Der re WPT POT i ht a iad Pet ae We Paras ase abla: y in iy * My 4 hh, a re my at 1 He metal ii ae ny tha i ; ) Te mee eM? | hi’ i) ia) Prat ee lal ‘h is " st Hy any Mi ite “ Ne : . ae f aa : sith i * ii i ae a ie " Lu isngiss 44h a _ Ubi estat 3 shia mie mae He SNe aM aN it sin dies oe Hee aly 3 ' sites ce sit tat ton i ; a he Pn i hy vt ih i tite: 4 Ne , y iN NERA uit ae mach + mgt y ti + vie a nielnn it (gi tub a (ii i } af i)! nyt Wed {' Nes inh i 4 4 (is Mie ae Have Wee oH) i it int Oh Ait tht i as 8 aa ies seh Ne 4 * f Aled a Mt f % Saiststy wy j F “ DP, Teatnd ih bY Pat Feat ip fs i {Gy five « i ante bait iv ith abel at nae ise bi ae Hi sud Hen Me ‘eee ane int us Se ea uty Bt PYEw te i ila, night! iy ¥ cat ban te Sigua i MA Keen) itl ane >. i at . vane at nities W i yat Piers reese ee ‘Agata i] tie SH MARS eR bi Pa Modat ’ Gest id ‘yl ' 1a AMT a) thee ) nigh ey, Ati Met vate: L oe tt Ar He ft i Hye) Hal ie ‘ st or 8s TMM ih ty at ake ae id saith a afi) SHAS Hae ray} by aa 4. a Dente ine heise ts, a eteteatiai v i » i os a hy we iA ues rate vate a s - se f e a nh ; f a 1S BEMMING, cma. OPINIONS. AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 1. SECTION F Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. as 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 1958 (All rights reserved) aera tt | LG\ y\— INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ‘15% ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ‘ \< COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE DIRECTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT SECTION OF VOLUME 1 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 Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSsKI (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-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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, 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. 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) (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) Kae 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) 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. “ Régles”’ Section: Mrs. A. F. Wilson, M.A. Mrs. J. H. Newman Secretariat : Mrs. C. Slater Miss D. Fidler Indexer: Miss Mary Cosh, M.A. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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. FOREWORD Like its predecessors, the present Section comprises a series of Directions containing Rulings on matters arising out of the review of entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 undertaken in accord- ance with a General Directive issued by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948. The appearance of this Section completes the publication of Directions containing Rulings on matters arising out of the foregoing review rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature prior to the publication (on 10th June 1958) of the First Instal- ment of the Official List of Generic Names to appear in book-form. The fact that the present Section is being closed at this point does not mean, however, that the whole of the action called for under the review prescribed by the Paris Congress has now been taken by the International Commission, for, as explained in the Intro- ductory Note to the First Instalment of the Official List (para- graphs 22—24 (: xvii—xix) and Appendix 3 (: xxxi—xxxiii)), further action will in fact require to be taken by the Commission in regard to a number of generic names placed on the List in the period up to the end of 1936, the entries regarding which have been found to be so defective as to call for remedial action by the Commission before those entries could appropriately be published in the forthcoming edition of the Official List. It is for this reason that, in order to permit of the publication of the First Instalment of the Official List in book-form before the opening in July 1958 of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, it was decided by the Commission and the Trust in the summer of 1957 that any entries made on the List in the period up to the end of 1936, in which there had been detected serious defects which could not be remedied by the Commission in the time available should be withdrawn temporarily from the List for further examination and study. The number of names, the entries relating to which were ultimately withdrawn from the forthcoming edition of the Official List under the foregoing decision was twenty-two. The decisions by the Commission in regard to these cases will, when taken, be embodied in Directions but, unlike those embodying decisions relating to other entries VI made on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936, the Directions so to be issued will be published in whatever may at the date in question be the current volume in the Opinions and Declarations Series instead of, as hitherto, being included in a Section of Volume 1. 2. At the time of the close of the immediately preceding Section of the present volume (Section E) the total number of cases in which the International Commission had given Rulings amplifying, correcting, or validating, entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made in the period up to the end of 1936 amounted to ninety-eight. The fourteen cases dealt with in the present Section brings this total up to one hundred and twelve (Opinions, 32 ; Directions, 80). 3. The present Section (Section F of Volume 1) was published in fifteen Parts. It contains 262 pages (T.P.—XIV, 1—248). It is thus substantially smaller than any of its predecessors. As has already been explained, this is attributable to the decision to close this Section with the last of the Directions on matters arising out of the review of the entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 adopted by the Commission prior to the publication of the First Instalment of that List in book-form. 4. Of the fourteen cases dealt wich in the present Section four involved the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers. In three of these cases (Directions 97, 98 and 102), the question at issue was whether the entry already made on the Official List should be validated and legal force thus given to established usage. In addition, in one of these cases the use of the Plenary Powers was asked for, in order to validate a spelling for the specific name of the type species of the genus concerned which—in modern eyes—appeared more correct than the spelling used by the original author. In all of these cases the Commission decided in favour of the use of its Plenary Powers in the sense suggested. The fourth of the cases involving the possible use of the Plenary Powers was an application that those Powers should be used to designate for the names of three genera belonging Vil to the Class Crustacea (Order Decapoda) a gender which, though not technically correct, was nevertheless the gender generally attributed to the names in question by specialists in the group concerned. In this case the application failed to secure the requisite two-thirds majority and the application was accordingly rejected (Direction 103). 5. Six of the remaining cases (Directions 87, 88, 90, 92—94) were concerned with amplifying, correcting or completing entries made on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936 which, though not calling for action under the Plenary Powers nevertheless needed supplementing in various respects in order to bring them up to the standard to be attained before inclusion in the forthcoming edition of the Official List in book-form. Three of the four remaining cases were concerned with the deter- mination of the gender to be attributed to generic names placed on the Official List in the period referred to above. With the appearance of these Directions (Directions 89, 100, 101) the International Commission completed its obligations under the General Directive that it should determine the gender attributable to each generic name so far placed on the Official List (i.e. the first 625 names placed on that List) given to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The last Direction (Direction 99) to be considered contained Rulings placing on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the names of family-group taxa based upon genera, the names of which had already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This Direction which was concerned with the names of family-group taxa belonging to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) constituted the first of the series of Directions which will be needed to give effect to the General Directive relating to the building-up of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology given to it by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. 6. The cases dealt with in the present Section, including those relating to the determination of the gender of generic names, amount to fourteen ; of these, one contains a Ruling relating to the names of taxa belonging to five different Classes of the Animal Vil Kingdom, thus bringing the total number of cases up to eighteen. The distribution by Classes of these cases is shown in the following table :— TABLE 1 Distribution of cases by Classes in the Animal Kingdom Number of Name of Class applications Nematoda Acanthocephala Crustacea Insecta Arachnida Pisces Amphibia Reptilia Aves Mammalia BeNOR Sb Lh KH BH — — (oe) Total 7. The Directions comprised in the present Section contain 72 additions to the Official Lists and Official Indexes. Of the entries so made 70 are in respect of names of taxa of various IX categories and two are of the titles of zoological works. Particulars of the additions so made are given in the following table :— TABLE 2 Additions to the ‘* Official Lists ’? and ‘* Official Indexes ”’ respectively Category Official Lists Official Indexes Specific Names 13 Generic Names 3 Family-Group Names 13 Titles of Works — Totals 29 8. The subject index to the present Section of Volume 1 is of the same scope as, and follows the style of, the corresponding index for the preceding Section (Section E) of this Volume. For the preparation of the index the Commission is once again indebted to Mrs. J. H. Newman. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, _ Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. 5th June 1958 TABLE OF CONTENTS DIRECTION 87 Completion and, in part, correction of the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic names Cottus Lin- naeus, 1758, and Conger Oken, 1817 (Class Pisces) made by the Rulings given respectively in Opinions 77 and 93 published in the period up to the end of 1936 and matters incidental thereto .. : as DIRECTION 88 Clarification of the entry relating to the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) made on the Official List of Generic Names in sea = the Se given in Opinion 104 oe : np DIRECTION 89 Determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764 (Class Aves) DIRECTION 90 Completion of the entry relating to the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795 (Class Arach- nida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List of Generic Names in geo) 2 the eee given in Opinion 73 BE ; ip DIRECTION 92 Correction of the entry relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834 (Class Arach- nida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List of Generic Names in cue se the sek given in Opinion 104 es : Sz cist DIRECTION 93 Clarification and completion of the. entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the generic name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859 (Class Arachnida, Order pee made by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 XI Page 7 BY) 3) 63 XI DIRECTION 94 Clarification of the entry relating to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—-1803] (Class Arachnida) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 113 DIRECTION 97_ Determination under the Plenary Powers of the specific name to be used for the North American Alligator and of the spelling to be used for that name (Class Reptilia) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 92) DIRECTION 98 Interpretation under the Plenary Powers of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) ga une to Opinion 91) 5 , DIRECTION 99 Addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology of the names of certain family-group taxa belonging to the Order Lepi- doptera (Class Insecta), the names of the type genera of which have already been placed on the _— List of Generic Names in Zoology : DIRECTION 100 Determination of the gender to be attributed to certain generic names having the ter- mination “‘-gnathus”’ or, as the case may be, the termination “ -rhynchus”’ placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology DIRECTION 101 Determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology a supplementary to Opinion 104). . DIRECTION 102 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class Nematoda) (Direction supplementary to Opinion 66) Ne Ef i A Page Tie) 87 127, 161 WS) 191 201 XI Page DIRECTION 103 Rejection of a proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating the masculine gender to be the gender to be attributed to three generic names having the termination “* -opsis”’ in the Order Decapoda (Class Crustacea) .. 217 Corrigenda a Ae ae ae an ae 255 Subject Index .. - ee e Hh, of ee e3i/ Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published. . ad DAT Instructions to Binders ae Me aby ae 4 248 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 1. SECTION F. Part F.1. Pp. 1—16 DIRECTION 87 Completion and, in part, correction of the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic names Cottus Linnaeus, 1758, and Conger Oken, 1817 (Class Pisces) made by the Rulings given respectively in Opinions 77 and 93 published in the period up to the end of 1936 and matters incidental thereto ( MAR 3.11958.) LONDON: Printed by Order of see ust 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 1958 Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 28th February, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 87 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. eee (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 RiILey (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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, 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. HoLtuuls (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). 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), DIRECTION 87 COMPLETION AND, IN PART, CORRECTION OF THE ENTRIES ON THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAMES ‘ COTTUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND ‘‘ CONGER ” OKEN, 1817 (CLASS PISCES) MADE BY THE RULINGS GIVEN RESPECTIVELY IN ‘‘ OPINIONS ” 77 AND 93 PUBLISHED IN THE PERIOD UP TO THE END OF 1936 AND MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO RULING :—(1) The entry relating to the generic name Cottus Linnaeus, 1758, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 77 is hereby completed by the insertion therein of a statement that the type species (Cottus gobio Linnaeus, 1758) of the genus so named was determined as such “ by selection by Girard (C.F.) (1850) ”’. (2) The entry relating to the non-existent name Conger Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1817, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 93 is hereby deleted therefrom. (3) The following entry is hereby made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the place thereon rendered vacant by the removal of the entry specified in (2) above :— Conger Oken, 1817 (gender : masculine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Muraena conger Linnaeus, 1758) 4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) 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) gobio Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Cottus gobio (specific name of type species of Cottus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1482) ; (b) scorpius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Cottus scorpius (Name No. 1483) ; (c) conger Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Muraena conger (specific name of type species of Conger Oken, 1817) (Name No. 1484). (5) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed 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) Conger Schaeffer (J.C.), 1760 (a name published in a work rejected as being non-binominal by the — Ruling given in Opinion 345) (Name No. 1127); © (b) Conger Houttuyn, 1764 (a cheironym, having been ~ published by Houttuyn only as a specific name) (Name No. 1128) ; (c) Conger Walbaum, 1792 (a name published in a work rejected as being non-binominal by the Ruling given in Opinion 21) (Name No. 1129) ; (d) Conger Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1817 (a cheironym) (Name No. 1130) ; (e) Leptocephalus Gronovius, 1763 (a name published in a work rejected as being non-binominal by the Ruling given in Opinion 261) (Name No. 1131) ; (f) Leptocephalus Scopoli, 1777 (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the DIRECTION 87 5 Homonymy by the Ruling given in Opinion 93) (Name No. 1132) ; (g) Leptocephalus Gmelin (J.F.), [1789] (a junior homonym of Leptocephalus Scopoli, 1777) (Name INow133)": (h) Leptocephalus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1797] (a junior homonym of Leptocephalus Scopoli, 1777) (Name No. 1134) ; (1) Leptocephalus Basilewsky, 1855 (a junior homonym of Leptocephalus Scopoli, 1777) (Name No. 1135) ; _ (6) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 211 :— COTTIDAE (correction of COTTINI) Bonaparte, [1832] (type genus : Cottus Linnaeus, 1758). (7) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. p52 :— COTTINI Bonaparte, [1832] (type genus: Cottus Linnaeus, 1758) (an Invalid Original Spelling for COTTIDAE but available for a family-group taxon belonging to a category not having a prescribed termination). I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ‘*“ DIRECTION ” The present Direction is concerned with the question of the completion and, in part, correction of the entries on the Official 6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic names Cottus and Conger made by the Rulings given respectively in Opinions 77 and 93 published in the period up to the end of 1936 and matters incidental thereto. The action taken in the present Direction forms part of the concluding stage of the preparations for the publication of the foregoing Official List in book-form. The paper on which the decisions taken by the Commission in the present case were based was submitted by the Secretary on 16th August 1957 and was as follows :— Proposed completion and, in part, correction of the entries made on the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ in regard to the generic names ‘‘ Cottus ’’ and ‘‘ Conger ’’ (Class Pisces) by the Rulings given respectively in ‘‘ Opinions ’’ 77 and 93 published in the period prior to the end of 1936 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 place before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature particulars relating to the names of two genera in the Class Pisces which were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 but which, owing to certain difficulties which had been brought to light by the survey carried out by this Office, were postponed for further consideration at the time when in 1956 the International Commission examined in detail the entries in regard to the names of genera of fishes made on the Official List during the above period (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(D) : 365—388). 2. The names concerned are : (1) Cottus Linnaeus, 1758, which was placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 77 (1922, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 1) : 71—73); (2) Conger attributed to Cuvier, 1817, placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 93 (1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 5—11). The problems arising in connection with these names are discussed separately below. (1) The generic name ‘‘ Cottus ’’ Linnaeus,, 1758 3. The generic name Cottus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1 : 264) was established without a designated or indicated type species and with six included nominal species. Of these only the fifth and sixth enter into the consideration of the present case. These species were Cofttus scorpius Linnaeus (: 265) and Cottus gobio Linnaeus (: 265). 4. At the time when the generic name Coftus Linnaeus was placed on the Official List it was stated that the type species of the genus DIRECTION 87 7 so named was Cottus gobio Linnaeus but no particulars were given as to how that species had acquired that status beyond the use of the formula “ tsd.”’ [=type species by subsequent designation]. 5. The problem which required consideration in connection with the preparation of the Official List for publication in book-form was the determination of the place where Cottus gobio Linnaeus or some other of the originally included species had been first selected as the type species of the genus Cottus Linnaeus. An examination of the literature left no doubt that the type selection relied upon by the Commission in Opinion 77 was that made by Jordan (D.S.) & Evermann (B.W.) in 1917 (Gen. Fish. (1) : 12), for of these authors Jordan was himself at that time a member of the International Commission and it was natural that the Opinion concerned should reflect his views. Unfortunately, however, many years earlier Jordan himself, jointly with Gilbert, had already selected Cottus scorpius Linnaeus to be the type species of this genus (Jordan & Gilbert, 1888, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 16: 700). When in 1917 Jordan selected Cottus gobio to be the type species of the genus Coftus, he explained that, when in 1888 he (with Gilbert) had so selected Cottus scorpius Linnaeus, he had relied upon a “ restriction ’’ of the genus made by Putnam in 1863 (8ull. Mus. comp. Zool. 1(1) : 2—3) but that he now considered that Putnam’s action was invalid, having been anticipated by a “restriction” in favour of Cottus gobio made by Cuvier & Valenciennes in [1830] (Hist. Nat. Poiss. 4: 142). The argument relied upon by Jordan in this matter dates from the time when it was believed that under the so-called “Law of Elimination” it was possible to determine the type species of a genus by a series of “‘restrictions’”’. This principle was not, however, accepted when the present Régles were adopted at Berlin in 1901 by the Fourth International Congress of Zoology and the arguments advanced by Jordan, founded on these so-called “‘ restric- tions ’’, are therefore invalid. Since neither Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes ({1830]) nor Putnam (1863) selected a type species for the genus Cottus, the selection by Jordan & Gilbert (1888) of Cofttus scorpius Linnaeus as the type species of Cottus Linnaeus would thus hold the field unless it were possible to find an earlier valid selection by some other author. 