a reference to a previously published paper in which certain nominal species were figured (by Hermann in 1781). Prior to the Paris Congress of 1948, it was held by some authors that the citation by Lamarck of Hermann’s paper should be deemed to constitute the reference to the genus Trigonia of the nominal species figured by Hermann. Thus, in 1932 (Amer. J. Sci. (5) 24 : 449) Crickmay argued that the type species of this genus could be selected OPINION 327 289 only from among the nominal species which (1) conformed with Bruguiére’s diagnosis and (2) had already been described by 1789, and that the only such species were those described by Hermann. Crickmay thereupon selected as the type species of Trigonia the second of the species cited by Hermann, namely “‘ Venus oder Donax sulcata”’ Hermann, 1781 (Naturforscher 15 : 127); in 1936 this selection was accepted, though on slightly different grounds, by Rennie (Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 31 : 331—332). This species is a Jurassic species of the Costatae group of the genus now known as Trigonia. In view, however, of the requirement laid down by the Paris Congress in 1948, that, in order to be available for selection as the type species of a genus established - without nominal species, a nominal species must have been “‘ distinctly ”’ referred to the genus in question by the first subsequent author to place any nominal species in the genus in question, it does not appear that Lamarck’s action in citing a reference to a plate by an earlier author without himself citing any nominal species can properly be held to amount to his having “ distinctly referred’ to Trigonia the species figured by Hermann. This is a question, however, on which it would be helpful if the International Commission, when dealing with the present application, would give an express ruling in a Declaration under the procedure prescribed by the Paris. Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137).1 7. If, as appears to be the case, Lamarck’s action in 1799 did not amount to the “distinct’’ reference of any nominal species to the genus Trigonia, the next work to be considered is Lamarck’s Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. of 1801 (case (4) above). On this occasion, Lamarck cited as belonging to this genus one nominal species—and one species only—namely the then new species Trigonia nodulosa. Accordingly, on the view advanced above, that species becomes the type species of Trigonia Brugui¢re, by monotypy. The interpretation of this nominal species rests exclusively upon the figures cited by Lamarck and does not depend upon the identity of any specimen preserved in the Lamarckian Collection. The reference given by Lamarck to Knorr is bibliographically incorrect, as Lamarck assigned his own numbers to Knorr’s plates ; the plate intended by Lamarck, when he referred to “ plate 17”’ is apparently Knorr’s plate “ B.I.a”’. Figure 8 (the figure no. cited by Lamarck) represents a broken Trigonia. The species figured is, however, specifically indeterminable. The interpretation of the nominal species Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, thus rests solely upon figure 4 on plate 237 of the Encyclopédie méthodique. 8. Unfortunately, however, it has to be noted at this point that in 1819 (Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 6 (1) : 63, 64) Lamarck identified the species figured as fig. 4 on pl. 237 of the Encyclop. méth. as Trigonia aspera Lamarck, 1819 (loc. cit. 6 (1) : 63) and figure 2 on the same plate as Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck, 1801. The same interpretations 1 See paragraph 3 of the present Opinion. 290 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS were repeated by Lamarck in explanation of pl. 237 of the Encyclop. méth. We have therefore the difficulty of deciding whether the “‘ f.4 ” cited by Lamarck in 1801 was a misprint (or slip of the pen) for “ f.2 ” or whether in 1819 Lamarck transferred the identification from the one species to the other. It may be mentioned that a specimen in the Lamarckian Collection figured by Favre (J.) in 1914 (Cat. illustr. Coll. Lamarck (3) : pl. 35, figs. 253a, b) as Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck appears to be the species represented by fig. 2 of plate 237 rather than that represented by figure 4. This does not, however, establish the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, which rests solely upon the bibliographical reference then cited. Accordingly, if we reject the suggestion that Lamarck’s reference in 1801 to the Encyclop. méth. is a misprint (a suggestion which would require a ruling from the Commis- sion to secure definitive acceptance), it appears that the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species (Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck, 1801), which is the type species of the genus Trigonia Bruguiére by monotypy, is the species usually known as Trigonia aspera Lamarck, 1819, to which the name Trigonia nodulosa should be transferred. This species is of Jurassic age and belongs to the Clavellatae group of the genus now known as Trigonia. 9. Reviewing the position as set out above, there are, it seems to me, strong objections to the acceptance, as the type species of Trigonia Bruguiére, of the nominal species Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck, 1801. I hold this view for two reasons: (1) Crickmay’s (1932) selection of Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781, as the type species of Trigonia Bruguiére, though (as it appears) invalid, has been accepted by later workers, having been adopted by Rennie in 1936, by Shimer & Shrock in 1944 (Index Fossils of N. America : 401), and by Cox and Arkell in 1948 (“‘ Survey of the Mollusca of the British Great Oolite Series’, Mon. pal. Soc. : 21). The interpretation of Venus sulcata Hermann is not in doubt, and by the acceptance of that species as the type species of Trigonia, this important genus of Mesozoic fossils is clearly defined. (2) The acceptance of Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck