pha tee iy seins ait eee Ait i a Mab PABA epics Ait At hy) Sith Hay: a in oh ali so a i Lt Vee ut Raat a Ri uh hs ao ; ant fie Hd heen sein neha Satie? " a) ibs . ia AN ni ak ae Mt + wld aie SL yy amy! 70) 3 mate) a fi iasbidsety ie a en tie ey ty iat it Tigre) 48) nt (? rata it tinib ‘ i NW ity i! it arte ly aii ae y) vi it rt Aa ! eb ni ¥ 4h i) ya + 4] + Lye sitatuthy i i Meee nya ; Pint } Ny) Hh ht 4 " a hat a Hes yi UW , h ath at naar adi ao tae 44 ee ’ ue at ie , it , ei . i en at) han + ni® uy iat watt ” ig hts Veaty ae : et teh j trey wa oy i ey pi ae ee gat eat tee i Ae \° i nite if oH Ans Ae mb ‘ At 2) ni a he ty ls i Th Py Hit! Met Buti): Hin HMihg fis} nt i ¥t AMT ie 5 Pian if tis) i yl Mi tthe eM aed it aia bao ls, ily ne toot Ai AS \4 wt ihe i bint at yu iit i ovts me, a he int uw Ta! | a4 heaed Ate t Hepes it Ht De sit us Pais ii > MS isi hh 6 ae Me di i a Nh " i It sf i i ae Gee ae } it Meet iyi Tol AY PRUE ete ee att agen th 4 at : re ee ssn A He ta Aa has ie “hay i tht 3 if sige | Ce it Ht ae cat init ’ ead eM i seh bee ‘ rie rales ‘: ae nee Boe ie PT tt oh aa AR Kit nyitian uth eae ft yet HF Rie i ght, Or A Uae ie A ote ide | re a iss f Na tt ay ‘ AL ane AY bef aia HY Aaa th Wh ibe Al 7 i Yaya i AA’ { NaN) ty Ve pets BN gts j nT j ii i if va t vy \ { i \ Wh 7 5 | ‘| i ( { | 1 ) 7 i f , } : Kl [ 1h) \ } \ i a 4 if ii aye frat, ine ie | ei) 4 \) \ a iY 1 f | i, an (sy ! ait 5) oe et ty 1a \ fi ’ | 4 j moo 0 t 1 sft { A Mat Me ny Ai biel A i | Ce tea Wi ihe y iy! / Uh) very ie Te ay An Sarid ist U4 Se PACU we ti MGM BRT UA) cee Ply) if i, t Waa may ttes iy ON ra i i on | y it pyh} ; , leet HLTA Wa, Uhl RUN A i By) wey ‘ JU aa nN) wtp ih Hii t ba, th irae aa he a a Me ae ae “ww ey, ' 7 i ' Cw Wi ‘ ty “ ra) ”d ; A Ciaerunediions « ae ee hanwoon et ae wet xh) : Ae la ) nw CaBheat Ny ay) j OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 15 Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 LOST (All rights reserved) a | Wh G \ )» INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS, DECLARATIONS AND DIRECTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natura! History) Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) ; Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEmMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Bene aoe (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEwsKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) : Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mez6gazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Sto (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HottHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum y Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) pee ar S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) 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. Consulting Classical Adviser: Professor The Rev. L. W. Grensted, M.A., D.D. “ Official Lists’? Section: Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. “* Réegles”’ Section: Mrs. A. F. Wilson, M.A. Mrs. J. H. Newman Miss C. W. Kirton (to 8th March 1957) Mrs. I. Saltman (to 7th March 1957) Secretariat : Mrs. B. Lester Mrs. C. Slater L Miss D. Fidler Indexer : Miss Mary Cosh, M.A. 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 Trust Duties Officer: Mrs. J. H. Newman 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. Vv FOREWORD The present volume—the fifteenth of the present Series— contains the sixth instalment of Opinions, Declarations and Directions adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature since the close of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953. The present volume contains twenty-six Opinions (Opinions 436—461), one Declaration (Declaration 30), and one Direction (Direction 59). In addition, since the Copenhagen Congress nine other volumes in the present series have been completed and additional Parts issued for two others. The documents so published contain Opinions adopted by the Commission either in Paris in 1948 or in the period between the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses, together with Directions embodying the results of the survey of Rulings given in Opinions rendered prior to July 1948 under- taken by the Commission in accordance with a General Directive issued to it by the earlier of the foregoing Congresses. Publication started in January 1954 and accordingly the total number of Opinions, Declarations and Directions published during the three and a quarter years concerned amounts to three hundred and forty-six (346) (Opinions, 267 ; Declarations, 18 ; Directions, 611). 2. The Opinions included in the immediately preceding volume virtually completed the promulgation of decisions taken by the International Commission on applications published in Volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and a start had been made in one Opinion (Opinion 435) with the promulgation of decisions taken on applications published in Volume 11 of the Bulletin, the next volume to be devoted to the publication of applications relating to individual cases. The present volume contains an instalment consisting of twenty-one Opinions based upon applications published in Volume 11 of the Bulletin. The Opinions in question are Opinions 437—440, 443—449, 1 The Directions here referred to are Directions 1—61. It should be noted that the explanation of the apparent anomaly that, although one Direction (Direction 59) was published in the present volume, the total number of Directions published at the time of the close of the present volume (61) was the same as at the time of the close of the preceding volume (Volume 14) is provided by the fact that that volume was completed a little later than the present volume and that in consequence there had been published by that date a Direction (Direction 61) belonging to Volume 1(E) which had not been published at the time of the completion of the present volume. VI 451—455 and 457—461. The remaining five Opinions (Opinions 436; 441—442; 450; 456) are based upon applications pub- lished in earlier volumes of the Bulletin, Opinions 450 and 456 being based upon applications published in Volume 6 and Opinions 436 and 441—442 on applications published in volume 9 or on applications arising out of papers published in that volume. The publication of the decisions by the Commission based on applications published in Volume 6 of the Bulletin completes the treatment of two important cases, the settiement of which had in each case been delayed by the complexity of the problems involved. In the first of these Opinions (Opinion 450) the Commission brought to a close a long-standing cause of confusion and diversity of practice in the nomenclature of the principal genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), while in the second of the Opinions concerned (Opinion 456) the Commission rejected for nomenclatorial purposes a work (The Universal Conchologist of Thomas Martyn) containing a large number of well-known names for genera of the Class Gastropoda but at the same time intimated its willingness to give consideration to applications, if submitted individually, for the validation of particular names in the book in question. The three Opinions based upon, or arising cut of, applications published in Volume 9 of the Bulletin (Opinions 436, 441 and 442) also deal with cases of considerable complexity. The first of these Opinions (Opinion 436) was concerned with the final disposal of certain names included in two anonymous fragments of a work by S. A. Renier which had already been rejected by the Commis- sion (in Opinions 316 and 427 respectively), the names in question being names which had been reserved by the Commission for further study in order that consideration might be given to the possibility that some of them ought to be validated under the Plenary Powers in the interests of nomenclatorial stability. The two other Opinions here in question (Opinions 441 and 442) were concerned with proposals for the validation under the Plenary Powers of names for certain well-known genera in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) as from the date on which they had been published in a work (Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris) which had been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Commission (in Opinion 228) as a work in which the author had not applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. Vil 3. The single Declaration (Declaration 30) contained in the present volume contains a clarification of the meaning of the Régles in relation to the question of the generic name in com- bination with which a specific name is to be treated as having been published when the species so named is (a) placed in a previously established nominal genus and (b) also referred to a new nominal genus conditionally established. 4. The Direction (Direction 59) contained in the present volume is concerned with the settlement of a complex bibliographical problem (concerned with the collation and dating of the Lepidotieri volume by Costa of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli) which arose in connection with one of the included Opinions (Opinion 450) but which it was considered could be more appropriately dealt with separately in a Direction than in that Opinion. It may be noted that the present is the first volume in the present Series to have been published since the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 in which it has not been necessary for the Commission to add a Direction dealing with the family-group- name problems arising in connection with generic names placed on the Official List by Rulings given in Opinions included in the volume, all the problems arising in this field having on this occasion been dealt with in the Opinions directly concerned. 5. The present volume comprises 580 pages (T.P.—XX, i—xii, 1—530), ()—(xviii). This volume is of substantially the same size as previous volumes. 6. Of the twenty-six Opinions included in the present volume one deals with names belonging to two different Classes of the Animal Kingdom and one deals simultaneously with names of a particular Class and with the status of an individual book, thus bringing the total number of cases up to twenty-eight. Several of the applications relating to these cases were submitted by more than one author and when account is taken of this fact, the total number of applicants is seen to amount to forty-two. 7. Three of the applications dealt with in the present volume were concerned with the status of books and the remaining twenty- VIll five with individual names. Of this latter group, nineteen (76 per cent.) involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. The use of those Powers was not involved in the applications relating to the status of individual books. 8. The twenty-five 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) by whether they involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers Number of applications Name of \2e ee ee eee Class Involving the use of the Others Plenary Powers Chilopoda Insecta Gastropoda Cephalopoda Bryozoa Brachiopoda Ostracodermi Pisces Amphibia Reptilia Aves Mammalia Co Bee i OD Yd) — \o N Nn Totals 1X 9. When the forty-two applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen 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 Czechoslovakia I Germany : Z New Zealand 6 Switzerland 2 United Kingdom 11 United States of America 20 Total 42 10. By the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the present volume, together with the Ruling given in the Direction referred to in paragraph 4 above, a total of 253 names have been added to the Official Lists and corresponding Official Indexes relating to specific names, generic names, family-group names, and x the titles of zoological works. The distribution of these entries is seen to be as follows :— TABLE 3 Additions to the ‘‘ Official Lists ’’ and ‘* Official Indexes ”’ respectively Category Official Lists Official Indexes Specific Names 43 Generic Names 38 Family-Group Names Titles of Works Totals 11. The twenty-five cases dealing with individual names published in the present volume contain 130 comments from interests specialists. In some instances these comments are joint comments from two or more specialists and in several cases specialists commented on applications which dealt with more than one Class of the Animal Kingdom. When account is taken of these facts, a total number of 159 specialists contributed comments in the present volume. In addition, 15 comments were received on the status on individual books. 12. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according to the Class in the Animal Kingdom to which the genus XI or species concerned belongs, the distribution of the comments is found to be as follows :— TABLE 4 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of Comments Chilopoda 21 Insecta 44 > Gastropoda 4 - Cephalopoda 5 Bryozoa 6 Brachiopoda 3 Ostracodermi 4 Pisces 1 Amphibia 2 Reptilia 2 Aves 10 Mammalia 28 Total 130 13. When the authors of the comments contained in the Opinions published in the present volume are grouped by reference XII to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :— TABLE 5 Distribution of comments relating to individual names, by country of residence of the specialists concerned Country of Residence | Number of Comments Argentine Australia Belgium Brazil British West Indies Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Hawail India Italy Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Switzerland Taiwan Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1 United Kingdom 39 United States of America 71 Bre BNO WN RETR RP RP DN YN NE Total 159 XIIl 14. As in the case of preceding volumes in this Series, the Commission is indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A., for the preparation 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 July 1957. XV TABLE OF CONTENTS Declarations Page DECLARATION 30 _ Clarification of the question of the generic name in combination with which a specific name is to be treated as having been published when the species so named was (a) placed in a previously established nominal genus and (b) also referred to a new nominal genus conditionally established .. -~xil Directions DIRECTION 59 Determination (a) of the method to be followed in citing for the purposes of zoological nomenclature the several portions in which the Lepidotteri volume by Orenzio Gabriele Costa of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli were published, and (b) of the dates which for the foregoing purposes are to be assigned toeachof those portions (i)—(xviil) Opinions OPINION 436 Addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology of certain names attributed to Renier (S.A.) as from 1804 and 1807 respectively (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 427) un a ate in ey sf a OPINION 437 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Pachyceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) by the suppression of the name Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) 20 XVI OPINION 438 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name eae Jaekel, 1919 (Class Ostracodermi) Ny Le a) : OPINION 439 Designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Anurophorus Nicolet [1842] we Insecta, Order Collembola) e : ze oe OPINION 440 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) OPINION 441 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the names for five genera in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) published in 1762 by Geoffroy (E.L.) in the work entitled Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvant aux Environs de Paris (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 228) OPINION 442 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name ii Cee Oo 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) . he A OPINION 443 Designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Monticulipora v aoe October, 1849 (Class Bryozoa) (Ordovician) : OPINION 444 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura (Class Aves) OPINION 445 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Eberhard (J.P.) entitled Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte published in 1768 OPINION 446 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) 4] 5) 67 83 121 163 175 19] 199 XVII OPINION 447 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the original edition published at Philadelphia in 1791 and of the editions published in London and Dublin respectively in 1792 of the work by William Bartram entitled Zravels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws, as being a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomen- Glaturey x a Ae a ig ee) OPINION 448 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the name bei Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, a name given to the Astrakan Horned Lark as the result of the misreading of a museum label (Class Aves) .. 225 OPINION 449 Determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of the nominal genus Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda) = rat POS OPINION 450 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and validation as of subgeneric status (a) as from 1758, of the terms Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Tortrix, Pyralis, Tinea, and Alucita as used by Linnaeus for groups of species of the genus Phalaena and (b) as from 1767 of the term Attacus similarly published by Linnaeus and matters incidental thereto (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) ie a - ie aay pel OPINION 451 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, shall be the oldest available name for the Dingo of Australia (Class Mammalia) ae er Ja a oa ACS 29 XVIII OPINION 452 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis australis, as the oldest available name for the Falkland Islands Wolf (Class Mammalia) OPINION 453 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816 aa, ne Order Anura) te : OPINION 454 Designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Chilopoda) .. OPINION 455 Validation under the Plenary Powers (a) of the emendation to Sphenodon of the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831, and (b) of the family-group name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 (Class Reptilia) OPINION 456 Rejection of the work by Thomas Martyn published in 1784 with the title The Universal Con- chologist as a work which does not comply with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles and which therefore possesses no status in zoological nomen- clature and rejection also of a proposal that the fore- going work should be validated under the oe Powers ay e Ne A : OPINION 457 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829 (Class Aves) re Ay “7 a OPINION 458 Determination of the interpretation of the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803 (Class Ectoprocta) OPINION 459 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Fistulipora pie 1849 Ri Bryozoa) . f oe : : 339 347 357 379 395 419 433 443 OPINION 460 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, and designation for the genus so named of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Mammalia) OPINION 461 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843, a name published conditionally for a species described simultaneously in the genus Seriola Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1816] (Class oe aw supplementary to Declaration 30) : MINUTE dated 6th June 1957 by the Secretary regarding family-group-name problems involved in the Opinions included in Volume 15 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature MINUTE dated 24th June 1957 by the Secretary regarding the insertion of certain minor corrections in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in pes ae to Opinions 431 and 450 : ; Cr ee 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 XIX 455 475 485 49] 494 495 501 529 530 ‘ i ’ hy * : at t ' ¥ : : « ’ : APT a \ } ‘ e ; i ‘ j : P : R in i - i? ye is . : - ’ CBr & iy a , ‘ * 0 4 ‘ 3 ba ae i ‘ BAT? a [ Le as oe i Breas ¥ Choy fs 2 eh t il bee MLR > i ane ‘ (aed ' 2 7 5 ‘ * rf os hey 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 15. Part 27. Pp. i—xii DECLARATION 30 Clarification of the question of the generic name in combination with which a specific name is to be treated as having been published when the species so named was (a) placed in a previously established nominal genus and (b) also referred to a new nominal genus conditionally established 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 1957 Price Eight Shillings . (All rights reserved) Issued 2nd April, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 30 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMaA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CasreraA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HeEmMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Py Hennine LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 1948) Professor Teiso EsAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) ' Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hoituuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Narodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) r Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“‘ G. Doria,’ Genova Italy) (16th December 1954) DECLARATION 30 CLARIFICATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE GENERIC NAME IN COMBINATION WITH WHICH A SPECIFIC NAME IS TO BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN PUBLISHED WHEN THE SPECIES SO NAMED WAS (a) PLACED IN A PREVIOUSLY ESTAB- LISHED NOMINAL GENUS AND (b) ALSO REFERRED TO A NEW NOMINAL GENUS CONDITIONALLY ESTABLISHED DECLARATION :—(1) Where an author, in publishing a name for a new nominal species, cites that name in combination with a previously published generic name but at the same time establishes conditionally a new nominal genus for the taxon so named, the specific name in question is to be treated as having been first published in combination with the previously published generic name, Example: The specific name gracilis published by Lowe in 1843 for a new species of fish which was placed by him in the previously established genus Seriola but for which also he then established conditionally the new genus Cubiceps is to be treated as having been first published in the combination Seriola gracilis. (2) An author who establishes a nominal species in the manner specified in (1) is to be treated (a) as having first published the name for that species in combination with the previously published generic name and (b) as having later transferred the species so named to the nominal genus then conditionally established for it. Example : In the case cited in (1) above Lowe is to be treated as having first published the binomen Seriola gracilis and as having later transferred the species so iV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS named to the genus Cubiceps then conditionally established, the name for the species thus becoming Cubiceps gracilis (Lowe, 1843) (a new combination for the name of the previously established nominal species Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 2nd February 1955, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary, submitted a request for a Declaration clarifying the question of the generic name in combination with which a given specific name is to be treated as having been published when the species so named was (a) placed in a previously established nominal genus and (b) also referred to a new nominal genus conditionally established. As explained in the application submitted, the need for a Ruling on this question had arisen in connection with an enquiry which had been received in the Office of the Commission in regard to a specific name in the Class Pisces which had been published in the foregoing manner.! The paper so submitted by Mr. Hemming was as follows :— Request for a ‘‘ Declaration’’ prescribing the combination to be attributed to the specific name of a nominal species established as belonging to one genus but for which at the same time another nominal genus is established conditionally By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to render a Declaration prescribing the combination to be attributed to the specific name of a nominal species established as belonging to ! For particulars of the case here referred to see Opinion 461 (: 475—484 of the present Volume). DECLARATION 30 V one genus but for which at the same time another nominal genus is established conditionally. 2. The present problem was brought to notice by Mr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History), London) who in a letter dated 18th August 1954 raised it in connection with a specific name gracilis published by Lowe (R.T.) in 1843 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 : 81—95) in the following circumstances. On page 82 of this paper Lowe dealt with the “‘ Genus Seriola Cuv. & Val.”’, this legend appearing as a heading for the portion which followed. Beneath this heading Lowe wrote the name “‘ Seriola gracilis’’, a name then introduced as the name for a new species. This was followed by a description of the species so named. In this description Lowe referred to the relationship of his new species (Seriola gracilis) to the species Seriola bipinnulata Quoy & Gaimard, 1825 (Voy. “‘ Uranie”’ (Zool.) : 363). Lowe then added the following note :—“ Still it is not unlikely that a comparison of the two fishes may warrant, on some future occasion, their separation from Seriola into a genus which may be called Cubiceps...’’ The question which arises in this case is whether the specific name gracilis Lowe, 1843, should be treated as having been originally published in the combination Seriola gracilis or in the combination Cubiceps gracilis. 3. The question posed above is not dealt with in the Régles and it is the object of the present application to make good this deficiency. The Commission and the International Congress of Zoology have both frowned upon the publication of names conditionally. The Commission did not feel justified in recommending the Congress to insert in the Régles a provision invalidating names published in this way and accordingly in 1948 on the proposal of the Commission a provision incorporating the Ruling given previously by the Com- mission in its Opinion 49 (1912, Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 112—113) that such names must be accepted as being available as from their original date of publication and authorship was adopted by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144145, Decision 17). At the same time however the Commission submitted a proposal to the Congress that there should be inserted in the Régles a Recommandation deprecating the publication of names conditionally. This also was approved by the Congress. 4. It appears to me that the logical course would be to treat a specific name such as gracilis Lowe, 1843 (paragraph 2 above) as having been published in combination with the generic name Serio/a (i.e. in com- bination with the name of the previously established nominal genus in which it was placed by its author) rather than as having been published in combination with the generic name Cubiceps (the name of a nominal genus then conditionally established for the reception of that species, if later this generic separation was judged to be desirable on taxonomic grounds). The foregoing solution of this vi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS problem is supported by Mr. Tucker, the specialist by whom (as noted above) the present problem was brought to the notice of the Commission. 5. I accordingly recommend the Commission to render a Declaration on the following lines :— DRAFT DECLARATION :—Where an author, in publishing a name for a new nominal species, cites that name in combination with a previously published generic name but at the same time establishes conditionally a new nominal genus for the taxon so named, the specific name in question is to be treated as having been first published in combination with the previously published generic name and not in combination with the generic name of the new nominal genus then conditionally established. Example: The specific name gracilis published by Lowe in 1843 for a new species of fish which was placed by him in the previously established genus Seriola but for which also he then established conditionally the new genus Cubiceps is to be treated as having been first published in the combination Seriola gracilis and not in the combination Cubiceps gracilis. Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application the question of the adoption of a Declaration clarifying the position of the generic name in combination with which a given specific name is to be treated as having been published when the species so named was (a) placed in a previously established nominal genus and (b) also referred to a new nominal genus conditionally established was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 894. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 4th February 1955 and was published on 31st May in the same year in Part 6 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 179—180). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Public Notice of the possible adoption of a Declaration in the terms proposed was given on 31st May 1955 in like manner as though the present application involved the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers (a) in Part 6 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (the Part in which Mr. Hemming’s application was DECLARATION 30 Vii published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given to four general zoological serial publications in Europe and America. 5. Comments received on the present application : Comments on the present application were received from two specialists :— (1) J. Marwick (New Zealand); (2) Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.). The comments so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 6. Support from J. Marwick (New Zealand) : On 8th June 1955, Dr. J. Marwick (New Zealand) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission in which he pues his support for the present case as follows :— I am also interested in the Commission making a general ruling as to genera introduced provisionally. 7. Support from Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : On 7th October 1955, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support for the present case to the Office of the Commission :— It seems to me to be an anomalous situation that the Commission and the Congress should both frown upon the publication of names conditionally, and at the same time decline to provide a rule by which such names could be invalidated, and immediately deprecate this practice. Under the rules your petitioner had no other choice ; the course of action which he recommends is the only legal one, and yet it is a thoroughly objectionable one. It would seen to me wiser to reconsider the question of inserting a provision in the rules to invalidate such names, and providing that they could be available only after they were validated in some later publication. 8. No objection received : No objection to the adoption of a Declaration in the sense proposed for so long as names published conditionally are accepted as being available was received from any source, Vill OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. Submission of a revised draft of the proposed ‘* Declara- tion?’ : On 10th April 1956, Mr. Hemming, following corre- spondence with Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) prepared for the consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following paper in the Annexe to which he set out a revised draft of the proposed Declaration which he recommended should be substituted for that previously submitted :— Question of the generic name in combination with which a specific name is to be treated as having been published when the species so named was (a) placed in a previously established nominal genus and (b) also referred to a new nominal genus then condition- ally established By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present paper is concerned with a proposal published in May 1955 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 179—180) for the adoption by the International Commission of a Declaration clarifying the question of the generic name in combination with which a specific name is to be treated as having been first published when the species so named was (a) placed in a previously established nominal genus and (b) also referred to a new nominal genus then conditionally established. 2. The foregoing proposal arose out of an individual case in the Class Pisces which had been raised by Mr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History)) and it will be convenient to take the case so submitted as an example to illustrate the issue involved. In this case an author (Lowe) described a new species to which he decided to give the specific name gracilis. He deciced to place this species in the genus Seriola Cuvier, (1816), but at the same time established conditionally a new nominal genus Cubiceps for the reception of this species. The question for decision is whether the name gracilis should be treated as having been published in the combination Seriola gracilis or in the combination Cubiceps gracilis. For the reasons explained in the published application it was recommended that the Commission give a Ruling that a name such as gracilis should be treated as having been published in combination with the previously existing generic name (Seriola) rather than in combination with the name of the new nominal genus (Cubiceps) conditionally established for the species concerned, ; DECLARATION 30 1X 3. No objection has been raised to the adoption of a Declaration in the foregoing sense but Professor Chester Bradley has drawn attention to the fact that the wording proposed was not altogether satisfactory, for under that wording the conditionally established generic name might in certain cases become a nomen nudum. We have accordingly conferred together on the question of the drafting amend- ment required in order to overcome the foregoing difficulty. We have agreed that the best course will be (a) to omit the words “‘ and not in combination . . . conditionally established ’’ which appeared at the end of the suggested Declaration as originally proposed (: 180) and (b) to insert a new Section making clear what is the species to be regarded as having been included in the new nominal genus condi- tionally established. 4. The revised proposal agreed upon between Professor Bradley and myself is set out in the Annexe to the present note and is now submitted to the Commission for consideration. ANNEXE Revised Draft ‘“‘ Declaration ”’ (submitted jointly by Mr. Hemming and Professor Chester Bradley) DRAFT DECLARATION :—(1) Where an author, in publishing a name for a new nominal species, cites that name in combination with a previously published generic name but at the same time establishes conditionally a new nominal genus for the taxon so named, the specific name in question is to be treated as having been first published in combination with the previously published generic name. Example : The specific name gracilis published by Lowe in 1843 for a new species of fish which was placed by him in the previously established genus Seriola but for which also he then established conditionally the new genus Cubiceps is to be treated as having been first published in the combination Seriola gracilis. (2) An author who establishes a nominal species in the manner specified in (1) is to be treated (a) as having first published the name for that species in combination with the previously published generic name and (b) as having later transferred the species so named to the nominal genus then conditionally established for it. Example : 1n the case cited in (1) above Lowe is to be treated as having first published the binomen Seriola gracilis and as having later transferred the species so named to the genus Cubiceps then conditionally established, the name for the species thus becoming xX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Cubiceps gracilis (Lowe, 1843) (a new combination for the name of the previously established nominal species Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843). lil. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 10. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)23 : On 26th April 1956, a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)23) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the suggested adoption of a Declaration clarifying certain matters arising when a nominal genus is established conditionally as set out in the Annexe to the paper bearing the Registered No. Z.N.(S.)894 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper” [i.e. in the Annexe to the paper reproduced in paragraph 10 of the present Declaration|. 11. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 26th July 1956. 12. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)23 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)23 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- three (23) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Miller ; Prantl ; Esaki ; Jaczewski ; Hank6 ; Dymond; Bonnet; Bodenheimer; Mayr ; DECLARATION 30 XI Lemche ; Boschma; do Amaral; Riley; Mertens ; Cabrera; Stoll; Sylvester-Bradley; Tortonese; Hemming; Kiuhnelt ; Hering ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Key ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Bradley (J.C.) ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 13. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 27th July 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)23, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 12 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. 14. Preparation of the present ‘‘ Declaration’? : On 3rd January 1957, Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of this Declaration were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(56)23. 15. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly Xl OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 16. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Thirty (30) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Third day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metrcatre & Cooper Liwitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E € 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cC.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 16. Pp. (i)—(xviii) DIRECTION 59 Determination (a) of the method to be followed in citing for the purposes of zoological nomenclature the several portions in which the Lepidotteri volume by Orenzio Gabriele Costa of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli were published, and (b) of the dates which for the foregoing purposes are to be assigned to each of those portions 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 1957 —_— : ae AONVHSOl Price Twelve Shillings Zo Ay / . { nop 98e sor (All rights reserved) Se 26 705] Issued 8th March, 1957 ———— INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 59 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum yan Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Bante UEC aE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 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 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th April 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (145th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) ° (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferninand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KtHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Eee ee F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 5 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“* G. Doria”’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) DIRECTION 59 DETERMINATION (a) OF THE METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED IN CITING FOR THE PURPOSES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE THE SEVERAL PORTIONS IN WHICH THE ‘“ LEPIDOTTERI ” VOLUME BY ORENZIO GABRIELE COSTA OF THE WORK ENTITLED ‘‘ FAUNA DEL REGNO . DI NAPOLI”? WERE PUBLISHED AND (b) OF THE DATES WHICH FOR THE FOREGOING PURPOSES ARE TO BE ASSIGNED TO EACH OF THOSE PORTIONS RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled that for the purposes of zoological nomenclature :— (a) the forty-eight portions of the Lepidotteri volume by Orenzio Gabriele Costa of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli, each of which is separately paged with Arabic pagination, are to be cited as though this volume had been published with continuous Arabic pagination, the page numbers so to be allotted, which are to be cited in square brackets ([...]), to be those specified in the Appendix (there styled Appendix 5) to the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction ; (iv) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) the under-mentioned dates are to be assigned to the several portions in which the volume specified in (a) above was published :— Pages numbered as Date to be assigned prescribed in to pages cited in (a) above Col. (1) (Note :—Dates cited in round brackets (parentheses) are printed on the bend of each of the sheets concerned; dates cited in square brackets have been determined by reference to external evidence.) (1) (2) [1 ]—[314] [1836] [315]—[370] (1848) [371 ]—[402] (1849) [403 ]—[418] (1850) [419}-[442] (1849) (2) The title of the work specified in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 27, the entry so made to include an endorsement regarding (a) the system of pagination to be used in citing the pages of which the foregoing volume is composed and (b) the dates to be assigned to the several portions of that volume as prescribed in (1) above. I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ‘** DIRECTION ” On 10th October 1956, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a Paper bearing the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 462 in which he submitted for consideration recommendations for the addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names based upon the names of certain genera in DIRECTION 59 (v) the Sub-Order Heterocera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) which were originally published by Linnaeus in 1758 as terms to denote groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and which had been validated as of subgeneric status from Linnaeus, 1758, by the vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43. In the same paper Mr. Hemming recommended the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of a series of incorrectly formed family-group names based upon the generic names referred to above. Among these names were four names (BOMBYCINI ; NOTTUINI ; TORTRICI ; PYRALIDI) published by Costa (O.G.) in the Lepidotteri volume of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli. Mr. Hemming pointed out that, as matters stood, the citation and dating of the various portions in which the foregoing volume was published offered the most formidable difficulties owing to the fact that the 442 pages of which that volume was composed consisted of no less than forty-eight separately paged fragments, some of which actually started on left-hand pages on the verso of pages constituting the concluding page of the immediately preceding fragment. In an Appendix (Appendix 5) to the above paper Mr. Hemming gave an enumeration of the fragments involved and recommended that the Commission, following a practice already adopted in similar cases, should allot to the forty-eight fragments involved a notional series of continuous page numbers in Arabic characters, thus rendering possible the adoption of an intelligible method for citing the pages on which the four family-group names referred to above were first published. The following is an extract of the relevant portion of the paper by Mr. Hemming discussed above :— Family-group-name problems involved in the decision under the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 to validate as of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758, certain names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) originally published as terms for groups of species within the genus ‘‘ Phalaena ”’ Linnaeus in 1758 or 1767 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 16. Four of the Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for family-group names involved in the present case were published in 1832—1836 (vi) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in the Lepidoptera (Lepidotteri) volume of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli written by Oronzio Gabriele Costa. This early work is of considerable interest, containing the original description of a number of new species now recognised as being taxonomically valid, together with many original observations in regard to other species. From the point of view, however, of the bibliographer this volume is a veritable nightmare. In all it comprises 442 pages numbered in Arabic numerals (together with the T.P. and preliminary matter numbered in Roman numerals, in all, twelve pages). The extraordinary feature of this work—and one which in my experience is fortunately unique—is that the main text with Arabic pagination is divided into no less than forty-eight sections, each beginning with a page numbered “1” and bearing no indication (by way of sheet marks or otherwise) by which any one of the forty-eight pages numbered as page “1” can be distinguished from any of the forty-seven other pages bearing the same page number. This appears to me to be one of those cases where without the introduction of some adventitious aid the difficulties involved in making an intelligible citation for any given page are quite insuperable. Accordingly, in order to overcome these difficulties, I have allotted continuous pagination to the whole of the arabic-paged portion of this work, the page numbers so allotted being cited in square brackets, this having proved to be the only method of over- coming similar difficulties in providing an intelligible system of notation for the enumeration of the 500 unnumbered plates in Jacob Hiibner’s Geschichte europaischer Schmetterlinge and of the 491 unnumbered plates in the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge of the same author (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 107—136, 401—412). The key to the system of notation so adopted in the present case is given in Appendix 5. APPENDIX 5 The ‘‘ Lepidotteri ’’ volume dated 1832—1836 of the work by Oronzio Gabriele Costa entitled ‘‘ Fauna del Regno di Napoli ”’ Collation and Scheme for numbering the pages in a continuous series of Arabic numerals The Lepidoptera (Lepidotteri) volume of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli was written by Oronzio Gabriele Costa, to whom also the work as a whole is attributable, except certain of the later volumes which were both written and edited by Achille Costa. This volume consists of 454 pages, of which 12 are paged in Roman numerals and 442 in Arabic numerals, There are also 38 coloured plates. DIRECTION 59 (vii) 2. The portion of this volume bearing pages with Arabic numerals is divided into forty-eight separately paged sections, each beginning with a page bearing the numer “1”. In four cases the pages so numbered are left hand pages actually printed on the back of the last page of the preceding separately paged section. 3. In these circumstances it is not surprising that the citation of bibliographical references to particular entries in this volume has hitherto led to almost insuperable difficulties and is doubtless one of the reasons why this work has been so widely ignored. It contains, however, a number of new names, the references to which for the foregoing reasons have usually been cited in an incomprehensible and often incorrect manner. This volume with its extraordinary and incoherent system of pagination offers indeed greater difficulties for the purposes of citation than if the pages were unnumbered, for in that event an arbitrary system of continuous pagination would long ago have been introduced, as for instance was done by myself for the purpose of providing a basis of reference for the 500 unnumbered plates in Jacob Hiibner’s Geschichte europaischer Schmetterlinge and to the 491 similarly unnumbered plates in the same author’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 107—136, 401—412). For the purposes of my own work I have devised a similar system for referring to the several portions of Costa’s Lepidotteri volume of his Fauna del Regno di Napoli. The system so devised is as follows :— System of pagination devised for the purpose of making references to the ‘‘ Lepidotteri ’’ volume of the ‘‘ Fauna del Regno di Napoli ”’ of Oronzio Gabriele Costa Page numbers allotted to the Page numbers Identification of the first page of — separately paged in Costa’s the separately paged section section cited in ** Lepidotteri”’ cited in Col. (1) Col. (1) (1) (2) (3) [1J—2—5 ““Ordine X. Lepidotteri”’ [1J—{5] 1—2—[3]— “Famiglia prima. Lepidotteri [6]—[10] [4]—[1 blank] Diurni o Parpaglioni ”’ (Note: The first page of this Section starts on a left-hand page.) 1—4 ““ Genere Papilione, Papilio, Lin.” [11J—[14] 1—11— ___ [The description of “‘ P. Giasone, [15]—[26] [1 blank] P. nymphalis Jasius’’ starts on this page.] (viii) Page numbers in Costa’s ** Lepidotteri ”’ (1) je [1 blank] 1—2 1—23— [1 blank] [=A (2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Identification of the first page of the separately paged section cited in Col. (1) (2) [The description of “ T. Issipile, Th. hypsipyle’’ starts on this page.] [Phe deseription oth Po del Cratego ; Pap. Crategi [sic] ” starts on this page.] ** Libythea ”” “* Limenitis ”’ “ Satyrus ” ““ Hesperias [sic] ”’ “Famiglia seconda. Lepidotteri Crepuscolari o le Sfingi di Lin.” ““Genere Sfinge ; Sphinx” ““Genere Progride, Procris, Fab. Latr.”’ *“ Famiglia terza. Lepidotteri Notturni o le Falene di Lin.”’ **Notturni. Quinta Sezione, Nottuini ”’ ““Genere Piralide, Pyralis (1), Fabr.” ** Sotto-genere Erminea; Herminia, Penge ** Sotto-genere Ipena ; Hypena (1), Schran.” ** Sotto-genere Piralide; Pyralis (1), Schran.”’ “Di una Piralide originaria del Brasile ”’ *““ Sotto-genere Scopola; Scopula (1), Schrank ” Page numbers allotted to the separately paged section cited in Col. (1) (3) [27]—[28] [29]—[58] [59]—[60] [61]—[62] [63]—[86] [86]—[90] [91]—[92] [93]—[114] [115]—[116] [117}—[150] [151]—{174] [175]—{176] [177|—[178] [179]|—[180] [181]—[184] [185]—[188] [189][190] Page numbers in Costa’s ‘* Lepidotteri’ (1) > 1—24 DIRECTION 59 Identification of the first page of the separately paged section cited in Col. (1) (2) “* Sotto-genere Bote ; Botys Latr.”’ “* Sotto-genere Asopia ; Asopia (1), risk [Note : Page | of this Section is a left-hand page and is printed on the back of page 5 of the preceding Section. |] ** Sotto-genere Pirausta ; Pyrausta (1), Schrk.” [Note : Page 1 of this Section is a left-hand page and is printed on the back of page 2 of the preceding Section.] “* Sotto-genere Ercina; Hercyna (1) Trtsh:* [Note: The single page of which this Section is com- posed is printed on the back of page 2 of the preceding Section and is thus a left- hand page.] “* Sotto-genere Ninfola, Nymphula (1) Scrank [sic] ”’ [Note : This Section starts on a right-hand page, for, although the preceding Sec- tion started on a left-hand page, it consisted, as noted above, of only a single page, the verso of the last page of the preceding Section.] “* Sotto-genere Ennichia ; Ennychia (i) wilictsker “© Galleria (1) Fabr.”’ *“Genere Tignuola, Tinea Latr.” (ix) Page numbers allotted to the separately paged section cited in Col. (1) (3) [191]-[195] [196]—[197] [198]—[199] [200] [201]—[206] [207]—[208] [209]—[212] [213]—[326] (x) Page numbers in Costa’s ** Lepidotteri ”’ (1) | [1 blank] 1—2 14) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Identification of the first page of the separately paged section cited in Col. (1) (2) ** Sotto-genere Chillo ; Chilo (1) ”’ *““ Sotto-genere Fico; Phycis (1), Fabr.”” ““Sotto-genere Lispe ; Lispe (1)” ** Sotto-genere Iponomeuta ; Yponomeuta (1) Latr.” ** Sotto-genere Plutella ; Plutella (iy) “* Sotto-genere Arpiale ; Harpiterix (Oe; ““Genere Palpola ; Trtsk.”’ “* Sotto-genere Lampro ; Lampros (1) 99 ““Genere Adela ; Adela (1), Latr.” ““Genere Ecofora, Oecophora (1), Latr.” “*Genere Elachista : Elachista(1)”’ Palpula (\) “* Sotto-genere Ornice, Ornix (1) ” ““Genere Teroforo ; Pterophorus (1), Geoff.” ““ Indice de Lepidotteri del Regno di Napoli” ““Spiegazione delle Tavole che accompagnano questa prima parte di Lepidotteri ” ** Geometrae ”’ ** Bombicoidi ” (Acronycta, etc.) “* Cocliopodi ” ** Limacodes ”’ Page numbers allotted to the separately paged section cited in Col. (1) (3) [237]|—[244] [245]—[248] [249]—[252] [253]—[260] [261]—[264] 1265][266} [267]|—{268] [269]—{272] [273]—[274] [275]—[290] [291]—[294] [295]—[302] [303][306] [307]—[310] [311]—[314] [315]—[418] [419]_[426] [427] [434] [435]—[442] DIRECTION 59 (xi) 4. It must be noted also that it was not only in the case of the text that Costa adopted a peculiar method of notation, for he did the same thing when numbering the plates. The total number of plates known is thirty-eight. These were numbered with large roman numerals and were issued in six series, of which the first four commenced with “Tay. I”. The two other series are incomplete and it is impossible to determine with what plate number they were intended to commence. These were as follows :— (1) Tav. I—VU (2) Tav. I—XIV (3) Tav. I—XII (4) Tav. I (5) Tav. IV The species figured are all butterflies. The explanations of these plates are given on page [311] (as numbered in paragraph 3 above), where these plates are grouped under the heading “‘ Lepidotteri Diurni’’. These plates can therefore be cited without risk of confusion if the words “‘ (Lep. Diurn,)”’ are inserted after the word Plate (or Tavola) and before the plate number. These plates all illustrate moths discussed (at the appropriate points) in the section of the text, the pages of which have been allotted the page numbers [91]—[306] in paragraph 3 above. The explanations of these plates are given on pages [311] to [314] of the “* Spiegazione ’’, where they are grouped under the heading *“‘ Lepidotteri Notturni”’. Following the system suggested in (1) for the first series of plates, these plates may safely be cited with the numbers as published, subject to the addition of the words “‘ (Lep. Nott.) ’’ before the plate number. These plates are all related to the 104 pages of supplementary text to which the page numbers [315] to [418] have been assigned in paragraph 3 above. These plates may be cited by adding the word “‘ (Geom.) ” before the plate number. One plate so numbered relates to the portion of the text, the pages of which have been assigned the numbers [419] to [426] in paragraph 3 above, i.e. the text relating to the “‘ Bombicoidi ”’. This plate may be cited by adding the word ““(Bomb.)’”’ before the plate number. One plate so numbered relates to the section of the supplementary text headed ‘‘ Cocliopodi ”’, the pages of which have been assigned the numbers [427] to [434] in paragraph 3 above. The plate may be cited by adding the word (x11) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (“ Cocl.)”’ before the plate number. There are no plates bearing the numbers J, II, or III relating to this part of the text. (6) Tav. XV; \ Two plates bearing the numbers “ XV” and Tav. XVI f “ XVI” refer to the portion of the text headed ““Limacodes’’, to which the page numbers [435] to [442] have been assigned in paragraph 3 above. This plate may be cited by adding the word “‘(Limac.)”’ before the plate numbers. 5. Most copies of the volume under consideration are incomplete, as might readily be expected, having regard to the almost insuperable difficulties which must have been encountered in collating the various fragments in which it was published. It is believed, however, that the collation given in paragraphs 3 (text) and 4 (plates) above includes all the portions which were published. It corresponds with that given by Hagen (H.A.) (1862, Bibl. ent. 1 : 142—143) and by Sherbon (C.D.) (1937, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1(2) : 45—47). The present collation has been made from a copy in the British Museum (Natural History), London. This copy is complete, except for the final eight-page section (““ Limacodes ’’) and its two accompanying plates (Tav. XV, XVI), the particulars relating to which have been taken from Hagen. It is evident that the volume as now known represents only a portion of that which Costa intended to publish and it is no doubt to this reason that the strange and apparently meaningless method adopted for numbering the last four plates issued must be attributed. 6. The dating of the various portions of this volume also offers great difficulties. Sherbon discovered that in the case of many of the volumes of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli the component sheets bore the date of issue printed in very small type so near to the folds of the sheets that in bound copies these were invisible, and their determination involving pulling to pieces the volumes concerned (Sherborn, 1910, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 5: 132). Later (1937, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1(2) : 35—47) Sherborn published the dates so ascertained. Unfortunately, in the case of the Lepidotteri volume the only sheets dated in this way were those of the supplementary text, i.e. the portions headed “* Geometrae ”’, “‘ Bombicoidi”’ and “‘ Cocliopodi ” respectively. The dates so established show (1) that, in the case of the “‘ Geometrae ” section, pages 1 to 56 appeared in 1848, pages 57 to 88 in 1849 and pages 89 to 104 in 1850, and (2) that the ‘“‘ Bombicoidi” and ** Cocliopodi’’ sections appeared in 1849. For the earlier portion of the volume no evidence is available beyond the date “* 1832—1836 ” which appears on the title page and the date “ 3 Maggio 1836 ” at the foot of the Dedication of the volume to the Prince of Salerno. The title page is, however, followed by a half-title reading ““PARTE PRIMA—LEPIDOTTERI DIURNI, CREPUSCOLARI ED DIRECTION 59 (xiii) ALCUNE FAMIGLEI DE’NOTTURNI”. It is clear from this evidence that the portion of the volume up to page [314] (as numbered in paragraph 3 above) was complete by some date in 1836, the earliest portions having appeared in 1832. In these circumstances it is not possible to do more than assign the “* [1832—1836] ’’ to the foregoing portion of this volume. This means that for the purposes of the Law of Priority names published in this portion rank as from the end of 1836, the earliest date by which they are known to have been published. 2. Registration of the present action : At the time of the receipt of the paper by Mr. Hemming from which extracts have been given in the immediately preceding paragraph, the questions raised therein were allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 462, the number previously allotted for the consideration of the question of the addition to the Official List of the family-group names involved as the result of the validation, as of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758, of certain terms published in the Systema Naturae in that year to denote groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, because, as it was then considered, certain of these family-group names had been first published by Costa in the work here under consideration. When for the reasons explained in paragraph 8 below it was decided to detach from the foregoing case the special problem raised by the Lepidotteri volume by Costa of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli, the latter problem was allotted the new Registered No. Z.NAS.) 1178. I]. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 : On 10th October 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)23) was issued to the Members of the International Commission in regard to the proposals sub- mitted in the paper bearing the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 462, in which the proposals set out in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction were then embodied as Appendix 5. (xiv) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. Withdrawal from the Scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 of proposals submitted in relation to four-family-group names : On 2nd November 1956, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, executed a Minute withdrawing from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)23 the proposals submitted therewith in connection with four family-group names published in the Lepidotteri volume of Costa’s Fauna del Regno di Napoli}. 5. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 10th November 1956. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, other than on the proposals withdrawn from the scope of that Voting Paper by the Minute executed by the Secretary on 2nd November 1956 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, other than on the proposals withdrawn from the scope of that Voting Paper by the Minute executed by the Secretary on 2nd November 1956 referred to in paragraph 5 of the present Direction was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-two (22) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Tortonese ; Hering ; do Amaral; Esaki; Stoll; Lemche; Mayr; Prantl ; Riley ; Boschma ; Mertens ; Key ; Jaczewski ; Dymond ; Cabrera ; Kihnelt ; Bonnet ; Hemming ; Bradley (J.C.) ; 1 The text of the Minute here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 28 of Opinion 450, the Opinion in which has been embodied the portion of the decision taken by the International Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)23 which is concerned with the status ot individual names. See also paragraph 8 a the present Direction. DIRECTION 59 (xv) (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Bodenheimer ; (d) Prevented from voting by interruption of postal communica- tions consequent upon political disturbances, one (1) : Hank6 ; (e) Voting Papers not returned, one (1): Miller. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)23 : On 12th November 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, 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. 8. Separation of the decision in regard to matters relating to the ** Lepidotteri ’’ volume by Costa (O.G.) in the work entitled (xvi) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ** Fauna del Regno di Napoli ’’ taken by the International Com- mission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 from the decisions in regard to certain family-group names and generic names taken by the Commission on the same Voting Paper : By a Minute executed on 12th November 1956 immediately after the signature of the Certificate declaring the result of the vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 (paragraph 7 above) the Secretary executed a Minute giving directions that for the reasons there explained the decision taken by the Commission on the foregoing Voting Paper be divided into two portions, “‘ namely (a) that the portion relating to individual family-group names and to generic names be included in the Opinion embodying the decision pre- viously taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43, in which certain of the generic names on which those family-group names are based were validated under the Plenary Powers and (b) that the portion of the decision relating to Costa’s Lepidotteri volume of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli be rendered separately in a Direction.”? In accordance with the directions given in the foregoing Minute the portion of the decision relating to family-group names and to generic names taken by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 has this day been embodied in Opinion 450,? while the portion embodying the decision relating to Costa’s Lepidotteri volume of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli taken by the Commission by its vote on the foregoing Voting Paper has been embodied in the present Direction. 9. Addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature ’”’ of the title of the ‘‘ Lepidotteri ”’ volume by Costa (O.G.) of the work entitled “‘ Fauna del Regno di Napoli ’’ : In the Minute executed on 12th November 1956 under which the decision taken by the International Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 was divided into 2 The full text of the Minute from which the foregoing is a quotation is repro- duced in paragraph 32 of Opinion 450. 3 Arrangements have been made for the publication of Opinion 450 and of the present Direction (Direction 59) in consecutive Parts of the current volume (Volume 15) of the ‘“‘ Opinions and Declarations’’ Series. Opinion 450 is accordingly being issued as Part 15 of the above volume simultaneously with the present Direction. DIRECTION 59 (XVil) two portions, the one portion to be embodied in an Opinion and the other in a Direction, to which reference has been made in paragraph 8 above, the Secretary further directed “ that, in accordance with the General Directive issued to the International Commission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, regarding the recording of the titles of works on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, the Direction referred to above [i.e. the present Direction] shall include a Ruling that the title of the foregoing volume by Costa [i.e. the Lepidotteri volume of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli| endorsed, both as to the method to be followed in citing the forty-eight fragments of which it is composed and as to the dates to be assigned to each of those fragments, in the manner prescribed in the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 ”’.4 10. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Direction ”’ : On 16th November 1956, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a certi- ficate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal relating (a) to the method to be followed in citing for the purposes of zoological nomenclature the several portions in which the Lepidotteri volume by Costa (O.G.) of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli were published and (b) to the dates which for the foregoing purposes are to be assigned to each of those portions approved by the International Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23. 11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction 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. * See Footnote 2. (XVilt) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Fifty- Nine (59) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Sixteenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING aS a IS Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimitTep, 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 15. Part 1. Pp. 1—24 OPINION 436 Addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology of certain names attributed to Renier (S.A.) as from 1804 and 1807 respectively (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 427) 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 1957 Price Sixteen Shillings Ean (All rights reserved) ( NO re Dp Or Issued 8th January, 1957 SS Pennie INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 436 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. vente Wins (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 1948 Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HeriInG (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DymMonbD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Ease VoKEs (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th ugust 19 Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. SToLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hortuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KwHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) 11th November 1954 ) Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 436 ADDITION TO THE ‘* OFFICIAL INDEXES OF REJECTED AND INVALID NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF CERTAIN NAMES ATTRIBUTED TO RENIER (S.A.) AS FROM 1804 AND 1807 RESPECTIVELY (‘‘ OPINION ”’ SUPPLEMENTARY TO ‘‘ OPINION ” 427) RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Names included in the anonymous work by Renier (S.A.) known as the “ Prospetto delle Classe dei Vermi” and commonly attributed to the year 1804, a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes as not having been duly published by the Ruling given in “‘ Opinion” 316 :— (i) Discoides {Renier], [1804] (Name No. 814) ; (ii) Scolixedion [Renier], [1804] (Name No. 815) ; (b) Names included in the anonymous work by Renier S.A.) known as “Tavole per servire alle Classi- ficazione e Connescenza degli Animali”’ and com- monly attributed to the year 1807, a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes as not having been duly published by the Ruling given in “‘ Opinion” 427 :— (i) Alcyonaria {Renier], [1807] (Name No. 816) ; (11) Cystia [Renier], [1807] (Name No. 817) ; (ii1) Rodens [Renier], [1807] (Name No. 818) ; (iv) Tricelia [Renier], [1807] (Name No. 819) ; (v) Tuba [Renier], [1807] (Name No. 820) ; (c) Tuba Oken, 1816 (a name published in a work rejected by the Ruling given in Opinion 417 for nomenclatorial purposes as having been published Bani O& a 1009 4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature) (Name No. 821) ; (d) Tuba Fabricius (O.), 1823 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 822) ; (e) Tuba Barrande, 1848 (a junior homonym of Tuba Lea, 1833) (Name No. 823) ; (f) Tuba Quenstedt (F.A.), 1851 (a junior homonym of Tuba Lea, 1833) (Name No. 824) ; (g) Tuba Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864 (a junior homonym of Tuba Lea, 1833) (Name No. 825) ; (2) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Names included in the anonymous work by Renier (S.A.) specified in (1)(a) above (a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by. the Ruling given in “* Opinion ”’ 316) :— (i) nutans [Renier], [1804], as used in the combination Discoides nutans (Name No. 367) ; (ii) penulatum [Renier], [1804], as used in the combination Scolixedion penulatum (Name No. 368) ; (b) Names included in the anonymous work by Renier (S.A.) specified in (1)(b) above (a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in “ Opinion”? 427) :— (i) armillatus [Renier], [1807], as used in the combination Rodens armillatus (Name No. 369) ; (ii) divisa [Renier], [1807], as used in the com- bination Tuba divisa (Name No, 370) ; ; OPINION 436 5 (111) nivea [Renier], [1807], as used in the com- bination Cystia nivea (Name No. 371). (3) The under-mentioned names of genera belonging to the Class Gastropoda are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Tuba Lea (1.), 1833 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Cossmann (1912) : Tuba alternata Lea (I.), 1833) (Name No. 1039) ; (b) Tubina (Barrande MS.) Owen (R.), 1859 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Tubina armata (Barrande MS.) Owen (R.), 1859) (Name No. 1040). (4) The under-mentioned names of species belonging to the Class Gastropoda are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) alternata Lea (1.), 1833, as published in the combina- tion Tuba alternata (specific name of type species of Tuba Lea (I.), 1833) (Name No. 1111); (b) armata (Barrande MS.) Owen (R.), 1859, as pub- lished in the combination Tubina armata (specific name of type species of Tubina Owen (R.), 1859) (Name No. 1112). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present Opinion, which is in the nature of a supplement to Opinion 427,1 contains rulings by the International Commission 1 Published in 1956 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 281—310). 6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on Zoological Nomenclature as regards the status to be assigned to twelve names (7 generic names ; 5 specific names) out of a total of seventeen names (11 generic names ; 6 specific names) introduced by Renier (S.A.) in two works (the Prospetto Class. Verm. attributed to 1804 and the Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim. attributed to 1807) which have been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes (the former by the Ruling given in Opinion 316, the latter by that given in Opinion 427) which were expressly reserved for further consideration at the time of the adoption of Opinion 427. The proposals on which the decisions embodied in the present Opinion were based were submitted to the International Commission by the Secretary on 16th May 1956 in the following paper :— Proposed addition to the appropriate ‘‘ Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names ”’ of certain names introduced by Renier (S.A.) in the works ‘* Prospetto Class, Verm.’’ and ‘‘ Tavole sery. Class. Conn. Anim.’’ commonly attributed to the years 1804 and 1807 respectively and matters incidental thereto By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The purpose of the present paper is to report to the International Commission the progress made in obtaining information regarding certain names which first appeared either in S. A. Renier’s Prospetto delle Classe dei Vermi or in that author’s Tavole per servire alle Classi- ficazione e Connescenza degli Animali, works commonly attributed to the years 1804 and 1807 respectively, which were deliberately left over for further consideration by Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) in her application relating to the fore- going works (Keen, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 257—262). 2. It will be recalled that in the foregoing application Dr. Keen, after asking that the Commission should reject Renier’s Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim. as not having been duly published and recommending that the majority of the new names in the foregoing work, together with certain names which had first appeared in the Prospetto Class. Verm., should be placed on the appropriate Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology, proposed that action in the foregoing sense should be postponed in regard to a small number of the names in question in order to “‘ provide an opportunity to specialists to submit OPINION 436 1 applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers” of any of the generic names concerned “‘ which may be shown to be in current use ”’ (: 262, paragraph 12(3) ). 3. Dr. Keen’s application was published on 22nd October 1954 and on the same date Public Notice of the possible use by the Commis- sion of its Plenary Powers for the validation of the names specified in this application was given in the prescribed manner. The necessary formal steps have thus been taken for the validation of any of the foregoing names if applications to that end were to be submitted by specialists and were to be approved by the Commission. 4. The names referred to in paragraph 2 above which Dr. Keen recommended should be placed before specialists for discussion were the following:— (1) Names included in Renier’s “‘ Prospetto Class. Verm.’’: Discoides; Cerebratulus; Polycitor; Scolixedion; (2) Names included in Renier’s “‘ Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.’’: Aglaja; Alcyonaria; Cystia; Rodens; Tricelia; Tuba; Tubulanus. 5. In a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)2) issued on 19th May 1955 the Commission was invited to vote on all those parts of Dr. Keen’s application which were concerned with matters other than the status to be accorded to the names specified in paragraph 4 above. The proposal so submitted was approved by the Commission and an Opinion (Opinion 427)? embodying the decisions so taken has now been prepared. 6. The ground has thus been cleared for the consideration by the Commission of the problems relating to the eleven generic names which Dr. Keen had recommended for further consideration. In this, as in other similar cases, it appeared to me as Secretary to the Commission that it would not be sufficient merely to wait for specialists to respond to the Public Notices referred to in paragraph 3 above and that what was required was that this Office should itself examine the issues involved in concert with interested specialists. For help given in these investigations the Commission is particularly indebted to: (1) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copen- hagen), who has not only provided advice on names of taxa belonging to his own speciality but in addition has taken a great deal of trouble as regards other names in obtaining the views of specialists in the groups concerned; (2) Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) who has furnished the most valuable advice in regard to a number of the names concerned and has also most kindly provided a large amount of bibliographical data in regard not only to the names here under discussion but also in regard to the names which * This Opinion was published on 26th October, 1956 (Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14: 281-310). 8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in her application Dr. Myra Keen had recommended should at once be placed on the various Official Indexes. Finally, the Commission is much indebted to Dr. Keen who has followed closely the investi- gations undertaken in regard to the eleven generic names that had been reserved for further consideration and who is in agreement with the recommendations which are now submitted to the Commission for consideration. 7. The result of the investigations which have been undertaken are set out in the Annexes attached to the present paper, of which the first is concerned with names included in Renier’s Prospetto and the second with names in his Tavole. 8. It will be seen from these Annexes that a prima facie case has been established for the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for validating four out of the eleven generic names included in the list submitted by Dr. Myra Keen, together with some or all of the specific names introduced by Renier for species placed by him in the genera concerned. In addition, a prima facie case has been established for the validation of one specific name in common use which was introduced by Renier in combination with a generic name which is not currently employed and which it is considered should not be validated. At the close of the investigations under discussion the two Registered Files which had been opened in 1954 for the consideration of all matters arising in connection with Dr. Keen’s proposal that consideration should be given to the possible validation of certain names introduced by Renier in the Prospetto (Z.N.(S.) 832) and in the Tavole (Z.N.(S.) 897) were closed; the documents relating to the names which the investigation had shown should be rejected, i.e. those relating to the names dealt with in the present paper, were thereupon re-registered under the Number Z.N.(S.) 1091 and separate Files were opened for the further consideration of those names, the possible validation of which should, it was proposed, be investigated by the Commission in greater detail. The names so reserved and the Registered Files which have been opened for their consideration are as follows:— (a) Generic names and associated specific names:— (i) Cerebratulus Renier, [1804]: File Z.N.(S.) 1095 (ii) Polycitor Renier, [1804]: File Z.N.(S.) 1096 (iii) Aglaja Renier, [1807]: File Z.N.(S.) 1092 (iv) Tubulanus Renier, [1807]: File Z.N.(S.) 1094 (b) One specific name:— (v) variopedata Renier, [1807], as used in the combination Tricelia variopedata: File Z.N.(S.) 1093. 9. The information given in the Annexes to the present paper shows clearly, in my opinion, that there would be no justification for OPINION 436 9 the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers for validating any of the other names included in Dr. Myra Keen’s list and I recommend that these names should all be placed on the appropriate Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. In this recommendation I am supported by Dr. Cox, Dr. Keen and Dr. Lemche. In the case of one of the names concerned (Tuba) there are several homonyms which are objectively invalid, quite irrespective of the status of the name as used by Renier. Dr. Cox has suggested that these invalid homonyms should now be placed on the Official Index. At the same time he has recom- mended that the senior of these homonyms, Tuba Lea, 1833, which is an indisputably available name and is in current use for a genus of Gastropoda from the Eocene should be placed on the Official List. Finally, he has suggested that a similar course should be followed as regards a generic name (7ubina Owen, 1859) which has in the past sometimes been incorrectly treated as having been published as a substitute name for one of the invalid homonyms referred to above, but which is in fact the oldest name for a taxonomically valid genus. 10. The recommendations now submitted are as follows:— (1) Names recommended to be placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology”: (a) Discoides Renier, [1804] ) (b) Scolixedion Renier, [1804] | ! Pere ie (c) Alcyonaria Renier, [1807] | aa Aone so Pe (d) Cystia Renier, [1807] WOES WEJSCUEC VOR MIQUE Ts (ec) Rodens Renier, [1807] | clatorial purposes (V.P. (f) Tricelia Renier, [1807] | ©) 2) (g) Tuba Renier, [1807] J (h) Tuba Oken, 1816 (published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 417) (i) Tuba Fabricius (O.), 1823 ( a nomen nudum) (j) Tuba Barrande, 1848 (k) Tuba Quenstedt (F. A.), 1851 | Junior homonyms of Tuba (1) Tuba Duchassaing & ( wibepaltesis) Michelotti, 1864 | (2) Names recommended to be placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology’ (names introduced in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes): (a) nutans Renier, [1804], as used in the combination Discoides nutans; (b) penulatum Renier, [1804], as used in the combination Scolixedion penulatum; 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) armillatus Renier, [1807], as used in the combination Rodens armillatus; (d) divisa Renier, [1807], as used in the combination Tuba divisa; (e) nivea Renier, [1807], as used in the combination Cystia nivea. (3) Names recommended for addition to the ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’: (a) Tuba Lea (I.) 1833 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Cossmann (1912): Tuba alternata Lea (I.), 1833) (Class Gastropoda); (b) Tubina Owen (R.), 1859 (gender: feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Tubina armata Owen, 1859); (Class Gastro- poda); (4) Names recommended for addition to the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology’: (a) alternata Lea (I.), 1833, as published in the combination Tuba alternata (specific name of type species of Tuba Lea (I.), 1833); (b) armata Owen (R.), 1859, as published in the combination Tubina armata (specific name of type species of Tubina Owen, 1859). 11. A word of explanation is needed as to the reason why in the bibliographical references cited in Annexe 2 for the later of the two works by Renier here discussed the title is cited in square brackets. The British Museum (Natural History), London, possesses a photostat reproduction of the only extant copy of this work now preserved in the library of the University of Padua. This copy was supplied by the University Authorities to the late C. D. Sherborn when he was pre- paring his great work the Index Animalium. Dr. L. R. Cox who has already placed on record (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 265) that the title page of this copy is wanting, has since informed me (in Jitt., 19th January 1956) that: “‘ There is a note bound up with our photo- graphic copy of the tables that ‘the title here quoted [Tavole per servire alla classificazione e connescenza degli animali] is copied from Engelman’s Bibl. Hist. Nat., p. 339’. The title quoted is given on the note in question as beginning with ‘ Tavole’ [not ‘ Tavola’], as one would expect, as there are several tables... It would appear that no copy of the original title-page, if there ever was one, is now in existence, ” OPINION 436 11 The title quoted above is the title habitually attributed to this work and is clearly the title which should be employed. As explained above, it is, however, a reconstructed title obtained from a later author. It is for this reason that this title is here cited in square brackets. 12. The present Voting Paper is divided into two Parts. In Part 1 the Members of the Commission are invited to vote on the question of the admission to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology of the objectively invalid names specified in Sections (1) and (2) of paragraph 10 above. In Part 2 the Members of the Commission are invited to vote on the question of the admission to the Official Lists of valid names of the names specified in Sections (3) and (4) of the paragraph referred to above. ANNEXE 1 Names included in Renier’s ‘‘ Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi ”’ commonly attributed to the year 1804 which in Application Z.N.(S.) 688, paragraph 12(3)(a), Dr. Myra Keen recommended should not be rejected until an opportunity had been given to specialists to state whether the names concerned were in current use. (1) Discoides Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XVI Discoides nutans Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XVI Dr. Henning Lemche has reported (28th October 1954) that the generic name Discoides Renier has for a long time been a threat to the extremely well-known generic name Pleurobranchus Cuvier, 1804 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 5(28) : 275 and pl. 18) in Mollusca. The name is considered to be a nomen dubium and is not in use (Lemche ; Keen (: 259)). There is thus no case whatever for validating either this generic name or the specific name nutans Renier, the name of the sole species placed in this genus in the Prospetto. (2) Cerebratulus Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XXI Cerebratulus bilineatus Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XXI Cerebratulus marginatus Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XXII. In her original application Dr. Myra Keen reported (: 259) that she had been informed by Dr. Olga Hariman, specialist in Annelida, that 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the name Cerebratulus is in use in Nemertes. Dr. Lemche has provided (27th May 1955) the following valuable supplementary note :— Cerebratulus : This is the current name for a very important genus of nemerteans of the family LINEIDAE. Even the specific name marginatus Renier is quoted in many textbooks. It is likely that this species will be found to be the type species of this genus, though definite information on this subject is not at present available. The following references show the use of the name Cerebratulus :— Delle Chiaje, 1829, Memoria 4 : tav. 62, figs. 9 and 16 Hubrecht, 1886, Challenger Rep. 54 : 37 Claus-Grobbem-Kuhn, 1932, Lehrbuch d. Zool. (10th Ed.) : 534 Hyman, 1951, The Invertebrates 2 : 463 [Tokio Kaburaki & Shiro Okuda], 1953, Nippon Dobutsu Zukan (Revised Ed.) : 1472. [In this work the authors’ names are given only in Japanese. The book itself has the subsidiary English title “‘ Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Fauna of Japan (exclusive of Insects)”. For the foregoing bibliographical particulars relating to this work I am indebted to Professor Teiso Esaki, to whom I applied for assistance]. I have been unable to find any other name for this genus. This clearly is a case where in the interest of maintaining continuity and avoiding unnecessary name-changing it is desirable that a detailed statement of the case should be placed before the Commission before any decision is taken on the question whether the above names should be placed on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. (3) Polycitor Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XVII Polycitor crystallinus Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XVII Dr. Lemche has reported (27th May 1955) that the genus Polycitor Renier is the type genus of the subfamily POLYCITORINAE of the Tunicate family CLAVELINIDAE and that the binomen Polycitor crystallinus Renier is also in use. Dr. Lemche added that it was his intention to consult Dr. R. H. Miller (Marine Station, Milport, Scotland). On 16th February 1956 Dr. Lemche kindly communicated the following report which he had received from Dr. Miller :-— The names Polycitor Renier and P. crystallinus Renier are still in current use. The species has recently been reviewed and redescribed by Carlisle (1953, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. Vol. 123, pt. 2, pp. 259—265), and there is no doubt, in my opinion, that any change in the generic name would cause confusion... The first occasion on which a name in the family-group level was established on the name Polycitor was :—Family POLYCITORIDAE Micharlsen, OPINION 436 13 W., 1904, “‘ Revision der compositen Styeliden oder Polyzoinen ”’ (Jahrb. Wiss. Anst. Hamburg, Vol. 21, pages 2 and 83). On that occasion the name was used in the proper Latinised form. The information supplied by Dr. Lemche and Dr. Miller shows clearly that the present case requires further investigation before either the generic name Polycitor Renier or the specific name crystallinus Renier is placed on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. (4) Scolixedion Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XX Scolixedion penulatum Renier, [1804], Prospetto Class. Verm. : XX In recording this name Neave (1940, Nomencl. zool. 4 : 150) was unable even to assign it to a given Phylum with any certainty, being forced to content himself with the notation “‘ Verm. (Unc. sed.)”’. In her application Dr. Keen observed that, if the name Scolixedion Renier were to be accepted, it would displace the name Serpulorbis Sassi, 1827 (Class Gastropoda). This latter taxon was treated by Thiele (1931, Handb. Mollk. 1 : 483) as a subgenus of Vermetus Daudin, 1800. It is clear from the information collected that there would be no case for validating the generic name Scolixedion Renier. ANNEXE 2 Names included in Renier’s ‘‘ Tavole per servire alle Classificazione e Connescenza degli Animali’’ commonly attributed to the year 1807 which in Application Z.N.(S.) 688, paragraph 12(3)(b), Dr. Myra Keen recommended should not be rejected until an opportunity had been given to specialists to state whether the names concerned were in current use. (1) Aglaja Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim. |: Tav. VUL Aglaja depicta Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VIII Aglaja tricolorata Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VIII Applications for the validation of the generic name Aglaja Renier under the Plenary Powers have been received independently from two different sources. It would therefore clearly be inappropriate for any action to be taken by the Commission in regard to this generic name, pending the consideration of the applications referred to above, The 14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS same applies to the specific names depicta Renier and tricolorata Renier as used in combination with the foregoing generic name. (2) Alcyonaria Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. IV Dr. Lemche has drawn attention (27th May 1955) to the fact that the term ALCYONARIA has been used on a number of occasions to denote groups of Ordinal or Sub-Ordinal value in the Phylum Coelenterata. He states that it does not seem to have been used as a generic name and adds that its use in such a sense would be extremely unwelcome. In these circumstances there would clearly be no case for the validation of the name Alcyonaria Renier, [1807], under the Plenary Powers. (3) Cystia Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tay. VII Cystia nivea Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Amin.] : Tav. Vil The generic name Cystia Renier was cited by Neave (1939, Nomencl. zool. 1 : 953) as the name of a genus of Mollusca. It was not men- tioned, however, in Thiele’s Handb. d. Mollk. of 1928 (Lemche, in litt., 27th May 1955). Dr. Myra Keen stated in her application (: 259) that, if this name were to be re-introduced, it would displace the name Limatula Wood, 1839 (Mag. nat. Hist. (n.s.) 3 : 235). It is clear that there would be no justification for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate either the generic name Cystia Renier or the specific name nivea Renier as used in the combination with that generic name. (4) Rodens Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim. | : Tav. VI Rodens armillatus Renier, [1807], [Tavole sery. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VI Dr. Lemche reported (27th May 1955) as follows : “‘ Rodens is said in Neave’s Nomenclator to be a Polychaete, but as such it is absolutely unknown. The name appears never to have been used”. Clearly no case can exist for the validation of either of the foregoing names. (5) Tricelia Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tay. V1 Tricelia variopedata Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.]| : Tav. VI Dr. Keen stated (: 259) that she had consulted Dr. Olga Hartman, specialist in Annelida, who had informed her that the name Tricelia Se OPINION 436 15 Renier was a synonym of Chaetopterus Cuvier, 1830 (Régne. Anim. (ed. 2) 3: 208) (Polychaeta). In these circumstances there would clearly be no advantage in validating the generic name Tricelia Renier. On the other hand, the specific name variopedata Renier, as used in the combination Tricelia variopedata, is, Dr. Lemche reports (in litt., 27th May 1955), the “* very well-known name for an extremely strange polychaete which is known to most students of zoology because of its peculiar outline and strong powers of luminescence”. Dr. Lemche added: “I think that it is essential to keep this specific name ”’. Clearly the future disposal of this name is a matter which calls for consideration by the Commission. (6) Tuba Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.]| : Tav. VI Tuba divisa Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VI Dr. Lemche has reported (in litt., 27th May 1955) as follows : “* Tuba divisa Renier is a polychaete now generally known as Myxicola infundibulum Mont. There is no reason for preserving Renier’s names’. It is accordingly considered that there would be no justi- fication for the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers on behalf of these names. In commenting on this name, Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History)), after stating that, so far as he knew, the names Tuba Renier and Tuba divisa Renier had not been adopted in the group concerned, drew attention to the fact that the name Tuba had at later dates been introduced as the generic name for no less than three genera in the Class Gastropoda. The first of these was Tuba Fabricius (O.), 1823 (Fortegnelse : 80), which was a nomen nudum, for, although Fabricius cited certain specific names in connection with this generic name, he cited no author’s name in connection with these specific names and the names concerned include such names as fasciata, which by 1820 had already been published in several genera of molluscs, for example, in the genera Trochus, Turbo, etc., and as regards which it is impossible to determine what were the nominal species which Fabricius intended to place in this genus, for which he gave no *“‘ indication ’’ in words of any kind. The second name is Tuba Lea, 1833 (Contrib. Geol. : 127) and the third is Tuba Quenstedt, (F.A.), 1851 (Handb. Petrefaktenkunde : 422). In addition, there are also the following generic names consisting of the word Tuba, of which it is necessary to take account : (a) Tuba Oken, 1815 (Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3(1) : 383) (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 417, now in the press’) ; (b) the following names which are junior homonyms of Juba Lea, 8 This Opinion was published on ist September, 1956, (Ops. Decls. Int. Comm, zool. Nomencl. 14: 1-42). 16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1833 (the first generic name consisting of the word Tuba to be validly published with an “‘indication”’): (i) Tuba Barrande, 1848 (in Verneuil, Bull. Soc. géol. France (2) 5 : 376); (ii) Tuba Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864 (Natuurk. Verh. Wet. Haarlem (3) 24 (No. 3) : 44). Dr. L. R. Cox has recommended that all the names cited above, with the exception of Tuba Lea, which is an available name, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. As regards Tuba Lea, 1833, Dr. Cox has advised as follows :— The genus Tuba Lea (I.), 1833 was founded on three fossil species of Gastropod from the Eocene of Alabama. The name has been used quite widely and is in current use for species from the English Eocene. English palaeontologists (including Dr. F. E. Eames) whom I have consulted consider that Tuba Lea should be retained. I therefore recommend that it should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names and that the name of its type species should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names. The references are: Tuba Isaac Lea, 1833, Contributions to Geology: 127 (type species, by selection by M. Cossmann, 1912 (Essais de Paléoconchologie comparée, Livr. 9 : 13): Tuba alternata Lea, 1833 (: 128), Eocene of Alabama). In the same report Dr. Cox, referring to the name Tubina Owen, 1859, which has in the past sometimes been treated incorrectly as a replacement name for Tuba Barrande, 1848, wrote: ‘‘ The name Tubina was published by R. Owen in 1859 (Ency. brit. (8th ed.) 17 (Article on Palaeontology) : 111). Its type species by monotypy is Tubina armata (Barrande MS.), Owen, 1859 (ibid.: 111, Fig. 17). This generic name is the oldest name for the genus concerned and is in use for it. This name and also the specific name of its type species should be placed on the Official Lists”. (7) Tubulanus Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] Tav. VI Tubulanus polymorphus Renier, [1807], [Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VI. In her original application (: 259) Dr. Keen stated that, according to Bronn’s Classen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, the genus Tubulanus Renier was the type genus of the family TUBULANIDAE in Nemertes. Dr. Lemche (in litt., 27th May 1955), after confirming that the Tubu- lanus was the type genus of the family TUBULANIDAE, said that this was one of the best known Nemertean genera. Dr. Lemche then proceeded as follows : ‘‘On a very few occasions this genus has been called by the name Carinella Johnston, 1833, but, today as in the past, the name Tubulanus is the one known for the animals in question. The following references show the use of this generic name;— ° OPINION 436 17 Delle Chiaje, 1829, Memoria 4: Tav. 62, figs. 8 & 12 (T. polymorphus Renier) Fauvel, 1928, Faune de France 16 : 77 Claus-Grobben-Kiihn, 1932, Lehrbuch d. Zool. (10th Ed.) : 534 Hyman, 1951, The Invertebrates 2 : 497 (also the family name TUBU- LANIDAE) [Tokio Kaburaki & Shiro Okuda], 1953, Nippon Dobutsu Zukan (Revised Ed.) : 1474” [In this work the authors’ names are given only in Japanese. The book itself has the subsidiary English title *“* [llustrated Encyclopedia of the Fauna of Japan (exclusive of Insects)”. For the foregoing bibliographical particulars relating to this work I am indebted to Professor Teiso Esaki, to whom I applied for assistance.] 2. Registration of the present application: The names which form the.subject of the present Opinion were first brought to the attention of the International Commission in an application submitted by Dr. Myra Keen which on receipt was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 688. The major part of that application was concerned with the status of Renier’s Tavole serv. Class. Conn. Anim. and it was only incidentally that in it Dr. Keen raised also the question of the possibility of the validation by the Commission of certain names in the same author’s Prospetto Class. Verm., a work which, together with a third work of Renier’s known as the Tavola alfabetica, had already been the subject of an application (Z.N.(S.) 432) by Dr. L. R. Cox. For the purpose of dealing with the names covered by Dr. Keen’s applica- tion, it was judged to be more convenient to restrict Commission File Z.N.(S.) 688 to matters connected with the Tavole and to open a new file (Z.N.(S.) 832) for the consideration of the names in the Prospetto which Dr. Keen had suggested should be preserved. In August 1952 a decision was taken by the Commis- sion on Dr. Cox’s application and in April 1954 that decision was embodied in Opinion 316, the File (Z.N.(S.) 432) on which that case had been considered being thereupon closed. In October 1955 a decision was taken by the International Com- mission on all aspects of Dr. Keen’s application except those concerned with the seventeen names (of which six appeared in the Prospetto and eleven in the Tavole) which Dr. Keen had suggested should be reserved for further consideration. When in April 1956 the decision so taken was embodied in Opinion 427, the earlier Files Z.N.(S.) 688 and 832 were closed and a new Registered 18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Number, Z.N.(S.) 1091, was allotted for the consideration of the seventeen names which had been reserved for further examination. 