6. The earlier literature has been examined from this point of view. This has brought to light two papers which require to be considered in this connection, both of them by Girard (C.F.). The first of these papers (1849, Proc. Amer. Assn. Adv. Sci. (2nd Meeting): 409—411) was a monograph of the freshwater Cottus of the United States, in which Girard divided the genus Coftus of earlier authors into two groups, namely, marine and freshwater. On page 410 Girard wrote as follows :—‘‘ The primitive type of the genus being Cottus gobio of Europe, it will appear very natural that the name of Coftus should be retained for the analogous species. I therefore propose the generic name of Acanthocottus for the marine species ’’. It seems very doubtful 8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS whether the foregoing statement can be taken as constituting a valid selection for nomenclatorial purposes of Cottus gobio Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Cottus and I conclude that it should not be so regarded. However, in the following year (1850, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 3 : 184) in an expanded paper on the genus Cofttus, Girard, when discussing the treatment of that genus by Artedi, stated definitely that ‘‘ the C. gobio is the type”’. This is unquestionably a valid selection under Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Régles of the above species as the type species of the genus Coftus Linnaeus. 7. From the particulars given above we see that, although in Opinion 77 the Commission relied upon an invalid type selection for the genus Cottus Linnaeus, the species (Cottus gobio Linnaeus) which it then specified as the type species is in fact the type species in virtue of an older type selection (that by Girard, 1850), of the existence of which it was at that time unaware. Thus, very fortunately the type species specified by the Commission for this genus is found to be the species currently accepted as such. So far as concerns the actual entry on the Official List regarding the generic name Cottus Linnaeus, 1758, the only action that is now required is therefore that the Com- mission should insert on the Official List the words “ by selection by Girard (C.F.) (1850) ”’ as indicating the method by which the type species of this genus was determined under Article 30 of the Régles. 8. In addition, supplementary action of various kinds is required. First, the specific name gobio Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cottus gobio, should, as the specific name for the type species of the genus Cottus Linnaeus, now be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Second, as the valid name for a species entering into the present case, the specific name scorpius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cotftus scorpius, should also be placed on the above Official List. Finally the family- group name COTTIDAE (correction of COTTINI) Bonaparte, [1832] (Saggio Distrib. met. Anim. vert. : 90, 103) should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, the Invalid Original Spelling COTTINI being at the same time placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology}. 1 Subsequent to the submission of the present paper Professor J. Chester Bradley suggested that, while, as an incorrectly formed family name, the name COTTINI Bonaparte, [1832], should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, as proposed, there remained the possibility that it might be desired to use the name in this form for a taxon belonging to some category within the family-group for example, a tribe, for which no prescribed termination had been established by the International Congress of Zoology. In a reply dated 16th September 1957 Mr. Hemming agreed that this was a point which had not been considered at the time when the proposal was drawn up and he undertook to amend the proposal so as to secure that it should be made clear that the above name remained an ayailable name for the limited purposes specified above. DIRECTION 87 9 (2) The generic name ‘‘ Conger ”’ as attributed to Cuvier, 1817 9. The generic name Conger attributed to “ Cuvier, 1817” was placed on the Official List in Opinion 93 with Muraena conger Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 245) as type species. No bibliographical reference was given for the generic name Conger Cuvier, 1817, and no particulars were provided as to how Muraena conger Linnaeus became the type species of this genus. 10. It is evident that the authors were under the belief that the name Conger was published by Cuvier in 1817 in the Régne Anim. (2 : 231). Reference however to that work showed that in it Cuvier did not apply the Latin name Conger to this genus, referring to it consistently under the vernacular (French) name “‘ Les Congres’’. Thus, the name Conger Cuvier, 1817, placed on the Official List in Opinion 93 is a phantom, possessing no existence in zoological nomenclature. 11. In the circumstances described above it became necessary to determine where in fact the generic name Conger was first validly published and to what author it should be attributed. The investiga- tion undertaken in this matter showed that the name Conger apparently originated with Klein in the pre-Linnean period and that, although there are several usages—or reputed usages—which have to be con- sidered, it had not been validly published as a generic name prior to the appearance in 1817 of Cuvier’s Régne Anim. These names or usages, all of which should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, were the following :— (a) Conger Schaeffer (J.C.), 1760, Epistola Reg.-Boruss. Soc. Litt. Duisberg Stud. ichthyol. Meth. : 20 This name is invalid, for Schaeffer was a non-binominal author. The title of his Epistola has already been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature by the Ruling given in Opinion 345 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 353—388). (b) Conger Houttuyn, 1764, Nat. Hist. 7(1) : 103 This name is a cheironym, having been used by Houttuyn not aS a generic name but as a specific name. That this was so was pointed out by Jordan & Evermann in 1919 in their ““Additions & Corrections to Part 1” of their Genera of Fishes. (c) Conger Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Ichth. (ed. 2) 3 : 580 This name is invalid, Walbaum’s edition of this non-binominal work having been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Ruling given in Opinion 21 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 51— 52): 12. Although, as we have seen, the generic name Conger was not published by Cuvier in 1817, that name was in fact validly published in that year. The name so published was Conger Oken, 1817 (sis (Oken) 1817 : 1181). In this paper in which Oken gave in tabular form a comparison between Cuvier’s system of classification and that adopted by himself, the generic name Conger was introduced in due form for the genus which Cuvier called ““ Les Congres”. The name Conger Oken is thus a name firmly based upon the indication provided by Cuvier for ‘‘ Les Congres’ in the Régne Anim. Among the species placed by Cuvier in “‘ Les Congres”? was “Le Congre commun (Mur. Conger L.)’’, i.e. Muraena conger Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 245). That species is therefore the type species of Conger Oken, 1817, by absolute tautonymy. Before we leave this part of the subject, two points are of sufficient interest to be placed on record :— (1) The application on which Opinion 93 was based was submitted by David Starr Jordan who was therefore responsible for the attribution of the name Conger to “‘ Cuvier, 1817”. In this connection the following passage in Part | of his (and Evermann’s) Genera of Fishes published in 1917 is of special interest, for it leaves no reasonable doubt that Jordan was well aware that Cuvier had not published the name Conger in due Latin form but that he was of the opinion that, having regard to the way in which it was published shortly afterwards by Oken, it should be treated as being attributable not to that author but to Cuvier :—‘“‘ In a number of cases the genera in this work receive French names only. But to all these, Latin forms were immediately supplied in the same year, 1817, by Oken in the Isis”. (2) The cheironym Conger Cuvier, 1817, did not even find a mention in Neave’s Nomencl. zool. (1 : 816), where, after referring to the invalid uses by Schaeffer, Houttuyn and Walbaum (paragraph 11 above) Neave attributed this name to Oken. 13. In the light of the circumstances described in the preceding paragraphs it is evident that what is required is that the entry relating to the cheironym Conger Cuvier, 1817, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 93 should now be deleted and that in the vacant space so created the following revised entry should be inserted :— Conger Oken, 1817 (gender: masculine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Muraena conger Linnaeus, 1758) 14. Simultaneously with the action described above, the cheironym Conger Cuvier, 1817, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. At the same time the specific name conger Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Muraena re: DIRECTION 87 11 conger, should, as the specific name of the type species of Conger Oken, 1817, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 15. At this point it is necessary to recall that in Opinion 93 the Commission used its Plenary Powers when dealing with another aspect of the present case. This was for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Leptocephalus Scopoli, 1777, a name which was ’ applied to the larval form of the Conger Eel and which had priority over the generic name Conger. The names concerned, all of which should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, are the following :— (a) Leptocephalus Gronovius, 1763, Zoophylac. gronoy. 1 : 135 This name is invalid, having been published in a non-binominal work, which has been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 261 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 281—296). (b) Leptocephalus Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 453 This name was suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy by the Ruling given in Opinion 93. (c) Leptocephalus Gmelin. (J.F.) [1789], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ede13)1.(3)\ 2.0130 This name is invalid as a junior homonym of Leptocephalus Scopoli, AE (d) Leptocephalus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1797], Tabl. élém. Hist nat. Anim. : 329 This name is invalid as a junior homonym of Leptocephalus Scopoli, ATT: (e) Leptocephalus Basilewsky, 1855, Nouv. Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 10 : 234 This name is invalid as a junior homonym of Leptocephalus Scopoli, L777. 16. No family-group-name problem arises in connection with the generic name Conger Oken, 1817, the genus so named being currently placed in the family MURAENIDAE. (3) Recommendations 17. In the light of the particulars given in the present paper the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is recommended 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to regularise the position of the generic names Cottus and Conger on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by taking the following action, that is, that it should :— (1) complete the entry relating to the generic name Cottus Linnaeus, 1758, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 77 by the insertion of a statement that its type species (Cottus gobio Linnaeus, 1758) was deter- mined as such “‘ by selection by Girard (C.F.) (1850) ”’ (para- graph 7) ; (2) delete from the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the entry relating to the non-existent name Conger Cuvier, 1817, made by the Ruling given in Opinion 93 and in its place insert the following revised entry (paragraph 13) :— Conger Oken, 1817 (gender: masculine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Muraena conger Linnaeus, 1758) (3) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) gobio Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cottus gobio (specific name of type species of Cottus Linnaeus, 1758) (paragraph 8) ; (b) scorpius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cottus scorpius (paragraph 8) ; (c) conger Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Muraena conger (specific name of type species of Conger Oken, 1817) (paragraph 14) ; (4) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:— (a) the three generic names consisting of the word Conger specified in paragraph 11 above, the entries so made to be endorsed in each case with a statement that the name in question is invalid for the reasons severally specified in the said paragraph : (b) Conger Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1817 (a cheironym) (para- graph 14) ; (c) the five generic names consisting of the word Leptocephalus specified in paragraph 15 above, the entries so made to be endorsed in each case with a statement that the name in question is invalid for the reasons severally specified in the said paragraph ; ~~ DIRECTION 87 13 (5) place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group-Names in Zoology (paragraph 8) :— COTTIDAE (correction of COTTINI) Bonaparte, [1832] (type genus : Cottus Linnaeus, 1758) (6) place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (paragraph 8) ; COTTINI Bonaparte, [1832] (an Invalid Original Spelling for COTTIDAE). 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s paper the question of completing and, in part, correcting the entries on the Official List relating to the generic names Cottus and Conger was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1171. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)13 : On 26th August 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)13) was issued in which each Member of the Commission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed that “‘in accordance with the General Directives issued to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, regarding the placing on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes of names dealt with in, or otherwise involved in, Opinions rendered prior to the end of 1936, and other matters on which action is required in order to complete, to clarify, or to correct Rulings given in Opinions rendered in the foregoing period, the action in regard to the generic names Cottus and Conger (Class Pisces) specified in paragraph 17 of the paper bearing the Regis- tered No. Z.N.(S.) 1171 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the 14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS present Direction] be taken as there recommended ” and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate that item. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 26th September 1957. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)13 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)13 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 ; Riley ; Vokes ; Mertens; Miller ; Hering ; Esaki ; Stoll ; do Amaral ; Key ; Tortonese ; Cabrera ; Hemming ; Prantl ; Dymond ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Jaczewski ; Kihnelt ; Bodenheimer ; Bonnet ; Mayr ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1): Sylvester-Bradley ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Hanko ; Lemche ; DIRECTION 87 iS) 6. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 27th September 1957 Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P. (O.M.)(57)13, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 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. 7. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 12th November 1957, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(O.M.)(57)13. 8. 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 Direction :— Conger Schaefier (J.C.), 1760, Epistola Stud. ichthyol. Meth. : 20 Conger Houttuyn, 1764, Nat. Hist. 7 (1) : 103 Conger Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Ichth. (ed. 2) 3 : 580 Conger Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1817, Régne Anim. 2 : 231 conger, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 245 gobio, Cottus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 265 Leptocephalus Gronovius, 1763, Zoophylac. gronoy. 1 : 135 Leptocephalus Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 453 Leptocephalus Gmelin (J.F.), [1789], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (3) 2 1130 Leptocephalus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), [1797], Tabl. élem. Hist. nat. Anim. 329 Leptocephalus Basilewsky, 1855, Nouv. Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 10 : 234 scorpius, Cottus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 265 16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. The following is the reference for the selection of a type species for a nominal genus specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— For Cottus Linnaeus, 1758 Girard (C.F.), 1850, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 3 : 184 10. The following are the original references for family-group names placed on the Official List and Official Index respectively of names for taxa of the family-group category :— COTTIDAE (correction of cCorTrint) Bonaparte, [1832], Saggio Distrib. met. Anim. vert. : 90, 103 COTTINI Bonaparte, [1832] (an Invalid Original Spelling for COTTIDAE). a 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 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. 12. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Eighty- Seven (87) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twelfth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. | Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.2. Pp. 17—28 DIRECTION 88 Clarification of the entry relating to the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 LONDON : EE ee 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 1958 Price Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 3rd March, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 88 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 HEmmMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henig (DEMeHe (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) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. DymMonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (42th 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 (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. HoitHuls (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) NS 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 ToORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) DIRECTION 88 CLARIFICATION OF THE ENTRY RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ONISCUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER ISOPODA) MADE ON THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” BY THE RULING GIVEN IN ‘‘ OPINION ”’ 104 RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned entry relating to the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) is hereby inserted in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in place of the entry relating to that name made thereon by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 :— Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Desmarest (E.) (1858) : Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758) (2) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1485 :— asellus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus (specific name of type species of Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758) (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Names in Zoology with the Name No. 502 :— asellus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1792, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus (a junior homonym of asellus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Oniscus asellus) J. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENG® ‘DIRECTION ” The present Direction forms part of the concluding group of Directions embodying decisions clarifying, completing or correct- ing entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preparation for the publication of the foregoing Official List in book-form. The particular subject dealt with in this Direction is the entry relating to the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 104. The issues involved in the present case were placed before the Commission by the Secretary in the following paper on 20th September 1957 :— Proposed clarification of the entry on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ relating to the generic name ‘‘ Oniscus ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) made by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 104. By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present note is concerned with the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, the second! of the two names of genera of the Order Isopoda of the Class Crustacea which were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. 1 The other Isopod generic name here referred to was Armadillidium Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831], on which, as yet, no decision has been taken by the Com- mission. DIRECTION 88 — 21 misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25—28), the position as regards which was, it will be recalled, postponed for further consideration when in June 1956 the Commission examined the question of placing on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific names of the type species of genera belonging to various invertebrate groups, the names of which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. This matter was discussed in a paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1122 then submitted to the Commission with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)14. The docu- ment in question has since been reproduced in Direction 67, in which was embodied the decision taken by the Commission on the foregoing Voting Paper. 2. The following is the entry on the Official List in regard to the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, made by the Ruling given in the Opinion referred to above :— Oniscus Linn., 1758a, 636, tsd. (1804) asellus Linn., 1758a, 637, (1810) murarius 1792 so. asellus The foregoing cryptic formula may be interpreted as meaning: “ The type species of the genus Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, is Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758, by selection [by some unspecified author] in 1804 ; the same species under its synonym Oniscus murarius Cuvier, 1792, was selected as the type species of this genus [by some unspecified author] in 1810”. 3. The author referred to in Opinion 104 as having taken action in the matter of the type species of the genus Oniscus Linnaeus in 1804 and in 1810 was in each case Latreille. The references concerned are as follows :—(1) Latreille, [1803—1804], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 7 : 39 ; (2) Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 423, 110). 4. The difficulty which led to the postponement of the present case in 1956 arose from the fact that in neither of the passages referred to above did Latreille make a valid type selection for the genus Oniscus Linnaeus, as will be seen from the following particulars of the action taken by Latreille in the works in question. (a) In the Hist. nat. gén. partic. Latreille renamed Oniscus asellus Cuvier, 1792 (J. Hist. nat. (Choix des Mém.) 2 : 23) (a nominal taxon distinct from that to which the same name had been given by Linnaeus in 1758), calling it Porcellio scaber and designating it as the type species of his new genus Porcellio, while in Oniscus Linnaeus he placed Oniscus murarius Cuvier, D2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1792, at the same time synonymising it with Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758. He did not however state that this species was the type species of Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, although (as noted above) he did make such a designation in the case of his own genus Porcellio. (b) In the Consid. gén. of 1810 Latreille did make a definite selection of a type species for the genus Oniscus Linnaeus, specifying as such “* Oniscus murarius Fab.”