as the type species of this genus would not only involve a confusing change in existing practice (including the acceptance, as the type species, of a species belonging to the Clavellatae group of the genus in place of a species belonging to the Costatae group) but would also involve the acceptance, as the type species, of a species (Trigonia nodulosa Lamarck) which at present is universally known by another name (Jrigonia aspera Lamarck). In view of the importance of the genus Trigonia Bruguiere and the confusion which, in this instance, would be involved by the strict application of the Régles, I consider that this is a case where it is desirable that the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers to designate Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781, as the type species of this genus, and, in order to avoid the confusing transfer of trivial names referred to above, also to suppress the trivial name nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Trigonia nodulosa. OPINION 327 291 Further, in view of the fact that in 1804 Lamarck (case (5) in the second paragraph of the present application) applied the name Trigonia to a recent species (Trigonia margaritacea Lamarck, 1804) which has since become the type species of a separate genus, Neotrigonia Cossmann, 1912 (Amn. Paléont. 7(2) : 81), it would be desirable for the Commission to take the present opportunity to place the name Neotrigonia Cossmann on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology at the same time as the name Trigonia Bruguiere, the trivial names of the type species of these genera, together with the trivial name aspera Lamarck, 1819, as published in the combination Trigonia aspera, being simultaneously placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology and the trivial name nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Trigonia nodulosa, as proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 10. There is one final point to which attention should be given ; this is in relation to the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781. There is just the possibility that the specimens illustrated by Hermann may have belonged to two species, and it is accordingly desirable to place the identity of this species beyond doubt by selecting a lectotype under the procedure prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology when in 1948 it revised the provisions of Article 31 of the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 73—76). In a paper on the classification of the family TRIGONIIDAE which will be published in the Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London in the course of 1950, I have therefore selected figures 9 and 10 (representing the same specimen) on Hermann’s plate IV to represent the lectotype of this species?. This 2 Note dated 12th May 1954, by Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission: When I came to prepare the present Opinion, I wrote to Dr. Cox (the applicant in this case) for the purpose of ascertaining the date on which the paper which he had mentioned as having submitted to the Malacological Society of London had actually been published, it being necessary to establish this date in order to determine whether his selection of figures 9 and 10 (representing the same specimen) on Hermann’s plate IV to represent the lectotype of Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781, had been published first in the Proc. malac. Soc. London or in volume 6 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl. As will be seen from the following extract from Dr. Cox’s reply of 11th May 1954, the foregoing lectotype selection was first made in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. :— The full reference to my paper is as follows :—Cox, L. R. “ Notes on the Trigoniidae, with Outlines of a Classification of the Family.” Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 29, pp. 45—70, pls. 3, 4; Jan. 9th, 1952. (page 51, last two lines—‘“‘ I now designate the original of Hermann’s fig. 9, from Gunders- hofen, as lectotype of the species’ [Venus oder Donax sulcata Hermann, said in the explanation of Hermann’s pl. 4 to be represented by figs. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 of this plate]). As just mentioned, the Proc. Malac. Soc. paper did not appear until Jan. 9th, 1952, approximately 12 months after it was read to the Society. My paper in the Bulletin was, therefore, published first. 292 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS specimen is from the Upper Lias of Gundershofen, Alsace. The larger specimen, said to come from Champagne, which is represented in figs. 3 and 4 of the same plate and is also referred to Venus sulcata, may well belong to a different species and have come from a different formation. I have selected the Gundershofen specimen in preference to that from Champagne to represent the lectotype because in the description of this species Gundershofen is the only locality mentioned and figures 9 and 10 alone are cited. As it is possible that the paper containing the foregoing lectotype selection may not be published until after the appearance of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1 ask the International Commission Zoological Nomenclature to take note of the action proposed and, when placing the trivial name su/cata Hermann, 1781, as published in the binominal combination Venus sulcata, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, to add a note that the name so placed on the Official List is applicable to the species defined by the foregoing lectotype. 