3. Procedure adopted for the submission of the present case to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision : The proposals put forward in the present application related to two very different types of case, namely: (1) proposals for the final rejection of certain names which had appeared in works by Renier which had already been declared to be unavailable in Rulings given by the Commission in Opinion 316 and Opinion 427 respectively and for the possible validation of which no support had been forth- coming, notwithstanding the issue of Public Notices relating to the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to validate the names in question ; (2) proposals for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of certain available names in current use. In these circumstances the Secretary took the view that the proper course would be to divide the required Voting Paper into two Parts, in the first of which each Member of the Commission would be asked to state whether he agreed that no case had been established for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the Renier names dealt with in the application, while in Part 2 of the Voting Paper the Members of the Commission would be asked to vote either for, or against, the addition to the Official Lists of the available names in current use which had been recommended for such treatment in the application submitted. IJ. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)8 : On 16th May 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)8) was issued to the Members of OPINION 436 19 the Commission for the purpose of obtaining a decision on the proposals submitted in this case, the Voting Paper so issued being divided into two Parts in the manner explained in paragraph 3 above, namely :— (i) In Part 1 of the foregoing Voting Paper each Member of the Commission was invited to state whether he was “‘ of the opinion that there is no case for the validation by the Commission under its Plenary Powers (a) of any of the generic names attributable to Renier, specified in Section (1) of paragraph 10 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1091 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in the Section numbered as above in paragraph 10 of the paper reproduced in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion] or (b) of any of the specific names specified in Section (2) of the paragraph referred to above and accordingly ” whether he agreed “that, in conformity with the General Directive relating to the placing of objectively invalid names onthe Official Indexesestablished for the recording of such names issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the Directive supple- mentary thereto issued to the Commission by the said Congress in relation to the inclusion in the Ruling to be given in any particular case of decisions on all matters arising in connection therewith, the proposals set out in the said paragraph of the paper referred to above for the addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Generic and Specific Names in Zoology respectively of the generic and specific names there specified be approved ”’, and, if in any given case he was not of the above opinion, to indicate that case. (ii) In Part 2 of the foregoing Voting Paper each Member of the Commission was invited to vote either for, or against “the addition of the names specified in Sections (3) and (4) of paragraph 10 of the paper by the Secretary cited in Part 1 of the present Voting Paper to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to the Official List 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of Specific Names in Zoology respectively as there recommended ”’. 5. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 16th June 1956. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Part 1 of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)8 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Part 1 of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)8 was as follows :— (a) Votes in favour of the rejection of all the names introduced by Renier specified in Sections (1) and (2) of paragraph 10 of the paper submitted concurrently with the foregoing Voting Paper (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) (twenty-four (24) votes) : Holthuis ; Stoll; Vokes; Mayr; Bonnet; Boden- heimer ; Dymond; Hering; do Amaral; Mertens ; Lemche ; Key; Esaki; Miller ; Riley ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Hemming; Kiuhnelt; Tortonese; Sylvester-Bradley ; Boschma ; Prantl ; Jaczewski ; Hanko ; (b) Votes in favour of the validation under the Plenary Powers of one or more of the names specified in (a) above : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Cabrera. OPINION 436 21 7. Particulars of the Voting on Part 2 of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)8 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Part 2 of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)8 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Stoll; Vokes; Mayr; Bonnet; Boden- heimer; Dymond; Hering; do Amaral; Mertens ; Lemche ; Key; Esaki; Miller; Riley ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Hemming; Kihnelt; Tortonese; Sylvester-Bradley ; Boschma ; Prantl ; Jaczewski ; Hanko ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Cabrera. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 25th June 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P. (O.M.)(56)8, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 above and declaring that the proposals 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. 22 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 4th October 1956 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.(O.M.)(56)8. 10. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Alcyonaria |Renier], [1807], [Tav. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. IV alternata, Tuba, Lea (1.), 1833, Contrib. Geol : 128 armata, Tubina (Barrande M.S.), Owen (R.), 1859, Ency. brit. (8th Ed.) 17 (Article on Palaeontology) : 111, fig. 17 armillatus, Rodens, {Renier], [1807], [Zav. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.]| : Tav. VI Cystia [Renier], [1807], [Zav. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tay Vil Discoides |Renier], [1804], [Prospetto Class. Verm.| : XVI divisa, Tuba, [Renier], [1807], [Tav. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VI nivea, Cystia, [Renier], [1807], [Tayv. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VII nutans, Discoides, [Renier], [1804], [Prospetto Class. Verm.] : XVI penulatum, Scolixedion, {Renier], [1804], [Prospetto Class. Verm.]| : XX Rodens [Renier], [1807], [Tav. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.| : Tav. VI Scolixedion [Renier], [1804], [Prospetto Class. Verm.] : XX OPINION 436 23 Tricelia {Renier], [1807], [Tav. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VI Tuba [Renier], [1807], [Tav. serv. Class. Conn. Anim.] : Tav. VI Tuba Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3(1) : 383 Tuba Fabricius (O.), 1823, Fortegnelse : 80 Tuba Lea (1.), 1833, Contrib. Geol. : 127 Tuba Barrande, 1848, in Verneuil, Bull. Soc. géol. France (2)5 : 376 Tuba Quenstedt (F.A.), 1851, Handbuch Petrefaktenk. : 422 Tuba Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864, Natuurk. Verh. Wet. Haarlem (3) 21 (No. 3) : 44 Tubina (Barrande M.S.) Owen (R.), 1859, Ency. brit. (8th Ed.) 17 (Article on Palaeontology) : 111 11. The reference for the type selection for the genus Tuba Lea, 1833, specified in Section (3)(a) of the Ruling given in the present Opinion is as follows: Cossmann (M.), 1912, Essais de Paléoconchologie comparée, Livr. 9 : 13. 12. Family-Group Name Problems: No family-group name problems arise in connection with names dealt with 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. 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14. The present Opinion shali be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Thirty-Six (436) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourth day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. | . Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercatre & 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 15. Part 2. Pp. 25—40 OPINION 437 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Pachyceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) by the suppression of the name Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) 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 1957 Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 8th January, 1957 | APR D6 {957 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON | ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 437 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) b Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. SEM IGce Oa (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rinezy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (42th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoNnD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasadgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. StToL. (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (145th October 1954) i Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ac F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 195 Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, _ Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ““ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) — ae, ee OPINION 437 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ PACHYCERAS ” BAYLE, 1878 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME ‘“*PACHYCERAS ” RATZEBURG, 1844 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the generic name Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 1041 and 1042 respectively :— (a) Pachyceras Bayle, 1878, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (gender: neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites lalande- anus VOrbigny, 1848) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) ; (b) Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Ashmead (1904) : Pachyceras The decision of the Commission in regard to the name Stfratiomys Geofiroy has now been embodied in Opinion 442. i OPINION 441 105 to an application for the validation under the Plenary Powers of certain names proposed by Geoffroy for genera of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) in the work published in 1762 under the title Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris which was rejected by the Commission in 1948 as being a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature (Opinion 228). 2. The application referred to above was submitted by Alan Stone, C. W. Sabrosky, W. W. Wirth and R. H. Foote (all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and was published in May 1954 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 241246). This application had as its object the validation of six generic names in common use with type species in harmony with current practice. The generic names concerned were : (1) Stratiomys ; (2) Stomoxys; (3) Volucella; (4) Nemotelus; (5) Scatopse; (6) Bibio. 3.. The foregoing proposals were submitted to the Commission for decision in November 1954 with Voting Paper V.P.(54)95. In the ensuing vote these proposals were approved by the Commission. During the Prescribed Voting Period Professor J. Chester Bradley raised, as regards one of the names concerned, an objection on a point which, though mentioned in the application submitted in this case, had not been debated in detail in that document. The name concerned was Stratiomys and the point raised by Professor Bradley was whether this spelling which is that used by Geoffroy in 1762, should be accepted or whether it would be more in harmony with current practice if the emended spelling Stratiomyia, first proposed by Macquart in 1838, were to be approved for this name. In the light of the information furnished by Professor Bradley I took the view at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period that the issue so raised was one which ought to be reserved for further consideration by the Commission. Accordingly, on 27th February 1955 I executed as Secretary a Minute directing (a) that the validation of the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, either in the foregoing original spelling or in the emended spelling Stratiomyia, was to be regarded as having been approved by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95, and (b) that the question as to which of the foregoing spellings was to be adopted for the above generic name was to be regarded as an open question until an express decision thereon had been taken by the Commission. ; 4. The application with which the present note is concerned was submitted to the Office of the Commission before the meeting of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 and in consequence included no proposals for dealing with the family-group-name problems associated with the generic names which it was proposed should be validated by the Commission under 106 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS its Plenary Powers. In the light, however, of the General Directive given to the Commission by the foregoing Congress it is necessary that this matter should now be dealt with. Accordingly, I recently applied for advice on this subject to Dr. Sabrosky (one of the co-applicants in the present case) who, as I knew, had made a special study of family-group-name problems in the Order Diptera. The information so asked for was kindly furnished by Dr. Sabrosky in a letter dated 22nd March 1956, which forms the basis of the recom- mendations now submitted. We find that each of the generic names concerned with the exception of Nemotelus (which is currently placed in the same family as Stratiomys (Stratiomyia) has been taken as the base for a family-group name and that each of the names concerned is in current use. The original references for the names in question are as follows :— (a) BIBIONIDAE (correction of BIBIONITES) Newman, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 : 379, 387 (b) SCATOPSIDAE (correction of SCATOPSITES) Newman, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 : 379, 387 (c) STOMOXIDIDAE (correction of STOMOXIDAE) Meigen, 1824, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Insekt. 4 : xi (d) VOLUCELLIDAE (correction of VOLUCELLITES) Newman, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 : 379, 394 (Note :—Under a Directive issued by the International Congress of Zoology the International Commission, when placing a family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, is bound to enter that name as the name of a taxon of whatever rank within the family-group was assigned to it by its original author, irrespective of any views which may now be held on taxonomic grounds as to the category to which the taxon concerned should be assigned. Accordingly, when, as in the above cases, a name is published as the name for a family but the name is formed in an incorrect manner, it is necessary for it to be entered on the Official List with the termination approved for the names of families.) 5. The present opportunity is taken to draw attention to various minor matters connected with the present case on which action by the Commission is called for under the General Directives issued to it by the International Congresses of Zoology relative to the maintenance of the Official Lists and Official Indexes and to the measures to be taken by it to ensure that in any given case the Ruling to be given shall embrace all aspects of the case involved. The matters to which attention requires to be given under these heads are as follows :— (a) There is a family-group name HIRTEIDAE (correction o HIRTAEIDES) Billberg, 1820 (Enum. Ins. Mus. Billb. : 121 OPINION 441 107 (type genus: Hirtea Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 547) which is a senior objective synonym of the name BIBIONIDAE Newman, 1834. This family-group name is, however, invalid, as the name of its type genus (Hirtea Fabricius, 1798) is a junior homonym of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carn. : 367). (b) The name Bibio Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 756) is a junior homonym of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762, validated by the Commis- sion by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95. (c) The name Nemotelus Fourcroy, 1785 (Ent. paris. (2) : 502) is a junior homonym of Nemotelus Geoffroy, 1762, validated by the Commission by its vote on the Voting Paper referred to above. (d) The name Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762, which has been validated by the Commission by its vote on the above Voting Paper, was one of two Original Spellings. The other spelling, which has been rejected as an Invalid Original Spelling, was Scathopse. (e) The name Stomoxys Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 797) is a junior homonym of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, validated by the Commission by its vote under the above Voting Paper. (f) The family-group taxon based upon Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, is (Dr. Sabrosky reports) currently treated as a sub-family of the family MUSCIDAE, the name being used in the correct form STOMOXIDINAE.® Dr. Sabrosky reports that an incorrect form STOMOXYINAE has been used by some authors. The first use of this Erroneous Subsequent Spelling has not yet been determined but steps are being taken to obtain this information. (g) The name Volucella Geoffroy, 1762, validated by the Commission by its vote on the above Voting Paper, was used with the Erroneous Subsequent Spelling Voluccella by Fabricius in 1794 (Ent. syst. 4 : 412). (h) There is a name Volucella Bechstein, 1800 (in Pennant, Uebers. vier-fiiss. Thiere 2 :352) in mammals which is a junior homonym of Volucella Geoffroy, 1762. 6. In view of the very voluminous character of the documents relating to the question of the relative merits of the spellings Stratiomys * Later it was found that this statement was based upon a misunderstanding and that the correct form for this family name is STOMOXYIDAE. See paragraph 3 of the paper by the Secretary dated 20th September 1956 reproduced in paragraph 18 of the present Opinion. 108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and Stratiomyia, which, as explained in paragraph 3 above, has been reserved for further consideration, it appears to me that it would serve the convenience of the Commission if that question were to be dealt with separately from the miscellaneous questions discussed in the present paper. I have therefore given directions that the documents relating to the Stratiomys/Stratiomyia problem be detached from the remainder of the papers relating to the present application and should be allotted the new Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1086. This arrange- ment makes it possible in the present paper to seek decisions on all matters outstanding on the present case with the exception of that relating to the Stratiomys/Stratiomyia. Proposals on this latter question are submitted in the immediately following Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)7),” which is being submitted concurrently with the Voting Paper relating to the questions discussed in the present paper. 7. The proposal now submitted is that, in order to complete the action required in connection with the application relating to certain names for genera of Diptera published by Geoffroy in 1762 which have been validated by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 (exclusive of the portion relating to the name Stratiomys which has been reserved for further consideration), the International Commission should :— (1) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the four family-group names (BIBIONIDAE; SCATOPSIDAE ; STOMOXIDIDAE ; VOLUCELLIDAE) as specified in paragraph 4 above, the names of the respective type genera (Bibio ; Scatopse ; Stomoxys ; Volucella) to be inserted at the appro- priate points in the entries so to be made ; (2) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:— (a) the four Invalid Original Spellings (BIBIONITES ; SCATOPSITES; STOMOXIDAE ; VOLUCELLITES) as specified in paragraph 4 above ; (b) HIRTEIDAE (correction of HIRTAEIDES) Billberg, 1820 (type genus: AHirtea Fabricius, 1798) (invalid because the name of the type genus is a junior homonym of another | ae name (Hirtea Scopoli, 1763)) (paragraph 5(a)) ; (c) HIRTAEIDES Billberg, 1820 (an Invalid Original Spelling for HIRTEIDAE) (paragraph S(a)) ; (d) STOMOXYINAE (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for STOMOXIDIDAE) (paragraph S(f)) ;° * See Footnote 5. § See Footnote 6. OPINION 441 109 (3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Hirtea Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Airtea Scopoli, 1763) (paragraph 5(a)) ; (b) Bibio Fabricius, 1775 (a junior homonym of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762) (paragraph 5(b)) ; (c) Nemotelus Fourcroy, 1785 (a junior homonym of Nemotelus Geoffroy, 1762) (paragraph 5(c)) ; (d) Scathopse Geoffroy, 1762 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762) (paragraph 5(d)) ; (e) Stomoxys Fabricius, 1775 (a junior homonym of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762) (paragraph 5(e)) ; (f) Voluccella Fabricius, 1794 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Volucella Geoffroy, 1762) (paragraph S(g)) ; (g) Volucella Bechstein, 1800 (a junior homonym of Volucella Geoffroy, 1762) (paragraph 5(h)). 14. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 : On 7th May 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 was issued in which each Member of the Commission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “that, in conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in regard to particular names and particular books issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the General Directive supplementary thereto issued to the Commission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the entries on Official Lists and Official Indexes relating to names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) specified in paragraph 7 of the paper numbered Z.N.(S.) 710 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in the para- graph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in paragraph 12 of the present Opinion] be made as proposed ” and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate that item. 15. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)6: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the 110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 7th June 1956. 16. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Bradley (J.C.) ; Bodenheimer ; Holthuis ; Stoll ; Hering; Vokes; Mayr; Dymond; Prantl; Key; Bonnet ; Miller ; Mertens ; Lemche ; Esaki; Jaczewski; Riley ; Cabrera; Hemming; Hanko; Kihnelt; Tortonese ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Boschma ; do Amaral ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 17. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)6 : On 15th June 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 16 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. OPINION 441 111 18. Submission to the International Commission by the Secretary of a Supplementary Report in September 1956 : On 20th September 1956 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following Supple- mentary Report in which he drew attention to the need for a minor adjustment, in the case of one name, of a decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 and in addition recommended for the sake of completeness the addition of certain further names to the Official Lists and Official Indexes :— Supplementary Report on certain matters arising out of an application by Alan Stone, C. W. Sabrosky and others for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the names for six genera in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) published by Geoffroy (E.L.) in 1762 in the ‘‘ Histoire abrégée ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) I regret that it is necessary once more to trouble the Members of the International Commission with matters arising out of the application by Alan Stone, Curtis W. Sabrosky and others for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the names of certain genera in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) originally published by Geoffroy (E.L.) in 1762 in his Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris. 2. The principal point to which it is necessary to draw attention is the form to be adopted for the family-group name based upon the generic name Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762. In this connection it will be recalled that in the paper® on this subject which I submitted to the Commission on 7th May last with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 I reported (i) that the generic name Stomoxys Geoffroy had first been taken as the base for a family-group name in 1824 by Meigen who had published this name in the form STOMOXIDAE, (ii) that in addition to the form used by Meigen two other forms had been used, namely STOMOXIDIDAE and STOMOXYINAE, of which the former appeared to be the correct form. I added that I had so far been unable to trace by whom, when and where the first of these spellings had been originally published. 9 The paper here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. é 112 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. In order to clear up the foregoing matter I applied to Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (one of the co-applicants in the present case) and to Professor Dr. Hering (Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin). Dr. Sabrosky informed me that he was not in a position to throw any light on the point at issue, but fortunately Professor Hering was able to supply the information required. In the meantime I had come to entertain serious doubts as to whether the spelling STOMOXIDIDAE was (as stated in my Report of 7th May last) the correct form for the family name based upon the generic name Stomoxys. I accordingly invited Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission, to furnish a Report on this subject. The Report so furnished by Professor Grensted, which is annexed to the present paper as Appendix 1, shows (a) that the correct spelling for this family-group name at the family level is stomMOXYIDAE and (b) that there is no case either for the spelling sTOMOXIDAE or for the spelling STOMOXYDIDAE. Professor Hering has since kindly informed me that the spelling shown by Professor Grensted to be the correct spelling for this name was first published by Friedrich Brauer in 1889 (K. Denkschr. math.-naturwiss. Classe Akad. Wiss. Wien 56: 155). Professor Hering has also informed me that the first author to use the incorrect form STOMOXYDIDAE (in the subfamily form as STOMOXYDINAE) was Bezzi in 1894 (Atti Sco. Veneto-Trentino Sci. nat. Padova (2) 1(2) : 314). In these circumstances it is necessary to to modify as follows the proposals submitted with my Report of 7th May last :— (a) To be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : STOMOXYIDAE (correction of STOMOXIDAE) Meigen, 1824 (type genus: Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762) [proposal in place of that in paragraph 8(1) of Report of 7th May 1956] ; (b) To be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology: STOMOXYDINAE Bezzi, 1894 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling at subfamily level for family name STOMOXYIDAE) [proposal in place of that in paragraph 7(2)(d) of Report of 7th May 1956]. 4. Before leaving the subject of the family-group names involved in the present case, I must report that, when returning his copy of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 Commissioner Sylvester-Bradley raised the question whether the form for the family-group name based on the generic name Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762 (the fifth of the names dealt with in the present application) should be not SCATOPSIDAE (the form recommended in my Report of 7th May last) but SCATOPSEIDAE. This suggestion I referred to the Commission’s Consulting Classical Adviser, who on 30th August last furnished a Report (which is annexed to the present paper as Appendix 2) in which he showed that the spelling SCATOPSIDAE was certainly correct and that the spelling SCATOPSEIDAE would be incorrect. Professor Grensted added that the latter name OPINION 441 113 would imply that the name of the type genus was Scatopseus and not Scatopse. Since this matter has been raised, it would be convenient if the Commission would take this opportunity to reaffirm its previous decision that the spelling sCATOPSIDAE is the correct spelling for this family name. 5. It is necessary next to take note that in addition to the Invalid Original Spelling Scathopse (noted in my Report of 7th May last) the name which by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 the International Commission has validated as from Geoffroy, 1762, with the spelling ‘Scatopse, has been incorrectly spelled by later authors in three other ways. These Erroneous Subsequent Spellings, which are as follows, should now be placed on the Official Index :— (a) Scathopsus Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 150 (b) Scathops Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 264 (c) Scatops Meigen, 1804, Klassif. zweifl. Insekt. 1(1) : 105 6. Finally, I take this opportunity to refer to a point regarding the generic name Hirtea Fabricius, 1798, raised by Commissioner Jaczewski when returning his copy of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6. In this connection it will be recalled that in my Report of 7th May last I explained that the generic name Hirtea Fabricius, 1798, from which a family-group name was formed by Billberg in 1820 for the family- group taxon later established under the currently used name BIBIONIDAE with Bibio Geoffroy, 1762, as type genus, was invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of the generic name Hirtea Scopoli, 1763. The point put to me by Professor Jaczewski was that, if Hirtea Scopoli, 1763, was currently accepted as the name for a taxonomically valid genus, it should be placed on the Official List if this had not already been done, and that the position of the valid name for the genus to which in 1798 Fabricius gave the invalid homonymous name Hirtea should be examined from a corresponding point of view. I have since examined both these matters and in this matter I have received valuable help from Professor Hering. I now submit the following Report : (1) Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carn. : 367) (gender : feminine) is the name of a Stratiomyid genus having its type species (by monotypy) the nominal species Hirtea longicornis Scopoli, 1763 (ibid. : 367). The name Jongicornis Scopoli is currently regarded as the oldest available name for the species concerned. The name Hirtea Scopoli is an available name and is currently treated either (a) as the name of a separate genus in the family STRATIOMYIDAE or (b) as the name of a subgenus or (sometimes) as a synonym of, Stratiomys (or Stratiomyia) Geoffroy, 1762. (2) The name Hirtea Fabricius, 1798 (Family BIBIONIDAE) was established for a large collection of species which have now been distributed among various genera. Owing (presumably) to the name Hirtea Fabricius, 1798, being invalid as a junior homonym of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763, no type species appears to 114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS have been selected for the nominal genus Hirtea Fabricius. That nominal genus is therefore at present indeterminate and in consequence it cannot be said that the nominal genus Hirtea Fabricius has ever been formally replaced. In view of the fact that this name is invalid as a junior homonym of Scopoli’s earlier Hirtea it would in my view be a waste of time at this stage formally to select a type species for this genus for the purpose of making it identical with some later available (and taxonomically valid) name. Accordingly, I do not consider that any action is called for in connection with the name Hirtea Fabricius, 1798, beyond placing it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, a course which has already been taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 (see Point (3)(a) in paragraph 7 of the paper issued with the above Voting Paper). In the case of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763, I agree that under the ‘* Completeness-of-Opinions ’’ Rule this name should now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. At the same time the specific name of its type species (/ongicornis Scopoli, 1763) should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 7. The recommendations now submitted may be summarised as follows :— (1) that the decisions taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6 in regard to the form of the family-group name based on the generic name Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762, be modified as recommended in paragraph 3 above ; (2) that the decision already taken to recognise SCATOPSIDAE as the correct form for the family-group name based on the generic name Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762, be confirmed (paragraph 4 above) ; (3) that the three Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for the generic name Scatopse Geoffroy, 1768, specified in paragraph 5 above be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) that the following action be taken in connection with the generic name Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 (paragraph 6 above) :— (a) The following entry to be made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Hirtea longicornis Scopoli, 1763) ; (b) The following entry to be made on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: longicornis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination AHjirtea longicornis (specific name of type species of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763). OPINION 411 115 APPENDIX 1 Report, dated 29th June 1956, by L. W. Grensted (Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ‘* Stomoxys ”’ (Diptera) : family-group name for Stomoxys (sharp-mouthed) is formed on the lines of a Greek adjective from oroua and o€vs (sharp). In Classical Greek the genitive of o&év’s in the masculine is oféo0s, and so with the familiar adjectives (e.g. tachys, tayvs, -eos). There is also a rare noun o€uvs, -vdos (or so the Lexicon says) found in Pliny (i.e. in a Latin form) and meaning (a) wood-sorrel and (b) a reed of some sort. The standard Latin Dictionary, Lewis & Short, gives this as “‘oxys”— *““ oxyos’’, again quoting Pliny. This, as it stands, gives some sort of precedent for treating the stem as -oxy-, in which case STOMOXYIDAE would be right, and it is, of course, convenient. There is no case for STOMOXIDAE OF STOMOXIDIDAE. The real competitor is STOMOXEIDAE, based on the classical form (as in Plato) of the masculine genitive of adjectives of this type, e.g. d€&vs, Bpadvs, Bpayts, taxvs. If, for example, we had Tachys (Coleoptera) to consider, it would be difficult to avoid TACHEIDAE, there being no Latin precedent to help us. Certain Greek nouns in -vs (-ys) also come into the picture. Thus, Clemmys is KAeupis, -vos and would give CLEMMYIDAE. Forms ending in -chelys (e.g. Macrochelys), i.e. from xéAvs, -vos, would give -CHELYIDAE. But mus pos, -vos) is in Latin as mus- muris and MURIDAE is happily safe. Note how queerly the accents vary. I think that STOMOXYIDAE can be sufficiently defended. It is also the form which gives the best connection with the name of the type genus. APPENDIX 2 Report, dated 30th August 1956, by L. W. Grensted (Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ** Scatopse ’’ (Diptera) : form of family-group name for I do not think there can be any alternative to the form SCATOPSIDAE in current use. The name Scatopse is curiously formed but it is Greek in its component parts and would come over into Latin as a Greek name ending in ““-e”’. Such names (e.g. Calliope, Meroé, Merope, etc.) normally keep the Greek genitive “‘-es”’ in Latin. Occasionally they change to “-is”. In any case the Latin stem (for taxonomy) would certainly be “‘ Scatops-’’. The suggested form SCATOPSEIDAE would suggest a form Scatopseus or would mean treating Scatopse as a barbarism, which it is not. SCATOPSIDAE is certainly right. 116 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 19. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)22: On 20th September 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)22) was issued in which each Member of the Commission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “that (a) in conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in regard to particular names and particular books issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the General Directive supplementary thereto issued to the Commission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, and (b) by way of supplement to, and in part, of modification of, the entries on Official Lists and Official Indexes relating to names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) made under the vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6, the further entries specified in paragraph 7 of the paper numbered Z.N.(S.) 710 submitted by the Secretary simul- taneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in paragraph 18 of the present Opinion] be made as proposed’, and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate that item. 20. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)22: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 20th October 1956. 21. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)22 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)22 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-one (21) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Lemche ; Holthuis; Stoll; Bonnet ; Hering ; Jaczewski ; Vokes; Mertens; Dymond; Bradley (J.C.); do Amaral; Prantl; Hanké; Key; Hemming; Mayr; Esaki; Kithnelt ; Cabrera ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Riley ; OPINION 441 117 (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, two (2) : Bodenheimer ; Tortonese ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Boschma ; Miller. 22. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)22 : On 20th October 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)22, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 21 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. 23. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 22nd October 1956 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 proposals approved by the International Commission (a) in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95, subject to the exclusion from that Ruling of the portion of the decision so taken which relates to the validation of the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, which by a Minute executed by the Secretary on Ist March 1955 (to which reference has been made in paragraph 12 of the present Opinion) was reserved for embodiment in a separate Opinion,"® and (b) in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)6, as supplemented and, in part, modified by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)22. 10 See Footnote 2. 118 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Bibio Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Eny. Paris 2 : 450, 568 Bibio Fabricius (J.C.), 1775, Syst. Ent. : 756 calcitrans, Conops, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 604 Hirtea Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carn. : 367 Hirtea Fabricius (J.C.), 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 547 hortulana, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 588 longicornis, Hirtea, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carn. : 367 Nemotelus Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 2 : 450, 542 Nemotelus Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. paris. (2) : 502 notata, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 588 pantherina, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 590 pellucens, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 595 Scathops Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 264 Scathopse Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Eny. Paris 2 : 544—545 Scathopsus Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 150 Scatops Meigen, 1804, Klassif. zweifl. Insekt. 9(1) : 105 Scatopse Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Envy. Paris 2 : 450 Stomoxys Geoftroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 2 : 449, 538 Stomoxys Fabricius (J.C.), 1775, Syst. Ent. : 797 Voluccella Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, Ent. syst. 4 : 412 OPINION 441 119 Volucella Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Envy. Paris 2 : 449, 540 Volucella Bechstein, 1800, in Pennant, Uebers. vier-fiiss. Thiere Hes SY) 25. The following are the original references for the family- group names placed on the Official List and on the Official Index established for the recording of the names of taxa belonging to the family-group category by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— BIBIONIDAE (correction of the Invalid Original Spelling BIBIONITES Newman, 1834) BIBIONITES Newman, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 : 379, 387 HIRTEIDAE (correction of the Invalid Original Spelling HIRTAEIDES Billberg, 1820) HIRTAEIDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 121 SCATOPSIDAE (correction of the Invalid Original Spelling SCATOPSITES Newman, 1834) SCATOPSITES Newman, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 : 379, 387 STOMOXIDAE Meigen, 1824, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Insekt. 4 : xi STOMOXYDINAE Bezzi, 1894, Atti Soc. Veneto-Trentino Sci. nat. Padova (2) 1(2) : 314 STOMOXYIDAE (correction of the Invalid Original Spelling STOMOXIDAE Meigen, 1824) (first published in correct form as STOMOXYIDAE by Brauer (F.), 1889, K. Denkschr. math.- naturwiss. Classe Acad. Wiss. Wien 56 : 155) VOLUCELLIDAE (correction of the Invalid Original Spelling VOLUCELLITES Newman, 1834) VOLUCELLITES Newman, 1834 Ent. Mag. 2 : 379—394. 26. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 120 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 27. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four | Hundred and Forty-One (441) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Done in London, this Twenty-Second day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LimitTED, 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 15. Part 7. Pp. 121—162 OPINION 442 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) 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 1957 Price One Pound Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) A a w\iASON, 1 > Issued 29th January, 1957 is th ee INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 442 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMa (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) me Henne LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWsKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (5th 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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953 Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mez6gazdasdagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. SToLt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York. N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) eae August 1953) H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Tue ieee A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Erorsar F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 54 Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 442 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ STRATIOMYS ” GEOFFROY, 1762 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers (a) the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) is hereby validated and (b) the nominal species Musca chamaeleon Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type species of the above genus. (2) The emendation Stratiomyia for Stratiomys Geof- froy, 1762, published by Macquart in 1838 is hereby rejected as an Invalid Emendation. (3) The under-mentioned generic name is _ hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1052: Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above (gender: feminine) (type species, by desig- nation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above : Musca chamaeleon Linnaeus, 1758). (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1124: chamaeleon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Musca chamaeleon (specific name of type species of Stratiomys Geofiroy, 1762). (5) The under-mentioned generic name is_ hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 846: 124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838 (rejected under (2) above as an Invalid Emendation of Stratiomys Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762). (6) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 133: STRATIOMYIDAE (correction of STATIOMYDAE [sic]), Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus: Stratiomys Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762) (first published in correct form as STRATIOMYIDAE by Loew (1860)). (7) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) STATIOMYDAE [sic] Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for STRATIOMYIDAE) (Name No. 120) ; (b) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for STRATIOMYIDAE (correction of STATIOMYDAE [sic]) Latreille, [1802— 1803] :— (i) STRATIOMIDAE Westwood, 1840 (Name No. 5) (ii) STRATIOMYADAE Harris, 1841 (Name No. 122); (111) STRATIOMYDAE Latreille, 1803 (Name No. p) (iv) STRATIOMYDES [Leach], [1815] (Name No. 124) ; (v) STRATIOMYDIDES Billberg, 1820 (Name No. b (vi) STRATIOMYIIDAE Comstock (J.H.) & Com- stock (A.B.), 1893 (Name No. 126) ; (vil) STRATIOMYTES Blanchard (E.C.), 1845 (Name No. 127). OPINION 442 125 I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 20th August 1952 Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on behalf jointly of Dr. Alan Stone, Dr. W. W. Wirth and Dr. R. H. Foote (all of the above Department) and of himself an application in which the International Commission was asked to use its Plenary Powers to validate six names for genera belonging to the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) published by Geoffroy (E.L.) in 1762. The first of these names was Stratiomys. It was stated in this application that this name was “sometimes emended to Stratiomyia’”’ but the relative merits of these two spellings were not discussed. The actual proposal in relation to the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy and the five other names concerned was summarised in paragraph 13 of the application submitted by Dr. Sabrosky. The following is an extract from the foregoing proposal of the portion relating to the name Stratiomys Geoffroy :— 13. The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to take is therefore that it should :-— (1) use its Plenary Powers to validate the under-mentioned generic names with the type species specified below :— Name of genus Type species (a) Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, Musca chamaeleon Lin- Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. Paris 2 : 449, 475 (gender : (ed. 10) 1 : 589 ; feminine) (2) place the six generic names specified in (1) above on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific names of the six species specified in (1) above as the type species of the genera there enumerated ; 126 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS If. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of the paper prepared by Dr. Sabrosky and his colleagues the question of validating the six generic names originally published by Geoffroy in 1762 dealt with therein was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S) 710. Later (paragraph 11 below) the portion of that application relating to the name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, was detached from the remainder and was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S) 1086. 3. Publication of the present application : The application by Dr. Sabrosky and his colleagues dealing inter alia with the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy was sent to the printer before the opening of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, but owing to the need for concentrating the resources of the Office of the Commission first upon preparations for that Congress and later upon seeing through the press the book Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature embodying the decisions in this field taken by that Congress it was found necessary in 1953 virtually to suspend work on the publication of Parts of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Accordingly it was not until 1ith May 1954 that the present application was actually published. It then appeared in Part 8 of Volume 9 of the Bulletin (Stone et al., 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 241—246). 4. Issue of Public Notices: In accordance with the revised procedure 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 11th May 1954 (a) in Part 8 of Volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the present application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to six entomological serials in Europe and America. 5. Support received from Dr. Maurice T. James (State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.) : On 20th May OPINION 442 P27 1954 Dr. Maurice T. James (State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.), at that time Editor of the Annals of the Entomological Society of America, one of the serial pub- lications to which the Public Notice referred to in paragraph 4 above had been issued, addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission in which he indicated as follows his support for the proposals submitted in the present case :— Personally, I am greatly concerned as to proposal No. 6! and I wish to express my wish that this list of genera be added to the Official List. The one that concerns me particularly is Stratiomys. If this name dates from Geoffrey, 1762, the family name STRATIOMYIDAE will be saved ; but if it dates from Geoffroy, 1764 (Hist. nat. des Ins.), Hirtea Scopoli, 1763, will have priority. In my opinion, Hirtea is a very feebly founded genus and I do not believe it can be maintained on a zoological basis. 6. No objection to the use of the Plenary Powers received in this case: No objection to the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Stratiomys Geoftroy, 1762 (or any of the other names dealt with in the application submitted by Dr. Sabrosky) was received from any source. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 : On 26th November 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)95) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the generic names for Diptera in _ Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, as set out in Points (1) to (4) in paragraph 13 commencing on page 245 and ending on page 246 of Volume 9 1 The number here quoted by Dr. James is that under which the present case appeared in the Public Notices referred to in paragraph 3 above. 128 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” [i.e. in those parts of the Points numbered as above which relate to the name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, and have been reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion). 8. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three- Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 26th February 1955. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty (20) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Lemche; Stoll; Vokes; Esaki ; Dymond ; Bonnet ; Boschma; Miller; Key ; Hanko ; do Amaral; Hemming; Riley; Cabrera; Kiuhnelt ; Jaczewski; Bradley (J.C.) (subject to a reservation in favour of the emendation Stratiomyia); Sylvester- Bradley ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1) : Bodenheimer ; (c) On Leave of Absence, two (2) : Mertens ; Prantl ; (d) Voting Papers not returned None. OPINION 442 129 10. Question of the possible acceptance of the Emendation “* Stratiomyia ’’ in place of the Original Spelling ‘‘ Stratiomys ”’ Geoffroy, 1762 : During the Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 the Secretary to the Commission received a letter dated 16th December 1954 in which Professor J. Chester Bradley drew attention to the emendation Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838, commonly used in place of the Original Spelling Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, and intimated that it would, in his view, be desirable that the present opportunity should be taken to consider the relative merits of the above spellings, the former of which alone was familiar to him. Professor Bradley added that he had written a letter on this subject to Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky, one of the co-applicants in the present case. During the later portion of the Prescribed Voting Period two further letters on the above subject were received in the Office of the Commission, namely (a) a letter dated 4th January 1955 from Dr. Sabrosky, and (b) a letter, with enclosure, dated 17th February 1955, from Professor Chester Bradley. In the first of these letters Dr. Sabrosky strongly supported the Original Spelling Stratiomys and in the latter Professor Chester Bradley strongly urged the claims of the emendation Stratiomyia. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote on the portion of Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 relating to the proposed validation of the generic name ‘‘ Stratiomys ’’ Geoffroy, 1762: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period in respect of Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, executed the following documents on 27th February 1955 :— (a) a Minute in which, after referring to the representations in favour of the emendation Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838, submitted by Professor Chester Bradley and taking note that the relative merits of this emendation and the Original Spelling Stratiomys had not been discussed in the original application submitted in this case, the Secretary gave the following directions in relation to the portion of the foregoing application relating to the generic name Stratiomys, namely :— (i) The validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, either in the foregoing Original Spelling or in the alternative Spelling Stratio- myia, is to be regarded as having been approved by the Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 ; 130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (ii) The question as to which of the foregoing Spellings is to be adopted for the above generic name is to be regarded aS an open question until an express decision thereon has been taken by the Commission. (b) a Certificate in which, as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95, the Secretary certified that the votes cast were as set out in paragraph 9 above and declared that the proposals submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted, subject to the reservation for a further vote of the question whether, as regards the first of the generic names dealt with in that proposal, the Original Spelling Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, or the Emendation Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838, be accepted, and that the decision so taken on the above Voting Paper was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Separation of the case relating to the generic name ‘* Stratiomys ’’ Geoffroy, 1762, from that relating to the other generic names published by Geoffroy in the same work dealt with in the application submitted in the present case: By a Minute dated Ist March 1955 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, gave directions separating the case relating to the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, from that relating to the other generic names published by Geoffroy in the same work dealt with in the applica- tion submitted in the present case and prescribing that, when a decision had been taken by the Commission regarding the relative merits of the spellings Stratiomys and Stratiomyia, that decision, together with the decision to validate the foregoing name in one or other of the foregoing spellings taken by the Commission’s vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95, be embodied in an Opinion separate from that embodying the decision of the Commission in regard to the other generic names validated by the vote taken on the foregoing Voting Paper, the Opinion so to be rendered in regard to the name Stratiomys to be allotted the Opinion Number next following that allotted to the Opinion embodying the decision of the Commission in regard to the other names involved in the present application.” 2 The decision taken by the International Commission in regard to the generic names here referred to has been embodied in Opinion 441, the Opinion immediately preceding the present Opinion. OPINION 442 131 13. Representations in favour of the Emendation ‘‘ Stratiomyia ”’ Macquart, 1838, as against the Original Spelling ‘‘ Stratiomys ”’ Geoffroy, 1762, submitted by Professor J. Chester Bradley : The following is the text of the letter dated 17th February 1955, in which (as explained in paragraph 10 above) Professor J. Chester Bradley set out his views in favour of the acceptance of the Emendation Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838, of the generic name published with the spelling Stratiomys by Geoffroy in 1762 :— Letter from Professor J. Chester Bradley, with enclosure dated 17th February 1955 I am afraid that it will get us into trouble if we legalise “‘ Stratiomys ”’ instead of “‘ Stratiomyia’’. The case seems to be another one where a few specialists in quite recent years have tried to reform an almost universally used spelling. If we go along with them, I feel sure that we will be followed only by specialists. I strongly urge that the decision on this case be delayed until the views of some leading general entomologists and dipterists of England and the continent can be ascertained. There is even less reason to revert to the original spelling in this case than usual since the original spelling appeared in a rejected non- binominal work, and whatever action is taken will be under the Plenary Powers and will be bound by no rule. ; Enclosure to Professor Chester Bradley’s letter The use of “‘ Stratiomys’”’ versus ** Stratiomyia” Stratiomyia was an emendation introduced by Macquart in 1838. The attached list is a cursory attempt to show what has been the usage during the past century in the more important general treatises and species catalogues, which mould public familiarity with a name and its usage. The list seems to show a preponderance of usage of Stratiomyia. Stratiomys appears to have been used only by a limited few who have been meticulous in observing priority. 11:32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The wide usage set by text-books, and the form which the majority of zoologists have learned during their education cannot easily be changed, probably simply will not change. In fact a change is undesirable for it would cause an interruption between the general literature of the past and that of the future. The usage of specialists is of less importance, for they will know each spelling, and not be confused by either. The family name based on Siratiomyia is STRATIOMYIDAE, but it has sometimes been misspelled “‘STRATIOMYIDAE”’. The use of the latter spelling, if the generic name is not cited, therefore gives no certain clue as to whether the author would have adopted Stratiomyia or Stratiomys. On the other hand “‘ sSTRATIOMYIIDAE”’ can only be derived from Stratiomyia. General Texts Terminations used 1862 Schiner : Fauna austriaca -mys 1893 Comstock : Manual for Study of Insects -myia 1909 Berlese: Gili Insetti -mys 1924 Comstock: Introduction to Entomology -myia 1925 Handlirsch in Schroder: Handbuch der Entomologie -myia 1926 Tillyard: Insects of Australia and New Zealand -mylidae 1929 Lutz: Field Book of Insects -myia 1930 & Imms: Text Book of Entomology -myia 1948 1931 Matsumura: 6,000 Insects of Japan -myia 1932 Szilady: Tierwelt Deutschlands -myia 1936 Enderlein : in Tierwelt Mitteleuropas -mys 1936 Kiikenthal : Handbuch der Zoologie -mylidae (In legend of a figure Stratiomys is used. The text uses Stratiomys recte Stratiomyia.) 1938 Lameere: Précis de Zoologie -myia -mys (Uses Stratiomyia in legend of three figures, Stratiomys once.) 1942 Tillgren & Wallgren: Svenska Insekten -mys 1942 Essig: College Entomology -mys OPINION 442 133 Terminations used 1948 Ross: Text Book of Entomology -myia 1951 Grandi: Entomologia -myia 1951 Grassé: Traité de Zoologie -myiidae 1954 Borror & DeLong: Introduction to the Study of Insects -mys General Works on Diptera 1865 Loew: Cent. -myia 1893 Strobl: Dipt. Steiermark -myia 1896 Williston: Manual of North American Diptera -myia 1909 Verrall : British Flies, Stratiomyiidae -myia 1920 Brunetti : Fauna of British India, Diptera -myia 1934 Curran: Families and Genera of North American Diptera -mys 1938 Lindner: Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region -myia 1951 Collyer & Hammond : Flies of the British Islands -mys Faunal Lists and Species Catalogs 1905 Aldrich: Catalogue of North American Diptera -myia 1908 Kertesz: Catalogus Dipterorum, v. 3 -myia 1910 Smith : List of Insects of New Jersey -myia 1920 Britton : Check list of the Insects of Con- necticut -myia 1928 Leonard : List of the Insects of New York -myia 1938 Brimley: List of the Insects of North Caro- lina -myia 1940 Wu: Catalogus Insectorum sinensium -myia 1945 Kloet & Hincks : Check List of British Insects -mys (Incorrectly refer Stratiomyia to Agassiz, 1848.) 1946 Procter: Mt. Desert Region Survey, List of Insects -mys 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Papers by Dipterists Terminations used 1895 C. W. Johnson used -myia 1932’) James (only U.S. Specialist on the family) date | used -mys 14. Representations in favour of the Original Spelling ‘* Stratiomys ’’ Geoffroy, 1762, as against the Emendation ‘* Stratiomyia ’’ Macquart, 1838, submitted by Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky : On 5th April 1956 Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (a co- applicant in the present case) submitted a full statement of his views in favour of the acceptance of the Original Spelling Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, as against the Emendation Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838. The communication so received was as follows :— Letter from Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky, with two Annexes and five Appendices, dated 5th April 1956 Dr. Bradley has kindly sent me a copy of his letter (with enclosures) regarding “‘ Stratiomys’’ and “‘ Stratiomyia”’. We deeply appreciate his courtesy in acquainting us with his objections to the spelling ** Stratiomys”’. Although his remarks are in connection with a Voting Paper, further discussion seems in order because his remarks will no doubt delay action on that name. The following comments and enclosures are therefore submit- ted on the specific point of the spelling of the generic name in question, “‘ Stratiomys’”’ and “‘ Stratiomyia”’. Several corrections to Dr. Bradley’s lists are also appended, as a matter of record. Dr. Bradley’s statement (Bradley to Hemming, February 17, 1955°) that “* Stratiomyia”’ is “‘ an almost universally used spelling ” is scarcely justified. See Appendices 1 and 2 for a list of general works that use 3 For the text of Professor Chester Bradley’s letter see panier? 13 of the present Opinion. OPINION 442 135 ** Stratiomys”’, particularly the considerable number since 1923, besides the growing periodical literature which uses “‘ Stratiomys”’. Dr. Bradley is not a dipterist, though he is a distinguished general entomologist. He had written me that he had never noted the spelling ** Stratiomys”’ in actual use, and apparently this prior failure to note the spelling has influenced his impression of almost universal usage for “* Stratiomyia’’. It is merely evidence of a common phenomenon, that a name or a spelling outside one’s own orbit of immediate personal interest can pass unnoticed for a long time. We object strongly to the third paragraph of his letter which argues that there is less reason to revert to the spelling “‘ Stratiomys ”’ because that ‘‘ appeared in a rejected non-binominal work”. That particular work has been universally and always accepted by dipterists, and it was an acceptable work under the old Code with the wording of “binary nomenclature”’. It was not until the Paris Congress (1948) amended the Code that Geoffroy’s work suddenly and unjustifiably became a “‘ rejected non-binominal work ”’, but even then the Com- mission and Congress recognised that Geoffroy’s work had been widely accepted and expressly invited specialists to apply to conserve names which had always been used from that work. If the situation is to be used as an argument in the way Dr. Bradley uses it, we are tempted to reopen the binary-binominal argument at London. It is incongruous to condemn the spelling ‘‘ Stratiomys’’ because it dates from Geoffroy’s rejected work, while at the same time to agree to give the genus priority from that same work. Dr. Bradley’s statement that if the Commission legalises ** Stratiomys”’ in line with usage of a “‘ few specialists ’’, “‘ I feel sure that we will be followed only by specialists ’’ is tantamount to admitting that the Official List is practically meaningless and powerless in influencing usage. That may be true, but it would be a damaging admission of defeat from the body which sponsors the Official List. The fourth paragraph of Dr. Bradley’s separate statement entitled “The Use of Stratiomys versus Stratiomyia’’ contains statements which are two-edged swords. He notes that the wide usage set by textbooks, and the form which the majority of zoologists have learned in their textbooks, “‘ probably simply will not change”. Yet if his “almost universal’ usage of Stratiomyia be true, what a remarkable change took place from the absolutely universal usage of “‘ Stratiomys”’ from 1754—1838! Furthermore, if his point of not changing be true, it could be argued with equal or even greater justice that most zoo- logists have learned the family spelling STRATIOMYIDAE and _ not STRATIOMYIIDAE (from ‘“‘ Stratiomyia’’) and that they “‘ probably simply will not change”’. (See Appendices 1—5, and the summary 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in Section 2 of my discussion, for evidence that the spelling ‘* -MYIDAE ”” predominates now and always has, even among authors who use Stratomyia.) The family name is far more generally used than the generic name, and I suspect that many more biologists, zoologists, and general entomologists have learned the family name of the soldier flies than have learned the name of the genus. Incidentally, we note (a) that some of the old and some of the new textbooks of entomology use Stratiomys, “‘-mMyIDAE”’ (cf. Essig, Borror & DeLong, Usinger et al., Maxwell-Lefroy, Berlese), and (b) that some important modern manuals and checklists of flies have used Stratiomys, “‘-MYIDAE”’ (Curran, Verrall, Kloet & Hincks, Colyer and Hammond). Surely there must have been considerable learning of Stratiomys, “‘ -MYIDAE”’ from those sources ! The argument that a change is undesirable because it would be an interruption between the general literature of the past and the future would be a good point if there had been a definite and prolonged hiatus since the last use of Stratiomys. But reference to my attached list of Stratiomys usage (Appendix 2) will show that that spelling never died out, that there were always authors and major works using the spelling, in addition to the fact that all of the pre-1838 classical works on Diptera used Stratiomys. We cannot refrain from remarking that the point about interruption would have been a perfect argument against any change from Stratiomys to Stratiomyia in the first place, as well as against the change from “ binary ”’ to “‘ binominal ”’ which called Geoffroy’s work into question. The point that the usage of specialists is of less importance is also an argument against worrying at all about the spelling of the generic name. Unless a genus is of real importance per se (Musca, Droso- phila, Anopheles, etc.), which Stratiomys is not, a generic name is mainly the concern of specialists. The general worker and non- dipterists are more concerned with family names. If most general workers know STRATIOMYIDAE rather than STRATIOMYIIDAE, as appears from the literature, then it would be easier for specialists to adopt Stratiomys and not Stratiomyia, rather than to try to sell the general worker on the change from “‘i”’ to “11” in the family name. We have thus considered Dr. Bradley’s arguments and have reviewed the situation with particular reference to the matter of usage. We are convinced that the spelling Stratiomys cannot be dismissed so easily, and we believe that there are strong reasons for not doing so. Accord- ingly, we wish to reiterate our belief that the spelling to be placed on the Official List should be Stratiomys which will properly yield the already widely used family spelling STRATIOMYIDAE. OPINION 442 137 I am also sure from the discussion at Copenhagen that the pre- scription-conservation principle was never intended to shield such cases as the present, where there has been continuous usage of at least some important degree. This is a far cry from the talk of fifty or sixty years of almost undivided usage (cf. “‘ Copenhagen Decisions ’”’, Appendix 2, Documents | to 4), or of protecting established usage against the upsetting discovery of a century-old and forgotten work. Annexe 1 to Dr. Sabrosky’s letter Corrections to Dr. Bradley’s Lists 1925 Handlirsch, in Schroder’s Handbuch. Listed as “‘-myia”’ by Bradley. That spelling is used twice in the text, but three figures on p. 978 are all given as Stratiomys. 1948 Ross’s Textbook uses “‘ -mys”’, not “‘ -myia’’, though the family name is given as ““-MYIIDAE’’. Incidentally, Dr. Bradley states that “‘ -MYIIDAE ”’ can only be derived from Stratiomyia, which is technically correct, but when one is dealing with usage, anything can happen. The combination “-mys’’, ““MYIIDAE”’ is used in seven works that I have seen (cf. Appendix 2). 1909 Verrall. British Flies, Vol. 5. Listed by Bradley as “‘-myia’”’ and “‘-mMyMDAE’’. I have paged through the entire work and can find no use of Stratio- myia for the genus other than a discussion in fine print on p. 148 in which he mentions the emendation and definitely rejects it in favor of Stratiomys. The only uses of “‘ -MylIDAE ”’ are on pp. 34, 35 and 40, the first in a direct quotation, the others in abstracts of older works. The spellings Stratiomys and “‘-MyIDAE”’ are used frequently throughout the work, the former no less than 56 times by actual count. Annexe 2 to Dr. Sabrosky’s letter Discussion of “‘ Stratiomys’’ versus “‘ Stratiomyia”’ 1. USAGE OF STRATIOMYS Usage of Stratiomys has never ceased but has been continuous to some degree. From 1754 to 1838 (date of the emendation Stratiomyia), Stratiomys was the only usage. (Cf. Appendix 1—‘‘ Pre-1838 Usage of Stratiomys’”’, showing the classical works on Diptera ; not a com- plete list, but sufficient to show the wide usage of Stratiomys in the 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS basic literature of Diptera.) This was a period when education in the classics was more general than at present, yet the scientists for over 80 years accepted Stratiomys. After 1838 (cf. Appendix 2) the spelling Stratiomys certainly pre- dominated for at least several decades, during which further classics in Diptera were published by Zetterstedt, Francis Walker, Rondani, Schiner, Licy, and others. Some of these, particularly Zetterstedt’s Diptera Scandinaviae (14 vols.) and Schiner’s Fauna Austriaca (2 vols.) exerted great influence for decades after their publication, and are still reference works of some significance. In a middle period, usage of Stratiomys was continued by the general works shown and by the activities of such users of Stratiomys as the prominent dipterists Bigot in France, Brauer in Austria, Verral and Grimshaw in England, and Coquillett in the United States. In modern times usage of Stratiomys has been increasing (cf. Appendices 2 and 3). A number of important works of the last thirty years have used that spelling. Living specialists and dipterists who have written most about the family are equally divided in their usage. 2. USAGE OF FAMILY NAME Usages of the spelling STRATIOMYIDAE far outweighs that of STRATIOMYIDAE (correctly derived only from Stratiomyia), even by authors who accept Stratiomyia (cf. Appendix 4). The preponderance of usage is shown by the following table, based on Appendices 2 through 5. Pre-1838 usage (Appendix 1) is omitted, as are the small number (20) of post-1838 works which use some ending other than “ -MYIDAE” or ‘‘-MYIIDAE”’. None of these is an “‘ii”’ spelling, however, most of them being “-MYDES”’, or ““-MYDAE”’. The 4—4 division refers to one work with divided usage. Family Ending Appendix -MYIDAE -MYIIDAE Separate works (post-1838) ; Using Stratiomys 2 30 if Using Stratiomyia 4 254 173 Family Name Only 5 26 15 Periodical Literature, 1890 to date 3 222 107 Totals 3034 1463* (* Total actually 1454 ; Handlirsch (1925) appears in two different lists, with use of both “‘ -mys ”’ and “‘-myia’”’.) OPINION 442 139 3. IMPORTANCE OF THE GENUS AND FAMILY The small importance of both genus and family does not justify special attention to the spelling (a) The genus is of little importance except as the basis of the family name. It is chiefly Holarctic, and is unknown and the name unused throughout much of the world. (b) The family is only of moderate size (1200—1500 species for the entire world, according to recent estimates). It does contain some conspicuous species often seen in collections. But in the world as a whole and even within the range of Stratiomys, entomologists and zoologists are more likely to be familiar with other genera such as ‘Odontomyia, Hermetia, Cyphomyia, Actina and Sargus (Geosargus). (c) For all practical purposes, there are only two living specialists on the family in the entire world, E. Lindner of Germany and M. T. James of the United States. The former uses Stratiomyia, “‘-MYIIDAE”’, and the latter Stratiomys, “‘-MYIDAE”’’. Both have dealt with the world fauna. The latter has a slightly greater total of papers published and is a much younger man, and in the ordinary course of events can be expected to have many more years of publishing ahead of him. Dr. Lindner reached retirement age in 1953. Curran, Steyskal, G. H. Hardy, and Seguy have published a number of papers mentioning the genus or family ; the first two use “-mys’’, ““-MYIDAE”’, the last 3° ce two “‘-myia”’, “‘-MYJIDAE”’. (d) The whole family is of practically no economic importance. Examples : (1) Review of Applied Ent., ser. A (Agric.) : Vols. 1—49 (1913— 1952), only 2 references, one to Stratiomys (Supino, 1916), one to Stratiomyia (Cros, 1917). (2) Review of Appl. Ent., ser. B. (Med. & Vet.) : Vols. 1—39 (1913—1951), only two references, both to Stratiomyia used in the same paper (1916). (3) Index of American Economic Entomology, Vols. 1—12 (1905—1952) : a total of 33 references for the 48 years, and most of those are strictly taxonomic papers (23 of them by James, Curran and Steyskal) and actually not really a criterion of economic im- portance ; 26 used the family name (25 as -MYIDAE) and 20 mentioned the genus (10 as “‘-mys’”’, 10 “‘-myia’’). 140 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) There is no mention of the family or any of its species in ““Insects, The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1952’’, a compendium of information on economic entomology, especially in America. (5) No species of the family appears on the latest list of ““ Common Names of Insects Approved by the American Association of Economic Entomologists ’’ (1950), which contains 1205 species of insects of sufficient importance to receive some notice and official recognition. (6) In books on applied entomology, there is no mention of either genus or family in an overwhelming proportion of those examined, which are summarised briefly in the following list. Obviously, if there is not even a mention in so many general works as these, the family is of no economic importance, and furthermore, no usage of any particular spelling is established or perpetuated as a result of teaching or study of these books. * Textbooks : Bogdanov-Katkov (1928, 1931), Fernald (1935), Fernald and Shepard (1942), Miall (1902), O’Kane (1914, 1916), Osborn (1916), Rimskii-Korsakov (1949), Robinson and Jary (1929), Saalas (1949), Sanderson and Peairs (1915; 1921, 1931, 1941), Saunders (1900, 1909), Slingerland and Crosby (1919), K. M. Smith (1931, 1948), Wardle (1929), Wardle and Buckle (1923). Manuals, Handbooks, and other books of economic insects (some of which may also be textbooks) : Balachowsky and Mesnil (1935— 1936), Busvine (1951), Collinge (1912), Ealand (1915), Ebeling (1950), Fletcher (1914), Herrick (1925), Lengerken (1932), Lepigro (1951), Lopez et al. (1946), Mallis (1945), Maxwell-Lefroy (1906), Melis (1948), Molinari (1942), Osborn (1939), Palmer and Westell (1922), Paoli (1933), Quayle (1938), J. B. Smith (1909), Washburn (1918), Wood (1909), Wille (1943, 1952), Wolcott (1933). (7) The family name only is briefly mentioned in a few textbooks on applied entomology which includes a general chapter on the Orders and families of insects. It is obviously included for complete- ness rather than because of economic importance, because it is not mentioned elsewhere in the chapters on economic insects. STRATIOMYIDAE (4) : Evans (1943) in Tasmania, Leonardi (1900) in Italy (as ‘‘-MIDAE), Niiszlin and Rhumbler (1927, 4th ed.) in Germany, Williams (1931) in Hawaii. STRATIOMYIIDAE (3): Lochhead (1919) and Metcalf and Flint (1928, 1939, 1951) in America, Ramakrishna Ayyar (1940) in India. * In order to save space, a complete reference has not been given for lists such as these. Under a given field of study, author and date for books will ordinarily enable them to be recognised and located when necessary. OPINION 442 141 (8) In the important field of medical and veterinary entomology, neither genus nor family is mentioned in such important textbooks as those by Matheson (1932), Herms (1923, 2nd ed.), and Brown (1953) in the United States ; Patton and Cragg (1913) and Patton and Evans (1929, 1931) in England ; Séguy (1924) in France ; Borchert (1954, in Germany ; and Roy and Brown (1954, 2nd ed.) in India. The family name alone is briefly mentioned, because of rare cases of intestinal myiasis by larvae of Hermetia, in textbooks by Riley and Johannsen (1932, 1938) and Herms (1939, 3rd ed.) in the United States, and by Neveu-Lemaire (1938) in France, and in Smart’s ““ Handbook for the Identification of Insects of Medical Importance ”’ (1943, 1948), and James’s “‘ The Flies That Cause Myiasis in Man”’ (1948). With this evidence of the minor importance of the family, in books devoted to medical entomology, one may be sure that books on public health, preventive medicine, and parasitology will not deign to mention it. (ec) In a great many general books on entomology and on general fields of zoology and biology, neither genus nor family rates even a mention. Evolution and General Taxonomy: de Beer (1938), Dobzhansky (1937, 1941), Ferris (1928), Julian Huxley (1940, 1943), Jepson, Simpson and Mayr (1949), Mayr (1942), Mayr, Linsley and Usinger (1953), Richter (1948), Schenk and McMasters (1936, 1948), Shull (1936). Textbooks of General Entomology : Balfour-Browne (1932), Ceballos (1953), Folsom (1913), Folsom and Wardle (1934), Imms (1942, 1949 : “Outlines of Entomology’’). Textbooks of Special Fields of Entomology : Morphology : A. G. Richards (1951), Snodgrass (1935), Snod- grass (1952). Embryology : Hagan (1951), Johannsen and Butt (1941). Physiology : Roeder (1953). Pathology : Steinhaus (1946), Steinhaus (1949). Ecology and Zoogeography : Allee et al. (1949), de Beaufort (1951), Elton (1947). 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Miscellaneous Books on Entomology : Bastin (1913). Insects, Their Life-Histories and¥Habits. Brues (1946). Insect Dietary. Burr (1939, 1954). The Insect Legion. Carpenter (1928). The Biology of Insects. Chrystal (1937). Insects of the British Woodlands. Clausen (1954). Insect Fact and Folklore. Duncan and Pickwell (1939). The World of Insects. Hodgson (1946). Insects of the British Isles. Imms (1937). Recent Advances in Entomology. Imms (1947). Insect Natural History. McKeown (1935). Insect Wonders of Australia. Skaife (1953). African Insect Life. Snodgrass (1930). Insects, Their Ways and Means of Living. Step (1939). Marvels of Insect Life. Uvarov (1931). Insects and Climate. Wheeler (1923). Social Life Among the Insects. Zimmerman (1948). Insects of Hawaii, Vol. I (Introduction). (f) Only the family is mentioned, sometimes very briefly and insignificantly, in a number of general works, a large majority of which use the spelling “‘-MyIDAE ” (cf. Appendix 5). (g) Textbooks of General Zoology and General Biology, with their necessarily abbreviated treatment of insects, apparently seldom if ever mention this genus and family. I have not made an extensive survey of this type of book, but found no mention of either genus or t family in a number of modern textbooks. Appendix I to Dr. Sabrosky’s Letter Pre-1838 Usage of ‘‘ Stratiomys’”’ in Separate Works Date Author and Title Family Ending 1775 Fabricius. - Syst. Entomologiae — 1776 et Genera Insectorum — 1781 sa Species Insectorum — 1796 OPINION 442 Author and Title Fabricius. Mantissa Insectorum ad Entomologia Systematica = Systema Antliatorum M7 Epitome Entomologiae Fabrici- anae “Weber. Nomenclator entomologicus secundum Entomologiam syst. ill. Fabricii Meigen. Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes Meigen. Versuch... Gattungs-Eintheilung europ. zweifl. Insekten Meigen. Klassif. u. Beschreibung europ. zweifl. Insekten Panzer. Fauna Germanica. Diptera Dumeril. Zoologie analytique Latreille. Précis des caractéres gen. des Insectes 1802, 1805 Latreille. Hist. nat. gen. et part. Crustacés 1804 1809 1810 1807 1810 1817 1815, 1819 et Ins., Vols. 3, 14 Latreille. In Deterville’s Nouveau Dictionnaire, Vol 24 (Tableau Méthodique) Latreille. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, Vol. 4 Latreille. Considerations générales, etc. Illiger. Revision of Rossi’s Fauna Etrusca Fallén. Specimen entomologicum Novam Diptera, etc. Fallén. Diptera Sueciae, Stratiomydae 1830, 1832. Leach, in Brewster’s Edinburgh En- cyclopedia Samouelle. Entomologist’s Useful Compendium 1822 (Vol. 3), 1838 (Vol. 7). Meigen. Systematische Be- 1823 schreibung europ. zweifl. Insekten Duméril. Considerations générales sur la Classe des Insectes 143 Family Ending -MYDAE 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Date Author and Title Family Ending 1824 Weidemann. Analecta entomologica.. . — 1826 Macquart. Insectes Dipteres du Nord de la -MYDAE France 1830 Weidemann. Aussereurop. zweifl. Insekten -MYDAE 1832 Cuvier’s Animal Kingdom, Vol. 15 (English ed.) ~- 1834 Macquart. Histoire naturelle des Dipteéres. I. -MYDES Appendix 2 to Dr. Sabrosky’s letter Post-1938 Usage of “‘ Stratiomys”’ in Separate Works (* marks the occasional use of -myiDAe) [1838] Zetterstedt. Insecta Lapponica -MYDAE 1840 Westwood. Introd. Modern Classif. Insects, Vol. 2 -MYDAE 1840 (?) Blanchard. Hist. nat. des Animaux Articulés -MYTES 1841, 1852 Harris. Report on Insects of Massachusetts Injurious to Vegetation (Stratyomys) -MYADAE 1842-1860 Zetterstedt. Diptera Scandinaviae. (Stratio- mys in several Vols., in 1842, 1849, 1852, 1855, 1859, 1860) -MYDAE 1846 Loew. Fragmente zur Kenntnis der Arten einiger Dipterengattungen - 1848 F. Walker. List Dipterous Insects, British Museum. Part I -MYDAE 1848 D/’Orbigny. Dict. universel d’hist.-nat., Vol. 12 -MYDES 1851 L. Dufour. Recherches anatom. et physiol. sur les Dipteres -MYDES 1851 F. Walker. Insecta Britannica -MIDAE 1856 Rondani. Dipterologicae Italicae Prodromus -MYDAE 1857 Dallas. Elements of Entomology, Outline of Nat. Hist. and Classif. of British Insects — 1857 (2author). Tubular View of the Orders of Insects -MIDAE 1858 Osten Sacken. Catalogue Diptera N. Amer. ([st ed.) -MYDAE OPINION 442 Date Author and Title 1859-1862 Bellardi. Saggio di Ditterologia Messicana 1860 Dumeéril. Entomologie analytique 1860 Loew. Die Dipteren-Fauna Siidafrikas 1862 Schiner. Fauna Austriaca, Vol. I 1863 Flint. A Treatise on Some of the Insects In- jurious to Vegetation (revision of Harris, 1841) 1864-1865 Lioy. I Ditteri distributi secondo un nuovo metodo di classificazione naturale 1868 Schiner. Diptera of the “‘ Novara Reise ”’ 1877 Siebke. Enumeratio Insectorum Norvegicorum 1880 Packard. Guide to the Study of Insects (7th ed. . seen, dated 1880) 1882, 1883 Brauer. Die Zweifliigler des k. Museums zu Wien, I, Il 1886 Neuhaus. Diptera Marchica 1890 Schoch. Fauna insectorum Helvetiae Diptera 1891 Bigot. Catalogue of the Diptera of the Oriental Region 1899, 1901 Sharp. Cambridge Natural History, Vols. 5 and 6 (Insects) 1901 Verrall. A List of British Diptera (2nd ed.) 1904 Henneguy. Les insectes: Morphologie, Repro- duction, Embryogénie 1908 Gibbs & Barraud. A preliminary list of Hertford- shire Diptera 1909 Berlese. Gli insetti 1909 Verrall. British Flies, Vol. 5 (Stratiomyidae, etc.) 1910 Coquillett. Type Species of North American Genera of Diptera. (Stratiomyia not even men- tioned in this, one of the basic works in North American Dipterology.) 1914 White. The Diptera-Brachycera of Tasmania 1918 Comstock. The Wings of Insects (-mys twice in reviewing literature ; -myia adopted for his figure of wing) 1921 Step. British Insect Life 145 Family Ending -MYDEA -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYDAE -MYIDAE -MYDI -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE 146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Date Author and Title Family Ending 1923 Martini. Lehrbuch der medizinischen Entomo- logie -MYIDAE 1923 Maxwell-Lefroy. Manual of Entomology -MYIDAE 1924 Carpenter. Insects, Their Structure and Life. A Primer of Entomology -MYIDAE 1925 MHandlirsch. Jn Schréder’s Handbuch (-myia also used) *-MYIIDAE 1928 Carpenter. Life in Inland Waters. (Textbooks of Animal Biology, ed. by J. Huxley.) —— 1928 (2nd ed.) Ulmer. Unsere Wasserinsekten — 1928 Pearce. Typical Flies : A Photographic Atlas of Diptera -MYIDAE 1929 Neumann. (revision of) Brehms Tierleben. VII. Insekton (‘““-MYDAE”’ in text; “‘-MYIDAE” in Index) -MYIDAE 1932 Petch and Maltais. A prelim. list of the Insects of the Province of Quebec. Part II. Diptera (re- vision of old Winn and Beaulieu list) *-MYIIDAE 1932, 1951 Déderlein. Bestimmungsbuch fiir deutsche Land- und Siiszwassertiere (2 editions) -MYIDAE 1932 Metcalfand Flint. Fundamentals of Insect Life *-mMyYIIDAE 1934 Curran. Families & Genera of N. Amer. Diptera -MYIDAE 1936 Enderlein. In Tierwelt Mitteleuropas *-MYIIDAE 1937 Robert. Les Insectes, I] (dn Les Beautés de la Nature) — 1937 Hesse, Allee & Schmidt. Ecological Animal Geo- graphy = 1938 Strickland. An Annotated List of the Diptera of Alberta -MYIDAE 1939 Knowlton etal. Insects of Utah. Diptera (Utah Agr. Exp. Sta., Mimeog. Series) *-MYIIDAE 1939, 1944, 1947 Wigglesworth. The Principles of In- sect Physiology — 1942 Tullgren and Wahlgren. Svenska insektes (not seen) 1942 Essig. College Entomology -MYIDAE 1943. Thompson. A Catalogue of the Parasites and Predators of Insect Pests a = 1945 Kloet and Hincks. Check List of British Insects -MYIDAE OPINION 442 147 Date Author and Title Family Ending 1945 Curran. Insects of the Pacific World -MYIDAE 1946 Stuardo. Catalogo de los Dipteres de Chile . -MYIDAE 1946 Procter. Biol. Survey Mt. Desert Island Region -MYIDAE 1946 Sandars. An Insect Book for the Pocket (uses Stratiomyis) -MYIDAE 1948 Ross. A textbook of entomology * -MYIIDAE 1948 Swain. The Insect Guide -MYIDAE 1948 Usinger, et al. Biology of Aquatic and Littoral Insects (Syllabus for Teaching, U. of Calif.) -MYIDAE 1951 Colyer & Hammond. Flies of the British Isles -MYIDAE 1953 Linssen & Newman. The Observer’s Book of Common British Insects and Spiders -MYIDAE 1954 Borror and DeLong. Introduction to the Study of Insects -MYIDAE 1954 Brauns. Terricole Dipterenlarven *-MYIIDAE Appendix 3 to Dr. Sabrosky’s letter Periodical Literature, 1890 to date The following summary is the result of a search through the excellent reprint collection of Diptera at the U.S. National Museum for all papers which mention the genus Stratiomys/Stratiomyia and/or the family based upon it. This is not a complete coverage of literature, of course, but it does represent a large and random sample. It was supplemented from the literature (by checking the Zoological Record) in the case of Lindner, the leading European specialist on the family, because we had relatively few reprints of his compared with a com- plete set from James. Thirteen other papers by Lindner were not seen, and according to Zoological Record, eleven of those used *““-MYIIDAE’’ and two used “‘-MYIDAE”’. Only literature subsequent to 1890 has been examined because our reprint file is greatest for those years, and thus affords a fairer random sample. If one surveyed prior to 1890, one would find greater pro- portionate use of Stratiomys because of the activity and influence of such dipterists as Schiner and Brauer in Austria, Bigot in France, Rondani and Lioy in Italy, Siebke in Norway, and Zetterstedt in Sweden, besides the example set by the older authors, such as Meigen, Fabricius and: Latreille. For example, six reprints (1874—1887) by the prolific writer Bigot show the genus Stratiomys mentioned in all (family ending -MyDAE), one with a special argument against changing the spelling of Stratiomys (1887 or 1888, Bull. Soc. ent. France, p. ccv). 148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Survey of Periodical Literature, 1890 to date (* living authors) No. of | No. with Genus No. with Family Papers | ——————— _ “mys 99 66 99 66 -myia’ |\““- MYIDAE”’ ““-MYIIDAE”’ Becker, Th. (1900-19) 2 Bezzi (1912-26) Brunetti (1907-27) | Cockerell (1894-1917) Coquillett (1898-1909) *Curran (1922-34) Grimshaw (1898-1915) *Hardy, G. H. (1920-51) *James (1932-53) Johnson, C. W. (1894-1929) *Lindner (1923-51) Meijere (1904-15) Pleske (1901-30) *Séguy (1929-39) *Steyskal (1938-53) All others (1890-1953) (88 authors) WNDOO dD Eves | — WOoONNnOWOogc! N _ eae ll Ti les eeoatst I] lune toe Slrouleul ll esews lon Nm — Totals loc) TS rem Thus we see from the totals that of the sample of 344 papers which dealt in whole or in part with this genus and/or family, less than one- third mentioned the genus, whereas all but 15 mentioned the family by name. Of those which mentioned the genus, slightly less than four-fifths used ‘‘-myia’’, and slightly over one-fifth “‘-mys”’. Over two-thirds of the papers giving the family name used the form ““-MYIDAE”’. The use of Stratiomys has been growing in recent years, due of course to the activities of dipterists who use that form of the name. Sum- marizing : -mys -myia 1890—1904 (20 years) 2 2) 1905—1929 (25 years) 54 404 1930—1954 (25 years) 14 24 Appendix 4 to Dr. Sabrosky’s letter Family Name in Separate Publications which use “‘ Stratiomyia” Date Author and Title Ending of Family Name 1865 Loew. Centuriae -MYIDAE 1877 Vander Wulp. Diptera Neerlandica -MYIDAE Date 1878 1881 1888, 1892 1893 1893 1905 OPINION 442 Author and Title Osten Sacken. Catalogue Diptera North Amer. (2nd ed.) Hutton. Catalogue New Zealand Diptera egeueo08 i Williston 9) Manual N. American Diptera Giglio-Tos. Ditteri del Mexico Comstock. Manual for Study of Insects Strobl. Diptera von Steiermark Aldrich. Catalogue N. American Diptera 1905, 1908 Kellogg. American Insects 1908 1910 1912 1920 1920 1921 1923 Kertész. Catalogus Dipterorum, Vol. 3 Smith. List of Insects of New Jersey Sanderson and Jackson. Elementary Entomology Britton. Check List of Insects of Con- necticut Brunetti. Fauna of British India, Dip- tera Brachycera Cole and Lovett. Annotated List of Diptera of Oregon MacGillivray. External Insect-Antomy 1924, etc. Comstock. Introduction to Ento- mology 1924, etc. Imms. A General Textbook of Ento- 1925 1925 1927 1928 1928 mology (editions of 1930, 1934, 1948 seen) Handlirsch. In Schréder’s Handbuch der Entomologie (“‘-myia”’ twice in text ; “‘-mys”’ three times in figures) Johnson. List of Diptera of New Zea- land Johnson. Biol. Survey of Mt. Desert Region, The Insect Fauna Leonard. List of Insects of New York Handel. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, Diptera, If, Allgemeiner Teil 149 Ending of Family Name -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYITIDAE -MYIIDAE 150 Date 1929 OZ 1932 NO B2E 1933 1933 1934 1935 1936 1938 1938 1938 1939 1942 1942 1943 1944 SBI LOS OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Author and Title Lutz. Field Book of Insects (many re- printings and editions ; first in 1918 ; only 1929 checked) Matsumura. 6000 Insects of Japan Szilady. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, Part 26 1954 Brues & Melander. of Insects Weber. Lehrbuch der Entomologie Stackelberg. Les mouches de la Partie Européenne de ’URSS Karny. Biologie der Wasserinsekten Classification Johannsen. Aquatic Diptera, Part I Kikenthal. Handbuch der Zoologie Insects of Western North America Die Fliegen der Palaeark. Essig. Lindner. Region Brimley. List of Insects of North Carolina (Supplements, Brimley, 1942, and Wray, 1950, use family name only) Jaques. How to Know the Insects Frost. Portevin. sectes Smith, e¢ al. Matheson. General Entomology Ce quwil faut Savoir des In- Common Insects of Kansas Entomology for Introduct- Ending of Family Name -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE ory Courses (“‘-MYIDAE ”’ used in family (-MYIDAE key, p. 384, and in Index ; “‘-MYIIDAE ”’ used in discussion p. 408) Peterson. Larvae of Insects, II Séguy. Atlas des Diptéres de France, Belgique, Suisse, Vol. I (vernacular names) -MYIDAE Appendix 5 to Dr. Sabrosky’s letter -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYTIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYTIDAE -MYIIDAE) * -MYIIDES ”” Separate Works using Family Name but not the Generic Name Date 1880 Author and Title Reed. Catalogue of Diptera of Chile Family Ending -MYIDAE Date 1900 1901 1907 1909 1918 £919 1921 1926 1926 1927 1927 1928, 1928 1930 1931 1931 1932, 1935 1935 1936 1936, OPINION 442 Author and Title Leonardi. Gli Insetti Nocivi Grimshaw. Diptera, in Fauna Hawaii- ensis Froggatt. Australian Insects Maxwell-Lefroy. Indian Insect Life Ward & Whipple. Fresh-Water Biology Lochhead. Economic Entomology Carpenter. Insect Transformation Tillyard. Insects of Australia and New Zealand Wellhouse. How Insects Live. An Ele- mentary Entomology Niiszlin & Rhumbler. Forstinsekten- kunde Wolcott. Entomologie d’ Haiti (vernacu- lar names) etc. Metcalf & Flint. Destructive and Useful Insects (also 1939 and 1951 editions) Curran. Diptera, in Insects of Puerto Rico and Virgin Is. Morgan. Field Book of Ponds and Streams Williams. Handbook of the Insects and Other Invertebrates of Hawaiian Sugar- Cane Fields Chapman. Animal Ecology 1938 Riley and Johannsen. Medical Entomology Saalas. Viljelyskasvien Tuho-ja Hy6ty- hy6nteiset [Beneficial and Injurious Insects of Cultivated Plants (Finland)] Welch. Limnology Wardle. General Entomology etc. Wolcott. Insects of Puerto Rico (also 1941, 1951, all under different titles) “* MIDAE ”” OF ¢ -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDES ”’ -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE 151 Family Ending -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE 152 Date 1937 Wey) 1940 1940 1941 1942 1943, 1943 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Author and Title . List of Families of Diptera in the “Fauna USSR.” Herms. Medical Entomology (3rd ed.) Clausen. Entomophagous Insects Ramakrishna Ayyar. Handbook of Economic Entomology for South India Lutz. A Lot of Insects Curran. Jn Diptera of Connecticut, Fasc. 1 (Key to Families) 1948 Smart. Handbook for Identifica- tion of Insects of Medical Importance Evans. Insect Pests and Their Control [Tasmania] 1944,1945 McKeown. Australian Insects, An 1946 1948 1949 1949 1949 1950 1950 1951 195i 1955 1954 1954 Introductory Handbook Brewster ef al. Life Stories of Australian Insects Berg. Biol. Studies on the River Susaa [Denmark] Lindroth & Notini. Svenska Djur, In- sekterna [Swedish Animals, Insects] Urquhart. Introducing the Insect Oldroyd. Diptera, Introduction. In Handbooks for Ident. of British Insects Moreton. Guide to British Insects Hudson. Fragments of New Zealand Entomology Grassé. Traité de Zoologie, Vol. X (Diptera by Séguy) Bohart & Gressitt. Filth-[nhabiting Flies of Guam Gonzalez-Rincones & Guyon. Clasifi- cacion General de los Dipteros [Vene- zuela]| Weber. Grundriss der Insektenkunde Gressitt. Insects of Micronesia, Vol. I, Introduction Family Ending -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE ce 29 -MIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE . “MYIIDAE -MYIIDAE -MYII DAE -MYIIDAE : -MYIIDAE OPINION 442 153 15. Submission to the International Commission of the problem involved in relation to the Original Spelling ‘‘ Stratiomys ”’ Geoffroy, 1762, and the Emendation ‘‘ Stratiomyia ’? Macquart, 1838: On 7th May 1956, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary, submitted the following paper in which he laid before the Inter- national Commission the representations which had been received in favour of the Emendation Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838, and the Original Spelling Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, respectively and invited the Commission to make a choice as to which of these spellings be accepted :— . On the question whether the spelling ‘‘ Stratiomys ’’ or the alternative spelling ‘‘ Stratiomyia ’’ be accepted for the genus of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) currently known by one or other of the above spellings By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present paper is intended to place before the International Commission the question whether the spelling Stratiomys or the alter- native spelling Stratiomyia be accepted for the genus of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) currently known by one or other of the above spellings. The history of this case and the considerations relevant to the present issue are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. In August 1952 a request was received for the validation by the Commission under its Plenary Powers of the names of six genera of the Order Diptera as published by Geoffroy in 1762 in a work (the Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris) which had been rejected by the Commission (in Opinion 228) as being non-binominal. This application was submitted jointly by the follow- ing four specialists on the staff of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. :—Alan Stone; C. W. Sabrosky ; W. W. Wirth; R. H. Foote. The generic names which it was asked should be validated as from Geoffroy, 1762, were: (1) Stratiomys ; (2) Stomoxys ; (3) Volucella ; (4) Nemotelus ; (5) Scatopse ; (6) Bibio. 3. Owing to the preoccupation of the Office of the-Commission with preparations for the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 it was not until May 1954 that the above application was published (Stone et al., 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 241—246). Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers in the present case was 154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS given in May 1954 in the prescribed manner and in addition such notice was given also to certain general zoological serials and to a number of entomological serials in Europe and America. In November 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.)(54)95 was issued in which the members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the application submitted in this case. 4. During the Prescribed Voting Period on the foregoing Voting Paper Commissioner J. Chester Bradley addressed a letter (on 17th February 1955) to myself as Secretary raising an objection as regards one of the names dealt with in the present application. The name concerned was Stratiomys, as regards which Commissioner Bradley urged that in the interests of stability the Emendation Stratiomyia should be accepted in preference to the Original Spelling Stratiomys. 5. At the end of the Prescribed Voting Period it was found that the proposals submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(54)95 had been approved by the Commission. At this point consideration was given by myself as Secretary to the development represented by the communication received from Commissioner Bradley during the Prescribed Voting Period. On this matter I took the view that a new situation had arisen as regards the generic name referred to in paragraph 4 above, for, although mention had been made in the original application (: 243) of the fact that the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy had been emended by some authors to the spelling Stratiomyia—an emendation first published by Macquart in 1838 (Mém. Soc. R. Sci. Lille 1838(2) : 183)— the relative merits of these two spellings for this generic name had not been debated in that application. Accordingly, on 27th February 1955, I executed, as Secretary to the Commission, a Minute directing (a) that the validation of the generic name Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, either in the foregoing original spelling or in the emendation Stratio- myia was to be regarded as having been approved by the Commission by its vote given on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95, and (b) that the question as to which of the foregoing spellings was to be adopted for the above generic name was to be regarded as an open question until an express decision thereon had been taken by the Commission. 6. The principal documentation received in regard to the question of the spelling to be adopted is as follows :— (a) Letter with enclosure dated 17th February 1955 from Professor J. Chester Bradley : The letter dated 17th February 1955 with its accompanying enclosure received from Professor Chester Bradley is repro- duced as Appendix 2 to the present paper.