. Fabricius in his Ent. syst. did not, however, introduce a new name consisting of the above combination, his use of this name being only a later usage of the name Oniscus murarius Cuvier, 1792, This type selection by Latreille is invalid, (1) as the nominal species so selected was not, and by reason of its later date could not have been, included in the genus Oniscus by Linnaeus in 1758, and (2) as none of the Linnean (1758) species’ was identified by Latreille in 1810 with murarius Cuvier. 5. We see therefore that the statement in Opinion 104 that the nominal species Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758, was selected [by Latreille] in 1804 (recte [1803—1804]) as the type species of the genus Oniscus Linneaus, 1758, was incorrect. The statement in that Opinion that the nominal species Oniscus murarius [Cuvier], 1792, was selected as the type species [by Latreille] in 1810, is, on the other hand correct but (as shown in paragraph 4(b) above) is irrelevant in the present connection, as that nominal species was not included by Linnaeus in the genus Oniscus at the time when he established that nominal genus. 6. We have now to note that for many years prior to the issue of Opinion 104 the nominal species Oniscus murarius Cuvier, 1792, was treated as being the type species of the genus Oniscus Linnaeus. It was, for example, so treated by Apstein in his celebrated paper ““ Nomina Conservanda ”’ published in 1915 (SitzBer. Ges. nat. Freunde Berlin 1915 : 145), from which the proposal voted on by the Commission in Opinion 104 was undoubtedly derived. The citation as the type species of a genus of a nominal species which was not included in that genus by the original author of the generic name in question is incorrect under the Rég/es and by reason of the subjective element which it so introduces into the nomenclature of the genus concerned is open to strong objection. Nevertheless, for many years this practice was often considered legitimate and was widely adopted. One of the worst features of this practice was, as is now recognised, that it often post- poned for many decades the making of a valid selection of an originally included species to be the type species of the genus in question. This, so far as can be ascertained, is what happened in the present case. DIRECTION 88 23 7. The next point which has to be noted is that for many years now specialists have regarded the nominal species Oniscus murarius Cuvier, 1792, as representing the same taxonomic unit as that represented by the nominal species Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758. Thus, on taxo- nomic grounds the non-included nominal species (murarius Cuvier) regarded by Apstein and his predecessors as being the type species of Oniscus Linnaeus, has been identified as representing the same taxon as that represented by the originally included nominal species Oniscus asellus Linnaeus. Under a decision taken by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 181—182) an author is to be accepted as having made a valid selection of a type species of a genus if he states that a given originally included species is the type species, irrespective of whether he states, either correctly or incorrectly, that the species in question had been selected by some previous author or had become the type species through the operation of some rule (e.g. the so-called Law of Elimina- tion) not recognised in the present Régles. Accordingly, a valid selection of Oniscus asellus Linnaeus to be the type species of the genus Oniscus Linnaeus is to be held to have been made by any author who states incorrectly that that species is the type species through the action of Latreille or any other author, even though neither Latreille nor any- one else ever made such a selection. 8. The first author to state that through the action of some previous author—in this particular case, Latreille in [1803—1804]—Oniscus asellus Linnaeus was the type species of the genus Oniscus Linnaeus appears to have been Stiles himself when preparing the statement of the case reproduced in Opinion 104. Under the Paris decision quoted in paragraph 7 above Stiles is therefore to be held himself to have selected the above nominal species to be the type species of the genus Oniscus Linnaeus, even though he clearly stated that in his belief— incorrect, as we now know—that selection had been made by some unspecified author in 1804. Since no valid type selection had pre- viously been made for this genus, its type species under the Régles is Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 by selection by Stiles (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 27). That this is so is very fortunate in that it is in harmony with current taxonomic practice and in addition provides a valid basis for the Ruling given at the time when the name Oniscus Linnaeus was placed on the Official List. 9. What is required in the present case is therefore that an amended entry, corrected as above and stripped of the subjective synonymisation of the name of the type species with the name of another species, should now be inserted in the Official List in substitution for the entry for the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus made by the Ruling given in Opinion 104. At the same time the specific name ase//us Linnaeus, 1758, as 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS published in the combination Oniscus asellus, as the valid specific name for the type species of the above genus, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Finally, under the ‘“*“ Completeness-of-Opinions’’ Rule the invalid homonym asellus Cuvier, 1792, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. No action is called for as regards either the generic name Porcellio Latreille or the specific name of the type species of that genus, those names having already been placed on the appropriate Official Lists. 10. For the reasons set out above it is recommended that the International Commission should :— (1) substitute on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following revised entry relating to the name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, in place of the entry made thereon by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 :— Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 636 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Stiles (C.W.), 1928 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 27): Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 637). (2) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— asellus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus (specific name of type species of Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758) (3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— asellus Cuvier, 1792, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus (a junior homonym of asellus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus). 2. Registration of the present application: As soon as the need for further action in regard to the entry on the Official List DIRECTION 88 BS of Generic Names in Zoology respecting the generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, came to light, the issue so raised was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1127. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)16 : On 20th September 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)16) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘ the proposal relating to generic name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, as set out in paragraph 10 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1127 [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’. 4. Discovery of an earlier type selection for the genus ‘* Oniscus ”’ Linnaeus, 1758, than the earliest such selection previously detected in the literature : During the Prescribed Voting Period attention was drawn by Dr. L. B. Holthuis to a selection of a type species for the nominal genus Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, of older date than the earliest such selection previously detected in the literature. The selection so brought to light was that made by Desmarest (E.) in 1858 (in Chenu, Ency. Hist. nat. (Crust. Moll. Zooph.) : 53). Following the receipt of this information Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, executed a Minute on 8th October 1957 directing that the type selection by Desmarest specified above be inserted in the proposal relating to this case in place of the selection specified in the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1127 which had been submitted to the Commission on 20th September 1957 at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)16. 26 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 20th October 1957. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)16 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)16 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) : Bodenheimer ; Lemche; Boschma; Riley; Hanko; Sylvester-Bradley ; Mayr ; Stoll ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Hering ; Esaki; Vokes; Jaczewski; do Amaral; Mertens ; Dymond ; Key ; Hemming; Holthuis ; Cabrera ; Tor- tonese ; Kithnelt ; Bonnet ; Prantl ; Miller ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 21st October 1957, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)16, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 6 above and declaring that the proposal DIRECTION 88 27 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. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 21st November 1957, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(O.M.)(57)16. 9. Family-Group-Name Problem: As in other cases con- cerned with the correction of entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the close of 1936, the family-group-name aspect of the present case has been post- poned in order to permit of its being submitted to the Commission at a later date in a paper dealing comprehensively with the family- group-name problems arising in connection with all the generic names in the group concerned placed on the foregoing Official List in the above period. 10. The following are the original references for the specific names placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Direction and for the specific name placed by the same Ruling on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— asellus, Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 637 asellus, Oniscus, Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1792, J. Hist. nat. (Choix des Mém.) 2 : 23 11. The following is the reference for the selection of a type species for a nominal genus specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— For Oniscus Linnaeus, Desmarest (E.), 1858, in Chenu, 1758 Ency. Hist. nat. (Crust. Moll. Zooph.) : 53 28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12. 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 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. 13. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Eighty- Eight (88) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-First day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.3. Pp. 29—38 DIRECTION 89 Determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764 (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 1958 Price Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 3rd March, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 89 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. Hemming LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 1948) Professor Teiso EsAki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (A7th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILFy (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 August 1953 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. 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) (AS5th 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 KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ERC oy S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1 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 89 DETERMINATION OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘* NUMIDA”’ LINNAEUS, 1764 (CLASS AVES) RULING :—The gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764 (Class Aves) is hereby determined as being the masculine gender. I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ** DIRECTION ” The present Direction is concerned with the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764 (Class Aves), a name which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in 1916 (Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 177—182) by the Ruling given in Opinion 67. The question of the gender to be attributed to this name was included among a number of similar questions dealt with in a paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 925 which was submitted to the Commission on 29th April 1955 in connection with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)16 and which has since been embodied in Direction 26 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(C) : 259—272). As the result of additional information then received the question of the gender to be attributed to the name Numida Linnaeus was withdrawn from the scope of the foregoing Voting Paper for further investi- gation. On the conclusion of the subsequent enquiries the follow- 32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ing report was submitted to the Commission by the Secretary - | on 20th September 1957 :— Proposed determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name ‘‘ Numida ”’ Linnaeus, 1764 (Class Aves) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present note is concerned with the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764 (Class Aves), a name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 67. The facts of this case are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. The generic name Numida Linnaeus was included with the other generic names of birds placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 in a list submitted to the International Commission on 29th April, 1955 with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)16, in which recommendations were made for the determination of the gender to be attributed to each of the names concerned. This proposal was submitted in accordance with the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that a gender be attributed to each of the generic names placed on the Official List up to that time. In the paper referred to above it was recommended that the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764 should be the feminine gender, this being the gender attributed to this name by Linnaeus and also by later authors. There is, it is true a Latin word numida, meaning a “‘nomad’’, derived from the Greek word “‘nomas”’ which has always been treated as being a masculine noun. There was, however, nothing in the Systema Naturae to show that the generic name Numida Linnaeus was derived from the foregoing word and for this reason and having regard to the attribution by Linnaeus of the feminine gender to this name, it seemed at that time not unreasonable to treat this name as a word consisting of an arbitrary combination of letters and thus to treat it as being feminine in gender in conformity with the usage in ornithological literature. It was for these reasons that in the paper referred to above it was recommended that the feminine gender be attributed to this name in the Official List. DIRECTION 89 33 3. During the Prescribed Voting Period for the Voting Paper referred to above Commissioner Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) expressed the view that the recommendation submitted in this case was mis- conceived, arguing strongly that Linnaeus must have been aware of the Latin word “‘ numida’”’ and therefore that he must be assumed to have employed that word when he introduced the generic name Numida, the possibility that this generic name was no more than an arbitrary combination of letters being, in his (Commissioner do Amaral’s) opinion, quite untenable. Commissioner do Amaral accordingly considered that the gender attributable to this generic name was undoubtedly masculine and asked that this case be given further consideration before a final decision was reached. Extracts from the letters on this subject received from Commissioner do Amaral are reproduced in the Annexe to the present note. 4. In the light of the representations received from Commissioner do Amaral I took the view that as Secretary my proper course would be to withdraw from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)16 the proposal submitted in regard to the gender to be attributed to this generic name, in order to permit of the further consideration of the issues involved. This I did by a Minute executed on 29th May, 1955, the text of which has been reproduced in Direction 26, the Direction in which were later embodied the decisions taken by the Commission on the foregoing Voting Paper. 5. The question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus is accordingly resubmitted for decision. On one side, we have the established usage of ornithologists in favour of the feminine gender ; on the other side we have incontestable evidence that the generic name Numida, if derived from the Latin word *“ numida ”’—which I no longer think is open to question—is without doubt properly masculine in gender. 6. I may perhaps be permitted to observe that, although in general I am of the opinion that it is undesirable that long-established usage in zoological literature should be disturbed by the correction of the gender customarily assigned to generic names, I consider that this principle should not be treated as being of universal application and should be applied only (i) where there are a number of generic names with the same termination, in respect of each of which the same problem of gender arises, (ii) where the specific name of some particularly well-known animal would be affected or (iii) where the correction of the gender attributed to a given generic name would affect the termina- tion employed for a substantial number of the specific names of species assigned to the genus concerned and where in consequence the correction of the gender used for the generic name in question would lead to a 34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS marked disturbance in nomenclatorial practice. In other words, it seems to me to be reasonable that in this latter class of case the correct gender should be attributed to generic names, except where within a given genus there are a substantial number of adjectival specific names, the terminations customarily used for which would need to be changed if the gender to be attributable to the generic name concerned were to be corrected. 7. The present case does not appear to me to fall within any of the special classes suggested above. According to the latest general catalogue (Peters’s Checklist of Birds of the World) this genus is currently treated as containing only one species (The Guinea Fowl) and that species bears a name (meleagris) which would remain unaltered, whether the gender attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus was masculine or feminine. The only change which would be involved would, according to the above Checklist, be in respect of a small number of subspecies, the terminations of the names of which would need to be changed from “‘-a” to “-us”’. 8. In the circumstances it appears to me that the present is a case where the normal gender rules should be applied and therefore that the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764, in the Official List should be the masculine gender. ANNEXE Views on the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name ‘‘ Numida ’’ Linnaeus expressed by Commissioner Afranio do Amaral (a) Note dated 10th May 1955 Numida (-itis) was masculine (not feminine) in Latin. For this reason I vote against the proposal [that the feminine gender be accepted for this generic name]. (b) Letter dated 22nd June 1955 I am compelled by linguistic arguments to insist on the question that I raised in my note of 10th May. I am not ready to accept the assumption that Linnaeus’s name Numida “‘ is no more than an arbitrary combination of letters”. On the contrary, I am just convinced that Linnaeus, who knew Latin quite well, in including the name Numida in his Systema Naturae did nothing else than take from the classical Latin a proper, masculine noun that used to convey, in old Rome, DIRECTION 89 S13) the general idea of a Nomad or an African (cf. Plinius, lib. 5, cap. 3 ; and Isidorus, lib. 9, cap. 2). In Du Cange’s Glossarium (1733, vol. 4, p. 1246) we find, under Numida : *“ Numidae . . . quos mansiones saepius mutabant, nullam fixam sedem seu habitationem habentes.”’ As such it was also applied, as an epithet, to Jugurtha by Sallustius. It was even a patronymic. It is related to Numidia, which was at that time the only well-known section of Africa. Corresponding to the south-western section of the Mediterranean region, it was sometimes synonimized with Mauretania (or Hesperides). Its adjectival form Numidicus, -a, -um, was applied by the Romans to many forms of animals living in Africa. There is no doubt that the expression Gallina Numidica was used by the Romans to signify the “‘ wandering fowl ’ (Guinea fowl) in contrast to the sedentary (through domestica- tion) fowl. In this regard Columella, in De Re Rustica (Ed. Rob. Stephanus, Paris. 1543), lib. VIII cap. 2, p. 280, wrote : “Africana est, quam plerique Numidicam dicunt, meleagridi similis, nisi quod rutilam galeam, et cristam capito gerit, quae utraque sunt in meleagride coerulea.”’ In Martialis—Epigramma III: 58: “ Et picta perdix, Numidi- caeque guttatae’’. In Petronius—Satyricon : 55 : “ Gallina tibi Numidica, tibi gallus spado Ciconia etiam grata, peregrina, hospita”’. . and in Calepinus—Septem Linguarum Lexicon (Ed. Batavia, 1746), vol. 2, p. 74 we read: “ Gallinae Numidicae sunt, quas Martial. 1.3. Epigr. 58 Numidicas guttatas appellat”’. No wonder, therefore, that Linnaeus, who must have known these linguistic facts, had also used the epithet Numida to mean a genus of wandering bird, that is, the Guinea fowl. (c) Letter dated 31st August 1955 Numida, far from being ‘‘ no more than an arbitrary combination of letters ” is a real name, existing in classical Latin. It is indubitably a masculine noun. As such it was always treated in Latin. Indeed, to my knowledge no Latin author ever used it as a feminine noun. There is no doubt in my mind that the masculine is its gender from the linguistic standpoint. In this connection, besides the arguments I produced in my D/59—5S5 letter to you [of 22nd June 1955], I may 36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS as well quote the following authoritative sources confirming my standpoint : (a) Plinius (in Nat. Hist. V : 3, para. 2) and Virgilius (in Aen. IV : 41) ; (b) Scheller (Riddle’s trans.)