11. I accordingly recommend that, in addition to rendering a Declaration clarifying the position arising when, in the case of a genus established without any nominal species distinctly referred thereto, a subsequent author, without citing any such species, gives a biblio- graphical reference to an earlier publication containing the names of such species, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all type designations or selections made for the genus Jrigonia Bruguiére, 1789, prior to the date of the proposed decision, and to designate Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781, to be the type species of that genus ; (b) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the trivial name nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binominal combination Trigonia nodulosa ; (2) place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789 (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, as proposed under (1)(a) above : Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781) ; (b) Neotrigonia Cossmann, 1912 (type species, by original designation : Trigonia margaritacea Lamarck, 1804) ; OPINION 327 © 293 (3) place the under-mentioned specific trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) sulcata Hermann, 1781, as published in the binominal combination Venus sulcata, as defined by its lectotype, figs. 9 and 10 (representing the same specimen) on plate IV of Hermann’s Brief iiber einige Petrefacten of 17813; (b) margaritacea Lamarck, 1804, as published in the binominal combination Trigonia margaritacea ; (c) aspera Lamarck, 1819, as published in the binominal combination Trigonia aspera ; (4) place the trivial name nodulosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binominal combination Trigonia nodulosa, as proposed in (1)(b) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt of Dr. Cox’s letter of 30th October 1950, the question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus 7rigonia Bruguiere, 1789, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 499. 3. Separate submission of a request for a ‘* Declaration ”’ clarifying the provisions of Article 30 in relation to the type species of nominal genera established without cited nominal species : When Dr. Cox’s application came to be examined in detail, it was found that it was not possible to determine what species was, under the Régles, the type species of the genus Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789, without first obtaining from the Commission an interpretation of the portion of Article 30 which prescribes what species are to be accepted as the type species of nominal genera established without cited nominal species. In view of the decision 8 The paper by Hermann here referred to by Dr. Cox was published in vol. 15 of the serial publication Der Naturforscher, the title cited by Dr. Cox being the title of Hermann’s paper as published in that serial. The following is the full reference for this specific name: Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781, Der Naturforscher 15 : 127—129, pl. IV, figs. 9, 10. 294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that in future the Commission’s Opinions Series was to be confined to Rulings on questions relating to individual names and to the status of individual books and that Rulings relating to the interpretation of the Régles are to be dealt with by the Commission only in its Declarations Series, it was agreed between the Secretary and Dr. Cox that the latter’s application should be concerned only with the discussion of problems directly affecting the possible use of the Plenary Powers for the purposes of stabilising the usage of the name Trigonia Bruguiere and that a separate application should be submitted to the Commission asking for a Declaration clarifying the meaning to be attached to the portion of Article 30 to which reference has been made above. Mr. Hemming’s application on the latter subject has been repro- duced in Declaration 15, in which the Commission gave a Ruling on the problem of interpretation submitted?. 4. Revision of Dr. Cox’s application : The decision to separate the question of the interpretation from the problems directly concerned with the name Trigonia Bruguiére involved a certain amount of revision in Dr. Cox’s application. At the same time Dr. Cox made certain additions to his proposal for the purpose of bringing it into line with the requirements imposed by the decisions regarding the placing of names on Official Lists and Official Indexes taken by the Paris Congress in 1948. The application, so revised, was submitted on 2nd February 1951. 5. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion and Mr. Hemming’s associated request for a Declaration clarifying Article 30 were sent to the printer in March 1951 and were published on 28th September 1951 in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Cox, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 79—84; Hemming, ibid. 6 : 85—88). 6. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 5|0—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on 4 For the text of Declaration 15, see pp. xxv—xxxvi of the present volume. OPINION 327 295 Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951, both in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Cox’s application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 7. Support for the present application by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America: The publication of Dr. Cox’s application elicited the following letter dated 18th February 1952 (received on 9th April 1952) from Professor G. Winston Sinclair (then of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), Chairman of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, reporting that the Joint Committee, by nine votes to two, supported the action recommended by Dr. Cox. The following is the text of Professor Sinclair’s letter :— The Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America has considered this subject, and I wish to inform you that, being polled, they voted: To support the petition (nine) :—(1) G. Winston Sinclair ; (2) R. C. Moore ; (3) A. Myra Keen ; (4) Bryan Patterson ; (5) Bobb Schaeffer ; (6) Siemon W. Muller ; (7) J. Marvin Weller ; (8) Katherine V. W. Palmer ; (9) John B. Reeside, Jr. To oppose the petition (two) :—(1) Don L. Frizzell ; (2) John W. Wells. Mr. Patterson notes, while voting for the petition, that he would consider any extension of this decision a mistake, but that as a case of specific exception to the rules it would have his support. IIl.