*' The general nature * The documents here referred to have been reproduced in paragraph 12 of the present Opinion. OPINION 442 155 of Professor Bradley’s position in this matter may be judged from the following extract from his letter :— ““ The case seems to be another one where a few specialists in quite recent years have tried to reform an almost universally used spelling. If we go along with them, I feel sure that we will be followed only by specialists.” (b) Letter with enclosures dated 5th April 1955 from Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (one of the original co-applicants In the present case) : On Sth April 1955, Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (one of the original co-applicants in the present case), to whom Professor Bradley had communicated a copy of his letter to me of 17th February 1955 (see (a) above), addressed to the Office of the Commission a letter with enclosures, in which he gave the grounds on which he advocated the acceptance of the spelling Stratiomys and at the same time traversed the arguments adduced by Professor Bradley in his letter of 17th February. Dr. Sabrosky’s letter with its enclosures is reproduced as Appendix 3 to the present paper.® The general nature of Dr. Sabrosky’s position is summarised by him as follows in the penultimate paragraph of his letter :— ““We have thus considered Dr. Bradley’s arguments and have reviewed the situation with particular reference to the matter of usage. We are convinced that the spelling Stratiomys cannot be dismissed so easily, and we believe that there are strong reasons for not doing so. Accordingly, we wish to re-iterate our belief that the spelling to be placed on the Official List should be Stratiomys.”’ 7. In addition to the massively documented contributions described in the immediately preceding paragraph, letters on this subject have been received from the following :—(1) Maurice T. James (State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.) who writes: “‘I am thoroughly in accord with Mr. Sabrosky’s comments and criticism of the Bradley proposal. ... I certainly see no advantage in accepting the emended form (Stratiomyia) rather than the original form” ; (2) Commissioner N. D. Riley who writes : “* Stratiomyia is the spelling familiar to me ”’ ; (3) Mr. H. Oldroyd (British Museum (Natural History)) who writes : “‘ Of the two workers on this group at the present time, James uses Stratiomys/STRATIOMYIDAE and Lindner uses Stratiomyia/ STRATIOMYIIDAE. . . . My own inclination is to use Stratiomyia/STRATIO- MYIIDAE.” ; (4) Dr. F. van Emden (Commonwealth Institute of Ento- mology, London) who writes : “‘I would be in favour of Stratiomyia, the two names obviously being intended to mean the same, i.e., a soldierly fly, but the form ‘-myia’ being correct and universally used.” 8. The form of the name to be adopted for the present genus will govern also the form of the family name based upon it. If the spelling 5 The documents here referred to have been reproduced in paragraph 14 of the present Opinion. 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Stratiomys is accepted for the generic name, the family name will be STRATIOMYIDAE, while, if the spelling Stratiomyia is accepted, the family name will be STRATIOMYIIDAE. In either case under the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress the name will date from Latreille, (1802—1803). Latreille, who used the spelling Stratiomys for the generic name, cited the family name first in French and second in Latin in accordance with the practice of French zoologists of his day, the former being given as STRATIOMYDES, the latter by what is an evident printer’s error as STATIOMYDAE. The following are (a) the original references for the two spellings, one or other of which, depending on the decision of the Commission at the generic-name level, will be the correct spelling and (b) the original references for a number of other spellings, of which one is an Invalid Original Spelling and the remainder are Erroneous Subsequent Spellings :— (i) Two spellings, of which, depending on the decision by the Com- mission at the generic-name level, one will be the correct spelling and the other an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling :— (a) Spelling recommended by Professor Bradley : STRATIOMYIIDAE (correction of STATIOMYDAE) Latreille, {1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 445 (first published in correct form as STRATIOMYIIDAE by Comstock (J.H.) & Comstock (A.B.), 1893, Manual Study Ins. : 418, 455) (b) Spelling recommended by Dr. Sabrosky : STRATIOMYIDAE (correction of STATIOMYDAE) Latreille, [1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 445 (first published in correct form as STRATIOMYIDAE by Loew, 1860, Dipt. Fauna Siidafrik. : Vil, 1) (ii) An Invalid Original Spelling : STATIOMYDAE Latreille, [1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 445 (iii) Erroneous Subsequent Spellings : STRATIOMYDAE Latreille, 1803, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 21 : 246 STRATIOMYDES [Leach], [1815], in Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. Os lols L817); leah. ibid! 12 2156 STRATIOMIDAE Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. 2531 STRATIOMYTES Blanchard (C.E.), 1845, Hist. Ins. 2 : 472 STRATIOMYADAE Harris, 1841, Rep. Ins. Mass. injur. Veget. : 408 STRATIOMYDIDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billb. : 115 9. The only matters connected with the present case on which decisions were not taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting OPINION 442 lis Paper V.P.(54)95 are (1) the question whether the spelling Stratiomys or the spelling Stratiomyia be accepted for this generic name (a question which was removed from the scope of the foregoing Voting Paper by the direction given in the Secretary’s Minute of 27th February 1955, referred to in paragraph 5 above) and (2) the consequential question of the form for the corresponding family name (which was not dealt with in the foregoing Voting Paper). Full documentation on the fore- going matters is provided in the Appendices 2 and 3 to the present paper, namely, Appendix 2 (Professor Bradley’s letter with enclosure of 17th February 1955)® and Appendix 3 (Dr. C. W. Sabrosky’s letter with enclosures of 5th April 1955).7 In the light of the information so provided the Commission is now asked to settle the points still outstanding in this case. For this purpose the Commission is invited in the annexed Voting Paper to vote for one or other of two opposing alternatives, the terms of which are set out in Appendix 1 to the present paper. Alternative “A” is the course recommended by Professor Bradley (Stratiomyia and STRATIOMYIIDAE). Alternative “‘B’”’ is the course recommended by Dr. Sabrosky (Stratiomys and STRATIOMYIDAE). APPENDIX 1 Alternative Decisions submitted for consideration Part 1: Alternative ‘‘A’’ (Bradley proposal for ‘‘ Stratiomyia ”’ and STRATIOMYIIDAE) (1) to accept the spelling Stratiomyia as the spelling for the genus for which the name was originally published by Geoffroy in 1762 with the spelling Stratiomys ; (2) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 (an Invalid Original Spelling for Stratiomyia) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology :—STRATIOMYIIDAE (correction of STATIOMYDAE) Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus : Stratiomyia (emend. of Stratiomys) Geoffroy, 1762) (4) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) STATIOMYDAE Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling) ; (b) the six Erroneous Subsequent Spellings specified in para- graph 8(iti) above) ; (c) STRATIOMYIDAE Loew, 1860 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling) ; 5 See Footnote 4. * See Footnote 5. 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Part 2: Alternative ‘‘B’’ (Sabrosky proposal for ‘‘ Stratiomys ”’ and STRATIOMYIDAE) (1) to accept the Original Spelling Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762, and to reject the emendation Stratiomyia ; (2) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838 (an Invalid Emendation of Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology :—STRATIOMYIDAE (correction of STATIOMYDAE) Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus : Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— ~ (a) STATIOMYDAE Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling) ; (b) the Six Erroneous Subsequent Spellings specified in para- graph 8 (iii) of the annexed paper ; (c) STRATIOMYIIDAE Comstock (J.H.) & Comstock (A.B.), 1893 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling). APPENDIX 2 Professor Chester Bradley’s case for the acceptance of the Spelling ‘* Stratiomyia *’ for the name published with the Spelling ‘* Stratiomys ’’ by Geoffroy in 1762 Letter with enclosure dated \7th February 1956 (NOTE: The documents which formed this Appendix have been reproduced in paragraph 12 of the present Opinion.) APPENDIX 3 Dr. C. W. Sabrosky’s case for the acceptance of the Original Spelling ‘* Stratiomys *’ for the generic name so published by Geoffroy in 1762 Letter, with two Annexes and five Appendices, dated 5th April 1956 (NOTE: The documents which formed this Appendix have been reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion.) OPINION 442 159 16. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)7 : On 7th May 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)7) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote affirmatively on one or other of the following alternative courses of action, namely, “‘ Alternative ‘A’ (Bradley proposal for Stratiomyia and STRATIOMYIIDAE) as set out in Part 1 of Appendix 1 of the paper bearing the Number Z.N.(S.) 1086 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper |i.e. in Part 1 of Appendix 1 of the paper reproduced in paragraph 15 of the present Opinion] or Alternative ‘B’ (Sabrosky proposal for Stratiomys and STRATIOMYIDAE) as set out in Part 2 of Appendix 1 of the paper referred to above ”’. 17. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)7: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 7th June 1956. 18. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)7 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)7 was as follows :— (a) In favour of “ Alternative * A’ ” (adoption of the Emendation “* Stratiomyia”’) (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) (eight (8) votes) : Bradley (J.C.); Key; Riley; Cabrera; Hanko; Tortonese ; Boschma; do Amaral ; (b) In favour of “ Alternative * B’”’ (adoption of the Original Spelling “‘ Stratiomys’”’) (seventeen (17) votes) : Bodenheimer; Holthuis; Stoll; Hering; Vokes; Mayr ; Dymond; Prantl; Bonnet ; Miller; Mertens ; Lemche; Esaki; Jaczewski; Hemming; Kiuhnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ; 160 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 19. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)7: On 15th June 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)7, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 18 above and declaring that the proposal submitted with the foregoing Voting Paper as Alternative “B” (adoption of the Original Spelling Stratiomys) had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 20. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present °* Opinion ”’ : On 27th August 1956, 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 (a) with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)95, in so far as that proposal was concerned with the generic name Stratiomys Geofiroy, 1762, and (b) with the terms of the proposal supplementary thereto styled “ Alternative °“B’” approved by the said Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)7. 21. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— chamaeleon, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 589 Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838, Mém. Soc. Sci. Lille 1838(2) : 183 Stratiomys Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 2 : 449, 475 OPINION 442 161 22. The following are the original references for the family- group names placed on the Official List and Official Index established for the recording of the names of taxa belonging to the family-group category by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— STATIOMYDAE Latreille, [1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 445 STRATIOMIDAE Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. 2 : 531 STRATIOMYADAE Harris, 1841, Rep. Ins. Mass. injur. Veget. : 408 STRATIOMYDAE Latreille, 1803, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 21 : 246 STRATIOMYDES [Leach], [1815], in Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. Oerioly: fid.|, [1817], ibid. 12: 156 STRATIOMYDIDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 115 STRATIOMYIDAE (correction of the Invalid Original Spelling STATIOMYDAE Latreille, [1802—1803]) (first published in correct form aS STRATIOMYIDAE by Loew, 1860, Dipt. Fauna Siidafrik. : vii, 1) STRATIOMYIIDAE Comstock (J.H.) & Comstock (A.B.), 1893, Man. Study Ins. : 418, 455 STRATIOMYTES Blanchard (C.E.), 1845, Hist. Ins.2 : 472 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 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. 162 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Forty-Two (442) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Second day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretrcatre & 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 15. Part 8. Pp. 163—174 OPINION 443 Designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Monticulipora d’Orbigny, October 1849 (Class Bryozoa) (Ordovician) 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 1957 Pri : a0 — rice Eight Shillings Lal (All rights reserved) lie ( \DD 9F 1C fy) J Tssued 29th January, 1957 S frepaey y INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 443 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (42th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election _as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CaBrerA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning LEMcHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 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 (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (45th 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-Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mez6gazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtHu!s (Riiksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum y Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KtHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Poe F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 443 DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE FOR THE GENUS ‘“‘ MONTICULIPORA ” D’ORBIGNY, OCTOBER 1849 (CLASS BRYOZOA) (ORDOVICIAN) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers (a) all designations or selections of type species for the genus Monticulipora dOrbigny, October 1849 (Class Bryozoa) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and (b) the nominal species Monticulipora mammulata d@Orbigny, [January 1850], 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 with the Name Number 1053 : Monticulipora d’Orbigny, October 1849 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above : Monticulipora mammulata dOrbigny, [January 1850)). (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1125: mammulata dOrbigny, [January 1850], as published in the combination Monticulipora mammulata (specific name of type species of Monticulipora dOrbigny, October 1849). (4) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 847 : Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934 (a junior objective synonym of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, October 1849). 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (5) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 372 : frustulosa @Orbigny, October 1849, as published in the combination Monticulipora frustulosa (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for pustulosa Michelin, 1846, as published in the combination Ceriopora pustulosa). (6) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 134 : MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson, 1881 (type genus: Monticulipora dOrbigny, October, 1849). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 8th June 1951 Dr. R. S. Bassler (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Miss Helen Duncan (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) addressed a preliminary application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the subject of the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers for the purpose of securing the continued use in its accustomed sense of the generic name Monticulipora d@Orbigny, 1849 (Class Bryozoa). Pressure of other work in the Office of the Commission made it impossible to make any progress with this case until towards the end of 1954 when consultations with the applicants were opened by the Secretary for the purpose of securing that the request made should cover all the matters with which by General Directives issued by the Thirteenth (Paris) and Fourteenth (Copenhagen) International Congresses of Zoology the International Commission is required to deal when taking decisions on applications in regard to individual names submitted to it for decision. These OPINION 443 167 consultations were completed on 12th January 1955 when the following definitive application was submitted to the Inter- national Commission :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to standardize the current use of ‘* Monticulipora ’’ d’Orbigny, 1849 (Class Bryozoa, Order Cyclostomata or Trespostomata, Family ** MONTICULIPORIDAE ”’ Nicholson) By R. S. BASSLER (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and HELEN DUNCAN (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to validate the long-established usage of the generic name Monticulipora d’Orbigny, the name of one of the most widely discussed and applied genera of fossil Bryozoa during the last hundred years. This name was proposed by d’Orbigny in a little known publication wherein he named a European Jurassic species now belonging to the Order Cyclostomata as the type species. Since then various volumes and many individual papers have been concerned with Monticulipora under such titles as “‘ The Problem of the Monticuliporoidea’’, ‘“‘ The Genus Monticulipora’’, etc., so that today these fossils, first supposed to be in part Tabulate corals, are regarded as Bryozoa either of the Order Cyclostomata or Trepostomata, the latter marked by the special internal structure of acanthopores, cystiphragms and diaphragms, known as monticuliporoid. Unfortunately, the literature upon the genus contains so many diverse applications of the name in Paleozoic stratigraphy and paleontology and so little mention in the Mesozoic that we feel the present somewhat unusual appeal should be made to the Commission to untangle the present-day taxonomic confusion. A short history of the name Monticulipora follows. 2. D’Orbigny Oct., 1849 (Rey. Mag. Zool. (2) 1 : 503) cites as type species of Monticulipora new genus, M. frustulosa dOrbigny ; Ceriopora pustulosa Michelin, 1846, Jurassic of France. 3. D’Orbigny, [1850] (Prod. Pal. 1 : 25, 323, with printed date of 1849 in some volumes and 1850 in others, the latter containing an 168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS added list of publications) lists with very brief remarks species of Monticulipora first from the Ordovician of Ohio and later the Jurassic of France. M. mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850 (: 25) the first mentioned Ordovician species was adopted as type species by practically all later students, probably unaware of the 1849 designation of the Jurassic Ceriopora pustulosa. No other author apparently save d’Orbigny has ever recorded any species of Monticulipora from the Mesozoic and d’Orbigny forgot his 1849 Jurassic type designation by creating two new genera based upon it and a synonymous species in 1854. 4. Edwards and Haime, 1851 (Mon. Polyp. Foss. Ter. Pal. : 267, pl. 19, figs. 1, 1a) describe and illustrate presumably a d’Orbigny type specimen of M. mammulata as Chaetetes mammulata which has the massive form of growth regarded by subsequent students as typical. 5. Edwards and Haime, 1854 (Brit. Fossil Corals : 265) recognize Chaetetes mammulata as Monticulipora mammulata. 6. D’Orbigny, 1854 (Bry. Cret. : 1013) does not mention Monticulipora again but instead cites its originally named type species of 1849 (Ceriopora pustulosa Michelin, 1846) as type species of the new genus Nodicava d’Orbigny, 1854, Jurassic of France. 7. D’Orbigny, 1854 (Bry. Cret. : 1013) proposed Ceriopora corymbosa Lamouroux, 1821 (of which C. pustulosa Michelin, 1846 is a synonym) as type species of still another new genus Ceriocava d’Orbigny, 1854, Jurassic of France, three genera now based upon Ceriopora pustulosa and C. corymbosa. 8. Nicholson, 1881 (Genus Monticulipora : 224, pl. 6, figs. 2, 2d), describes the frondescent growth-form of the Ordovician Monticulipora mammulata as M. molesta and (: 90) establishes MONTICULIPORIDAE the typical family of the present day Order Trepostomata. 9. Ulrich, 1882 (J. Cin. Soc. Nat. Hist., 5 : 234, pl. 10, figs. 5, 5a) describes fully as M. mammulata the massive and frondescent forms of growth recognized as types by Edwards and Haime, 1851, and Nicholson, 1881. 10. Gregory, 1896 (Cat. Foss. Bry. Brit. Mus.—Jutassic) makes no mention of Monticulipora as a Mesozoic genus but cites d’Orbigny’s 1849 type species Ceriopora pustulosa Michelin, 1846, as a synonym of C. corymbosa Lamouroux, 1821 and the latter as type species of d’Orbigny’s Ceriocava, 1854. 11. Ulrich and Bassler, 1904 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 47: 15, pl. 6, figs. 1—6) figure thin sections of the d’Orbigny type illustrated by Boule in 1906. OPINION 443 169 i2Bonle; 1906 (Ann: Pal. : 5, pl. 1, figs. 10) 11, pl. 2, fig. 1) figures the type specimen of Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850 (=M. mammulata molesta Nicholson, 1881). 13. Basler, 1934, proposed Monticuliporella asa newname (J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 24 (No. 9) : 408) in advance of the publication of Pt. 67, Bryozoa, 1935 of Foss. Catalogus for Monticulipora as typified by M. mammulata dV Orbigny, 1850 of the Ordovician (Trepostomata) upon the conviction that d’Orbigny’s Monticulipora, 1849, according to the rules of nomenclature must be maintained for his 1849 Jurassic type (Cyclostomata) as the only solution to the problem. This proved to be such an extreme case that the help of the Commission is now sought to reject the use of Monticuliporella. 14. In view of the above statements, the Commission is asked to consider our request that the originally cited type of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 (Ceriopora pustulosa Michelin, 1846) causing most of the taxonomic trouble, be cancelled as such and replaced by Monticulipora mammulata O’drbigny, 1850, in harmony not only with most authorities and literature on the subject but also possibly with d’Orbigny himself judging from his post-1850 record. The classification will then fall readily in line with a minimum number of changes. 15. In order to give effect to the foregoing proposal, the International Commission is asked :—_ (1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the genus Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b), having done so, to designate Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, [Jan. 1850] (Ordovician), to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above : Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, [Jan. 1850]) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: mammulata d’Orbigny, [Jan. 1850], as published in the combination Monticulipora mammulata (specific name of type species of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934 (a junior objective synonym of 170 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Monticulipora @Orbigny, Oct, 1849, as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson, 1881 (type genus: Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt in 1951 of the preliminary communication from Dr. Bassler and Miss Helen Duncan the question of the possible use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Monticulipora d’Orbigny was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 550. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 19th January 1955 and was published on 28th February in the same year in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Bassler and Duncan, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 90—92). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 February 1955 (a) in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the application by Dr. Bassler and Miss Helen Duncan was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial pub- lications and to three palaeontological serial publications in Europe and America, OPINION 443 vit 5. Support received from Dr. Madeleine A. Fritz (Curator, Division of Invertebrate Palaeontology, Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology, Toronto, Canada): On 13th April 1955 Dr. Madeleine A. Fritz (Curator, Division of Invertebrate Palaeontology, Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaentology, Toronto, Canada) addressed the following letter to the Office of the Commission in regard to the present case (Fritz, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 265) :— Use of the Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the genus Monticulipora d°Orbigny, Oct. 1849, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b), having done so, to designate Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, [Jan. 1850], to be the type species: I am heartily in accord with the above proposal and should like my approval registered. 6. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. 7. Supplementary proposal in relation to the specific name ** frustulosa ’’ d’Orbigny, 1849, as published in the combination ** Monticulipora frustulosa’’: Following upon a_ suggestion received from Professor J. Chester Bradley Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, prepared the following note recommending that for the reasons there explained the specific name frustulosa d’Orbigny, 1849, should be placed on the Officia! Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. The note so prepared, which was later annexed as Note 4 to the Voting Paper issued in this case (paragraph 8 below) was as follows :— 4. A Minor Clarification: Commissioner Chester Bradley has pointed out with reference to paragraph 2 of the present application that, when in 1849 d’Orbigny established the nominal genus Monticulipora, he had no intention of renaming as frustulosa the type species previously named pustolosa by Michelin, his sole object being to cite the type species of his new genus, first in its new combination and, second, in the combination in which its name had originally been published (by Michelin). The so-called name frustulosa d’Orbigny is thus either a printers’ error for pustulosa or an error made by d’Orbigny in copying Michelin’s name. In either case, frustulosa is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for pustulosa and as such should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 172 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)24 : On 9th November 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)24) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the generic name Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849, as set out in Points (1) to (5) in paragraph 15 on page 92 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion], subject to the minor clarification specified in Note 4 overleaf” [i-e. in the Note numbered as above reproduced in paragraph 7 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 9th February 1956. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)24: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)24 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Vokes; Bodenheimer; Bradley (J.C.); Mayr; Riley; Dymond; Prantl; Lemche ; Esaki; do Amaral; Hanko; Key; Boschma; Sylvester-Bradley ; Jaczewski; Mertens; Cabrera ; Stoll; Bonnet; Miller; Tortonese; Kiuhnelt; Hemming ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; OPINION 443 173 (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 10th February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55) 24, 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. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 30th October 1956 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.(55)24. 13. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— frustulosa, Monticulipora, d’Orbigny, October 1849, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) t 2503 mammulata, Monticulipora, d’Orbigny, [January 1850], Prodr. Rall: 25 Monticulipora dWOrbigny, October 1849, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) f= 503 Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 24 (No. 9) : 408 14. The original reference for the family-group name placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the Ruling given in the present Opinion is as follows: MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson, 1881, Structure Affin. Genus Monticulipora : 90, pl. 6. figs. 2, 2d. 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 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. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Forty-Three (443) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Thirtieth day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission’ on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrrcarre & Cooper Limitrep, 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 15. Part 9. Pp. 175—190 OPINION 444 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura (Class Aves) 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 1957 Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence a (All rights reserved) (2 th | |_-APR 26 105 Issued 29th January, 1957 . Lippn oy ff INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 444 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (2th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Fy Gtey (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950 Mr. Norman Denbigh RIiLeEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEwsKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mez0gazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum y Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KwHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Hoe FB S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 54 Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 444 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘‘ OBSCURA ”’? BEREZOWSKY & BIANCHI, 1891, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINA- TION ‘“* LARVIVORA OBSCURA ” (CLASS AVES) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the under- mentioned specific name is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy: obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura. (2) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1126: obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura, as validated by the suppression under the Plenary Powers in (1) above of the senior secondary homonym obscura Brehm, 1831, as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura (Class Aves). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (Name No. 373) ; 178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) hachisukae Ripley, 1952, as published in the com- bination Erithacus hachisukae (a junior objective synonym of obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above) (Name No. 374). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 18th December 1954 Dr. Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) submitted the following application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura (Class Aves) by the suppression of the senior secondary homonym obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura:— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name ** obscura ’’ Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination ‘‘ Larvivora obscura ’’ (Class Aves) By CHARLES VAURIE (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the specific name Obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891 (Aves Exped. Potanini Gan-su : 97, pl. 1, fig. 2), as published in the combination Larvivora obscura, a name which is an invalid junior secondary homonym, in the genus Luscinia Forster, 1817, of the specific name obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831 (Handb. Naturgesch. Végel Deutschl. : 353), as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura. 2. The bird described as Larvivora obscura by Berezowsky & Bianchi is rare and in consequence the name obscura has not been cited often in the literature. It has, however, been in continuous use for sixty-one OPINION 444 179 years (i.e. up to 1952) and has been used in every ornithological standard work such as Sharpe, 1903, Hand List of the Genera and Species of Birds (4 : 157); Hartert, 1910, Die Végel der paldarktischen Fauna (1) : 741; Smythies, 1953, The Birds of Burma : 104, and the entire Russian ornithological literature. 3. In 1952 (Postilla, New Haven No. 13 : 24), however, Ripley pointed out that the name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, is invalid by reason of being a junior secondary homonym in the genus Luscinia of the name obscura Brehm, 1804, and replaced it by the name hachisukae in the combination Erithacus hachisukae. The name obscura Brehm, however, has never once been used in ornithology since it was first published, for it is a junior subjective synonym of cyanecula Meisner, 1804 (Syst. Verz. Vég. Schweiz. : 30), as published in the combination Sylvia cyanecula (=Luscinia svecica cyanecula (Meisner)). Even as a synonym, the name obscura Brehm has apparently been cited only once, namely, by Hartert (1910, Die Végel der paldarktischen Fauna (1) : 748). It should be noted also that in spite of his having cited this name as a synonym, Hartert (: 741) retained the name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi in combination with the same generic name (Luscinia) as that under which he had cited obscura Brehm (as a junior synonym of Luscinia svecica cyanecula). 4. There is thus no danger whatever of the name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891 (which as already explained has been in continuous use for over sixty years), being confused with the name obscura Brehm, which was a junior synonym of another name (cyanecula Meisner) at the time when it was first published and has not been adopted by a single author in the period of one hundred and twenty-three years which has since elapsed. In these circumstances it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by rejecting and replacing the name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi and that the interests of stability in nomenclature will be promoted by the Commission using its Plenary Powers to prevent this change from taking place. 5. The present application is submitted to the Commission after consultation with, and in agreement with, Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Mass.), and with my colleague Dr. Dean Amadon (Museum of Natural History, New York) who writes: “I am in full agreement with Dr. Vaurie and support the present application ”’. 6. For the reasons set out above, the International Commission is asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned specific name for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of those of the Law of Homonymy: obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura ; 180 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (2) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combina- tion Cyanecula obscura and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above ; (b) hachisukae Ripley, 1952, as published in the combination Erithacus hachisukae (a junior objective synonym of obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Vaurie’s application the question of the validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 876. 3. Support received from Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and Dean Amadon (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) prior to the publication of the present application: As stated in paragraph 5 of the application submitted in this case, the action there recommended was supported both by Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and by Dr. Dean Amadon (The American Museum of Natural History, New York). 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 3lst December 1954 and was OPINION 444 181 published on 28th February 1955 in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Vaurie, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 93—94). 5. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 February 1955 (a) in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Vaurie’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to thirteen ornithological publications in various parts of the world. 6. Comments received after the publication of the present application and before the issue of the Voting Paper in regard thereto : During the six-month period following the publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature and the issue of Public Notices of the action proposed to be taken under the Plenary Powers in the present case three communications were received in the Office of the Commission. These were from: (a) Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.), who as President of the Commission, supported the action proposed as being in harmony with the Principle of Conservation adopted by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 ; (b) Professor J. Dillon Ripley ( Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.), who, as an ornithologist, objected to the action proposed ; (c) Dr. C. L. Remington (Yale University, Osborn Zoological Laboratory, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) who, as a non- ornithologist, objected to the use of the Plenary Powers in the present case. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 7. Support received from J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) : On 2nd June 1955 Professor J. Chester 182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) wrote to the Office of the Commission, commenting on a number of recently published cases. His observations regarding the present case was as follows :— This request seems to be in accordance with the Principle of Conservation agreed upon at Copenhagen. 8. Objection received from S. Dillon Ripley (Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) : On 13th October 1956 Professor S. Dillon Ripley ( Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) addressed the following statement to the Office of the Commission regarding the present case :— I should like to state herewith my objection to the proposal made to the Commission by Dr. Charles Vaurie, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(3) : 9394, for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura (Class Aves). As Dr. Vaurie states correctly, the name Larvivora obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi has been very seldom used in ornithological literature, as it refers to an obscure and little-known chat-like bird from West China of which less than a dozen specimens exist in museums of the world. Unfortunately an older use of the name obscura exists. This is Cyanecula obscura C. L. Brehm, 1831 (Handb. Naturgesch. Vég. Deutsch. : 353). Both these names, the latter a form a Blue-throat, are now found in combination with the genus Luscinia Forster, 1817, or Erithacus Cuvier, 1800, depending on the taste of the systematic revisor, in which case the name of Berezowsky and Bianchi becomes an invalid secondary junior homonym. Dr. Vaurie points out that the name obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi has been in continuous use for sixty-one years, from 1891, when it was published (Pritzi Kansuskago Puteshestviya G.N. Potanina : 97, pl. 1, fig. 2) down to 1952 when I pointed out (Postilla, Yale Peabody Museum. No. 13 : 24) that the name was pre-occupied, and proposed the substitute name, Erithacus hachisukae. As i understand it this proposed use of the Plenary Powers comes under the Principle of Conservation which was approved at the OPINION 444 183 Copenhagen meeting and on which several drafts are set forth, (1953, CDZN, Appendix 2 : 119—122). My interpretation of the intent of these Plenary Powers is that their use should be reserved for cases in which hardship would be imposed on a considerable body of the scientific world, especially persons not concerned with taxonomy, but experimentalists or persons in related fields, as well as the laity, amateurs, who may use the names in field guides, etc The use of the name Larvivora obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi has not been copious in ornithological literature. I find for it the following :— 1. (a) original description, 1891, tom. cit. supra. (b) a redescription of Larvivora obscura by Karl Deditius, 1897, Journ. f. Ornith. 45 : 70, in discussing the publication of Berezowsky and Bianchi’s work on Kansu birds. (c) a discussion of the Berezowsky and Bianchi publication by H. E. Dresser and E. Delmar Morgan, 1899, Jbis, 5 (7th Ser.) : 273— 274. (d) Sharpe, R. B., 1903, Hand List of the Genera and Species of Birds, 4 : 157. (e) Hartert, E., 1910, Die Végel der paldarktischen Fauna, 1 : 741. (f) Garthwaite, P. F., and Ticehurst, C. B., 1937, Jour. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 39 : 555. (g) Smythies, B. E., 1953, Birds of Burma: 104. (Although I helped Mr. Smythies with the checking of the nomenclature of his volume, during the years 1947—1948 when the Manuscript was then in preparation, I had not at that time been appraised of the facts regarding the status of Berezowsky and Bianchi’s name, and so was unable to advise him to modify it.) Dr. Vaurie says that the name of Berezowsky and Bianchi is current in the entire Russian literature, but I have been unable to find it in those works of Buturlin, Dementiev, Portenko and Johansen which I have been able to consult.* Dr. Vaurie states in his Application (cit. supra.) that the older name obscura Brehm. has never once been used in ornithology since * For the information of the Commission, I should explain that the authors cited are the principal authors now living who are currently writing about the birds of Siberia and adjacent areas. Thus a specialist, in this case an ornithologist, would understand that I was referring to the authors who would be expected to have mentioned this species by this name in their work. They are res- ponsible for the main body of ‘‘ Russian ornithological literature”. Thus not finding this name used in their work is for me a significant fact. 184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS it was first published, for it is a junior subjective synonym of cyanecula Meisner, 1804, now currently used in the combination Luscinia svecica cyanecula or Erithacus svecicus cyaneculus. I find however, the following uses of the name obscura Brehm : 2. (a) original description, 1831, tom. cit. supra. (b) Dubois, Ch. F., 1854, Planches col. Oiseaux de la Belgique, 1 : pl. 67a and p. 67a. In this instance the form obscura is recognised and is not a junior subjective synonym. The author points out in the place and description that this phenotype of the Blue-throat lacks the white chest band and tends to lack the white throat spot, and that he is uncertain whether Brehm’s name thus refers to a separate species, or a separate variant. (c) Brehm, 1855, Naumannia, 1855 : 280 (d) Seebohm, H., 1881, in Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 5 : 311* (ec) Dubois, A., 1887, Faunesdes Vertebres de la _ Belg., £23308 (f) Naumann, J. F., 1905, Naturges. der Vég. Mitteleuropas, i eS, 35, 36, 43 (g) Hartert, E., 1910, Die Végel der paldarktischen Fauna, 1 : 748* (h) Ripley, S. D., 1952, Postilla No. 13 : 24, and Addendum to No. 13, 1954, Postilla : 1. Dr. Vaurie notes that Hartert (tom. cit.) retains both names in combination with the same generic name. He assumes that this is evidence, especially in view of no other citations of Brehm’s name having been made in the one hundred and twenty-three years that have elapsed since it was proposed, that there will never be any con- fusion between the two names. I can only point out that Brehm’s name on the contrary has been cited a number of times, actually twice within the-last fifty years, in 2(f) and (g) above. In this connection I had not noticed the occurrence of these two names in the same genus as both are so little known. I can only assume that Dr. Hartert’s action was a slip on his part, as taxonomists are by no means infallible. In my case, the matter was pointed out to me by the late Marquess M. Hachisuka, and Marquis Y. Yamashina. The latter in a later communication to me of May 25, 1952, wrote : * In the cases cited above, the name obscura Brehm was used only as a subjective junior synonym. S.D.R, OPINION 444 185 ** Hachisuka and I were working on pre-occupied names together and because this bird does not seem to have a substitute name I want (it to be named) as Erithacus hachisukae because Hachisuka was working on Chinese birds for over ten years and I think it is a good memory for him ’’. In view of the proven use of the name obscura C. L. Brehm, 1831, within the last fifty years, I recommend that obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi, 1891, be allowed to remain an invalid junior secondary homonym under the Rules. 9. Objection received from C. L. Remington (Yale University, Osborn Zoological Laboratory, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) : On 25th October 1955 Dr. C. L. Remington (Yale University, Osborn Zoological Laboratory, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Commission in regard to the present case :— The purpose of this letter is to object to the proposal of Dr. Charles Vaurie that the specific name obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura, be validated by the Commission by means of its Plenary Powers. I am not an ornithologist and am therefore commenting only on a general principle of the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress and validate names. The substance of my view, doubtless stated similarly before by many other systematists, is that senior homonyms should never be suppressed unless their retention would result in loss of a name of unquestioned establishment by usage and familiar to numerous biologists, par- ticularly for use in fields other than taxonomy. Taxonomists are necessarily accustomed to unavoidable name changes, and the loss of a junior homonym familiar only to a small group of specialists in taxonomy should never be sufficient cause for validation by the Commission of such a junior homonym. The present case would be a particularly regrettable one for use of the Plenary Powers, because : (1) the name (and in a bibliographic sense, the bird) is of minor importance ; (2) the senior homonym has been used approximately as often as the junior homonym, according to Dr. S. D. Ripley; and (3) a perfectly proper and routine proposal of a nomen novum had been published well in advance of Dr. Vaurie’s petition and was even cited by him in that petition. I hope that the Commission will reject the proposal and will consistently guard against the weakening of the International Rules by unnecessary use of the Plenary Powers. 10. Receipt of two communications in regard to the present case after the expiry of the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period 186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and subsequent to the Issue of the Voting Paper in regard thereto : Two communications in regard to this case were received after the expiry of the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period and subsequent to the issue of the Voting Paper relating thereto (paragraph 13 below). These communications were from : (a) Professor Ernst Mayr commenting on the communications received from Professor Ripley (paragraph 8 above) and from Dr. Remington (paragraph 9 above) ; (b) Dr. Nagamichi Kuroda, President of the Ornithological Society of Japan, who objected to the action proposed in this case. These communications are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 11. Comment received in November 1955 from Professor Eimst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, U.S.A.) : On 21st November 1955 Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.), who had previously intimated his support for the action proposed in the present case (paragraph 3 above) addressed the following letter to the Office commenting on the communications received from Professor S. Dillon Ripley and Dr. C. L. Remington (reproduced in paragraphs 8 and 9 respectively of the present Opinion) :— There have been various disturbing features about this proposal. I can find no evidence in support of the statement that the two names obscura have been used with about equal frequency. In my searches through the literature I have not found a single employment of the name obscura Brehm in the primary literature since the original publication of this deadborn synonym. There are two other aspects of this case which perhaps deserve attention. Mr. Remington perhaps does not realize the amount of bibliographic work done in ornithology and the fact that with just a little collaboration among ornithologists we can now have a completely stable nomenclature. The old name obscura was widely known among ornithologists but deliberately ignored as a nomen oblitum. It would have been an easy matter for Dr. Ripley to ask the Commission to place the universally used name on the List in line with the principle expressed later at Copenhagen as the Conservation Principle. 12. Objection received from Nagamichi Kuroda (Ornithological Society of Japan, Tokyo) : On 20th December 1955 Dr. Nagamichi OPINION 444 187 Kuroda (Ornithological Society of Japan, Tokyo) addressed the following letter regarding the present case to the Office of the Commission :— It came to our attention that in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(3) : 93— 94, 1955, Dr. Charles Vaurie has proposed to the Commission that they use their Plenary Powers to make the name Larvivora obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi a nomen conservandum, and place the earlier name Cyanecula obscura Brehm, as well as Erithacus hachisukae Ripley on the list of rejected names of species in zoology. However, Brehm’s name Cyanecula obscura has, in reality, been used in the following well-known scientific literature :— (a) The original description, 1831. (b) Dubois, Ch. F., Pl. col. des Ois. de la Belgique, 1854, 1: pl. 67a and p. 67a. (c) Brehm, 1855, Naumannia, 1855, p. 280. (d) Seebohm, H., 1881, in Cat. Birds in Brit. Mus., 5, p. 311.* (e) Dubois, A., 1887, Faune des Vertebrés de la Belgique, 1, p. 330.* (f) Naumann, J. F., 1905, Naturges. der Vég. Mitteleuropas, 1, pp. 31, 35, 36, 43. (g) Hartert, E., 1910, Die Vog. der paldéarkt. Fauna. 1, p. 748.* It is merely accidental that no ornithologist had referred to the fact that the name Larvivora obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi is pre- occupied by obscura of Brehm until this was pointed out by Yamashina, Hachisuka and Ripley, who (the last named) has correctly proposed a new name, Erithacus hacisukae. From the above, we recommend that obscura Berezowsky and Bianchi, 1891, be replaced by Erithacus hachisukae under the Rules, and thus would express opposition to Dr. Vaurie’s proposal. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 13. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)25 : On 9th November 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)25) was issued in which the Members * In the cases cited above, the name obscura Brehm was used only as a subjective junior synonym. 188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the specific name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura, aS set out in Points (1) to (3) in paragraph 6 on page 94 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” {i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph 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 February 1956. 15. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)25: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55) 25 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Vokes; Bodenheimer; Bradley (J.C.) ; Mayr; Riley; Dymond; Prantl; Jaczewski ; Lemche ; Esaki; Mertens ; do Amaral ; Hanko; Key ; Boschma ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Bonnet ; Tortonese ; Kihnelt; Hemming ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1) : Miller ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. OPINION 444 189 16. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 10th February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55)25, 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. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 9th November 1956 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.(55)25. 18. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— hachisukae, Erithacus, Ripley, 1952, Postilla, New Haven No. 13 : 24 obscura, Cyanecula, Brehm (C.L.), 1831, Handb. Naturgesch. Vogel Deutschl. : 353 obscura, Larvivora, Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, Aves Exped. Potanini Gan-su : 97, pl. 1, fig. 2 19. 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. 190 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Forty-Four (444) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Ninth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooprrr 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.M.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 10. Pp. 191—198 OPINION 445 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Eberhard (J.P.) entitled Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte published in 1768 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 1957 Price Five Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 29th January, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 445 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Taguig oe (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (2th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. StToLu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HottuHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernest MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954). Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ““ G. Doria”’, Genova, Italy), (16th December 1954) OPINION 445 REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF THE WORK BY EBERHARD (J.P.) ENTITLED **VERSUCH EINES NEUEN ENTWURFS DER THIERGESCHICHTE ”” PUBLISHED IN 1768 RULING :—(1) The work by Eberhard (J.P.) pub- lished in 1768 under the title Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte is hereby rejected for nomenclatorial purposes as being a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. (2) The title of the work specified in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number i, (3) The under-mentioned generic name is_ hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 848 : Cebus Eberhard (J.P.), 1768 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under (1) above). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE Following correspondence with the Secretary on the question of the original reference for the generic name Cebus which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period prior to the close of 1936, Dr. T. C. S. Morrison- Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 20th 194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS December 1954 submitted the following application to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Eberhard (J.P.) published in 1768 under the title Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte :— Proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Eberhard (J.P.), 1768, ‘‘ Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte ”’ By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission to give a ruling rejecting for nomenclatorial purposes the work by Eberhard (J.P.) published in 1768 under the title Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte. The facts are set out briefly below. 2. Not long ago Mr. Hemming informed me that, in the course of preparing the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book form, he had noted that the name Cebus Erxleben, 1777, which had been placed on the Official List in the Commission’s Opinion 91 was treated by Palmer (1904: 166) as a junior homonym of Cebus Eberhard, 1768 (: 20). Mr. Hemming asked me if I would examine Eberhard’s Versuch and advise the Commission whether in it Eberhard had applied the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore whether the name Cebus Eberhard was an available name. 3. Eberhard’s Versuch is an obscure book of great rarity of which there is no copy in the library of the British Museum (Natural History). There is however a copy in the main library of the British Museum at Bloomsbury. This I have now examined. I find that in this work Eberhard adopted a typically non-binominal nomenclature of the kind formerly known as “ binary ’’, his nomenclature being similar to that used, for example, by Frisch in his Natur-System of 1777, which has already been rejected by the Commission in its Opinion 258 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 245—252). It is clearly necessary, in order to clear the position of Cebus Erxleben on the Official List, that the Commission should now give a Ruling rejecting Eberhard’s Versuch, but, quite apart from this special reason, I would advocate the same course, for in the interests of nomenclatorial stability it is very important that these old non-binominal works should be OPINION 445 195 finally interred and that by this means an end put to the risk that later authors may bring forward other invalid names from them. 4. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should :— (1) reject for nomenclatorial purposes the work by Eberhard (J.P.) published in 1768 under the title Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte, as being a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature ; (2) place the title of the foregoing work, as rejected in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Cebus Eberhard, 1768 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Morrison-Scott’s preliminary communication relating to the generic name Cebus, the question of the rejection for nomen- clatorial purposes of the work by Eberhard published in 1768 under the title Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 721. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 3lst December 1954 and was published on 28th February 1955 in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Morrison-Scott, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 114 : 95—96). 196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in this case was received from any source. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)26 : On 9th November 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)26) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, ““the proposal for the rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Eberhard’s Versuch of 1768, as set out in Points (1) to (3) in paragraph 4 on page 95 and the top of page 96 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature’ {i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 February 1956. 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)26 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)26 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Hering; Vokes; Bodenheimer; Bradley (J.C.); Mayr; Riley; Dymond; Jaczewski; Prantl ; Lemche ; Esaki; Mertens ; do Amaral; Hanko; Key; Boschma ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Bonnet ; Miller ; Tortonese ; Kuhnelt ; Hemming ; OPINION 445 197 (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 10th February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P. (55)26, 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 Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. 9. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 9th November 1956, 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.(55)26. 10. Original Reference : The following is the original reference for a name placed on an Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Cebus Eberhard (J.P.), 1768, Versuch neuen Entwurfs Thiergesch. : 20 11. 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 198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 12. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Forty-Five (445) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Ninth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper Limitep, 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 15. Part 11. Pp. 199—210 OPINION 446 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) 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 1957 Price Eight Shillings LO / (All rights reserved) (/ Issued 29th January, 1957 SASIBRARY INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 446 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 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 (Jnstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (45th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) ® Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Taree F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 954 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria,” Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 446 ADDITION TO THE ‘ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE GENERIC NAME **PHORODON ” PASSERINI, 1860 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) RULING :—The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1054: Phorodon Passerini (gender: masculine), 1860 (type species by original designation: Aphis humuli Schrank, 1801) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (2) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1127: Aumuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli (specific name of type species of Phorodon Passerini, 1860). 202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE In July 1949 Professor F. C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) addressed to the Office of the Commission a preliminary communication proposing the definitive acceptance of the specific name fAumuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, as the oldest available name for the species so named. ‘The action proposed was contingent upon the acceptance by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of a suggestion put forward in another preliminary communication which Professor Hottes had addressed to the Office of the Commission in May of the same year that the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, should be validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. it was not possible at that time to proceed immediately with either of these proposals, it being necessary to await the publication of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, at which decisions had been taken as to the status of the work (Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris) in which the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, had first been published and at which certain General Directives had been issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on questions relating to the procedure to be followed by it in dealing with applications relating to individual names. The publication *in 1950 of the Official Record of the Paris Proceedings made it possible to make a start with the required revision of applications then awaiting attention and, in the two cases here under discussion, to prepare the requisite formal applications in regard to the matters raised in the preliminary communications in regard to those cases which, as explained above, had been addressed to the Office of the Commission by Professor Hottes in July and May respectively of the previous year. The necessary applications in regard to both cases were submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Professor Hotties on 21st July 1951. Professor Hottes’ application for the validation of the specific name pruni Geofiroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, has been reproduced in Opinion 397 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 363—376) ; his application in regard to the specific name OPINION 446 203 humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, was as follows :— Proposed addition of the name ‘‘ Phorodon ’’ Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’? and of ‘* humuli ’’? Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination ‘‘ Aphis humuli’’, to the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ By F. C. HOTTES (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the specific name humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, the specific name of the type species of the foregoing genus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 2. The generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Gli Afidi : 227) was published in a key of genera, in which the genus so named was characterised. Passerini designated Aphis humuli Schrank, 1801 (Faun. boic. 2(1) : 110) as the type species of this genus, using the formula : “ Specie typica Aphis Humuli Schk.’’. 3. It is accepted by specialists that the nominal species Aphis humuli Schrank, 1801, and the nominal species Aphis pruni Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carniol. : 138) represent the same-taxonomic species and therefore that, if the specific name pruni Scopoli, 1763, was an available name, it would be subjectively the oldest available name for this species and would therefore be its valid name. MHitherto, however, the name Aphis pruni Scopoli, 1763, has been treated as a junior primary homonym of the name Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abreg. Ins. Paris 2 : 497). 4. In a preceding application (Z.N.(S.) 428) I have drawn attention to the fact that, under the general decision taken by the International Commission in Paris in 1948 regarding the status of names published by Geoffroy in 1762 in his Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366—369), the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, is seen not to be an available name. At the same time I have availed myself of the invitation extended by the International Commission, when giving the foregoing ruling, to submit an application that it should use its Plenary Powers to validate the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, in order to avoid the confusion regarding the name of the Mealy Plum Aphid which (as I there explain) would 204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS otherwise be unavoidable. On the grant of the foregoing application, the name Aphis pruni Scopoli, 1763, would definitely become what it has hitherto been treated as being, namely an invalid junior homonym of the name Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762. A further result would be that the specific name humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, the specific name of the type species of Phorodon Passerini, 1860, would become the oldest name available subjectively as well as objectively for that species. 5. There is at present no family-group name based on the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860, currently in use. 6. In the light of the considerations advanced in the present applica- tion, I hereby request that, consequentially upon the grant of the application Z.N.(S.) 428! submitted in regard to the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, the International Commission should also :— (1) place the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by original designation : Aphis humuli Schrank, 1801) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) place the specific name humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli (specific name of type species of Phorodon Passerini, 1860), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name pruni Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Aphis pruni (a junior primary homonym of Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762, when validated under the Plenary Powers, aS proposed in application Z.N.(S.) 4281), 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 : Upon the receipt in 1949 of the preliminary communication from Professor Hottes 1 The proposal here referred to was approved by the International Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)87 and the decision so taken has since been embodied in Opinion 397. See also paragraph 7 of the present Opinion. OPINION 446 205 referred to in paragraph 1 above, the question of the acceptance of the specific name humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, as the oldest available name for the species so named was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 430. 3. Publication of the present application: Professor Hottes’ application for the validation of the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, was sent to the printer in November 1952 but for the reasons explained in Opinion 397 was not actually published until May 1954 (Hottes, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 163—165). It would have been possible to send to the printer, and to publish, the application relating to the specific name humuli, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, at the same time as Professor Hottes’ application relating to the specific name pruni Geofiroy, but, as the application in regard to the specific name humuli Schrank presupposed that a decision had already been taken by the International Commission in regard to the proposed validation of the specific name pruni Geoffroy, it was judged better to allow an interval to elapse after the publication of the application relating to the name pruni Geoffroy before arranging for the publication of the application relating to the name humuli Schrank. Accordingly, it was not until 31st December 1954 that the present application was sent to the printer. Publication took place on 28th February 1955 when the present application appeared in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hottes, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 97—98). 4. Support received from Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado Agri- cultural and Mechanical College, Port Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.) : The publication of Professor Hottes’ application in the present case elicited the following note of support dated 4th May 1955 from Professor Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado Agricultural and Mechanical College, Port Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.) (Palmer, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 267) :— I wish to express my approval of the action proposed in application Z.N.(S.) 430 (Phorodon and humuli) by F. C. Hottes. 206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I hope that the International Commission will act favorably on this application. 5. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case has been received from any source. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)27: On 22nd November 1955, a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)27) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860, as set out in Points (1) to (3) in paragraph 6 on page 98 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature”? {i.e. in the Points numbered as above in paragraph 6 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 7. Withdrawal from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(55)27 of the proposal submitted therewith for the addition to the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ”’ of the specific name ‘* pruni’’ Scopoli, 1763, as published in the com- bination ‘** Aphis pruni *? : On 30th November 1955 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, executed the following Minute withdrawing from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(55)27 the proposal submitted there- with for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name pruni Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, having regard OPINION 446 207 to the fact that the action so proposed had already been taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)872 :— Withdrawal from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(55)27 of the proposal submitted therewith in relation to the specific name ‘‘ pruni ”’ Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination ‘‘ Aphis pruni ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) On having occasion today to examine the File (Z.N.(S.) 428) con- taining the papers concerned with the application submitted by Professor F. C. Hottes regarding the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, | realised that in one respect the action taken by the International Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)87 in relation to that case has anticipated and rendered unnecessary one of the recommendations submitted by Professor Hottes in his application (Z.N.(S.) 430) respecting the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860, and the specific name humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, which forms the subject of the vote now in progress on Voting Paper V.P.(55)27. 2. The situation so disclosed has arisen in the following way. In his application regarding the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, Professor Hottes did not include a proposal for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name pruni Scopoli, 1763, action in that sense having been included in the application which he had submitted in relation to the generic name Phorodon Passerini and the specific name humuli Schrank. In the course of the consideration by the Commission of the first of these applications, the view was taken, however, that it would be more convenient to deal with the name pruni Scopoli at the same time that its senior homonym pruni Geoffroy was validated under the Plenary Powers. In pursuance of this decision a proposal that the specific name pruni Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology was incorporated in the proposal submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(54)87, and this proposal, in common with other 2 See Footnote 1. 208 . OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS proposals submitted with that voting Paper, was approved by the vote taken by the Commission thereon. 3. In these circumstances the proposal that the specific name pruni Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, should be placed on the Official Index which appeared as Point (3) in para- graph 6 of Professor Hottes’ application regarding the generic name Phorodon Passerini and the specific name humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, is no longer required, the desired action having already been taken by the Commission’s vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)87. Accordingly, as Secretary I hereby withdraw the foregoing proposal from the scope of Voting Paper WaRA(S5) 27: 8. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 22nd February 1956. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)27: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)27, other than on the question with- drawn from the scope of that Voting Paper by the Minute executed by the Secretary on 30th November 1955 (the text of which has been reproduced in paragraph 7 of the present Opinion) was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Riley; Vokes ; Mayr ; Jaczewski ; Lemche; Prantl; Dymond; Esaki; do Amaral ; Hanko ; Key; Boschma ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Mertens ; Cabrera; Bonnet; Miller; Tortonese; Kiuhnelt ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; Hemming ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1) : Bodenheimer ; OPINION 446 209° (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 10. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55) 27, 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. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 10th November 1956 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.(55)27. 12. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— humuli, Aphis, Schrank, 1801, Fauna boic. 2(1) : 110 Phorodon Passerini, 1860, Gli Afidi : 227 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. 210 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Forty-Six (446) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this tenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcaLtre & CoopEer LimiTeD, 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™.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 12. Pp. 211—224 OPINION 447 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the original edition published at Philadelphia in 1791 and of the editions published in London and Dublin respectively in 1792 of the work by William Bartram entitled Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws, as being a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature 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 1957 Price Nine Shillings (All rights reserved) NV oUlyz, Issued 29th January, 1957 iy INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 447 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Heung 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 (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdadgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoL_tHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Narodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TOoRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 447 REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF THE ORIGINAL EDITION PUBLISHED AT PHILA- DELPHIA IN 1791 AND OF THE EDITIONS PUBLISHED IN LONDON AND DUBLIN RESPECTIVELY IN 1792 OF THE WORK BY WILLIAM BARTRAM ENTITLED ‘*“‘ TRAVELS THROUGH NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, EAST AND WEST FLORIDA, THE CHEROKEE COUNTRY, THE EXTENSIVE TERRI- TORIES OF THE MUSCOGULGES OR CREEK CONFEDERACY, AND THE COUNTRY OF THE CHACTAWS ”’, AS BEING A WORK IN WHICH THE AUTHOR DID NOT APPLY THE PRINCIPLES OF BINO- MINAL NOMENCLATURE RULING :—(1) Both the original edition published at Philadelphia in 1791 and the later editions published in 1792 in London and Dublin respectively of the under- mentioned work by William Bartram are hereby rejected for nomenclatorial purposes as being editions of a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature: Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Mus- cogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws. (2) The title of the work by William Bartram specified in (1) as published in the editions there enumerated is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the under- mentioned Title Numbers :— (a) Original Edition published at Philadelphia in 1791 (Title No. 52) ; 214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Edition published in London in 1792 (Title No. 53) ; (c) Edition published at Dublin in 1792 (Title No. 54). (3) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 849 : Calandra Bartram, 1791 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under (1) as a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 20th December 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) submitted to the International Commission the following applica- tion asking for the rejection, as a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature both of the original edition published at Philadelphia in 1791 and of the editions published in 1792 in London and Dublin respectively, of the book by William Bartram entitled Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws :— Proposed rejection for nomenciatorial purposes of Bartram (W.), 1791, ** Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida ’’ and of later editions of the same work (a proposal based upon the papers of the late James Lee Peters) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) At the time of the death of Dr. James Lee Peters, he and I were in correspondence in regard to the question of the status of new names in the book by William Bartram first published in 1791 under the title OPINION 447 215 Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws. 2. So far as the Commission was concerned, this case first arose through the fact that work on an application (Z.N.(S.) 255) relating to the generic name Calendra Schellenberg, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) had shown that Calandra Fabricius, 1801, an early emendation of Calendra Schellenberg, had been anticipated in the Class Aves by the name Calandra published in Bartram’s Travels. This led me to consult Dr. Peters, since, as Bartram’s name Calandra had been applied to a North American bird, he would, I felt confident, be in a position to advise the Commission. In his reply, dated 28th October 1947, Dr. Peters wrote as follows :—‘‘ The American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List Committee, of which I am a member, has voted not to accept any of Bartram’s names, either generic or specific, on the grounds that Bartram is neither consistently binary or binominal’’. 3. In further correspondence Dr. Peters agreed that this question could not be allowed to rest where it then was, since, as generic names were involved, the question affected workers in all branches of the Animal Kingdom, it being necessary for such workers when con- sidering questions of generic homonymy, to know whether the new names in Bartram’s Travels possessed any status in zoological nomen- clature. In a letter dated 24th February 1949, Dr. Peters wrote as follows :— I have communicated with Dr. Alexander Wetmore, the Chairman of the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List Committee, in regard to the stand of this Committee on Bartram’s avian names. The Committee considered only the bird names in the second edition of Bartram’s Travels, issued in London in 1792, and the explanation of Francis Harper in the Proceedings of the Rochester Academy of Sciences, Vol. 8, Sept. 10, 1942, pp. 208—221, and the vote of the Committee after examining the proposals was in the negative with only one member voting in the affirmative. This, I think, is the information you wanted. 4. In view of the fact that, as shown by Dr. Peters, the present question had so far been considered only from the standpoint of avian nomenclature, it was clearly necessary as a first step to examine the treatment accorded by Bartram to names of animals belonging to other Classes of the Animal Kingdom. At that time I was unable to obtain access to a copy of Bartram’s Travels, and other matters later inter- vened to prevent me from following up this matter. I have, however, now examined carefully the copy of the edition of this work published in London in 1792, belonging to the Zoological Society of London. This work is, as its title indicates, devoted to an account of the author’s 1 [tis anticipated that the application relating to the above name will be published at an early date in Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS travels. Scattered throughout the volume there are numerous observa- tions on the plants and animals observed. The major observations on animals are gathered together in Chapter X of Part II of the work. This chapter bears in the Table of Contents but not in the text itself the following heading :—*‘ Further account of the rattle snake—account and description of other snakes and animals—catalogue of birds of North America ; observations concerning their migration or annual passage from North to South, and back again.” As the foregoing title suggests, the treatment accorded to the birds is much fuller and more ambitious in scope than that attempted for the animals belonging to other Classes. These include snakes, frogs, lizards, tortoises and mammals. For the most part these are cited under vernacular names only, here and there, however, a non-binominal name being given, such as the name “‘ lepus minor, cauda abrupta, pupillis atris ”’ given for the ‘‘ rabbit”’. When we come to the “‘ Catalogue” of birds, we find that a systematic arrangement is attempted, the birds being arranged in the following twelve groups, for each of which an English name is given and for all except two a Latin name also : (1) Strix. The Owl ; (2) Vultur. The Vulture ; (3) Falco, Eagle and Hawk ; (4) Milvus. Kite Hawk ; (5) Corvus. The Crow kind ; (6) Picus. Woodpeckers ; (7) Granivorous Tribes. Here follows the heading ““Amphibious, or - Aquatic Birds’, which was apparently intended to serve as a major heading covering the remaining five group which were :—(8) Grus. The Crane ; (9) Ardea. The Heron ; (10) Tantalus. The Wood Pelican ; (11) Querquedulae. Teal; (12) Charadrus [sic]. The Plover kind. There is no consistency in the treatment accorded to the foregoing names. For example, in the first three groups (Strix ; Vultur ; Falco) these names are clearly used as generic names, every species placed in these groups being cited as belonging to the genera Strix, Vultur or Falco, as the case may be. In the remaining cases the arrangement adopted is similar to that in the lists given by Brisson in his Ornithologie of 1760, that is, the birds placed in the “‘ genera” cited in the main headings appear under a variety of generic names. For example, of the four species cited under the heading ‘‘ Milvus ’’, three are cited as belonging to Falco and one as belonging to Psittacus ; of the eight species cited under the heading “* Corvus ’’, five are cited as belonging to Corvus, two as belonging to Gracula and one to Cuculus. The next group “‘‘ Picus’’ embraces forty-two species, of which the first eight are cited under the name Picus, the remaining thirty-four being distributed over fourteen other genera (Sitta; Certhia; Alcedo ; Muscicapa ; Alauda ; Oriolus, etc.). The same lack of consistency is shown in the treatment of the actual names of species. Many of these are in strict binominal form, but this appears to be due more to accident than to any other reason, being attributable in most cases to the fact that the names used were copied from earlier works by authors who followed the binominal system. That Bartram himself was no binominalist is shown by the frequent use of names consisting of (a) a generic name, and (b) a string of Latin words used as a descriptive epithet. This may be illustrated by the following examples :— OPINION 447 217 (1) Parus viridis gutture nigro ; the green black throated flycatcher (: 290) ; (2) Ardea purpurea cristata ; the little crested purple or blue heron (: 291) ; (3) Numenius pectore rufo; the great red breasted godwit (: 291) ; (4) Anas fera torquata major ; the great wild duck, called duck and mallard. 5. The next step was to examine the first edition of 1791 of Bartram’s Travels in order to determine whether the names discussed in the pre- ceding paragraph appeared in that edition as well as in the second edition of 1792. There is a copy of the first edition in the library of the British Museum (Natural History), in which library there is also a copy of the edition published in Dublin in 1792. An examination of these editions shows that they are practically identical with the London edition of 1792 and that in both the names cited in paragraph 4 of the present note and also the other names there referred to appear in exactly the same form. The system of nomenclature used in all three editions is identical. 6. I accordingly recommend that the Commission should pronounce against the availability of new names in the various editions of Bartram’s Travels, in all of which the system of nomenclature is, as shown in paragraph 4 of the present application, non-binominal in character and therefore inconsistent with the provisions of Article 25 of the Régles. At the same time I recommend that the Commission should formally reject the name Calandra Bartram, 1791, (Travels North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida : 289) as being a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. 7. The recommendation now submitted is therefore that the Inter- national Commission should :— (1) give a ruling that neither in the original edition published in Philadelphia in 1791 nor in the editions published in London and Dublin respectively in 1792 of the work entitled Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws did William Bartram apply the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore that no name published in any of the editions of the foregoing work acquired the status of availability in virtue of being so published ; (2) place the title of the foregoing work as published at Philadelphia in 1791 and in London and Dublin respectively in 1792 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Calandra 218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Bartram, 1791 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: When in 1944 correspondence was entered into between the Secretary and Dr. James Lee Peters on the subject of the nomenclatorial status of Bartram’s Travels, the problem involved was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 256. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 3lst December 1954 and was published on 28th February 1955 in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 99—102). 4, Support received for the present application: Following the publication of the present application support for the action proposed was received from one specialist (Captain C. H. B. Grant (British Museum (Natural History), London) during the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period. After the close of that Period (and after also the issue of the Voting Paper in this case) a communication was received from Dr. W. I. Follett, Chairman of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, notifying the unanimous support of that Committee for the action proposed and giving extracts from the letters received from the six specialists concerned, together with comments from two other specialists who were consulted. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 5. Support received from C. H. B. Grant (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 4th March 1955 Captain C. H. B, OPINION 447 219 Grant (British Museum (Natural History), London) communicated with the Office of the Commission as follows :— Re your proposal in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(3) : 99 on Bartram’s Trav. Carolina, see Sherborn, Ind. Anim. : xiii, 1902, who has already placed this work as [n.b.]. 6. Support received from the Committee on Zoological Nomen- clature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetolo- gists: On 25th November 1955 Dr. W. I. Follett, Chairman of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists forwarded to the Office of the Commission the views of the six members of that Committee and those of the two other specialists who were consulted with regard to the present case. The communication so received was as follows :— The Committee on Zoological Nomenclature, of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, has voted unamimously in favor of your proposal (published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 11(3), 1955, pages 99—102) that the book by William Bartram first published in 1791 under the title Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida... , and later editions of that work, be rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. Excerpts from the correspondence of all committee members are the following :— W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco) : Members of the Committee . . . : This letter is intended to direct your attention to a paper entitled ‘‘ Proposed Rejection for Nomen- clatorial Purposes of Bartram (W.), 1791, Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida and of Later Editions of the Same Work (A Proposal Based Upon the Papers of the Late James Lee Peters)”’, which was published by Mr. Francis Hemming in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 11(3), 1955, pages 99—102. The proposed rejection is based on the fact that Bartram did not, in this work, consistently apply the principles of binominal nomen- clature as required by the rule set forth in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 4(7/9), 1950, page 175, Conclusion 67. 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Although I have not personally examined Bartram’s work, and Mr. Hemming does not specifically state that it contains the names of fishes, I find no reason to doubt that it is the same work from which Dr. Francis Harper (Copeia, 1942, No. 1, page 50) exhumed the specific name coronarius, which most of us have since used for the species theretofore known as Chaenobryttus gulosus (Cuvier and Valenciennes). In view of the relatively short period of time during which the name coronarius has been used, as contrasted with the period of more than a century during which the name gulosus was used for this species, I am not convinced that we should oppose the rejection of Bartram’s work or that we should request the conservation of the specific name coronarius. Rather, I am disposed to welcome this opportunity to restore the name gulosus, which has had such extensive usage. Will each of you please send me an expression of his views on this subject? . . . When our position has been determined we may wish to ascertain the consensus of a representative number of ichthyologists throughout the United States, before we submit our final report to Mr. Hemming. Do you favor such a poll? Robert Rush Miller (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) : This is in response to your letter of August 1 regarding the pro- posed rejection of Bartram’s (1791) Travels .. . I have examined the first edition of this work (published in Philadelphia) in order to verify that it is the volume in which Bartram proposed the name Cyprinus coronarius for the warmouth bass, as pointed out by Harper (Copeia, 1942, no. 1, p. 50). I also wished to determine whether any other new names were proposed for fishes, or for reptiles or amphibians. I could find none for fishes and Dr. Charles F. Walker, Associate Curator of Reptiles ° and Amphibians, in the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, advises me that when Dr. Harper proposed to resurrect certain herpetological names from Bartram’s book, Dr. Thomas Barbour disapproved and the paper was never published. The ornithologists, and I believe the mammalogists too, have rejected this work. Since Bartram was not consistently binominal, the proposed official rejection by the Commission is well founded. I too welcome the return to the name Chaenobryttus gulosus (Cuvier) for the warmouth bass, and see no reason to request the preserva- tion of the specific name coronarius. I am not in favor of a poll to ascertain the consensus of a repre- sentative number of ichthyologists on this matter. As you say, the name gu/osus was used for more than a century prior to 1942. I think the change back to gulosus can be effected without undue hardship to anyone. OPINION 447 221 Jay M. Savage (Pomona College, Claremont, California) : With regard to Bartram’s 1791 work, there can be little objection to suppressing the herpetological portions. Only one new name, Testudo polyphemus, is a valid binomial as published and this same name was subsequently applied to the same species by Daudin in 1803. In the event Bartram is outlawed the Daudin name would have priority and no name change could result. In view of this situation, I strongly endorse the suggestion that the herpetological portions of Bartram’s work be rejected. Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Urbana) : In reply to yours of August 1 regarding suppression of Bartram’s Travels of 1791, I refer to Harper’s very pertinent paper (‘‘ Some works of Bartram, Daudin, Latreille, and Sonnini, and their bearing upon North American herpetological nomenclature’) published in the Amer. Mid. Nat., Vol. 23, 1940, pp. 692—723. Harper states (p. 695) that the only binominal name Bartram proposed in herpetology was Testudo polyphaemus, the Florida gopher tortoise. Presumably because Bartram did not follow the binominal policy consistently the name has with rare exception been attributed to Daudin (1801), who used the spelling Testudo polyphemus. Harper presented a case for attribution of the name for this turtle to Bartram rather than Daudin. No one has accepted his defense as adequate, so far as I know ; and in such important works as those of Schmidt (Checklist N.A. herps, 1953) and Carr (Hand- book of Turtles, 1952) the name is still attributed to Daudin and is spelled polyphemus. My point is only that, so far as herpetology is concerned, it is relatively immaterial whether Bartram’s work is suppressed or not, and that therefore if there are pressing considerations pertaining to other groups they should receive priority over any considerations pertaining to herpetology. If no strong case can be made in any group for either course of action (suppression or not), or if the case favors suppression, it would be of some merit to point out that the least disturbing and most useful disposition, so far as herpetology is concerned, would be to suppress Bartram’s work. Supplementary Note from Hobart M. Smith : The copies circulated to the ASIH committee on Zoological Nomenclature, of your letter of November 8 to Drs. Hubbs and Bailey, did not, I know, request any action by the members of that committee. Nevertheless, I thought the following comments might be of at least corroborative value somewhere along the line. 222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS According to Harper (1940, Amer. Mid. Nat. 23: 694) Bartram 1791 named only one reptile, Testudo polyphaemus, a name (in the form of Testudo polyphemus) usually attributed to Daudin, 1801 (or 1803, by error). Suppression of Bartram’s work in taxonomy would serve only to clarify authorship of the name (some authors maintaining it should go to Bartram), in herpetology. So far as the latter field is concerned the door is open for whatever procedure is indicated as expedient in other fields. Robert C. Stebbins (University of California, Berkeley) : I go along with you in your position on Bartram’s work. Norman J. Wilimovsky (Stanford University, California) : This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1955 concerning the proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Bartram, 1791. Perusal of this problem suggests that I follow your lead in, the rejection of Bartram. However, I strongly recommend that both Dr. Reeve M. Bailey and Dr. Carl L. Hubbs be approached on this question as they have dealt more with the systematics of the sun- fishes than any other contemporary American worker. Unless either Dr. Bailey or Dr. Hubbs should present a contrary argument I would move with you in the rejection of Bartram. Letters written pursuant to Mr. Wilimovsky’s suggestion that Dr. Bailey and Dr. Hubbs be consulted have elicited the following replies : Reeve M. Bailey (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) : Bartram did not consistently apply the principles of binomial nomenclature, as suggested by Mr. Hemming, then of course I agree that the names should be rejected unless in specific cases confusion should result. In the latter case it might be desirable for the Commission to make special exceptions. Few names of American fishes have been more stable than that of Chaenobryttus gulosus (Cuvier)*. During modern times no other name combination had been used until Harper resurrected the name coronarius of Bartram. From the viewpoint of my personal preference as well as the technical judgment in the case, a return to Chaenobryttus gulosus seems desirable. In case of doubt I hold for the retention of established usage. Carl L. Hubbs (University of California, La Jolla) : I approve the proposed suppression of Bartram, 1791. * Note that the author is Cuvier, in Cuvier and Valenciennes. OPINION 447 223 7. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case has been received from any source. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)28 : On 22nd November 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)28) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the status of Bartram’s Travels as set out in Points (1) to (3) in paragraph 7 on page 101 and the top of page 102 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature”’ [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 February 1956. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)28 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)28 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Riley; Vokes; Mayr; Jaczewski ; Lemche ; Prantl ; Dymond ; Esaki; do Amaral; Key ; Boschma; Sylvester-Bradley; Mertens; Cabrera ; Bonnet ; Miller ; Tortonese ; Kithnelt ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; Hanké ; Hemming ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1) : Bodenheimer ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55)28, 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. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 10th November 1956 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.(55)28. 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 Four Hundred and Forty-Seven (447) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Tenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercatre & 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.