—Lexicon Totius Latinitatis, Oxford, 1835 29825 wNGIMIGG eco ) (c) Ernout & Meillet—Dict. Etymol. Langue, Latine Paris, 1951, 2: 800 ‘“‘ Numida, m. est tiré de l’accusatif nomada’’, cf. Sommer-Handb. d. latein. Laut. -u. Formenlehre, Heidelberg, 1948, 1 : 65. Consequences : In the light of this argument, on the one hand, I do not see how we could ever succeed in reaching nomenclatorial stability if we allow any author having not even a rusty knowledge of Latin to attribute to any noun (generic name) the gender that most pleases his fancy ; on the other hand, should we keep on admitting, in the application of Article 14, exceptions that will eventually con- stitute a heteroclite set of directions following no system whatsoever, I am afraid we might soon find ourselves in an inextricable tangle. That rule might some day be ruled out from the Code. In my opinion it is much easier to induce zoologists to correct the gender of specific names so as to make them conform with the corresponding generic nouns, than to change altogether the sensible, the logical, the scholarly meaning of Article 14. Conclusion : The gender change is really so simple that I have the impression that, should we insist on the enforcement of the meaning of Article 14 as well as with the decision we took thereon in Copenhagen, it would not take long before the specialists in other brands of zoology would follow suit and would correct the gender of such specific names so as to conform them with the Rules. 2. Registration of the present application : At the time when in 1955 it was decided that further investigations should be undertaken in regard to the gender to be attributed to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, the problem so involved was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1012. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)17 : On 20th September 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)17) was issued in which DIRECTION 89 Oy. the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal relating to the gender to be attributed on the Official List to the generic name Numida Linnaeus, 1764 (Class Aves), as set out in paragraph 8 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1012 [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 20th October 1957. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)17 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)17 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) : Bodenheimer ; Lemche; Boschma; Riley; Hanko; Sylvester-Bradley ; Stoll; Bradley (J.C.); Hering ; Esaki; Vokes; Jaczewski; do Amaral; Mertens ; Dymond; Key; Hemming; Cabrera; Tortonese ; Kiuhnelt ; Bonnet ; Prantl ; (b) Negative Votes, three (3): Mayr ; Holthuis; Miller ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 6. Declaration of Resuit of Vote: On 21st October 1957, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper 38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS V.P.(O.M.)(57)17, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 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. 7. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Direction ”’ : On 22nd November 1957, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(O.M.)(57)17. 8. 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 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. 9. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Eighty- Nine (89) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Second day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C..G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.4. Pp. 39—50 DIRECTION 90 Completion of the entry relating to the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 73 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 1958 Price Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Issued 28th March, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 90 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 ee (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948 Professor Teiso ESAkI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950 Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (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) (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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi 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. 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) (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 KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954 Professor Ernst MAyYR (Museum of COURS 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 90 COMPLETION OF THE ENTRY RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ARGAS ” LATREILLE, 1795 (CLASS ARACHNIDA, ORDER ACARINA) MADE ON THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” BY THE RULING GIVEN IN ** OPINION ” 73 RULING :—(1) It is hereby directed that in the entry relating to the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 73 the words “‘ by monotypy ”’ be inserted after the words * type species ’’ in the portion of the said entry containing the citation of the nominal species Acarus_ reflexus Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, as the type species of the foregoing genus. (2) It is hereby ruled that the specific name columbarum Shaw, 1793, as published in the combination Acarus columbarum, be treated as being a nomen nudum and therefore as possessing no status in zoological nomen- clature. . SMITHSONIAN ADD + & 4aee 42 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. 1486 :— reflexus Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, as published in the combination Acarus reflexus (specific name of type species of Argas Latreille, 1795). (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 503 :— columbarum Shaw, 1793, as published in the combina- tion Acarus columbarum (a name ruled under (2) above to be a nomen nudum). (5) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1136 :— Argas Scouler, 1835 (a junior homonym of Argas Latreille, 1795). I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction forms part of the concluding group of Directions embodying decisions clarifying, completing or correcting entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 taken by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preparation for the publication of the foregoing Official List in book-form. The particular subject dealt with in this Direction is the entry relating to the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 73 (1922, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 1) : 23—3]1). DIRECTION 90 43 The issues involved in the present case were placed before the Commission by the Secretary in the following paper on 3rd October 1957 :— Proposed completion of the action relating to the generic name ‘‘Argas ”’ Latreille, 1795 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) consequent upon the addition of that name to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion *’ 73 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The purpose of the present note is to submit proposals for the completion of the action required in connection with the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795, (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) consequent upon the entry of that name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in 1922 in Opinion 73. The problems involved are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. The nominal genus Argas Latreille, 1795, was established without any cited nominal species and, in order to determine what is the type species of this genus it is necessary to ascertain what was or were the nominal species placed in this genus by the first author to cite such species as belonging to this genus. Examination of the literature shows that the first such author was Latreille himself when in [1802—1803] (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 66) he so cited the single nominal species Acarus reflexus Fabricius (J.C.), 1794 (Ent. syst. 4: 426). That species is, therefore, the type species of this genus by monotypy. 3. When in Opinion 72 the generic name Argas Latreille was placed on the Official List, the above nominal species was correctly stated to be the type species of the genus in question. No particulars, however, were given as to how under Article 30 of the Régles that species acquired that status. All that is now required to make good this deficiency is for the Commission to give a direction that the words ‘“‘ by monotypy ”’ be inserted after the words “‘ type species ” in the portion of the entry on the Official List relating to the generic 44 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS name Argas Latreille, where it is stated that Acarus reflexus Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, is the type species of the genus so named. 4. The other matter which calls for attention in connection with this case arises in connection with the action to be taken by the Commission in compliance with the General Directive given to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that, when it places a given generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, it is at the same time to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name of the type species of the genus so named if that is the oldest available name for the species concerned or, if that name is not the oldest such name, whatever name is considered by specialists to be the oldest available name for the species in question. 5. In the present case the name Acarus reflexus Fabricius, 1794, is an available name and for well over a century it was universally applied to the species concerned and still is so applied by the majority of workers in this group. In 1929, however, Oudemans in Part 2 of his Kritisch Historisch Oversicht der Acarologie and again in 1936 in Part 3-B of the above work claimed that the above name was a junior subjective synonym of the name Acarus columbarum Shaw, 1793 (Nat. Miscell. 4: text to pl. 108). It was to investigate the validity of this claim in conjunction with specialists in the group concerned that, when in June 1956 I submitted to the Commission a paper (bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1018, containing proposals for the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific names of the type species of genera belonging to the Class Arachnida and to certain other Classes of Invertebrates, the names of which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936, I reported that I had reserved the present case for further examination. 6. Ina case of this kind clearly the first thing to be done is to examine the publication in which appeared the older name which it had been claimed should be used in preference to the well-established name in current use. Reference to Volume 4 of Shaw’s Naturalists Miscellany shows that his observations in connection with the name Acarus columbarum are of the scantiest kind. Shaw mentioned this name twice in his explanation to plate 108 and, in order to enable the Commission to form its own judgment as to the value properly 1 The document here referred to has since been published in Direction 67 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(E) : 111—128), in which were embodied the decisions taken by the International Commission on the proposals then submitted to it for consideration. DIRECTION 90 45 to be attached to the above name the passages in question are quoted below :— (a) In the course of some introductory remarks regarding the genus Acarus, Shaw mentioned the name Acarus columbarum in the following sentence* :— Some species however so far exceed the rest of the genus in size as to be sufficiently conspicuous even at a moderate distance, for example the Acarus ricinus or common tick, so frequently seen on dogs; the Acarus columbarum not less plentiful on pigeons and some other animals; and the Acarus holosericeus .. . (b) Somewhat later Shaw gave a description of Acarus auratus which concludes with the following remarks* :— In the general form of the apparatus of the head, this species [i.e. Acarus auratus] bears a striking affinity to the pigeon tick, or Acarus columbarum, being furnished like that animal, with a serrated snout, the processes of which, lying on the under surface, and pointing backwards, enable it to adhere with great firmness to the skin of the creature it infests. The species to which it [i.e. Acarus auratus] bears the greatest resemblance is the Acarus Iguanae of Fabricius. «s+ * Note: In the passages quoted above the scientific names cited by Shaw appeared in Roman type and not in italics. They are accordingly so reproduced here. 7. When I examined the above passages, I came to the conclusion that as so published the name Acarus columbarum must be regarded as being a nomen nudum, for (a) such characters as were cited for Acarus columbarum by Shaw were all stated to be shared equally with another species (Acarus auratus) and none was given as being exclusively diagnostic for columbarum and (b) the citation of the host species (the pigeon) which would have been of importance if it had been published in conjunction with particulars of other characters could not in the present case be accepted as providing the name Acarus columbarum Shaw with an “‘ indication ’’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles, having regard to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that the citation of a host species, unaccompanied by other particulars is not to be accepted as being an “indication’’ for the foregoing purposes (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 256). 46 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. At this point I decided that my next step should be to consult specialists in the group concerned for the purpose of ascertaining their views both as to the interpretation of Shaw’s remarks about Acarus columbarum and as to the nature of the action which it was desirable that the Commission should be advised to take. The number of specialists actively working this particular field is not large but. ultimately I obtained advice from two such specialists, one in the United Kingdom, the other in the United States. The first of these specialists was Dr. F. A. Turk (Camborne, Cornwall, England) the other, Dr. Glen M. Kohls (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Health, National Microbiological Institute, Rocky Mountain Laboratory, Hamilton, Montana, U.S.A.). 9. Dr. Turk replied that, in his view, the name Acarus columbarum Shaw was a nomen nudum—thus confirming an opinion that he had ~ himself published in 1954—that Acarus reflexus Fabricius was certainly the type species of Argas Latreille and that that name was the name in current use for the species in question. 10. When I consulted Dr. Kohls, I informed him of the advice that had been received from Dr. Turk and added that, if that view were to be adopted, the proper course would, in my opinion, be to advise the International Commission to reject the name Acarus columbarum Shaw as a nomen nudum and to place the name reflexus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the combination Acarus reflexus, as being the oldest available specific name for the type species of Argas Latreille on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. In his reply (dated 24th September 1957) Dr. Kohls wrote as follows :— In all probability Shaw’s Acarus columbarum is the same as reflexus Fabricius but Dr. R. A. Cooley and I rejected columbarum aS a nomen nudum in our monograph of the Argasidae of North America, Central America and Cuba (1944: 14). In this work we accepted reflexus as the type species of Argas because in our opinion it was the oldest available name... I am pleased to see that Dr. Turk’s opinion isin agreement with ours. In brief, I concur with Dr. Turk in this matter and I agree that the Commission should be advised to take the course of action outlined in your letter. 11. In view of the nature of the advice received from Dr. Turk and Dr. Kohls and of the opinion of Dr. Cooley as reported by the second of these specialists, I recommend that the Commission should now take action in the sense outlined at the beginning of the immediately preceding paragraph and at the same time should take such other action as is needed to complete the entry relating to the generic name Argas Latreille already made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to comply with the related Directives issued to it by the International Congresses of Zoology in regard to other Official DIRECTION 90 47 Lists and. Official Indexes. Under the latter head it will be necessary to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a junior homonym of Argas Latreille, 1795, namely Argas Scouler, 1835 (Rec. gen. Sci. 1 (2) : 137). It will also be necessary in due course to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name based on the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795, but it is proposed to defer doing this until comprehen- sive proposals can be submitted in regard to the family-group-name problems arising in connection with all the names of Acarine genera placed on the Official List up to the end of 1936. 12. The recommendations which are, therefore, now submitted to the International Commission are that it should :— (1) direct that in the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology regarding the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795, made by the Ruling given in Opinion 73 the words “‘ by monotypy’’ be inserted after the words “type species”? in the portion containing the citation of Acarus reflexus Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, as type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) rule that the specific name columbarum Shaw, 1793, as published in the combination Acarus columbarum, is to be treated as being a nomen nudum and therefore as possessing no status in Zoological nomenclature ; (3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— reflexus Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, as published in the com- bination Acarus reflexus (specific name of type species of Argas Latreille, 1795) (4) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— - columbarum Shaw, 1793, as published in the combination Acarus columbarum, as rejected as a nomen nudum in (2) above. (5) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Argas Scouler, 1835 (a junior homonym of Argas Latreille, 1795). 48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s paper the question of taking supplementary action regarding the entry relating to the generic name Argas Latreille made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 73 was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 1128. II. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)20 : On 18th October 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)20) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology regarding the generic name Argas Latreille, 1795, and matters associated therewith as set out in paragraph 12 of the paper bearing the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 1128 [i.c. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in paragraph | of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 18th November 1957. _ 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)20 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)20 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; Mayr; Bonnet; Riley; Stoll; Vokes; _ Bodenheimer; Lemche; Bradley (J.C.) ; Hering; Hanké; Prantl; Dymond; Esaki; Tortonese; do Amaral; Boschma; Hemming; Mertens; Cabrera ; Miller ; Kiihnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Jaczewski ; DIRECTION 90 49 (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1): Key ; (d) Voting Papers not returned : None. 6. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 19th November 1957, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)20, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 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. 7. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 6th December 1957, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(O.M.)(57)20. 8. 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 Direction :— Argas Scouler, 1835, Rec. gen. Sci. 1(2) : 137 columbarum, Acarus, Shaw, 1793, Nat. Miscell. 4 : text to pl. 108 reflexus, Acarus, Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, Ent. syst. 4 : 426 50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9. Family-Group-Name Aspects: The family-group-name aspect of the present case has been deferred, pending its examina- tion in connection with the preparation for the consideration of the Commission of comprehensive proposals regarding the family- group-name problems involved in connection with the entries relating to the names of other genera of the Class Arachnida made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. 10. 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 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. 11. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Ninety (90) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. Done in London, this Sixth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 1. Section F. Part F.5. Pp. 51—62 DIRECTION 92 Correction of the entry relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 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 1958 Price Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 28th March, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 92 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. Tire 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. eee (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, Canadu) (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.) (A2th 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) (A5th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MiILLter (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) ae . 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) DIRECTION 92 CORRECTION OF THE ENTRY RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘** DERMANYSSUS ” DUGES, 1834 (CLASS ARACHNIDA, CRDER ACARINA) MADE ON THE ‘ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ’? BY THE RULING GIVEN IN “ OPINION ” 104 RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned revised entry relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) is hereby inserted in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in place of the entry regarding that name made on the above List by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 :— 510 Dermanyssus Dugés, January 1834 (gender : mas- culine) (type species, by monotypy and through Declaration 21 : Acarus gallinae De Geer, 1778). (2) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1488 :— gallinae De Geer, 1778, as published in the combination Acarus gallinae (specific name of type species of Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834). (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 504 :— avium Dugés, 1834, as published in the combination Dermanyssus avium (a junior objective synonym of gallinae De Geer, 1778, as published in the combination Acarus gallinae through the selec- tion by Hemming) (in paragraph 9 of the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction) as the lectotype of Dermannyssus avium Dugés, 1834, of the specimen selected at the same time to be the lectotype of Acarus gallinae De Geer, 1778). SMITHSONIAN 4 5p 1» aac; 54 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 Number 1139 :— Dermanissus Kolenati, [1856] (an Invalid Emenda- tion of Dermanyssus Dugeés, 1834). I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction forms part of the concluding group of Directions embodying decisions clarifying, completing, or coirecting entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preparation for the publication of the foregoing List in book- form. The particular subject dealt with in this Direction is the entry relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Duges, 1834 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25—28). The issues involved in the present case were placed before the Commission by the Secretary in the following paper on 4th October 1957 :— Proposed correction of the entry relating to the generic name ‘* Dermanyssus ’? Dugés, 1834 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 104 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The purpose of the present note is to submit proposals for the correction of the entry relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104. DIRECTION 92 23) 2. The point principally involved in this case is the determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of this genus, a question which, though vital in the present context, was not the subject of a clear Ruling in the Opinion cited above. As a start to the examination of this question it is necessary to take note of the precise entry made on the Official List in the above Opinion. This reads as follows :— Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834, Ann. Sci. nat., 18 tsd. gallinae deGeer, 1778a, 111, pl. 6, fig. 8, syn. avium. 