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)51 : On 22nd May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)51) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against the proposal “ relating to the name Trigonia Bruguicre, 1789, as set out in Points (1) to (4) at the foot of page 83 and on page 84 of 296 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’”’ {i.e. in paragraph 11 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 9. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 22nd August 1952. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)51 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)51 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following fifteen (15) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Calman ; Hering ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; Pearson; Bradley; do Amaral; Hemming; Esaki; Riley ; Lemche; Stoll; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, three (3) : Cabrera® ; Jaczewski ; Mertens. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)51, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 10 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. > After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period an affirmative Vote was received (on Ist September 1952) from Commissioner Cabrera. OPINION B07 297 12. On 10th May 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)51. 13. The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— aspera, Trigonia, Lamarck, 1819, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 6 (1) : 63 margaritacea, Trigonia, Lamarck, 1804, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 4 (23) : 355 Neotrigonia Cossmann, 1912, Ann. Paléont. 7 (2) : 81 nodulosa, Trigonia, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 117 sulcata, Venus, Hermann, 1781, Naturforscher 15 : 127—129, pl. IV, figs. 9, 10 Trigonia Bruguiere, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) 1 (1) : xiv 14. The following is the reference to the place where a lectotype was first selected for the nominal species Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781 :—Cox, Sept. 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6:83. In the foregoing paper Dr. Cox mentioned that he had made this lectotype selection in a paper which was about to appear in the Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London. It has since been ascertained from Dr. Cox that the latter paper was not published until 9th January 1952, and therefore that the lectotype selection made in his paper in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature has priority®. 15. The gender of the generic names Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789, and Neotrigonia Cossmann, 1912, is feminine. 16. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has been ascertained than an addition, or & See footnote 2. 298 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS additions to the foregoing Official List and/or to the correspond- ing Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology will need to be made in order to complete the action which, under the General Directives given to the International Commission by the International Congress of Zoology, is required to be taken in the present case. This question is now being © examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 75 has been allotted. 17. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “ trivial name ” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 18. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 19. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-Seven (327) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Tenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission — on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimitTep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 Ret OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to-the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 20. Pp. 299—308 OPINION 328 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific name caesius Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combination Coluber caesius, for the purpose of validating the specific name irregularis Leach, 1819, as published in the combination Coluber irregularis (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata) FEB 15 1955 | LONDON : ares RARY Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Five Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 328 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (ist January 1944). Professor J..R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (1st January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The ce) (1st January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). | Mr. Francis HemminG*(London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr: * Joseph PEARSON} (asfianian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th . July 1948). i Dr. Henning Lemcue ( 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 RiILey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, 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) (Sth July 1950). OPINION 328 SUPPRESSION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “CAESIUS > CLOQUET, 1818, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘“ COLUBER CAESIUS ”, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE SPECIFIC NAME “ IRREGULARIS ” LEACH, 1819, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘* COLUBER IRREGULARIS ”? (CLASS REPTILIA, ORDER SQUAMATA) RULING : (1) Under the Plenary Powers, the specific name caesius Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combina- tion Coluber caesius, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The locality for the nominal species Dendrophis (Philothamnus) semivariegata Smith, 1847, is to be inter- preted as restricted by Bogert, 1940, namely “* Bushman Flat, Cape Province ”’. (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 234 and 235 respectively :—(a) irregularis Leach, 1819, as published in the combination Coluber irregularis ; (b) semivariegata Smith, 1847, as published in the combination Dendrophis (Philothamnus) semi- variegata (specific name of type species of Philothamnus Smith, 1847). (4) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 796 :—Philothamnus Smith, 1847 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Dendrophis (Philothamnus) semivariegata Smith, 1847). | \ oeer 302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (5) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 109 :—caesius Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combination Coluber caesius, as suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, under (1) above. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th March 1951 Dr. Arthur Loveridge (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) submitted an application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the specific name irregularis Leach, 1819, as pub- lished in the combination Coluber irregularis, as against the older name caesius Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combination Coluber caesius This application as subsequently slightly revised, was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name ** caesius ’’ Cloquet, 1818, as published in the binominal combina- tion ‘‘ Coluber caesius ’’? (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata) By ARTHUR LOVERIDGE (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) During the course of a revisionary study of the African Green snakes commonly referred to the genera Chlorophis Hallowell, 1857 (Prac. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1857 : 53) and Philothamnus Smith, 1847 (ll. Zool. S. Afr. (Rept.) : pl. lix), I find that the trivial name (irregularis) of the commonest and most widely distributed member of the genus Chlorophis is antedated. 2. The trivial name irregularis Leach, 1819 (in Bowditch, Miss. Ashanti : 494 “ Fantee, Gold Coast’), as published in the binominal combination Coluber irregularis, has been almost consistently applied (in combination either with the name Ahaetulla or the name Chlorophis or the name Philothamnus) to this common reptile since 1858 (Giinther), occurring 113 times in the literature. OPINION 328 303 3. However, the stability of the name of this species is threatened by the trivial name caesius Cloquet, 1818 (Dict. Sci. nat., Paris 11 : 201 ** Region of Cape Verde ’’), as published in the binominal combination Coluber caesius, a name which has never been used by anyone, other than its original author Cloquet. The description of caesius conforms to that of irregularis in all respects, except that the number of its subcaudals is given as sixty-four, whereas the range for irregularis is from 97 to 121. I suggest that the tail of the type specimen of caesius was truncated, for quite a high percentage of these whip-tailed tree snakes lose the ends of their tails during life. When such a loss occurs early in life, the tail heals over and the terminal point is reproduced, so that the tail closely resembles its original condition. 4. In further support of the identification of caesius with irregularis, we have to note that, with the possible exception of semivariegata Smith, 1847 (Dendrophis (Philothamnus) semivariegata Smith, 1847, I//. Zool. S. Afr. (Rept.): pls. lix, lx, Ixiv, figs. la—b ‘“‘ Bushman Flat, Cape Province ’’) irregularis is the only species of the genus which extends so far west as the region of Cape Verde, the type locality of caesius. 5. In order to avoid the quite unnecessary confusion and instability which would result from the substitution of the entirely unknown name caesius Cloquet for the universally accepted name irregularis Leach, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name caesius Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combination Coluber caesius, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) irregularis Leach, 1819, as published in the combination Coluber irregularis ; (b) semivariegata Smith, 1847, as published in the combination Dendrophis (Philothamnus) semivariegata, the type locality of the species so named to be interpreted as specified by Bogert, 1940 (Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 77 : 56) (trivial name of type species of Philothamnus Smith, 1847) ; (3) to place the generic name Philothamnus Smith, 1847 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Dendrophis (Philo- thamnus) semivariegata Smith, 1847) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 304 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) to place the trivial name caesius Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combination Coluber caesius, 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. I1—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Dr. Loveridge’s letter of 28th March 1951, the question of the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers for the purpose of preserving the specific name irregularis Leach, 1819, as published in the combination Coluber irregularis, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 531. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer in May 1951 and was published on 28th September of that year in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Loveridge, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 88—89). 4. Supplementary Note furnished by Dr. Loveridge : In a letter dated 11th May 1951, Dr. Loveridge furnished the following supple- mentary note on the distribution of Coluber irregularis Leach, 1819: “ Since filing my application, I have borrowed two snakes from Dakar, Senegal, that appeared as P. semivariegatus in the literature. Both proved to be irregularis, i.e. topotypes of caesius”. 5. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised arrangements prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 50—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on OPINION 328 305 Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951, both in Part 3 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Loveridge’s application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 6. Support received from Professor Dr. R. Mertens (Natur- Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) : On 24th October 1951, Professor Dr. R. Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) addressed to the Commission the following letter in support of Dr. Loveridge’s application (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 224) :— Ich schliesse mich den Ausfitthrungen des herrn A. Loveridge an und befiirworte seinen Antrag um Unterdriickung des Artnamens caesius Cloquet. Auch stimme ich seinen Vorschlagen um Aufnahme der von ihm erwahnten Artnamen irregularis und semivariegata in die Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology und des Gattungs- namens Philothamnus in die Official List of Generic Names in Zoology bei. III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)53 : On 22nd May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)53) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the trivial name caesius, Cloquet, 1818, as published in the combination Coluber caesius, as set out in Points _ (1) to () on page 89 in volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e. in paragraph 5 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 8. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 22nd August 1952. 306 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)53 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)53 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Calman ; Hering ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; Pearson; do Amaral; Hemming; Biadley; Esaki; Riley ; Lemche; Mertens; Stoll; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Cabrera! ; Jaczewski. 10. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)53, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 9 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 11. On 10th May 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)53. 1 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, an affirmative vote was received (on Ist September, 1952) from Commissioner Cabrera. OPINION 328 307 12. The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Bante given in the present Opinion :— caesius, Coluber, Cloquet, 1818, Dict. Sci. nat., Paris 11 : 201 irregularis, Coluber, Leach, 1819, in Bowditch, Miss. Ashanti : 494 Philothamnus Smith, 1847, J//. Zool. S. Afr. (Rept.) : pl. lix semivariegata, Dendrophis (Philothamnus), Smith, 1847, I/II. Zool. S. Afr. : pls. lix, Ix, lxiv, figs. la—b 13. The following is the reference to the publication of the restricted locality (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 26—27, Decision 31) of “ Bushman Flat, Cape Province”? for the nominal species Dendrophis (Philothalmus) semivariegata Smith, 1847, specified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Bogert, 1940, Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. ’77 : 56. 14. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 75 has been allotted. 15. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “trivial”? appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “‘ trivial name ” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 308 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion 1s accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Twenty-Eight (328) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Tenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING ~ Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimireD 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9. Part 23. Pp. 309—320 OPINION 329 Acceptance for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Giovanni Antonio Scopoli entitled Introductio ad Historiam Naturalem published in 1777 EWITASON/4 FEB 15 1°55 LIBRARY LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Five Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 7th January, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 329 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). 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 (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (ist January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H...BoscamMa (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherla aS (ist January.1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis SENG (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). IDyr, dh Tae PEARSON” (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th Ju 1948), 232 83 83 83 83 83 387 412 Opinions and Declarations stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Ammonites stellaris (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Fees List os anes Names in onlay with Name No. 222 ae Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 790, with Ammonites humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825, as type species ae ie 4a nin gender of name Stepheoceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (a junior objective synonym of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869), placed on the Official Index ao leg and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 194.. striatoradiatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Spatangus _striato- radiatus (a .senior objective synonym of radiatus Gmelin, [1791], aa placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 200 struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, as published in the combination Ammonites struckmanni (Class Cephalopoda), pees on the Ones List a mee Names in Zoology with Name No. 223 sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Ammonites sublaevis (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Oeoah List ef BCG Names in Copies with Name No. 224 ae subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, as published in the combination Ammonites subradiatus (Class Cephalopoda), placed on the Once List SiN. me Names in Zoology with Name No. 225 .. sulcata Hermann, 1781, Venus, (Class Pelecypoda), eenaed under ihe en Powers, to be the type