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 13. Pp. 225—234 OPINION 448 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the name bei Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, a name given to the Astrakan Horned Lark as the result of the misreading _of a museum label (Class Aves) 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 1957 Price Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) aah . Issued 29th January, 1957 ee 3 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 448 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (42th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HemmMinG (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CaBrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. hee (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HerinG (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) ~ Professor J. R. DyMoNnD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasigi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stott (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hoituuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferninand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum y Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) A uta S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 5 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 448 SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAME “BEI” RIDGWAY, 1874, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “EREMOPHILA ALPESTRIS VAR. “ BEI”, A NAME GIVEN TO THE ASTRAKAN HORNED LARK AS THE RESULT OF THE MIS- READING OF A MUSEUM LABEL (CLASS AVES) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the name bei Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, being a name published as the result of the misreading of a museum label, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Alauda alpestris (Name No. 1128) ; (b) brandti Dresser, 1874, as published in the combina- tion Otocorys brandti (Name No. 1129). (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 375 :— bei Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above. I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE Among the problems submitted to the Colloquium on Zoo- logical Nomenclature held at Copenhagen in 1953 in connection 228 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS with the Meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology was the problem presented by the inadvertent publication of names through the misreading of museum labels. This problem was entered as Case No. 35 on the Agenda of the Colloquium. Two papers were submitted in connection with this item (Peters (J.L.), 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 357—358 : Hemming (F.), 1953, ibid. 10 : 358—359). On the advice of the Colloquium, endorsed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the International Congress decided not to make any express provision in the Rég/es for dealing with this problem, considering it more convenient that cases of this type should be dealt with by the International Commission on an ad hoc basis, as and when they should arise (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 65, Decision 119). Following the close of the Copenhagen Congress, Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen (London), considering that the misreading of a museum label which had lead to the publication of the name bei Ridgway, 1874, in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, was such an egregious example of the type of mistake which had been con- sidered at Copenhagen that remedial action must be sought from the Commission, submitted on 12th January 1955 the follow- ing application for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the name bei Ridgway, 1874, thus rendering the name brandti Dresser, 1874, as published in the combination Otocorys brandti, the name long used for the Astrakan Horned Lark the oldest available name for that bird :-— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to prevent the disappearance in synonymy of the name used for the Astrakan Horned Lark for the last eighty years by the substitution therefor of the name ‘* bei ’’ published for that bird by Ridgway in 1874 as the result of the misreading of a museum label By RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S.O. (London) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to provide a valid basis for the continued use of the name brandti Dresser, December 1874, as published OPINION 448 229 in the combination Otocorys brandti, for the Astrakan subspecies of the Horned Lark by suppressing the name bei Ridgway, Feb. 1874, as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, as the result of the misreading of a museum label. 2. The present case was first brought to notice in a letter dated 11th June 1951 addressed by the late James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) to Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, the question of principle involved in which was placed on the Agenda for the Copenhagen (1953) nomenclature meetings as Case No. 35 (1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 357—359). The facts of this case are as follows :— (1) In 1869 the United States National Museum obtained a collection of bird skins from the dealer Wilhelm Schliiter. One of these was that of a Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris (Linnaeus)= Alauda alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 166) which bore the label “‘Alauda alpestris/var. : bei Astrakan ”’. (2) The foregoing label was misread by Ridgway as meaning that either the collector or the dealer from whom this specimen was obtained had given the manuscript name “bei” to the Astrakan subspecies of the Horned Lark. Ridgway published a description of this subspecies under this “‘name’”’ in 1874 (in Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, Hist. N. Amer. Birds, Land Birds 2 : 141, 142). This appeared in February 1874. (3) In 1874 Dresser (Hist. Birds Europe 4(32) : 397, 402) described the same subspecies of the Horned Lark under the name Otocorys brandti. The Part of Dresser’s book containing this name appeared in December 1874. (4) The bird in question has ever since been known by Dresser’s name brandti but technically that name is a junior subjective synonym of the name bei Ridgway which, as shown above, has ten months’ priority. 3. When this case was considered by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, it was decided not to insert a provision in Article 25 denying availability to names of this kind, the Congress placing on record its view that such cases could be dealt with more conveniently by the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool, Nomencl. : 65, Decision 119), 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. It would, in my opinion, be a reproach to zoologists to permit the use as a scientific name of a term such as bei which owes its publication to a ridiculous mistake. Moreover, the acceptance of this name in place of brandti Dresser which has been in continuous use for over eighty years would clearly run counter to the principle laid down in the Preamble prefixed to the Régles by the Copenhagen Congress that one of the primary objects of the Régles is to promote stability in nomenclature and that the Commission’s Plenary Powers exist for the purpose of dealing with cases where that object is threatened (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 22, Decision 19). 5. I therefore ask the International Commission :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name bei Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Alauda alpestris ; (b) brandti Dresser, 1874, as published in the combination Otocorys brandti ; (3) to place the name bei Ridgway, 1874, as published in the com- bination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above, 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 : When as explained in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion consideration was first given to the question of the acceptability of names published inadvertently through the misreading of museum labels, the problem so involved was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 577. When after the close of the Fourteenth International Con- gress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, Colonel Meinertzhagen OPINION 448 25 decided to submit an application in regard to the name bei inadvertently published by Ridgway in 1874 for the Astrakan Horned Lark, the application so submitted was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 817. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 19th January 1955 and was published on 28th February in the same year in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Meinertzhagen, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 103—104). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 was given on 28th February 1955 (a) in Part 3 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Colonel Meinertz- hagen’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to thirteen ornithological serials in various parts of the world. 5. No objection received : Neither the publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nor the issue of the Public Notices specified in paragraph 4 above elicited any objection to the action proposed from any source. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)29 : On 22nd November 1955, a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)29) was issued in which the Members Dy) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, * the proposal relating to the specific name to be accepted for the Astrakan Horned Lark, as set out in Points (1) to (3) in paragraph 5 on page 104 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature”’ [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 22nd February 1956. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)29 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)29 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Riley ; Vokes ; Mayr; Jaczewski ; Lemche ; Dymond ; Esaki ; Bodenheimer ; do Amaral ; Key ; Boschma ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Mertens ; Cabrera ; Bonnet ; Miller ; Tortonese ; Kiihnelt ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; Hank6é ; Hemming ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Prantl ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. OPINION 448 233 9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 23rd February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55)29, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 8 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. 10. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 12th November 1956, 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.(55)29. 11. Original References : The following are the original refer- ences for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— alpestris, Alauda, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 166 bei, Eremophila alpestris var., Ridgway, 1874, in Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, Hist. N. Amer. Birds, Land Birds 2 : 141, 142 brandti, Otocorys, Dresser, 1874, Hist. Birds Europe 4(32) : 397, 402 12. 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. 234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Forty-Eight (448) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twelfth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercatre & CoorrerR Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 14. Pp. 235—250 OPINION 449 Determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of the nominal genus Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda) 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 1957 Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 29th January, 1957 \ i‘ od | INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 449 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (42th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CaprerA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. TAG ONO nae (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 194 Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. SToLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferninand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KwHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 4 Professor Ernst MAyRr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge) Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 449 DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIES TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS ** LAQUEUS ”’ DALL, 1870 (CLASS BRACHIOPODA) RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled (a) that no case has been established to show that, when in 1870 Dall (W.H.) established the nominal genus Laqueus (Class Brachiopoda), he misidentified the nominal species Terebratula californiana (Koch MS) Kiister, [1844] which he then designated as the type species of the foregoing genus and (b) that the foregoing nominal species is therefore to be accepted as the type species of the genus Laqueus Dall, 1870. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1055 :— Laqueus Dall, 1870 (gender: masculine) (type species, by original designation: Terebratula californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844]) (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1130 :— californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], as pub- lished in the combination Terebratula californiana (specific name of type species of Laqueus Dall, 1870) (4) The under-mentioned specific names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], as published in the com- bination Terebratula californiana, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names 238 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) californica (misattrib. to Kiister) Sowerby (G.B.), 1846, as published in the combination Terebratula californica (Name No. 376) ; (b) californiana Troschel, 18491, as published in the combination Terebratula californiana (Name No. Sy Th) (c) californica (Koch MS.) Carpenter, 1864, as pub- lished in the combination Terebratula californica (Name No. 378) ; (d) californica (Koch [MS.]) Dall (W.H.), 1870, as published in ae combination Terebratula californica (Name No. 379). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The question whether the nominal genus Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda) should be regarded as having been estab- lished with a misidentified type species formed the subject of a preliminary enquiry addressed to the Office of the Commission by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) on 26th March 1946. The International Commission was not well equipped at that time to deal with cases where later authors were of the opinion that the author of a nominal genus had misidentified the species which he then designated as the type species of that genus, the only guidance at that time available being the ambiguous and incomplete Ruling given in Opinion 65 (1914, Smithson. Publ. 2256 : 152—169). Even if this had been the case, it would not have been possible for the Commission 1 See paragraph 12 below. OPINION 449 239 to take up the present case at the time of the receipt of Dr. Baily’s preliminary communication, for, as Dr. Baily agreed, serious bibliographical difficulties then remained to be solved in regard to the orthography and authorship of the specific name used by Dall in 1870 for the species which he then designated as the type species of his new genus Laqueus. Later these matters were investigated as opportunity offered with the result that the bibliographical difficulties referred to above were resolved by the autumn of 1950. By this time also firm guidance had been given to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology as to the procedure to be followed in dealing with cases of genera reputedly based upon misidentified type species (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). Other reasons inter- vened to prevent progress with the present case and it was until 3rd November 1954 that the following application was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for consideration :— Request for a Ruling as to the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus ‘* Laqueus ”’ Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda) By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr., Sc.D. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to secure a decision from the International Commission regarding the species to be accepted as the type species of Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda), under the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159) to be followed where a nominal genus is established, or is claimed to have been established, on the basis of a misidentified type species. 2. The generic name Laqueus was published by Dall in 1870 (Amer. J- Conch. 6 : 123), the type species of the genus so named being, by original designation, “‘ Terebratula californica Koch”’. Koch never published such a name but in 1844 Kiister (in Martini, Syst. Conch. Cab. (nov. ed.) 7(1):pl. 2b, figs. 21—23) published the name Terebratula californiana Koch MS., and it is evident that this was the name which Dall intended to cite when he wrote the words “ Terebratula californica Koch’”’. 3. In 1921 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 57 (No. 2314) : 347) Dall claimed that the species which in 1870 he had figured as “* Laqueus californica 240 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (Koch) ”” was not correctly identified and belonged to a species to which no valid name had ever been given ; Dall accordingly gave the new name Laqueus erythraeus to the species which he had himself figured in 1870 under the name “‘ Laqueus californica Koch ” and which in 1864 Carpenter had cited as Terebratula californica. The species Laqueus erythraeus Dall was thereupon (1921) designated by Dall as the type species of Laqueus Dall, 1870, in place of the species ‘“* Terebratula californica Koch”, which in 1870 he had himself designated as the type species of this genus. 4. Thompson (1927, Brachiopod. Morph. Gen. : 258) discussed the attempt made by Dall in 1921 to change the type species of Laqueus and rejected it as incorrect under the Régles. At the same time he added that the two species concerned were so closely allied to one another that, even if Dall’s action in changing the type species had been valid, it would not have affected the previously accepted concept of the genus. Later authors have all endorsed Thomson’s conclusions and have unanimously rejected the claim advanced by Dall in 1921. 5. The present case is therefore one where a nominal genus is alleged to have been based upon a misidentified type species but where the species actually designated by the original author as the type species and the species later claimed to have been misidentified therewith are so close to one another that from the taxonomic point of view it would make no difference which of the two species con- cerned was accepted as the type species. It is clearly desirable that a definitive decision should be given as to the species which is to be accepted as the type species of Lagueus Dall, but in the circumstances it does not appear that any practical advantage would be served by asking the International Commission to undertake, in conjunction with specialists, a detailed investigation for the purpose of deter- mining whether Dall’s (1921) claim that he had made an error of identification in 1870 was well founded. In the absence of such evidence, the Commission would be free—and indeed bound—to rule in favour of the acceptance of Terebratula californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844] (i.e. the species bearing the name which Dall in 1870 miscited as “* Terebratula californica Koch’) as the type species of Laqueus Dall by original designation. Such a decision would be in harmony with current practice and is therefore the course which I recommend. 6. The proposal which I accordingly submit is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) give a ruling that, in view of the lack of sufficient evidence supporting the claim advanced by Dall in 1921 that, when in OPINION 449 241 1870 he designated a type species for the nominal genus Laqueus Dall, 1870, he had misidentified the species so designated, that species, namely Terebratula californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], is to be accepted as the type species of Laqueus Dall, 1870 ; (2) place the name Laqueus Dall, 1870 (gender : masculine) (type species, by original designation: Terebratula californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844]) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], as published in the combination Terebratula californiana, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : californica Dall, 1870, as published in the combination Terebratula californica (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], as published in the combination Terebratula californiana). 2. Supplementary Note furnished by Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (British Museum (Natural History), London) : At a certain stage in the course of the investigations into the bibliographical investigations referred to in the preceding paragraph, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, decided that it would be of advantage to widen the scope of the consultations then in progress by consulting Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (British Museum (Natural History), London) as a leading specialist in the group concerned. Dr. Muir-Wood kindly agreed to assist in this matter and on 21st September 1950 communicated the following statement to the Office of the Commission :— On the type species of the Brachiopod genus ‘‘ Laqueus ”’ Dall, 1870 By HELEN MUIR-WOOD, D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Enclosure to a letter dated 21st September 1950) The name Laqueus was published by Dall in 1870 (Amer. J. Conch. 6 : 123) as the name of a subgenus of Terebratella with Terebratula 242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS californica Koch as type species. The species is said to occur off Catalina I., California, at a depth of 80 fathoms, but this is quoted by Dall (1921 : 350) as type locality of L. erythraeus. 2. This species was, however, originally described under the name Terebratula californiana (Koch in litt.) Kiister (therefore to be assigned to Kuster and not Koch) in Nov. Ed. Martini, Syst. Conch. Cabinet 7(1) : 38, pl. 2b, figs. 21—23. The date of the plate is given in our copy as 1844, while the date of the text is said to be 1848 (see 1937, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1(4) : 97). 3. Dall in 1870 also refers to Sowerby, Thes Conch. 7 : 352, pl. 52, figs. 50—52, but this reference is incorrect and should be emended to read : Sowerby (G.B.), 1846, Thes. Conch. 1(7) : 352, pl. 70, figs. 50—52, where this species was described and figured under Terebratula californica Kiist. 4. The species represented by the figures given by Kiister and Sowerby is apparently the same. 5. Dall in 1877 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 8:41) again quoted T. californica Koch as the type species of Laqueus, subgenus of Terebratella. 6. Davidson (1887, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) (2) 4: 111) quotes the type-species of Laqueus as L. californicus Koch, though in 1852 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 9 : 364) the species was listed as Terebratula californiana Koch, Kiister. E. E. Deslongchamps in 1884 (Bull. Soc. linn. Normandie (3) 8 : 286) quotes Laqueus as a sub- genus of Terebratella with T. californica Koch as type-species, and this is followed by Hall & Clarke in 1895 (13th ann. Rep. State Geol. N.Y. 1893 : 887), who used it as a distinct genus. 7. Dall in 1921 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 57 (2314) : 347) quoted Laqueus as a separate genus, with, as its type-species, L. californicus Carpenter not Koch (=Laqueus erythraeus sp. nov.), to which species he refers his figures published in 1870 (namely pl. 7, fig. f; pl. 8, figs. 9, 10) and also the species described by Carpenter in 1864 (Suppl. Rep. Brit. Ass. 1863 (33rd meeting) : 568, 574) as Terebratula californica and (on page 636) as Waldheimia (?) californica. Carpenter gave no figures and it is by no means clear what was the form to which he intended to refer. 8. Thomson (1927, Brachiopod Morph. Gen. : 258) quotes the type- species as J. californica Koch and refers to Dall’s amendment of the OPINION 449 243 type species in a footnote, stating that this procedure is not valid but that it does not affect the concept of the genus. Schuchert & Levene (1929, Foss. Catal. 1(42) (Brach.) : 73) and Hatai in 1940 (Sci. Rep. Tohoku Uniy. (2) 20 : 343) also give the type-species as Terebratula californica Koch without comment. 9. From this it appears that later authors have ignored Dall’s emended designation of the type species in 1921, and that Terebratula californiana Kiister, [1844], should be accepted as the type species of Laqueus Dall, 1870, by original designation. 3. Postscript added by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. to his application in December 1954: In December 1954 Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. communicated to the Office of the Commission a note which he had prepared in the light of the statement furnished by Dr. Helen Muir-Wood (paragraph 2 above), a copy of which had been communicated to him by the Secretary. This note, which was in the following terms, Dr. Baily asked should be attached to his application as a Postscript :— I have read with great interest the note on the species to be accepted as the type species of Laqueus Dall which has been communicated to the Commission by Dr. Helen Muir-Wood, of which the Secretary has kindly sent me a copy. I am very glad to find that she supports the solution of this case advocated in my application. Perhaps I may add that, as Dr. Muir-Wood has drawn attention to the publication by G. B. Sowerby in 1846 of the name Terebratula californica (attributed to Ktister by Sowerby) it would, I think, be helpful to place this misspelling which anticipates that by Dall by twenty-four years on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. \ would advocate the same treatment being given also to several other instances of the nomenclatorial combination Terebratula californica by Carpenter as follows :— Terebratula californica Kiister in Sowerby (G.B.), Thesaurus Conchyl. (18) : 352, pl. 70, f. 50—52, cited by Carpenter, 1857 Report to the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1856 : 289. This is the same reference to which Dr. Muir-Wood referred. Terebratula californica Koch, mentioned by Carpenter without any further reference in Supplementary Report to the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1863 : 568, 586. 244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Terebratula californica Linsley in Troschel, 1847, Archiv fiir Natur. 2: 99%. Cited by Carpenter in Supplementary Report to the British Association for the Advancement of Science : 574. 2. So far as I am aware, the generic name Laqueus Dall has not been taken as a basis for a family-group name. Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 4. Registration of the present application : The case of the name Laqueus Dall, 1870, was originally brought to the attention of the Office of the Commission in a communication dealing also with the name Magasella published by the same author in the same paper. The joint communication so received was then allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 220. When later it was decided to separate these two cases, the foregoing Number was retained for Magasella Dall and the new Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 868 was allotted to the present case. 5. Publication of the present application : Dr. Baily’s applica- tion, Dr. Helen Muir-Wood’s supplementary statement and Dr. Baily’s Postscript to his application were sent to the printer on 31st December 1954 and were published on 28th February 1955 in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Baily, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 117—118; Muir- Wood, 1955, ibid. 11: 120; Baily, 1955, ibid. 11 ; 118—119). 6. Support received from E. P. Chace and Elsie M. Chace (Natural History Museum, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : On 10th May 1955 E. P. Chace and Elsie M. Chace (both of the Natural History Museum, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) jointly addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission on a number of cases which included the present case. The relevant extract of this letter is as follows :— We fully agree with Dr. Baily that Terebratula californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister is to be accepted as the type of Laqueus Dall, 1870, and 2 For a correction of this reference see paragraph 12 of the present Opinion. OPINION 449 245 that the name Laqueus Dall, 1870, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. That the specific name californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, 1844, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and that the specific name californica Dall, 1870, be placed on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 7. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)32 : On 22nd November 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)32) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal relating to the generic name Laqueus Dall, 1870, as set out (a) in Points (1) to (4) in paragraph 6 on page 118 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature”? {i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion] ‘“‘ and (b) in the Postscript added by the author on pages 118 and 119 of the above volume of the Bulletin ”’ [see paragraph 3 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 February 1956. 246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)32 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)32 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Riley: Vokes; Mayr ; Lemche ; Prantl ; Dymond ; Esaki; Bodenheimer ; do Amaral ; Hanké; Boschma; _ Sylvester-Bradley ; Jaczewski ; Key ; Mertens ; Cabrera ; Bonnet ; Miller ; Tortonese ; Kihnelt ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll’; Hemming ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55)32, 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 Inter- national Commission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Correction of the reference given in the present application for the reputed name ‘‘‘ Terebratula californica’ Linsley in Troschel, 1847”? ; On 11th November 1956 Mr. Hemming, as OPINION 449 247 Secretary, executed the following Minute, in which, after setting out certain bibliographical investigations which had been under- taken in the Office of the Commission in connection with the preparation of the present Opinion, he (a) showed that the name “ Terebratula californica Linsley in Troschel, 1847” was a cheironym, (b) gave correct particulars for the name to which reference had been intended by the author who first cited the foregoing reputed but non-existent name and (c) issued directions that the corrected reference be inserted in the Opinion to be rendered in the present case :— Correction of the reference given in the present application for the reputed name ‘‘ Terebratula californica ’’ Linsley in ‘‘ Troschel ”’, 1847 MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The routine checking of references undertaken in connection with the preparation of the Opinion required for the purpose of recording the decision regarding the type species of the genus Laqueus Dall, 1870, taken by the International Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(55)32 has disclosed the fact that the particulars derived from Carpenter, 1864, in regard to one of the names cited in the postscript to the present application is incorrect in almost every particular.? The purpose of the present Minute is to give correct particulars regarding the name to which reference was intended, in order that in the Opinion concerned a correct reference for that name may be inserted in the paragraph enumerating the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling to be given in that Opinion. 2. The reference which it is now necessary to correct was quoted as follows from Carpenter in the application published in this case (Baily, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 119) :— Terebratula californica Linsley in Troschel, 1847, Archiv fiir Natur. 2:99. Cited by Carpenter in Supplementary Report to the British Association for the Advancement of Science : 574 8 The reference in question was given in the Postcript, dated December 1954, annexed to the present application. This has been reproduced in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion. 248 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. The first indication that the foregoing reference was incorrect was provided by the abbreviation used for the title of the serial pub- lication cited, there being no serial having a title which could be correctly cited in that manner. It seemed almost certain, however that the serial intended was the Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, although it was evident that in that event either the date cited for the volume concerned or the volume number cited for it must be incorrect. Investigation showed that the anticipation that the serial intended was in fact the Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte was correct but that both the date attributed to that volume and the volume number cited for it were incorrect, the only correct portion of this part of the reference given being the page number (page 99). The paper in question proved to have been published in 1849 (and not in 1847) and to have appeared in Part 2 of Volume 15 of the Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (and not in Volume 2). 4. The successful tracing of the paper in question disclosed unexpectedly two further errors in the reference given from Carpenter. First, the paper in question, though unsigned, was _ stated to have been written by the “ Herausgeber ’’ and the running heads of the pages in this portion of Part 2 of Volume 15 bore the name of Troschel, who, as is known, had in that year (1849) taken over the editorship of the Archiv, following the death of Erichson. The article contains, however, no reference whatever to Linsley who in the present context must be regarded as a phantom. The name with which we are here concerned must therefore be attributed not to “‘ Linsley in Troschel’’ but to ‘* Troschel’’ himself. Second, it must be noted that the article here under examination was expressly devoted to a notice recently published by Gray (cited as “‘ Annals 2, Ser. II, p. 435’), and that, contrary to the statement made in the reference quoted in paragraph 2 of the present Minute, the species there under discussion was cited not as ‘‘ Terebratula californica” but as ** Terebratula californiana’’. 5. It will be seen from the particulars given above that the name “* Terebratula californica Linsley in Troschel, 1847” is a cheironym and that the name to which the author responsible for the above reference intended to refer is :— Terebratula californiana Troschel, 1849, Archiv Naturgesch. 15(2) : 99 6. Accordingly, as Secretary, I hereby direct that the corrected reference set out in the immediately preceding paragraph be substituted for the incorrect reference quoted in paragraph 2 of the present Minute in the Ruling to be given in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(55)32. OPINION 449 249 13. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 12th November 1956 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.(55)32, subject to the correction of the reference for one of the names concerned as directed in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 11th November 1956 (the text of which has been reproduced in para- graph 12 of the present Opinion). 14. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— californiana, Terebratula, (Koch in litt.) Kuster, [1844], in Martini, Syst. Conch. Cabinet (New Ed.) 7(1): pl. 2b; id., [1848], ibid. 7 : 38 californiana, Terebratula, Troschel, 1849, Archiv Naturgesch. 15(2) : 99 californica, Terebratula, (misattrib. to Kuster) Sowerby (G.B.), 1846, Thes. Conch. 1(7) : 352, pl. 70, figs. 5SO—52 californica, Terebratula, Carpenter, 1864, Suppl. Rep. Brit. Ass. 1863 (33rd Meeting) : 568, 574 californica, Terebratula, (Koch [MS.]) Dall (W.H.), 1870, Amer. yeGConch. 6 + 123 Laqueus Dall, 1870, Amer. J. Conch. 6 : 123 15. Family-Group-Name Aspects: It was stated by the applicant in the Postscript, dated December 1954, annexed to his application (paragraph 3 of the present Opinion) that, so far as he was aware, the generic name Laqueus Dall, 1870, has not been taken as the base for a family-group name. 250 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 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. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Forty-Nine (449) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twelfth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrrcatre & CoorerR 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 15. Part 15. Pp. 251—328 OPINION 450 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and validation as of subgeneric status (a) as from 1758, of the terms Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Tortrix, Pyralis, Tinea, and Alucita as used by Linnaeus for groups of species of the genus Phalaena and (b) as from 1767 of the term Afttacus similarly published by Linnaeus and matters incidental thereto (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) 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 1957 Price Two Pounds, Twelve Shillings (All rights reserved) j = ——————————————— Issued 8th March, 1957 S Wace rey INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 450 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Hun ial (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August : 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Tulane University, New Orleans, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. StToLi (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Nérodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Rigtessor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 54) Protessor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 450 SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “ PHALAENA ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND VALIDATION AS OF SUBGENERIC STATUS (a) AS FROM 1758, OF THE TERMS ‘“‘ BOMBYX ”’ ‘“ NOCTUA ”’, ‘“‘ GEOMETRA ”’, ‘“‘“ TORTRIX ””, ‘ PYRALIS ”, “ TINEA ” AND “ ALUCITA ”, AS USED BY LINNAEUS FOR GROUPS OF SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ PHALAENA ” AND (b) AS FROM 1767 OF THE TERM “ ATTACUS ” SIMILARLY PUBLISHED BY LINNAEUS AND MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) RULING :—(1) The following action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :— (a) The generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (b) Under the procedure laid down in the Ruling given in Opinion 124, (i) the names specified in Column (1) below are hereby validated as having the status of subgeneric names as from Linnaeus (1758), by whom they were published as terms denoting groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, (ii) the nominal species specified in Column (2) below are hereby desig- nated to be the type species of the nominal genera severally shown in Column (1), and (iii) it is hereby directed that the family-group 254 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS names to be used for the genera severally specified in Column (1) shall be the names specified in each case in Column (3) :— Generic name now validated under the Plenary Powers (1) (1) Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758 (2) Noctua Linnaeus, 1758 (3) Geometra Linnaeus, 1758 (4) Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758 (5) Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758 (6) Tinea Linaeus, 1758 (7) Alucita Linnaeus, 1758 Nominal species now designated under the Plenary Powers to be the type species of the corresponding nominal genus specified in Column (1) (2) Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena pronuba Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena viridana Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena pellionella Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758 Family-group name which under the Plenary Powers is to be used for the corresponding nominal genus specified in Column (1) (3) BOMBYCIDAE NOCTUIDAE GEOMETRIDAE TORTRICIDAE PYRALIDAE TINEIDAE ALUCITIDAE OPINION 450 255 (c) Under the procedure specified in (b) above, as extended by the Ruling given in Opinion 279, (i) the term Attacus, as published by Linnaeus in 1767 to denote a group of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby vali- dated as having the status of a subgeneric name as from Linnaeus, 1767 and (ii) the nominal species Phalaena atlas Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type species of Attacus Linnaeus, 1767, as validated under (i) above. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(1) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(1) above : Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1056) ; (b) Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(2) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(2) above : Phalaena pronuba Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1057) ; (c) Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(3) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(3) above : Phalaena papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1058) ; (d) Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(4) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(4) above: Phalaena viridana Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1059): | (e) Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(5) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the 256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(5) above : Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1060) ; (f) Tinea Linneaus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(6) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(6) above : Phalaena pellionella Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1061) ; (g) Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(7) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(7) above : Phalaena hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1062) ; (h) Attacus Linnaeus, 1767, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above: Phalaena atlas Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1063). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) mori Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Phalaena mori (specific name of type species of Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1131) ; (b) pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Phalaena pronuba (specific name of type species of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1132) ; (c) papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena papilionaria (specific name of type species of Geometra Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1133) ; (d) viridana Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Phalaena viridana (specific name of type Tene of Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. —_— = 7 OPINION 450 257 (e) farinalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Phalaena farinalis (specific name of type species of Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Nowh35):; (f) pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena pellionella (specific name of type ees of Tinea Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1136 (g) hexadactyla ee 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena hexadactyla (specific name of type species of Alucita Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. EI37); (h) atlas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Phalaena atlas (specific name of type species of Attacus Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 1138). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above (Name No. 850) ; (b) Geometra Paetel, 1875 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Geomitra Swainson, 1840, and a junior homonym of Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) (Name No. 851) ; (c) Noctua Linnaeus, 1764 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 852 (d) Noctua Gmelin (S.G.), 1771 (a junior homonym of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above (Name No, 853) ; 258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (e) Orneodes Latreille, 1796 (a junior objective synonym of Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above (Name No. 854) ; (f) Tinaea Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 228; a junior objective synonym of Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) (Name No. 855) ; (g) Tinea Griffith, 1897 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Taenia Linnaeus, 1758; a junior homonym of Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) (Name No. 856) ; (h) Tortrix Oppel, 1811 (a junior homonyn of Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) (Name No. 857). (5) The under-mentioned family-group names, as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) BOMBYCIDAE (correction of BOMBYCIDES) Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus: Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(1) above) (Name No. 135) ; (b) NOCTUIDAE (correction of NOCTUAELITES) Latreille, 1809 (type genus: Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(2) above) (Name No. 136) ; (c) GEOMETRIDAE (correction of GEOMETRIDA) [Leach], [1815] (type genus : Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(3) above) (Name No. 137) ; OPINION 450 259 (d) TORTRICIDAE (correction of TORTRICES) Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus: Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(4) above) (Name No. 138) ; (e) PYRALIDAE (correction of PYRALITES) Latreille, 1809 (type genus: Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758, as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(5) above) (Name No. 139) ; (f) TINEIDAE (correction of TINEITES) Latreille, 1810 (type genus: Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(6) above) (Name No. 140) ; (g) ALUCITIDAE (correction of ALUCITIDES) [Leach], [1815] (type genus: Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(7) above) (Name No. 141). (6) The under-mentioned family-group name, as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(c) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 142 :— ATTACIDAE Burmeister, 1878 (type genus: Attacus Linnaeus, 1767, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(c) above). (7) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) BOMBYCIDES Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE) (Name No. 128); (b) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE:— (i) BOMBYCITES Latreille, 1809 (Name No. 129) ; (ii) BOMBYXIA Rafinesque, 1815 (Name No. b) 260 OPINJONS AND DECLARATIONS (iii) BOMBYCODEA Burmeister, 1837 (Name No. (iv) BOMBYCES Horsfield & Moore, [1838—1839] (Name No. 132) ; (c) NOCTUAELITES Latreille, 1809 (an Invalid Original ~ Spelling for NOCTUIDAE) (Name No. 133); (d) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE :— (i) NOCTUIDA [Leach], [1815] (Name No. 134) ; (ii) NOCTUAEIDES Billberg, 1820 (Name No. (111) Soa OEN Burmeister, 1829 (Name No. (iv) SOCTUELHS Boisduval, 1829 (Name No. (v) Nocrurres Newman (E.), 1835 (Name No. (vi) senohe Zetterstedt, 1840 (Name No. (vii) Re ee Gravenhorst, 1843 (Name No. (viii) NOCHURLIETS Duponchel, 1844 (Name No. (ix) NOCTUELITES Guenée, 1852 (Name No. 142) ; (x) NOCTUES Swinhoe, 1890 (Name No. 143) ; (€) GEOMETRIDA [Leach], [1815] (an Invalid Original Spelling for GEOMETRIDAE) (Name No. 144) ; (f) GEOMETRITES Newman (E.), 1835 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for GEOMETRIDAE) (Name No. 145) ; | (g) TORTRICES Latreille, [1802—1 803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for TORTRICIDAE) (Name No. 146) ; OPINION 450 261 (h) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for TORTRICIDAE :— (1) TORTRICIDA [Leach], [1815] (Name No. 147); (ii) TORTRICIDES Billberg, 1820 (Name No. 148) ; (iii) TORTRICITES Newman (E.), 1835 (Name No. 5) (i) PYRALITES Latreille, 1809 (an Invalid Original Spelling for PYRALIDAE, a spelling validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(5) above) (Name No. 150) ; (j) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PYRALIDAE, validated under the Plenary Powers as specified in (1) above :— (i) PYRALIDA [Leach], [1815] (Name No. 151) ; (ii) PYRALIDES Billberg, 1820 (Name No. 152) ; (iii) PYRALIDIDES Zetterstedt, 1840 (Name No. (iv) PYRALOIDI Guenée, 1845 (Name No. 154) ; (v) PYRALIDOIDAE Herrich-Schaeffer, 1856 (Name No. 155) ; (vi) PYRALIDIDAE Lederer, 1863 (Name No. 156); (vii) PYRALES Swinhoe, 1890 (Name No. 157) ; (k) TINEITES Latreille, 1810 (an Invalid Original Spelling for TINEIDAE) (Name No. 158) ; (1) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for TINEIDAE :— (i) TINEIDA [Leach], [1815] (Name No. 159) ; (ii) TINEAEDES Billberg, 1820 (Name No. 160) ; (iii) TINEODEA Burmeister, 1837 (Name No. 161) ; (iv) TINEACEA Zeller, 1839 (Name No. 162) ; 262 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (v) TINEARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840 (Name No. 163); (vi) TINEARIA Gravenhorst, 1843 (Name No. ) (vil) TINEAE Guenée, 1845 (Name No. 165) ; (m) ALUCITIDES [Leach], [1815] (an Invalid Original Spelling for ALUCITIDAE) (Name No. 166) ; (n) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALUCITIDAE :— (i) ALUCITAEDES Billberg, 1820 (Name No. 167); (ii) ALUCITITES Newman (E.), 1835 (Name No. 9 (iii) ALUCITINA Zeller, 1841 (Name No. 169) ; (0) PHALAENIDAE (correction of PHALAENITES) Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus: Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758) Gnvalid under Declaration 20 because name of type genus suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 170) ; (p) PHALAENITES Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for PHALAENIDAE) (Name No. 171) ; (q) the under-mentioned names, each of which is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE :— (i) PHALAENIDES [Leach], [1815] (Name No. (i1) aed aittae [Leach], [1815] (Name No. (111) aA Rafinesque, 1815 (Name No. (iv) ae enee Billberg, 1820 (Name No. o) OPINION 450 263 (v) PHALAENOIDES Burmeister, 1829 (Name No. 5) (vi) PHALAENODEA Burmeister, 1837 (Name No. Dye (vii) PHALAENARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840 (Name No. b) (vill) PHALAENOIDEA Gravenhorst, 1843 (Name No. 179) ; (r) TINAEIDAE Corbet (A.S.) & Tams (W.H.T.), 1943 (type genus: Tinaea Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762) (invalid Gi) because the name of the type genus was published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 228 as a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, and (ii) because its type genus has the same species as type species as Tinea Linnaeus, 1758 (validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(6) above) and this name is therefore a junior objective synonym Of TINEIDAE (correction of TINEITES) Latreille, 1810, of which the latter genus is type genus) (Name No. 180) ; (S) ORNEODIDAE (correction by Meyrick (1895) of ORNEODIDES) Herrich-Schaeffer, [1843] (type genus: Orneodes Latreille, 1796) (invalid, as its type genus has as its type species the same species as Alucita Linnaeus, 1758 (validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(7) above) and this name is therefore a junior objective synonym of ALUCITIDAE (correction of ALUCITIDES) [Leach], [1815], of which the latter genus is type genus) (Name No. 181); (t) ORNEODIDES Herrich-Schaeffer, [1843] (an Invalid Original Spelling for ORNEODIDAE) (Name No. yy. 264 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present Opinion is concerned principally with the question of the validation under the Plenary Powers as of subgeneric status from Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)) of certain terms originally introduced to denote groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). These and similar terms introduced by Linnaeus in other groups were rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by a Ruling given by the International Commission in Opinion 124 (1936, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8) : 1—2) which was later supplemented by a Ruling given in Opinion 279 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 179—188). In the first of these Opinions the International Commission indicated its willingness to give sympathetic consideration to applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers of such terms in cases where specialists could show that the rejection of such terms as not possessing subgeneric status would lead to serious confusion and name- changing. It was in consequence of the rejection of the terms of the class described above by the Ruling given in Opinion 124 that two of the applications dealt with in the present Opinion were submitted to the International Commission, while the third was put forward in response to the open invitation addressed to specialists in that Opinion. 2. The present Opinion deals comprehensively with the status of all the terms employed by Linnaeus to denote groups of species regarded by him as belonging to the genus Phalaena. There are in all eight such terms of which seven first appeared in 1758 in the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae, the eighth not appearing until the publication in 1767 of the Twelfth Edition of that work. In the first instance, separate applications were submitted to the International Commission in 1947 for the acceptance not as from Linnaeus, 1758, but as from Fabricius, 1775, of two of the terms concerned, namely Bombyx and Pyralis, subject, however, in each case 1o the use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species in harmony with established usage. These applications were submitted by Dr. Jiri Paclt (at. that time of the Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia, and now of Bratislava, Czechoslovakia). Later, Dr. J. G. Franclemont (at that time of | OPINION 450 265 the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., and now of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) submitted a compre- hensive application for the validation under the Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758, of all the terms concerned (including the two terms which Dr. Paclt had recommended should be accepted as from Fabricius, 1775), and for the validation also of one further term of a similar character published by Linnaeus in 1767. On the publication of Dr. Franclemont’s application Dr. Paclt submitted a rejoinder in which he put forward a counter- proposal in opposition to portions of the plan submitted by Dr. Franclemont. The three applications so submitted together with Dr. Paclt’s counter-proposal, are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 3. Application relating to the generic name ‘* Bombyx ”’ as used by Fabricius in 1775 submitted to the International Com- mission by Dr. Jiri Paclt (Nérodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) in 1947 : On 8th May 1947 Dr. Jiti Paclt (Ndrodni Museum y Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application for the acceptance as from Fabricius, 1775, of the generic name Bombyx, a term first published by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote a group of species in the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and for the designation as the type species of the nominal taxon so recognised of the nominal species Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758. Subject to certain drafting amendments intro- duced at a later stage for the procedural reasons explained in paragraph 8 below, the application so submitted was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for ‘‘ Bombyx ”’ Fabricus, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) a type species in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage By JIRI PACLT (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) Fabricius in 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 556) erected the genus Bombyx for a number of species, one of which (Phalaena Bombyx mori Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 499) may be considered to have been selected as the type species by Oken in 1815 (Lehrb. Naturgesch. 3(1) : 714). The status of Oken’s Lehrbuch! for nomenclatorial 1 Oken’s Lehrbuch has since be2n rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given by the International Commission in Opinion 417 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 1—42). 266. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS purposes has been questioned but, whatever may be the position in this regard, the name Bombyx has ever since Oken’s time been used in the foregoing sense in almost all general, as well as special, works on pure zoology and in the various fields of applied science. 2. Unfortunately, however, Latreille was the first author to select a type species for this genus (Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 441) and the species which he so selected was totally different from that accepted by Oken and almost all later authors. The species selected by Latreille was ‘‘ pavonia Fabr.”’, i.e. Phalaena Bombyx pavonia Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 496), a species which is today placed in the genus Eudia Jordan, 1913, of the family SATURNIIDAE. 3. Latreilie’s selection of Phalaena pavonia Linnaeus to be the type species of Bombyx Fabricius led Berthold in 1827 (in Latreille, Natur. Fam. Thierr. : 480) to erect a new genus for Phalaena mori Linnaeus, to which he gave the name Sericaria. Two years later this generic name was used by Latreille himself (Cuvier’s Régn. anim. (ed. 2) 5 : 404). Only a few subsequent authors have used the name Sericaria Berthold in preference to the name Bombyx. 4. I am of the opinon that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the use of the generic name Bombyx for Phalaena mori Linnaeus, having regard to the fact : (1) that that generic name has been almost universally used for P. mori Linnaeus for well over a century, and (2) that the strict application of the Régles would give rise to great confusion by transferring the generic name Bombyx to the genus now known as Eudia Jordan, 1913, and the family name BOMBYCIDAE to the family now known as SATURNIIDAE, which latter name would thus fall to the ground. Sail accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all type selections for the genus Bombyx Fabricius, 1775, made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken, and (b), having done so, to designate Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus ; (2) to place the generic name Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 (gender of generic name: masculine), with the type species specified in (1) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the trival name mori Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Phalaena mori) (trivial name of type species of Bombyx Fabricius, 1775) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 4. Application relating to the generic name ‘‘ Pyralis ’’ as used by Fabricius in 1775 submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Jiri Paclt (Narodni Museum yv OPINION 450 267 Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) in 1947 : On 12th October 1947 Dr. Jiri Paclt (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application for the acceptance as from Fabricius, 1775, of the generic name Pyralis, a term first published by Linnaeus in 1758, to denote a group of species in the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and for the designation as the type species of Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, of the nominal species Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus, 1758. Subject to certain drafting amendments introduced at a later stage for the procedural reasons explained in paragraph 8 below, the application so submitted was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for ‘‘ Pyralis ”’ Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) a type species in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage By JIR{ PACLT (Bratislava. Czechoslovakia) In 1775 Fabricius established the genus Pyralis (Syst. Ent. : 645). From the species included in this genus by Fabricius, Latreille (1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 441) selected “‘ fagana Fabr.”’ (i.e. Pyralis fagana Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 2 : 276) as the type species of this genus. Twenty-four years later, Stephens (1834, J/l. Brit. Ins. Haust. 4 : 25) regarded the genus Pyralis from a different point of view and selected Phalaena Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 533) to be the type species of this genus. 2. With very few exceptions authors have since Stephens’s time accepted P. farinalis Linnaeus as representative of the genus Pyralis. It would be highly undesirable at this date to disturb this usage.’ 3. The present proposal for the conservation of the generic name Pyralis in its accustomed sense deserves support for the following reasons: (1) The selection of Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus as the type species of this genus has been almost universally accepted by workers in this group for the last 120 years, and the family name PYRALIDIDAE based upon this generic name immediately evokes a clear idea of this important group of moths. (2) No author except Latreille in 1810 has ever applied the generic name Pyralis to the species Pyralis fagana Fabricius, which belongs to a different genus and family (genus Diurnea Haworth, 1811; Family GELECHMDAE). For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the acceptance of Latreille’s type selection for the genus Pyralis would produce serious and quite unnecessary confusion. 4. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all type selections for Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, made prior to the decision now proposed 268 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to be taken, and (b), having done so, to designate Phalaena Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus ; - (2) to place the generic name Pyralis Fabricius, 1775 (gender of generic name : feminine), with the type species specified in (1) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (3) to place the trivial name farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the combination Phalaena Pyralis farinalis (trivial name of type species of Pyralis Fabricius, 1775) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 5. Application for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the terms introduced by Linnaeus in 1758 and in one case in 1767 to denote groups of species assigned to the genus ‘‘ Phalaena ”’ Linnaeus, 1758, submitted to the International Commission by Dr. J. G. Franclemont (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) in 1950: On 19th June 1950 Dr. J. G. Franclemont (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) submitted to the Inter- national Commission proposals for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the seven terms introduced by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote groups of species assigned by him to the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and for validation of one similar term introduced by Linnaeus in 1767. The paper so submitted had then recently been published by the New York Entomological Society under the title “The Linnean Subgeneric Names of Phalaena (Lepidoptera, Heterocera) ” (Franclemont, 1950, J.N. Y. ent. Soc. 58 : 41—53). Subject to certain drafting amendments introduced at a later stage for the procedural reasons explained in paragraph 8 below, the application so submitted was as follows :— Proposed. use of the Plenary Powers to validate as subgeneric names as from Linnaeus, 1758, certain terms published for groups of species within the genus ‘‘ Phalaena ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (application submitted in response to the invitation given in ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 124) By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT _. (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) In 1758 in the tenth edition of the Systema Naturae Linnaeus stablished seven subdividions of the genus Phalaena, which he named ae a ee a OPINION 450 269 Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Pyralis, Tortrix, Tinea and Alucita. On page 496 is a key to the divisions, which would seem to establish the names of the divisions as available and of subgeneric value. However, in 1936 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature promulgated Opinion 124, the summary of which states : ‘“‘ The various Subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of this date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the Inter- national Rules.” Basically, Opinion 124 is inadequate, for although it settled certain troublesome problems, it created uncertainty and confusion in other groups in which the names of the Linnean sub- divisions had been long accepted and well established?. Apparently the Commission recognised this possibility, for it stated a willingness to take up individual cases in those groups in which the Opinion produced greater confusion than uniformity. There appears to be no logical way of “stretching ’’ Opinion 124 to cover the works of Linnaeus subsequent to 1758, and even if that were done there would still remain the problem of determining the status of the Linnean names used by other authors. Inasmuch as the Commission made no reference to the status of the Linnean “‘ subgeneric ’’ names in any work later than 1758, although it must have been aware of at least some of them, it appears necessary to consider in detail the use of the various names subsequent to 1758, both by Linneaus and by the authors that immediately followed him. Discussions, in chronological sequence, of the various works, which have a bearing on this problem are as follows :— 1760—Langius, J. J., Caroli Linnaei Systema Naturae . . . Editionem Decimam. . . . I do not consider this a separate work, merely another printing of the original Tenth Edition, and not entitled to separate recognition nomenclatorially. 1761— Linnaeus, C., Fauna Svecica, Second Edition. In this work the seven subdivisions of Phalaena are used in the same sense as in 1758. If the names were accepted from this work, five of the seven would fall readily into their customary and recognised usages, while two, Bombyx and Pyralis, would be used in unfamiliar associations. If we are to maintain the traditional usage of Bombyx as the generic name of the silk moth, it will be necessary for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suspend the Rules. Without doubt all workers in entomology would agree to this action, as there is perhaps no other name which has had the amount 2 At its Session held in Paris in 1948 (Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 40), the International Commission recognised that, as here stated by Dr. Franclemont, Opinion 124 was incomplete and, in consequence, in part, misleading. The Commission remedied this defect to some extent by extending the decision in Opinion 124 to all editions of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus and also to the entomological works of Fabricius (J.C.) (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 266—267). This decision was later incorporated in Opinion 279 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 179—188). 270 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of literature built up around it as Bombyx mori. This action will be necessary, regardless of the author or the work from which the name is dated, because Blanchard selected Phalaena Bombyx quercus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus in 1845 (Histoire des Insectes 2 : 373). This name species is the type species of Lasiocampa Schrank, 1802, the type genus of the Family LASIOCAMPIDAE. ‘There is an earlier selection of Phalaena Bombyx pavonia Linnaeus as the type species by Latreille in 1810 (Considérations générales sur I’ Ordre naturel des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes : 441). This I do not regard as valid, as I think it is excluded from consideration by the wording of the summary of Opinion 136 of the International Commission. Some workers accept the instances in which the word “‘ ejusdem”’ was used by Latreille as falling within the meaning of ““ one only of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof ’’. This particular point was one of the three questions sub- mitted to the Commission on the 1810 Latreille type selections, but no answer was given. If Pyralis is accepted from this date, the type selection by Curtis in December 1834 (British Entomology 11 : 527) will be valid, as the species selected, barbalis, is included. This species was not included in Pyralis in 1758 ; it was not described until the following year by Clerck. Earlier Curtis had said, “... , it will be better to take the first species of Linnaeus as the type, .. .”’ (1829, British Entomology 6 : 288). Near the end of February 1834, Stephens (lustrations of British Entomology, Haustellata 4 : 25) quoted Curtis’s statement of 1829 and pointed out that the first species placed in Pyralis in 1758 was farinalis and that the first species placed in Pyralis in 1761 was tentacularis. Stephens thus gives us an idea of the am- biguity of Curtis’s initial attempt to fix the type species of Pyralis. Unfortunately, Stephens did not at that time (February 1834) clearly select a type species for Pyralis, though criticising Curtis for not doing so, and when he finally selected farinalis as the type species of Pyralis in January 1835 (Jllustrations of British Entomology, Haustellata 4 ; 395), his action was ante-dated by Curtis’s citation of barbalis as type species. 1761—Poda von Neuhaus, N., Insecta Musei Graecensis,... I can find no evidence as to which work appeared first in 1761, this or the Second Edition of the Fauna Svecica. However, if the names were used from this work, only three could be used in their traditional usages and four, Bombyx, Geometra, Tortrix, and Alucita, would be used in unfamiliar associations. 1762—Linnaeus, C., Systema Naturae, Eleventh Edition. This is a reprint of the Tenth Edition, and is said to abound in errors, but to have been recognised by Linnaeus as another edition of his work. I have not seen it, but I assume that it will not differ from the Tenth Edition. Thus if the names were used from this date, they would have the same application as if used from 1758. OPINION 450 271 . 1763—Scopoli, J. A., Entomologia Carniolica. ... The subgeneric names are used in the plural at the head of sections of the genus Phalaena. If plural names were to be accepted*, the names would be available from this work. 1764—Linnaeus, C., Museum Ludovicae Ulricae. In this work four of the names proposed in 1758 are used, namely, Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, and Pyralis. If these names were to be used as dating from this work, they would come to be applied in senses wholly foreign from any in which they have been used. 1767—Linnaeus, C., Systema Naturae, Editio Duodecima Reformata. The Twelfth Edition of the Systema Naturae is similar in construction to the Tenth Edition. All the names proposed as subdivisions of Phalaena in 1758 recur in the same sense in this work with the addition of one more, Attacus. As in 1758, a key to the divisions of Phalaena is given (: 809). If the names were used from this work they would have the same application as in Linnaeus, 1758. 1770, 1773 and 1782—Drury, D., Illustrations of Natural History, Vols. 1, 2 and 3. The subdivisions are used in an abbreviated form in this work, and are thus unrecognisable without reference to previous usage. If the names should be used from this work, none could be applied in the accepted sense, as this work deals with non-European species. 1775— Fabricius, J. C., Systema Entomologiae. From all the available evidence it appears that this work of Fabricius appeared earlier in the year 1775 than the Ankiindung eines sytematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend. In his autobiography Fabricius says that his Systema Entomologiae appeared at Easter time in 1775.* The Denis and Schiffermiiller work was not reviewed until 8th Decem- ber 17757, in the Jenaische Zeitungen von Gelehrten Sachen. The Systema Entomologiae is the first work in which the names appear in a strictly generic sense. If the names were to be accepted from this work, considerable confusion would arise. Fabricius used Pyralis for the species which Linnaeus placed in Tortrix, placing the species which Linnaeus had under Pyralis along with those he had under Geometra in Phalaena, and suppressing the Linnean names Geometra and Tortrix. In addition he employed Alucita of Linnaeus for part of Tinea of Linnaeus and for Alucita of Linnaeus he used Pterophora of Geoffroy. If Noctua in the insects were to be dated from this work, it would fall as a homonym of Noctua Gmelin (1771) in the birds. * Julius Schuster 1928, Linné und Fabricius zu Ihrem Leben und Werk : 102. (Fascsimile.) F. W. Hope, 1845—1847, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 4 : Appendix. (Translation of Fabricius’s autobiography.) + L. B. Prout, 1900, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 6 : 159 * Jt was ruled by the International Commission in Opinion 183 in 1944 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 13—24) that, in order to acquire avail- ability, a generic name must be published in the nominative singular. This - provision was incorporated into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 139—140). 272 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1775—Denis and Schiffermiiller, Ankiindung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend. Like Fabricius’s work the names are used in a strictly generic sense. If the names were accepted from this work, the same situation would be met with as would obtain in accepting the names from the Fauna Svecica. 2. Following is a discussion of each of the names with the citations of all pertinent type selections. Attacus Phalaena Attacus Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 808. 17 included species. Type selections : Phalaena Bombyx atlas Linnaeus, 1758=Attacus atlas (Linnaeus) Selected by [Duponchel], 1842, in dOrbigny, Dictionnaire Universal d’ Histoire Naturelle 2 : 320 Phalaena Bombyx pavonia major=Bombyx pyri Schiffermiiller= Attacus pyri (Schiffermiiller) Selected by Blanchard, 1845, Historie des Insectes 2 : 372 Cramer in 1775 (Papillons exotiques 1 : 12, 14) uses Attacus in the same manner as Linnaeus for the single species, atlas. The first use of Attacus in a strictly generic sense is by Germar, 1810 (Systematis Glossatorum Prodromus, sect. 1:9). I have not been able to consult this work, and I am unable to determine the included species. This name does not fall within the wording of Opinion 124.4 Bombyx Phalaena Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 495. 58 included species. Type selections : Phalaena Bombyx pavonia Linnaeus, 1758 (as: Bombyx pavonia Fab. ; ejusd. B. quercus, mori, etc.)= Bombyx pavonia Linnaeus Selected by Latreille, 1810, Considérations générales sur I’ Ordre Naturel des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes: 441. (See the discussion of this under “‘ 1761—Linnaeus, C., Fauna Svecica.’’) Phalaena Bombyx quercus Linnaeus, 1758= Bombyx quercus Linnaeus Selected by Blanchard, 1845, Histoire des Insectes 2 : 373 Phalaena Bombyx mori Linnaeus, 1758=Bombyx mori (Linnaeus) Selected by [Blanchard], 1846, in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal (Disciples, Edition) (Insectes): pl. 151 * This name does, however, come within the scope of Opinion 124 by the extension of that Opinion made by the Ruling given later in Opinion 279. See Footnote 2. OPINION 450 273 Should the Latreille type selections be considered valid, then Bombyx would fall in the SATURNUDAE and would be isogenotypic with Heraea Hiibner, 1806 and 1822, with type species Bombyx carpini Schiffermiiller, 1775=Phalaena Bombyx pavonia Linnaeus, 1758= Heraea pavonia (Linnaeus) and with Eudia Jordan, 1913, with type species Bombyx pavonia Linnaeus=Eudia pavonia (Linnaeus). If the 1845 type selection of Blanchard were to be accepted as final, Bombyx would replace Lasiocampa Schrank, 1802, the names being isogeno- typic. The traditional type species of Bombyx is mori**, but this species was not selected as type species until 1846. The first use of the name subsequent to 1758 is by Linnaeus, 1761 (Fauna svecica (ed. 2) : 291) for 48 species including pavonia and quercus, but not mori. The first use in a strictly generic sense is by Fabricius, 1775 (Systema Entomologiae : ty) for 13 species including pavona, quercus and mori. Noctua Phalaena Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 508. 68 included species. Type selections : Phalaena Noctua typica Linnaeus, 1758=Noctua typica Linnaeus. Ipso facto. (See Article 30b of the Régles.) Phalaena Noctua pronuba Linnaeus, 1758 = Noctua pronuba(Linnaeus). By tautonomy. In the second edition of the Fauna svecica under species “1167 PH. NOCTUA pronuba” Linnaeus cites a reference to Goedart followed by “‘ Noctua”. This seems to fall within the bounds of the provisions for type species by tautonomy. Phalaena Noctua pronuba Linnaeus, 1758= Noctua pronuba( Linnaeus) Selected by Latreille, 1810, Considérations générales sur Il’ Ordre Naturel des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes : 441. Phalaena Noctua exclamationis Linnaeus, 1758= Noctua exclamationis (Linnaeus) Selected by Duponchel, 1829, in Godart, Histoire Naturelle des Lépidoptéres de France (2): 71 The first use of the name subsequent to 1758 is by Linnaeus in 1761 in the Second Edition of the Fauna svecica (: 305); 85 species are listed including typica, pronuba and exclamationis. The first use in ** Sericaria Latreille, 1829, in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal (ed. 2), 5 : 404, often used with mori as type, is incorrect as mori was not one of the originally included species. 274 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS a strictly generic sense in the insects is by Fabricius in 1775 in the Systema Entomologiae (: 590) ; 122 species are listed including typica, pronuba and exclamationis. This name has also been used in the birds, and I have considered all the references carefully, and I find the first valid usage in that group to be Gmelin’s in 1771 in the Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitana 15 : 447, for Noctua minor=Stryx accipitrina Pallas, 1771. tt In 1923, Barnes and Benjamin (Contributions to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America 5 (pt. 2) : 55) stated that the long established and familiar family name NOCTUIDAE should be replaced _ by PHALAENIDAE. Their reasons were that Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, were isogenotypic, having Phalaena Noctua typica Linnaeus, 1758, as type species (see Article 30b of the Régles), and that Noctua was in effect the typical subgenus of Phalaena (see Articles 9 and 29 of the Régles). The promulgation of Opinion 124 in 1936 (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 73(8) : 1-2) has put their reasoning in an entirely different light, because these names no longer have the same type species, and one is free to select the type species of Noctua. If we accept Noctua Linnaeus as of 1761, typica Linnaeus, 1758, cannot be construed as the type species because it is not a new species in this work (see Article 30b of the Régles). The type could be pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, by tautonomy and also as subsequently selected by Latreille in 1810. Duponchel’s subsequent type selection of exclamationis Linnaeus, 1758, would be invalid. Noctua Linnaeus, 1761, would then take precedence over Triphaena Ochsenheimer with the same species, pronuba, selected as type species by Curtis in 1831 (British Entomology 8 : 348). The generic name Noctua* has had slightly varying applications within the sub-family AGROTINAE (recte NOCTUINAE) of the family of which it is the type genus. In America the name has been applied to the group of moths typified by the species related to c-nigrum ; this was the usage of John B. Smith and was based upon the Guenée (1852) and Meigen (1829) use of the name. The correct name for this group is Amathes Hiibner [1821] with type Noctua baja Schiffermiiller. tt Tams, 1935, Insecta of Samoa, Part 3, Lepidoptera, Fasc. 4, 171, refers to Noctua Linnaeus, 1766. In this usage (Amaenitates Academicae, 7 : 450) the name is a nomen nudum ; it is a combination (Noctua daurica) of an undescribed species and an undescribed genus. The first date of this use is 1764 (Dissertatio Academica Demonstrans Necessitatem Promovendae Historiae Naturalis in Rossia, 16), and it should be credited to Karamyschew, not Linnaeus. It has no nomenclatorial validity. * For a comprehensive discussion of Noctua see Grote, 1902. Proc. Amer. phil. Soc. 41 :4—12. Fora bibliography see Barnes and Benjamin, 1923, Contribu- tions to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America, 5 (pt. 2), 56—57. OPINION 450 275 Hampson, on the basis of the “first species rule,’ used the name Noctua with type species strix Linnaeus, 1758, in place of Thysania Dalman, 1825, and substituted the subfamily name NOCTUINAE for EREBINAE. . The recognition of the technically correct position of Phalaéna and Noctua and the change of the family name NOCTUIDAE to PHALAENIDAE has led to confusion and to the interjection of the name AGROTIDAE{ as a substitute for PHALAENIDAE. The inherent confusion lies in the application that the names Phalaena and PHALAENIDAE had prior to the change made by Barnes and Benjamin in 1923. Phalaena was restricted by Fabricius in 1775 to include the species placed by Linnaeus in Phalaena Geometra and Phalaena Pyralis. Latreille, accepting this restriction, made his family PHALAENITES (in Sonnini’s Buffon, Insectes, in 1802, 3 : 411), and in 1810 (Considérations générales sur I’ Ordre Naturel des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes : 441) he selected Phalaena Geometra sambucaria Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Phalaena. Leach in [1815] (Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 9 (pt. 1) : 134) proposed the tribe PHALAENIDES in which he included five families—PHALAENIDA, GEOMETRIDA, HERMINIDA, PLATYPTERCIDA and TORTRICIDA. The first two families equal the present family GEOMET- RIDAE. Samouelle in 1819 (Entomologist’s Useful Compendium : 252) combined the two names of Leach for the “‘ Geometrids ”’ and used PHALAENIDAE. Curtis in his British Entomology published between 1823 and 1840 divided the species between GEOMETRIDAE and PHALAENIDAE without any apparent reasons. Duponchel in 1829 and Guenée in 1857 used PHALAENITES for the “‘ Geometrids.”” Packard published his Monograph of the Geometrid Moths or Phalaenidae of North America in 1876. The name has been used by other workers, but almost always referring to the ““ Geometrids,”’ never to the Noctuids. A small group of workers, who apply the “‘ first species rule ’’ rigidly, have asserted that the family name PHALAENIIDAE is the correct name for the family called SATURNIIDAE (Testout, Bulletin Mensuel de la Société linnéene de Lyon, 1941 : 153). If we accept the reinstatement of Noctua Linnaeus, 1761, as a name acceptable under the strict interpretation of the provisions of the Régles and the Opinions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, NOCTUIDAE could be used in place of the very ambiguous, { The family name AGROTIDAE was proposed by Grote in 1895 (Abhandl. naturwiss. Vereins zu Bremen 14 : 43) to replace the family name NOCTUIDAE. Grote considered it arbitrary to begin zoological nomenclature with the tenth edition of the Systema Naturae, and thus, to his way of thinking, Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, was pre-occupied by Noctua Klein, 1753 (see 1896, Can. Ent. 28 : 65—66). Actually the first use of AGROTIDAE was by Heinemann in 1859 (Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, 1 : 488) and was based upon, and equal in concept to, AGROTIDES of Rambur, proposed in 1848 (Ann. Soc. ent. France, 6 : 67). AGROTIDAE in the sense of Rambur and Heinemann is equal to the modern subfamily AGROTINAE (PHALAEINAE) recte NOCTUINAE. 276 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS though older, family name PHALAENIDAE. In view of the great amount of literature that has been built up for PHALAENIDAE in the sense of the Geometrid moths and because the use of the name for the Noctuid moths has had very little acceptance generally, I do not think it will contribute anything to stability to continue to advocate the use of PHALAENIDAE in place of NOCTUIDAE. As a family name NOCTUIDAE, proposed as NOCTUAELITES by Latreille in 1809 (Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, 4 : 224), has had universal usage for one concept, and it is still generally used by most workers other than those in England and in North America. Geometra Phalaena Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1: 519. 75 included species Type selection: Phalaena Geometra papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758 = Geometra papilio- naria (Linnaeus) Selected by Duponchel, 1829, in Godart, Histoire Naturelle des Lépidoptéres de France 7(pt. 2) : 106 The first use subsequent to 1758 is by Linnaeus in 1761 in the second edition of the Fauna svecica (: 332) for 81 species including papilionaria. The first use in a strictly generic sense is by Schiffermiiller in 1775 in the Ankundung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend (: 95) for 191 species including papilionaria. Pyralis Phaiaena Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 533. ~ 8 included species Type selections : ““ First species of Linnaeus.” Selected by Curtis, 1829, British Entomology 6 : 288 _ Phaiaena barbalis Clerck, 1759 = Pyralis barbalis (Clerck) Selected by Curtis, 1834 (December), British Entomology 41: 527 _ Phalaena Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 = Pyralis farinalis cae naeus) OPINION 450 ANT Selected by Stephens, 1835 (January), I/lustrations of British Entomology Haustellata 4 : 395 Tortrix fagana Schiffermiiller, 1775 = Pyralis fagana (Schiffermiiller) Selected by Latreille, 1810, Considérations générales sur l’ Ordre Naturel des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes : 441 The first use of Pyralis subsequent to 1758 is by Linnaeus in 1761 in the Fauna svecica (ed. 2) : 349 for 13 species including farinalis and barbalis. If the name were to be accepted from this work it would fall in the Noctuids and replace Herminia Latreille, the type genus of the subfamily HERMINIINAE. The first use of the name in a strictly generic sense was by Fabricius in 1775, Systema Entomologiae (: 645) for 57 species. These were the species which Linnaeus placed under Tortrix. If the name were to be accepted from this source, it would replace Tortrix or one of the closely related genera. Blanchard (1840 and 1845) was apparently the last worker to use Pyralis in the sense of Fabricius, but he also used Tortrix in the Linnean sense. Tortrix Phalaena Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 530. 24 included species Type selection : Phalaena Tortrix viridana Linnaeus, 1758 = Tortrix viridana (Linnaeus) Selected by Curtis, 1839, British Entomology 16 : 763 The first use subsequent to 1758 is by Linnaeus in 1761 in the second edition of the Fauna svecica (: 342) for 40 species including viridana. The first use in a strictly generic sense was by Schiffermiiller in 1775 in the Ankundung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend (: 125) for 104 species including viridana. Tinea P.ialaena Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1: 534. 56 included species Type selection : ple Phalaena Tinea pellionella Linnaeus, 1758 = Tinea pellionella (Linnaeus) selection by Latreille, 1810, Considérations générales sur [ Ordre Naturel des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes : 441 The first use subsequent to 1758 is by Linnaeus in 1761 in the second edition of the Fauna svecica (: 352) for 95 species including pellionella. The first use in a strictly generic sense is by Geoffroy in 1762 in his 278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Histoire Abrégée des Insectes (2 : 25 and 173).° In this work there are no nomina trivialia ; the species included under this name are represented by a descriptive polynominal phrase. Geoffroy spelled the name Tinaea.® Fabricius first used the name with included nomina trivialia in 1775 in the Systema Entomologiae (: 655) for 66 species including pellionella. Alucita Phalaena Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 542. 6 included species Type selections : Phalaena Alucita hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758 = Alucita hexadactyla (Linnaeus) Selected by Curtis, 1838, British Entomology 15 : 695 Tinea striatella Schiffermiiller, 1775 = Alucita striatella (Schiffer- miller) Selected by [Blanchard] 1846, in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal (Disciples, Edition). Insectes: pl. 157 — Phalaena Tinea De Geerella {recte degeerella] Linnaeus, 1758= Alucita degeerella (Linnaeus) Selected by Walsingham, 1911, Biologia Centrali-Americana, Insecta, Lepidoptera-Heterocera 4 : 89 (as the type of Alucita Fabr. nec Alucita Linnaeus) The first use subsequent to 1758 was by Linnaeus in 1761 in the second edition of the Fauna svecica (: 370) for 7 species including hexadactyla. ‘The first use in a strictly generic sense was by Fabricius in 1775 in the Systema Entomologiae (: 667) for 20 species. These were part of the species which Linnaeus included under Phalaena Tinea, thus if the name were used from this work it would come to be applied in a different association than the customary one. CONCLUSIONS 3. In view of the uncertainty as to the work from which to date the generic names which first appeared as the names for groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and of the importance of maintaining these names and the family names based upon them in the same sense as that in which all the pertinent literature has been built up, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the following action, namely :— 5 The Histoire abrégee of Geoffroy has since been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the International Commission in its Opinion 228 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 209—220). 8- For a further discussion of the generic name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762, see para- graph 13 of the paper reproduced in paragraph 26 of the present Opinion (: 308). OPINION 450 279 (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 495) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) under the procedure envisaged in Opinion 124 (i) to validate, as of subgeneric status, the names specified in Column (1) below, those names to be treated as having been published by Linnaeus on the pages of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae and on the date specified in that Column, (11) to designate as the type species of the subgenera concerned the species specified in Column (2) below, and (iii) to direct that the Familes in which the subgenera specified in Column (1) are placed shall bear the names specified in Column (3) below :— Name of subgenus and original reference thereto (1) (i) Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 495 (masculine) (ii) Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 508 (feminine) (iii) Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 519 (feminine) (iv) Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 530 (feminine) (v) Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 533 (feminine) (vi) Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 534 (feminine) (vii) Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 542 (feminine) Species designated as the type species of the subgenus specified in Column (1) (2) Phalaena Bombyx mori Lin- naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 499 Phalaena Noctua pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 512 Phalaena Geometra papilion- aria Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 522 Phalaena Tortrix viridana Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 530 Phalaena Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10 1 : 533 Phalaena Tinea _ pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 536 Phalaena Alucita hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 542 Name of Family in which sub- genus specified in Column (1) to be placed (3) BOMBYCIDAE NOCTUIDAE* GEOMETRIDAE TORTRICIDAE PYRALIDAET TINEIDAE ALUCITIDAE * This involves the abandonment of the family names PHALAENIDAE as used in America and AGROTIDAE as used in England. + The form here proposed to be adopted for the name of this family is PYRALIDAE and not the emendation PYRALIDIDAE for reasons similar to those recently advanced by Hemming (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 68—69) in regard to the family name PIERIDAE and its emendation PIERIDIDAE. 280 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) under the procedure envisaged in Opinion 124, as extended by the International Commission in Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 266—267), (i) to validate, as of subgeneric status, the name Attacus, as from Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 808), and (i1) to designate Phalaena Bombyx atlas Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. (ed. 10) 1 : 495) to be its type species ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) the seven generic names validated under the Plenary Powers, as proposed in (1)(b) above with the type species there specified ; (b) Attacus Linnaeus, 1767, as validated under the Plenary Powers, as proposed in (1)(c) above, with the type species there specified ; (3) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) the trivial names of the seven species specified in Column (2) of (1)(b) above ; (b) the trivial name atlas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena atlas (trivial name of type species of Attacus Linnaeus, 1767) ; (4) place the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, as proposed, under (1)(a) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 4. If the above actions are taken, it is believed that stability in the use of these names will result and that the growing confusion in the nomenclature of the Lepidoptera Heterocera will be materially reduced. 6. Counter-proposal in favour of the acceptance of the generic name ‘‘ Phalaena ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, submitted by Dr. Jiri Paclt in 1952 : As soon as the terms of Dr. Franclemont’s application (paragraph 5 above) had been finally settled, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, communicated a copy of it to Dr. Jiri Paclt, in view of the fact that the proposals submitted by Dr. Franclemont OPINION 450 281 cut across those already submitted by Dr. Paclt and it appeared equitable that the latter should be afforded the earliest possible opportunity of commenting on Dr. Franclemont’s plan. On 14th July 1952 Dr. Paclt communicated to the Office of the Commission a counter-proposal in which, after expressing objection to Dr. Franclemont’s proposal in favour of the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, he recommended that definitive approval of that name should be given by the International Commission by placing it on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Subject to a few minor drafting points which were settled by Dr. Paclt in a letter dated 19th August 1952, the counter-proposal referred to above was as follows :— Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name ‘‘ Phalaena ’’? Linnaeus, 1758, and to validate, as from 1758, the terms employed by Linnaeus for groups of that genus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): proposed addition of ‘‘ Phalaena ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”’ By JIRI PACLT (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) I entirely disagree with Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304—312) for the validation, as of subgeneric status, of the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758, to denote the groups into which he divided the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 17587. My view in this matter is not confined to the particular terms discussed by Dr. Franclemont, but apply equally to all similar terms used by Linnaeus for subdivisions of genera established by him in 1758. See my paper on this subject published in 1947 (Acta Soc. ent. Czechosl. 44 : 37). For if we accept any of these terms as being the names of subgenera, we should be bound logically to adopt the same course by analogy in the case of the terms used by Linnaeus for subdivisions of the genus Papilio. 2. In the case of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, there are six of these terms, namely :—(1) Barbarus ; (2) Eques ; (3) Heliconius ; (4) Danaus ; (5) Nymphalis ; (6) Plebejus. Of these the first two have been dis- * For Dr. Franclemont’s application see paragraph 5 of the present Opinion 282 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS regarded for many years, but as regards each of the remainder we now have a generally accepted nomenclatorial usage, namely :— Heliconius Kluk, 1802 Type species : Papilio charithonia Linnaeus, 1758 Danaus Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 Nyimphalis Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio polychloros Linnaeus, 1758 Plebejus Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758. 3. In these circumstances it will be evident that no useful purpose whatever would be served by validating as from 1758, the terms used by Linnaeus for subdivisions of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, and, indeed, that nothing but confusion would result from such action. 4. When we turn to consider the parallel problem presented by the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 for subdivisions of the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, we find that, with a few exceptions these terms are generally accepted as generic names either as from Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.) or from Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Ankiind. syst. Werkes Schmett. Wienergegend). The usages so accepted are as follows :— Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 Type species: Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758 Geometra Denis & Schiff., do. Phalaena_ papilionaria 1775 Linnaeus, 1758 Tortrix Denis & Schiff., 1775 do. Phalaena viridana Linnaeus, 1758 Pyralis Fabricius, 1775 do. Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 Tinea Fabricius, 1775 do. Phalaena pellionella Linnaeus, 1758 Alucita Fabricius, 1775 do. Phalaena pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758. 5. In the case of the names Bombyx and Pyralis, the foregoing usage is not in strict accord with the requirements of the Régles. In these cases proposals have been submitted to the International Commission for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate existing usage. See my application Z.N.(S)288 on Bombyx Fabricius (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 313—314)8 and Z.N.(S.)331 on Pyralis Fabricius (1952, ibid, 6 : 314—315).8 8 The applications submitted by Dr. Paclt in regard to the generic names Bombyx and Pyralis have been reprinted in paragraphs 3 and 4 respectively of the present Opinion. OPINION 450 283 6. We have to note also that in the case of the term Noctua as used by Linnaeus to denote a group of the genus Phalaena there is (as in the case of Papilio Eques) a further problem which would require consideration, for it is clear that, if there were such a subgeneric name as Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, its type species would not be the same species as that of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, for the type species of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, would be Phalaena pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, while that of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, is Phalaena typica Linnaeus, 1758. 7. In these circumstances I must ask why Dr. Franclemont wishes to disturb the well-established practice of ignoring all the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 for subdivisions of genera then established. In this connection I must point out that Dr. Franclemont’s proposals would involve the cancellation, or at least the modification, of the Com- mission’s Opinion 124, which states : ‘‘ The various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of this date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the International Rules’’.® 8. If in despite of Opinion 124 we were to accept the terms used by Linnaeus to denote groups of species within his genera as being names of subgeneric status as from 1758, we should be confronted with serious and quite unnecessary difficulties. For example, we should probably have to take special steps to preserve the name Eques Bloch, 1793, the name of a well-known genus of fishes, which, in the absence of such action, would fall as a junior homonym of Eques Linnaeus, 1758. Again, we should be confronted with such problems as those presented by the name “ Barbarus’”’ (properly Papilio Barbarus), the position as regards which was discussed by Tutt in 1905 (Ent. Rec. 17 : 211). No doubt also similar problems would arise in the case of groups of animals other than the Order Lepidoptera, with which alone we are here concerned. Unless serious reasons could be brought forward in favour of such a course, it would, indeed, in my opinion, be ridiculous to disturb the ruling given in Opinion 124, an Opinion which, though of relatively recent date, has made a substantial contribution to the central aim of the Régles, namely, the stabilisation of zoological nomenclature. 