3. As in other similar cases, the question to be investigated first in the present instance was the place where the generic name Dermanyssus was first published, this being essential for the purpose of ascertaining what were the originally included species from which alone any subsequent author could validly select a type species for this genus. 4. This generic entity was first brought forward by Dugés when in 1833 he presented to the Academie des Sciences a paper entitled *“ Mémoire sur l’Ordre d’Acariens’’. An extract from this paper was published in October 1833 Unstitut 1(24) : 207, col. 1), where, however, Dugés wrote of this genus only under the vernacular (French) name ‘““ Dermanysse ’’. This paper is, therefore, of no significance from the nomenclatorial point of view. 4. The generic name Dermanyssus in duly Latinised form first appeared in January 1834 in the first part of a paper by Dugés, published in Volume 1 (page 18) of the Second Series of the Zoologie Section of the Annales des Sciences naturelles of Paris. Dugés returned to this subject in the second part of his paper in Volume 2 (pages 19 et sequ.) of the same Series, but this was not published until July 1834 and accordingly nothing written by Dugés in it can affect the status or interpretation of the name Dermanyssus, that being a matter which depends solely upon Dugés’ treatment of this name six months earlier. 6. In the first part of his paper, published in January 1834, Dugeés gave a diagnosis for this genus and cited five new nominal species as belonging to it. He gave no descriptions for these nominal species and at the time of the issue of this part of the paper all except one of the five names concerned were nomina nuda. Descriptions for these species were published in the second part of his paper which appeared in July 1834 but naturally this does not affect their status at the time of the publica- tion of the name Dermanyssus in January of that year. The single nominal species validly established by Dugés in his paper of January 1834 was that which he called “‘ Dermanyssus avium, nobis”. The reason why, unlike the other new names introduced by Dugés in the above paper, the above name is not invalid is that Dugés cited under 56 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS it as synonyms the names of two previously established nominal species, thus providing his new name avium with an “ indication ”’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles and so clothing it with the status of availability. The names so cited by Dugés were: (1) Acarus gallinae de Geer, 1778 (Mem. Hist. Ins. 72111); @) Acorns hirundinis Hermann (J.F.), 1804 (Mém. apter. : 83). The nominal species Dermanyssus avium Duges, 1834, is thus a species based jointly upon the two previously established nominal species cited above. 7. Under a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179—180) it is provided that, other things being equal, a nominal species, the name of which is cited as a synonym of a nominal species included in a genus established without a designated or indicated type species is itself to be accepted as an originally included species and, therefore, as eligible for selection by a later author to be the type species of the genus in question. Under this provision both Acarus gallinae de Geer and Acarus hirundinis Hermann would rank as included species of the genus Dermanyssus Duges and, jointly with the nominal species Dermanyssus avium Dugés, would have been eligible for selection as the type species of the genus Dermanyssus Dugés, had it not been for the fact that another provision operates in this case to prevent this from happening. The provision in question is that prescribed by Declaration 26 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : xxxvii—1), under which a nominal genus established without a designated type species and containing only one nominal species recognised by the author as being a valid taxonomic species is to be treated as being a monotypical genus in cases where in the synonymy given for the single species so recognised there are cited the names of previously established nominal species which, if it were not for this Declaration, would under the Paris decision quoted above have ranked as originally included species. In the present case the nominal species Dermanyssus avium Duges was (apart from certain nomina nuda which do not enter in this matter) the sole nominal species recognised as a taxonomically valid species by Dugés when he esablished the nominal genus Dermanyssus in January 1834. Accordingly under the terms of Declaration 26 the genus Dermanyssus Dugés is to be treated as having been established as a monotypical genus with Dermanyssus avium Dugées as type species. (This subject is re-examined from a different angle in paragraph 10 below.) 8. At this point it is necessary to take note that, as shown by the quotation given in paragraph 2 above, the Commission appears to have been uncertain as to what was the name which should be cited— whether gallinae or avium—as the name of the type species of the genus Dermanyssus Dugés, though it accepted the synonymisation of these names and treated gallinae as the name to be used for the taxonomic unit so recognised. It would not be profitable to speculate at this date as to what was the meaning which, in the entry concerned, DIRECTION 92 57 the Commission intended to convey. It will be sufficient to recall that the time has long since passed when it was considered appropriate to include subjective views as to the synonymy of specific names in entries made on the Official List. We may, therefore, leave this matter, after noting that a complete re-writing of the entry on the Official List in regard to this generic name will be required as part of the settlement of the present case. 9. As noted above, the Commission in its Opinion 104 indicated that at that time the nominal species Acarus gallinae De Geer, 1778, and Dermanyssus avium, 1834, were considered to represent the same nominal species. This view is still today the currently-held interpretation of these nominal species. Hitherto, however, this synonymisation has been subjective only, and so long as this remains so, there can be no place for the specific name gallinae de Geer in the revised Ruling to be given by the Commission. But this would not be the case if the existing subjective synonymisation of the above names could be converted to an objective basis, for in that event it would be possible to dispose of the name avium Dugés once and for all by placing it, as a junior objective synonym of gallinae de Geer, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Fortunately, this is possible, for, as has been shown in paragraph 6 above, the availability of the name Dermanyssus avium Dugeés, January 1834 (: 18) rests in part upon the citation of Acarus gallinae de Geer in the synonymy of that nominal species at the time of its establishment in January 1834. Accordingly, the two nominal species could be made objectively identical with one another if a lectotype were to be selected for Acarus gallinae de Geer, 1778, and if the specimen so designated were then to be designated as the lectotype of Dermanyssus avium Dugés, 1834. I accordingly now (a) select the specimen shown by de Geer as figure 13 of plate 6 as Acarus gallinae de Geer in Volume 7 of the Mém. Hist. Ins. to be the lectotype of that nominal species and (b) select the above specimen to be also the lectotype of the nominal species Dermanyssus avium Dugeés, 1834.* By this twofold action the specific names avium Dugés and gallinae de Geer become objective synonyms of one another and the current subjective synonymisation of these names is placed on an unassailable basis. 10. We have next to note that under Declaration 21 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 12 : i—viii) it is provided that, where one of two or more objectively identical nominal species is designated, indicated or selected as the type species of a genus, that genus shall be cited as having as its type species the oldest established of the nominal species concerned. In the present case, as we have seen, (1) the type * It will be understood that as in previous similar cases the lectotype selections here made will technically become effective only when the present paper is published in the Direction to be rendered for the purpose of placing on record the decision taken by the Commission in the present case. 58 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS species of the genus Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834 was “indicated ”’ by monotypy as Dermanyssus avium Dugés, 1834 (paragraph 7 above) and (2) the name Dermanyssus avium Dugés, 1834, is a junior objective synonym of the name Acarus gallinae de Geer, 1778. Accordingly it is the nominal species Acarus gallinae de Geer, 1778, and not the later- established objectively identical nominal species Dermanyssus avium Dugés, 1834, which under the above Declaration is the species to be cited as the type species of the genus Dermanyssus Dugés. 11. In addition to the rectification on the lines indicated above of the entry on the Official List relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Dugés certain other action is now required in order to comply with the Directives issued to the International Commission by the International Congresses of Zoology on the subject of the maintenance and promotion of the Official Lists. These include the addition (a) to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name gallinae de Geer, 1778, as published in the combination Acarus gallinae, (b) to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology of the objectively invalid specific name avium Dugés, 1834, as published in the combination Dermanyssus avium, and (c) to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology of the Invalid Emendation Dermanissus Kolenati, [1856] (Paras. Chiropt. : 19, 21, 50). Proposals on these subjects are sub- mitted in the immediately following paragraph. In addition, there is the question whether any family-group-name problems arise in this case. This matter is being investigated and any necessary proposals will be submitted in due course. 12. The following recommendations are now submitted, namely that the International Commission should :— (1) substitute the following revised entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic name Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834, in place of the entry in regard thereto made by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 :— 510. Dermanyssus Dugeés, January 1834, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (2) 1 : 18 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy and through Declaration 21: Acarus gallinae de Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 111, pl. 6, figs. 13, 14) (2) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— gallinae de Geer, 1778, as published in the combination Acarus gallinae (specific name of type species of Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834) DIRECTION 92 59 (3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— avium Duges, 1834, as published in the combination Dermanyssus avium (a junior objective synonym of gallinae de Geer, 1778, as published in the combination Acarus gallinae, through the selection in paragraph 9 above of the same specimen to be the lectotype both of Acarus gallinae de Geer and of Dermanyssus avium Dugés) (4) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Dermanissus Kolenati, [1856] (an Invalid Emendation of Dermanyssus Dugeés, 1834). 2. Registration of the present application : As soon as it was ascertained that the entry relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Dugés made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 was defective, the problem so involved was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1132. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)21 : On 18th October 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)21) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the generic name Dermanyssus Duges, 1834 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina), as set out in paragraph 12 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1132 [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ’’. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 18th November 1957. 60 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5, Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)21 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)21 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 ; Mayr; Bonnet; Stoll; Vokes; Lemche; Bodenheimer; Bradley (J.C.); Hering; Hanko; Prantl ; Riley ; Dymond ; Esaki ; Tortonese ; Boschma; Hemming; Mertens; Cabrera; Miller; Kiuhnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Jaczewski ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Key ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, one (\) ; do Amaral. 6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 19th November 1957, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)21, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 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. 7. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present “ Direction ”’ : On 14th December 1957 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a * After the close of The Prescribed Voting Period a late Affirmative Vote was received from Commissioner do Amaral. DIRECTION 92 61 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.)(57)21. 8. 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 Direction :— avium, Dermanyssus, Dugés, January 1834, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (2) 1: 18 Dermanissus Kolenati, [1856], Paras. Chiropt. : 19, 21, 50 Dermanyssus Dugés, January 1834, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) Qy1:18 gallinae, Acarus, De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7: 111, pl. 6, figs. 13, 14 9. Lectotype Selections : The following are the references for the lectotype selections specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— For Acarus gallinae De Geer, 1778 ee 1958, Ops. Decls. int. For Dermanyssus avium | Comm. zool. Nomencl. \{F) : 57 Duges, January 1834 10. Family-Group-Name Aspect : The family-group-name aspect of the present case has been deferred, pending its examina- tion in connection with the preparation for the consideration of the Commission of comprehensive proposals regarding the family-group-name problems involved in connection with the entries relating to the names of other genera of the Class Arachnida made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. 62 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 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. 12. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Ninety- Two (92) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourteenth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & COOPER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 Issued 28th March, 1958 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 1. SECTION F. Part F.6. Pp. 63—72 DIRECTION 93 Clarification and completion of the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the generic name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 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 1958 Price Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 93 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) (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 JACZEWSK1 (Unstitute 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-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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, 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. HoLtHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ee August 1953) L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Baebeee: A.C.T., Australia) (A5th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Nadrodni 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 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) DIRECTION 93 CLARIFICATION AND COMPLETION OF THE ENTRY ON THE ‘ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ CHORIOPTES ” GERVAIS & VAN BENEDEN, 1859 (CLASS ARACHNIDA, ORDER ACARINA) MADE BY THE RULING GIVEN IN ** OPINION ” 104 RULING :—(1) It is hereby directed that the name Sarcoptes caprae be treated as having been first validly published in January 1858 by Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.M.) in Volume 11 of the Fifth Series of the Archives générales de Medicine, Paris. (2) It is hereby directed that in the entry regarding the generic name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 the following revised particulars regarding the type species of the genus so named be substituted for the entry consisting of the single word “‘ caprae ” then inscribed on the above List :— Sarcoptes caprae Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.M.), (January) 1858 SMITHSO ee ONIAN ann 4 » cara 66 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. 1489 :— caprae Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.M.), (January) 1858, as published in the combination Sarcoptes caprae (specific name of type species of Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859). I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction forms part of the concluding group of Directions embodying decisions clarifying, completing, or correct- ing, entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preparation for the publication of the foregoing List in book-form. The particular subject dealt with in this Direction is the entry relating to the generic name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) 25—28). The issues involved in the present case were placed before the Commission by the Secretary in the following paper on 6th October 1957 :— Proposed clarification and completion of the portion of the entry on the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ relating to the generic name ‘‘ Chorioptes ’’ Gervais & van Beneden, 1859 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina) made by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 104 which is concerned with the name of the type species cf the above genus By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present note is concerned with one limited question connected with the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating DIRECTION 93 67 to the name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina), doubts regarding which made it necessary to defer this case for further examination when on 11th June 1956 I submitted to the International Commission a paper bearing the Registered No. Z.N.(S.) 1018 containing proposals for the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific names of the type species of genera belonging to the Class Arachnida and to certain other Classes, the names of which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936, 2. The name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in 1928 in Opinion 104. It was there stated that the type species of this genus was “‘caprae’’ by original designation. 3. Despite the incomplete and unsatisfactory manner in which the name of the type species of the genus Chorioptes was cited at the time when the name of that genus was placed on the Official List no difficulty would normally have been experienced in determining the combination in which the name had been originally published, the author by whom the name had been given and the date and place where the name had been published ; for such information, even if not given by the original author of the generic name, can generally be traced from such particu- lars as are given by that author. The routine investigations carried out by the Office of the Commission in connection with the preparation of the Official List for publication in book-form quickly established that the specific name “caprae”’ cited in Opinion 104 had been published in the combination Sarcoptes caprae and that it had been proposed jointly by Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.M.). It was as regards the date on which this name was first published and even more as to where it first appeared that difficulties were encountered. The investigations carried out in this matter showed that the name Sarcoptes caprae Delafond & Bourguignon had been published as a new name in three separate papers which appeared very close to one another in time. The three occasions concerned are as follows :— (a) Bulletin de l’ Académie de Medicine, Paris 23(4) : 110—126 In this serial the paper by Delafond & Bourguignon was published in full. The name Sarcoptes caprae appeared twice, first on page 123 and again on page 125. The specific characters for this taxon were given on the last-named page. This volume contains reports of meetings of the Académie de Meédicine held between September 1857 and September 1858. The volume is 68 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS divided into “‘numbers’’ but these do not throw any light on the question as to when any of the papers included in the volume were published. The title page of the volume bears the date “‘ 1857—1858 ”’. (b) Archives générales de Médecine (5) 11 : 18—48 In this serial also the paper by Delafond & Bourguignon was published in full, the name Sarcoptes caprae appearing on pages 29 and 31, the specific diagnosis being given on the later of these pages. The title page of this volume bears the date “ 1858 ”’. The volume was published in parts, the first part, which is that in which the above paper appeared, bearing the date “ Janvier 1858”. (c) Gazette médicale de Paris (3) 12 : 758 On the page noted above there is an anonymous report of the meeting of the Académie de Medicine at which Delafond & Bourguignon presented the paper in which they introduced their new species Sarcoptes caprae. That nominal species is mentioned in this anonymous report but the specific diagnosis provided by the authors in their paper is omitted and the observations here published regarding Sarcoptes caprae contain not a single diagnostic character for that species. The volume of the Gaz. méd. Paris containing the report discussed above, bears on the title page the date “‘Année 1857 ”’, but, as the portion containing the above report is near the end of the volume, that report may well not have appeared until some time in 1858. It is not necessary, however, to pursue this matter further, since even if it could be shown that it was in this report that the name Sarcoptes caprae first saw the light, the name so published could not rank for priority as from the Gaz. méd., for (as explained above) it was as a nomen nudum only that it appeared in that serial. 