species of Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789 . lectotype for, selected by Cox (1951), acceptance of placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 231 thymi Wolff, 1804, Lygaeus (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), sesleuaicy under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852 . placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 196 Tholaster Spencer, 1913 (a junior homonym of Tholaster Seunes, 1891), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 210 Tholasterina Valette, 1915 (a junior objective synonym of Valettaster Lambert, 1914), placed on the Official Index a ele and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 211 ws transbaikalica loft & Tiflov, 1946, as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica (Class Insecta, Order Siphonoptera), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 181 ae Page 232 231 231 232 173 232 232 232, 285 285 285 133 133 342 342 73 Volume 9 Trigonia Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Pelecypoda), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Venus sulcata Hermann, 1781, designated as type species gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 794 type species of a nominal genus established to replace an earlier nominal genus, clarification of Rule (f) in Article 30 relating to iis ats ae : type species of a nominal genus established without cited nominal sperics, clarifica- tion of provisions regarding species eligible for selection as ‘ BY : Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909 (a junior objective synonym of Artheneis Spinola, 1837), placed on the Official Index or a aan and Invalid Generic Names in eeey with Name No. 172 : urogenitalis Beets! 1883, as published in the combination Amoeba urogenitalis (Class Rhizopoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ua placed on the Official Index of Reis and Invalid Seceos Names in Ae with Name No. 81... vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, as published in the combination Amoeba vaginalis (Class Rhizopoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for ‘those of the Law of Homonymy oy dt placed on the Official Index a) Sen and Invalid ebeeite Names in ents with Name No. 82... Valettaster Lambert, 1914 (Class Asteroidea), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 801, with Oreaster ocellatus Forbes, 1848, as type species 5 Be S gender of name Volsella Scopoli, 1777 (Class Pelecypoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index of meee and Invalid Generic Names in Ne OGeey with Name No. 196 .. ; F ba Volsella Modeer, 1793 (a junior homonym of Volsella Scopoli, 1777), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 197 Vulsella [Humphreys], 1797 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index ao REE a and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 198 Vulsella Roding, 1798 (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in owes with Name No. 792, with Me vulsella Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name 413 Page 285 285 285 XV XXVil 134 254 258 253 414 Opinions and Declarations Vulsella Lamarck, 1799 (a junior homonym of Vulsella Roding, 1798), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 199 vulsella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mya vulsella (Class Pele- ype): placed ¢ on the (Cores List oh Saeciie Names in 1 Acree with Name No. 2 : Xiphisura Briimnich, 1771 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771), placed on the Official Index a cies and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 178 a Xiphosura Brimnich, 1771 (Class Merostomata), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy aie ae a ere js fe ae ae as placed on the Official Index of ened and Invalid Generic Names in Polen with Name No. 175 .. Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index al sciat and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 174 i Xiphosura Meuschen, 1778 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index of ead and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 177 : Xiphosura Scopoli, 1777 (a junior homonym of Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771), placed on the Official Index ek Fee and Invalid Generic Names in n Zoology with Name No. 176 Page 254 253 149 149 149 149 149 149 Volume 9 415 PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part No. SOON NUN BW NY — © Page Nos. 1—60 61—70 71—80 81—90 91—106 107—118 i—XIl 119—130 131—146 147—170 171—184 X1i1—XXIV 185—208 209—226 2-250) 251—266 267—282 XXV—XXXVI1 283—298 299— 308 XXXVii—xl vill xlix—lx 309—320 321—338 339—354 355—368 369—384 SiS) lL Ps xv | Contents of Part Opinion 312 Opinion 313 Opinion 314 Opinion 315 Opinion 316 Opinion 317 Declaration 13 Opinion 318 Opinion 319 Opinion 320 Opinion 321 Declaration 14 Opinion 322 Opinion 323 Opinion 324 Opinion 325 Opinion 326 Declaration 15 Opinion 327 Opinion 328 Declaration 16 Declaration 17 Opinion 329 Opinion 330 Opinion 331 Opinion 332 Opinion 333 Corrigenda and 7 Indexes Foreword, Table of Contents Date of Publication 17th December 1954 17th December 1954 17th December 1954 17th December 1954 17th December 1954 17th December 1954 17th December 1954 17th December 1954 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 7th January 1955 23rd February 1955 23rd February 1955 23rd February 1955 23rd February 1955 t 14th July, 1955 416 Opinions and Declarations INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS The present volume should be bound up as follows :—T.P.—XIV, i—lx, 1—416, coloured wrapper (cover) to Part 28. Note: The wrappers (covers) to the Parts of which this volume is composed form, with the exception of the coloured wrapper (cover) issued with Part 28, an integral part of those Parts, being included for purposes of pagination. These wrappers should therefore be bound up in the position in which they were issued. The brown wrapper (cover) to Part 28 should be bound in at the end of the volume. Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 Mi i hy with a \ «QT,