9. Finally, I must make it clear that I am strongly opposed to Dr. Franclemont’s proposal for the suppression of the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758. Dr. Franclemont suggests that the family name (NOCTUIDAE) derived from the generic name Noctua is “ long-established and familiar’’. In my view, however, there are two rivals of that family name : for many decades the family name AGROTIDAE has been * Attention is drawn to the comment later furnished by Dr. Franclemont re- butting, as being misconceived, the argument here used by Dr. Paclt, which is reproduced in paragraph 19 of the present Opinion. 284 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS used in Europe for the family in question. while in America the name PHALAENIDAE prevails. 10. Like the name Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, is a well-known name, even though it has often been used in an ambiguous way. I think it ‘desirable that this name should now be officially recognised and I accordingly ask the International Commission to do this by placing this name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The request now submitted is therefore that the International Commission should :— (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, under Rule (b) in Article 30 (use of the word typica as the trivial name of an included species) : Phalaena typica Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 512) ; (2) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name typica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Phalaena typica) (trivial name of type species of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758). (ee WEE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 7. Registration of the applications received in regard to various aspects of the present case: Upon the receipt in 1947 of the applications submitted by Dr. Paclt the Registered Number Z,N.(S.) 288 was allotted to that relating to the name Bombyx Fabricius, 1775, and the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 331 to that relating to the name Pyralis Fabricius, 1775. When in 1950 Dr. Franclemont’s comprehensive application in regard to all the terms introduced by Linnaeus to denote groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, was received in the Office of the Commission, the case so submitted was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 462. In the concluding stages of the consideration of the proposals put forward in the foregoing applications the two earlier Files were closed, the papers relating to Dr. Paclt’s proposals regarding the names Bombyx Fabricius and. Pyralis Fabricius respectively being transferred to File ZN.(S.) 462. OPINION 450 285 8. Drafting amendments on procedural grounds made in the applications submitted in the present case: It was not found possible to make any progress with the applications in regard to the names Bombyx and Pyralis respectively submitted by Dr. Paclt in 1947 before the meeting of the International Commis- sion held in Paris 1948 concurrently with the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. The decisions on procedural matters, notably those relating to the placing on the appropriate Official Lists of all names accepted by the Commission in its Opinions, taken by the foregoing Congress necessitated a certain amount of redrafting in the case of all applications then awaiting attention by the Commission. No progress in this matter was, however, possible until after the publication in 1950 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4, 5) of the Official Record of the decisions taken in Paris in 1948 by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the International Congress of Zoology respectively. Thereafter work was resumed on the applications which had been pending at the time of the Paris meetings, the Secretary entering into correspondence on outstanding points with the applicants concerned. In the case of the applications relating to the names Bombyx and Pyralis the necessary amendments were settled by Dr. Paclt in a letter dated 14th July 1952. The more general application submitted by Dr. Franclemont was received in the Office of the Commission in 1950 just after the publication of the Official Record of the Paris Meetings but had been prepared before the terms of the Paris decisions had been made public. Accordingly in the case of this application also some redrafting was required in order to bring it into line with the procedural decisions taken by the Paris Congress. These amendments were settled by Dr. Franclemont in a letter to the Office of the Commission dated 26th July 1952. 9. Support received for Dr. Franclemont’s application prior to its publication in the ‘‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’.: Prior to the publication of Dr. Franclemont’s application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature particulars of support for the action there recommended were received by the Office of the Commission from the following sources, namely: (1) a letter dated 4th July 1950 from Dr. Eugene Munroe (Division of 286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Entomology, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) ; (2) in a letter dated 4th January 1951 received from Dr. J. G. Franclemont, containing particulars of support received from other specialists :— (a) Support received from Dr. Eugene Munroe in a letter dated 4th July 1950 (Munroe, 1952, ‘° Bull. zool. Nomencl.”’ 6 : 317): Mr. John G. Franclemont, of the United States National Museum, has sent me a copy of his paper on the Linnean subgeneric names of Phalaena, with the request that I study the arguments and recom- mendations presented, and make known my views on the subject to you, as Secretary to the International Commission. . | have read Mr. Franclemont’s paper carefully. I have a special interest and knowledge only in the cases of Pyralis and Alucita, but I have studied critically the discussion of the other names. I am glad to say that I find nothing to add to the facts and opinions which Mr. Franclemont has presented, beyond my hearty commenda- tion and warm support. I earnestly hope that the International Commission will see its way to following the recommendations outlined at the end of Mr. Franclemont’s paper. -(b) Particulars of support from certain specialists communicated by Dr. J. G. Franclemont (extract from a letter dated 4th January 1951) : I have checked with the ornithologists here at the Museum and they have furnished me with the following information: Noctua Gmelin, 1771, is a synonym of Asio Brisson, 1760; the respective types are the short-eared and long-eared owls. Whenever the name Noctua has been used by ornithologists it has usually been credited to Savigny with the date 1809. Sharp in the British Museum Catalogue credits Noctua to Savigny and makes no mention of the Gmelin use. It has been stated that this catalogue has governed to a great extent the use of names by ornithologists. Prior to 1926 and Opinion 124 any use in the birds would have been considered ultra vires. The name is not in use for any genus of owls and has “pp not been used for almost a century or more. OPINION 450 287 I have heard only from McDunnough, Forbes, Dos Passos, Munroe and Chermock, all have agreed to all the points requested. Clarke, Heinrich, Field and Capps at the Museum have also stated their acceptance of my suggestions for the fixing of the names. In addition, José Oiticica Filho, of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil also thought the proposal a step in the right direction. When I talked with McDunnough in New York last spring he was somewhat sceptical about the Commission being willing to give a subgenus precedence over a genus, but never- theless agreed that Noctua and NOCTUIDAE were to be preferred to Phalaena and PHALAENIDAE. 10. Publication of the applications submitted in the present case: Dr. Paclt’s applications relating respectively to the names Bombyx and Pyralis and Dr. Franclemont’s application dealing generally with the question of the possible validation under the Plenary Powers of the terms used by Linnaeus to denote groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, were sent to the printer on 4th July 1952 and were published in Part 10 of Volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 29th August 1952 (Paclt, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 313—314 (Bombyx) ; id., 1952, ibid. 6 : 314—315 (Pyralis) ; Franclemont, 1952, ibid. 6 : 304—312). Dr. Paclt’s counter-proposal relating to the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, which was received too late to be included in the same Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as the other papers relating to the present case, was published in the next available Part of the Bulletin and appeared on 30th December 1952 (Paclt, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 147—148). 11. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 either (i) for the purpose of designating type species for the genera Bombyx Fabricius, 1775, and Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, as recommended by Dr. Paclt or (ii) for the validation of the above and certain other terms as being of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758, and, in one case, the validation of such a term as from Linnaeus, 1767, and the suppression of the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, as recommended by Dr. Franclemont, 288 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS was given on 29th August 1952 (a) in Part 10 of Volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which were published the two applications submitted by Dr. Paclt and also the application submitted by Dr. Franclemont) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Public Notice was given also to four general zoological serials and to eight entomological serials in Europe and America. 12. Comments received : The publication of the foregoing applications in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the issue of Public Notices regarding the possible use by the Inter- national Commission of its Plenary Powers in connection there- with elicited a number of communications of various kinds, namely :—(1) communications from six specialists (U.S.A., three specialists; Brazil, two specialists; Netherlands, one specialist) in support of the proposals submitted by Dr. Francle- mont ; (2) a note by the Secretary, with reference to Dr. Francle- mont’s proposal'for the validation of the name Tinea as from Linnaeus, 1758, drawing attention to a paper published in 1943 in which two specialists had sought to bring forward the generic name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 ; (3) a note prepared by Dr. J. G. Franclemont in answer to criticisms made by Dr. Jiri Paclt of his proposal for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758; (4) a letter from Dr. Franclemont making certain comments on the proposals relating to the names Bombyx and Pyralis submitted by Dr. Paclt. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 13. Support for Dr. Franclemont’s proposals received from Wm. T. M. Forbes (New York State College of Agriculture in Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) : On 18th August 1952 Professor Wm. T. M. Forbes (New York State College of Agri- culture in Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) addressed to the Office of the Commission the following letter in support of the application submitted by Dr. Franclemont (Forbes, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 149) :— I am writing you, at Dr. Franclemont’s suggestion, in connection with his paper on the Linnean subgenera and their type species. OPINION 450 289 I feel that his solution, both as to names and as to type species, is highly advisable, with the possible exception of the name Alucita, which has been used as nearly equally in two different families, that I think it might be thrown overboard, by whichever formal suspension of rules is practicable. 14. Support received for Dr. Franclemont’s proposals from Frederick H. Rindge (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) : On 4th September 1952, Dr. Frederick H. Rindge (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) addressed to the Office of the Commission the following letter in support of the application submitted by Dr. Franclemont (Rindge, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 151) :— Recently I received a letter from Mr. Franclemont of the United States National Museum informing me that you are interested in obtaining the opinions of qualified workers on his paper entitled “The Linnaean Subgeneric Names of Phalaena (Lepidoptera, Hetero- cera)”. As I have charge of the Lepidoptera collection here at the American Museum of Natural History, and as I work primarily with the moths, I believe I would qualify. I agree with the conclusions expressed in the above-mentioned paper, and unless additional information is brought forth, I certainly hope that the Commission will take action on this question as indicated in this paper. Such action would certainly lead to a uniformity in the application of names in the Lepidoptera, and it would definitely lead to stability. 15. Support for Dr. Franclemont’s proposals received from A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) : On 26th September 1952, Dr. A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) addressed the following letter to the Office of the Commission in support of Dr. Franclemont’s application (Diakonoff, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 151) :— Upon an invitation of Mr. Franclemont (addressed to Mr. Lempke) I am glad to comment upon his paper on the Linnean “‘ Subgeneric Names ”’, recently republished in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (6 : 304—312). 290 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS As you perhaps remember, I had the pleasure of discussing this paper with you during your visit to our Museum in August 1951 ; at that time I expressed myself entirely in agreement with Mr. Francle- mont’s views, and thought that a proposal to the International Com- mission on the lines recommended by Dr. Franclemont would be most useful, and would contribute to uniformity and stability of the nomenclature of Lepidoptera. In the meantime I discovered that the validity of the well-known and familiar generic name Tortrix, and with it of the family name TORTRICIDAE (with which group I am especially concerned!) is seriously endangered. Dr. Obraztsov of Sea Cliffe, N.Y., draws my attention to the fact that under the present Rules the first valid author of Tortrix appears to be not Thunberg, but Scopoli, 1777 ; consequently Tortrix might fall as a synonym of some horrible old name such as, e.g., Heterognomon Lederer, 1859 (Wien. ent. Monatsch. 3 : 242). To prevent this disaster I even more warmly advocate accepting Mr. Franclemont’s proposals. As to the familiar generic name Tinea, | may draw your attention to the paper by A. Steven Corbet and W. H. T. Tams published in the 1943 (Entomologist 76 (961) : 113—114), where those authors replace the name Tinea Linnaeus by that of Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762. Their view (and the changed spelling 7inaea and TINAEIDAE) has been accepted by several authors (among whom by myself), but it unavoidably leads to more confusion. The acceptance of Mr. Franclemont’s proposals would put an end to this instability as well. 16. Support for Dr. Franclemont’s proposals received from Cyril F. dos Passos (Research Associate, The American Museum: of Natural History, New York) : On 14th October 1952, Dr. Cyril F. dos Passos (Research Associate, The American Museum of Natural History, New York) communicated to the Office of the Commission his views on the application submitted by Dr. Franclemont in the following terms (dos Passos, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 153—154) :— I desire to support the application made to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. John G. Franclemont (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304—312) to suspend the rules, to validate the following generic names of Linnaeus as of 1758 : Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Pyralis, Tortrix, Tinea and Alucita, to designate their type species, to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, to give preference to its typical subgenus Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, OPINION 450 291 to declare NOCTUIDAE the correct name for the family, to validate one generic name of Linnaeus as of 1767, i.e., Attacus, and designate its type species, as set forth in detail in the said application, and in a paper published by Dr. Franclemont in 1950. 2. While Opinion 124 declares that the various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758, Systema Naturae, Tenth Edition, are not to be accepted as of that date as of subgeneric value under the rules, it was recognized that, if this Opinion would produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission would be prepared to consider individual cases submitted to them by the specialists concerned. 3. McDunnough’s Check List (1938, 1939), which is in current use in North America and probably elsewhere, uses all the generic names involved in this application, as set forth by Dr. Franclemont, with the exception of Noctua, for which Phalaena is used. The generic names in question, with the exception of Phalaena, have been in constant use for a very long time. To upset their usage now would cause greater confusion than uniformity. While it is unfortunate to suppress one of the three original generic names (Phalaena) of Linnaeus, not to do so will only result in suppressing an almost equally well- known name (Noctua). There is, therefore, good reason for not adhering strictly to the rules in this case. 4. Dr. Jiri Paclt in the same number of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6 : 313—315) under Commission’s references Z.N.(S). 288 and Z.N.(S.)331 has made partial parallel applications for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758 to be the type species of Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 and to designate Phalaena Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 to be the type species of Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, the only difference between Dr. Franclemont’s application and that of Dr. Paclt in these two cases being that in the former application these generic names are credited to Linnaeus, 1758, rather than Fabricius, 1775, as in the latter applica- tion. While the work of Fabricius was the first in which these names were used in a strictly generic sense, Dr. Franclemont (1952, tom. cit. : 306) has pointed out that, if these names were to be accepted from this work, considerable confusion would arise when all the generic names involved in his application are considered. Consequently it is believed advisable to make a clean sweep of all later uses of these names and settle them all as of 1758. Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)462, Z.N.(S.)288 and Z.N.(S.)331 could well be consolidated and considered as one. 5. In Opinion 158 the Commission considered such a case, as are involved in the three above-mentioned applications, recognized that an exception should be made for Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, and designated 292 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the type species. Opinion 124 gives ample authority for granting this application and the case considered in Opinion 158 is a perfect precedent for a similar ruling in the instant case. Literature Cited Fabricius, Johann Christian 1775. Systema Entomologiae, sistens Insectorum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. Flensburg and Leipzig, Kortii, [32] + 832 pp. Franclemont, John George 1950. The Linnaean Subgeneric Names of Phalaena (Lepidoptera, Heterocera). J. New York ent. Soc. 58 : 41—53 Linnaeus, Carolus [Carl von Linné] 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentit Salvu, 1 : [4] + 824 pp. 1767. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio duodecima, reformata. Stock- holm, Laurentii Salvi, 1 : [2] + 533—535, 356—357 [sic], 538, 359—360 [sic], 541—605, 506 [sic], 607— 891, 902 [sic], 893—1328 + [36] pp. McDunnough, James Halliday 1938. Check List of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Part I. Macrolepidoptera. Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci., 1 : 1—272, 1—3 (corrigenda) 1939. Check List of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Part II. Microlepidoptera. Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 2 : 1\—171 17. Support for Dr. Franclemont’s proposals from José Oiticica Filho and R. Fereira d’Almeida, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) : On 15th January 1953, Dr. José Oiticica Filho addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission, with which he transmitted OPINION 450 293 the following statement prepared jointly by himself and Dr. R. Fereira d’Almeida, supporting the application submitted by Dr. Franclemont in the present case :— Support for Dr. J. G. Franclemont’s proposal for the validation, as subgeneric names, of the terms applied by Linnaeus in 1758 to subdivisions of the genus ‘‘ Phalaena ’’ (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) By JOSE OITICICA FILHO and R. FEREIRA D’ALMEIDA (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) We have received Franclemont’s paper “ The Linnaean subgeneric names of Phalaena (Lepidoptera, Heterocera)’’, published in the Journal of the New York Entomological Society, Vol. 58, March 1950, pages 41—53, with a request to send our views either pro or con to the Commission in London. We have to say that after a careful discussion of Franclemont’s paper we arrived at the same conclusions. We do think that if the Commission validates the names as proposed by Franclemont greater stability and less confusion will result in the nomenclature of the Lepidoptera Heterocera. We think also that the suspension of Rules and the use of Plenary Powers must be done very sparingly. But every time that a paper, like the one under discussion, is written to put order in a badly written Opinion, like Opinion 124, we think that, we are concerned not with a suspension of Rules, but indeed with a correction of the Opinion under discussion. That is exactly what happened with Opinion 124. It has been written without a careful examination of the problems in connection with the Linnean subgeneric names in Lepidoptera. The result has been that, if the suppression of the subgeneric names for the Rhopalocera resulted in the stabilisation of their nomenclature, the same did not happen with the Heterocera subgeneric names. We agree therefore with Franclemont’s conclusions and we support them, but we believe that they do not really constitute a newly pro- posed suspension of the Rules, but are rather a correction of a not very well written Opinion, namely, the Opinion 124. 294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18. Note by Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on the name ‘‘ Tinaea ’’ Geoffroy, 1762 : On 15th October 1952 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, submitted the following note (i) drawing attention to a paper by Corbet & Tams published in 1943 in which it had been suggested that the generic name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762, should be introduced in place of Tinea which under Opinion 124 was not available as from Linnaeus, 1758, and (ii) pointing out that this solution was impracticable because the work in which the foregoing name had been published by Geoffroy had since been rejected by the International Commission for nomenclatorial purposes (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 152) :— On the consequential action in regard to the generic name ‘‘ Tinaea ”’ Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) which would be needed in the event of approval being given to Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal that the name ‘‘ Tinea ”’ should be validated under the Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In a letter supporting Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304—312) that the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote groups of species of the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 should be validated, Dr. A. Diakonoff has drawn attention (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 151) to a paper by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet and Mr. W. H. T. Tams (1943, Entomologist 76 : 113—114), in which those authors, in an attempt to secure a stable foundation, if not for the name Tinea, at least for a name closely resembling it, brought forward the proposal that this genus should in future be known by the name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 2 : 25, 173), for which they then selected Phalaena Tinea pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species. 2. Geoffroy in his Histoire abrégée did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, using instead the system formerly known as “binary nomenclature’’. At the time when Corbet & Tams wrote their paper, the question whether a generic name published by a “binary ’’, but not binominal author should be accepted as possessing any status of availability in virtue of having been so published was sub judice. The Corbet/Tams proposal relating to the name Tinaea Geoffroy was therefore necessarily provisional from the standpoint of the Régles until the underlying question of principle had been settled. In 1948 the International Congress of Zoology ruled against OPINION 450 295 the acceptance of generic names published by non-binominal authors (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63—66), and the Commission, which already had before it an application for a ruling on the availability of generic names first published in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée, thereupon ruled that those names were not available!®; the Commission added at the same time that it would be prepared to entertain proposals for the validation of individual generic names in this book, where it could be shown that confusion would otherwise arise and asked the Secretary to confer with interested specialists on this subject (1950, ibid. 4 : 366— 369). 3. It will be seen that the use of the Plenary Powers would be needed to secure the validation of the name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762, just as it would to provide a valid foundation for the name Tinea as from Linnaeus, 1758. From this point of view there is therefore nothing to choose between a proposal to validate Tinaea Geoffroy and one to validate Tinea Linnaeus. From the practical point of view the latter course has, however, important advantages, (1) because it would retain for this genus a name spelt in the traditional way (Tinea), avoiding the awkward and unaccustomed variant Tinaea and TINAEIDAE, and (2) because under it Linnaeus would become officially what he has long been unofficially regarded as being, namely, the author of this generic name. 4. Accordingly, my conclusion as between the two alternatives discussed above is that, if the Plenary Powers are to be used to regularise the position of this and the other important names covered by the application submitted to the International Commission by Dr. John G. Franclemont, the validation of Tinea as from Linnaeus, 1758, is greatly to be preferred to the validation, in its place, of Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762. I therefore recommend that, so far as this genus is concerned, the question on which consideration should be concentrated is whether in the interests of nomenclatorial stability the Plenary Powers should be used to validate the name Tinea, as of subgeneric status, as from Linnaeus, 1758, with Phalaena Tinea pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. In the event of that proposal being approved the only action that would be called for, as regards the name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762, would be to place it upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, where, being an invalid name, it properly belongs. 19. Note by J. G. Franclemont in answer to the criticisms by J. Paclt of his proposal for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name ‘‘ Phalaena ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 : On 21st August 1952, Dr. J. G. Franclemont communicated to the Office of the Commission the following note in which he replied to the criticisms 10 See Footnote 5. 296 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS made by Dr. Jiri Paclt of the proposal which he had submitted for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (Franclemont, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 149—150) :— On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name ‘‘ Phalaena’’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) and to validate, as of subgeneric status, certain terms then used by Linnaeus for subdivisions of that genus : reply to certain criticisms made by Dr. Jiri Paclt By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I have seen Dr. Paclt’s objection (Paclt, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 147—148)" to my proposal (Franclemont, 1952, ibid. 6 : 304—312) for a use of the Plenary Powers to validate the names used for the subgenera of Phalaena by Linnaeus in 1758". I feel that he has misunderstood the intent of my proposal. I do not wish to cancel or modify Opinion 124; I am merely acting within the intent of the published meaning of the Opinion, wherein it is stated: “.. ., but if any group of specialists finds that because of the literature on said group this Opinion will produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission is prepared to take up individual cases under the arguments which may be submitted”. If the Commission were to act favourably on these names, it would not impair Opinion 124 or its subsequent revision at Paris in 1948 ; it would not involve any names but those used as subgeneric categories by Linnaeus under Phalaena ; all other names, no matter what their status in Linnaeus, 1758, lie outside the boundaries of the question under consideration. I cannot agree with the statement that “. . ., with few exceptions these terms are generally accepted as generic names either as from Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.) or from Denis and Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Ankiind. syst. Werkes Schmett. Wienergegend)’’. 1 think the reverse is true, for they are and were generally credited to Linnaeus with few exceptions. Fabricius does not credit the names to Linnaeus, but this can be readily understood because he has modified the application of the names in some cases, and he rather fancied himself as the originator of a new system. Denis and Schiffermiiller credit the names uu pu Paclt’s communication has been reproduced in paragraph : of the present pinion. “ The..application containing these proposals by Dr. spe has been reproduced in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion. OPINION 450 297 to Linnaeus. The Dictionnaire d’ Histoire Naturelle edited by d’Orbigny breaks with Latreille, who credited almost everything to Fabricius, by crediting the names to Linnaeus. Sherborn (Jndex Animalium, Pars prima (1758—1800) : 740) credits the names to Linnaeus and says: “‘... apparently used in a subgeneric sense’”’. The workers in the United States have always thought of the names as originating with Linnaeus. Staudinger, 1901, credits them to Linnaeus, but cites them from the 12th Edition instead of the 10th Edition of the Systema Naturae. As we all know, there was considerable discussion about whether to start with the Tenth or the Twelfth Edition, and it was the present Code that established the tenth edition as the starting point. With regard to Alucita Fabricius, 1775 ; as I have pointed out, this was used for twenty species, part of which were included by Linnaeus under Tinea in 1758 and 1767, but none that he included under Alucita. The type species suggested by Dr. Paclt is not included by Fabricius ; it is under Pterophorus Fabricius, and this name must now date from Fabricius, 1775, because Geoffroy’s work in which this name is first proposed is not binominal. Walsingham in the Biologia centrali-americana, Insecta, Lepidoptera-Heterocera 4:89, 1911, pointed out the two different uses of Alucita and selected as the type of Alucita Fabricius (nec Alucita Linnaeus) Phalaena Tinea DeGeerella (=Alucita degeerella (Linnaeus)). With regard to Phalaena and Noctua; see Article 9, which states that if a genus is divided into subgenera the name of the typical subgenus must be the same as the name of the genus. One of the subgeneric names used by Linnaeus in 1758 must be the typical subgenus of Phalaena. Barnes and Benjamin in the 1923, Contributions to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America 5 (Part 2) : 55 have demonstrated that Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, both proposed as new and with Noctua as a subgeneric category, are isogenotypic with Phalaena Noctua typica Linnaeus, 1758, as type (see Article 30, Rule (b)). It comes as something of a surprise to learn that it was a well established practice to ignore the subgeneric names of Phalaena proposed by Linnaeus in 1758 and 1761, see my comments above on crediting of these names. The names were anything but ignored, they were used all or in part by all workers and credited to Linnaeus either directly or indirectly. Likewise to place the usage of Phalaena in the same class as that of Papilio is, to me, a misrepresentation of the facts, because Phalaena was all but abandoned in the early 1800’s and the subgeneric terms, quite unlike those of Papilio, came to have more use than the generic term. I would take issue with ‘‘ (as published in the combination Phalaena typica)’’, the original combination as published is ““P. Noctua typica”’, 298 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Phalaena being abbreviated. I think we should be absolutely accurate in citing original combinations ; even if parts are suppressed by the action of the Commission, in such cases we should refer to the Opinion in which the suppression is made. Finally with regard to the names NOCTUIDAE, AGROTIDAE and PHALAENIDAE ; in my original paper I made some mention of the usage of these names. I have tried to find some basis for Dr. Paclt’s statement that AGROTIDAE has been used in Europe for decades. The name seems to have had no vogue after Grote suggested the change in 1895; the present usage dates from Tams, 1935. Boursin was apparently the first worker on the Continent to change from NOCTUIDAE to AGROTIDAE, and this was in 1936. Kozhantshikov in 1937 (Faune de l’URSS, Insectes, Lépidoptéres 13 (No. 3)) used NOCTUIDAE. Warren and Draudt in Volume 3 and Supplement of Seitz’s Grosschmetterlinge der Erde published from 1909—1914 and 1931—1938 use NOCTUIDAE. Eckstein in 1920 in Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands Band 3, uses NOCTUIDAE, so does Gaede in Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 14, Schmetterlinge, oder Lepidoptera Part 2 Nachfalter (Heterocera). Macrolepidoptera’’. Bourgogne in the Traité de Zoologie, Vol. 10, fascicule 1 published in 1951 uses NOCTUIDAE, so does Viette, also of the Paris Museum, use NOCTUIDAE in his recent papers. Bang-Haas used NOCTUIDAE in his Novitates Macrolepidopterologicae, Vol. 1—5 published from 1926—1930. The Zoological Record did not change from NOCTUIDAE to AGROTIDAE until Vol. 81 for 1944 published in 1947; the separate Insecta part appeared a year early, 1946. Perhaps Dr. Paclt can cite the works I have overlooked, not that the above list is complete ; it merely represents the titles of works which are on my desk. 20. Comment by J. G. Franclemont on the proposal by J. Pacit for the recognition of the generic names ‘‘ Bombyx ”’ Fabricius, 1775, and ‘‘ Pyralis ’’ Fabricius, 1775 : On 18th September 1952, Dr. J. G. Franclemont addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission in which, inter alia, he commented as follows on the proposals submitted by Dr. Jivi Paclt in favour of the recognition of the generic names Bombyx Fabricius, 1775, and Pyralis Fabricius, 1775 (Franclemont, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 154— 155) :-— In Part 10 of Volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature just received, I note a number of requests for use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission by Dr. Paclt. I am submitting the following comments on them. OPINION 450 299 Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.) 288 (pp. 313—314) Dr. Paclt’s remarks about Sericaria are, I think, incorrect. The name was first used in the vernacular Sericaire [sic!], by Latreille in 1825 (Familles naturelles du Régne Animal, p. 474) in a descriptive key, but the name is coupled with Notodonte [sic!] without any means given for separating them. The Berthold 1827 work (Latreille’s Naturlich Familien des Thierrichs) is merely a translation into German of the Latreille 1825 work. On page 480 we find the same key, the same coupling of the two names, but now in the Latin form as Notodonta and Sericaria [sic!]._ There are no included species in either case. Since no way is provided to distinguish Notodonta from Sericaria, I do not regard the Berthold “‘ proposal ”’ of the name as falling within the meaning and intent of the Régles and Opinions. Sericaria is defined by Latreille in Cuvier, 1829 (Le Régne Animal, ed. 2, Vol. 5, p. 404), and there he includes a single species, ‘“‘ Bombyx dispar Fabricius ”’, the Gypsy Moth. Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.) 331 (pp. 314—315) I have commented elsewhere (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 310)}8 that Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, is equal to Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, and that it does not contain farinalis, the species that Dr. Paclt would have the Commission declare as type species. 21. Submission to the Commission by the Secretary of a note on the procedure proposed to be adopted in reaching a decision on the group of applications involved in the present case : In March 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the International Commission a note in which, after describing the interlocking and mutually irreconcilable character of certain of the applications involved in the present case and giving particulars of the com- munications which had been received from specialists on various aspects of the foregoing applications, submitted the following note of the procedure which appeared to him, as Secretary, to afford the most convenient means for enabling the Commission to reach a series of orderly decisions on the complex of names involved in the present case :— In the circumstances described above, I have, as Secretary, given careful consideration as to the manner in which the present case can most conveniently be submitted to the Commission for decision. The conclusion which I have reached is that the most convenient course—as well as the most correct course—in the circumstances will be to take a vote as between (1) Dr. Franclemont’s comprehensive 13 For the passage here referred to see page 277 of the present Opinion. 300 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS proposal under Opinion 124 (Alternative ‘“‘ A’) and (2) Dr. Paclt’s counter-proposal relating to the name Phalaena Linnaeus (Alternative ““B’’). If Alternative ‘“‘ A ’’ were to be adopted by the Commission that would carry with it not only the rejection of Dr. Paclt’s counter- proposal relating to the name Phalaena, but also his proposals relating to the names Bombyx and Pyralis, which are in direct opposition to Dr. Franclemont’s comprehensive proposal. If the Franclemont proposal were to be rejected by the Commission, a new situation would be created in which it would be necessary, in the light of the decision to retain the name Phalaena, to formulate separate proposals for each of the seven other names dealt with in the Franclemont proposal, and to provide an opportunity for specialists to comment upon the new proposals so formulated. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 22. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 : On 24th March 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)43) was issued in which, in accordance with the procedural arrangements outlined in the paper by the Secretary quoted in paragraph 21 above, which was submitted to the Commission concurrently with the Voting Paper referred to above, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote ““ for the proposal relating to the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, as set out either in ALTERNATIVE ‘A’ (i.e. the Franclemont proposal given in paragraph 3 on pages 311 and 312 of Vol. 6 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl.) or in ALTERNATIVE ‘ B’ (i.e. the Paclt proposal given in paragraph 10 on page 148 of Vol. 9 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl.)”. The document referred to above in connection with Alternative “A” is the application by Dr. Franclemont reproduced in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion, that referred to in connection with Alternative ““B”’ being the counter-proposal by Dr. Paclt reproduced in Peres 6 of the present Opinion. OPINION 450 301 23. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 24th June 1954. 24. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 was as follows :— (a) In favour of “Alternative ‘A’” (the Franclemont proposal specified in paragraph 22 above), nineteen (19) Com- missioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Holthuis ; Lemche ; Hering; Vokes; Bonnet ; Dymond; Esaki; Mertens; Boschma; Jaczewski ; Hemming; Bradley (J.C.); do Amaral; MHanko ; Pearson#4; Stoll ; Cabrera ; Sylvester-Bradley ; (b) In favour of ‘Alternative ‘ B’”’ (the Paclt proposal specified on paragraph 22 above) : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 25. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 : On 25th June 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 24 above and declaring that the 14 Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 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 ). 302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 26. Family-Group-Name Problems involved in the present case : The determination of the family-group names involved in the present case formed part of the proposal submitted by Dr. Francle- mont in the present case and his proposals under this head, in common with the other proposals included in Dr. Franclemont’s application, were approved by the Commission by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43. At the time of the submission of that application the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology had not as yet been established by the International Congress of Zoology and Dr. Franclemont had not included in his application particulars as to the relative dates of publication of the family- group names concerned, this information not forming at that time an essential portion of any such application. The position was, however, radically changed by the action taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to redefine the rules governing family-group names. Accordingly, after the close of the voting on the Voting Paper referred to above, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, initiated consultations with Dr. Franclemont and other specialists with a view to preparing the material needed to enable the Commission to complete this part of its decision in the present case. At the conclusion of these consultations Mr. Hemming prepared the following paper which he submitted to the Com- mission on 10th October 1956 :— Family-group-name problems involved in the decision under the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 to validate as of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758, certain names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) originally published as terms for groups of species within the genus ‘‘ Phalaena ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 or 1767 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The object of the present paper is to bring to the attention of, and to obtain decisions from, the International Commission on Zoological OPINION 450 303 Nomenclature regarding the family-group-name problems involved in an application for the validation as subgeneric names of certain terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 and 1767 for groups of species of the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) made under the invitation issued through the Ruling given in Opinion 124 on which, so far as the other questions involved are concerned, a decision was taken by the Commission by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43. The circumstances of this case are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. The application referred to above, which was submitted by Dr. J. G. Franclemont (now of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.), was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 6 : 304— 312. The chief purpose of this application was to secure from the Commission a decision as to the priority to be assigned to seven generic names, each of which formed the basis on which the moths (other than the hawk-moths) were first divided into families by the early entomologists. The greatest confusion had existed for many years regarding the status of these fundamental names and it was evident that without the intervention of the Commission this confusion was likely to endure indefinitely. The difficulty in this case arose from the fact that the words of which these generic names were composed were first published by Linnaeus in 1758 as terms to denote groups of species within the genus Phalaena Linnaeus and in the early days—and indeed for long after—had been treated as having been published by Linnaeus as subgeneric names in the above year. The problem presented by these inter-generic-specific-name terms, which was one of general application and affected zoologists in numerous groups, early attracted attention by reason especially of the fact that in certain cases Linnaeus had employed two such terms simultaneously and it was impossible to interpret these terms as names of subgeneric rank. Ultimately, this matter was brought to the attention of the International Commission which gave a Ruling in Opinion 124 that terms of the foregoing type were not to be accepted as being of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758, but that, where it appeared that confusion and name-changing would result from the application of this Ruling, zoologists should submit proposals to the Commission for the validation of the terms concerned as being of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758. It was under this open invitation that the present application was submitted by Dr. Franclemont. 3. The terms which Dr. Franclemont asked the Commission to validate under its Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758, and which were so validated under the vote referred to in paragraph 1 above, are set out in Column (1) of the Table given below, together with the names of the species which at Dr. Franclemont’s proposal were then designated by the Commission to be the type species (Column (2)) of the genera respectively concerned. At the same time Dr. Franclemont asked, and the Commission agreed, that the corresponding family names should also be validated in the form shown in Column (3). 304 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Decisions regarding six terms originally published by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote groups of species within the genus ‘‘ Phalaena ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by its vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 Generic names Species designated Family name validated under the as type species of validated for genus Plenary Powers genus specified , specified in Col. (1) in Col. (1) (1) (2) (3) Bombyx Linnaeus, Phalaena mori BOMBYCIDAE 1758 Linnaeus, 1758 Noctua Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena pronuba NOCTUIDAE Linnaeus, 1758 Geometra Linnaeus, Phalaena papilionaria GEOMETRIDAE 1758 Linnaeus, 1758 Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena viridana TORTRICIDAE Linnaeus, 1758 Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758 —Phalaena farinalis PYRALIDAE Linnaeus, 1758 Tinea Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena pellionella _ TINEIDAE Linnaeus, 1758 Alucita Linnaeus, 1758 Phalaena hexadactyla ALUCITIDAE ; Linnaeus, 1758 4. It was part of Dr. Franclemont’s proposal that the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, should be suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, this being a necessary corollary to the validation of the names listed above. In addition, the proposed validation of the name Noctua as from Linnaeus, 1758, in the Class Insecta, involved the invalidation of Noctua, as the name for a genus in the Class Aves, but this gave rise to no difficulty as the name Noctua is not currently used as the name for a genus of birds. Dr. Franclemont’s proposals on these points were approved by the Commission at the same time that it validated the names shown in the foregoing list. 5. In the same application Dr. Franclemont asked the Commission to, validate one other intermediate term published by Linnaeus for a group of species within the genus Phalaena. This differed from those discussed in paragraph 3 above only by reason of the fact that it was first published in 1767 in the Twelfth Edition of the Systema Naturae instead of in 1758 in the Tenth Edition of that work. The name concerned was Attacus. This proposal also was approved by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43. OPINION 450 305 6. At the time of the submission of Dr. Franclemont’s application the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology had not as yet been established by the International Congress of Zoology and in consequence bibliographical references for the family-group names which Dr. Franclemont asked should be validated by the Commission were not furnished in his application. When the submission of a Voting Paper to the Commission on Dr. Franclemont’s application fell due, consideration was given to the question whether as a matter of procedure the submission of that case should be deferred until it was possible also to submit proposals on the family-group bibliographical name problems involved or whether it would be better to obtain a decision at once on the principal issues involved in that application, problems relating to family-group names being deferred. Of these alternatives the second seemed to me to be the more satisfactory and, as Secretary, I therefore decided in favour of the immediate submission of a Voting Paper on the principal issued involved in this case. In pursuance of this decision Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 was therefore accordingly issued on 24th March 1954. The determination of the original references for the family-group names involved in the present case would, as I realised, involve a considerable expenditure of time because of the antiquity of the names concerned, coupled with the general confusion which (as explained in paragraph 2 above) existed in the literature relating to the generic names involved and therefore still more in that relating to the family group-names based on those generic names. After some preliminary correspondence with Dr. Franclemont, | formed the conclusion that the best course would be for the required investigation of the literature to be carried out in the Office of the Commission and for the results when available to be submitted to some outside authority before being placed before the International Commission. I accordingly invited Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc., of this Office to undertake the necessary search, a task for which she was particularly well fitted because of the parallel investigations which she was already making for the purpose of determining the original references for the family-group names based upon generic names placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936. On satisfying myself that Miss Noakes’s investigations had carried this matter as far as was possible with the resources at the disposal of this Office, I submitted the results which she had obtained to Professor Dr. E. M. Hering (Zoologisches Museum, Humbold-Universitat zu Berlin), who, I knew, was in a particularly good position to advise on this subject. In a letter dated 9th July 1956 Dr. Hering replied that he had been unable to detect any bibliographical references earlier than those cited in Miss Noakes’s Report and he recommended that those references should be accepted as the oldest references for the names concerned. Those references have accordingly been accepted as the basis of the proposals now submitted. At the same time Dr. Hering drew attention to certain additional Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for some of the family-group names concerned which he suggested should be dealt with in the paper to be submitted to the Commission. 306 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. In submitting for the consideration of the International Commission the results obtained from the investigations described above I find it necessary as a preliminary to refer briefly to the works of certain authors who published terms based upon one or another of the generic names involved in the present case which were treated by some later authors and catalogue-compilers as being names published for taxa belonging to the family-group but which do not appear to me to have been so regarded by their original authors. At the same time I have added particulars of works by certain other authors where similar problems arise. The notes so prepared are annexed as Appendix 1. 8. Although the search of the literature has been laborious, no appreciable difficulty has been encountered in determining the place where, and the date on which, the family-group names concerned were first validly published. The stage at which difficulty was met with was in the preparation of the list of Erroneous Subsequent Spellings to be recommended for addition to the Official Index. Bearing in mind the instructions which have been given to me by the Commission at various times I have endeavoured to make the list now submitted as complete as possible, but the fact that for two only of the categories (family and subfamily) in the family-group have terminations been prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology is a cause of difficulty in cases where an author published a name as the name for a family but used for the name in question a termination which is incorrect as a termination for a family name but is nevertheless a termination which is commonly or occasionally used to denote a taxon of some other category—e.g. a tribe—in the family group. In general, when dealing with Erroneous Subsequent Spellings, I have proceeded on the assumption (a) that every name which is formed from an incorrect stem and which therefore could not in any circumstances be used as the name of a family-group taxon of any category ought to be placed on the Official Index but (b) that in general a name which is formed from the correct stem but for which an incorrect termination is employed should not be placed on the Jndex in cases where the termination used is a termination which is commonly or sometimes employed for taxa belonging to some category within the family- group, other than the category for which the name in question was actually published, e.g. where an author published a name as the name for a family but instead of employing the prescribed termination “* -IDAE ’’, applied some termination such as “‘ -1DI ”’ which is commonly used as the termination for names of taxa of the rank of a tribe. 9. Subject to the foregoing explanations I now submit for the consideration of the Commission the recommendations for the addition of family-group names to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology set out in Appendix 2 and those for the addition of names belonging to the same category to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology set out in Appendix 3. 10. There is a small number of objectively invalid generic names involved in the present case on which through inadvertence proposals OPINION 450 307 were not included either in Application Z.N.(S.) 462 (the application submitted in the present case) or with the Voting Paper (V.P.(54)43), with which that application was submitted to the Commission for decision. In accordance with the General Directive issued to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology in regard to the disposal of objectively invalid names involved in particular applications, the names in question should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Particulars of those names, which are seven in number, are given in Appendix 4 to the present paper. 11. Of the generic names concerned, five are junior homonyms of names in the Order Lepidoptera which have been validated as from Linnaeus, 1758, by the vote taken by the Commission in the present case and the other two are junior objective synonyms of such names. 12. The names which are invalid as being junior homonyms them- selves fall into three groups. Two are junior homonyms of names which were validly published for genera belonging to other groups in the Animal Kingdom, two are Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for other generic names of older date, and the fifth is little more than a reputed name. The two names which were published as names for genera in other parts of the Animal Kingdom are: (1) Noctua Gmelin, 1771 (Class Aves); (2) Tortrix Oppel, 1811 (Class Reptilia). No objection to the rejection of either of these names was received from interested specialists at the time when Public Notice was given of Dr. Franclemont’s application. The first of these names is known not to be in use and it is believed that the second name has also been rejected in the group concerned. The question whether either of these names has been formally replaced or whether these names have merely disappeared in synonymy is now being investigated (on Commission File Z.N.(G.) 135), so that, if in either case a replacement name has been published, consideration may be given to the possible addition of that name to the Official List. The names which are mere Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for older names are: (3) Geometra Paetel, 1875 (Class Gastropoda); (4) Tinea Griffith, 1897 (Class Cestoda). The first of these is an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Geomitra Swainson, 1840, the latter for Taenia Linnaeus, 1758. The name Taenia Linnaeus was placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 84, which was later confirmed under the Plenary Powers by the Ruling given in Opinion 272. The question whether corresponding action is required as regards Geomitra Swainson is now being investigated on the Commission File to which reference has already been made. The fifth and last of the names falling in this group is the name Noctua Linnaeus (or Karameschew)!*, 1764 (Class Aves) which, as Dr. Franclemont showed in his application in the present case (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 308, Note 4) possesses no 15 The question whether, in the case of theses for doctorates presented at the Universities of Uppsala and Lund in Sweden in the Eighteenth Century, new names should be attributed to'the Professor or to the supplicant for the doctorate is at present under investigation in Commission File Z.N.(S.) 1139. 308 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS status as it was published without a generic diagnosis and the single nominal species cited for it was at that time a nomen nudum. 13. The two generic names which are now recommended for addition to the Official Index on the grounds that they are junior objective synonyms of names of older date are: Tinaea Geoffroy (E.L.) (Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 2 : 25, 173) and Orneodes Latreille, 1796 (Précis Caract. Ins.: 148). The name Tinaea Geoffroy was brought forward in 1943 by Corbet & Tams in an effort to retain a somewhat similar name for the genus known as Tinea which had not then been validated by the Commission as from Linnaeus, 1758 (see Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 152).4° Even is this action had not since been taken by the Commission, the name Tinaea Geoffroy would nevertheless still have been invalid, for the Commission has ruling in Opinion 228 that the work by Geoffroy in which it was published is not available for nomenclatorial purposes, Geoffroy not having applied in it the principles of binominal nomenclature. The other name to be considered here, namely Orneodes Latreille, 1796 (which had been brought to the attention of this Office by Professor E. M. Hering), was, as first published in the Précis, the name of a nominal genus established without cited nominal species. The first author to cite such a species for this was Latreille himself who in [1802—1803] (Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 418) so cited the single species Phalaena hexadactylus Linnaeus, 1758, which thus became the type species by monotypy. By one of the decisions taken by the Commission in the present case it validated the name Alucita as from Linnaeus, 1758, and designated the above species as the type species of that genus. By this action therefore the little- used name Orneodes Latreille has become a junior objective synonym of the much better known name Alucita. 14. I should add that in compiling the list of recommendations for the addition of names to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, \ have deliberately omitted usages in the Lepidoptera by early authors—for example, by Denis & Schiffermiiller (1775), Fabricius (1775) and others—of the seven generic names in that Order which the Commission has now validated under its Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758. I have taken this view because it is evident that those authors did not look upon themselves as introducing these names as new generic names of their own, looking upon themselves as doing no more than making use of names already introduced by Linnaeus. 15. The generic names discussed in paragraph 13 above (Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762, and Orneodes Latreille 1796) have both been taken as the basis for family-group names. These family-group names have both been included in Appendix 3 for addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, since in each case the family-group name in question is a junior objective synonym of the valid family-group name concerned, the respective type genera of these taxa having the same nominal species as type species. 16 The paper here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 18 of the present Opinion. OPINION 450 309 16. Four of the Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for the family-group names involved in the present case were published in 1832—1836 in the Lepidoptera (Lepidotteri) volume of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli written by Oronzio-Gabriele Costa.1’ This early work is of considerable interest, containing the original descriptions of a number of new species now recognised as being taxonomically valid, together with many original observations in regard to other species. From the point of view, however, of the bibliographer this volume is a veritable nightmare. In all it comprises 442 pages numbered in arabic numerals (together with the T.P. and preliminary matter numbered in Roman numerals in all, twelve pages.) The extraordinary feature of this work—and one which in my experience is fortunately unique—is that the main text with arabic pagination is divided into no fewer than forty-eight sections, each beginning with a page numbered “1” and bearing no indication (by way of sheet marks or otherwise) by which any one of the forty-eight pages numbered as page “ 1 ’’ can be distinguished from any of the forty-seven other pages bearing the same page number. This appears to me to be one of those cases where without the introduction of some adventitious aid the difficulties involved in making an intelligible citation for any given page are quite insuperable. Accordingly, in order to overcome these difficulties, I have allotted continuous pagination to the whole of the arabic-paged portion of this work, the page numbers so allotted being cited in square brackets, this having proved to be the only method of overcoming similar difficulties in providing an intelligible system of notation for the enumeration of the 500 plates in Jacob Hiibner’s Geschichte europaischer Schmetterlinge and of the 491 plates in the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge of the same author (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 107— 136, 401—412). The key to the system of notation so adopted in the present case is given in Appendix 51°. 17 As the result of further consideration following a re-examination of the Lepidotteri volume of Costa’s Fauna del Regno di Napoli it was concluded that the family-group names used in that volume, though having the appearance in most cases of being badly formed Latinised versions of family-group names, should be regarded more properly as being vernacular names in the Italian language and as such ineligible for admission to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. The proposals in regard to these family-group names were accordingly withdrawn from the scope of the Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)23) issued concurrently with the present paper by a Minute executed by the Secretary on 2nd November 1956. For the text of the Minute here referred to see paragraph 28 of the present Opinion. 18 Consequent upon the decision under which, as explained in Footnote 17 above, the proposals for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of certain family-group names included in the Lepidotteri volume of Costa’s Fauna del Regno di Napoli, the discussion of the bibliographical difficulties involved in that volume given in Appendix 5 of the above paper ceased to be relevant to the present case. It was accordingly decided to detach from the present Opinion the decision taken by the Commission in regard to the foregoing matter and to embody that decision in a Direction (Direction 59) concerned exclusively with that subject. Full particulars of the decision so taken are given in paragraph 32 of the present Opinion. 310 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 17. I have examined the applications independently submitted on various aspects of the present case by Dr. J. G. Franclemont (one application) and by Dr. J. Paclt (two applications) for the purpose of making sure that, when the Commission approved Dr. Franclemont’s application, it took decisions also in regard to all the names dealt with in the applications submitted by Dr. Paclt, namely Application Z.N.(S.) 288 relating to the name Bombyx (Paclt, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 313—314) and Application Z.N.(S.) 331 relating to the name Pyralis (Paclt, 1952, ibid. 6 : 314315). I find that the nominal species which Dr. Paclt recommended should be accepted as the type species of the foregoing genera, attributed, as he proposed to Fabricius, 1775, are in each case the species which the Commission has designated as the type species of the genus in question, as validated under the Plenary Powers with priority as from Linnaeus, 1758. Further, by the decision taken by the Commission the specific names concerned have now been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Fortunately, therefore, all the requisite action has already been taken. 18. The recommendations now submitted are that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the eight family-group names enumerated in Appendix 2 annexed hereto, each of which is the name of a family-group taxon having as its type genus a nominal genus, the name of which was validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 ; (2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the invalid family-group names enumerated in Appendix 3 annexed hereto, each of which is an invalid name for one or other of the family-group taxa, the valid names for which it is proposed in (1) above should be placed on the corresponding Official List ; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the invalid generic names enumerated in Appendix 4 annexed hereto, each of which is involved in connection with one or other of the generic names validated under the Plenary Powers in the vote taken on the Voting Paper referred to in (1) above. APPENDIX 1 Particulars regarding certain reputed family-group names based upon generic names in the Order Lepidoptera which have been validated by the International Commission as from Linnaeus, 1758 1. Leach (W.E.): Article on “ Entomology’ published in 1815 in Volume 9 of Brewster’s “‘ Edinburgh Encyclopaedia” In the above article (which was published anonymously) Leach divided the Order Lepidoptera into three ‘‘ Sections”, namely : OPINION 450 311 Diurna (containing the butterflies); Crepuscularia (containing the hawk-moths and burnets) ; Nocturna (containing the rest of the moths). In the same paper he erected a large number of “‘ Families ”’, for each of which he gave a name based upon that of an included genus and having the termination “‘-IDA”’. Many of these names are the oldest available names for the families concerned, e.g. PAPILIONIDA (=PAPILIONIDAE), LYCAENIDA (=LYCAENIDAE), GEOMETRIDA (GEOMETRIDAE), etc. In addition, Leach recognised a category between his “‘ Section”? and his ‘‘ Family’’ a category which he called a ‘“‘ Tribe’. These so-called “‘ tribe’? names which were also based upon the name of an included genus were given the termination ** IDES’. Thus, in addition to his ‘‘ Family” “ TINEIDA”’ Leach recognised a ‘“‘ Tribe’’ which he called “‘ TINEIDES”’, in which he included his ‘‘ Family’ TINEIDA and his “‘ Family ’? NEMOPHORIDA. It is not clear in what light Leach regarded his so-called “‘ Tribes ”’, but, as the concept of the superfamily had not at that time been thought of, his “‘ Tribe” cannot, it seems to me, be properly regarded as having been a category belonging to the family-group. I have therefore not included these “‘ -IDES ’’ names in the list of names proposed to be placed on the Official Index. (In passing, it may be noted that in one case Leach introduced a new name (ALUCITIDES) for a ‘“‘ Tribe ’? which he did not subdivide into two or more “‘ Families’. In this case the reasonable course appears to be to regard this name as having been given to the sole included family as well as to the “‘ Tribe’. The name in question is the oldest name for a family-group taxon based upon the generic name Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, and it has been accepted as such.) 2. Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—[1825] Hiibner had an extremely complicated system of classification devised by himself for categories above the generic level and it is very difficult to interpret the units recognised by this author in terms of currently accepted supra-generic categories, for between the Order and the genus he recognised no fewer than four categories (Phalanx ; Tribus ; Stirps ; Familia). The names adopted for taxa belonging to these categories were hardly ever based upon the name of a genus recognised by Hiibner in this work. In the case, however, of one of the generic names dealt with in the present case (Bombyx) Hiibner did take a generic name as the base for the name of one of his supra-generic categories, BOMBYCOIDES (Verz. : 199), but this appears to have been quite accidental, as Hiibner did not place the genus Bombyx in the taxon which he named BOMBYCOIDES. In any case the taxon BOMBYCOIDES was ranked by Hiibner as a “Tribus”, the second category below the level ‘‘ Order’’ and therefore the third category in the hierarchy above the genus (called a “‘ Coitus’’ by Hubner). 312 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Whatever importance Hiibner attached to the category “‘ Stirps’’ he certainly did not treat it as a taxon belonging to the family-group as currently understood. The name BoMBYCOmDES Hiibner, [1820], is therefore not included in the list of names now proposed to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 3. Rennie (J.), 1832, Conspectus of the Butterflies and Moths of the British Isles Rennie divided the moths into five groups. To each of these groups he applied a name based upon a generic name and having the termination “‘-INA’”’. The taxa so recognised were: SPHINGINA ; BOMBYCINA ; NOCTUINA ; GEOMETRINA ; TORTRICINA. It is not clear in what light Rennie views the groups so established but it is evident that they were much higher in rank than the family-group category. I have therefore not included these “‘ -INA”’ names of Rennie’s in the list of names recommended for addition to the Official Index. 4. Swainson (W.), 1840, in Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopedia, Insects In this article Swainson recognised families and subfamilies to which he applied names with the correct terminations. In addition, however, he recognised a category above the family level, the names for taxa of which he formed by adding the termination “‘ -IDEs ”’ to the name of a genus previously recognised by him as the type genus of a family. These names resemble those used by Rennie with “‘ -INA ”’ terminations in that they were certainly not used for taxa within the family group. I have therefore excluded these names from the recommendations now submitted for the addition of names to the Official Index. 5. Stainton (H.T.), 1854, Insecta Britannica, Lep. Tineina In the above work Stainton gave in the introduction a synopsis of his ideas as to the major classification of the moths. He recognised a large number of families (having correctly formed names with the termination “‘ -IDAE’’) as belonging to the Sub-Order Heterocera. In addition, however, he recognised nine “‘ Groups” into which he assembled the families which he recognised. These ‘“‘ Groups” were given names based upon the names of the type genera of included families and for each Stainton used the termination “-INA”’. His system was thus similar in essentials to that adopted by Swainson in 1840 (No. 4 above). For reasons similar to those explained in connection with Swainson’s article I do not consider that Stainton’s “* Group’? names can be accepted as names given to taxa of the family- group. I have therefore excluded them from the list s names recommended for addition to the Official Index. - OPINION 450 313 6. Certain other names occasionally listed as names given to taxa belonging to the family-group In addition to the names discussed in the preceding Sections, thereare a few other names based upon the generic names here in question which are sometimes listed in catalogues as having been published for taxa belonging to the family group but which, as is clear from an inspection of the works in which they were published, were in fact looked upon by their original authors as names for Sub-Orders or categories of analogous rank rather than as names for taxa of the family-group category. Examples of such names are provided by the following names : BOMBYCARIA Haeckel, 1896; NOCTUIFORMES Seitz, [1907]. Names of this type have also been excluded from the list of names recommended for addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology. APPENDIX 2 Names proposed for addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ (1) BOMBYCIDAE (correction of BOMBYCIDES) Latreille, [1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Arachn. Ins. 3 : 404 (type genus : Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) (2) NOCTUIDAE (correction of NOCTUAELITES) Latreille, 1809, Gen. Crust. Ins. 4 : 191, 224 (type genus: Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) (3) GEOMETRIDAE (correction of GEOMETRIDA) [Leach], [1815], in Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. 9(1) : 134 (type genus : Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) (4) TORTRICIDAE (correction of TORTRICES) Latreille, [1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Arach. Ins. 3 : 415 (type genus : Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) (5) PYRALIDAE (correction of PYRALITES) Latreille, 1809, Gen. Crust. Ins. 4:192, 228 (type genus: Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) (Note: By its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 the Commission under its Plenary Powers decided in favour of the above spelling as against the spelling PYRALIDIDAE for the family-group name?°.) (6) TINEIDAE (correction of TINEITES) Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Ordre nat. Anim. Class. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 347, 363 (type genus : Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) 19 See paragraph 22 of the present Opinion. 314 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (7) ALUCITIDAE (correction of ALUCITIDES) [Leach], [1815], Edinburgh Ency. 9:135 (type genus: Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) (8) ATTACIDAE Burmeister, 1878, Descr. Phys. Rép. Argentine 5 : 468 (type genus: Aftacus Linnaeus, 1767, as validated under the Plenary Powers). APPENDIX 3 Names proposed for addition to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ 1. Family-group names based on the generic name “* Bombyx”? : (a) BOMBYCIDES Latreille, [1892—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE) (b) Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for BOMBYCIDAE (correction of BOMBYCIDES) Latreille, [1802—1803]: (i) BOMBYCITES Latreille, 1809, Gen. Crust. Ins. 4: 190, 216 (11) BOMBYXIA Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 127 (iii) BOMBYCODEA Burmeister, 1837, Handb. Nat. (2) : 618 (iv) BOMBICINI Costa, 1832—1836, Fauna Regn. Napoli, Lepidott.: [118], [122] (v) BomMBycEsS Horsfield & Moore, 1858—1859, Cat. Lep. Ins. Mus. E. India Company : 2, 281 2. Family-group names based on the generic name “‘ Noctua” : (a) NOCTUALITES Latreille, 1809 (an Invalid Original Spelling for NOCTUIDAE) (b) Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for NOCTUIDAE (correction of NOCTUAELITES) Latreille, 1809 : (i) NOCTUIDA [Leach], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9 : 134 (ii) NOCTUAEIDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 85 (iii) NOCTUACEA Burmeister, 1829, De. Ins. Syst. nat. : 27 (iv) NOCTUELIDI Boisduval, 1829, Europ. Lep. Index meth. : 101 (v) NOTTUINI Costa, 1832—1836, Fauna Regn. Napoli, Lepidott.: [118], [151] (vi) NOCTUITES Newman (E.), 1835, Grammar Ent. : 176 (vii) NOCTUARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840, Ins. Japp. : vi, 932 OPINION 450 315 (vill) NOCTUARIA Gravenhorst, 1843, Vergleich. Zool. : 167 (ix) NOCTUELIDES Duponchel, 1844, Cat. méth. Lep. Europ. : 145 (x) NOCTUELITES Guenée, 1852, Hist. nat. Ins., Lep. 5: 1 (xi) NOCTUES Swinhoe, 1890, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1890 : 217 3. Family-group names based on the generic name “‘ Geometra”’ : (a) GEOMETRIDA [Leach], [1815] (an Invalid Original Spelling for GEOMETRIDAE) (b) An Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for GEOMETRIDAE (correction of GEOMETRIDA) [Leach], [1815] : GEOMETRITES Newman (E.), 1835, Grammar Ent. : 175 4. Family-group names based on the generic name “ Tortrix”’ : (a) TORTRICES Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for TORTRICIDAE) (b) Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for TORTRICIDAE (correction of TORTRICES) Latreille, [1802—1803] : (i) TORTRICIDA [Leach], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9 : 135 (ii) TORTRICIDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 90 (iii) TORTRICI Costa, 1832—1836, Fauna Regn. Napoli, Lepidott.: [118] (iv) TORTRICITES Newman (E.), 1835, Grammar Ent. : 179 5. Family-group names based on the generic name “‘ Pyralis”’ : (a) PYRALITES Latreille, 1809 (an Invalid Original Spelling for PYRALIDAE) (b) Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for PYRALIDAE (correction of PYRALITES) Latreille, 1809 : (i) PYRALIDA [Leach], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9 : 135 (ii) PYRALIDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 92 (iii) PYRALIDI Costa, 1832—1836, Fauna Regn. Napoli, Lepidott.: [118] (iv) PYRALIDIDES Zetterstedt, 1840, Jns. Japp. : vi, 969 (v) PYRALOIDI Guenée, 1845, Europ. microlep. Index meth. : 57 (vi) PYRALIDOIDAE Herrich-Schaeffer, 1856, Syst. Bearbeit. Schmett. Europ. 6 Syst. Lep. : 41 (vii) PYRALIDIDAE Lederer, 1863, Wiener Ent. Monatschr. (Vill) PYRALES Swinhoe, 1890, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1890 : 268 316 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. Family-group names based on the generic name “‘ Tinea”’ : (a) TINEITES Latreille, 1810 (an Invalid Original Spelling for TINEIDAE) (b) Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for TINEIDAE (correction of TINEITES) Latreille, 1810 : (i) TINEIDA [Leach], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9 : 133 (ii) TINEAEDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 93 (iii) TINEODEA Burmeister, 1837, Handb. Nat. (2) : 618 (iv) TINEACEA Zeller, 1839, Jsis (Oken) 1839 : col. 168 (v) TINEARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840, Ins. lapp. : vi, 990 (vi) TINEARIA Gravenhorst, 1843, Vergleich. Zool. : 167 (vil) TINEA Guenée, 1845, Europ. microlep. Index meth. : 68 7. Family-group names based on the generic name “ Alucita”’ : (a) ALUCITIDES [Leach], [1815] (an Invalid Original Spelling for ALUCITIDAE) (b) Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for ALUCITIDAE (correction of ALUCITIDES) [Leach], [1815] : (i) ALUCITAEDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 92 (ii) ALUCITITES Newman (E.), 1835, Grammar Ent. : 180 (iii) ALUCITINA Zeller, 1841, Zsis (Oken) 1841: col. 865 8. PHALAENIDAE (correction of PHALAENITES) Latreille, [1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Arach. Ins. 3 : 411 (type genus : Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758) (invalid under Declaration 20 because name of type genus suppressed under the Plenary Powers by vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43) 9. PHALAENITES Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for PHALAENIDAE) 10. Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for PHALAENIDAE (correction of PHALAENITES) Latreille, [1802—1803] : (a) PHALAENIDES [Leach], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9 : 134 (b) PHALAENIDA [Leach], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9 : 134 (c) PHALENIDIA Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 127 (d) PHALAENAEDES Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg. : 88 OPINION 450 Biv (e) PHALAENOIDES Burmeister, 1829, De Ins. syst. nat. : 27 (f) PHALAENODEA Burmeister, 1837, Handb. Ent. (2) : 620 (g) PHALAENARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840, Ins. Japp. : vi, 953 (h) PHALAENOIDEA Gravenhorst, 1843, Vergleich. Zool. : 167 11. TINAEIDAE Corbet (A.S.) & Tams (W.H.T.), 1943, Entomologist 76 : 113—114 (type genus: Tinaea Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762) (invalid (i) because the name of the type genus was published in a work (Hist. abrég. Ins. Eny. Paris) rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 228, and (ii) because its type genus has the same species as type species as Tinea Linnaeus, 1758 and the name is therefore a junior objective synonym of TINEIDAE (correction of TINEITES) Latreille, 1810, of which the latter genus is the type genus) 12. ORNEODIDAE (correction by Meyrick (1895, Handb. brit. Lep. : 441) of ORNEODIDES) Herrich-Schaeffer, [1843], Syst. Bearbeit. Schmett. Europ. 1 : 14 (type genus: Orneodes Latreille, 1796) (invalid because the type genus has as its type species the same species (Phalaena hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758) as Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, the type genus of ALUCITIDAE (correction of ALUCITIDES) [Leach], [1815], of which therefore the above name is a junior objective synonym) 13. ORNEODIDES Herrich-Schaeffer, [1843] (an Invalid Original Spelling for ORNEODIDAE) APPENDIX 4 Names proposed to be placed on the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ Geometra Paetel, 1875, Fam. Gatt. Moll. : 86 (Class Gastropoda) (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Geomitra Swainson, 1840, and a junior homonym of Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) Noctua Linnaeus, 1764, Dissert. Acad. demonstr. Necess. promov. Hist. nat. Rossia : 16 ; republished in 1767 in Amoen-Acad. 7 : 450) (Class Aves) (published without a diagnosis with only an undescribed included nominal species ; a junior homonym of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) 318 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Noctua Gmelin (S.G.), 1771, Nov. Comment. Acad. Sci. imp. petrop. 15 : 447 (Class Aves) (a junior homonym of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) Orneodes Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 148 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (a junior objective synonym of Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) Tinea Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Envy. Paris 2 : 25, 173 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (published in a work rejected by Opinion 228 as being one in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature ; a junior objective synonym of Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) Tinea Griffith, 1897, Trans. ophthal. Soc. U.K. 17 :225 (Class Cestoda) (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 ; a junior homonym of Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) Tortrix Oppel, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 16(95) : 377, 381 (Class Reptilia) (a junior homonym of Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, as validated under the Plenary Powers) APPENDIX 5 The ‘‘ Lepidotteri ’’ volume dated 1832—1836 of the work by Oronzio Gabriele Costa entitled ‘‘ Fauna del Regno di Napoli ”’ Collation and Scheme for numbering the pages in a continuous series of Arabic numerals eo 8 © © © © @ © © © © © © © © ee 8 8 le [Note by the Secretary : By the direction given in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 12th November 1956 (the text of which has been reproduced in paragraph 32 of the present Opinion) the decision taken by the International Commission (on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.(56)23) on the questions relating to the Lepidotteri volume by Costa (O.G.) of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli raised in the present Appendix (Appendix 5) has been separated from the decisions on the other issues raised in that paper taken by the Com- mission (on the same Voting Paper) and has been recorded separately in a Direction (Direction 59). The document which formed Appendix 5 OPINION 450 319 has been incorporated in Direction 59, and, in order to avoid repetition, has been excluded from the present Opinion.]| 27. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 : On 10th October, 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)23) was issued in which each Member of the Commission was asked to state (1) whether he agreed that, “in conformity with the General Directives relating to the recording on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in regard to particular names and particular books issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the General Directive supplementary thereto issued to the Commission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen- hagen, 1953, (a) the entries as respects the family-group names involved in connection with the names of genera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) validated under the Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758, by the vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 recommended in paragraph 18 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 462 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in paragraph 26 of the present Opinion] be made in the Official List and Official Index for the names of taxa belonging to the family-group as there proposed and that the other action there specified be also taken ’’, and (2) that, if he did not agree as regards any given item, to indicate that item. 28. Withdrawal from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 of the proposals submitted therewith for the addition to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ of four family-group names published in the ‘‘ Lepidotteri ’’ volume by Costa (O.G.) in the work entitled ‘‘ Fauna del Regno di Napoli ”’ : On 2nd November 1956, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, executed the following Minute in which for the reasons there explained he withdrew from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 the proposals for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of four family-groups published in the Lepidotteri volume written by Costa (O.G.) in the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli which had been submitted to the Commission in the paper bearing the Registered 320 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS No. Z.N.(S.) 462 concurrently with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M). (56)23 :— Withdrawal from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 of the proposals submitted therewith in relation to four family-group names published in the ‘‘ Lepidotteri’’ volume written by Costa (O.G.) in the work entitled ‘* Fauna del Regno di Napoli ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) On 21st October 1956 Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Jnstitute of Zoology, The Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission in which, with reference to certain proposals submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, he expressed the view that the family-group names used by Costa (O.G.) in the Lepidotteri volume of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli ought to be regarded as vernacular (Italian) names and not as names consisting of Latin or Latinised words. 2. Upon the receipt of Professor Jaczewski’s letter I at once under- took a thorough re-examination of the book by Costa in question. Throughout that work—as was only to be expected from the date on which it was published—Costa consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature and the availability of generic and specific names used by him in it cannot be questioned. Both for generic names and for the names used for species (binomina) Costa consistently gave the name first in Italian and second in Latin, the italian name being printed in Roman type, the Latin name being printed in italics. In the case of the names used for suprageneric taxa however Costa normally gave only one version and the question which it has been necessary to re-examine is the language to which the words used for these classes of name should be regarded as belonging. In considering this matter it is necessary to take account of the system of major classification adopted by Costa for the Lepidoptera. First, it must be noted that in common with many authors of his day Costa did not recognise Sub-Orders as such but divided the Order Lepidoptera into a number of major groups, applying to the category so recognised the name ‘“* Famiglia ’’. These taxa were substantially equivalent to Sub-Orders, as will be seen from the fact that the ‘‘ Famiglia prima” (: [6]) contained the whole of the butterflies and was thus identical with the modern Sub-Order Rhopalocera. In the case of the ** Famiglia prima ”’ Costa recognised only two genera and he did not interpose any family- group taxa between the ‘“‘ Famiglia ’’ and the ‘‘ Genere ”’ in this case. OPINION 450 321 When we come to the moths we find that he recognised taxa belonging sometimes to one, sometimes to two, intermediate (family-group) categories. For his second “‘ Famiglia” ( : [91]), which corresponded broadly with the modern Sphingids, Costa recognised one such category which he called both by the name “Sezione”? and by the name “Tribu”. For the third “‘ Famiglia’’ ( : [118]), (which comprised the whole of the remainder of the moths) Costa adopted a two-level system. The lower of the categories so established was again termed a ** Sezione ’’ and the taxa so named are therefore of the same rank as those into which Costa had divided his ‘‘ Famiglia II’. The higher of the two categories within his “‘ Famiglia III’ was not given a distinctive name. Six such taxa were recognised the ten units of “‘ Sezione ’? rank being distributed very unevenly between these major groups, four being placed in the first (Bombycini), two in the last (Tignuole) and one each in the remaining four groups. It has always seemed clear to me that the ‘* Sezione ’” names should be regarded as Italian vernacular names and not as Latin or Latinised names, examples of names belonging to this group being provided by ‘“‘Sfingidei”’ (: [92]) and “‘ Terofori”’ (: [118]). When I considered this question prior to the submission to the Commission of the paper prepared in connection with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 I took the view however that the names used by Costa for the major subdivisions of his ‘* Famiglia III ’’ ought to be regarded as being Latinised names. In the light of the re-examination which I have now carried out I have however reached the conclusion that these names also, like those used by Costa as “‘ Sezione ”’ taxa, ought to be regarded as being Italian vernacular names. I have formed this view, mainly on two grounds: (1) Having regard to the fact that Costa used Italian vernacular names and not Latin or Latinised names for taxa belonging to the categories which he called “* Famiglia ”’ and “‘Sezione’’ respectively, it is inherently unlikely that for the intermediate category (to which he gave no distinctive name) Costa would have adopted a different course by using Latin instead of Italian names ; (2) Although the words “‘ Bombycini”’, “* Tortrici ”’ and “‘ Piralidi’’ have the appearance of being Latinised words, they might also with equal reason be regarded as being Italian words, while the names “‘ Nottuini’’ and ‘“‘ Tignuole ’”’ can much more reasonably be regarded as being Italian words than as Latinised words. Under the Copenhagen Rules regarding family-group names a vernacular family- group name is not to be accepted, save in the special case where, in the opinion of specialists in the group concerned, this is specially desirable in the interests of nomenclatorial stability (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 35—36, Decision 53). No such special considerations arise in the present case, for none of the family-group names used by Costa are the first such names to have been based upon the generic names in question. I accordingly conclude that all the family-group names employed by Costa in the Lepidotteri volume of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli are vernacular (Italian) names, that in no case was the family-group name published by Costa the first such name to be published for a taxon having as its type genus the genus, the name of 322 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS which forms the stem of the family-group name in question and there- fore that all the family-group names concerned must be regarded as possessing no status in zoological nomenclature. 3. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby withdraw from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 the proposals submitted therewith for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of four-family- group names employed by Costa in the Lepidotteri volume of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli, namely the recommendations specified under the numbers 1(b)(iv), 2(b)(vi), 4(b)(ii) and 5(b)(iii) in Appendix 3 to the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 462 submitted to the International Commission with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23. 29. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)23 : As Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 10th November 1956. 30. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)23, other than on the proposals withdrawn from the scope of that Voting Paper by the Minute executed by the Secretary on 2nd November 1956 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, other than on the proposals withdrawn from the scope of that Voting Paper by the Minute executed by the Secretary on 2nd November 1956 (the text of which has been reproduced in paragraph 28 of the present Opinion) was as follows :— , (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-two (22) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Tortonese ; Hering; do Amaral; Esaki; Stoll; Lemche; Mayr; Prantl ; Riley ; Boschma ; Mertens ; Key ; Jaczewski ; Dymond ; Cabrera ; Kihnelt ; Bonnet ; Hemming ; Bradley (J.C.) ; OPINION 450 323 (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1): Bodenheimer ; (d) Prevented from voting by interruption of postal communica- tions consequent upon political disturbances, one (1) : Hanko ; (e) Voting Papers not returned, one (1): Miller. 31. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)23 : On 12th November 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 30 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. 32. Exclusion from the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ of the portion of the decision taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 which is con- cerned with the ‘‘ Lepidotteri ’’ volume by Costa (O.G.) of the work entitled ‘‘ Fauna del Regno di Napoli ’’ and incorporation in a ‘* Direction ”’ of the decisions in regard thereto taken on the foregoing Voting Paper : On 12th November 1956, immediately after having signed the Certificate referred to in paragraph 31 declaring the result of the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (56)23, Mr. Hemming executed the following Minute in which he gave directions that the portion of the decision taken on the 324 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS foregoing Voting Paper which related to certain family-group and generic names be incorporated in the same Opinion as that to be rendered for the purpose of giving effect to the decision on other parts of the same problem taken by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 but that the portion of the decision taken on the foregoing Voting Paper in relation to certain matters connected with the Lepidotteri volume by Costa (O.G.) of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli be rendered separately in a Direction :— Separation of the decisions taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 in relation to the method to be followed in citing and in dating for the purposes of zoological nomenclature the several portions in which the ‘‘ Lepidotteri ’’ volume by Costa (O.G.) of the work entitled ‘‘ Fauna del Regno di Napoli ’’ was published from the decisions in relation to certain family-group names taken on the same Voting Paper MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) I have this day had under consideration the question of the arrange- — ments to be made for giving effect to the decisions taken by the Inter- national Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, having regard to the fact that, while the major part of those decisions are concerned with the status to be accorded to certain family-group names and generic names, one part is concerned with an entirely different type of subject, namely the method to be followed in citing and in dating for the purposes of zoological nomenclature the forty-eight separately-paged fragments which collectively constitute the Lepidotteri volume by Orenzio Gabriele Costa of the work entitled Fauna del Regno di Napoli. 2. I have come to the conclusion that the present is a case where the procedure to be adopted should follow the lines laid down by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, when it directed that decisions by the International Commission on questions affecting the interpretation of the Régles are not to be embodied in Opinions dealing with the status of individual names but are to be rendered separately as Declarations. I am therefore of the opinion that, when the portion of the decision relating to family-group names and generic names taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 is embodied in the Opinion recording the decision OPINION 450 325 previously taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43 to validate under the Plenary Powers certain of the generic names on which the family-group names referred to above are based, the portion of the decision taken on the same Voting Paper which is concerned with the method to be followed in citing and in dating the various portions of the volume referred to in paragraph 1 of the present Minute should be excluded from that Opinion and that the portion of the decision so excluded should be rendered separately in a Direction. 3. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby direct that the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 be divided into two portions in the manner indicated in paragraph 2 above, namely (a) that the portion relating to individual family-group names and to generic names be included in the Opinion embodying the decision previously taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)43, in which certain of the generic names on which those family-group names are based were validated under the Plenary Powers and (b) that the portion of the decision relating to Costa’s Lepidotteri volume of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli be rendered separately in a Direction. | further so direct that, in accordance with the General Directive issued to the International Commission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, regarding the recording of the titles of works on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, the Direction referred to above shall include a Ruling that the title of the foregoing volume by Costa, endorsed, both as to the method to be followed in citing the forty-eight fragments of which it is composed and as to the dates to be assigned to each of those fragments, in the manner prescribed in the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23, be entered on the above Official List. 33. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 16th November 1956, 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.(54)43, as supplemented by the portion relating to family-group names and generic names of the decision taken by the Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23?°. 20 Under the directions given in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 12th November 1956, the text of which has been reproduced in paragraph 32 of the present Opinion, the remaining portion of the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)23 has been embodied in Direction 59, which is being published in the immediately following part of the present volume. 326 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 34. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.10) 1 : 542 atlas, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 495 Attacus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 808 Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 495 farinalis, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 533 Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 519 Geometra Paetel, 1875, Fam. Gatt. Moll. : 86 hexadactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 542 mori, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 499 Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 508 (Class Insecta) Noctua Linnaeus, 1764, Dissert. Acad. demonstr. Necess. promov. Hist. nat. Rossia : 16 ; also 1767, Amoen. Acad. 7 : 450 (Class Aves) Noctua Gmelin (S.G.), 1771, Nov. Comment. Acad. Sci. imp. petrop. 15 : 447 Orneodes Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 148 papilionaria, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 522 pellionella, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 536 Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 495 pronuba, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 512 Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 533 OPINION 450 27) Tinaea Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 2 : 25, is) Tinea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 534 Tinea Griffith, 1897, Trans. ophthal. Soc. U.K. 17 : 225 Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 530 Tortrix Oppel, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 16(95) : 377, 381 viridana, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 530 35. The original references for the family-group names placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion are as set out in Appendix 2 to the paper by the Secretary dated 10th October 1956 reproduced in paragraph 26 above. The corre- sponding references for the family-group names placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology by the same Ruling are as set out in Appendix 3 of the foregoing paper. 36. At the time of the submission of the original application involved in the present case the name applicable to the second portion of a binomen was “trivial name”. This was altered to ““ specific name” by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which at the same time made corresponding changes in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of names of this category. These changes in terminology have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 37. 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. 328 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 38. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty (450) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Sixteenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Due noreemne tine Nieg nny) AE, Ss ee Printed in England by Mrercatre & Coorer 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..G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 17. Pp. 329—338 OPINION 451 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, shall be the oldest available name for the Dingo of Australia (Class Mammalia) 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 1957 Price Six Shillings and Sixpence AW H SOMES oN a> (All rights reserved) (i i see APR 25 ii [ Issued 8th March, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 451 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henne ra (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 1948 Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoNnD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) i Professor Béla HANKO (MezOvazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. SToLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Ee enn S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 5 Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy (16th December 1954) OPINION 451 USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SECURE THAT THE SPECIFIC NAME “DINGO” MEYER, 1793, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “CANIS DINGO ” SHALL BE THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE DINGO OF AUSTRALIA (CLASS MAMMALIA) RULING : (1) Under the Plenary Powers the specific name antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combina- tion Canis antarticus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1139 :— dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo. (3) The specific name specified in (1) above, as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 380. I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 27th September 1950, Dr. G. H. H. Tate (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following application in which he asked for the suppression under the 332 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Plenary Powers of the specific name antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus, in order to secure thereby that the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, the name commonly used for the Dingo of Australia (Class Mammalia), should be the oldest available name for that species :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name ** Dingo ’? Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination ‘‘ Canis dingo ”’ as the name for the Dingo (Class Mammalia) By G. H. H. TATE (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to preserve the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, as the specific name for the Dingo of Australia. 2. The facts of this case are very simple. The generally accepted name for this animal is Canis dingo Meyer, 1793 (Syst.-summ. Uebers. neust. Entdeck. Neuholland Africa : 33). Recently, however, T. Iredale (1947, Proc. Roy. zool. Soc. N.S.W. 1946/1947 : 35) has discovered that the foregoing name for the Dingo is antedated by the hitherto totally overlooked name Canis antarticus Kerr, 1792 (Anim. Kingd. zool. Syst. Linnaeus : 136). 3. This discovery is extremely unfortunate, having regard to the desirability of retaining the specific name dingo Mayer for this well- known animal and the unnecessary confusion in nomenclature which would follow upon the displacement of this name by one which has never been used since the time when it was first published over a hundred and fifty years ago. 4. I accordingly ask the International Commission :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the com- bination Canis dingo, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; OPINION 451 333 (3) to place the specific name antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Tl. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Tate’s application, the question of the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus, was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 487. 3. Support received prior to publication from T. C. S. Morrison- Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London): On 5th February 1955, Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission in which he intimated his support as follows (Morrison-Scott, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 168) :— I understand that Dr. G. H. H. Tate of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, has submitted an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature regarding the name of the Dingo of Australia. Iredale wants to bring into use the name Canis antarticus Kerr, 1792, a virtually unknown name. I should like strongly to support Dr. Tate’s appeal that the name Canis dingo Meyer, 1793, should be saved. It is by this latter name that the Australian Dingo has been known for years, and it would be irritating and absurd to upset the nomenclature of this animal after all this time. May I at the same time beg colleagues who discover cases of priority of this sort to hurry their unfortunate finds off to the Commission for burial, rather than broadcast them. The Régles are intended to be our servants and not our masters, and it is sheer masochism to inflict unnecessary inconvenience on oneself in this way—to say nothing of the wear and tear on the tolerance of colleagues. 334 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 19th January 1955 and was published on 28th February in the same year in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Tate, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 121). 5. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 in the present case was given on 28th February 1955 (a) in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the part in which Dr. Tate’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given also to a number of general zoological serial publications and to two serial publications concerned with mammalogy, one in Europe and one in America. 6. Comments received subsequent to the publication of the present application : The publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the issue of the Public Notices specified in paragraph 5 above elicited comments from three zoologists. The authors of two of the communications so received expressed their support for the action proposed in the present case, while the author of the third intimated his objection to that action. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 7. Support received from Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : On 4th May 1955, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Office of the Commission in support of the present application :— Under the two numbers cited above the following names are discussed :— Canis dingo Meyer, 1793; Canis australia Kerr, 1792; Canis antarcticus Kerr, 1792 ; Canis antarcticus Bechstein, 1799. The valida- tion of the first two and the suppression of the last two requested. OPINION 451 335 Since there is no doubt at all as to the meaning of the first two, and since the last two are homonyms, which are always likely to be confusing, I am in agreement with both petitions, though for a slightly different reason than those advanced by the petitioners. 8. Support received from J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) : On 2nd June 1955, Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) communicated to the Office of the Commission the following note in which be indicated the grounds on which he supported the action proposed in the present case :— Canis dingo. Z.N.(S.) 487. Agreed, in accordance with the Copenhagen Principle of Conservation. : 9. Objection received from Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) : On 26th September 1955, Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Office of the Commission in regard to the present case :— According to the evidence presented, Canis antarcticus Kerr, 1792, is the earliest valid name for the Australian Dingo. Morrison-Scott objects to the use of this name and sponsors, instead, Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. It is significant that Morrison-Scott’s objection! brushes aside two important considerations. The first is the Law of Priority. The second is the fact that Canis antarcticus is a current name. Morrison-Scott’s final argument against nomenclature by Rule is his exhortation for “‘ colleagues who discover cases of priority of this sort to hurry their unfortunate finds off to the Commission for burial, rather than broadcast them. The Régles are intended to be our servants and not our masters, and it is sheer masochism to inflict unnecessary inconveniences on oneself in this way—to say nothing of the wear and tear on the tolerance of colleagues ’’. It is only meet to reaffirm that the Régles are neither servants nor masters. They are 1 The application in this case was, it will be recalled, submitted by Dr. G. H. H. Tate (American Museum of Natural History, New York). The passage here referred to is in the comment on that application by Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott which is reproduced in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion. 336 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS a Code of conduct. Those who abide by the Code do not consult their personal convenience when nomenclatorial problems confront them nor are they intolerant of colleagues who find correct, logical and ready solutions for such problems in the Code. II. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 10. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)33 : On 22nd November 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)33) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the specific name to be used for the Dingo (Class Mammalia) as set out in Points (1) to (3) in para- graph 4 on page 121 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’ {i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph 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 22nd February 1956. 12. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)33 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)33 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering; Riley; Vokes ; Mayr; Jaczewski ; Lemche; Prantl; Dymond; Esaki; Bodenheimer ; Mertens; do Amaral; Hanké6; Boschma; Sylvester- Bradley ; Key ; Cabrera ; Bonnet ; Miller ; Tortonese ; Kihnelt ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; Hemming ; OPINION 451 a1 (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 13. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55)33, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 12 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. 14. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 17th November 1956, 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.(55)33. 15. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— antarticus, Canis, Kerr, 1792, Anim. Kingd. zool. Syst. Linnaeus : 136 dingo, Canis, Meyer, 1793, Syst.-summ. Uebers. neust. Entdeck. Neuholland Africa : 33 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 is accordingly 338 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-One (451) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Seventeenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING ee oe ee ee ee Es Printed in England by Mrrcatre & CooprR Liuirep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission | Edited by VOLUME 15. Part 18. Pp. 339—346 OPINION 452 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis australis, as the oldest available name for the Falkland Islands Wolf (Class Mammalia) 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 1957 Price Five Shillings = =e (All rights reserved) / ssued 8th March, 1957 —LIBpARy INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 452 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President: Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning LemMcHEe (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 RILeEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) eee J. nce BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) President Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U. S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of Califernia, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) is Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 5 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comnaraive Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 195 Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Stora Naturale, “ G. Doria,’’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 452 ADDITION TO THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘““AUSTRALIS ” KERR, 1792, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘‘CANIS AUSTRALIS ”’, AS THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE FALKLAND ISLANDS WOLF (CLASS MAMMALITA) RULING :—The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1140 :— australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis australis. I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE When on 27th September 1950, Dr. G. H. H. Tate (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a request for the use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, should be the oldest available name for the Dingo of Australia which forms the subject of the Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 451, he raised also the question of the use of those Powers to preserve the name antarcticus Bechstein, 1799, as published in the combination Canis antarcticus, for the Falkland Islands Wolf, by suppressing the senior subjective synonym australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis australis. Later, not long before his death, Dr. Tate informed the Office of the Commission that he had formed the conclusion that it was already too late to preserve the name antarcticus Bechstein for the above species. The discussion of this subject was accordingly deleted from his application relating to the name to be used for the Australian Dingo. In order to bring the case to a close, the Secretary on 18th January 1955 submitted to the 342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS International Commission the following paper in which, in conformity with the conclusion reached by Dr. Tate as to the need for accepting the name australis Kerr for the Falkland Islands Wolf, he suggested that that name should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. :— Proposed acceptance of the specific name ‘‘ australis ’’ Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination ‘‘ Canis australis ’’ as the name for the Falkland Islands Wolf By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) At the time when he proposed that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name antarcticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus, in order to preserve for the Dingo of Australia the well-known name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo (File Z.N.(S.) 487)1, the late Dr. G. H. H. Tate (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) suggested also that the Commission should consider whether it was desirable in the interests of stability in nomenclature to suppress another specific name published by Kerr which had long been ignored but which had been found to be older than the name which had for many years been in use for the species in question. 2. The name referred to by Dr. Tate was the name australis Kerr, 1792 (Anim. Kingd. zool. Syst. Linnaeus : 144), as published in the combination Canis australis. This name applies to, and is the oldest available name for, the Falkland Islands Wolf. For a hundred and thirty years, however, this name was completely overlooked, the Falkland Islands Wolf being known by the name antarcticus Bechstein, 1799 (Pennant’s Uebers. vierfiissige Thiere 1 : 271) as published in the combination Canis antarcticus. 3. The identity of the species represented by the two foregoing nominal species was established by Cabrera in 1931 (J. Mammal. 12 : 66). In the light of current zoological sentiment against the upsetting of long-established names by the resurrection of ancient names which have long been consigned to oblivion, it is unfortunate, as Dr. Tate pointed out, that an application was not made to the Commission for the suppression of the name australis Kerr immediately it was discovered that it antedated the established name antarcticus . Bechstein. Now that twenty-five years have elapsed since the re- 1 The decision taken by the International Commission in regard to the name here referred to has since been embodied in Opinion 451 OPINION 452 343 appearance of the name australis Kerr, it is necessary to consider whether that name has during that period established itself sufficiently to make it unnecessary at this stage to attempt to save the name antarcticus Bechstein. 4. Shortly before his death Dr. Tate informed me that he had come to the conclusion that it was now too late to prevent the disappearance in synonymy of the name antarcticus Bechstein. The same view has been expressed by Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London), whom I recently consulted on this subject. In his letter (dated 4th January 1955) Dr. Morrison-Scott noted that there was only one recent work on the mammals of South America as a whole; this is the work entitled Mamiferos Sud-Americanos by Cabrera & Yepes published in 1940, in which work the name australis Kerr was used for the Falkland Islands Wolf. 5. In view of the fact that this question was raised with the Com- mission by Dr. Tate,. it seems desirable that a decision should now be taken on it. Having regard to the evidence summarised above it appears that the general feeling is that in view of the march of time the best course will be to accept the change of name made in this case. Accordingly, if this is found to be the general view, I recommend that the Commission should close this case by placing the specific name australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis australis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. IJ. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: When in 1950, Dr. G. H. H. Tate raised the question of the specific name to be used for the Falkland Islands Wolf jointly with the question of the name to be used for the Dingo of Australia the two problems involved were allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 487. When later Dr. Tate abandoned the idea of asking for the use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the name antarcticus Bechstein for the first of these animals and it was decided to place before the Commission an application for the recognition of the name australis Kerr for that species by adding it to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, it was decided to separate these two cases by allotting to the new Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 898 to the 344 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS problem relating to the name to be used for the Falkland Islands Wolf, while retaining the original number (Z.N.(S.) 487) for the consideration of the question of the name to be used for the Dingo. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 19th January 1955 and was published on 28th February in the same year in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 122—123). 4. Support received from Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : On 4th May 1955, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Office of the Commission in support of the present application :— Under the two numbers cited above the following names are discussed ; Canis dingo Mayer, 1793, Canis australis Kerr, 1792, Canis antarcticus Kerr, 1792, Canis antarcticus Bechstein, 1799. The validation of the first two and the suppression of the last two are requested. Since there is no doubt at all as to the meaning of the first two and since the last two are homonyms, which are always likely to be confusing I am in agreement with both petitions, though for slightly different reasons than those advanced by the petitioners. 5. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. III. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)34 : On 22nd November 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)34) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, ** the proposal relating to the specific name to be accepted for the OPINION 452 345 Falkland Islands Wolf as set out in paragraph 5 on page 123 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 22nd February 1956. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)34 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)34 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty (20) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering ; Riley ; Vokes ; Jaczewski ; Lemche ; Dymond; Esaki; Mertens; do Amaral; Hanko; Boschma ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Key ; Cabrera ; Bonnet ; Kuhnelt ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; Hemming ; (b) Negative Votes, four (4) : Prantl ; Bodenheimer ; Miller ; Tortonese ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1): Mayr. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 23rd February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55)34, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 8 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted 346 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid... 10. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 17th November 1956, 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.(55)34. 11. Original Reference : The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— australis, Canis, Kerr, 1792, Anim. Kingd. zool. Syst. Linnaeus : 144 12. 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. 13. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-Two (452) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Seventeenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcaLFE & 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 15. Part 19. Pp. 347—356 OPINION 453 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura) 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.7 157 Price Six Shillings and Sixpence ie (All rights reserved) fi one : \ \ APR eS 1967 — / Issued 8th March, 1957 \ LIBRARY oe INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 453 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. cae ern (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 1948 Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEwsKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) | Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A,) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HottuHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KtHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Se, S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernest MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 453 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ BOMBINA”’ OKEN, 1816 (CLASS AMPHIBIA, ORDER ANURA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers (a) the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura) is hereby validated and (b) the nominal species Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761, is hereby designated to be the type species of the genus so named. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1064 :— Bombina Oken, 1816, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above : Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761). (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1141 :— bombina Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combina- tion Rana bombina (specific name of type species of Bombina Oken, 1816). 350 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 20th April 1953, Professor Robert Mertens addressed a preliminary communication to the Office of the Commission on the question of the need for preserving for use in its accustomed sense the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia), a name published in a work (Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte), the status of which for nomenclatorial purposes was at that time sub judice!. After correspondence with the Office of the Commission Professor Mertens decided to submit to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application in which, in anticipation of the rejection of Oken’s Lehrbuch, the Commission would be asked to use its Plenary Powers, if that should prove to be necessary, for the purpose of preserving the generic name Bombina Oken. An application in this sense was formally submitted to the International Commission by Professor Mertens on 27th October 1954. The application so submitted was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to conserve the generic name ‘* Bombina ’? Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura) By ROBERT MERTENS (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission to take such action as may be necessary to protect the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816, for the genus of frogs commonly known by that name. This proposal is based on the following grounds. 2. In 1816 (Lehrbuch Naturgesch. (Zool.) 2 : 207) Oken established the genus Bombina for a genus of frogs. This genus is now considered to contain four species, two from Europe and two from East Asia. Since 1907 these species have been referred to under this generic name in numerous works, not only of a taxonomic, but also of a general 1 The Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte of Oken was later rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes by the Commission by a decision which was subsequently embodied in Opinion 417 (Ops. Decs. int. Com. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 1—42). OPINION 453 351 zoological, character. These frogs are referred to also under this generic name in important comprehensive works in many languages, the name having been re-introduced into zoological literature by Leonhard Stejneger in his important work “‘ Herpetology of Japan ”’ published in 1907 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 58 : 50). From the point of maintaining stability in the nomenclature of this group, it is important therefore that the name Bombina Oken should be preserved for use in its currently accepted sense. From the species included in this genus by Oken, Stejneger (1907 : 50) selected Bufo igneus Laurenti, 1768 (Syn. Rept. : 29, 129), ajunior synonym of Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761 (Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 101). 3. Recently there has, however, been a tendency to reject generic names published by Oken in his Lehrbuch and at the present time the status of that work is under examination in accordance with a request addressed to the Secretary to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365—366). I agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Hemming in his Report on this subject (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 193—201) that Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte®. It is important therefore that the Commission should now protect the well-known generic name Bombina Oken. 4. The genus Bombina Oken, 1816, is not the type genus of a taxon belonging to the family-group and accordingly no question arises of placing any such name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 5. In the interests of stability in zoological nomenclature, I ask the International Commission :— (1) to preserve the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816, with Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761, as type species, using for this purpose its Plenary Powers, if that course is found to be necessary in the light of the decision to be taken by it when the Commission comes to consider the Secretary's Report on the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—Bombina Oken, 1816 (gender : feminine) as conserved under (1) above (type species, by designation under (1) above : Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761) ; 2 This work was later rejected by the International Commission. See Footnote 1. 352 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—bombina Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Rana bombina (specific name of type species of Bombina Oken, 1816). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Professor Mertens’ preliminary enquiry the question of pre- serving the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816, was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 759. 3. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer on 19th January 1955 and was published on 28th February in the same year in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Mertens, 19$5, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 132—133). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 was given on 28th February 1955 (a) in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Professor Mertens’ application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to one specialist serial. 5. Support received from Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) : On OPINION 453 353 13th June 1955, Professor Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Office of the Commission in support of the present case :— I heartily concur with the proposal by Mertens (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 132—133) that Bombina Oken and bombina Linnaeus be preserved, as prescribed in the cited article. 6. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. 7. Note prepared by the Secretary in November 1955 on the relationship of the present application to the application submitted to the International Commission on the subject of the status of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ’’, the work in which the name ‘‘ Bombina ”’ was originally published : On 5th November 1955, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, prepared the following note on the relationship at that date of the present application to the application sub- mitted to the International Commission on the subject of the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch, the work in which the name Bombina was originally published, for insertion in the Notes to be annexed to the Voting Paper to be issued in the present case in order to recall that, if the present application was to be granted, the use of the Plenary Powers would be required :— At the time of the submission of the present application no Ruling had been given on the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch and in consequence it was not certain whether, in order to preserve the name Bombina Oken, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers. To protect the position in the event of the rejection of the Lehrbuch, Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in the present case was given in the prescribed manner. Such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to one specialist serial. (The Lehrbuch has since been rejected by the Commission by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)91%, and the 3 By the decision taken on the foregoing Voting Paper Oken’s Lehrbuch was rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. See Footnote 1. 354 - OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS use of the Plenary Powers will therefore be needed if the present application is to be granted.) III. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)36 : On 22nd November 1955, a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)36) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816, as set out in Points (1) to (3) on page 133 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 February 1956. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)36 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)36 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- three (23) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering ; Riley ; Vokes ; Mayr; Jaczewski ; Lemche ; Prantl; Dymond; Esaki; Bodenheimer ; Mertens ; do Amaral; Hank6é; Boschma ; Sylvester- Bradley ; Key ; Bonnet; Miller; Tortonese; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; Hemming ; OPINION 453 | 355 (b) Negative Votes, two (2): Cabrera ; Kuhnelt. (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 23rd February 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55)36, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 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 Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 21st November 1956, 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.(55)36. 13. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Bombina Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. (Zool.) 2 : 207 bombina, Rana, Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 101 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 356 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-Three (453) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-First day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 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 15. Part 20. Pp. 357—378 OPINION 454 Designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Chilopoda) 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 1957 Price Fourteen Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) EX\\HSON Lah oN Issued 15th March, 1957 Yi INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 454 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr penning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 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 (nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (A5th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoitHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (45th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) seas F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 5 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 454 DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE FOR “SCOLOPENDRA ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS CHILOPODA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers (a) all type-selections for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Chilopoda) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and (b) the nominal species Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby desig- nated to be the type species of the genus so named. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above: Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1065) ; (b) Lithobius [Leach], [1814] (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Latreille, (1831): Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1066). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scolopendra morsitans (specific name of type species of Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1142) ; (b) forficata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scolopendra forficata (specific name of type species of Lithobius [Leach], [1814]) (Name No. 1143). 360 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) SCOLOPENDRIDAE [Leach], [1814] (type genus : Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 143) ; (b) LITHOBIIDAE Newport, 1844 (type genus: Lithobius [Leach], [1814]) (Name No. 144). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On Ist June 1954 Dr. Ralph E. Crabill, Jr. (Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, St.Louis, Missouri,U.S.A.)addressed a preliminary communication to the Office of the Commission on the question of the need for securing the continued use of the generic name Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Chilopoda) in its accustomed sense. This led to the submission to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Crabill on 5th January 1955 of the following request for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating for the foregoing genus of a type species in harmony with accepted usage :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for the genus ** Scolopendra ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Chilopoda) a type species in harmony with accustomed usage By RALPH E. CRABILL, Jr. (Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 637) (Class Chilopoda) a type species in harmony with accustomed usage and OPINION 454 361 thus to prevent the appalling dislocation in the nomenclature of this group, a dislocation which would extend to the family-name and ordinal-name levels, which would result if the normal provisions of the Régles were to be allowed to apply in the present case. The facts are set out briefly in the following paragraphs. 2. In 1758 Linnaeus recognised a single genus of chilopods, namely Scolopendra Linnaeus, to which he referred nine nominal species. Of these species, the third and fifth (both named on page 638) were Scolopendra forficata and Scolopendra morsitans respectively. Naturally, Linnaeus designated no type species. The first included species to be selected as the type species by a subsequent author was Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus which was so selected by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 423, 112). 3. The foregoing type-selection for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus is totally at variance with current usage, the species Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus being placed now (as shown in paragraph 4 below) in the family LITHOBIIDAE. In 1891 Pocock (Amn. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 7 : 229) stated that Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of Scolopendra Linnaeus. This statement was incorrect under the Régles in view of the prior action by Latreille in 1810, but it corresponded with the then well-established concept of the genus Scolopendra, a concept which has remained unchanged to this day. The genus Scolopendra, so interpreted, is the type genus of the family SCOLOPENDRIDAE, which was established by George Newport as long ago as 1844 (April 1844, Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. 1844(20) : 192 ; id., [post- April] 1844, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 19 : 275). 4. Ina paper published anonymously in [1814] (Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. 7(2) : 408) Leach established a new nominal genus to which he gave the name Lithobius. Leach placed in this genus a number of species, including Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus, 1758. He did not designate a type species for this genus. The first author to select a type species was Latreille who in 1831 (Cours d’Entomol., Ann. 1 : 568) so selected Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus. This selection is in harmony with current usage, and this interpretation of the genus Lithobius forms the basis of the currently accepted family LITHOBIIDAE Newport (G.), April 1844 (Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. 1844(20) : 192 ; id., [post-April] 1844, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 19 : 275, 360). 5. It will be seen from the particulars given in the preceding paragraphs that the generic names Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, and Lithobius [Leach], [1814], are objective synonyms of one another, that accordingly under the normal operation of the Régles, the name Lithobius [Leach] would disappear in synonymy, and the name Scolopendra Linnaeus would need to be used for the genus now universally known as Lithobius. Unless means can be found to preserve 362 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the name Lithobius for the group of species now universally associated with it, the most devastating changes will be involved, these changes affecting not only two generic names but also two family-group names and the names of two of the four chilopod Orders. In that event not only would the well-known family currently called the LITHOBMIDAE lose that name, but—and this would be even more confusing—would need in future to be known by the name SCOLOPENDRIDAE. In that event also the Ordinal name Lithobiomorpha would disappear in synonymy. The genus now known as Scolopendra Linnaeus would probably have to be called by the name Rhombocephalus Newport, April 1844 (Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. 1844(20) : 193 ; [post-April] 1844, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 19 : 275) and the corrected family-group and Ordinal names for this genus would probably become RHOMBOCEPHALIDAE and Rhombocephalomorpha respectively. In other words, one hundred and forty years of terminology, which has become widely established in general, as well as in technical, works and which involves names which have become tokens of the Chilopoda for naturalists, would be overturned. 6. The incorrect nomenclature currently in use has become so firmly entrenched in the literature over so long a period of years that nothing but confusion would result if an attempt were now to be made to apply the ordinary rules in this case. I therefore now ask the International Commission :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all type-selections for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now asked for, and (b), having done so, to designate Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758 to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above : Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Lithobius [Leach], [1814] (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1831): Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus, 1758) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scolopendra morsitans (specific name of type species of Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) forficata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scolopendra forficata (specific name of type species of Lithobius |Leach], [1814]) ; OPINION 454 363 (4) to place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) LITHOBIIDAE Newport, 1844 (type genus : Lithobius [Leach], [1814]) ; (b) SCOLOPENDRIDAE Newport, 1844 (type genus : Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: Upon the receipt of Dr. Crabill’s preliminary communication in 1954 the question of the designation of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 843. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 19th January 1955 and was published on 28th February in the same year in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Crabill, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 134—136). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 February 1955 (a) in Part 4 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Crabill’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications. 5. Support received for the present application: The present application aroused an exceptionally large amount of support, no 364 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS less than twenty-four specialists notifying the Office of the Commission of their support for the action recommended in the present case. The distribution of these comments by countries was as follows: (a) U.S.A. (thirteen); (b) Canada (three) ; (c) Brazil (two); (d) England (two); (e) Finland (one); (f) Germany (one); (g) Hawaii (one); (h) Taiwan (one). The twenty-one communications in which these comments were received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 6. Support received from Nell B. Causey (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A.) : On 14th April 1955 Dr. Nell B. Causey (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A.) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Causey, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 268) :— As a myriapodologist, I want to urge that the International Commission use its Plenary Powers as requested in Z.N.(S.) 843. Dr. Crabill’s historical account of the case is correctly presented. There would indeed be systematic confusion if the normal provisions of the Régles were applied, although I am sceptical about its resulting in “‘ devastating changes ’’, which seems a term better associated with hydrogen bombs than with myriapods. 7. Support received from Clarence J. Goodnight (Purdue Univer- sity, Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A.): On 15th April 1955 Dr. Clarence J. Goodnight (Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Goodnight, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 268) :— I am writing concerning the proposed disposition of the well-known chilopodous generic names Scolopendra Linnaeus and Lithobius Leach. I believe that Dr. Ralph E. Crabill’s proposed solution of this problem is valid and will result in greater stability than will a strict adherence to the Laws of Priority. As Dr. Crabill points out, if priority is followed in this case, the names of two well known families will be changed and the names of two of the four chilopod orders would also be changed. Further, there is a large amount of biological literature OPINION 454 365 involving animals in these two genera. Similarly there are names commonly in use among general zoologists and textbook writers. If these names should change, much of the literature would be unusable to the general zoologist without a thorough search of synonymy. Therefore in the interests of stability, I hope that the International Commission will use its Plenary Powers to retain the names Scolopendra and Lithobius in the manner in which they are now commonly used. I hope you will view Dr. Crabill’s request in a favorable light. 8. Support received from Katherine V. W. Palmer (Paleonto- logical Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.): On 18th April 1955 Mrs. Katherine V. W. Palmer (Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Palmer, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 268—269) :— Ralph E. Crabill, Jr., has asked, at your request, that I study and send comments to you in regard to his proposal, Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 11, pt. 4, February 1955. The proposal requests that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its Plenary Powers to set aside all type designations for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, prior to the Ruling asked for, including the type designation of Latreille, 1810, of Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus, 1758, for Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate S. morsitans Linn., 1758, type species of Scolopendra Linn., 1758. From the pertinent and concise information given in regard to the problem, it would certainly seem that to replace the established usage of the type species, Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, for Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, by the legitimate type species, S. forficata Linnaeus, 1758, would cause confusion and a great deal of extra work and writing to clarify the situation from the specific to the ordinal level. Iam not in favor of overruling the law of priority in the usual case but in a problem such as stated by Mr. Crabill, more harm would be done by a strict application of the rule than following long established usage. One point in this case which also is in favor of establishing by Plenary Power, S. morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, type species of Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, is the fact that, according to the data presented by Mr. Crabill, paragraphs 2 and 4, Latreille designated the same species S. forficata Linnaeus, 1758, for two different genera— for Scolopendra Linn., in 1810, and in 1831 for Lithobius Leach, 1814. If Latreille made an error of designation in his own writings and did not take the opportunity in 1831 to correct the later type designation 366 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and restore the use of the prior designation for Scolopendra Linn., it would seem that the use of Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, a type species in harmony with accustomed usage would serve science to the best advantage. 9. Support received from four specialists in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) : On 18th April 1955 four specialists in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A. (Dr. Mont A. Cazier, Dr. C. H. Curran, Dr. Willis J. Gertsch and Dr. Frederick H. Rindge) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Cazier et al., 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 269) :— We have read with very great interest the separate entitled ““ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to Designate for the Genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Chilopoda) a Type Species with Accustomed Usage ”’. It is always a hardship when strict adherence to the rules makes it necessary to change familiar long used names for older legal ones. I have talked to all the members of our department and they are in complete sympathy with the aim of this application to maintain the genus Scolopendra in its familiar usage. We echo the words in the proposal that in this case nothing but confusion would result if an attempt were to be made to apply the ordinary rules. We urge the International Commission to follow the recommendations of Dr. Ralph E. Crabill in section six of the separate. 10. Support received from J. L. Cloudsley-Thompson (University of London) : On 25th April 1955 Dr. J. L. Cloudsley-Thompson (University of London) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Cloudsley-Thompson, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 269) :— I write in strong support of Dr. R. E. Crabill’s suggestion that a type species be designated for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758. Every effort should be made to prevent the alarming possibilities envisaged by him in paragraph 5 which would result in absolute confusion if applied even by only a few workers on Chilopoda. The conventional nomenclature must be regularised as Dr. Crabill suggests, OPINION 454 367 11. Support received from John D. Dwyer (Saint Louis University. Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.) : On 25th April 1955 Dr. John D. Dwyer (Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Dwyer, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 269—270) :— With reference to Dr. Crabill’s recent recommendation, I would like to express my approval of his proposal that the International Commission exercise its Plenary Powers as he outlined. It appears that this action will prevent a possible disruption of well-established names ; such changes would appear not to serve the cause of taxonomy in a positive manner. 12. Support received from W. Wayne Boyle (University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii) : On 25th April 1955 Dr. W. Wayne Boyle (University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Boyle, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 270) :— Dr. Ralph E. Crabill, Jr., has asked me to communicate to you my comments regarding his recent recommendation on chilopod nomen- clature to the Commission. Although I am not a chilopod specialist (my own interests lying with the Coleoptera and Acarina), Dr. Crabill’s problem seems clear cut in all details. Indeed, it would appear that in just such cases the Plenary Powers of the Commission could be used to the best interests of zoological nomenclature. It is my considered opinion, therefore, that the Commission accept Dr. Crabill’s recommendation in all details and duly act thereon under the Plenary Powers. 13. Support received from George E. Ball (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) : On 26th April 1955 Dr. George E. Ball (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Ball, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 270) :— . It is my opinion that Crabill’s request to conserve the names Lithobius and Scolopendra as currently used is a reasonable one. I 368 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS heartily endorse the course of action that he suggests be taken and feel that Crabill is to be congratulated in this case for not adhering to the Rule of Priority. 14. Support received from Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., Germany): On 27th April 1955 Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Kraus, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 270) :— Hiermit unterstiitze ich die von Herrn R. E. Crabill in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(4) : 134—136 vorgeschlagene Lésungin der Angelegenheit Scolopendra Lithobius. 15. Support received from T. J. Spilman (United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : On 29th April Dr. T. J. Spilman (United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Spilman, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 270) :— This proposed exception to priority in subsequent type species selection appears well founded, and fulfilment of all four pleas will avoid an upheaval in chilopod nomenclature. I therefore, stand in agreement with the proposal and urge its adoption. Plenary Powers, I feel, have been used much too often in the past and for many cases not warranting their usage. The Law of Priority should be set aside only in cases where major changes would occur or where long and widespread nomenclatorial usages would be affected. I would, therefore, plea for more restraint in use of the Powers. 16. Support received from Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : On 2nd May 1955 Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. National Museum, OPINION 454 369 Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Sabrosky, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 271) :— Dr. R. E. Crabill, Jr., has sent me a copy of his application on Scolopendra and asked for comments. Although not directly interested in the group, my attention was drawn to the change in usage of family names, a reversal which would certainly contribute to confusion without any compensating gain. On this basis, I support the application. I note that Dr. Crabill mentions ordinal names, but the Code does not provide that ordinal names be linked with family names and follow the latter in and out of synonymy. However, if the application is approved, this point will not cause any difficulty. 17. Support received from John C. Martin (Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario, Canada): On Sth May 1955 Dr. John C. Martin (Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario, Canada) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Martin, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 ; 271) :— It has been my policy to follow the Régles Internationales with regard to zoological nomenclature realising that with the passage of time, little or much as the individual cases may require, the confusion which has and still exists in many quarters of this field of biological nomenclature would be resolved. However, one must not adhere stubbornly to an ideal, particularly if in order to bring it to pass, a chaotic state worse than the existing condition is brought into existence, especially if there are means of avoiding it. In the case of zoological nomenclature, the Plenary Powers of the International Commission provide such means of preventing additional chaos. With regard to the problem in question (Z.N.(S.) 843) it is obvious that if the Régles were followed two well-known generic names, Lithobius Leach, 1814, and Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, two family- group names and the names of two of the four chilopod Orders would be affected. The present situation which has existed in whole or in 370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS part for some one hundred and forty years has become widely established in technical and general works. Any change would cause much confusion and hence I support the four requests (vide Z.N.(S.) 843 Para. 6) made by Dr. R. E. Crabill, Jr. 18. Support received from Stanley I. Auerbach (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.) : On 5th May 1955 Dr. Stanley I. Auerbach (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— After reading Dr. Crabill’s arguments for retaining the generic names Scolopendra and Lithobius, I fully agree with. him. I think that Dr. Crabill is to be commended for pointing out this situation and making this serious attempt to rectify it. Those of us who have been working with the Chiopoda have taken it almost for granted that the names as now used were strictly according to the Rules. As he points out, if we were to adhere strictly to the Rules and transfer Scolopendra to Lithobius and Lithobius to synonymy, the results, as far as the specialists in the group are concerned, would be almost catastrophic. All of the major monographs written in the last 75 years are based on the usage which Dr. Crabill now asks the Commission to legalize. In view of the foregoing, I urge that the Commission adopt Dr. Crabill’s petitions. 19. Support received from Ernst Palmén (Zoological Institute, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland): On 10th May 1955 Dr. Ernst Palmén (Zoological Institute, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission (Palmén, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 271) :-— It is with great interest that I have read the paper by Dr. Crabill, and can but state that his suggestion seems quite acceptable. Obviously the change of the generic names would in this case cause extra- ordinarily great confusions, not only among specialists of the Chilopoda, but also among naturalists in general. There seems to be no reason why the Plenary Powers of the International Commission should not OPINION 454 371 be used in a case where the advantages of accepting Dr. Crabill’s proposal are as obvious as in the present case. Therefore I would like to recommend his suggestion warmly. The matter has been described thoroughly in the communication by Dr Crabill and does not, in my opinion, need further comments. 20. Support received from Howard E. Evans (New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) : On 17th May 1955 Dr. Howard E. Evans (New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— Dr. R. E. Crabill, Jr., of Saint Louis University, has asked me to write you concerning his application to the Commission regarding the generic name of Scolopendra (Chilopoda). I have read Dr. Crabill’s arguments and wish to express my complete agreement with them. I feel that not to conserve the name Scolopendra in its traditional sense would result in a great deal of confusion, especially since this generic name is widely used in general biology. 21. Support received from Henry Dybas (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) : On 27th May 1955 Dr. Henry Dybas (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— I have read Dr. Ralph Crabill’s application concerning the names Scolopendra and Lithobius and wish to register my support for his request to the International Commission to exercise its Plenary Powers in this instance. 22. Support received from Walter W. Kempf (Seminario de Santo Antonio, Agudos, Brazil) : On 5th June 1955 Dr. Walter W. Kempf (Semindrio de Santo Anténio, Agudos, Brazil) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— I have received a paper by Dr. Ralph E. Crabill, Jr. (St. Louis, Miss., U.S.A.) published in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. containing an 372 | OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS application for the use of the Plenary Powers by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in order to designate for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus (1758) a type species in harmony with accustomed usage. After having gone carefully over Dr. Crabill’s application, I reached the following conclusions : (1) The solution of the nomenclatorial problem, as proposed by the petitioner, doubtless necessitates the use of Plenary Powers by the International Commission. The type selection of forficata L. for Scolopendra L. (1758) by Latreille (1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 423, 112) must be taken as valid both according to the Rules and to Opinions 11 and 136, and, furthermore, antedates the selection of the type species (morsitans L.) of current established usage. (2) The use of the Plenary Power in this case is highly commendable, on account of the overwhelming evidence, contained in, and eloquently stated by, the petitioner’s application, that here, “ the strict application of the Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity ”’. Hence I am very much in favor of Dr. Crabill’s application and wholeheartedly support his request, as stated in paragraph 6 in the above-mentioned paper. 23. Support received from Yu-hsi Moltze Wang (National Taiwan University, Taiwan): On 22nd June 1955 Dr. Yu-hsi Moltze Wang (National Taiwan University, Taiwan) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— After having read R. E. Crabill’s application to ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to designate for the genera OPINION 454 373 Scolopendra and Lithobius type species in harmony with accustomed usage, I agree with all his proposals. 24. Support received from W. R. M. Mason (Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) : On 24th June 1955 Dr. W. R. M. Mason (Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— I have read the paper sent to me by Dr. Crabill of St. Louis University and find myself entirely in agreement with the views there expressed. I would be sorry to see the names Scolopendra and Lithobius altered in such drastic fashion as a strict application of the Rules would necessitate. 25. Support received from F. A. Turk (Camborne, Cornwall, England): On 30th April 1956 Dr. F. A. Turk (Camborne, Cornwall, England) wrote a letter to the Office of the Commission in which, inter alia, he commented on the present case in the following terms :— As you may know, I have also an interest in, and have published upon, the Myriapod Orders and recently Mr. R. E. Crabill of Missouri sent me his paper regarding the genus Scolopendra. 1 have read this carefully and in detail and I should like to record my opinion that the International Commission should act as Mr. Crabill asks. I agree with Mr. Crabill that failure to do this will result in appalling confusion in the nomenclature of the groups; some of the earlier species of Lithobius, already obscure, would be placed in nearly inextricable confusion and, so far as I can see, to no good purpose. 26. Support received from Wolfgang Biicherl (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil): On 17th October 1956 Dr. Wolfgang 374 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Biicherl Unstituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) sent the following comment in support of the present application :— Of course I will be inclined to adopt, after approbation by the members of the Commission on International Zoological Nomen- clature, the names Scolopendra L., 1758, with the type species, Scolopendra morsitans L., 1758, and Lithobius [Leach], [1814], with the type species Scolopendra forficata L., 1758. 27. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 28. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)1 : On 27th January 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)1) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, ““ the proposal relating to the generic name Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, as set out in Points (1) to (4) in paragraph 6 on page 135 and the top of page 136 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 29. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th April 1956. OPINION 454 Bis) 30. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)1: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)1 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Hering ; Mayr ; Kuhnelt ; Lemche ; Bradley (.C.): do Amaral; Dymond; . Stoll; Jaczewski; Prantl; Key; Bodenheimer; Bonnet ; Mertens; Riley; Sylvester-Bradley; | Hemming: Hank6; Tortonese; Esaki; Boschma; Cabrera; Miller ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 31. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th April 1956 Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)1, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 30 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. 32. Substitution on the ‘‘ Official List’? of an older reference for the family-group name based on the generic name ** Scolopendra ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, than the oldest such reference previously ascertained : On 20th November 1956 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, executed the following Minute directing the substitution on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of the name SCOLOPENDRIDAE [Leach], [1814] for the later name SCOLOPENDRIDAE Newton (G.), 1844, which it had previously 376 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS been proposed to enter on that List as the oldest family-group name based on the foregoing generic name :— Substitution on the ‘‘ Official List ’’ of an older reference for the family- group. name based upon the generic name ‘‘ Scolopendra ”’ Linnaeus, 1758, than the oldest such reference previously ascertained By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Since the grant by the International Commission of approval to the proposals relating to the generic name Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, and associated names submitted to it in connection with Voting Paper V.P.(56)1, the routine check-up of the bibliographical references for the names concerned carried out in the Office of the Commission in connection with the preparation of the Opinion required for giving effect to the decision so taken has brought to light the existence of an older reference for the family-group name based upon the foregoing generic name than the oldest such reference previously ascertained. At the time of the submission of the foregoing Voting Paper it was | believed that the oldest such reference was SCOLOPENDRIDAE Newport (G.), 1844. It has now been ascertained that the same name was published in [1814] by Leach in an anonymous article in Volume 7 (: 434) of the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. 2. Accordingly, as Secretary, I hereby direct that the name SCOLOPENDRIDAE [Leach], [1814], be entered on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology in place of the later name SCOLOPENDRIDAE Newport, 1844, the name previously proposed for entry thereon. 33. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ” : | On 22nd November 1956 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.(56)1, subject to the adjustment of the reference of the family-group name based on the generic name Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, in accordance with the directions given in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 20th November 1956, the text of which has been reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph of the present Opinion. OPINION 454 377 34. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on the Official Lists for names for taxa of those categories by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— forficata, Scolopendra, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 638 Lithobius [Leach], [1814], ix Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7(2) : 408 morsitans, Scolopendra, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 638 Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 637 35. The following is the reference for the type selection for the genus Lithobius [Leach], [1814], specified in Section (2)(b) of the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Latreille, 1831, Cours d’Entomol., Ann. 1 : 658. 36. The following are the original references for the family- group names placed on the Official List established for the names of taxa belonging to the family-group category :— LITHOBIIDAE Newport (G.), April 1844, Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. 1844 (20): 192; id., [post-April] 1844, Trans. linn. Soe. ond. 19:°3275, 360 SCOLOPENDRIDAE [Leach], [1814], im Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7 : 434 37. 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. 378 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 38. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-Four (454) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Second day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission - on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MrtcatFe & Cooper LimiteD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 eee | AP Issued 15th March, 1957 — LipRaRYv 7 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 15. Part 21. Pp. 379—392 OPINION 455 Validation under the Plenary Powers (a) of the emenda- tion to Sphenodon of the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831, and (b) of the family-group name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 (Class Reptilia) 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 1957 Price Nine Shillings LIQ AL, A it (All rights reserved) re P 4OR7 Ra! J lSJ/ INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 455 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President: Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) 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 Riey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Sees 4, oe BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.,-U.S.A.) (12th August 1953} resiaent Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezédgazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. c SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. Ho.tuurs (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th Teer 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954 Professor Enrico TORTENESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy} (16th December 1954) OPINION 455 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (a) OF THE EMENDATION TO ‘*‘SPHENODON ” OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘SPHAENODON ” GRAY (J.E.), 1831, AND (b) OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME **SPHENODONTIDAE ” COPE, 1870 (CLASS REPTILIA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers :— (a) the emendation to Sphenodon of the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831, is hereby approved ; (b) the family-group name HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (type genus : Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842) 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 name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1067 :— Sphenodon (emend. of Sphaenodon) Gray (J.E.), 1831 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Hatteria punctata Gray (J.E.), 1842) 382 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1144 :— punctata Gray (J.E.), 1842, as published in the com- bination Hatteria punctata (specific name of type species of Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 (an Original Spelling for Sphenodon rejected under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 858) ; (b) Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842 (a junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831) (Name No. 859) ; © Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845 (a junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831, and a junior homonym of Rhynchocephalus Fischer de Waldheim, 1806). (5) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 145 :— SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above (type genus: Sphenodon (emend. of Sphaenodon) Gray (J.E.), 1831). (6) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and OPINION 455 : 383 Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (type genus: Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842) (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) (Name No. 183) ; (b) RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881 (type genus : Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845) (invalid (a) because the name of its type genus is invalid as a junior homonym of another generic name and (b) because this name is a junior objective synonym of SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, the respective type genera of these family-group taxa having the same species as type species) (Name No. 184). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 8th February 1954, Professor Robert Mertens (Sencken- bergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Forschungs-Institut u. Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) submitted to the Office of the International Commission a preliminary com- munication on the subject of the generic name commonly known as Sphenodon Gray, 1831 (Class Reptilia) and, consequent upon correspondence with the Secretary, he submitted the following 384 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS application in regard to the foregoing name to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on 11th November 1954 :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose (a) of validating the currently accepted emendation ‘‘ Sphenodon ”’ of the generic name ‘‘ Sphaenodon ”’ Gray (J.E.), 1831, and (b) of validating the family-group name ‘‘ Sphenodontidae ’’ Cope, 1870 (Class Reptilia) By ROBERT MERTENS (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of giving valid force to the currently accepted emendation Sphenodon for the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831. The facts of this case are set out briefly below. 2. In 1831 (Zool. Misc. (1): 14), Gray (J.E.) gave the name Sphaenodon to the famous “ Briickenechse ’”’ which he placed with the AGAMIDAE on the basis of a skull. He did not however then give a name to this species. In 1842, however, he gave this species the name Hatteria punctata (Zool. Misc. (2) : 72), thus making this nominal species the type species of Sphaenodon by monotypy. 3 There is no doubt that the word “‘ Sphaenodon ”’ is derived from the Greek word o¢7v (= wedge) and that the spelling “‘ Sphaenodon ” is an error of transcription, the correct spelling being “‘ Sphenodon ”’. For this reason, nearly all later authors, notably Gray (1872) himself, have used the emended spelling Sphenodon, and the “ Briickenechse ”” has been referred to under this name in many general works in recent years. Although I am, in general, a strong opponent of the emendation of names, I consider that in the case of the name for so well known an animal as the present it is desirable that the International Commission should validate the currently accepted form for its generic name. 4. There are two other nominal genera of which Hatteria punctata Gray, 1842, is the type species. ‘The first of these is the genus Hatteria itself which was established by Gray on the same page (: 72) as that on which he published the name Hatteria punctata, which is the type species of this genus by monotypy. The second of these nominal genera is Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845 (Trans. geol. Soc. Lond. (2)7 : 78). OPINION 455 385 In his 1845 paper Owen introduced this generic name in a very casual way and did not make it clear what was the species which he included init. He discussed this genus again in 1853 (Cat. Coll. Surgeons 1 : 142, 143). The position in relation to the names Sphenodon and Hatteria was more fully discussed by Gray in 1869 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4)3 : 167). It is clear from these later papers that the type species of Rhynchocephalus Owen is Hatteria punctata Gray. Quite apart from the foregoing considerations, the generic name Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845, is invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Rhynchocephalus Fischer de Waldheim, 1806 (Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 1 : 220). Accordingly, when the generic name Sphenodon Gray, 1831, is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, its two junior objective synonyms Hatteria Gray, 1842, and Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 5. Each of the generic names discussed above has been made the basis of a family-group name, and it is desirable that the present opportunity should be taken to deal with this aspect of the present case also. First, the family-group name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 (Proc. amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 19 : 235) should now be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Second, the family- group name RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881 (in Bronn, Klass. Ordn. Thierr. 6 (Abt. 3, Lief. 18/21) : 1065) (type genus Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845, a junior objective synonym of Hatteria Gray, 1842, and of Sphenodon Gray, 1831) should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, as it is a junior objective synonym of SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870. 6. We have now to consider the third of the family-group names concerned, namely HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1864 : 227) the type genus of which is Hatteria Gray, 1842, which, as shown above, is a junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray, 1831. The name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, which is in current use for this family, is junior by six years to the name HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864. Up to 1953, this would not have prevented the family in question from being known by the family name (SPHENODONTIDAE) based upon the oldest valid name for its type genus. Unfortunately, however, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen- hagen, 1953, when revising the rules relating to family-group names, inserted a provision that ‘“‘ Where the name of the type genus of a taxon belonging to the Family-Group has to be changed because it is found to be either (i) a junior objective synonym or (ii) a junior subjective synonym, the name of the Family-Group taxon based upon the name of that type genus is not to be changed ”’ (1953, Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)). This decision represents a most unfortunate innovation and one calculated to cause much name-changing and confusion at the family-name level, and it is 386 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS much to be hoped that it will be reversed by the next (London, 1958) International Congress of Zoology. In the present case this decision, if applied, would lead to the rejection of the well-known family name SPHENODONTIDAE and its replacement by the long-rejected and inap- propiate name HATTERIIDAE. In present circumstances the only way by which this result can be avoided is for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the family-group name MHATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864, thereby validating the accepted name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870. This course the Commission is therefore now asked to take. 7. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to validate the currently accepted emendation Sphenodon for the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 ; (b) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the family-group name HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (type genus: Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842) ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—Sphenodon (emend. of Sphaenodon) Gray (J.E.), 1831 (gender : masculine) (type species, by mono- typy : Hatteria punctata Gray, 1842) ; (3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—punctata Gray, 1842, as published in the combination Hatteria punctata (specific name of type species of Sphenodon Gray, 1831) ; (4) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 (an Original Spelling rejected under the Plenary Powers under (1) above) ; (5) place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, Proc. amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 19 : 235 (type genus : Sphenodon (emend. of Sphaenodon) Gray (J.E.), 1831). (6) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (type genus : Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) ; OPINION 455 387 (b) RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881 (type genus: Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845) (invalid because a junior synonym of SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, the names of the respective type genera of these family-groups being objective synonyms of another). | Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Professor Mertens’s preliminary communication, the question of the emendation to Sphenodon of the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 811. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 3lst December 1954 and was published on 31st May 1955 in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Mertens, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 139—141). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 was given on 3lst May 1955 (a) in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (the Part in which Professor Mertens’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to two specialist serials (published in Europe and America respectively). 5. Support received from Tadeusz Jaczewski (Warsaw, Poland) : On 12th June 1955, Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw) addressed to the Office of the Commission the following letter in which, after 388 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS supporting the present application, he drew attention to two small omissions in the final paragraph in which the action which it was desired that the Commission should take had been summarised by the applicant (Jaczewski, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 304) :— I wish to support to the full extent the proposition by Professor Dr. Robert Mertens, concerning the validation of the emended generic name Sphenodon Gray, 1831, and of the family-group name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870. In particular I wish to support most strongly the opinion expressed by Dr. Mertens in paragraph 6 (pp. 140—141) of the above proposition, concerning the use of family-group names derived from generic names which proved to be synonyms. I quite agree with Dr. Mertens that is is to be hoped that the unfortunate Copenhagen Decision No. 54, point (1)(a), will be finally reversed by the next International Congress. In my opinion the only way leading to reasonable stability of family- group names is through the previous stabilisation, i.e., placing on the Official List, of the names of the corresponding type genera of the families in question. I think that the Copenhagen Decision is mani- festly contrary to the very principle of the type method which is taken as the basis for the formation of family-group names. I am unable to see any reasonable basis for the maintenance of family-group names derived from synonymous generic names which are liable to be placed at any time on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and thus become doomed to oblivion. I think valid family names based on invalid generic names are a very anomalous combina- tion. Returning to the proposition of Professor Dr. R. Mertens, I think that the generic names Hatteria Gray, 1842, and Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845, should also be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as proposed at the end of | paragraph 4 (: 140). This proposition is omitted, perhaps by mistake, in paragraph 7 (: 141). 6. Support received from Hobart M. Smith (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) : On 8th July 1955, Professor Hobart M. Smith (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— Z.N.(S.) 811 (Sphenodon) : Approval is hereby registered for all the proposals 1—6 of the cited application, | OPINION 455 389 7. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. 8. Preparation by the Secretary in February 1956 of a Supple- mentary Note on two minor aspects of the present case : On 7th February 1956, Mr. Hemming as Secretary prepared a note to be annexed as Note 5 to the Voting Paper then on the point of being issued in connection with the present application in which he drew attention to the fact that by an oversight, to which attention had been drawn by Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (paragraph 5: above), two proposals on which the Commission would need to: be asked to vote on that Voting Paper, though mentioned by the applicant in the body of the application (paragraph 4), had not been included in the summary given in the concluding paragraph (paragraph 7). The proposals in question were concerned with the addition of two objectively invalid generic names to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. These names were :—(i) Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842 (a junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray, 1831); (ii) Rhyncho- cephalus Owen, 1845 (a junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831, and, in addition, a junior homonym of Rhynchocephalus Fischer de Waldheim, 1806). Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)5 : On 29th February 1956, a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)5) was issued in which the Members. of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the generic name Sphenodon Gray, 1831, as set out in Points (1) to (6) in paragraph 7 on page 141 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature [i.e. in the points numbered as above in paragraph 7 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion], subject to the additional proposals specified in Note 5 overleaf” [i.e. in the Note referred to in paragraph 8 of the present Opinion). 390 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 29th May 1956. 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)5 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)5 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Sylvester-Bradley ; do Amaral ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Hering ; Lemche; Vokes; Mayr; Key; Jaczewski ; Dymond : Bodenheimer ; Mertens ; Esaki; Boschma ; Hanko Riley; Prantl; Stoll; Hemming; Cabrera ; Tortonese ; Bonnet ; Ktihnelt ; Miller ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 12. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 30th May 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)5, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 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 Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. OPINION 455 391 13. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : ~ On 23rd November 1956, 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.(56)5. 14. Original References : The following are the original refer- ences for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842, Zool. Misc. (2) : 72 punctata, Hatteria, Gray (J.E.), 1842, Zool. Misc. (2) : 72 Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845, Trans. geol. Soc. Lond. (2) 7 : 78 Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 [an Invalid Original Spelling for Sphenodon q.v.| Sphenodon (emend. of Sphaenodon) Gray (J.E.), 1831, Zool. Misc. (1) : 14 15. The following are the original references for the family- group names placed on the Official List and Official Index of the names of taxa belonging to the family-group category :— HATTERIDAE Cope, 1864, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1864 : 227 RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881, in Bronn, Klass. Ordn. Thier. 6 (Abt. 3, Lief. 18/21) : 1065 SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, Proc. amer. Ass. Ady. Sci. 19 : 235 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 is accordingly 392 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-Five (455) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Third day of November, Nine- teen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcatre & 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 15. Part 22. Pp. 393—418 OPINION 456 Rejection of the work by Thomas Martyn published in 1784 with the title The Universal Conchologist as a work which does not comply with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles and which therefore possesses no status in zoological nomenclature and rejection also of a proposal that the foregoing work should be validated - under the Plenary Powers 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 1957 Price Seventeen Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 15th March, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 456 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. TEoaIod ean (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (A2th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) PrOressch een VoKEs (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th ugust Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtTHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954 Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ““G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 456 REJECTION OF THE WORK BY THOMAS MARTYN PUBLISHED IN 1784 WITH THE TITLE ‘‘ THE UNIVERSAL CONCHOLOGIST ” AS A WORK WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE ‘* REGLES ”? AND WHICH THEREFORE POSSESSES NO STATUS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AND REJECTION ALSO OF A PROPOSAL THAT THE FOREGOING WORK SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled that the work by Thomas Martyn published in London in 1784 under the title The Universal Conchologist does not comply with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles and therefore that this work possesses no status in zoological nomen- clature. (2) The request that the names in the foregoing work be validated en bloc under the Plenary Powers is hereby rejected, but consideration will be given to applications for the validation of individual names as published in the above work, if submitted by specialists with adequate data regarding the names concerned. (3) The title of the work specified in (1), as there rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 55. 396 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 19th October 1951 five New Zealand zoologists submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application on the subject of the status of the specific names used by Thomas Martyn in The Universal Conchologist, a work which was published in London in four volumes and in more than one edition, the date of publication of the first volume of the first edition being 1784. The specialists by whom this application was submitted were: (i) R. K. Dell (Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand); (ii) C. A. Fleming (Geological Survey of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand) ; (ii1) C. R. Laws (Department of Geology, Auckland University College, Auckland, New Zealand); (iv) J. Marwick (Geological Survey of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand) ; (v) A. W. B. Powell (Auckland Instutite and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand). In the paper so submitted the foregoing specialists (1) discussed the investigations of previous workers and themselves reached the conclusion that in The Universal Conchologist Martyn did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore that new names used in it were not available for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, (2) drew attention to the fact that certain of the names in Martyn’s book has been treated as the valid specific names for well-known species of New Zealand Mollusca for many years, and (3) asked that, without prejudice to the submission of parallel applications by Australian specialists in respect of Martyn names for species belonging to the Australian Fauna, the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers to validate the specific names given by Martyn to eighteen species of the New Zealand fauna. The application so submitted was subsequently expanded by the applicants in certain respects. In its final form it was submitted to the Office of the Commission on 19th May 1952. Later, for the reasons explained in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion it was decided to deal separately with the question on the one hand of the status to be accorded for nomenclatorial purposes to Martyn’s book The Universal Conchologist and on the other hand with the question of the status to be accorded to the eighteen specific names which formed the subject of the remaining part of the application submitted by the specialists referred to above. The present Opinion is concerned only with the first of these subjects, OPINION 456 397 This portion of the subject was dealt with in paragraph 2 of the application submitted, the formal request made to the Commission on this subject being set out in paragraph 6(a). The foregoing portions of the application so submitted were as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to conserve specific trivial names of New Zealand Mollusca published in Thomas Martyn’s ** Universal Conchologist ’’ (1784) By R. K. DELL (Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand) C. A. FLEMING (Geological Survey of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand) C. R. LAWS (Department of Geology, Auckland University College, Auckland, New Zealand) J. MARWICK (Geological Survey of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand) and A. W. B. POWELL (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) 2. Availability of names in Martyn’s ‘‘ Universal Conchologist ”’ : According to Dall (1905 : 426), E. von Martens (1860) discussed Martyn’s work and concluded that his generic names should be rejected but that his specific names might stand. Sherborn (1902) accepted Martyn’s specific names. Dall himself (1905, 1907) after full discussion and a little hesitation accepted Martyn’s generic and specific names. Iredale (1921) recorded discrepancies between different copies of Volume 4 of the Universal Conchologist. Winckworth (1929) re- examined the question of the availability of Martyn’s names ; suggested “that the numerous small explanations required to read binominal 398 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS intention into his tables ask for more guess work than is reasonable ”’ ; and concluded “‘ that one must most reluctantly disregard his beautiful work as far as nomenclature is concerned’. Iredale (1930: 77) wrote : “ The acceptance of the names given by Martyn in the Universal Conchologist has been a source of much trouble, and Winckworth’s conclusion that, as Martyn was not using a binominal nomenclature in the explanation to the plates, Martyn’s names be rejected, is herewith confirmed. The beautiful figures provided by Martyn have never been excelled, but his proposed system of nominating them was never published, and the recognition of Martyn’s temporary names has caused much confusion without creating any benefit.”” A. Myra Keen (1937 : 22) stated that “‘ there is considerable room for doubting the nomenclatural availability of Martyn’s species’, but tentatively accepted one of his species “‘ pending a decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the validity of Martyn’s work ’’. Powell (1946 : 64) noted that “‘ the status of Thomas Martyn’s names, Universal Conchologist, 1784, is in doubt, but it seems clearly a case for a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ’’, and continued to use Martyn’s names pending a definite decision. The above opinions are quoted because it is difficult for the present writers, with limited library resources, to form an independent opinion of the availability of Martyn’s work. It appears, however, that under strict application of the Régles, the names in Martyn’s Universal Conchologist are not available under Proviso (bd) to Article 25 and some parts of the work may also be invalid under the new provision concerning publication (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 (7/9) : 218). 6. Application for the use of the Plenary Powers : In the light of the considerations set forth above and in order to avoid the confusion which would follow the strict application of the normal rules in the present case, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to give a ruling that in his Universal Conchologist published in 1784 Thomas Martyn did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as required by Article 25 of the Régles, as amended by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 64—66) and therefore that no name published in the foregoing work acquires availability in zoological nomenclature in virtue of having been so published ; References DALL, W. H., 1905. Thomas Martyn and the Universal Conchologist. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 29 : 415—432 OPINION 456 399 DALL, W. H., 1907. Supplementary Notes on Martyn’s Universal Conchologist. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 33 : 185—192 IREDALE, T., 1921. Unpublished Plates of Thomas Martyn, Concho- logist. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 14 (4) : 131—134 TREDALE, T., 1930. Queensland Molluscan Notes. No. 2. Mem. Queensland Mus. 10 (1) : 73—88 *Keen, A. M., 1937. Nomenclatural Units of the Pelecypod Family Cardiidae. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Belg. 13 (7) : 1—22 MarTENS, E. von, 1860. Malakozoologische Blatter 7 : 141—148 Martyn, THOMAS, 1784. The Universal Conchologist, London 1 : figs. 1—40 ; 2 : figs. 41—80 POWELL, A. W. B., 1946. The Shellfish of New Zealand (2nd Ed.), Whitcombe and Tombs, Ltd. SHERBORN, C. D., 1902. Index Animalium, Sectio Prima, Cambridge WINCK WORTH, R., 1929. Notes on Nomenclature. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 18 (5) : 224—229 Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of the application referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph the question of the status to be accorded to Thomas Martyn’s work entitled The Universal Conchologist and the possible use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the specific names published in that work for eighteen species of Mollusca belonging to the New Zealand Fauna was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 634. 