5. It will be seen from the particulars given above that the paper containing the name Sarcoptes caprae Delafond & Bourguignon was first validly published either in the Bull. Acad. Méd., Paris, or in the Arch. gén. Méd., Paris. In the first of these serials it may have appeared at the end of 1857, but there is no evidence that it did so. If it did not appear in that year, it no doubt appeared sometime in the year 1858. We know, however, that in the Arch. gén. Méd., this paper appeared in 1858 as early as the month of January. Under a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, a name, the precise date of publication of which is not known, is to be treated for the purposes of the Law of Priority as having been published on the last day of the period in which it is known to have DIRECTION 93 69 appeared (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 223—244), this being the earliest date on which it is definitely established that publication took place. When we apply this rule to the present case, we find that, although in the Bull. Acad. Méd., the name Sarcoptes caprae may have been published in 1857, it is not known to have been so published and that the earliest date on which it certainly did appear in that serial was 3lst December 1858, the last day of the period in which according to the title page, the volume in question as a whole was published. On the other hand, we know from the legend at the head of the part in which this name was published in the Arch. gén. Méd. that publica- tion took place in January 1858. From this evidence we see that under the decision taken in Paris cited above the name Sarcoptes caprae Delafond & Bourguignon must be treated for the purposes of zoo- logical nomenclature (a) as having been first published in the Arch. gén. Méd., Paris, and, therefore, (b) as having priority as from January 1858. 6. It is recommended that in the light of the particulars set out above the International Commission should :— (1) substitute in the entry regarding the generic name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 the following revised entry relating to the type species of the genus bearing the above name in place of the entry consisting of the single word “‘ caprae’’ then inscribed on the above List :— Sarcoptes caprae Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.M.), (January) 1858, Arch. gén. Méd., Paris (5) 11 : 29, 31 (2) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— caprae Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.M.), (January) 1858, as published in the combination Sarcoptes caprae (specific name of type species of Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859). 2. Registration of the present application : As soon as it came to notice that the entry relating to the generic name Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden made on the Official List by the Ruling 70 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS given in Opinion 104 was in need of amplification and completion, the problem so involved was allotted the Registered No. Z.N.(S.)1131. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)22 : On 18th October 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)22) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the name of the type species of the genus Chorioptes Gervais & van Beneden, 1859 (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina), as set out in paragraph 6 of the paper bearing the Registered No. Z.N.(S.)1131 [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 18th November 1957. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)22 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)22 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 ; Mayr; Bonnet; Stoll; Vokes ; Lemche ; Bodenheimer; Bradley (J.C.); Hering; Hanko; Prantl ; Riley ; Dymond ; Esaki ; Tortonese ; Boschma ; Hemming; Mertens; Cabrera; Miller; Kuhnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Jaczewski ; DIRECTION 93 4s (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Key ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : do Amaral.! 6. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 19th November 1957, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)22, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 7. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 14th December 1957 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(O.M.)(57)22. 8. Original References : The following is the original reference for the name placed on an Official List by the Ruling given in _ the present Direction :— caprae, Sarcoptes, Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.M.), (January) 1858, Arch. gén. Méd., Paris (5) 11: 29, 31 1 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period a late affirmative vote was received from Commissioner do Amaral. TU? OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 9, Family-Group-Name Aspect : The family-group-name aspect of the present case has been deferred, pending its examination in connection with the preparation for the consideration of the Commission of comprehensive proposals regarding family-group- name problems involved in connection with the entries relating to the names of other genera of the Class Arachnida made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. 10. 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 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. 11. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Ninety- Three (93) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourteenth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Seven. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & COOPER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON | ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE | Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1, SECTION F.. Part F.7. Pp. 73—86 | DIRECTION 94 Clarification of the entry relating to the generic name Sarcoptes Laireille, [1802—1803] (Class Arachnida) made on the Official List of Generie-Names in Zoology by the Ruling gi aye Opintony TN J / V ae 22 1959 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 1958 Price Nine Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 2nd May, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE’ RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 94 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. Toute (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. 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 (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. HoLtuHuts (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) Riofessor F. S. BODENHEIMER (Zhe 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 94 CLARIFICATION OF THE ENTRY RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ SARCOPTES ”? LATREILLE, [1802— 1803] (CLASS ARACHNIDA) MADE ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” BY THE RULING GIVEN IN ‘“ OPINION ” 113 RULING :—(1) The following revised entry relating to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Arachnida) is hereby inserted in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in substitution for the entry in regard thereto made by the Ruling given in Opinion 113 :— 542 Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] (gender : mas- culine) (type species, by monotypy : Acarus siro [var.]' scabiei Linnaeus, 1758). (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the name Number 1267 :— Acarus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810) : Acarus siro Linnaeus, 1758, as interpreted by Fabricius (J.C.) (1794) as “* First Reviser ’? as being objec- tively identical with Acarus siro [var.}' farinae Linnaeus, 1758. (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) scabiei Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Acarus siro [var]: scabiei (specific name of 1 For a note on the method here adopted for citing this name see paragraph 7 of the present Direction. SMITH MLL EISONIAN MAV + a 40k0@ 76 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS type species of Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803]) (Name No. 1510) ; (b) siro Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro and interpreted as specified in (2) above (specific name of type species of Acarus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1511). (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 1156 :— Tyroglyphus Latreille, 1796 (a junior objective synonym of Acarus Linnaeus, 1758). (5) 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) farinae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Acarus siro [var.]* farinae (a junior objective synonym of siro Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro, through the First Reviser selection made by Fabricius (J.C.) (1794) ) (Name No. 517) ; (b) scabicei Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, as published in the combination Acarus scabicei (an Erroneous Sub- sequent Spelling for scabiei Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro [var.|? scabiei) (Name No. 518). 1. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ** DIRECTION ” In the course of the review of the entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 2 See Footnote 1. DIRECTION 94 Th 1936 undertaken in connection with the preparations for the - publication of that List in book-form, it was found that there were certain obscurities in the entry in regard to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Arachnida) made by the Ruling given in Opinion 113 which required to be clarified. These matters were accordingly investigated in the Office of the Commission and on 28th November 1957 the results of that investigation were submitted to the Commission by the Secretary in the following paper :— Proposed clarification of the entry relating to the generic name ** Sarcoptes *’ Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Arachnida) made on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ by the Ruling given in ‘* Opinion’ 113 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The purpose of the present note is to obtain from the International Commission a clarification of the entry relating to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Arachnida) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 113. A decision on this is now urgently required in view of the impending publication of the Official List in book-form. 2. The Ruling (then styled “‘Summary’’) given in Opinion 113 reads as follows :— Sarcoptes Latreille dates from 1802 instead of 1804 or 1806 as frequently quoted. It was originally monotypic, containing only Acarus scabiei. The 1810 type designation of Acarus passerinus 1s invalid under Article 30c and 30e«. The acceptance of Acarus scabiei as type species of Acarus is invalidated by Article 30g, according to which Acarus siro (syn. farinae) is the type of Acarus. Sarcoptes Latr., 1802, mt. scabiei is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names. 3. Before we examine the issue involved in this case, it may be convenient to restate the foregoing Ruling stripped of the obscurities inherent in the extremely condensed style of drafting current in the days when Opinion 113 was rendered :— 78 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The generic name Sarcoptes dates from 1802 [actually from [1802—1803] | (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 67) instead of 1804 [actually [1803—1804] ] (ibid. 7 : 409) or 1806 [actually [1803— 1804] ] (ibid. 8 : 54—55) as frequently stated. It was originally monotypic, containing only Acarus scabiei Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 616). The 1810 type selection by Latreille (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins.) of Acarus passerinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Joc. cit. 1 : 616) is invalid under Article 30 (Rules (c) and (e)(«) ). The acceptance of Acarus scabiei as the type species of Acarus Linnaeus, 1758 (Joc. cit. 1 : 615) is invalidated by Rule (g) in Article 30, according to which Acarus siro Linnaeus, 1758 (loc. cit. 1 : 616) (synonym : farinae Linnaeus, 1758 (loc. cit. 1 : 616) ) is the type species of Acarus Linnaeus. The name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802— 1803], type species by monotypy: “ scabiei’’, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 4. It will be noted that in the expanded version of the Ruling in Opinion 113 given in the immediately preceding paragraph the bibli- ographical references for the names cited have been added in all cases and, where necessary, the dates given in the above Opinion have been corrected. What has not been done however is to correct the com- bination given for the specific name scabiei Linnaeus or to cite the original combination for the name “ farinae’’ Linnaeus. This is because it is in regard to these matters that the point discussed in the present note comes up for attention. 5. Reference to the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae (: 616) shows that the species (Acarus siro) there cited as Species No. 15 of the genus Acarus was described in two sections, the term “ farinae ”’ being applied to the first of these sections and the term “ scabiei”’ to the second. These terms have been accepted by later workers as varietal names and it is not proposed that the validity of that practice should be called into question. What must be noted however is that between them farinae and scabiei cover the whole of the content of the nominal species Acarus siro Linnaeus. In other words—to use modern terminology—the type specimen either of farinae or of scabiei must be the same specimen as is the type specimen of the nominal species Acarus siro Linnaeus, since otherwise it would be impossible to attach any meaning to that nominal species. The question to be considered is therefore (1) whether farinae is objectively synonymous with siro, in which case scabiei, described as Acarus siro var. scabiei could be treated as being available for the species to which it has commonly been applied, or (2) whether scabiei is objectively synony- mous with siro, in which case farinae, as described as Acarus siro vat. farinae, could be treated as being available for the species to which was applied by Linnaeus. What is required therefore is to find the first author in the literature who realised that either the name farinae or the name scabiei must be regarded as having precisely the same DIRECTION 94 79 meaning as siro itself and who therefore sank one or other of the above names as a synonym of siro, while retaining the other name as an available name. This question is discussed below. 6. The first author to discuss identity of the taxa described by Linnaeus under the names Acarus siro and its varieties farinae and scabiei was De Geer (1778, Mem. Ins. 7 : 88—89) who clearly identified scabiei Linnaeus with the itch mite of Man and quadruped mammals and farinae Linnaeus with the flour mite. De Geer stated that the itch mite (scabiei) had been confused by Linnaeus under the name Acarus siro, but he made no mention of the latter nominal taxon when discussing farinae Linnaeus. De Geer cannot therefore be regarded as having, as a First Reviser, definitely identified the nominal taxon Acarus siro Linnaeus with farinae Linnaeus, although he clearly separated it from scabiei Linnaeus. Effective First Reviser action was however taken in 1794 (Ent. syst. 4 : 430) by Fabricius (J.C.) who sank farinae De Geer (i.e. farinae Linnaeus) as a junior synonym of Acarus siro Linnaeus and accepted scabicei [an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for scabiei] De Geer (i.e. scabiei Linnaeus) as a good species. Similar action was taken by Latreille in 1796 (Précis Caract. Ins. : 185) when he established a new nominal genus Tyroglyphus with what he called Acarus siro Linnaeus as type species by monotypy. He made it clear that in using this binomen he was referring to the species which he later wrote of as the “‘Ceron de fromage”’, i.e. farinae Linnaeus, but he did not deal expressly with the taxon termed scabiei by Linnaeus. In [1802—1803] however, he returned to this subject in Volume 3 of the Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. and this time he unquestionably identified farinae with siro and retained scabiei as the name Acarus siro. For on page 64 of the above volume he cited Acarus siro as an example of the genus Acarus Linnaeus and on page 67 he cited what he called Acarus scabiei as an example of his new genus Sarcoptes, of which, as the sole nominal specific taxon then cited, it became the type species by monotypy. Moreover, when dealing with Acarus in this volume Latreille recalled that in the Précis he had established the genus Tyroglyphus for the species to which, as in the Précis, he now applied the name Acarus siro, i.e. the ““ Ceron de fromage’’. For assistance in dealing with this aspect of the present case grateful acknowledgement is made of valuable assistance received from Dr. Benjamin Schwartz (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Animal Disease and Parasite Research Division, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.). 7. From the particulars given above we see that as the result of the First Reviser action taken by Fabricius in 1794 the names Acarus siro Linnaeus, 1758, and Acarus siro var. farinae Linnaeus, 1758, are objective synonyms of one another. Accordingly the name /arinae Linnaeus, 1758, is an objectively invalid name. On the other hand, 80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS as the result of the same action by Fabricius the name Acarus siro var. scabiei Linnaeus, 1758, becomes the oldest available name for the itch mite and the valid name for the type species of the genus Sarcoptes Latreille. This conclusion, it will be noted (from the extract quoted in paragraph 2 above), corresponds exactly with those reached by the Commission in 1929 in its Opinion 113, where farinae Linnaeus was sunk as a junior synonym of siro Linnaeus and the name scabiei Linnaeus was accepted as a nomenclatorially available name and in consequence was treated as the valid name for the type species of the genus Sarcoptes Latreille. It is particularly desirable that the action needed to complete that taken nearly thirty years ago in the Opinion cited above should be taken with as little further delay as possible, for, until this is done, there is a risk that authors may be misled into following Vitzthum who in the volume concerned in Bronn’s Thierreich (a) identified scabiei with siro (in spite of the valid action in the opposite sense taken by Fabricius in 1794) (paragraph 6 above), and placed that species in the genus Acarus Linnaeus (: 891), at the same time sinking Sarcoptes Latreille as a synonym of that generic name (: 8) and (b) adopted the invalid name farinae Linnaeus for the species of which the correct name is siro Linnaeus, placing that species in the genus Tyroglyphus Latreille. This incorrect treatment on Vitzthum’s part of the generic names here in question arises from the fact that the nominal species Acarus siro Linnaeus is without doubt the type species of Acarus Linnaeus (by selection by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 425, 132) and in consequence the application of that generic name turns upon the interpretation of the type species of the genus in question. Vitzthum’s treatment of Tyroglyphus would have been correct, if his interpretation of Acarus siro had been correct, but, as we have seen, he fell into error on this subject by ignoring or overlooking the action by Fabricius in 1794, with the result that his treatment of the name Jyroglyphus Latreille was also incorrect. Actually, as already noted, the name 7yroglyphus Latreille is a junior objective synonym of Acarus Linnaeus, the two genera having the same nominal species as type species, namely Acarus siro Linnaeus, 1758, as interpreted by Fabricius (1794) as First Reviser, namely as being identical with Acarus siro var. farinae Linnaeus, 1758. 8. We are now in a position to summarise as follows the action which the International Commission is recommended to take for the purpose of completing the entry relating to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 113, namely that it should :— (1) substitute on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following revised entry relating to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] for the entry made thereon by the Ruling given in Opinion 113 :— 542 Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] (gender: masculine) DIRECTION 94 81 (type species, by monotypy: Acarus siro var. scabiei Linnaeus, 1758) ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Acarus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810): Acarus siro Linnaeus, 1758, as interpreted by Fabricius (J.C.) (1794) as being objectively identical with Acarus siro var. farinae Linnaeus, 1758) ; (3) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) scabiei Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro var. scabiei (specific name of type species of Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803)]) ; (b) siro Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro and interpreted as specified in (2) above (specific name of type species of Acarus Linnaeus, ' 1758) ; (4) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Tyroglyphus Latreille, 1796 (a junior objective synonym of Acarus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (5) place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) farinae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro var. farinae (a junior objective synonym of siro Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro, through the action of Fabricius (1794) ) ; (b) scabicei Fabricius (J.C.), 1794 (: 430), as published in the combination Acarus scabicei (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for scabiei Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus siro var. scabiei). 2. Registration of the present application: When it became evident that certain clarifications of the Ruling in regard to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] given in Opinion 113 would be required before the Official Lists were published in book form, the problems so involved were allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1134. 82 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS II. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)27 : On 4th December 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)27) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the completion of the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic name Sarcoptes Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Arachnida, Order Acarina), made by the Ruling given in Opinion 113, as set out in Points (1) to (5) in paragraph 8 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)1134 [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 4th January 1958. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)27 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)27 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 ; Boschma ; Mertens ; Vokes ; Mayr; Hering ; Prantl ; Miller ; Cabrera; Stoll ; Hemming ; Bonnet ; Lemche; Bradley (J.C.); Kiuhnelt; Jaczewski; Dymond ; do Amaral ; Bodenheimer ; Hanko; Riley ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Tortonese ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; DIRECTION 94 83 (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Esaki.? 