400 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Publication of the present application: The application referred to above was sent to the printer on 22nd June 1952 and was published on 23rd July of the same year in Part 9 of Volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Dell (R.K.) et al., 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 273—277). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 23rd July 1952 (a) in Part 9 of Volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the application by Dr. Dell and his colleagues was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publi- cations and to certain specialist serial publications. 5. Comment received during the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period : During the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period following the publication of the application in this case no comments in regard to it were received until ten days before the close of that period a letter was received in the Office of the Commission (on 13th January 1953) from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) asking that further time should be given for the examination of the issues raised by the foregoing application, in order to make possible the consideration of the question whether certain familiar specific names for other species introduced by Martyn in The Universal Conchologist ought also to be brought to the attention of the International Commission with a view to their validation under the Plenary Powers. 6. Request received in January 1953 from Joshua L. Baily, Jr. for a temporary postponement of the consideration of the present application in order to provide an opportunity for the submission of a counter-proposal: The following is the letter dated 8th January 1953 referred to in paragraph 5 above in which Dr. Joshua L. OPINION 456 401 Baily, Jr. asked for a temporary postponement of the consideration of the application submitted in this case, in order to provide an opportunity for the preparation and submission to the Inter- national Commission of a counter-proposal in relation to the matters dealt with therein! :— This is to request that no other action be taken on the suppression of Martyn’s Universal Conchologist until opportunity has been given for further examination of this work to see how many of its names might be placed on the Official List first. Those who have petitioned for the suppression of this work in Application Z.N.(S.) 634 have also asked for the retention of many of the names in it. The fact remains that although this work does not comply with the requirements now embodied in the rules, the names proposed in it have come into general use, and are universally understood, and that to rule this work out now after nearly two centuries of use would compel many changes of names that would be undesirable and would be most confusing. 7. Extension in January 1953 of the Prescribed Waiting Period for a Period of one year: At the close of the Prescribed Six- Month Waiting Period on 23rd January 1953 the present case was reviewed by the Secretary who that day executed a Minute in which, (1) he took note that the only comment in relation to the present case received during the Prescribed Waiting Period was the letter from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. reproduced in paragraph 6 of the present Opinion which had then recently reached the Office of the Commission and in which an extension of the Waiting Period had been asked for with a view to the submission of a Supplementary Application, and (2) gave directions that for the reasons explained in (1) above the Prescribed Waiting Period for the present case be extended for a period of one year, so that instead of closing on 23rd January 1953 it should continue to run until 23rd January 1954. 8. Comments received after the extension of the Prescribed Waiting Period to January 1954: During the twelve-month 1 For the counter-proposal here foreshadowed see paragraph 10 of the present Opinion. 402 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS period following the extension of the Prescribed Waiting Period in the present case (paragraph 7 above) three communications were received in regard to the present case. In the first of these Dr. K. S. Misra (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta) expressed the view that all specific names in The Universal Conchologist of Thomas Martyn were acceptable in so far as the descriptions given for the species concerned were correct and unambiguous. In the second Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr., writing jointly with Mr. S. Stillman Berry (Redlands, California, U.S.A.), (1) set out the view that The Universal Conchologist of Martyn could properly be regarded as complying with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles and should therefore be accepted for nomenclatorial purposes but (2) added that, if the foregoing view were not to prove acceptable to the International Commission, it was desired that eleven specific names of Martyn’s listed in a table annexed to that letter should be validated under the Plenary Powers. The third communication received was a letter from Mr. E. P. Chace (Lomita, California, U.S.A.), which was signed also by a number of other workers, in which the view was put forward that The Universal Conchologist of Martyn was a nomenclatorially available work and should, it was urged, be accepted as such. Shortly after the close of the Prescribed Waiting Period, as extended to 23rd January 1954 and before any further action had been taken on the present case a letter was received from Professor Harold E. Vokes (The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.), a Member of the International Commission, in which (a) he expressed his agreement with the proposal that The Universal Conchologist should be rejected as not being available for nomenclatorial purposes which had been sumitted by the applicants in the present case (paragraph 1 of the present Opinion), (b) criticised in detail the proposals submitted in the foregoing application for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific names for certain New Zealand species of Mollusca submitted with that application, and (c) asked that, when that application was submitted to the Inter- national Commission for decision, an opportunity should be provided for the taking of a vote on the question of the availability under Article 25 of the The Universal Conchologist as an issue separate from that raised by the proposal for the validation of the specific names for certain New Zealand species figured in the above work which had been included in the same application, OPINION 456 403 The documents discussed above are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 9. Comment received from K. S. Misra (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta): On 22nd January 1953 Dr. K. S. Misra (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission commenting upon four applications at that time before the International Commission, of which the fourth was the application with which the present Opinion is concerned. Dr. Misra’s comment on this case was as follows :— Martyn, 1784, Universal Conchologist (Ph. Mollusca) (Validation of the trivial names published in arabicum ... vermis). All the trivial names may be validated in those cases where Martyn’s diagrams of the species are correct and unambiguous. 10. Counter-proposal in favour of the acceptance of the work by Thomas Martyn entitled ‘‘ The Universal Conchologist ’’ as an available work submitted by Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and S. Stillman Berry (Redlands, California, U.S.A.) : On 5th May 1953 Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and Mr.S.Stillman Berry (Redlands, California, U.S.A.) submitted a letter containing a counter-proposal in which they asked that the International Commission should give a Ruling that the work entitled The Universal Conchologist should be accepted for nomenclatorial purposes as being a work which satisfied the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. The letter so submitted was as follows :— Letter dated 5th May 1953 addressed to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and S. Stillman Berry (Redlands, California, U.S.A.) Under the Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.) 634 you have published in Volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at page 273 an application from five active students of the systematics of New Zealand Mollusca, asking that The Universal Conchologist by Thomas Martyn, published in 1784, be declared unavailable for nomenclatorial 404 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS purposes according to the Rules as set out in Volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at pages 64—66, but that at the same time the Rules be suspended so that eighteen specific trivial names originated in this work might be validated and conserved, on the ground that they have come into universal use, and that their replacement by later published names “‘ would cause more confusion than uniformity ”’. These eighteen specific trivial names apply to well-known New Zealand Mollusca. A similar situation holds with respect to names applied in this work to Pacific American Mollusca. Whether recognition should have been given these names in the first place is a question on which there is likely to be a great diversity of opinion, but which to the undersigned writers appears to be irrelevant. Martyn’s names, whether originally proposed in accordance with the Rules or not, have come into universal use, and the statement that their replacement would cause greater confusion than otherwise, is just as applicable to Pacific American Mollusca as to those of New Zealand, and will probably be found to be equally applicable to all the species described in this work. We see no good reason for the sanctification of names pertaining to one area beyond those of another equally concerned area, and we feel, therefore, that the simplest and most efficient way to dispose of the problem offered by The Universal Conchologist would be to validate the work as a whole, and then to suppress the few objectionable names in it, if any such should be found to exist. Accordingly, one of the undersigned writers (Baily) wrote you on January 8th last,? requesting that action on this application be deferred pending a further examination of this contro- versial work. The opportunity to make such an examination has now arisen, as the other undersigned writer (Berry) is the owner of a copy, and accordingly the two of us have united in the following expression of opinion. The objections urged against the recognition of Martyn’s work are based upon two assumptions : (a) that the work is not consistently binomial ; (b) that it was not published in accordance with the meaning of that term as provided in the rules. (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 218). These objections must now be considered separately. (a) The rule requiring consistent binomiality was directed against such writers as Klein, Martini, and Chemnitz, all of whom 9 * For the text of the communication here referred to see paragraph 6 of the present Opinion, OPINION 456 405 decided to designate species by strings of adjectives, which were actually descriptive phrases, rather than names. In other words, these writers employed polynomial nomenclature. But Martyn’s system was not polynomial, it was intended to be binomial, in theory at least; in actual practice, however, when he departed from binomialism he used a monomial system—many of his names are monomial. When Martyn used a noun as the specific trivial name in a binomial combina- tion he tended to use it alone, leaving the reader in such cases to supply mentally the name of the genus, which was indicated by the content in most cases. This is the principal ground upon which Martyn’s binomiality is challenged. However, Martyn’s offence, strictly speaking, was not that he used a non-binomial system of nomenclature but only that in citing a name that is essentially binomial he sometimes omits the generic term. In such cases the genus can readily be inferred from the content. Thus Martyn did not violate the spirit of the law, but only the letter, and that only if a strained interpretation be placed upon the law. Martyn apparently considered himself a binomial author and would doubtless be surprised if he could know that nearly two centuries after the publication of his work anyone con- sidered him otherwise. (b) The charge that the work was not legally published is based upon the fact that very few copies of this work are exactly alike. Some of them lack plates that are present in others—that is to say, some (perhaps all) the known copies are defective. There is nothing in any one copy, as far as the undersigned writers are aware, that contradicts or is inconsistent with anything in any other copy. The fact that some copies are defective is hardly sufficient to justify suppression of the whole work, for the book appeared first nearly two centuries ago, and few questioned its acceptance until within the past few years. Had the acceptability of this work been seriously questioned during the first part of its existence its suppression at the present time might be accomplished with relatively little inconvenience, but in view of the fact that the names proposed in it have met with such general acceptance there seems to be no adequate reason for its suppression at this late date, upon which ground the undersigned writers feel that it would be preferable that the work be declared nomenclatorially available. If, however, the International Commission should disagree with the views set forth hereinabove, we would like to request an alternative action, namely, that the eleven specific trivial names in the accompany- 406 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ing table* be validated separately and placed upon the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. \n fact, we would request this action whether The Universal Conchologist be accepted or rejected as a whole. To summarize the above, we would request the International Commission to take the following action :— (1) to declare that the names published in The Universal Conchologist in 1784 by Thomas Martyn, are nomenclatorially available as from that date, without suspension of the rules, if possible, but under suspension of the rules if necessary ; (2) to validate separately, if necessary, each of the eleven specific trivial names of Pacific American Mollusca published in The Universal Conchologist, in the event that this work should be rejected by the Commission ; and (3) in any case to place each of the eleven specific names hereinabove referred to on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 11. Request for the acceptance of the work by Thomas Martyn entitled ‘‘ The Universal Conchologist ’’ as a nomenclatorially acceptable work submitted by E. P. Chace and eleven other members of the Pacific Division of the American Malacological Union : On 8th July 1953 there was received in the Office of the Commission the following letter dated 3rd June 1953, signed by Mr. E. P. Chace (Lomita, California, U.S.A.) and eleven other members of the Pacific Division of the American Malacological Union, urging the acceptance of Thomas Martyn’s work The Universal Conchologist as a nomenclatorially available work. The other signatories to this letter were: John Q. Burch (Los Angeles, 3 For the reasons explained in paragraph 13 below it was later decided to separate from one another the two problems involved in the application originally submitted (paragraph 1 above), namely (a) the question whether the work by Martyn entitled The Universal Conchologist is a nomenclatorially available work and (b) the question whether the specific names for certain New Zealand species of Mollusca which appeared in that work should, as recommended in that application, be validated under the Plenary Powers or be otherwise accepted for nomenclatorial purposes. The present Opinion is concerned only with the first of these questions, the second question still being under study. Accordingly, the Table containing the specific names of eleven nominal species established by Martyn in the above work, the acceptance of which was asked for by Dr. Baily and Mr. Berry has here been omitted, this question now being the subject of examination on Commission File Z.N.(S.) 1066 simultaneously with the study of the parallel proposals previously submitted in regard to the names of certain species of the New Zealand fauna. OPINION 456 407 California) ; William K. Emerson (University of California, Berkeley, California) ; Walter J. Eyerdam (Seattle, Washington) ; Ralph C. Fox (Berkeley, California) ; Wendell O. Gregg (Los Angeles, California); Leo G. Hertlein (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California); Geo P. Kanakoff (Los Angeles County Museum, Los Angeles, California) ; Myra Keen (Stanford University, California); Allyn G. Smith (Berkeley, California) ; V. D. P. Spicer (Centralia, Washington) ; Harry H. Turver (South Gate, California) Letter dated 3rd June 1953 signed by twelve members of the Pacific Division of the American Malacological Union We, the undersigned members of the Pacific Division of the American Malacological Union, meeting in our annual convention at Asilomar, California in June, 1953, have been informed by one of our members, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr., that a petition has been filed with the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to which the Commission’s Reference No. Z.N.(S.) 634 has been applied. The purpose of this petition is to declare a book known as The Universal Conchologist written by Thomas Martyn and published in London in 1784 to be nomenclatorially unavailable, but that before it is rejected certain names in it which have met with general acceptance during the nearly two centuries which have elapsed since they were published and which are now universally understood should be made nomina conservenda by being entered on the official list being compiled by the International Commission for this purpose. We are in agreement with the signers of this petition that there are certain irregularities in the way in which this work was published that make it imperative that its status be considered by the Commission and that an opinion be issued in which this specific work shall be dealt with alone. We are also agreed that in order to stabilize nomenclature it is necessary that certain names be accepted and others rejected, and we can readily understand that names of both kinds might readily occur in the same work, so that the principle maintained by some scholars in the past that a book must inevitably be either accepted or rejected in toto is not tenable, nor is it reasonable. 408 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS We do not, however, agree on the selection of names to be preserved which has been made by the petitioners. They have requested that names of species found in the general area about New Zealand should be retained, and that names of species found elsewhere should be rejected. A geographic criterion of this sort, we believe, would prove to be very unsatisfactory, and we do not believe that it was the intention of the petitioners to ask for any such criterion. We believe that the petitioners selected these names which they found that they used the most frequently, and that because the petitioners lived in New Zealand the names which they used most frequently were of New Zealand species. We believe that had these petitioners lived in any other general area that the names for which they asked protection would have been those of species in that area. Because we reside on the Pacific Coast of the United States, we believe that the cause of the stabilization of nomen- clature would be served by the conservation of those names applied by Martyn to Pacific American species, and we also believe that residents of any part of the world would feel the same way about the names of species of their own region. If this view be correct, then it would follow that the most efficient way to deal with this work would be to declare The Universal Conchologist available, and then to suppress by separation the undesirable names in it, should any such be found. The reasons urged for the suppression of this work are based on two grounds—first, that the work was not published in accordance with the provisions set out in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Vol. 4 : 218, and—second that it is not consistently binomial. We feel that the arguments on both grounds can be met. Let us consider them in order. The only way in which this work fails to satisfy the requirements for publications seems to be that all copies are not exactly alike. The first edition of this work dates from 1784, and consists of two volumes, each with forty plates. Later editions have had as many as four volumes, each with forty or even more plates. The observed dis- crepancies have to some extent come about as the result of comparing copies of different editions, and differences between different editions * The signatories of this letter were under a misapprehension in believing that the New Zealand zoologists by whom the application had been submitted had asked that names published by Martyn in the work entitled The Universal Conchologist for species outside the New Zealand region should be rejected. The applicants made it plain in paragraph 5 of their application that they were aware that problems similar to those with which, as New Zealanders, they were confronted in connection with their own fauna, arose elsewhere but that they considered that it would be better that any application regarding the name of species not occurring in the New Zealand fauna should be brought forward by specialists in the area concerned (see Dell ef a/., 1952, Bull. zool. Nosencl, © ; 274). OPINION 456 409 of any work may always be expected. Those who have compared copies of this work almost always fail to state that they have used only the first edition, but in some cases it is obvious that later editions were used. It is difficult to assemble copies of this work for purposes of comparison ; it is a rare and valuable work generally kept under lock and key. We do not know that all the discrepancies reported are due to the comparisons made between different editions, but we know that some have come about in that way. And if Martyn was not strictly binomial we must remember that neither was Linnaeus. In the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae, he used such nonienclatorial combinations as Anomia Caput sepentis Mytilus Crista galli Conus Stercus muscarum Bulla Auris midae Turbo Tectum persicum Voluta Mitra episcopalis Voluta Mitra papalis Today we amend the first five of these by joining the last two words with a hyphen, making them a single specific trivial name, but Linnaeus himself did not do this. And we do not amend the last two in this way. Today they are assigned to the genus Mitra and to hyphenate the last two words would give us Mitra mitra-episcopalis, etc. Instead we call this species Mitra episcopalis and credit it to Linnaeus, although using a specific trivial name which Linnaeus himself never used. It might be embarrassing to be asked to throw out Linnaeus on the ground that he was sometimes non-linnaean ! To summarize : We would request action by you to declare this work available for nomenclatorial purposes, on the ground that the names which it contains have been in general use for nearly two centuries and are universally understood, and that the technical defects upon which most objections to it have been based, have been greatly exaggerated. On making this request we are acting as individuals, and do not express the views of the American Malacological Union or any other organization. 12. Communication received from Professor Harold E. Vokes (The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) : On Ist April 1954 Professor Harold E. Vokes (The Johns Hopkins 410 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) in which, after dis- cussing in detail and criticising the proposals for the validation under the Plenary Powers of eighteen specific names for New Zealand Mollusca published in The Universal Conchologist of Thomas Martyn which had been included in the original application submitted in this case, he set out as follows his view on the question of the nomenclatorial status of the above work and asked that this question should be separated from that relating to the proposed validation of the specific names for certain New Zealand Mollusca published by Martyn in that work. ... 1 am here asking that the Voting Papers on the matter of Martyn’s Universal Conchologist be so drawn as to permit a separate ballot on the matter of the suppression of this work for nomenclatorial purposes, and on the problem of “‘ Suspension of the Régles”’ for the New Zealand species. I am in favor of the former, but against blanket suspension for all of the latter, for I feel that the evidence fails to show the need of such suspension. 13. Decision to divide into two portions the application submitted in the present case, one portion being concerned with the status of the work by Thomas Martyn entitled ‘* The Universal Conchologist ’’, the second with the status to be accorded to specific names for certain New Zealand species of Mollusca published in that work : By the time of the receipt of the letter from Professor Vokes of the letter from which an extract has been quoted in the preceding paragraph the Prescribed Waiting Period, as previously extended, had expired, and it seemed unlikely that any further light would be forthcoming on the question of the availability under Article 25 of the Régles of the work by Thomas Martyn published in London in 1784 under the title The Universal Conchologist. This portion of the application now under consideration thus appeared to have reached the stage at which it was ready for submission to the International Commission for decision. The position was, however, quite otherwise as regards that portion of the foregoing application which was concerned with the status to be accorded to the eighteen specific names for New Zealand species of Mollusca. For as regards these names it was necessary for the Office of the Commission to review the OPINION 456 411 position in regard to each of the names concerned in the light of the particulars furnished by Professor Vokes and, having done so, to enter into further discussions with the New Zealand zoologists by whom the proposals regarding those names had originally been submitted. Towards the close of 1955 con- siderable progress had been achieved, so far as concerned the names for the eighteen New Zealand species involved, but it seemed clear that some further time would need to elapse before it would be possible for the New Zealand applicants to furnish for the consideration of the International Commission a revised statement reviewing the situation as regards the eighteen names concerned in the light of the observations made by Professor Vokes. During the foregoing period no detailed application for the validation of names published in The Universal Conchologist for Pacific Coast species of Mollusca had been communicated to the Office of the Commission, the only information regarding the wishes of American specialists in this matter being that contained in the Summary Table annexed to the letter which on Sth May 1953 Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. and Mr. S. Stillman Berry had submitted to the Commission. At this point the whole position as regards the present application was reviewed by the Secretary from the point of view of the procedure to be adopted for obtaining from the Commission decisions on the issues raised in the present case. Hitherto Mr. Hemming had hoped that it would be possible to secure revised proposals relating to the names for the New Zealand species involved in sufficient time to make it possible simultaneously to submit to the Commission two Voting Papers, each being concerned with one aspect of the present case, the first, dealing with the status to be accorded to The Universal Conchologist of Thomas Martyn, the second with the status to be accorded to the eighteen specific names for New Zealand Mollusca published in the foregoing work on which also proposals had been included in the present application, this second Voting Paper to invite a decision on alternative courses of action so drawn that one of the alternatives so submitted would provide a Satisfactory basis for a vote, whatever the decision on the general question of the status of Martyn’s book taken by the Commission on the earlier of the two Voting Papers in question. In the circumstances as they existed at the end of 1955 it was evident, however, that such a procedure would involve a con- siderable further delay in the submission to the Commission of a 4i2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Voting Paper on the question of the status to be accorded to Martyn’s book The Universal Conchologist. Mr. Hemming took the view that no further delay in this matter could be justified and accordingly on 6th December 1955 he executed a Minute directing that the subject matter of the application Z.N.(S.) 634 which in October 1951 has been submitted to the International Commission by Dr. R. K. Dell and four other New Zealand specialists be divided so as to form two applications, the first, for which the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 634 was retained, being concerned with the nomenclatorial status of the foregoing work by Thomas Martyn, the second, to which the new Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1053, was allotted, being concerned with the names for the New Zealand species of Mollusca published by Martyn in the above book, the validation of which had been sought by Dr. Dell and his colleagues. As part of the foregoing arrangement, the question of the possible validation of certain names published by Martyn for Pacific Coast species of Mollusca, about which in May 1953 Dr. Baily and Mr. Berry had made a preliminary approach to the Commission (paragraph 10 above), was allotted a separate Registered Number (Z.N.(S.) 1066), being thus treated as constituting a separate case. 14. Submission to the International Commission in January 1956 of alternative proposals on the subject of the status to be accorded to the names published by Thomas Martyn in 1784 in the work entitled ‘*‘ The Universal Conchologist ’’ : The procedural decisions described in the foregoing paragraph cleared the ground for the submission to the International Commission of proposals for determining the status to be accorded to names published by Martyn in 1784 in the work entitled The Universal Conchologist. Accordingly, on 27th January 1956 Mr. Hemming submitted to the International Commission the following paper in which he put forward for consideration alternative methods for dealing with the foregoing question, the first (Alternative “ A ”) designed to give effect to the proposals submitted in 1951 by Dr. Dell and his colleagues, the second (Alternative “ B’”’) designed to secure in substance, though not in form, the object sought by Dr. Baily and Mr. Berry in the counter-proposal which they had OPINION 456 . 413 submitted in May 1953 and by Mr. E. P. Chace and his colleagues in the following month :— Proposed determination of the status of names published in 1784 in the work by Thomas Martyn entitled ‘‘ The Universal Conchologist ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present paper is concerned with a proposal relating to a book entitled The Universal Conchologist which was published in 1784 and of which further impressions were later issued. This application was published on 23rd July 1952 in Part 9 of Volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Dell (R.K.) et al., 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 273—277). 2. Two questions were involved in this application, namely :— (1) Does Martyn’s The Universal Conchologist satisfy the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles? In other words, is this book available under the Régles for nomenclatorial purposes ? (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, shall the specific names for certain well-known species of Mollusca found in New Zealand waters be validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers ? 3. The question whether The Universal Conchologist is a nomen- clatorially available work is dealt with in paragraph 2 of the application submitted. Particulars are there given of the investigations under- taken by, and of the conclusions reached by, the following authorities by whom this subject has been examined ; (1) von Martens (1860) ; (2) Sherborn (1902); (3) Dall (1905; 1907); (4) Iredale (1921); (5) Winckworth (1929). These authorities rejected The Universal Conchologist with the exception of von Martens, Sherborn and Dall, of whom the two first accepted only the specific names, while the latter, when accepting both classes of name, did so with evident hesitation. The authorities concerned drew attention (i) to discrepancies as between one copy and another of the above work and (11) to the use of trinominals, showing that in it Martyn had not consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature as required by Article 25 of the Régles. On the question of fact there can, in my view, be no doubt that The Universal Conchologist fails to pass the tests imposed by Article 25 and therefore that new names in it are not available for nomenclatorial purposes, 414 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. Once the foregoing conclusion is granted, there are only two courses of action open to the Commission, namely :— (a) (i) to give a ruling that the work by Martyn entitled The Universal Conchologist published in 1784 does not satisfy the require- ments of Article 25 of the Régles and accordingly that no name acquired the status of availability by reason of having been published in the above work and (11) to place the title of the above work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. (b) (i) to give a ruling as in (a)(i) above that The Universal Concho- logist of Thomas Martyn is not available for nomenclatorial purposes, but (ii) to use the Plenary Powers to validate that work and therefore (iii) to place the title of that work, so validated, on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. 5. In May 1953, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and Mr. S. Stillman Berry (Redlands, California, U.S.A.) addressed a communication® to the Office of the Commission discussing the objections which had been raised against the acceptance of Martyn’s The Universal Conchologist as a nomenclatorially available work and asked that the Commission should pronounce in favour of the availability of the above work or alternatively should use its Plenary Powers to validate certain names published in it for West Coast species of Mollusca. In the following month Mr. E. P. Chace (Lomita, California, U.S.A.) with other members of the Pacific Division of the American Malacological Union, addressed a letter to the Commission in which, while admitting that there were certain technical nomenclatorial defects in The Universal Conchologist of Martyn, expressed the view that these had been greatly exaggerated by the critics of that work. Mr. Chace and his colleagues went on to recommend that, notwithstanding the foregoing defects, the Com- mission should “declare this work available for nomenclatorial purposes, on the ground that the names which it contains have been in general use for nearly two centuries and are universally understood ”’. In the form in which it has been submitted this application is in- admissable, for, if the Commission is to give a ruling on the question whether a given book is nomenclatorially available, it is bound to consider that matter solely from the point of view of the provisions of Article 25. In considering such a matter, it is wholly irrelevant whether the book in question is markedly or only slightly at variance with the provisions of the Régles or whether, irrespective of the availability of the book, it is desirable that it should be accepted because of the ® See paragraph 10 of the present Opinion. ® See paragraph 11 of the present Opinion, OPINION 456 415 long-standing nature of the usage of names in that book. Such considerations, however, become relevant if the proposal before the Commission is that a book which is admittedly invalid should never- theless be validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. Accordingly, in order to enable the Commission to take into con- sideration the applications submitted by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. and Mr. Stillman Berry and later by Mr. Chace and his colleagues, I here re-submit their proposals in the only form in which they can be so considered, namely, as a request that owing to the long standing and universal usage of many of the names in Martyn’s book The Universal Conchologist, that work be validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. 6. On the question whether it is advisable that the names in The Universal Conchologist should be validated en bloc under the Plenary Powers, I must draw attention to the statement in paragraph 5 of the application that, so far as the Australian species are concerned, the rejection of The Universal Conchologist by Winckworth in 1929 led to the rejection of certain of the names in it by some specialists. It would appear therefore that the validation of The Universal Conchologist en bloc under the Plenary Powers, far from promoting stability in nomenclature, might actually lead to name-changing in certain cases. It is accordingly recommended, as a matter of procedure, that the Commission should not use its Plenary Powers to validate en bloc all the names in The Universal Conchologist and that, in so far as it may be desired to preserve certain of the names in The Universal Conchologist, the names concerned should be validated individually. 7. In accordance with the procedure adopted in previous similar cases it is proposed that the subject-matter of the Voting Paper now submitted should be confined to the question of the status to be accorded to names published in 1784 in Martyn’s The Universal Conchologist. Further, it is proposed that on this subject the Com- mission should be invited to vote affirmatively on one or other of two Opposing courses, namely :— (1) ALTERNATIVE “‘A”’ : Proposed rejection of The Universal Concho- logist as not being available for nomenclatorial purposes, coupled with a refusal to validate en bloc all the names in the above work under the Plenary Powers—the title of the above work to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ; (2) ALTERNATIVE ““B” : Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the work by Thomas Martyn entitled The Universal Conchologist published in 1784, and the addition of the title of that work so validated to the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. 416 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. The question of the possible validation under the Plenary Powers of certain of the specific names for species of Mollusca of the New Zealand fauna which formed the second part of the application here under consideration, is being further investigated in conjunction with the applicantsanda Voting Paper will be submitted as soon as possible.” Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 15. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)4 : On 27th January 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)4) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for “‘ the proposal styled Alternative ‘A’ set out in paragraph 7(1) of the paper submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in paragraph 7(1) of the paper reproduced in | paragraph 14 of the present Opinion] ((a) rejection of Martyn’s The Universal Conchologist as not being available for nomen- clatorial purposes, (b) refusal to use the Plenary Powers to validate en bloc all the names in the above work, (c) addition of the title of the above work to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature)’’ OR for “the proposal styled Alternative ‘B’ set out in paragraph 7(2) of the paper submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in paragraph 7(2) of the paper referred to above] ((a) validation under the Plenary Powers of Martyn’s The Universal Conchologist and (b) addition of the title of that work to the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature) ”’. 16. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th April 1956. ? A Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57) 1) on this subject was submitted to the International Commission on 11th February, 1957 and voting is now in progress. OPINION 456 417 17. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)4: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)4 was as follows :— (a) Votes in favour of “ Alternative * A’” had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Vokes; Hering; Mayr; Lemche; Bradley (J.C.) ; do Amaral; Dymond ; Prantl ; Key ; Bonnet ; Mertens ; Riley; Sylvester-Bradley; Hemming; Jaczewski ; Hanko ; Esaki; Boschma; Cabrera ; (b) Votes in favour of “ Alternative ‘ B’”’, five (5): Kiihnelt ; Stoll ; Bodenheimer ; Tortonese ; Miller ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Holthuis. 18. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 28th April 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)4, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 17 above and declaring that the proposal submitted with the foregoing Voting Paper as Alternative “A” had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 19. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 24th November 1956, 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.(56)4. 418 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20. At the time of the submission of the present application the name applicable to the second portion of a binomen was “ trivial name’. This was altered to “ specific name” by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which at the same time made corresponding changes in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of names of this category. These changes in terminology 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 Four Hundred and Fifty-Six (456) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DonE in London, this Twenty-Fourth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING eek NE 2 a BT re Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limitep, 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 15. Part 23. Pp. 419—432 OPINION 457 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829 (Class Aves) 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 ey Price Nine Shillings yo [ DD 9e «On \ Ak NAO Ie LK [reeney LZ ' —— | (All rights reserved) Issued 15th March, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 457 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. penne, ea (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 1 Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (i2th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoituHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KtHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Froteseun F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 195 Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge. Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘*‘ G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 457 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “ HEMIPROCNE ” NITZSCH, 1829 (CLASS AVES) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers (a) the generic name published in the nominative plural as Hemiprocnes. Nitzsch in 1829 is hereby validated in the form Hemiprocne (Class Aves) and (b) the nominal species Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, is hereby pobaated to be the type species of the genus so named. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829, as emended from Hemi- procnes, and as validated, under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above : Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802) (Name No. 1068) ; (b) Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Hirundo esculenta Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1069) ; (c) Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796) (Name No. 1070). 422 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as published in the combination Hirundo longipennis (specific name of type species of Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 1145) ; (b) esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Hirundo esculenta (specific name of type species of Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840) (Name No. 1146) ; (c) zonaris Shaw, 1796, as published in the combination — Hirundo zonaris (specific name of type species of Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906) (Name No. 1147) (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 (an Invalid Original Spelling for Hemiprocne) (Name No. 861) ; (b) the under-mentioned names, each of which is a junior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above :— (i) Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833 (Name No. 862) ; (ii) Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838 (Name No. 863) ; (iii) Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840 (Name No. 864) ; (c) Macropteryx Swainson, [1831] (a junior objective | synonym of Hemiprocne Nitsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 865). OPINION 457 423 (5) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 146 :— HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906 (type genus : Hemi- procne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 25th August 1952, Dr. John T. Zimmer (Zhe American Museum of Natural History, New York) submitted a preliminary communication to the Office of the Commission on the subject of the possible validation as from Nitzsch, 1829, of the emended form Hemiprocne of the generic name then published in the nominative plural as Hemiprocnes. Following correspondence with the Secretary, Dr. Zimmer on 29th December 1954 sub- mitted the following application on the above subject to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name ‘* Hemiprocne ’’ as from Nitzsch, 1829 (Class Aves) By JOHN T. ZIMMER (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) The object of the present application is to seek from the International Commission a Ruling in regard to the application to be given to the generic name Hemiprocne, doubts on this subject having called in question the names properly applicable to three distinct genera of birds, namely the Whiskered Tree-swifts, the Edible-nest Swiftlets, and the Collared Swifts. 2. Up to 1906 the generic name Hemiprocne was commonly treated as having been first published by Nitzsch in 1840 and was used for the Collared Swifts, while the Whiskered Swifts were referred to the genus Macropteryx Swainson, [1831] (Zool. IMlustr. (2) 2(11) : pl. 47) (type species, by monotypy : Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, Bull. 424 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris No. 68 : 153). In 1906, however, Oberholser (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 67—69) advanced the argument that the name Hemiprocne ought to be accepted as from Nitzsch, 1829 (Observa- tiones de Avium Arteria carotide communi : 31), where, however, it had appeared only in the nominative plural as “ Hemiprocnes”’. At that time there existed no clear provision in the Rég/es on the question whether, in order to be available, a generic name must actually have been published in the nominative singular and Oberholser took the view that this was not an essential requirement, guiding himself in this matter by Canon VI of the Code of Nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union which accepted such plural usage as valid and provided (in the attendant remarks) for change to the required nomina- tive singular. From the species cited by Nitzsch in 1829 for his ‘“* Hemiprocnes’’? Oberholser selected Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802 (cited by Nitzsch as “‘Cypselus longipennis Temminck ’’) as type species. Under this arrangement the name Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, became the oldest available name for the Whiskered Tree-swifts, the name previously used, Macropteryx Swainson, [1832], falling as a junior synonym. The removal of the name Hemiprocne from the Collared Swifts left that genus without a name. Oberholser accordingly published the new name Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 69) for this genus, designating Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796 (in Miller, Cimelia physica : 100) as type species. 3. Oberholser’s arrangement came into general use, but has been found to be incorrect under the Régles on the basis of Opinion 183 (1944, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 13—24), which ruled that a generic name does not acquire a status of availability until it is published in the nominative singular. It is necessary therefore to examine the later literature for the purpose of determining as from what date and in what sense the generic name Hemiprocne was first validly published. 4. The first use of the name Hemiprocne subsequent to 1829 is also very questionable in character, though for different reasons. This was by Nitzsch (1833, Pterylographia Avium (1) : 21) who gave anatomical characters for a number of genera, including Hemiprocne, but did not cite any one character as distinguishing Hemiprocne from the other genera cited. Whether or not such undiscriminating treatment can properly be accepted as providing for the generic name Hemiprocne an “‘ indication ”’ as required by Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles is a matter which can be settled only by the Commission. The name Hemiprocne as of Nitzsch, 1833, has generally been treated by subse- quent authors as a nomen nudum, though, as Nitzsch gave characters jointly for this and other genera, it is not an absolute nomen nudum, though a virtual one. If this generic name were to be ruled available as from Nitzsch, 1833, for which no type selection has ever been made, OPINION 457 425 it would be possible to select a type species which would be in harmony with existing usage. 5. The name Hemiprocne was next used in 1838 (Leitfaden fiir Realschulen und Gymnasien : 34) when Riemann applied it to a single species “‘ H. esculenta, die indianische Schwalbe”. By this action the nominal species Hirundo esculenta Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 191) became the type species, by monotypy, of the genus Hemiprocne, if Riemann is treated as the first author validly to publish this generic name. On this basis the name Hemiprocne would become the oldest available generic name for the Edible-nest Swiftlets and would replace the name Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 (List Gen. Birds : 8), of which also Hirundo esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, is type species by monotypy. 6. In 1840 (System der Pterylographie : 31, 123) Nitzsch again used the generic name Hemiprocne, on this occasion in acceptable form. He cited two species as belonging to this genus. One of these species, then cited as “ Hirundo collaris Temm.”’ (i.e. Hirundo collaris Wied, 1820 (Reise nach Brasilien 1 : 75)) was selected by Gray (G.R.), 1855 (Cat. Gen. Subgen. Birds : 12) as the type species of the genus Hemi- procne Nitzsch, 1840. If this usage of Hemiprocne were to be accepted, that generic name would become the oldest available generic name for the Collared Swifts and would replace the substitute name Streptoprocne published by Oberholser in 1906 (see paragraph 2 above) ; for Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796, the type species of Streptoprocne Oberholser, is considered to be the same species as Hirundo collaris Wied, the type species of Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840. 7. Oberholser (1906, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 68) proposed the family name HEMIPROCNIDAE to replace the then current MACROPTERY- GIDAE, basing the name on Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) of Nitzsch, 1829. HEMIPROCNIDAE thereupon came into general usage and is still current. Any change in the present application of the name Hemiprocne would, therefore, present an added source of confusion in family names. I can find no family names based on usages of Hemiprocne subsequent to 1829 which are herein proposed as nomina rejecta. The other two genera of swifts involved in the present petition belong to the family APODIDAE and their current generic names have had no family names based thereon as far as I can determine. 8. I have discussed the details of the present proposals with Dr. Dean Amadon of this Museum who agrees with the need for action and the solution advanced. 9. Under strict application of the Régles, except for the complication offered by the 1833 reference (paragraph 4 above), it appears that the name Hemiprocne must be credited to Riemann (1838) and replace 426 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the name Collocalia for the Edible-nest Swiftlets, while the Whiskered Tree-swifts, now known as Hemiprocne would revert to the name Macropteryx, by which they were known prior to Oberholser’s paper of 1906. If the Riemann (1838) usage as well as the earlier usages by Nitzsch were to be officially rejected, the name Hemiprocne, ranking from Nitzsch (1840) would replace Streptoprocne for the Collared Swifts, Macropteryx would become the name for the Whiskered Tree- swifts, and the Edible-nest Swiftlets would retain the name Collocalia. If however the Commission were to validate the name Hemiprocne as from Nitzsch (1829), that name would become the valid name for the Whiskered Tree-swifts, and the Edible-nest Swiftlets and the Collared Swifts would retain the names (Collocalia and Streptoprocne) by which they are currently known. In the interests of stability this is the course which I recommend the Commission to take. Such action would moreover be in harmony with the general principle laid down by the Commission that it is particularly desirable to prevent the changing of names as the result of changes in, or of new interpretations of, the Régles, for in the present case it was only the interpretation of Article 8 given in Opinion 183 (paragraph 3 above) which led to the displacement of the name Hemiprocne Nitzsch as the generic name for the Whiskered Tree-swifts. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate in the form Hemiprocne the generic name published in the nominative plural as Hemiprocnes by Nitzsch in 1829 with Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as type species ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) above : Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802) ; (b) Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation: Hirundo esculenta Linnaeus, 1758) ; (c) Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Hemiprocne) ; OPINION 457 427 (b) the under-mentioned names, each of which is a junior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above :—(i) Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833 ; (ii) Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838 ; (iii) Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840 ; (c) Macropteryx Swainson, [1831] (a junior objective synonym of Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as published in the combina- tion Hirundo longipennis (specific name of type species of Hemiprocne Nitzsche, 1829) ; (b) esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hirundo esculenta (specific name of type species of Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840) ; (c) zonaris Shaw, 1796, as published in the combination Hirundo zonaris (specific name of type species of Strepto- procne Oberholser, 1906). (5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906 (type genus : Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Zimmer’s application the question of the validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Hemiprocne as from Nitzsch, 1829, was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 709. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 19th January 1955 and was published on 31st May in the same year in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Zimmer, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 142—145). 428 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 31st May 1955 (a) in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Zimmer’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to thirteen orni- thological serials in different parts of the world. 5. Support received from Dr. Dean Amadon (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) : Prior to the submission of the present application Dr. Dean Amadon (Zhe American Museum of Natural History, New York) intimated his support for the action proposed in the present case and authorised Dr. Zimmer to include a note to this effect in the application (paragraph 8) submitted to the International Commission. 6. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. Ill. THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)6 : On 29th February 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)6) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal relating to the generic name Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829, as set out in Points (1) to (5) in paragraph 10 at the foot of page 144 and continued on page 145 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature’’ {i.ec. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. OPINION 457 429 8. Bearing on the present case of Decisions 78 and 79 taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, in regard to the formation and correction of generic names : On 13th March 1956, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed on Commission File Z.N.(S.) 709 the following Minute on the subject of the bearing which a minor inconsistency between Decision 78 and Decision 79 of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 would have had upon the present case if it had not been for the fact that in the application submitted Dr. Zimmer had asked that the object which he sought should be secured by the use by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers :— An apparent inconsistency between Decisions 78 and 79 taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, in regard to the formation of generic names By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Two members of the International Commission (Professor J. Chester Bradley ; Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley) have drawn my attention, with reference to Dr. John T. Zimmer’s application regarding the generic name Hemiprocne as published by Nitzsch in 1829 in the nominative plural as Hemiprocnes, to an apparent inconsistency between Decisions 78 and 79 taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 47—48) which will require to be considered by the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in 1958. In the first of these decisions the Copenhagen Congress reaffirmed without discussion a decision taken by the Thirteenth Congress in Paris in 1948 that the Ruling given in Opinion 183 that, in order to acquire availability, a generic name must first be published in the nominative singular should be incorporated in the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 139—140). Under the decision so taken the foregoing provision adopted by the Paris Congress was included both by that Congress and by the Copenhagen Congress among the mandatory provisions of Article 8. Under the second of the Decisions referred to above (Decision 79) the Copenhagen Congress inserted in the Régles a provision under which any breaches of the mandatory provisions in Article 8 became subject to automatic correction. So far as concerns the mandatory provision embodying the Ruling originally given in Opinion 183. Decision 79 prescribing automatic correction is incapable of application in many cases, for, as is obvious, it is impossible in many cases to 430 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS determine what is the correct form for the nominative singular of a Latin noun if the only evidence available is a version of that word in some other case or number. The fact that Decision 79 was so drafted as to bring within its scope the portion of Decision 78 dealing with the foregoing matter was due solely to inadvertence. 2. The case raised by Dr. Zimmer illustrates very clearly the impossibility in certain cases of applying Copenhagen Decision 79 to the provision discussed above, for mere inspection of the nominative plural Hemiprocnes published by Nitzsch in 1829 would not be sufficient to establish beyond question that the nominative singular intended by Nitzsch was Hemiprocne, even though it might establish a high degree of probability that this was Nitzsch’s intention. 3. Fortunately, the inconsistency in the record of the Copenhagen Decisions discussed in paragraph 1 above does not affect the particular case under consideration, for in his application Dr. Zimmer asked that the object which he sought should be attained by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. In the present case therefore the question discussed above is of academic interest only. 9. The Prescribed Voting Period : As Voting Paper V.P.(56)6 was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 29th May 1956. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)6 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)6 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Sylvester-Bradley ; do Amaral ; Bradley (J. C.) ; Hering; Lemche; Vokes; Mayr; Key; Dymond ; Bodenheimer ; Mertens; Esaki; Boschma; Hanko ; Riley ; Stoll ; Hemming ; Cabrera ; Tortonese ; Bonnet ; Kuhnelt ; Miller ; Jaczewski ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Prantl ; OPINION 457 431 (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 30th May 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)6, 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 Inter- national Commission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 28th November 1956, 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.(56)6. 13. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840, List Gen. Birds : 8 esculenta, Hirundo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 191 Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, Observat. Avium Arteria carot. communi : 31 Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833, Pterylographia Avium (1) : 21 Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838, Leitfaden f. Realschul. u. Gymnas. : 34 Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840, Syst. Pterylograph : 31, 123 Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 [an Invalid Original Spelling for Hemiprocne, q.v.| longipennis, Hirundo, Rafinesque, 1802, Bull. Soc. Sci. philomat Paris No. 68 : 153 432 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Macropteryx Swainson, [1831], Zool. Illustr. (2) 2(11) : pl. 47 Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 69 zonaris, Hirundo, Shaw, 1796, in Miller, Cimelia physica : 100 14. The following is the original reference for the family- group name placed on the Official List of names for taxa of the family-group category by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 68 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 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. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-Seven (457) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-eighth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’ FRANCIS HEMMING wa gE i ae ee ee Printed in England by Mercatre & Cooprr Limitep, 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 15. Part 24. Pp. 433—442 OPINION 458 Determination of the interpretation of the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803 (Class Ectoprocta) 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 1957 ana Price Six Shillings and Sixpence c = ( APR 26 icdY (All rights reserved) \ WI AO te. Issued 2nd April, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 458 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Renae (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 194 Professor Teiso EsAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (MezGgazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. SToLu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) ‘ Professor Dr. Wilhelm KtHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) es S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th Novembes 195 Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 458 DETERMINATION OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES ‘‘ESCHARA VULGARIS ” MOLL, 1803 (CLASS ECTOPROCTA) RULING :—(1) It is hereby directed that the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803 (Class Ectoprocta) is to be interpreted by the specimen illustrated by Moll (J.P.C.) as figures 10A and 10B on plate 3 of his work Eschara ex Zoophytorum (the specimen so figured being there shown as Eschara vulgaris var. « ), the specimen so figured having been selected by Brown (D. A.) in 1952 to be the lectotype. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803, as interpreted in (1) above) (Name No. 1071) ; (b) Microporella WHincks, 1877 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Eschara ciliata Pallas, 1766) (Name Number 1072). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) vulgaris Moll, 1803, as published in the combination Eschara vulgaris and as interpreted in (1) above (specific name of type species of Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836) (Name No. 1148) ; (b) ciliata Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Eschara ciliata (specific name of type species of Microporella Hincks, 1877) (Name No. 1149). 436 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 147 :— MICROPORELLIDAE Hincks, 1880 (type genus: Microporella Hincks, 1877). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 14th December 1953 Dr. D. A. Brown (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) addressed a preliminary communication to the Office of the Commission regarding the interpretation of the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803 (Class Ecto- procta). Following correspondence with the Secretary Dr. Brown submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on 31st January 1955 the following application in which he asked for a Ruling that the foregoing species be interpreted by reference to the lectotype which he had designated in 1952 :— Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ of the specific name ‘‘ vulgaris ’’ Moll, 1803, as published in the combination ‘‘ Eschara vulgaris’? as determined by the lectotype selection made by Brown (D.A.) in 1952 (Class Kcetoprocta) By D. A. BROWN (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission to stabilise the name Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803 (Eschara ex Zoophyt : 55, 56) by placing the specific name vulgaris Moll on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The nature of this case is explained in the following paragraphs. 2. The circumstances in which Moll established the nominal species Eschara yulgaris were rather peculiar, for he regarded it as being composed of two varieties which he styled “‘ var. «”’ and “‘ var. B”’ ; > he provided an indication and figures for each of these “ varieties ”’, but he gave no indication or figures for the species itself. For the OPINION 458 437 first of his “‘ varieties’? he wrote “‘ var. « labio inferiori [sic] fisso ”’ and for the second ‘“‘ var. 8 labio inferiore integro”’. Both these ““ varieties’? he illustrated on his plate 3, “‘ variety’? « as figs. 10A and 10B, “‘ variety”’ f as figs. 11LA—C. 3. Moll’s two “ varieties ’’ have long been regarded as taxonomically distinct species. The name vulgaris Moll has been commonly used for Moll’s variety « but that “‘ variety’ was not formally selected to be the lectotype of Moll’s species until this was done by myself in 1952 (Tertiary Cheilostomatous Polyzoa of New Zealand : 228). Moll’s “variety 6” has been variously treated as being identical with, or as closely allied to, the taxon represented by the nominal species Eschara ciliata Pallas, 1766 (Elench. Zoophyt : 38), a species which is the type species of Microporella Hincks, 1877 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 20 : 526). From a nomenclatorial point of view, however, the identity of Moll’s ““var. 8’ has ceased to be of importance now that his “‘ var. «”’ has been selected to be the lectotype of his species Eschara vulgaris. 4. In 1836 Milne Edwards (H.) established the nominal genus Escharina (in Lamarck, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. (ed. 2) 2 : 218, 230) and designated Eschara vulgaris var. « as the type species of this genus. Milne Edwards’ action clearly indicated which of Moll’s so-called “ varieties”’ he desired should be the type species of this genus, but from the nomenclatorial point of view the nominal species Eschara vulgaris was at that time indeterminate and remained so until the lectotype selection made in 1952. 5. I accordingly now ask the International Commission :— (1) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Eschara vulgaris, Moll, 1803 (as defined by the selection by Brown (D.A.) (1952) of Moll’s “‘ var. «”’ as lectotype) ; (b) Microporella WHincks, 1877 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Eschara ciliata Pallas, 1766) ; (2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) ciliata Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Eschara ciliata (specific name of type species of Micro- porella Hincks, 1877) ; 438 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) vulgaris Moll, 1803, as published in the combination Eschara vulgaris and determined as in (1)(a) above (specific name of type species of Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836). Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Brown’s preliminary communication the question of the interpretation of the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)792. 3. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer on 2nd February 1955 and was published on 3lst May in the same year in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Brown, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 153—154). 4. Adoption of a drafting amendment as respects one part of the present application : Following the publication of the present application two members of the Commission (J. Chester Bradley ; Ernst Mayr) criticised as unfelicitous the wording employed in the present application at the point where the International Commission was asked to direct that the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803, be interpreted “‘ by the selection by Brown (D.A.) (1952) of Moll’s ‘var. «’ as lectotype”’. It was then agreed that the wording of this part of the proposal should be so amended as to ask the Commission to give a Ruling that the foregoing nominal species be interpreted by the specimen illus- trated by Moll as figures 10A and 10B on plate 3 of that author’s work “ Eschara ex Zoophyt.” (the specimen so figured being there shown as Eschara vulgaris var. x), the specimen so figured having been selected by Brown (D.A.) in 1952 to be the lectotype. A note on the foregoing verbal amendment of the present applica- tion was in due course attached as Note 2 to the Voting Paper issued in the present case (paragraph 6 below). OPINION 458 439 5. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. IJ. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)8 : On 29th February 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)8) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘ the proposal relating to the specific name vulgaris Moll, 1803, as published in the combination Eschara vulgaris, as set out in Points (1) and (2) in paragraph 5 on page 154 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 29th May 1956. _8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)8 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)8 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Hering; Lemche; do Amaral; Bradley (J.C.) ; Vokes ; Mayr ; Key ; Dymond ; Bodenheimer ; Mertens ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Esaki ; Boschma ; Hank; Riley ; Jaczewski ; Prantl ; Stoll ; Hemming ; Cabrera ; Tortonese ; Bonnet ; Kiihnelt ; Miller ; 440 OPINIONS. AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 30th May 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)8, 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 Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. 10. Addition of a name to the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ : On Ist December 1956 Mr. Hemming as Secretary executed the following Minute directing the addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group name MICROPORELLIDAE Hincks, 1880, a family- group taxon having as its type genus the genus Microporella Hincks, 1877, a name which under the decision taken by the Commission by its Voting Paper V.P.(56)8 has been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Addition of a name to the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) When recently I reviewed the case relating to the interpretation of the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803, consequent upon the completion of the Prescribed Voting Period in respect of Voting Paper V.P.(56)8, the Voting Paper issued in connection with the foregoing OPINION 453 441 | case, my attention was drawn to the fact that there was no reference in the application to the questions at the family-group-name level involved in the proposal included in the application that the generic names Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836, and Microporella Hincks, 1877, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 2. I find on looking into this matter (1) that the genus Escharina Milne Edwards is not considered by specialists to be the type genus of a family-group taxon, being currently placed in the family scuizo- PORELLIDAE (type genus : Schizoporella Hincks, 1877) but (2) that the genus Microporella Hincks, 1877, is currently accepted as the type genus of the family MICROPORELLIDAE Hincks, 1880 (Hist. Brit. mar. Polyzoa1 : 204). 3. In order to make good the inadvertent omission from the present application of a proposal that the family-group name MICROPORELLIDAE Hincks, 1880, be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, | now, as Secretary, hereby direct that the foregoing well- established family-group name be entered on the above Official List. 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 3rd December 1956 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.(56)8, subject to the adjustment in respect of a family-group name involved in this case specified in the Minute executed by the Secretary on Ist December 1956. The text of the Minute here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 10 of the present Opinion. — 12. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— ciliata, Eschara, Pallas, 1766, Elench. Zooph. : 38 Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836, in Lamarck, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. (ed. 2) 2: 218, 230 Microporella Hincks, 1877, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 20 : 526 vulgaris, Eschara, Moll (J.P.C.), 1803, Eschara ex Zoophyt. : 55, 56, pl. 3, figs. 1OA, 10B [nec. figs. 11A—C] 442 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. The following is the reference for the lectotype selection for the nominal species Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803, specified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Brown (D.A.), 1952, Tert. Cheilostomatous Polyzoa New Zealand: 228. 14. The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— MICROPORELLIDAE Hincks, 1880, Hist. Brit. mar. Polyzoa 1 : 204 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 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. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-Eight (458) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Third day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Coorer LimiteEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.oM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 25. Pp. 443—454 OPINION 459 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Fistulipora MCCoy, 1849 (Class Bryozoa) 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 1957 eRe r xo ' y ro Price Eight Shillings \h a APR 26 19h7 | (All rights reserved) @ ; SY LIB Of A YY 4 Issued 2nd April, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 459 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMaA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Pennine LEMCHE (Universitetéts 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 (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoitHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (5th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale, ‘“‘G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 459 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “FISTULIPORA” MCCOY, 1849 (CLASS BRYOZOA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the generic name Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1073 :— Fistulipora MCoy, 1849 as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Milne Edwards (H.) & Haime (1850) : Fistulipora minor M©Coy, 1849) ; (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1150 :— minor M°Coy, 1849, as published in the combination Fistulipora minor (specific name of type species of Fistulipora M©Coy, 1849) ; 446 | OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The generic name Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, is here- by placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 866. (5) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 148 :— FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 1882 (type genus : Fistulipora M“Coy, 1849). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th October 1947 Dr. J. Brookes Knight (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) communicated to the Office of the International Commission a statement prepared jointly by Miss Helen Duncan (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.), Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. (United States National Museum, D.C.) and Professor Raymond C. Moore (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas) on the subject of the possible validation of the generic name Fistulipora M©Coy, 1849 (Class Bryozoa). For various reasons it was not found possible at that time to proceed with the consideration of the present case but in 1954 correspondence between the Secretary and the applicants led to the submission to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the following revised application in which account was taken of various procedural requirements which since the preparation of the original communication in regard to this case had been imposed upon the International OPINION 459 447 Commission by General Directives issued to it by the Inter- national Congresses of Zoology :— Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of ‘‘ Fistulipora ’’ MCCoy, 1849 (Class Bryozoa, Order Cyclostomata, Family Fistuliporidae) By HELEN DUNCAN (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.) ALFRED R. LOEBLICH, Jr. (United States National Museum, Washington, D,C,) and RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas) An unfortunate state of nomenclatural confusion has resulted from the recent discovery that the name Fistulipora MCCoy, 1849, widely applied for nearly a century to a genus of the Paleozoic Bryozoa, is preoccupied by Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, an indeterminate fossil. 2. MCCoy (1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3: 130—131) defined Fistulipora and described two species, F. minor and F. major. In 1850 Milne Edwards (H.) and Haime (Monogr. Brit. Fossil Corals : lix) selected Fistulipora minor M©Coy, 1849, as type species of the genus. Subsequently scores of species from America, Europe, Asia, and Australia have been described under or referred to MCCoy’s genus. Fistulipora M©Coy is well established in an extensive literature as one of the most long-ranging and important genera of Paleozoic Bryozoa. The family FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich (1882, J. Cincinn. Soc. nat. Hist. 5 : 156) derived its name from M©Coy’s genus, and genera included in the family as well as their most characteristic structural features are commonly designated “‘ fistuliporoid ”’. 3. The fact that Fistulipora MCCoy is preoccupied was apparently first discovered by Lang, Smith, and Thomas (1940, Index of Paleozoic Coral Genera: 61), who furnished the information to Neave for inclusion in the Supplement to the Nomenclator Zoologicus (4 : 736), published in 1940. 4. In an obscure 8-page pamphlet entitled Enumeration and Account of Some Remarkable Natural Objects of the Cabinet of Prof. Rafinesque, in Philadelphia ; Being Animals, Shells, Plants, and Fossils, collected by him in North America, between 1816 and 1831, Philadelphia, 1831, 448 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Rafinesque published on page 5 the following brief characterisation of his monotypic genus :— FISTULIPORA, Raf. Differ [sic] from Millepora by being tubular. 1. F. teres. Cylindrical, nearly simple, smooth, pores round, nearly equal. Limestone of Kentucky. 1 Rafinesque classed this fossil in a group termed “ Polypites or Erismites ’’, but it is impossible to tell whether Fistulipora teres Rafinesque, 1831, referred to a coral, hydrocoralline, sponge, bryozoan, or to some other organism. It is highly improbable that the type specimen of the species was preserved or could be identified as such even if the specimen still exists. Biographers (1895, Call, Life and Writings of Rafinesque: 59—60; 1911, Fitzpatrick, Rafinesque, a Sketch of his Life with Bibliography : 43, 56) report that at the time of Rafinesque’s death his collections had suffered much from neglect and his inability properly to care for them and that most of the mineral and conchologic materials were entirely without labels and were sold for mere trifles. Further, information on the locality and geologic formation is indeterminate, although it might be assumed that F. teres came from the “‘ Limestone of Blue licks in Kentucky ”’, the locality specified for the immediately preceding species Milleporites verrucosa Raf., known to be in an area of Ordovician rocks. 5. It seems doubtful whether Rafinesque’s Enumeration should be considered adequate publication. It was apparently privately printed and, inasmuch as no price is indicated on the tract, probably was not offered for sale. Very few copies are known to have been preserved. Actually the ‘‘ tract ’’ purports to be little more than a list of specimens for sale, as is indicated by the author’s statement in the introductory paragraph that “they have been conveyed at great expense to this City, and will soon be sent to Europe for sale, unless disposed of in the United States’. It would be difficult, if not impossible, however, to demonstrate that this pamphlet should not be recognised as a bona fide publication inasmuch as other books and articles published at about the same time or earlier seem to belong in about the same category but nevertheless are considered to be validly published. 6. It cannot be disputed, however, that Rafinesque’s Fistulipora is unrecognisable from the description, and as no illustrations were provided, the organism cannot be identified. The possibility of the labelled specimen or specimens of the type species Fistulipora teres being recovered is extremely remote. For all practical purposes, therefore, the name Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, for an organism of indeterminate zoological relationship, has no meaning. 7. On the other hand, Fistulipora MCCoy, 1849, is by far the best known and most prolific of the genera that have been included in the family FISTULIPORIDAE. The suggestion (1944, Moore and Dudley, OPINION 459 449 Bull. Kans. geol. Surv. 52 : 254—255) that the name Cyclotrypa Ulrich, 1896 (Zittel, Text-Book Palaeont. (Engl. ed.) 1, pt. 1 : 269) (genotype : Fistulipora communis Ulrich, 1890, Geol. Surv. Illinois 8 : 476) “‘ may contain a majority of the bryozoans that formerly have been placed in Fistulipora ’’, does not satisfy zoological requirements, for Cyclotrypa communis (Ulrich, 1890), has structural features differing from those of Fistulipora minor MCCoy and many allied species. Numerous species that have been referred to Fistulipora MCCoy probably will be assigned to other genera when restudied. Cyclotrypa does not constitute a suitable repository for “‘ typical species ’’ of Fistulipora MCoy. Certainly the name Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, can find no practical application in paleontology, and its retention would produce a highly undesirable instability in bryozoan nomenclature. 8. The International Commission is accordingly asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned generic name for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy : Fistulipora Rafinesque, Ssh: (2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Fistulipora MCCoy, 1849 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Milne Edwards (H.) & Haime (1850): Fistulipora minor MCCoy, 1849) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : minor MCCoy, 1849, as published in the combination Fistulipora minor (specific name of type species of Fistulipora MCCoy, 1849) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above ; (5) to place the family-group name FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 1882 (type genus: Fistulipora M©Coy, 1849) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. II. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: Upon the receipt of the application by Miss Duncan, Dr. Loeblich and Professor 450. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Moore, the question of the validation of the generic name Fistulipora M©Coy, 1849, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.A(S.) 324. 3. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer on 2nd February 1955 and was published on 3lst May in the same year in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Duncan, Loeblich & Moore, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11: 155—157). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 was given on 3lst May 1955 (a) in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the application by Miss Duncan et al. was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial pub- lications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to three palaeontological serials in Europe and America. 5. Support from Madeleine A. Fritz (Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology, Toronto, Canada) : On 18th July 1955 Professor Madeleine A. Fritz (Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology, Toronto, Canada) sent the following letter to the Office of the Commission in support of the present application (Fritz, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 303) :— Having worked rather extensively with the genus Fistulipora, as established by MCCoy, and recognising the value of this prolific genus, I am naturally anxious to see the name retained as a member of the family FISTULIPORIDAE. It would seem most unwise and impractical to lose this widely known term and to employ the same for an obscure fossil type of uncertain affinities. I heartily endorse the petition as set forth under clause 8, p. 157, of the above-mentioned publication, OPINION 459 451 6. Support from Joan Crockford (Radium Hill Project, Radium Hill, Australia) : On 28th September 1955 Miss Joan Crockford (Radium Hill Project, Radium Hill, Australia) sent the following letter to the Office of the Commission in support of the present case :— With respect to this application, I wish to state that I favour validation of the generic name Fistulipora MCCoy, 1849 : and I wish to add the comment that possibly a ruling could be made by the Commission, when considering this application, as to whether Rafinesque’s Pamphlet entitled ‘“‘ Enumeration and Account of Some Remarkable Natural Objects of the Cabinet of Prof. Rafinesque, in Philadelphia ; Being Animals, Shells, Plants, and Fossils, collected by him in North America, Between 1816 and 1831 : Philadelphia, 1831 ;” was validly published, as is discussed in sections 4 and 5, pp. 155 and 156, of the application by Duncan, Loeblich, and Moore. 7. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)9 : On 29th February 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)9) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, ‘the proposal relating to the generic name Fistulipora M©Coy, 1849, as set out in Points (1) to (5) in paragraph 8 on page 157 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature”? [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 29th May 1956. 452 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)9 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)9 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Hering; Lemche; do Amaral; Bradley (J.C.) ; Vokes ; Mayr ; Key ; Dymond ; Bodenheimer ; Mertens ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Esaki ; Boschma ; Hanko ; Riley ; Jaczewski; Prantl; Stoll; Hemming ; Cabrera ; Tortonese ; Bonnet ; Kitihnelt ; Miller ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 30th May 1956 Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)9, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 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 Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 4th December 1956 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given OPINION 459 453 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.(56)9. 13. Original References: The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, Some remark. nat. Objects Cabinet Prof. Rafinesque : 5 Fistulipora M©Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3 : 130 minor, Fistulipora, M°Coy, 1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3 : 130 14. The following is the reference for the selection of a type species for the genus Fistulipora M©Coy, 1849, specified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :—Milne Edwards (H.) & Haime, 1850, Monogr. Brit. Fossil Corals : \ix. 15. The following is the original reference for the family-group name placed in the Official List established for recording the names of taxa belonging to the family-group categories by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 1882, J. Cincinn. Soc. nat. Hist. 5 : 156 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 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. 454 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Fifty-Nine (459) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrercarre & Coorrr LriwitEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 ee ee eee 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 15. Part 26. Pp. 455—474 OPINION 460 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, and designation for the genus so named of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Mammalia) 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 1957 is Price Thirteen Shillings and Sixpence / -» { Dp VF (All rights reserved) \ APR @o Issued 2nd April, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 460 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (A2th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Pennine LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1 Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August nee Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y. U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England)(A2th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hoituuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) 2 ee S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954 Professor Ernst MAyrR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TorRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 460 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘*‘ MUNTIACUS ” RAFINESQUE, 1815, AND DESIGNATION FOR THE GENUS SO NAMED OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE (CLASS MAMMALIA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers :-— (a) the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, is hereby validated ; (b) the nominal species Cervus muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, is hereby designated to be the type species of the genus specified in (a) above. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1074 :— Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above: Cervus muntjak, Zimmer- mann, 1780). (3) The under-mentioned' specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1152 :— muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the com- bination Cervus muntjak (specific name of Wipe species of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815). BA Bite Se 458 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 867 :— Cervulus Blainville, 1816 (a junior objective synonym of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above. I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 12th January 1951, Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (then of British Museum (Natural History), London and now Director, Science Museum, London), submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature the following application for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Mammalia) and for the designation under the same Powers of a type species for the genus so named in harmony with established practice :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the well-known generic name ‘‘ Muntiacus ’’ in the Class Mammalia first published by Rafinesque in 1815 By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to provide a valid status for the well-known generic name Muntiacus (Class Mammalia) first published by Rafinesque in 1815 (Analyse Nature : 56). OPINION 460 459 2. The following is the text of the passage in which this name occurs in Rafinesque’s Analyse : ““Cornes solides, simples ou rameuses, permanentes ou caduques. G.1. Cervus L. 2. Muntiacus R. do. sp. 3. Giraffa R. Camelo- pardalis L.” 3. In spite of the fact that Rafinesque gave some descriptive words for this group of genera as a whole, it must be admitted that he gave no indication by which the genera comprised in this group could be separated from one another. If he had cited any nominal species (the names of which had previously been published), the lack of a definition for these genera would not have invalidated the generic name in question (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80), but, as he did not do so, it must be admitted that Muntiacus, as published by Rafinesque, is a nomen nudum. 4. The name Muntiacus is in current use for the muntjaks and, unless it is validated, it will be necessary to substitute for it the name Cervulus Blainville, 1816 (Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris 1816 : 74), which would be a confusion unaccompanied by any advantage. 5. In order to avoid this result, and in the interests of stability, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate the under-mentioned generic name and to designate as its type species the species specified below :— Species proposed to be designated under the Plenary Name of Genus Powers as type species of the genus specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, Cervus muntjak Zimmermann, Analyse : 56 1780, Geogr. Gesch.2 : 131 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name specified in Col. (1) in (1) above, with the masculine gender and with, as its type species, the species specified in Col. (2) ; (3) to place the undermentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the combination Cervus muntjak (specific name of type species of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815). 460 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Morrison-Scott’s application, the question of the validation of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 481. 3. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer on 4th February 1955 and was published on 3lst May in the same year in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Morrison-Scott, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 167—168). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure 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 31st May 1955 (a) in Part 5 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Morrison-Scott’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to four general zoological serial publications and to two mammalogical serials in Europe and America respectively. 5. Comments received : Following the publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and prior to the submission to the International Commission of a Voting Paper in respect of the present case comments on the proposal submitted were received from twenty-three specialists. Of these, twenty (20) supported the present application and three (3) were opposed toit. Thedistribution by countries of the specialists who furnished these comments was as follows :— (a) Specialists who supported the present application (twenty (20)) : Argentina (one); Australia (one); Belgium (one) ; France (one) ; Germany (four) ; Italy (two) ; Netherlands OPINION 460 461 (two) ; Poland (one) ; U.S.S.R. (one) ; United Kingdom (four) ; U.S.A. (two). (b) Specialists who opposed the present application (three (3)) : Netherlands (two) ; U.S.A. (one). The comments so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 6. Support received from Miss E. M. O. Laurie (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 21st February 1956, Miss E. M. O. Laurie (British Museum (Natural History), London) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— I wish to support most strongly the application by Dr. Morrison- Scott (1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 167—168) for the validation of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815 for the muntjaks. I understand that Dr. Hershkovitz has written to the Commission objecting to the use of Muntiacus and proposing the use of Cervulus Blainville, 1816. I can see no advantage in this proposal. The substitution of Cervulus for the well-known name Muntiacus, which is in current use, would be quite absurd as it could only lead to confusion. 7. Support received from Sir John Ellerman (London) : On = 21st February 1956, Sir John Ellerman (London) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— I understand that Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott has asked the Inter- national Commission to validate the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, for the Muntjak Deer. I beg to state that I am wholly in agreement with this request. 8. Support received from Erna Mohr (Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) : On 23rd February 1956, Dr. Erna Mohr (Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— I wish to support the application by T. C. S. Morrison-Scott regarding the validation of Muntiacus, 462 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. Support received from R. W. Hayman (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 23rd February 1956, Mr. R. W. Hayman (British Museum (Natural History), London) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— I wish to support strongly the application by Dr. Morrison-Scott (1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 167—168) for the validation of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. I would regard Dr. Hershkovitz’s proposal! for its replacement by Cervulus Blainville, 1816, as quite unnecessary and liable to lead to confusion, since the well-known name Muntiacus has been in current usage for many years. 10. Support received from F. C. Fraser (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 24th February 1956, Dr. F. C. Fraser (British Museum (Natural History), London) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— My colleague Dr. Morrison-Scott has told me about the objection that has been raised to the use of the name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815?. I hope that the substitution of Cervulus will be opposed by the Commission because in this matter I write as a non-specialist and should like in my work to continue to employ a name which has been in use in the Osteological Room for a very long time now. It is inscribed on labels, specimen boxes, cabinets, in our card index and in the works of reference used in the Section. It is not advancing zoological science one bit to make an alteration in the currently used generic name and I should be surprised if, in the international rules on nomenclature, you could not apply one which would make any change unnecessary. 11. Support received from A. C. V. van Bemmel (Alkmaar, The Netherlands) : On 27th February 1956, Dr. A. C. V. van Bemmel (A/kmaar, The Netherlands) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— With much interest I saw the application for the validation of the generic name Muntiacus by Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1955, 11 : 167. 1 For the comment by Dr. Hershkovitz here referred to, see paragraph 26 of the present Opinion. For the objection here referred to, see paragraph 26 of the present Opinion. OPINION 460 463 As I am specially interested in this genus, vide my review of the Indo-malaysian species (Beaufortia 16, May 7th 1952, pp. 1—22) I want to tell you that I can support the views of Mr. Morrison-Scott. Since the generic name Muntiacus was reintroduced by Lydekker in 1898 this name was used by 95 authors in publication on Indo- Australian Barking Deer. These publications are both scientific and what could be called popular science. The name was applied especially by authors on Indo-Australian Barking Deer because the name has been derived from the vernacular name ‘“‘ Mentjek ’’ or *“ Muntjak ” in common use in this part of the world. Now perhaps it would have been better if Lydekker had not supported the name Muntiacus Rafinesque, this strictly taken being a nomen nudum. On the other hand it is impossible to suspect that Rafinesque had any other animal in view but the Barking Deer, the name being derived from a vernacular name. As things are at the moment I think it would be advisable to keep this well-known and commonly accepted name and not to replace it by a name hardly in use since 1898. As the Commission give us encouragement towards the stability of well-known names I think that in this case there is every reason to avoid a quite unnecessary change. 12. Support received from J. Dorst (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) : On 27th February 1956, Dr. J. Dorst (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— Jai appris qu’il était question de changer le nom de Muntiacus pour faire place au genre Cervulus, comme vient de le proposer le Dr. Herschkowitz.? J'ai beaucoup de considération pour les travaux de cet excellent mammalogiste, mais je tiens a vous dire que je ne partage nullement son point de vue dans cette question. Je suis par contre d’accord avec le Dr. Morrison-Scott pour demander la validation du nom de Muntiacus, nom qui est trop connu pour étre remplacé par un autre, méme antérieur. La nomenclature zoologique doit étre stabilisée autant que nous pouvons, vous connaissez d’a illeurs mon point de vue sur cette question, que j’ai déja exposé dans Mammalia a plusieurs reprises. Ilimporte de conserver les noms sous lesquels les mammiféres sont connus, pour a utant que seules des considérations de priorité sont en cause. 3 See Footnote 1 above, 464 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS J’espére que la commission de nomenclature se rangera au point de vue conservateur du Dr. Morrison-Scott. 13. Support received from S. Frechkop (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles) : On Ist March 1956, Dr. S. Frechkop (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— Jai ’honneur de vous faire savoir que je m’allie au Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, du British Museum (Natural History), pour prier votre Commission de maintenir le nom générique Muntiacus. 14. Support received from H. von Boetticher (Naturwissen- Schaftliches Museum, Coburg) : On 3rd March 1956, Dr. H. von Boetticher (Naturwissen-Schaftliches Museum, Coburg) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 15. Support received from T. Haltenorth (Zoologischen Staats- sammlung, Miinchen) : On 5th March 1956, Dr. T. Haltenorth (Zoologischen Staatssammlung, Miinchen) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 16. Support received from V. Tedesco Zammarano (Rome) : On 5th March 1956, Dr. V. Tedesco Zammarano (Rome) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, OPINION 460 465 17. Support received from William H. Burt (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) : On 5th March 1956, Dr. William H. Burt (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) intimated his support for the present applica- tion as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 18. Support received from D. A. Hooijer (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) : On 6th March 1956, Dr. D. A. Hooijer (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 19. Support received from G. G. Simpson (American Museum of Natural History, New York) : On 6th March 1956, Dr. G. G. Simpson (American Museum of Natural History, New York) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am strongly in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 20. Support received from A. Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) : On 6th March 1956, Dr. A. Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 21. Support received from W. Serafiiski (Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warsaw) : On 8th March 1956, Dr. W. Serafinski (Polskiej 466 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Akademii Nauk, Warsaw) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 22. Support received from Klaus Zimmermann (Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin): On 7th March 1956, Professor Klaus Zimmermann (Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— In the question about the name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, I would express my full agreement with the opinion of Dr. Morrison-Scott that Muntiacus should be retained and validated. 23. Support received from C. W. Brazenor (National Museum, Victoria, Australia) : On 19th March 1956, Dr. C. W. Brazenor (National Museum, Victoria, Australia) intimated his support for the present application as follows :— I am in favour of the validation by the Commission of the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. 24. Support received from A. Toschi (Universita di Bologna, Italy) : On 28th March 1956, Professor A. Toschi (Universita di Bologna, Italy) sent the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :-— I agree with Dr. Morrison-Scott’s application for the validation of Muntiacus. 25. Support from V. G. Heptner (Zoological Museum, Moscow) : On 5th April 1956, Dr. V. G. Heptner (Zoological Museum, Moscow) addressed the following letter of support to the Office of the Commission :— Japprove la proposition de M. Morrison-Scott concernant de porter le nom Muntiacus sur la liste de nomina conservanda, OPINION 460 467 26. Objection received from P. Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum, U.S.A.) : On 26th September 1955, Dr. P. Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum, U.S.A.) sent to the Office of the Commission a number of comments on recently published applications. His representations concerning the present case were as follows :— In his application for validation of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, Morrison-Scott admits that the name is a nomen nudum. He con- cludes, however, that unless Muntiacus “‘ is validated, it will be necessary to substitute for it the name Cervulus Blainville, 1816 .. . which would be a confusion without any advantage ”’. Many advantages accrue from compliance with the Rules. One is stability in nomenclature. Another is time and effort saved by not formulating proposals for use of the Plenary Powers by the International Commission. Regarding Cervulus Blainville, perhaps it was not Morrison-Scott’s intention to give the impression that the name has been ignored, that it never had currency and that its introduction into the literature at this time would unnecessarily complicate the work of taxonomists and compilers. The facts are these. 1. Cervulus Blainville was the generic name generally applied by all taxonomists, compilers and authors of textbooks from 1816 to 1915 when Muntiacus Rafinesque was uncritically used by Lydekker in his Catalogue of the Ungulate Mammals in the British Museum (Natural History) 4 : 10. 2. The nomen nudum Muntiacus Rafinesque was not used from its inception in 1815 until 1907 when Elliot validated it in his Catalogue of the Collection of Mammals in the Field Columbian Museum : 38. Elliot designated Cervus muntjak Zimmermann as type. The name Cervulus Blainville, with Muntiacus Rafinesque as an unavailable synonym, was used by Trouessart in the supplementary volume of his Catalogus Mammalium, published 1904. This may have been Elliot’s source of misguided inspiration for use of Muntiacus. 3. The case in favour of Muntiacus is not properly presented by Morrison-Scott. He asks, in effect, and in deed, that the Commission use its Plenary Powers to give priority to the nomen nudum Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, rather than to the valid Muntiacus of authors, specifically, of Elliot, 1907, 468 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. It is the unique specific name muntjak Zimmermann and not the generic name that stabilizes the identity of the small deer universally known as the muntjak. Hence, use of the valid and widely used generic name Cervulus Blainville entails no confusion and re-establishes the stability disturbed by Elliot and his followers. In conclusion, it is recommended that the Commission reject Muntiacus of Rafinesque and others, and place the name Cervulus Blainville, 1816, with type Cervus muntjak Zimmermann, on the Official List of Generic Names. 27. Objection received from A. M. Husson (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) : On 27th February 1956, Dr. A. M. Husson (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Museum, Leiden) addressed the following letter to the Office of the Commission :— After having carefully studied the Muntiacus-Cervulus problem I arrived at the following conclusion. The arguments to retain the name Cervulus are : 1. It is the valid name for the species. 2. The introduction of this name will not cause any confusion, since it never has been used for any other than the present genus. 3. The generic name Cervulus has been often used (especially by older authors) for the present genus. In Van Bemmel’s revision of the Indo-Australian are references given to 17 authors in 18 publications before 1930 and 19 authors in 26 publications after 1930 using the name Muntiacus, and to 19 authors in 26 publications before 1930 and 5 authors in 6 publications after 1930 using the name Cervulus. 4. It is an euphonious name the use of which does not give rise to an unpleasant pseudo-tautonomy like Muntiacus muntjak. The only argument in favour of the use of the name Muntiacus is that this name has been used in several of the recent checklists and catalogues (Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, Chasen, Simpson), and that in the last 20 years it has been used much more frequently than Cervulus, OPINION 460 469 In my opinion this argument (in favour of the name Muntiacus) is too weak to justify the use of the Plenary Powers, the more so since the Barking Deer is not an extremely common form and the publications on it are not very numerous. 28. Objection received from F. H. van den Brink (Noordwijk aan Zee, The Netherlands) : On 24th March 1956, Me. F. H. van den Brink (Noordwijk aan Zee, The Netherlands) intimated his objection to the present application as follows :— I would be satisfied if the name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, were to be replaced by the name Cervulus Blainville, 1816. 29. Supplementary proposal relating to the generic name ** Cervulus ’’ Blainville, 1816 : When the Voting Paper to be issued in the present case was in preparation, Mr. Hemming as Secretary prepared a note (a) drawing attention to the statement in paragraph 4 of the application submitted in this case that, if that application were to be rejected, it would be necessary to revert to the use of the generic name Cervulus Blainville, 1816, (b) stating that he had ascertained that the foregoing generic name would be a junior objective synonym of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, if that name were to be validated by the Commission, since in 1904 (1904, N. Amer. Fauna 23 : 174) Palmer had selected as the type species of Cervulus Blainville the nominal species Cervus muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, the species which in the present application it was recommended should be designated by the Commission as the type species of Muntiacus Rafinesque. Mr. Hemming then recalled the General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which the Commission is required to place on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology any objectively invalid name found to be involved in any case submitted to it. Mr. Hemming therefore recommended that, if the Commission were to decide in favour of the application submitted by Dr. Morrison-Scott, it should place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Cervulus Blainville, 1816, which 470 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS under such a decision would have become a junior objective synonym of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815. The note so prepared by the Secretary was added as Note 4 to the Voting Paper subse- quently prepared (see paragraph 33 below). 30. Support for the present application received after the sub- mission to the International Commission of the Voting Paper relating to the present case ;: After the submission to the Inter- national Commission of the Voting Paper relating to the present case letters were received in the Office of the Commission from two specialists, asking that their support for the present application be placed on record. The letters so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 31. Support received from Constantin C. Flerow (Paleontological Museum, Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R., Moscow) : After the submission to the Commission of the Voting Paper referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, Dr. Morrison-Scott (the applicant in the present case) forwarded to the Office of the Commission the following letter of support for the present application which he had received from Professor Constantin C. Flerow (Paleontological Museum, Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R., Moscow) dated 30th April 1956 :-— Your view on the question about the name Muntiacus is right. There is no need to change this well-known and established name. 32. Support received from C. A. Gibson-Hill (Raffles Museum, Singapore) : On Ist August 1956, Dr. C. A. Gibson-Hill (Raffles Museum, Singapore) wrote the following letter of support in the present case :— I should be grateful if you would record my name as supporting Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott’s application for validation of Muntiacus OPINION 460 471 _ Rafinesque, 1815. I did consider the matter in some detail about two years ago, when preparing an annotated checklist of mammals of the Malay Peninsula (now in the press), and then decided to follow Morrison-Scott in his Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals— which as you know covers the whole of the mainland of Eurasia except the Malay Peninsula. lil. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 33. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)22 : On 26th April 1956, a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)22) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, as set out in Points (1) to (3) in paragraph 5 on page 168 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature [i.e. as set out in the paragraph numbered as above in the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion], with the addition specified in Note 4 overleaf” [i.e. the addition specified in paragraph 29 of the present Opinion]. 34. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 26th July 1956. 472 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 35. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)22 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)22 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Miller ; Prantl ; Esaki; Jaczewski ; Hanké ; Dymond; Bonnet; Bodenheimer; Mayr ; Mertens; Lemche; Key; Boschma; do Amaral ; Riley ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Sylvester-Bradley* ; Tortonese ; Hemming ; Kuhnelt ; Hering ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1): Bradley (J.C.) ; (d) Voting Papers not returned : None. 36. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 27th July 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P. (56)22, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 35 above and declaring that the proposal submitted * Commissioner Sylvester-Bradley exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 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). OPINION 460 473 in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. 37. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 6th December 1956, 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.(56)22. 38. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Cervulus Blainville, 1816, Bull. Soc. Sci. philomat. Paris 1816 : 74 Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 56 muntjak, Cervus, Zimmermann, 1780, Geogr. Gesch. Menschen. me 131 39. Family-Group-Name Problem : At the time of the prepara- tion of the application dealt with in the present Opinion it had not become the duty of the International Commission to take account of associated family-group-name problems when placing generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Accord- ingly, this aspect of the problem associated with the generic name Muntiacus Rafinesque was not dealt with in the application submitted. It has, however, since been ascertained that the genus so named is currently treated as the type genus of a subfamily MUNTIACINAE of the family CERVIDAE. The nomenclatorial problem so involved has been allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 1187, and Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott has since sub- mitted a proposal on this subject which will be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at an early date®. 40. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing > Dr. Morrison-Scott’s application on this subject will, it is expected, be pub- lished towards the end of March, 1957 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 76—79). 474 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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. 41. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Sixty (460) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Sixth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MrtcaLFe & Cooper LimitTep, 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.., C.B.£. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 28. Pp. 475—484 OPINION 461 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843, a name published conditionally for a species described simultan- eously in the genus Seriola Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1816] (Class Pisces) (Opinion supplementary to Declaration 30) 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, $.W.7 pb ra. 1957 Aa SO) Price Six Shillings and Sixpence /; is Beleai a || (All rights reserved) Issued 2nd April, 1957 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 461 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) PE Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark (27th uly Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th Aug: st 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) AG ae Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Brofessor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyrR (Museum of Comparative Zoology. at Harvard College, Cambridge, _ Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria,” Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) OPINION 461 ADDITION TO THE ‘OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘* CUBICEPS ” LOWE (R.T.), 1843, A NAME PUB- LISHED CONDITIONALLY FOR A SPECIES DESCRIBED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE GENUS **SERIOLA”? CUVIER (G.L.C.F.D.), [1816] (CLASS PISCES) (‘‘ OPINION ” SUPPLE- MENTARY TO ‘* DECLARATION ”’ 30) RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Jordan & Evermann (1919) Seriola gracilis Lowe (R.T.), 1843) (Name No. 1075) ; (b) Seriola Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1816] (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Caranx dumerili Risso (A), 1810) (Name No. 1076). (2) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) gracilis Lowe (R.T.), 1843, as published in the combination Seriola gracilis (specific name of type species of Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843) (Name No. 1153) ; (b) dumerili Risso (A.), 1810, as published in the combination Caranx dumerili (specific name of type species of Seriola Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1816]) (Name No. 1154). 478 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 868 :— Seriola Topsent, 1892 (a junior homonym of Seriola Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1816]). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 18th August 1954, Mr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History), London) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission in which he (a) explained that Lowe (R.T.) had in 1843 published a specific name (gracilis) for a new species of fish which he had placed in the genus Seriola Cuvier, [1816], but for which he had also established conditionally a new nominal genus to which he gave the name Cubiceps, and (b) enquired whether under the Régles the new specific name should be regarded as having been published in combination with the generic name Seriola Cuvier or in combination with the con- ditionally published name Cubiceps Lowe. It appeared to Mr. Hemming that the question so submitted was one which was not covered by any of the existing provisions in the Régles and he accordingly decided that his proper course was to lay the problem before the International Commission on Zoologicai Nomenclature with a request that it render a Declaration clarifying the Reégles in this regard. In the paper which he then submitted Mr. Hemming recommended that in a case such as that described above the specific name should be treated as having been published in combination with the previously published generic name and not in combination with the new name conditionally published. The application so submitted to the Commission has been repro- duced in Declaration 30! in which the Commission gave a Ruling in the sense indicated above. Concurrently with the submission 1 The Declaration here referred to is being published simultaneously with the present Opinion as Part 27 of the present volume. OPINION 461 479 (on 2nd February 1955) of the foregoing recommendation Mr. Hemming submitted the following brief supplementary application asking that in accordance with the General Directives issued by the International Congress of Zoology the names involved in Mr. Tucker’s enquiry which had been cited as examples in the application relating to the proposed Declaration should be placed on the appropriate Official Lists :— Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ of the generic names ‘‘ Seriola ’’ Cuvier (G.), [1816], and ‘‘ Cubiceps ’’ Lowe (R.T.), 1843 (Class Pisces) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present application is in the nature of a complement to the immediately preceding application? in which a recommendation is submitted that the Commission should render a Declaration prescribing the combination to be attributed to the specific name of a nominal species established as belonging to one nominal genus but for which at the same time another nominal genus was conditionally established. 2. The foregoing application was illustrated by the specific name _ gracilis published by Lowe in 1843 for a new species of fish which that author placed in the genus Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816]*., Régn. Anim. 2 : 315) but for which also he then established conditionally the new nominal genus Cubiceps Lowe, 1843 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 : 82). The name gracilis was published on the same page as the generic name Cubiceps. 3. Under the General Directive given to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology that it shall deal comprehensively with every case submitted to it and shall place on the appropriate Official List every name accepted by it as a valid name makes it necessary in connection with the foregoing case to consider whether the above names should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 4. The generic names Seriola Cuvier and Cubiceps Lowe are both available names in the sense that they are not junior homonyms or junior objective synonyms of previously published generic names. * For the date attributed to the Régne Animal see 1922, Cat. Library Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) 6 : Add. et Corrig. : 26. 2 The application here referred to has since been reprinted in Declaration 30. See Footnote 1. 480 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Mr. Denys Tucker (British Museum (Natural History), London) by whom the problem discussed in paragraph 1 above was brought to the attention of the Commission, reports that both the foregoing names are currently accepted as being the names of taxonomically valid genera. Accordingly under the Directive given to the Commission both these names now fall to be placed on the Official List. The type species of Seriola Cuvier is Caranx dumerili Risso (A.), 1810 (UIchth. Nice: 175, pl. 6, fig. 20), by original designation ; the type species of Cubiceps Lowe is Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843, by monotypy. Mr. Tucker reports that both these names are the oldest available names for the species concerned. Both should therefore now be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 5. There is a junior homonym of Seriola Cuvier, [1816], namely Seriola Topsent, 1892 (Résult. Camp. sci. Monaco 2 : 8), an Emendation of Seiriola Hanitsch, 1889 (Proc. Liverpool biol. Soc. 3: 170). This name should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 6. I accordingly now recommend that in compliance with the General Directive referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Commission should :— (1) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy? : Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843) ; (b) Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816] (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Caranx dumerili Risso (A.), 1810) ; (2) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) gracilis Lowe, 1843, as published in the combination Seriola gracilis (specific name of type species of Cubiceps Lowe, 1843) ; (b) dumerili Risso (A.), 1810, as published in the combination Caranx dumerili (specific name of type species of Seriola Cuvier, [1816]) ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Seriola Topsent, 1892 (a junior homonym of Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816]). 3 )See paragraph on a OPINION 461 481 Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Mr. Tucker’s enquiry in August 1954 the question so raised was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 894. When later it was decided to deal separately with the question of principle raised by Mr. Tucker, the foregoing Registered Number was retained for that question and a new Registered Number (Z.N.(S.) 905) was allotted to the supplementary issue involved in connection with the disposal of the names cited as examples in the foregoing application. 3. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer on 4th February 1955 and was published on 3lst May in the same year in Part 6 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 181—182). 4. No objection received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(56)24: On 26th April 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(56)24) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal relating to the generic name Seriola Cuvier, [1816], and Cubiceps Lowe, 1843, as set out in Points (1) to (3) in para- graph 6 on page 182 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.c. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper 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 26th July 1956. - 482 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)24 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)24 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Prantl ; Esaki; Hanko ; Dymond ; Bonnet; Bodenheimer; Mayr; Lemche; Key ;4 Jaczewski; Boschma; do Amaral; Riley; Mertens ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Tortonese ; Hemming ; Kihnelt ; Hering ; Miller ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1): Bradley (J.C.) ; (d) Voting Papers not returned : None. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 27th July 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)24, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 7 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and 4 Commissioner Key had voted negatively on the proposal submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(56)23 relating to the proposed adoption of a Declaration regarding the generic name in combination with which a specific name is to be treated as having been published in cases where the species so named was simultaneously referred also to a new nominal genus established conditionally. In the present case this Commissioner indicated that in the event of the Com- mission taking an affirmative decision on the foregoing Voting Paper he desired to record an affirmative vote on Voting Paper V.P. (56)24 (the Voting Paper relating to the proposal dealt with in the present Opinion) but not otherwise. Since, as shown in Declaration 30, the proposal submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(56)23 was approved by the Commission (by twenty-four votes to one), Commissioner Key has been recorded as having voted affirmatively on Voting Paper V.P.(56)24. OPINION 461 483 that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 9. Amendment of the entry proposed to be made on the ‘* Official List *’ regarding the determination of the type species of the genus ‘** Cubiceps ’? Lowe, 1843 : During the routine check-up of the bibliographical references undertaken in connection with the preparation of the Ruling to be given in the present case, a re- examination of Lowe’s original paper strongly suggested that instead of having placed in the genus Cubiceps only the single species Seriola gracilis, Lowe had referred to that genus also the nominal species Seriola bipinnulata Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, though undoubtedly Seriola gracilis Lowe was the principal species which he had had in mind. It seemed doubtful therefore whether in fact, as stated in the application, the latter species could be regarded as the type species of Cubiceps Lowe by mono- typy. The earliest definite type selection which it was possible to trace in the literature was, however, of that species, this selection having been made by Jordan & Evermann in 1919 (Gen. Fish (2) : 215). Enquiry from Mr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History), London) disclosed also that this species was currently accepted as the type species of Cubiceps Lowe and that the species S. bipinnulata Quoy & Gaimard had never been placed in Cubiceps after Lowe’s time, having been placed either in Elegatis or in Seriolichthys, many such references being given by Weber & de Beaufort (1931, Fish Indo-Austr. Archip. 6 : 29). Mr. Hemming accordingly executed a Minute directing that, when Cubiceps Lowe, 1843, was entered on the Official List as the result of the vote taken in the present case, Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843, should be entered as the type species of the genus so named “by selection by Jordan & Evermann (1919)” and not “ by monotypy ”’, as previously proposed. 10. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 3rd January 1957, 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.(56)24, subject to the formal adjustment specified in paragraph 9 above. 484 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 : 82 dumerili, Caranx, Risso (A.), 1810, Ichth. Nice : 175, pl. 6, fig. 20 gracilis, Seriola, Lowe (R.T.), 1843, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 : 82 Seriola Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1816], Régn. Anim. 2 : 315 Seriola Topsent, 1892, Résult. Camp. sci. Monaco 2 : 8 12. The reference for the type selection for the genus Cubiceps Lowe, 1843, specified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion is as follows :—Jordan & Evermann, 1919, Gen. Fish (2) : 215. 13. It has been ascertained that neither of the generic names which has been placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion is currently regarded as being the type genus of a family-group taxon. 14. The name Seriola Topsent, 1892, is no more than an Invalid Emendation of the name Seiriola Hanitsch, 1889 (Proc. Liverpool biol. Soc. 3: 170) (Spong.). The question whether under the General Directive relating to the completeness of Opinions the latter name ought to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is at present being investigated on Commission File Z.N.(G.) 135. 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 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. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Sixty-One (461) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Third day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. - Secretary to the International Commission . on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper Limitep, 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.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 29. Pp. 485—488 EXPLANATORY MINUTE Family-group-name problems involved in the Opinions included in Volume 15 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Lx \ \ ea \ f / Bi ae pana \ ( D ae U 1 UV ivy }} \e : 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 1957 Price One Shilling and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 15th November, 1957 . ane, Sheree FAMILY-GROUP-NAME PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE **OPINIONS ” INCLUDED IN VOLUME 15 OF THE WORK “OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COM- MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Minute dated 6th June 1957) Ever since the close of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 it has been customary during the publication of a volume belonging to the Opinions and Declarations Series to examine each Opinion as it is completed for the purpose of making sure that the Rulings given dealt with any family-group-name implications involved in connection with the names of genera placed in that Opinion on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Whenever it was found that these matters had not been dealt with in the applications on which those Opinions were based and in consequence had not been dealt with in the Rulings given in the Opinions in question, immediate steps were taken by the Office of the Commission to obtain the requisite information. On the completion of the last of the Opinions to be included in the volume in question a paper was submitted to the Commission containing comprehensive pro- posals for dealing with all outstanding family-group-name problems. The decisions taken on such a paper were embodied in a Direction which formed the last Part of the volume prior to the concluding Index Part. 2. The procedure described above served a valuable purpose, especially in the years immediately following the Copenhagen Congress, for many of the applications dealt with in the Opinions rendered during that period had been prepared before the meeting 488 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of that Congress and in consequence had not dealt with the family-group-name problems involved in connection with the generic names discussed in those applications. Thus, the inclusion at the end of a volume of a Direction dealing with these matters made good omissions which otherwise would have had to be dealt—much less conveniently—in some later volume. 3. Gradually as the requirements prescribed by the Copenhagen Congress became more widely known, applications to an increasing extent dealt with family-group-name problems in the required manner and the number of such problems on which it was necessary to obtain decisions from the Commission on the com- pletion of each volume grew less and less. It is satisfactory to be able to note that in the case of the present volume all the Opinions included dealt fully with the family-group-name problems involved. For the present volume therefore no con- cluding Direction dealing with family-group-name problems is required. It is hoped that in the case of future volumes also no Directions of this type will be needed, the necessary action at the family-group-name level being taken in the Opinions concerned. Printed in England by METCALFE & COOPER LIMITED, 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.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 15. Part 30. (Concluding Part) eM X ( DECI WA J 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 1957 Price Two Pounds (All rights reserved) Issued 15th November, 1957 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 15. Part 30. Pp. 489—530 (also published with this Part : T.P.—XX) CONTENTS Corrigenda ; Authors’ and Subject Index ; Particulars of the dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published; Instructions to Binders Also published with this Part: Title Page, Foreword ; Table of Contents. 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 1957 Price Two Pounds (All rights reserved) Issued 15th November, 1957. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS, DECLARATIONS AND DIRECTIONS 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 : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y , U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-Presidént : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscuMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CasrerA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henne oe (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 1948 Professor Teiso Esaxt (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (A7th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DyMonD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (MezGgazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRABLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954)- Ee isaaE S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo dj Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) Insertion of certain minor corrections in the ‘‘ Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology ’’ and in the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ Supplement to ‘* Opinions ”’ 431 and 450 MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The present Minute is concerned to secure minor adjustments in the Rulings given in Opinions 431 and 450 respectively which information received since the publication of those Opinions has shown to be necessary. The first of these relates to an entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology in regard to the name of a family-group taxon belonging to the Class Gastropoda, the second to an entry on the same List relating to the name of a taxon belonging to the Class Insecta (Order Lepidoptera). In the second of these cases an adjustment is needed also in an associated - entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. The first of the above Opinions was published in 1956 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 347—372), the second in 1957 in the present volume (: 251—328). ** Opinion ”’ 431 2. it will be recalled that the central feature of the above case was the question of the determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of the foregoing genus, the species which was the type species under the Rég/es not being considered to be congeneric with the species currently treated as being the type species. By the Ruling given in the Opinion now in question current practice was validated by the designation under the Plenary Powers of Helix itala Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus. 3. At the family-group-name level the earliest family-group name based upon the generic name Helicella was invalid because the type genus cited was not Helicella Férussac but the cheironym Helicella Lamarck, 1812. As the result of the consequent search of the literature the earliest validly published family-group name based upon the generic name Helicella Férussac which it was found possible to detect was HELICELLINAE Hesse, 1926, and this name was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name Number 91 in Opinion 431, the Opinion dealing with this case. 4. A communication (dated 3lst May 1957) has now been received from Mevr. W. S. S. van der Feen (van Benthem Jutting) (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) drawing attention to an older name—HELICELLINAE Ihering (H. von), 1909 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 59 : 429)—than HELICELLINAE Hesse, 1925, and expressing the view that this name should therefore be attributed to von Ihering (1909) and not to Hesse (1926). ** Opinion ”’ 450 5. The item in the Ruling given in Opinion 450 which calls for consideration is the entry relating to the name BOMBYCIDAE (correction of BOMBYCIDES) Latreille, [1802—1803] made by Ruling (5)(a) in the foregoing Opinion. As regards this I have to report that the statement that Latreille used the spelling BOMBYCIDES is incorrect, being due to a slip in this Office which I regret. The spelling actually used by Latreille for the Latin version of this name was BOMBYCINAE. It must be noted that despite the termination ‘‘-INAE”’, which under the current Rég/es is that prescribed for a subfamily name, this name was here used by Latreille as the name for what he called a “‘ Famille ’’, a term equivalent in meaning to that of “family ” as used in the Rég/es. In the circumstances the first step to be taken is to correct the entry in Ruling (5)(a) so as to read :—-BOMBYCIDAE (correction of BOMBYCINAE) Latreille, [1802—1803]. 6. Second, it is necessary to consider what consequential adjustment is needed in Ruling (7)(a) in the above Opinion where the name BOMBYCIDES Latreille, [1802—1803], was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as an Invalid Original Spelling for the name BOMBYCIDAEF. That entry, being incorrect, will need to be replaced by an entry placing on the Index the name BOMBYCINAE Latreille, [1802—1803], as an Invalid Original Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE. Such an . entry, unaccompanied by any explanation, might however give rise to misunderstanding in view of the fact that today, though not in Latreille’s time, the termination “ -INAE” is under the Reg/es a term of art denoting a taxon of subfamily rank. Clearly nothing should be done which might have the appearance of suggesting that the name BOMBYCINAE is not available as the name for the nominate subfamily of the family BOMBYCIDAE. The present problem is not a new one, it having arisen in 1955 at the tribe-name level in connection with the name ASTACINI published by Latreille in the same work as the name for a family-group taxon of full family rank, i.e. as the name for the family now known as ASTACIDAE. In this case, which was dealt with in Direction 12 (1955, Ops. Decis. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(C) : 35—56), the Commission (a) placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name ASTACIDAE (correction of ASTACINI) Latreille, [1802— 1803], and (b) placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology the name ASTACINI Latreille, [1802—1803] as an Invalid Original Spelling for ASTACIDAE, adding, however, an endorsement that the name ASTACINI was nevertheless ‘“‘ available as the name for a taxon belonging to any category in the family-group for which the termination ‘-INI’ may be considered appropriate’. The decision so taken by the Commission provides ample guidance as to the course which should be followed in the present case, namely that, when the name BOMBYCINAE Latreille, [1802—1803] is placed on the Official Index the entry so made should be endorsed by the addition of the words ‘‘ but available as the name for the nominate subfamily of the family BomBy- CIDAE ” after the words “ an Invalid Original Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE ”’. Directions now given 7. In the circumstance I now as Secretary hereby direct as follows, namely :— (1) that the name HELICELLINAE Ihering (H. von), 1909, be substituted for the name HELICELLINAE Hesse, 1925, In the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology in the entry thereon made by the Ruling given in Opinion 431 (paragraph 4) ; (2) that in the entry on the foregoing Official List relating to the family name BOMBYCIDAE Latreille, [1802—1803], made by the Ruling given in Opinion 450 the Original Spelling of the above name there incorrectly stated to have been BOMBYCIDES be corrected to BOMBYCINAE (paragraph 5) ; (3) that the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology of the name BOMBYCIDES Latreille, [1802— 1803] made by the Ruling given in the same Opinion be replaced by the following entry : BOMBYCINAE Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE but available as the name for the nominate subfamily of the family BOMBYCIDAE) (paragraph 6). FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 24th June 1957 page 3. page 9. page 65. page 87. page 201. page 238. page 254. page 256. page 258. page 313. page 314. page 316. page 355. page 361. page 377. page 382. page 422. page 431. page 473. Corrigenda Ruling (1)(©), first line : substitute “ 1815” for ““ 1816” Paragraph 10(h), first line : substitute “‘ 1815 ”’ for “ 1816” Paragraph 21, first line: substitute “‘ Nicolet ’’ for “‘ Bourlet ” Ruling (3)(a), second line : substitute ““ Conops ”’ for ‘“ Musca” Ruling (1), line four: transfer “‘ , 1860’ and “‘ (gender : masculine) ” Ruling (4)(b) : this name should be cited as “ a junior primary homonym ”’ and not as “an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling ” Ruling (1)(6) column 1, second line: substitute ““ Linnaeus ” for “‘ Linaeus ” Ruling (2)(f), first line : substitute ““ Linnaeus ”’ for “‘ Linneaus ” Ruling (4)(h), first line : substitute ‘““ homonym ”’ for ““ homonyn ” Appendix 2(1) and (4) : delete “Arach.” Appendix 3, Para. 1(a) : substitute “ [1802—1803] ” for “* [1892—1803] ”’ Item 8, line 2: delete “Arach.” Paragraph 13, line 4: substitute “‘3 (Zool.) (2) :”’ for “ (Zool.) 2 :” Paragraph 3, lines 12 and 13 : “ 33 ce “p39 Paragraph 36, lines 4and5: f substitute May ” for “ April Ruling (4)(c), last line : Insert ““ (Name No. 860) ” at end of line Ruling (4)(c), second line : substitute “‘ Nitzsch *” for “‘ Nitsch * Paragraph 13, last line but one: substitute “‘ Bull. Sci. Soc.” for “‘ Bull. Soc. Sci.” Paragraph 38, line 4: substitute “‘ Bull. Sci. Soc.” for ‘‘ Bull. Soc. Sci.” Volume 15 495 INDEX TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH IN THE PRESENT VOLUME AND OF COMMENTS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS Page Amadon, D. .. an ee VA) American Society of Ich- thyologists and Herpeto- logists, Committee on Zoo- logical Nomenclature of 219—222 Arkell, W. J. 29—34 Auerbach, S. I. Ay: ew) Bailey, R. M. >: Hy 222 Baily, J. L., Jr. .. 239—241, 243—244, 334—335, 344, 401, 403—406, vii Ball, G. E. 367—368 Ball, H. W. 44__46 Bassler, R. S. 167—170 Bellinger, P. F. 62, 78 Berry, S. S. 403—406 Bonet, F. a? ais Peat 2) Boyle, W. W. Ne 367 Bradley, J. C. 35, 131—134, 182, 335, ix—x Page Brazenor, C. W. .. 466 Brown, D. A. 436—438 Bucherl, W. .. mS wis OLA Burch, Ju-On. 407—409 Burl W. Has: = .. 465 Cabrera, A. .. De .. 465 Causey, Nell B. uf .. 364 Cazier, M. A. a 24 300 Chace, Elsie M. 244—245 Chace, E. P. 244—245, 407—409 Christiansen, K. A. .. 61, 77 Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L... 366 Crabill, R. E., Jr. 360—363 Crockford, Joan... .. 451 Curran, C. H. Si .. 366 d’Almeida, R. F. .. Benes) Dell, R. K. 397—399 496 Opinions and Declarations Page Diakonoff, A. 289—290 Dineley, D. L. fs Pan IAT Donovan, D. T. ee AROS) Dorst, J. 463—464 dos Passos, C. F. 290—292 Duncan, Helen 167—170, 447—449 Dwyer, J.D... che en SOIL IDNA, Jal; eo By feucidll Ellerman, Sir J. B, 461 Emerson, W. K. 407—409 Evans, H. E. et LT Eyerdam, W. J. 407—409 Feen, Mevr. W. S. S. van der a ws .. 491 Filho; sO} a 15° 293 Fleming, C. A. 397—399 Flerow, C. C. ka ., 270 Follett, W. I. 219—220 Foote, R. H. 91—98 Page Forbes, W. R. M. 288—289 Foxe Ree: 407—409 Franclemont, J. G. 268—280, 286—287, 296—298, 298—299 Fraser, F. C. Be, ie 462 Frechkop, S. oy .. 464 Fritz, Madeleine A. 171, 450 Gertsch, W. J. fe .. 366 Gibson-Hill, C. A. .. 470—471 Gisin, H. 55—57, 71—73 Goodnight, C. J. 364—365 Goto, HES = 61, 78 Grant, C. H. B. at oe Ag Gregg, W. O. 407—409 Grensted, L. W. 37—38 Gross, W. 47—48 Haltenorth, T. ae i. 464 Hayman, R. W. we .. 462 Volume 15 497 Page Hemming, F. oe 617388, 101—102, 104—109, 111— 115, 129—130, 153—158, 171, 207—208, 214—218, 247— 248, 294—295, 299—300, 302—319, 320—322, 324— 325, 342—343, 353—354, 376, 413—416, 429—430, 440— 441, 479—480, 491—493, 1V—Vi, VHi—x, (v)—(xii1) Heptner, V. G. . 466 Hershkovitz, P. 335—336, . 467—468 Hertlein, L. G. 407—409 Hooijer, D. A. . 465 Broties, F.C. 203—204 Elubbs, C. L. DD Husson, A. M. 468—469 Jaczewski, T. . 388 James, M. T. OO N27 Kanakoff, G. P. 407—409 Keen, Myra .. 407—409 Kempf, W. W. 371—372 Kraus, O. =1368 Page Kuroda, N. af AUST Laing, F. ny ae 59, 74 Laurie, Miss E. M. O. .. 461 iawse ©. Re oe 397—399 Loeblich, A., Jr. 447—449 Martin, J. C. 369—370 Marwick, J. .. 397—399, vil Mason, W.R.M. .. wk SIS Mayr, E. aK a Be alcole Meinertzhagen, R. 228—230 Mertens, R. 350—352, 384—387 Miller, R. R. ae 9) 220 Mills, H. B. .. sf Sy lS Misra, K. S. im -. 403 Mohr, Erna .. Br Soll Moore, R. C. 447—449 Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 194—195, 333, 458—459 Muir-Wood, Helen 241—243 Munroe, BE. ~. ve .. 286 498 Opinions and Declarations Page Murphy, D. H. me col Paclt, J. 265—266, 267—268, 281—284 Peters ae Ke ee 2S Palmén, E. 370—371 Palmer, Katherine V. W. 365—366 Palmer, Miriam A. .. 205—206 Powell, A. W. B. 397—399 Remington, C.L. .. Peas Rindge, F. H. 289, 366 Ripley, S. D. 182—185 Sabrosky, C. W. 91—98, 125, 134—152, 369 Salmon, J. T. 60, 63, 76, 79 Savage, J. M. ae reat Schmidt, W. PENN etieds 48 Serafinski, W. us .. 466 Simpson, G. G. ae .. 465 Smith, Allyn G. Smith, Hobart M. Spicer, V. D. P. Spilman, T. J. Stebbins, R. C. Stone, A. Tate, G. H. H. Toschi, A. Turk, F. A. Turver, H. H. van Bemmel, A. C. V. van den Brink, F. H. Vaurie, C. Vokes, H. E. von Boetticher, H. Wang, Y. M. White, E. L. Wilimovsky, N. J. Page 407—409 221—222, 353, 388 407—409 . 368 228 91—98 332—333 . 466 . 36 407—409 462—463 . 469 178—180 . 4109 . 464 372—373 4446 222 Volume 15 Page Wills. oJ. .. e ey EA, Zammarano, V.T. .. Wirth, W. W. A 91—98 Zimmer, J. T. Yosii, R. - a 62, 78 Zimmermann, K. 499 Page .. 464 423—427 . 466 Volume 15 SUBJECT INDEX Alcyonaria [Renier], [1807] (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index FOr Bae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 816 alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Alauda alpestris (Class Aves), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1128 alternata Lea (1.), 1833, as published in the combination Tuba alternata (Class pentopeds), placed on the Opical List neh Speier Names in Bees Oey, with Name Ooms 2: Alucita Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation, under the same Powers, of Phalaena hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of she eo Ns He i gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1062 ALUCITAEDES Billberg, 1820 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALUCITIDAE), placed on the Official Index of sigh and Invalid BH OLOLD Names in Zoology with Name No. 167 .. ALUCITIDAE (correction of ALUCITIDES) [Leach], [1815] Coe Insecta, CxE: Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers ae placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Focesy with Name No. 141, with Alucita Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus : ALucitipEs [Leach], [1815] (an Invalid Original Spelling for ALUCITIDAE), placed on the Official Index of pee 4 and Invalid es ieee Names in BegET with Name No. 166 ALuCITINA Zeller, 1841 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALUCITIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Rogced and Invalid fame Group Names in HeeBe with Name No. 169 Le ALUCITITES Newman (E.), 1835 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALUCITIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ROE and Invalid fie Be Group Names in eecaeey, with Name No. 168 oe antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus (Class Mammalia), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy me ard placed on the Official Index a legiee and Invalid SUS Names in he with Name No. 380 501 Page 227 262 254 259 262 262 262 331 331 502 Opinions and Declarations Page ANUROPHORINAE Borner, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 127, with Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842], as type genus ee ee 54 Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), all previous type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Ores laricis Nicolet, [1842], designated to be the type species of Ae ; Sa se au 53 gender of name 53 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1044 53 Archaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855 (Class Ostracodermi), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy a Sib ; ; he eS ig ore 43 placed on the Official Index of te and Invalid Generic Names in ge with Name No. 831 .. 43 armata (Barrande MS.) Owen (R.), 1859, as published in the combination Tubina armata (Class Gastropoda), pee on the eee List i Spee Names in Zoology with Name No. 1112 5 armillatus [Renier], [1807], as used in the combination Rodens armillatus (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 369 4 atlas Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Aftacus Linnaeus, 1767 255 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1138 257 ATTACIDAE Burmeister, 1878 (Class Insecta, Order Make. validation of, under the Plenary Powers 255 placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Fae with Name No. 142, with Attacus Linnaeus, 1767, as type genus 259 Attacus as from Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation, under the same Powers, of Phalaena atlas Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of aN ae a sey 2D gender of name 256 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1063 256 australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis australis (Class Mammalia), placed on the Babes List ee epee Names in peta” with Name No. 1140 .. 341 Bartram (W.), 1791—1792, Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws, first edition (Philadelphia, 1791), 2nd edition (London, 1792), 3rd edition (Dublin, 1792), rejection of, for nomenclatorial purposes a .. 213—214 placed on the Official Index of sgenied and Invalid Works in »Zooloical Nomen- clature with Title Nos. 52 to 54 j 213—214 Volume 15 503 Page bei Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei (Class Aves), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 227 placed on the Official Index oF mee and Invalid ees Names in ey with Name No. 375 .. 227 Bibio Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation, under the same Powers, of me hortulana Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of 7. ie ’ 86 gender of name a : Bie Bie 86 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1050 .. 86 Bibio Fabricius, 1775 (a junior homonym of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762), placed on the Official Index eh poeced and Invalid Generic Names in Beales with Name No. 841 88 BIBIONIDAE (correction of BIBIONITES) Newman, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in eee with Name No. 129, with Bibio Geoffroy, 1762, as type genus 89 BIBIONITES Newman, 1834 (an Invalid Original Spelling for BIBIONIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Reed and Invalid SE Names in ideas with Name No. 113... 89 Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura), validation of, under the Plenary Powers and designation, under the same Powers, of Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761, to be the type species of a% j 349 gender of name ; ‘&é 349 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1064 349 bombina Linnaeus, 1761, Rana (Class Amphibia, Order Anura), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Bombina Oken, 1816 .. 349 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1141 349 BOMBYCES Horsfield & Moore, [1838—1839] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE), placed on the Official Index oh Related and Invalid d Farge Names in Zoology with Name No. 132. 260 BOMBYCIDAE (correction of BOMBYCINAE) Latreille, [1802—1803] ease Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers bie ; : 254, 493 placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in gine with Name No. 135, with Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus 258 BOMBYCIDES Latreille, [1802—1803], an incorrect version of BOMBYCINAE (q.v.) 259, 493 BOMBYCINAE Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for BoMBYCIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ate and Invalid cae Cae Names in Zoology with Name No. 128 .. BOMBYCITES Latreille, 1809 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ieee and Invalid silt Boe Names in page: with Name No. 129 .. 493 259 504 Opinions and Declarations BOMBYCODEA Burmeister, 1837 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Aaa and Invalid nego Names in Zoology with Name No. 131 Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation under those Powers, of Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of . : a af sa ae gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1056 BOMBYXIA Rafinesque, 1815 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for BOMBYCIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Reged ¢ and Invalid familys Cree Names in me” with Name No. 130 on Bourletia Macgillivray, 1893 (a junior objective synonym of Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842]), placed on the Official Index a Reece and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 832 .. BOURLETIINI Borner, 1932 (Gnvalid because the name of the type genus is a junior objective synonym of Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842]), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 109 Ac brandti Dresser, 1874, as published in the combination Otocorys brandti (Class Aves), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1129 Calandra Bartram, 1791 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index ak Boece and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 849 calcitrans Linnaeus, 1758, Conops (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1118 californiana (Koch MS.) Kuster, [1844], Terebratula cae Ber aeceP aa of, as the type species of Laqueus Dall (W.H.), 1870 . we placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1130 californiana Troschel, 1849, as published in the combination Terebratula californiana (a junior primary homonym of californiana (Koch MS.) Kuster, [1844], as published in the combination Terebratula californiana), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 377 californica (misattributed to Kiister) Sowerby (G.B.), 1846, as published in the com- bination Terebratula californica (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], as published in the combination Terebratula cali- forniana), placed on the Official Index aon ROBE. and Invalid Specs Names in Zoology with Name No. 376 Page 260 254 255 255 259 54 54 Dil 214 85 87 23m 237 238 238 Volume 15 californica (Koch MS.) Carpenter, 1864, as published in the combination Tere- bratula californica (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.) Kuster, [1844], as published in the combination Terebratula californiana), placed on the ‘Official Index eae Bee and Invalid eacilic Names in p Zoey with Name INo: 378 .. californica (Koch [MS.]) Dall, (W.H.), 1870, as published in the combination Terebratula californica (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.) Kuster, [1844], as published in the combination Terebratula californiana), placed on the Official Index of Reece and Invalid 1 PRC Names in VAeOey with Name No. 379 Bla Cebus Eberhard (J.P.), 1768 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index eh Raleeed a and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 848 : Cervulus Blainville, 1816 (a junior objective synonym of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815), placed on the Official Index or Rgcisa and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 867 3 chamaeleon Linnaeus, 1758, Musca (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 .. placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1124 ciliata Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Eschara ciliata (Class Ecto- procta), placed on the Ona List a Bpecine Names in Bonney with Name No. 1149 . i Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 (Class Aves), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1069, with Hirundo esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, as type species , é gender of name Costa (O.G.), Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Lepidotteri, method to be followed in citing, and dates to be attributed to portions of : title of, placed on the Official List of Works geUre ee as Ayailable efor aa dake Nomenclature with Title No. 27 eK ‘Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843 (Class Pisces), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1075, with Seriola iaeenaci Lowe ote ey 1843, as type species gender of name Cystia [Renier], [1807] (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index eh eae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 817 : Declarations containing interpretations of provisions in the Régles, see Régles Inter- nationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique 505 Page 238 238 193 458 123 123 435 421 421 lil—iv 1V 477 506 Opinions and Declarations Page Degeeria Nicolet, 1841 (a nomen nudum), placed on the ce Index on Roe and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 833. 69 Degeeria Nicolet, [1842] (a junior homonym of Degeeria Meigen, 1838), placed on the Official Index at, sae and Invalid Generic Names in ea ee with Name No. 834 .. 69 DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873 (invalid because the name of the type genus is invalid, being a junior homonym of Degeeria Meigen, 1838), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 110 ane 70 DEGEERUDAE Tullberg, 1876 (corrected form of invalid name DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873), placed on the Official Index oy BE IERICA and Invalid ema! Names in Zoology with Name No. 111. 70 dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo (Class Mammalia), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1139 .. 331 Discoides [Renier], [1804] (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index sh Ren and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 814 .. 3 divisa [Renier], [1807], as used in the combination Tuba divisa (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index ee Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 370.. Pat : 4 dumerili Risso (A.), 1810, as published in the combination Caranx dumerili (Class Pisces), pee on the Official List of he Names in Bak with Name No. 1154 ele ATE, dunensis Roemer, 1855, as published in the combination Palaeoteuthis dunensis (Class Ostracodermi), placed on the ae List oh pial Names in coe with Name No. 1115... 43 Eberhard (J.P.), 1768, Versuch eines neuen Entwur my der Prieta! eco” of, for nomenclatorial purposes .. 193 title of, placed on the Official Index a Bere and Invalid Works in mie Nomenclature with Title No. 51 es 193 Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Collembota), validation of, under the Plenary Powers ye ae a ae ns 4 ee Be wt 69 gender of name .. as Ae yt ai, are ee a ae ue 69 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1045, with Degeeria muscorum Nicolet, [1842], as type species .. : 69 ENTOMOBRYIDAE Schaffer, 1896 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology \ with Name No. 128, with Entomobrya Rondani, 1861, astype genus .. 3 ne “ve 70 Volume 15 Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836 (Class Ectoprocta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1071, with Eschara MATTE Moll, 1803, as type species , : esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hirundo esculenta (Class Aves), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1146 farinalis Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758. . placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1135 Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831 (Class Bryozoa), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index oy ead and Invalid Generic Names in Penh with Name No. 866 .. Fistulipora MCCoy, 1849 (Class Bryozoa), validation of, under the Plenary Powers gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1073, with Fistulipora minor MCCoy, 1849, as type species FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 1882 (Class Bryozoa), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 148, with Repos Meera 1849, as type genus forficata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scolopendra forficata (Class Chilopoda), placed on the = sOaeiat List aor epeeie Names in peace with Name No. 1143 .. : frustulosa d Orbigny, October 1849, as published in the combination Monticulipora frustulosa (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for pustulosa Michelin, 1846, as published in the combination Ceriopora pustulosa), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 372 Geometra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation, under the same Powers, of Phalaena papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of. . a ar a; gender of name une a) Ae ve ae tt Be} a? placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1058 Geometra Paetel, 1875 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Geomitra Swainson, 1840, and a junior homonym of Geometra Linnaeus, 1758), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 851 GEOMETRIDA [Leach], [1815] (an Invalid Original Spelling for GEOMETRIDAE), placed on the Official Index a ier s and Invalid at arnt Site Names in Goole with Name No. 144 ; 507 Page 435 422 254 257 445 446 445 445 445 446 359 166 254 255 255 251 260 508 Opinions and Declarations GEOMETRIDAE (correction of GEOMETRIDA) [Leach], [1815] Ca Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers : ; ny placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zone, with Name No. 137, with Geometra Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus GEOMETRITES Newman (E.), 1835 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for GEo- METRIDAE), placed on the Official Index of aoe and Invalid we Oe Names in Zoology with Name No. 145 gracilis Lowe (R.T.) 1843, as published in the combination Seriola gracilis, placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1153 Ae hachisukae Ripley, 1952, as published in the combination Erithacus hachisukae (a junior objective synonym of obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 374 i a Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842 (a junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray (J. E.), 1831), placed on the Official Index ah Belo and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 859 .. HATTERIDAE Cope, 1864 (Class Reptilia), 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 Rejected and Invalid Toger: ined Names in Zoology with Name No. 183 Pee HELICELLINAE Ihering (H. von), 1909 (type genus : Helicella Férussac, 1821), sub- stitution of, on Official List of pee a Names in Zoology fer HELICELLINAE Hesse, 1925 (Opinion 431) F He as He A HELICELLINAE Hesse, 1925 (type genus : Helicella Férussac, 1821), removal of, from the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, on which it was placed in Opinion 431, and replacement thereon by HELICELLINAE Ihering (H. von), 1909 Hemiprocne, emendation to, of Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 (Class Aves), validation of, under the Plenary Powers and designation, under those Powers, of Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, to be the type species of ve a BS gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1068 Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833 (ajunior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829), placed on the alge Index or aS a and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 862 . ae : Pic wd Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838 (a junior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemi- procnes) Nitzsch, 1829), placed on the Official Index af ae ae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 863 i Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840 (a junior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemi- procnes) Nitzsch, 1829), placed on the oe Index on poe and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 864.. Page 254 258 260 ATT 178 382 381 383 493 493 421 421 421 422 422 422 Volume 15 Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 (Class Ayes), validation, under the oy Honey Foween of emendation to Hemiprocne placed on the Official Index on gicoee and Invalid Generic Names in ee with Name No. 861 .. HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906 (Class Aves), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 146, with Hts ocne a of Hemi- procnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as type genus : : pa hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designa- tion of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of A/ucita Linnaeus, 1758 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1137 HIRTAEIDES Billberg, 1820 (an Invalid Original Spelling for HIRTEIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ae and Invalid oe coe Names in baa with Name No. 118 . Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 (Ciass Insecta, Order Diptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1051, with Hirtea longicornis Scopoli, 1763, as type species ve at af a Bi ~ a an gender of name Hirtea Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 840 HIRTEIDAE (correction of HIRTAEIDES) Billberg, 1820 (invalid because the name of the type genus is a junior homonym of Hirtea Scopoli, 1763), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 119 hortulana Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tipula hortulana (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762.. : ee ome hs ch ha : placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1122 humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), placed on the poe List ie Te Names in Gees with Name No. 1127 . lalandeanus @’ Orbigny, 1848, as published in the combination Ammonites lalandeanus (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), pisces on the ORR List oh iSDECIE Names in Zoology with Name No. 1113 of Lalandeites Breistroffer, 1947 (a junior objective synonym of Pachyceras Bayle, 1878), placed on the Official Index ih Relea and Invalid Generic Names in Homes with Name No. 827 a : Laqueus Dall (W.H.), 1870 (Class Brachiopoda), ruled not to be based on a mis- identified type species and peaches of ea cnmane ee MS. x Kister, gia Terebratula, to be the type species of . gender of name 3/3 a Bf 56 ; ; F placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1055 509 Page 421 422 423 254 Zi 90 86 86 88 90 86 87 201 27 28 237 237 237 1510 Opinions and Declarations laricis Nicolet, [1842], as published in the combination Anurophorus laricis (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] : ao ne Be ae placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1116 LITHOBIDAE Newport, 1844 (Class Chilopoda), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Losey with Name No. 144, with Lithobius aay : a as type genus Lithobius [Leach], [1814] (Class Chilopoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1066, with Dameias a fohener Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name longicornis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Hirtea longicornis (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), ge on the anes List oF Bee Names in Ree with Name No. 1123. longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, Hirundo (Class Aves), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the es SBE SIS of BOR PIOEne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829 : a i ; Pa a placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Seine No. 1145 Macropteryx Swainson, [1831] (a junior objective synonym of Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829), placed on the Official Index a Baeeice and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 865 : Ae é aig a mammulata d’Orbigny, [January 1850], Monticulipora (Class Bryozoa), designation of, under the Plenary Oe to be the ee Spo of Onn CUnE ie ec October 1849 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1125 Martyn (T.), 1784, The Universal Coe’ elec of, for nomenclatorial purposes : ca en an ‘ ue By RS ee rejection of counter-proposal for validation of names in title of, placed on the Official Index of cea a and Invalid Works in eee Nomenclature with Title No. 55 Su Microporella Hincks, 1877 (Class Ectoprocta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Name No. 1072, with Eschara ciliata Pallas, 1766, as type species gender of name MICROPORELLIDAE Hincks, 1880 (Class Ectoprocta), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in fone: with Name No. 147, with nue ai 1877, as type genus Page 53 53 360 359 359 87 421 422 422 165 165 395 395 395 435 435 436 Volume 15 minor MCCoy, 1849, as published in the combination Fistulipora minor (Class Bryozoa), peace on the ee List io noeeine Names in Dieta. with Name No. 1150 .. : Monticulipora d’Orbigny, October 1849 (Class Bryozoa), all previous type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, [January 1850], designated to be the type species of iy , td ie gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1053 Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934 (a junior objective synonym of Monticulipora @Orbigny, October 1849), placed on the Official Index BE ee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 847 : MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson, 1881 (Class Bryozoa), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 134, with Mepgesee ad Oe October 1849, as type genus ‘ mori Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1131 morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, Scolopendra (Class Chilopoda), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758... ah placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1142 Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Mammalia), validation of, under the Plenary Powers and designation, under those Powers, of Cervus muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, to be the type species of . : Be Be i ss gender of name é Mi ve ale aa Abe ts a placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1074 muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, Cervus (Class Mammalia), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1152 muscorum Nicolet, [1842], as published in the combination Degeeria muscorum (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), placed on the hee List ef cone Names in Zoology with Name No. 1117 4 MYDONIIDAE Salmon, 1945 (invalid because the name of type genus suppressed under the Plenary Powers), placed on the Official Index of satan and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 112 ie : 166 254 256 359 359 457 457 457 457 457 69 70 a12 Opinions and Declarations Mydonius Gistl, 1848 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the pee ‘of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index oh Reece and Invalid Generic Names in Beale with Name No. 835 .. Nemotelus Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation, under the same Powers, of Musca pantherina Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of a 56 ae bc By gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1048 Nemotelus Fourcroy, 1785 (a junior homonym of Nemotelus Geofiroy, 1762), placed on the Official Index at ROCCE and Invalid Generic Names in mores, with Name No. 842 nivea [Renier], [1807], as used in the combination Cystia nivea (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Opie Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 371. = Noctua Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation, under the same Powers, of Phalaena pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of ae ah An we Fe gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1057 Noctua Linnaeus, 1764 (a nomen nudum), placed on the Official ine of base and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 852 .. Noctua Gmelin (S.G.), 1771 (a junior homonym of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758), placed on the Official Index os Ros ane Invalid Generic Names in n Looe with Name No. 853 : NOCTUACEA Burmeister, 1829 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Ges and Invalid fee ae Names in Zoology with Name No. 136 : NOCTUAEIDES Billberg, 1820 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of eee and Invalid mecge AO? Names in Zoology with Name No. 135 .. NOCTUAELITES Latreille, 1809 (an Invalid Original Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Besa and Invalid Earn Gees Names in noe with Name No. 133... NOCTUARIA Gravenhorst, 1843 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of BOcelee. and Invalid Famil oe Names in Zoology with Name No. 140 ; Page 69 69 85 86 86 88 Bi) 257 260 260 260 260 Volume 15 NOCTUARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of eee and Invalid EC Oey Names in Zoology with Name No. 139 .. NOCTUELIDES Duponchel, 1844 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ar di and Invalid BONE Group Names in MONO with Name No. 141 Pa NOCTUELIDI Boisduval, 1829 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of eee and Invalid Gee oe Names in Zoology with Name No. 137 NOCTUELITES Guenée, 1852 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of oes and Invalid eMail Wis Names in Zoology with Name No. 142 .. NOCTUES Swinhoe, 1890 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of fed and Invalid is canoe Names in anes with Name No. 143 ae : NOCTUIDA [Leach], [1815] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ead and Invalid Oe Names in ae. with Name No. 134 .. NOCTUIDAE (correction of NOCTUAELITES) Latreille, 1809 ee Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ey with Name No. 136, with Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus. NOCTUITES Newman (E.), 1835 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for NOCTUIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Res and Invalid fei Cane Names in Zoology with Name No. 138 : notata Linnaeus, 1758, Tipula (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762 .. : a placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1121 nutans [Renier], [1804], as used in the combination Discoides nutans (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 367 ‘ ae obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura (Class Aves), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy os Ne ats as placed on the Official Index oF ee and Invalid REG Names in ue with Name No. 373 .. obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora obscura (Class Aves), validation of, under the Plenary Powers Be em placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1126 513 Page 260. 266 260 260 260 260 254 258 260 177 177 177 177 514 Opinions and Declarations Page Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, names placed on: ALUCITAEDES Billberg, 1820 af es 3 of ae Me Ae Ne Ve2GD ALUCITIDES [Leach], [1815] Pie ae Bt ae Pee Ae an acy, pe ALUCITINA Zeller, 1841 .. 3 is as iy AR ae aa! Be 262 ALucitites Newman (E.), 1835 a a ie ay a Be Lio jee BIBIONITES Newman, 1834 rd wt oe os Be 89 BOMBYCES Horsfield & Moore, [18381839] . ne ds ae ae >, | 2260 BOMBYCINAE Latreille, [1802—1803] ae : ie a ty De ~. | 493 BOMBYCITES Latreille, 1809 Bib i) ee a 3% ay Ae seUZ53 BOMBYCODEA Burmeister, 1837 a nee a ou a x jn 260 BOMBYXIA Rafinesque, 1815 oe ie me A ee ne Pe se LDS, BOURLETIINI Borner, 1932 as a a Bs Bt fe hs a 54 DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873 .. “hs aA ae a ive Ae Fr: 70 DEGEERIDAE Tullberg, 1876 at He ie: ae Bae oh ae Ae, 70 GEOMETRIDA [Leach], [1815] .. os ie Ae Bs ae Lee oo 260 GEOMETRITES Newman (E.), 1835 Ale ae ae a is es ~ = 260 HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864.. ae Ss a ie Ea ofr fe yon 13838 HIRTAEIDES Billberg, 1820 ae ang Pye ie Ae 90 HIRTEIDAE (correction of HIRTAEIDES) Billberg, 1820 .. ate a ae Be 90 MYDONIIDAE Salmon, 1945 a ae zt oe Ae ae ae 70 NOCUTACEA Burmeister, 1829 .. a aks By a ee BG wah peOO NOCTUAEIDES Billberg, 1820 He es Hid ae ae a ae se, 260 NOCTUAELITES Latreille, 1809 .. a me ee 9 oe pi ee 71050) NOCTUARIA Gravenhorst, 1843. Sue av a ae at ae .. 260 NOCTUARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840 .. ays Be ie ne ae ee ct e200 NOCTUELIDES Duponchel, 1844 .. ne ns ks ee i od .. 260 NOCTUELIDI Boisduval, 1829 .. SB ny: we a Pee oh A260 NOCTUELITES Guenée, 1852 NB Ay Ae on oe a oe se 2260 NOCTUES Swinhoe, 1890 .. Ns ie nA ih ae oe Me fc. 260 NOCTUIDA [Leach], [1815] sic a A ae ws a ye 2. 260 NOCTUITES Newman (E.), 1835 . 260 ORNEODIDAE (correction by Meyrick (1895) of ORNEODIDES) Herrich-Schaeffer, Bes [1843] .. f ne sie So ibe ORNEODIDES Herrich- Schaeffer, 11843]... 55 ae Ae oe oi eg Zos PHALAENAEDES Billberg, 1820 .. pat bee ih ie nes aa ac) eo? PHALAENARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840 at ae 4 a es Bt Bo, 2408) PHALAENIDA [Leach], [1815] ides a Se! GD PHALAENIDAE (correction of PHALAENITES) Latreille, [1802—1803] . ke Fa | AAS PHALAENIDES [Leach], [1815] .. ue a oe oe = 262 PHALAENITES Latreille, [1802—1803] .. Me me hs ot x /422")'262 PHALAENODEA Burmeister, 1837 ae ue Ay ae ae ah: 2.) 263 PHALAENOIDEA Gravenhorst, 1843 ats ae B8 a a ae oh eae GS PHALAENOIDES Burmeister, 1829 ns i oe ae Es a a 263 PHALENIDIA Rafinesque, 1815 .. He ae ag te ae MS Be Ac? PYRALES Swinhoe, 1890 Ace ais Aus ie me Bs Fai ae 261 PYRALIDA [Leach], [1815] Ef see Bes A We he a i 261 PYRALIDES Billberg, 1820 be Ld a a he oe ae . 261 PYRALIDIDAE Lederer, 1863 a Me a8 hie ie MS i se 26 PYRALIDIDES Zetterstedt, 1840 .. ae on sy! a 53 o< 20 PYRALIDOIDAE Herrich- Schaeffer, 1856.. a: oP Be xe Re Bie 51 PYRALITES Latreille, 1809 bit bys ae Hid Bi 5 ae on 261 PYRALOIDI Gueneée, 1845 : a ae Ns cee Pe ui 261 RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, “1881. a ns PE 3% a is 383 SCATOPSITES Newman, 1834 ee ee ae ee ae he 89 STATIOMYDAE [sic] Latreille, [1802—1803] ne aes A Be ae Be a! STOMOXIDAE Meigen, 1824 Ae Ag ASS os i Ae bie 89 STOMOXYDINAE Bezzi, 1894 Fi Me Ae ae as x Hs Ae 89 STRATIOMIDAE Westwood, 1840 ap he, Ae aes A st BK 124 STRATIOMYADAE Harris, 1841 .. Bie a8 he ie ane Rites ictus. {1274 Volume 15 By ie) Page Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, names placed on: (contd.) STRATIOMYDAE Latreille, 1803 .. ar = oF at aig a4 ay 124 STRATIOMYDES [Leach], [1815] .. ia Ae Be an ur 05 oe 124 STRATIOMYDIDES Billberg, 1820 . a ot kr 124 STRATIOMYIIDAE Comstock (J.H. ) & Comstock (A.B. ) 1893 ie = i 124 STRATIOMYTES Blanchard (E.C.), 1845 . ; : S: Ae ae 124 TINAEIDAE Corbet (A.S.) & Tams ole ela Da 1943. P Bi ae oe eS TINEACEA Zeller, 1839 .. oe ee Bc oe sano TINEAE Guenée, 1845 sys es a Se ae oe * ae cna eZOn TINEAEDES Billberg, 1820 38 si a a $2 at 3 Bon | eA oil TINEARIA Gravenhorst, 1843 .. oe an Be ah ne As ieee OZ TINEARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840 Be Sa oe am Aa 4: aN i 262 TINEIDA [Leach], [1815] i, Ne 58 a i ee ae Ay 261 TINEITES Latreille, 1810 .. at xt ae se AF Et; De sol TINEODEA Burmeister, 1837 oe on ae pi nS we Sie 261 TORTRICES Latreille, [1802—1803] Ba ae ak ae a a oe 260 TORTRICIDA [Leachl, [1815] ee es a ae ah me My: ih 261 TORTRICIDES Billberg, 1820 ae ao ie ae Si Sh As Be AOI TORTRICITES Newman (E.), 1835 big ay Be 7 ay Lg 45 ASI VOLUCELLITES Newman, 1834 .. Se ag 4 ffs a ts a, 90 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, names removed from : BOMBYCIDES Latreille, [1802—1803] .. ok va ae Ph ae we 498 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on : Alcyonaria [Renier], [1807] ube he Ah oe A 33 2s ave 3 Archaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855 .. me Bes aks Be ae ot by 43 Bibio Fabricius, 1775 .. she Ne es gh - Ne oe si 88 Bourletia Macgillivray, 1893 .. ae ve a ae a 4 is 54 Calandra Bartram, 1791 BG e LE a: ie 43 er ven: Cebus Eberhard (J.), 1768 kes 5 oe a on hs a by 193 Cervulus Blainville, 1816. . is a 4 a of: be an se he 49 6 Cystia [Renier], [1807] .. ae ve oF 56 aM Ye ais aA 3 Degeeria Nicolet, 1841 Ls ae a5 a 4 a an sts 69 Degeeria Nicolet, [1842]. . a ae La ah ae af ic 2% 69 Discoides {Renier], [1804] ne cA Bee ie Se We ie be 3 Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831 .. a a om $Y at an .. 446 Geometra Paetel, 1875 .. SiG vA Be als a Phe me Ao) ail Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842 Ws oe aS Y sn a ak Won okey Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833 2% A a: att ‘ss os Me wor) 422 Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838 Me — See Be ae A BG se 422 Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840 Ke So at We Re 36 Me * 422 Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 aS ae a x: ae ne a sa) e422 Hirtea Fabricius, 1798 .. ae me te a PS a3 ae We 88 Lalandeites Breistroffer, 1947 .. ai eae ans Ke ave a ath 28 Macropteryx Swainson, [1831] .. Bs a a Re ie eis We Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934 .. at of 30 We ave a}: sr Mydonius Gistl, 1848 .. on He BY, 3 Xe Ae 53 ak 69 Nemotelus Fourcroy, 1785 ? Eg a as ae $y wd ad Noctua Linnaeus, 1764 .. - hy. es ae ih 4 ce Sere 257. Noctua Gmelin (S.G.), 1771 .. oe ae a8 a8 oh ee s Agyh 2Oe Orneodes Latreille, 1796.. Ba ae te ate ie ays a Bee tals Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844 .. Be it 4 his . oe my 28 516 Opinions and Declarations Page Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on (contd.) : Palaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855 ae ie ve or 58 Et Es 513 43 Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 ae eh ae ae £3 ie 4 eee 65) Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845 .. a5 aie ne bs zat ae SA mS SZ Rodens |Renier], [1807] .. ie a3 ee Ae eS Bis fe =e 3 Scathops Meigen, 1803 .. =e ie Ae ae en a ae ae 88 Scathopse Geoffroy, 1762 ris Ee Le Me a bs Je Fr 87 Scathopsus Latreille, 1796 cb a ie ele ae aS at oe 88 Scatops Meigen, 1804 .. ne oe ee aN a6 we a3 es 88 Scolixedion |Renier], [1804] ey Bi ae ae ae Bt ae s 3 Seriola Topsent, 1892 .. ae, ee ae aie me “5 A ob aS Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 .. ae ais bas Be ae 2 ie TAB OZ Stomoxys Fabricius, 1775 Be ae ee es a ae en =. 88 Stratiomyia Macquart, 1838 .. Be nA ee cA ie 8 123—124 Tinaea Geoffroy (E.L.), 1762 .. Ae ae ats oe at Be as 4258 Tinea Griffith, 1897 ae ae - oe ae ie ae ss Pay e258 Tortrix Oppel, 1811 he ae a a a Be ee a sa ae258 Tricelia [Renier], [1807] oe He as x a; S 6 ts a2 3 Tuba [Renier], [1807] es ae A ee a ae : aA 3 Tuba Oken, 1815 3 Tuba Fabricius, (O.), 1823 4 Tuba Barrande, 1848 ee a ae St we a Re Be FS 4 Tuba Quenstedt (F.A.), 1851 .. be Be ae at BS ue 4 Tuba Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1864.. Ea s ate A'S AS 4 Voluccella Fabricius, 1794 bs Ha ae ae ene ae a a 88 Volucella Bechstein, 1800 ; ae ae Bt Be ae 88 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on : antarticus Kerr, 1792, Canis .. ee ae aS A id A de 331 armillatus [Renier], [1807], Rodens .. ae ax a ae ee fe 4 bei Ridgway, 1874, Eremophila alpestris var. . . Zs aie as BY Be eA) californiana Troschel, 1849, Terebratula Re Bare 28hs) californica (misattrib. to Kiister) Sowerby (G B. ), 1846, Terebratula ie Sth 1 2S californica (Koch MS.) Carpenter, 1864, Terebratula a + Be) ahs californica (Koch [MS.]) Dall (W.H.), 1870, Terebratula .. ie ag so e238 divisa [Renier], [1807}, Tuba .. os 56 EN =the ae 4 frustulosa @’Orbigny, October 1849, Montieulipora ie as a i ae 166 hachisukae Ripley, 1952, Erithacus oe os A 3 oe ae 178 nivea [Renier], [1807], Cystia ae ae Ae Py on oe ire ee 5 nutans [Renier], [1804], Discoides ao ae ay a3 “he ue ze 4 obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, Cyanecula abs Me a ne ie eet ell 7-7 penulatum |Renier], [1804], Scolixedion Ae ae ae ae Li te 4 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, titles of works placed on : Bartram (W.), 1791—1792, Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Some and the COED oh the Chactaws, first edition (Philadelphia, 1791) . : 213 2nd edition (London, 1792) . oe a Ae xe 5% ate pee alla! 3rd edition (Dublin, 1792) .. a sa Oe Eberhard (J.P.), 1768, Versuch eines neuen Entwur ES der Thiergeschichte es ne 193 Martyn (T.), 1784, 7) he Universal Conchologist At Pe he 395 Volume 15 517 ' Page Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, names placed on : ALUCITIDAE (correction of ates iene [1815] ake ie 2 os 259 ANUROPHORINAE Borner, 1901 .. Les a aa av ae se 54 ATTACIDAE Burmeister, 1878 a ih se Be ail Ss BIBIONIDAE (correction of BIBIONITES) Newman, 1834 Pr. Ay. Hn 89 BOMBYCIDAE (correction of Seige a Latreille, [1802—1803] ay M SATE ENTOMOBRYIDAE Schaffer, 1896 . ae val Hi on - Me ah 70 FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 188200 As oe ws: .. 446 GEOMETRIDAE (correction of GEOMETRIDA) (Leach) 1815] BS ts we ae PLS HELICELLINAE Ihering (H. von), 1909 es as a Bc 493 HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906 e Hi - et ae ee no 423 LITHOBIIDAE Newport, 1844 ate ts De ae ae a a pe 60) MICROPORELLIDAE Hincks, 1880 a Bs su Me a a .. 436 MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson, 1881 . be oA ie ae 166 NOCTUIDAE (correction of NOCTUAELITES) Latreille, 1309 ye ie Abe ek PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1918 : as oe es As 28 PYRALIDAE (correction of PYRALITES) Latreille, ‘1809 3 ae fe 56 | 2Dy SCATOPSIDAE (correction of SCATOPSITES) Newman, 1834... ar oe we 89 SCOLOPENDRIDAE [Leach], [1814] ae gs is ae Pe ms Ay 360 SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 .. ak te es Be 382 STOMOXYIDAE (correction of STOMOXIDAE) Meigen, 1824 ae Ne 89 STRATIOMYIDAE (correction of STATIOMYDAE [sic] Latreille, [1802—1803] Me i 124 TINEIDAE (correction of TINEITES) Latreille, 1810 : ie ae bine PSE, TORTRICIDAE (correction of TORTRICES) Latreille, [1802—1803] at » nif 259 VOLUCELLIDAE (correction of VOLUCELLITES) Newman, 1834 Pit So ays 89 Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, names removed from : HELICELLINAE Hesse, 1925 Fd ax ae a0 5 aa ae aos Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on : Alucita Linnaeus, 1758 .. oe as ao e Be a6 m ta § 256 Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] .. a sie “se an aa Be Ad 53 Attacus as from Linnaeus, 1767 a nd mm a m3 ae Rey 256 Bibio Geoffroy, 1762 .. ae a ae 5x ae ae me 86 Bombina Oken, 1816 .... ae A ae a ty ae a oe 349 Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758 Be ou a ee ae oh 5 a 255 Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 .. as es uf ae ie as se Ta Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843... ae a Fe ce a an ve ET Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 : as yd ue sat aa ats ae 69 Escharina Milne Edwards eo 1836 .. Xe an Pee ae ae cae MASS Fistulipora McCoy, 1849 . she as A 3) oH Ee we S445 Geometra Linnaeus, 1758 ee ds aif =e PSS Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829.. Sas m3 Be Bh jlbee (2A Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 he au a Se ie ee ae oY: ne 86 Laqueus Dall (W.H.), 1870 ans ue Ht: ah se ot He Benin eeoNE Lithobius [Leach], [1814] A ao ee as Ede oe Bi We 359 Microporella Hincks, 1877 as 6 A vs ee 435 Monticulipora d’Orbigny, October 1849 aA Me ae ws a Se 165 Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815... F 3 va ae ae a wae 4ST Nemotelus Geoffroy, 1762 a 5 Ae A we is - bi 86 Noctua Linnaeus, 1758 .. Sie ne es oe ath x ae Pad ASS: Pachyceras Bayle, 1878 .. nit oe Sit nia ft 50 He Dil Phorodon Passerini, 1860 He we a a ahs bic beter A)! Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758 se ue a us a ig fe bey dee: Rhinopteraspis Jaekel, 1919 oe an ah 3h A = bie ane 43 Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848 .. a ae ¥: 3 a nile An Di, Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762.. ti a e Aes ve oe a ~ 86 518 Opinions and Declarations Page Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on: (contd.) Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 .. an he ae ne 38 sy, CSB 5a Seriola Cuvier (G.L. CG. F.D.), [1816] . ae a ae pee? /7/ Sphenodon (emend. of pe haere) Gray (J. E. ) 1831 Ae ae 36 sv 38d Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 ae He sh ea 86 Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 na ae aM Ai Ne ie Ke 123 Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 os te be the oy aa po) 42g Tinea Linnaeus, 1758 .... de a ay a 3 ie at ot 2256 Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758 .. ae ae ae a ae a Fe oN 255 Tuba Lea (1.), 1833 F ath nA as i 4 x 5 Tubina (Barrande M.S.) Owen R Ny 1859 ae a x a as at J Volucella Geoffroy, 1762 si ne i Pe At eK 86 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on : alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, Alauda as es ae me be re «ou ROU alternata Lea (1.), 1833, Tuba ba me ins ae ane Se 5 armata (Barrande MS. ) Owen (R.), 1859, Tubina ne ne ee a ts 5 atlas Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena ae ee a Be prenets 9)5)7/ australis Kerr, 1792, Canls aa ae ne a Se is es sf 341 bombina Linnaeus, 1761, Rana .. be, ay ae ae oe ae - 349 brandti Dresser, 1874, Otocorys Le Bea a rs ae ae disaguaZZd calcitrans Linnaeus, 1758, Conops : : ay Ne ye Bs 87 californiana (Koch MS. ) Kiister, [1844], Terebratula Pie Be ats A 2857) chamaeleon Linnaeus, 1758, Musca. ; : ae Be Be ee 123 ciliata Pallas, 1766, Eschara ae we non aC ee ot ae 2.94385 dingo Meyer, 1793, Canis ; Bet Ae a ae oe: ae a 331 dumerili Risso (A. y, 1810, Caranx a A ae Ae nae Bh Pei: '7/7/ dunensis Roemer, 1855, Palaeoteuthis aes 26 As ae sa oe a 43 esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, Hirundo 55 we oe a ne aN aa. ee farinalis Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena Md Oh As we * aus ee? )5)// forficata Linnaeus, 1758, Scolopendra .. ahs 5 i bi Fa S59 gracilis Lowe (R.T.), 1843, Sériola .. Be Me AA fis i a ee, hexadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena x oh Bi ae of Pt 64945) hortulana Linnaeus, 1758, Tipula Ps ee as i ae se Me 87 humuli Schrank, 1801, Aphis ae ag we Bs a a LeneaZoll lalandeanus WV Orbigny, 1848, Ammonites ra bee a te fi ive 2G laricis Nicolet, [1842], Anur ophorus as as A ae By ae aged 53 longicornis Scopoli, 1763, Hirtea ah 5 se es Ps Ses aed 87 longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, Hirundo. . ue is af. ney y422 mammulata d’Orbigny, [January 1850], Monticulipora ey ae ae et 165 minor McCoy, 1849, Fistulipora ey Bi Be ails -. 445 mori Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena .. ae of ae ve 3 ne 2c ¥256 morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, Scolopendra 2; hs cits ie a =e 359 muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, Cervus .. ey: a a a bes Be SY muscorum Nicolet, [1842], Degeeria .. sy ae Bh oe a ts 69 notata Linnaeus, 1758, Tipula ae xe ak =a re 87 obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, Larvivora ae 35 ze MS Ae 177 pantherina Linnaeus, 1758, Musca an a ae bee 3 Pir se 87 papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena Aa ae As a An aciMnZzaG pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena .. as ae ae ae std eo pellucens Linnaeus, 1758, Musca ae ay a a oe $8 a8 87 pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena $3 ngs UE ie we ie pi 256 punctata Gray (J.E.), 1842, Hatteria .. sh So ie 2s ae sco 82 viridana Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena Ne Se Bio ae ay mS a6 vulgaris Moll, 1803, Eschara .. A oie =f ae dts ai A385 xylophagorum Ratzeburg, 1844, Pachyceras ie Po a 3% oe “Ks 28 zonaris Shaw, 1796, Hirundo .. a ae avs ae Be see 422 Volume 15 Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, titles of works placed on : Costa (O.G.), Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Lepidotteri. . Orneodes Latreille, 1796 (a junior objective synonym of Alucita Linnaeus, 1758), placed on the Official Index as ges and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 854 hy ORNEODIDAE (correction by Meyrick (1895) of oRNEODIDES) Herrich-Schaeffer, [1843] (invalid as its type genus has as its type species the same species as Alucita Linnaeus, 1758), placed on the Official Index of Bejcied and Invalid argue oe Names in Zoology with Name No. 181 se ORNEODIDES Herrich-Schaeffer, [1843] (an Invalid Original Spelling for ORNEODIDAE), placed on the Official Index of eee and Invalid tie ioe Names in Z. Zooey with Name No. 182 fe Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy Be : oe ae ie a ae Ap placed on the Official Index a Reo and Invalid Generic Names in ees with Name No. 826 .. Pachyceras Bayle, 1878 (Class euepode: Order ea validation of, under the Plenary Powers gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 1041, with Ammonites lalandeanus d@’Orbigny, 1848, as type species .. PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1918 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zooey with Name No. 125, with Pachyceras Bayle, 1878, as type genus Palaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855 (a junior homonym of Palaeoteuthis d’Orbigny, [1850], placed on the Official Index of ad daa and Invalid Generic Names in GY with Name No. 830 Ae : pantherina Linnaeus, 1758, Musca (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Nemotelus Geoffroy, 1762 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1120 papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), ceste nae of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Geometra Linnaeus, 1758. placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1133 pellionelia Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Tinea Linnaeus, 1758 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1136 519 Page 1V 258 263 263 Pi 28 27 27 27 28 43 85 87 254 256 254 257 520 Opinions and Declarations pellucens Linnaeus, 1758, Musca (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Volucella Geoffroy, 1762 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1119 penulatum [Renier], [1804], as used in the combination Scolixedion penulatum (a name included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 368 Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the Purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy . : vs se oe ee as us ie placed on the Official Index 2 Maa and Invalid Generic Names in Zoey with Name No. 850 : : : PHALAENAEDES Billberg, 1820 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of cia and Invalid es Oe Names in Zoology with Name No. 175. PHALAENARIAE Zetterstedt, 1840 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of A and Invalid hye re Names in Zoology with Name No. 178 .. PHALAENIDA [Leach], [1815] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Pee and Invalid Faruly Sion Names in Zoology with Name No. 173. PHALAENIDAE (correction of PHALAENITES) Latreille, [1802—1803] (invalid because name of type genus suppressed under the Plenary Powers), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 170 PHALAENIDES [Leach], [1815] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ROE eee and Invalid eee? Names in Zoology with Name No. 172 .. PHALAENITES Latreille, [1802—1803] (an Invalid Original Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of pce and Invalid sami Names in Zoology with Name No. 171 . : PHALAENODEA Burmeister, 1837 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Cred and Invalid Fan aes Names in Zoology with Name No. 177 .. PHALAENOIDEA Gravenhorst, 1843 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index a Rejected and Invalid Fare Names in Zoology with Name No. 179 : on ae a PHALAENOIDES Burmeister, 1829 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of cae and Invalid Pani ee Names in Zoology with Name No. 176 .. PHALENIDIA Rafinesque, 1815 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PHALAENIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Reiected and Invalid EY ee Names in Zoology with Name No. 174 £3 Page 263 262 262 262 262 263 263 263 262 Volume 15 Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Name No. 1054, with A iin humuli Schrank, 1801, as type species gender of name pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, Phalaena (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1132 punctata Gray (J.E.), 1842, as published in the combination Hatteria punctata (Class Reptilia), eed on the le oe List of Specific Names in ee with Name No. 1144 PYRALES Swinhoe, 1890 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PYRALIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Ronee and Invalid eg Grane Names in Re with Name No. 157 ae PYRALIDA [Leach], [1815] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PYRALIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Ors and Invalid pF eT SCrOUy Names in LOO with Name No. 151 ae PYRALIDAE (correction of PYRALITES) Latreille, 1809 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers So placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Ais with Name No. 139, with pas Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus : PYRALIDES Billberg, 1820 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PYRALIDAE), placed on the Official Index a Roce and Invalid Se Ore Names in FOO with Name No. 152 ‘ PYRALIDIDAE Lederer, 1863 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PYRALIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Beieriee and Invalid ea Grow Names in Zoology with Name No. 156 5 PYRALIDIDES Zetterstedt, 1840 (an Erronsoue Subsequent Spelling for PYRALIDAE), placed on the Official Index of ae and Invalid Ae Chon Names in Zoology with Name No. 153... PYRALIDOIDAE Herrich-Schaeffer, 1856 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PYRALIDAE), placed on the Official Index of aa and Invalid ee ie Names in Zoology with Name No. 155 : Pe Pyralis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and designation of Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of te ss ifs Ae Be a ie