6. Declaration of Result of Vote : On Sth January 1957, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (57)27, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 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. 7. Method adopted for citing two names. published by Linnaeus in 1758 in association with the name ‘‘ Acarus siro’’: During the Prescribed Voting Period correspondence took place between the Secretary and Professor J. Chester Bradley on the question of the method to be adopted in citing the names farinae and scabiei published by Linnaeus in 1758 in association with the name Acarus siro. These names were published without com- ment to denote varieties or sections of the foregoing nominal species. In the application submitted in this case Mr. Hemming had taken the view that Linnaeus had regarded the taxa farinae and scabiei as “ varietates.”’ of Acarus siro and he had accordingly cited these names as Acarus siro var. farinae Linnaeus and Acarus siro var. scabiei Linnaeus respectively. Professor Chester Bradley took the view that the unqualified. use of the abbreviation “ var.” inthis way. was not correct, having regard to the fact that Linnaeus had not employed any term to denote the status of the foregoing taxa, and suggested that it might in the circumstances be better to employ the less definite term “ Sectio”’.4 Mr. Hemming, while accepting the general point raised, considered that the unqualified use of the term “ Sectio ” was open to the same objection as was the unqualified use of the term “ var.” and in addition that the use of the term “Sectio”’ in this connection was open to the further objection that there was no ground for supposing that, 3° Shortly after the close of the Prescribed Voting Period information was received that Professor Esaki had died during that Period on 14th lDecember 1957. * Later (in a letter dated 22nd March 1958) Professor Chester Bradley withdrew the suggestion here referred to. 84 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS if Linnaeus had applied a term to denote the status of the taxa concerned, he would have so applied the unusual word “ Sectio ” As the result of further consideration Mr. Hemming reached the conclusion that the proper course would be to employ the word ““varietas ’’ (in the abbreviated form “var.”) in these cases, subject to the use of some formula to make it clear that the above word had not actually been employed by Linnaeus 1m this con- text ; for in his writings on plants Linnaeus had clearly recognised the concept “ varietas ” and, as he had applied to the naming of animals the same rules as those which he had earlier elaborated for the naming of plants, it would be reasonable to conclude that he recognised the same concept in relation to animals and there- fore that it was as * varietates ~ of Acarus siro that he had regarded the taxa to which he applied the names farinae and scabiei respectively. As regards the formula to be employed for the purpose of showing that the word “ var.” had not actually been employed by Linnaeus when publishing the foregoing names Mr. Hemming took the view that in the circumstances the most satisfactory course would be to enclose in square brackets the word “ var.’’, when cited in this connection, for this formula was in current use for the citation of items not actually specified in any given work, e.g. (a) when citing the date of a name in cases where that date had been determined by reference to sources other than the actual book concerned and (b) as a means for distinguish- ing the first edition of a book in cases where two or more editions were published and where inevitably the first edition was noi marked as such on its title page. Accordingly, on 8th January 1958 as a preliminary to the preparation of the Ruling to be included in the Direction required for the purpose of giving effect to the vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (57)27, Mr. Hemming executed a Minute directing that in the Ruling so to be prepared the two names in question be cited as Acarus siro |var.| farinae Linnaeus, 1758, and Acarus siro [var.| scabiei Linnaeus, 1758, respectively. 8. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 8th January 1958 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.)(57)27. DIRECTION 94 85 9. 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 Direction :— Acarus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 615 farinae, Acarus siro [var.], Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 616 scabicei, Acarus, Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, Ent. syst. 4 : 430 scabiei, Acarus siro [var.], Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 616 siro, Acarus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 616 Tyroglyphus Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 185 10. Selection of a type species for a nominal genus: The following is the reference for the selection of a type species for a nominal genus specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— For Acarus Linnaeus, Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. 1758 Crust. Arach. Ins. : 425, 132 11. Reference for a First Reviser Selection determining the identity of the nominate subspecies of a nominal species specified in the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : For Acarus siro Linnaeus, 1758, iden- Fabricius (J.C.), 1794, tification of Acarus siro [var.] Ent. syst. 4 : 430 farinae Linnaeus, 1758, as representing the nominate sub- species of 12. Family-Group-Name Aspects: The family-group-name aspects of the present case have been postponed for further 86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS investigation in order that at a later date comprehensive proposals may be placed before the Commission in regard to the family- group-name problems arising in connection with all the names of genera belonging to the Class Arachnida placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. 13. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures: The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenciature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under- signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 14. ‘* Direction’? Number: The present Direction shall be known as Direction Ninety-Four (94) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Eighth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 1. SECTION F. Part F.8. Pp. 87—126__ DIRECTION 97 Determination under the Plenary Powers of the specific name to be used for the North American Alligator and of the spelling to be used for that name (Class Reptilia) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 92) 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 1958 Price One Pound Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 16th May, 1958. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 97 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological ' Museum, Tring, Herts, England) f 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) Be I 1oaee 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. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) 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. HoLruuts (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) 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) DIRECTION 97 DETERMINATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME TO BE USED FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN ALLIGATOR AND OF THE SPELLING TO BE USED FOR THAT NAME (CLASS REPTILIA) (‘* OPINION ” SUPPLEMENTARY TO ** OPINION ” 92) RULING :—(1) The following action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :— (a) The specific name alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (b) The emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801]', as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis, is hereby validated. (2) It is hereby directed that the following revised entry in regard to the generic name Alligator Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807, be substituted for the entry in regard 1 At the time when the Report submitted in the present case was laid before the Commission, all that was known as to the date of publication of the name Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin was that it appeared on some date in the year bearing the title ““An X” in the French Revolutionary Calendar, that being the date inscribed on the title page of Volume 2 of the Reptile Section of Sonnini’s Buffon. Accordingly, this name was treated as having been published in the period September 1801—September 1802, the months included in “An X”. Attention has since been drawn to a paper published in 1940 (Amer. Mid. Nat. 23 : 692) in which Harper was able to establish a closer date for the foregoing volume and also closer dates for the other seven volumes of the Reptile Section of Sonnini’s edition. In the case of Volume 2, the date so established was “‘ December 1801” and in consequence the date “[1801]” has been substituted for the date ‘‘ [1801—1802] ” for this name both in the present Ruling and in the paragraph (paragraph 21) containing the original references for the names included in this Ruling. CRAITHAQONIAN sa pe a 90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS thereto made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 92 :— 427. Alligator Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807 (gender : masculine) (type species by selection by Stej- neger (L.) & Barbour (T.) (1917) and through Declarations 25 and 21 : Crocodilus mississippi- ensis (emend. under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above of mississipiensis) Daudin, [1801]) (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1517 :— mississippiensis (emend. under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above of mississipiensis) Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipi- ensis (specific name of type species of Alligator Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807) (4) 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) alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator, as suppressed under th oes Powers in (1)(a) above (Name No. 52'1):: (b) lucius Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807, as published in the combination Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius (a junior objective synonym of mississippiensis (emend. of mississipiensis) Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipi- ensis, through the lectotype selection made by Mertens (R.) (1956)) (Name No. 522); DIRECTION 97 9] (c) mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis (rejected under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above as an Invalid Original Spelling for mississippiensis) (Name No. 523) ; (d) missisipensis Gray (J.E.), 1831, as published in the combination Alligator missisipensis (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for mississippiensis (emend. of mississipiensis) Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis) (Name No. 524). (5) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 223 :— ALLIGATORIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1844 (type genus : Alligator Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The purpose of the application submitted in the present case was to secure from the International Commission authority for making certain corrections in the entry relating to the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807 (Class Reptilia) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 92. The need for action in this matter came to light in the course of investigations carried out by the Secretary in connection with the preparations for the publication of the above Official List in book-form. The problems involved proved to be unexpectedly complex and the Secretary took the view that, before any recom- mendations could usefully be submitted to the Commission, it was desirable that an extensive canvass of opinion should be taken among interested specialists. These consultations were 92 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS completed by the early part of 1956 and on 9th May of that year Mr. Hemming signed the following Report in which after setting out the nature of the problems involved and giving particulars of the advice which had been received in response to the question- naire which had been issued in this case, he submitted for the consideration of the Commission a series of recommendations based upon the views expressed by the majority of the specialists consulted :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to ensure that the specific name ‘* mississipiensis °’ Daudin, [1801—1802]? as published in the combination ‘* Crocodilus mississipiensis ’’ shall be the oldest available name for the North American Alligator (Class Reptilia) (supplement to, and, in part, correction of, a Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 92) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Historica! Background The purpose of the present application is to seek the approval of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the correction in certain particulars of the entry relating to the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807 (Class Reptilia) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by a Ruling given in Opinion 92 (1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 3—4). The need for action in this matter has been brought to light in the course of the examination, in preparation for the forthcoming publication of the Official List in book-form, of the entries made thereon in the period up to the end of 1936. This examination brought to light also the need for the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers in one respect if the position of the name mississipiensis Daudin for the North American Alligator is to be fully assured. The points at issue are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. The generic name Alligator Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 10 : 25) was published as the name for a subgenus of the genus Crocodilus. Cuvier placed in this subgenus four nominal species, of which the first was Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius (: 28), a new nominal species described from ‘“‘ America septentrionalis ”’. 2 See Footnote 1. DIRECTION 97 93 Cuvier did not designate or indicate a type species for his subgenus Alligator. The first type selection for this genus was made by Stejneger (L.) & Barbour (T.) in 1917 (Check List N. Amer. Amphib. Rept. (ed. 1) : 41), who so selected the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier. This type selection is currently accepted by all specialists in this group (see paragraph 5 below). 3. When in 1926 the name Alligator Cuvier was placed on the Official List (loc. cit.:3), the type species was given as ‘“* Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, 1803”. This entry was incorrect, for the nominal species so named by Daudin was not among the nominal species cited by Cuvier when establishing the nominal taxon Alligator. The date “‘ 1803 ” given for the name mississipiensis Daudin in Opinion 92 is also incorrect, for the volume in which this name appeared is dated ““ An X ” of the French Revolutionary Calendar, i.e. the twelve- month period September 1801 to September 1802. The correct reference for this name is Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801— 1802],? Hist. nat. gén. partic. Rept. 2 : 412, nota (1). 4. The subsequent investigation undertaken in the Office of the Commission brought to light two problems affecting the entries to be made on the Official Lists and Official Indexes in this case which raised also taxonomic issues on which it was apparent that it would be necessary to obtain the views of representative specialists before proposals could be formulated for the consideration of the International Commission. These issues were :— (a) Is the name Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1779, an actual or potential senior subjective synonym of Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802] ? (b) Is it agreed that the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807, and Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801— 1802], represent the same taxonomic unit ? 5. In order to obtain the necessary taxonomic advice on which to base a proposal for the consideration of the International Commission a questionnaire asking for views on the foregoing questions was issued by the Office of the Commission on 7th February 1956 to a number of specialists who, it was thought, would be interested in the issues involved and would be in a position to furnish advice on the action which it was desirable should be taken by the Commission. In the same questionnaire was included a request for information on the question whether the type selection for Alligator Cuvier made by Stejneger & Barbour in 1917 was the earliest such selection made for this nominal species. All the specialists who dealt with this point in their replies 2 See Footnote 1. 94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS stated that, so far as they were aware, the above was the first type selection made for this genus. That type selection has accordingly been accepted in the present paper (paragraph 2 above). The specialists consulted on the foregoing matters were either known to be specialists in the group concerned or by reason of working at National Natural History Museums were in a position to obtain and furnish to this Office the views of representative specialists in their respective countries. 6. The specialists who have been so good as to assist the International Commission with advice in the present case are the following :— J. Guibé (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) E. M. Hering (Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Zoologisches Museum, Berlin) Tadeusz Jaczewski (The Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Zoology, Warsaw) Arthur Loveridge (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) Robert Mertens (Forschungs-Institut u. Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M.) A. I. Ortenburger (University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) H. W. Parker (British Museum (Natural History), London) Jay M. Savage (University of South California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) Malcolm Smith (British Museum (Natural History), London) Heinz Wermuth (Zoologisches Museum, Berlin) Question of the possible suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name ‘‘ alligator ’? Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination ‘‘ Lacerta alligator ”” 7. The first of the matters put to the consultant specialists was whether having regard to the early date of the binomen Lacerta alligator Blumenbach (J.F.), 1779 (Handb. Naturgesch. (1) : 263) and DIRECTION 97 95 the fact that it was commonly treated as representing in part the same species as that which later was named Crocodilus mississipiensis by Daudin, it was “‘ considered that the interests of stability in nomen- clature would be promoted if the Commission were to suppress the above name [alligator Blumenbach] under its Plenary Powers” The following is the portion of the paper submitted to specialists in explanation of the grounds on which the above question was submitted :— “The nominal species Crocodilus lucius Cuvier, 1807, has been identified in later literature with Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802]. Both species have been identified also as being “in part”? the same as Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1779, e.g. by Stejneger (1917). If, as appears to be the case, Blumenbach’s species alligator is considered by specialists to be a composite species which included amongst others the North American Alligator, that name will, by reason of its early date, be a constant menace to nomenclatorial stability, for at any moment some specialist by invoking the provisions of Article 31, might seek to fix Blumenbach’s name alligator to one of the component species. From the point of view of promoting nomenclatorial stability there seems therefore to be a strong case for asking the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name alligator Blumenbach, 1779. The situation is further ageravated by the fact that some authors (e.g. Mook (C.C.) & Mook (G.E.), 1940 : 5) have taken the view that alligator Blumenbach is virtually unidentifiable, the description being so poor. Mook’s discussion of Blumenbach’s name alligator is included in his paper in the Section headed “‘ The North American Crocodile ”’ and it is to be inferred therefore that his view was that, if the name alligator Blumenbach could be interpreted at all, it applied to the above species and not to the Alligator of the Mississippi. It seems therefore that the continued availability for nomenclatorial purposes of the specific name alligator Blumenbach, 1779, not only serves no useful purpose but actually constitutes a serious potential threat to nomenclatorial stability. It is therefore suggested for consideration that the best’ course would be for the Commission, when dealing with the problem of the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807, to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the dangerous nomen dubium the specific name alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator ” 8. The advice received from specialists has proved to be over- whelmingly in favour of the suppression of the specific name alligator Blumenbach, 1779. Ten (10) out of the twelve (12) specialists consulted advise this course (Guibé ; Hering ; Jaczewski ; Loveridge ; Mertens; Ortenburger; Savage; Schmidt; Smith (H.M.); Wermuth). Of the remainder one (Malcolm Smith) considered that the name alligator Blumenbach is a nomen dubium and cannot be used, while the other (Parker) is opposed to the use of the Plenary 96 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Powers in a case such as the present. The replies received on this question are given in Annexe | to the present paper. In view of the advice received a proposal for the suppression of the specific name alligator Blumenbach under the Plenary Powers is included in the present paper. Interpretation of the nominal species ‘*‘ Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius ”’ Cuvier, 1807, and ‘‘ Crocodilus mississipiensis ’’ Daudin [1801—1802] ; 9. The question put to the consultant specialists under Heading (c)— the question under Heading (b) related to the question of the place where a type species for Alligator Cuvier was first validly selected (as to which reference should be made to paragraph 5 above)—was as follows :— “Is the identification of the nominal species Crocodilus lucius Cuvier, 1807, and of Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801— 1802] based upon firm foundations or are there difficulties in this matter which have been glossed over ?’”’ The following is the portion of the paper submitted to specialists in explanation of the grounds on which the above question was submitted :— “The next question on which it is desired to obtain the advice of specialists is whether the original descriptions (a) of Crocodilus lucius Cuvier, 1807, and (b) of Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801— 1802] clearly apply to one species only, that species being unquestion- ably the North American species to which the name mississipiensis Daudin is commonly applied. It is judged necessary to raise this question owing to the fact that among the documents of the Commission relating to this case there are a number of obscure observations which appear to imply that the current identification of one or other of the above nominal species rests upon insecure foundations or is even known to be incorrect. This is a matter which the Commission will need to satisfy itself about before it commits itself to the publication of the Official List in book-form, for it is anxious above all things to secure that, when that volume is published, it shall not be marred by avoidable errors. Moreover, with the help of its Plenary Powers the Commission is in a position to overcome any difficulties which may at present be resting hidden in this matter by providing a solution in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage ”. 10. Of the twelve specialists who returned answers to the question quoted at the beginning of paragraph 9 above, nine (9) replied that there DIRECTION 97 97 was no doubt that the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier and Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin represented the same taxonomic species. The specialists so advising were : Guibé ; Hering ; Mertens ; Ortenburger; Parker; Savage; Schmidt; Smith (M.) ; Wermuth. The remaining three (3) specialists (Jaczewski ; Loveridge ; Smith (H.M.)) replied that they were not in a position to give a definite reply, but one (1) (Smith (H.M.)) pointed out that the two nominal taxa concerned had been treated as representing the same taxonomic unit for at least the last seventy-five years. The replies received on this question are given in Annexe 2 to the present paper. 11. The replies to this part of the questionnaire elicited one very _important piece of information which had not previously been brought to the attention of the International Commission, namely, that the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807, and Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], were based in part upon the same material and therefore that, if the specimen which was a syntype of both of these nominal species were to be selected as the lectotype of each of these nominal species, the names /ucius Cuvier and mississipiensis Daudin would become objective synonyms, and not merely subjective synonyms, of one another. This question was raised by four (4) of consultant specialists, namely: Guibé; Mertens ; Parker; Savage. It was evident that a solution of this problem on the foregoing lines offered great advantages from the point of view of promoting nomenclatorial stability. As the result of further consultations Professor Mertens agreed to furnish a note containing a twofold lectotype selection on the lines described above, the note so furnished to be submitted to the Commission as part of the present application. Professor Mertens has now furnished the promised note which is attached to the present paper as Annexe 3. As the result of the lectotype selection so made by Professor Mertens, the specific name /Jucius Cuvier, 1807, becomes a junior objective synonym of mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802]. As an objectively invalid name, it should therefore be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology at the same time that the name mississipiensis Daudin is placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 12. At this point it is necessary to call attention to the Commission’s recently published Declaration 21 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 12(11) : i—viii) which provides that, ““ where one of two or more objectively identical nominal species is designated, indicated or selected as the type species of a genus, that genus shall be cited as having as its type species the oldest established of the nominal species concerned’. In view of the action of Professor Mertens in selecting the same specimen to be the lectotype of Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807, and of Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], these 98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS names, as being objective synonyms of one-another come within the scope of the provisions of the Declaration referred to above. Accordingly, the name to be cited as that of the type species of the genus Alligator Cuvier is Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801— 1802], and not Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807. Orthography of the specific name ‘‘ mississipiensis ’’ Daudin, [1801— 1802], as published in the combination ‘‘ Crocodilus mississipiensis ”’ 13. It will be noted from the bibliographical reference given in paragraph 3 above that the specific name for the North American Alligator was published in Daudin’s work as mississipiensis, i.e. with a single instead of with a double “‘p” at the end of the third syllable of the word. It is part of the present proposal that the International Commission should place this name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. For this purpose it will be necessary to consider whether the above spelling is to be adopted or whether it is to be looked upon as a mis-spelling which ought to be emended to mississippiensis, either under the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress for the emendation of names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43— 44, Decision 71) or, in default, by action by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. Clearly the first step in such a case is to examine the book in which the name was first published in order to determine whether it contains any clear evidence that the spelling used was due to inadvertence. In the present case reference to Daudin’s book discloses no such evidence. Daudin applied to this species the vernacular (French) name ‘“‘ Le Crocodile du Mississipi’ and his description of this species contains numerous references to this river which in every case was spelled by him with a single ““p’”’. It is evident therefore that Daudin regarded this spelling as the correct spelling. Nor is it possible to argue that the name of this river is correctly spelled only with a double letter “‘ p”’ and therefore that Daudin’s use of a single “p”, both when using it as a French word and as a Latinised word is necessarily incorrect ; for reference to the Oxford English Dictionary shows that in former times the spelling with a single “ p”’ was not uncommon and should not be called incorrect. Accordingly, the emendation of this name to a spelling with a double “p” could not reasonably be justified on the ground that this was the currently accepted spelling and that such an emendation under the Plenary Powers was desirable in order to avoid interference with established nomenclatorial practice. In the present case both the original spelling with the single ‘‘ p’’ and the emended spelling with the double “p” have been used, but it does not appear that the emended spelling can be claimed to be in general use, for the original spelling with the single ““p” has been used in the influential Check List of Stejneger and Barbour which has been widely followed in such matters by many . : DIRECTION 97 99 authors. Unless therefore fresh evidence is elicited as the result of the publication of the present application, it appears that the spelling with the single “p” is not only the Valid Original Spelling for this name but is also in sufficiently wide general use as to make it undesirable that this spelling should be emended to a spelling with a double “‘p’’. Subject to the foregoing reservation it is accordingly proposed that the specific name mississippiensis Holbrook (J.E.), 1842 (N. Amer. Herp. 2 : 53), as published in the combination Alligator mississippiensis, be rejected as an Invalid Emendation of mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], as: published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis, and that it should be thereupon placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, together with the Erroneous Subsequent Spelling missisipensis Gray (J.E.), 1831 (Syn. Rept. : 62), as published in the combination Alligator missisipensis. Family-group-name aspect 14. The genus Alligator Cuvier was made the type genus of a nominal family-group taxon by J. E. Gray who in 1944 (Cat. Tortoises Crocodiles Amphisbaenians Coll. Brit. Mus.: 56) published the family-group name ALLIGATORIDAE. Under the General Directive issued to the International Commission by the International Congress of Zoology this name should now be placed on the Ocal List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Recommendations 15. In the light of the information kindly furnished by specialists which has been summarised in the present application and is given in greater detail in the attached annexes, I recommend that,-in order to clear this particular item in preparation for the publication of the Official List in book-form, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned specific name for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator ; (2) rule that the spelling of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis, is a Valid Original Spelling ; (3) substitute the following emended entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807 :— 427. Alligator Cuvier, 1807 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Stejneger (L.) & Barbour (T.) (1917) and through Declaration 21: Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802)) ; 100 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : mississipiensis Daudin, [1801— 1802], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis (specific name of type species of Alligator Cuvier, 1807) ; (5) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator (name proposed to be suppressed under (1) above under the Plenary Powers) ; (b) /ucius Cuvier, 1807, as published in the combination Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius (a junior objective synonym of mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis, through the lectotype selection made by Mertens (R.), in Annexe 3 to the present paper) ; (c) mississippiensis Holbrook (J.E.), 1842, as published in the combination Alligator mississippiensis (an Invalid Emen- dation of mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis) ; (d) missisipensis Gray (J.E.), 1831, as published in the com- bination Alligator missisipensis (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis) ; (6) place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: ALLIGATORIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1844 (type genus: Alligator Cuvier, 1807). ANNEXE 1 Replies received from specialists on the question whether it is desirable in the interests of nomenclatorial stability that the name ‘“‘ alligator ”’ Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination ‘‘ Lacerta alligator ’’, a possible senior subjective synonym of ‘* mississipiensis ’’ Daudin, [1801—1802], as published in the combination ‘‘ Crocodilus mississipiensis ’’, should be suppressed by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers 1. J. Guibé (Paris) (30th March 1956) L’impossibilité d’identifier d’une facon certaine Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1779, signalée des 1801 par Cuvier (Archiv fuer Zool. u Zoot. p. 169) milite en faveur de la suppression de cette appellation. DIRECTION 97 101 2. E. M. Hering (Berlin) (26th February 1956) I transferred your letter of 31st January in the matter of Alligator to Dr. Heinz Wermuth, our herpetologist, and he told me that he had answered you direct. He has given me a copy of his letter. I agree with him in all the points made in his letter to you of 23rd February. [See No. 12 below.] 3. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Warsaw) (2\st February 1956) I am for the suppression of the specific name alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator. The Plenary Powers of the Commission should be used in this case in the interests of stability in nomenclature. 4. Arthur Loveridge (Cambridge, Mass.) (10th February 1956) In view of the menace to a stabilized nomenclature by the questionably composite species Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1779, I think this name should be suppressed by. the International Commission. 5. Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) (27th February 1956) Im Interesse der Stabilitat der Zoologischen Nomklatur erscheint in der Tat sehr erwiinscht, den Namen Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1779, zu unterdrticken. 6. A. I. Ortenburger (Norman, Oklahoma) (21st February 1956) I am advising “‘ yes ’’ to question (a)... 7. H. W. Parker (London) (10th February 1956) The status of Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1799 does not affect the validity of Alligator Cuvier in any way. Whatever it may have been based on, the only possible impact on this genus would be that the name of its type species might have to be changed. I see no point in suppressing the name because of this contingency. My reasons for this standpoint are :— (1) To suppress a name because possibly, perhaps, sometimes, it might be a nuisance is a very bad principle. It might equally well turn out that to have such an unallocated name was a blessing. (2) If it were so suppressed in the light of the evidence now available, might not a reversal be demanded if the evidence eventually 102 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS proved to be incomplete ? There were specimens associated with Blumenbach’s name(s) “‘ bei den Exemplaren beder Thiere, die im akademischen Museum... befindlich sind...”’. These might be found. 8. J. M. Savage (Claremont, California) (19th April 1956) I would strongly favour suppression of the name Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1779. 9. Karl P. Schmidt (Chigaco, III.) (17th February 1956) It is strongly recommended that the Lacerta alligator of Blumenbach, 1779, be suppressed as a nomen dubium. 10. Hobart M. Smith (Urbana, III.) (23rd February 1956) Since Blumenbach’s name antedates that of both the Alligator and the Crocodile of North America, its acceptance would unquestionably upset present nomenclature, and thus its suppression is clearly in the interests of nomenclatorial stability. 11. Malcolm Smith (London) (2nd March 1956) I regard Lacerta alligator Blumenbach as a nomen dubium and consider that it cannot be used. 12. Heinz Wermuth (Berlin) (23rd February 1956) The name Lacerta alligator Blumenbach, 1779, should be suppressed as a nomen dubium which could endanger the usual name Alligator mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802]. . ANNEXE 2 Replies received from specialists on the question of the interpretation of the nominal species ‘‘ Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius ’’ Cuvier, 1807, and ‘‘ Crocodilus mississipiensis ’’ Daudin, [1801—1802] 1. Guibé (Paris) (30th March 1956) Il apparait comme tout a fait certain que l’exemplaire ayant servi a la description de C. mississipiensis Daudin [1801—1802] avait été vu précédemment par Cuvier. Non seulement Daudin signale le fait, mais Cuvier (1801, p. 170) fait mention de ce specimen rapporté par DIRECTION 97 103 Michaux des bords du Mississipi. Il semble que ce méme exemplaire a servi a Cuvier (1807, p. 28) pour décrire son C. Jucius. Cuvier en effet considére comme sans valeur le travail de Daudin (1807, p. 16). 2. E. M. Hering (Berlin) (26th February 1956) (For the reply from Dr. Hering see Annexe 1, paragraph 2.) 3. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Warsaw) (21st February 1956) We have no herpetologist acquainted with the taxonomy of crocodiles and I am not able to answer this question. 4. Arthur Loveridge (Cambridge, Mass.) (10th February 1956) I can offer no opinion. 5. Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) (27th February 1956) (For Dr. Mertens’s contribution see Annexe 3.) 6. A. I. Ortenburger (Norman, Oklahoma) (2\st February 1956) I am advising “‘ yes’ to question (c)... 7. H. W. Parker (London) (10th February 1956) The species selected as type species of the subgenus Alligator Cuvier, 1827, is the one described by Cuvier under the name Crocodilus lucius. The description accompanying this name is based on two specimens, one collected by Michaux and the other, a larger one, sent to Paris by Peale. Michaux’s specimen had previously been described by Cuvier (1801, Wiedeman’s Arch. f. Zoolog. & Zootom. 2 (2) : 162—167) as probably representing a new species but was not then named. The species represented by this specimen had previously been named Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802]; the type (unique) specimen of this name was the same specimen, i.e. the one collected by Michaux. So, unless it can be shown that Cuvier’s Crocodilus lucius was a composite (i.e. that Peale’s specimen belonged to a different species), the type species of Alligator Cuvier is the one named Crocodilus mississipiensis by Daudin [1801—1802]. 8. J. M. Savage (Claremont, California) (19th April 1956) The name Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], is apparently based upon a single specimen of the American Alligator 104 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS taken by Michaux. This specimen is probably at the Paris Museum. Daudin seems to have had Cuvier’s unpublished manuscript at hand when he described this form and points out on page 413 that the diag- nosis of this form is from Cuvier. If Cuvier (1807) had only one speci- men at hand when he described /ucius it was most certainly the same example mentioned by Daudin. I have not seen Cuvier’s 1807 paper. If more than one specimen was used by Cuvier, we could designate as lectotype the Michaux example. The Commission should check the above data against the original descriptions and, if it has not already done so, should communicate with Dr. J. Guibé at the Paris Museum regarding the Michaux alligator. Daudin’s allocation at the suggestion of Cuvier, of Crocodilus mississipiensis to the group containing the caimans and his description seem to clinch the matter. The Michaux specimen from “les bords du Mississipi ’? could only be the genus A/ligator and not the crocodile of the southern United States, Crocodilus acutus. This could of course be confirmed by an examination of the Michaux specimen, if it still exists. 9, Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago, III.) (17th February 1956) The identification of Crocodilus lucius Cuvier, 1807, with Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], is unequivocal. 10. Hobart M. Smith (Urbana, I/l.) (23rd February 1956) I cannot verify conspecificity of C. Jucius Cuvier and C. mississipiensis Daudin, since I do not have the latter available, but I can point out that these have been accepted as conspecific for at least 75 years, and to construe otherwise would provide for nomenclatorial instability. 11. Malcolm Smith (London) (2nd March 1956) Crocodilus lucius Cuvier and C. mississipiensis Daudin are based on firm foundations and are valid. 12. Heinz Wermuth (Berlin) (23rd February 1956) The species Crocodilus lucius, described by Cuvier, 1807, with a clear North American type locality and as a member of the simultaneously erected group Alligator, cannot be any other crocodile than Alligator mississipiensis (Daudin), which exists as the only species of the family ALLIGATORIDAE in North America. By this reason the identity of Crocodilus lucius Cuvier and Alligator mississipiensis seems clear to me. Merely a future discovery of a second species of the ALLIGATORIDAE in North America would be a conceivable counter-argument, but surely this will never be the case! : DIRECTION 97 105 ANNEXE 3 Der Holotypus von ‘‘Crocodilus mississipiensis’’ Daudin [1801—1802]*, ist der Lectotypus von ‘‘ Crocodilus lucius ’’ Cuvier (G.), 1807 Von ROBERT MERTENS Es liegt meist im Interesse der Stabilitat und Eindeutigkeit der zoologischen Namen, wenn die Synonyma nicht subjektiv, sondern objektiv sind: d.h. wenn sie bei den Genera die gleichen Species als Genotypen, bei Species die gleichen Stiicke als Specietypen haben. Aus Griinden, welche die Internationale Kommission der Zoologischen Nomenklatur dargelegt hat, halte ich es fiir sehr erwiinscht, wenn der Genotypus von Alligator Cuvier, 1807 (Amn. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 10 : 25), namlich Crocodilus lucius Cuvier (I. c. : 28), der bisher als ein subjektives Synonym von Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin [1801— 1802] (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Rept. 2: 412, 1801) galt, zu einem objektiven Synonym des letzteren wird. Das ist durch die Wahl des Typus von /ucius ohne weiteres méglich. Daudin hat seinen Crocodilus mississipiensis auf ein einzelnes Stiick des Musée d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris begriindet, das der Botaniker Michaux von den Ufern des Mississippi [sic] mitgebracht hat. Somit ist dieses Stiick, das sich nach brieflicher Mitteilung von Dr. Jean Guibé an Mr. Hemming im Pariser Museum* befindet, der Holotypus von mississipiensis. Dieses Stiick war bereits Cuvier (1801, Wiede- mann’s Arch. Zool. Zoot. 2 :170) bekannt. Es wird von Cuvier spater [1807] auch bei der Beschreibung seines /ucius erwéhnt, und zwar an erster Stelle ; es kann kein Zweifel dariiber sein, dass es bei der Beschreibung von Jucius vorlag. Wenn auch Cuvier dabei noch ein weiteres (von Peale eingeschicktes) Stiick von /Jucius aufzahlt, so erscheint es mir am richtigsten, das Michaux’sche Stiick, d.h. den Holotypus von mississipiensis, auch zum Lectotypus von J/ucius zu bestimmen : dadurch bleibt nimlich der Genotypus von Alligator fiir alle Zeiten eindeutig mit dem allbekannten Namen mississipiensis in Verbindung. Diese Festlegung des Lectotypus von Jucius in dem oben erwahnten Sinne erfolgt auf berechtigten Wunsch von Mr. Hemming. Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the discovery of the need for a revision of the entry relating to the generic 3 See Footnote 1. * For the letter here referred to by Professor Mertens, see Annexe 2(1). 106 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS name Alligator Cuvier made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the problem so involved was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 551. 3. Comments received before publication of the present applica- tion : As the result of the questionnaire issued by the Office of the Commission on 7th February 1956 the views of twelve specialists were obtained before the preparation of the Secretary’s Report. In that questionnaire the specialists consulted were invited to express their opinion on each of two distinct questions. The replies so received were attached as Annexe | and Annexe 2 respectively to the Report submitted by the Secretary which is reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction. A further document containing a lectotype selection for one of the nominal species involved in the present case was received from one of the specialist consultants. This was attached to the Secretary's Report as Annexe 3. 4. Publication of the Secretary’s Report: The Secretary’s Report was sent to the printer on 9th May 1956 and was published on 24th August of the same year in Part 6 of Volume 12 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1956, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 163—175). 5. Issue of Public Notices on the proposais submitted in the Secretary’s Report : Under the revised procedures 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 24th August 1956 (a) in Part 6 of Volume 12 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the Secretary’s Report was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given to four general zoological serial publications and to two herpetological serials in Europe and America respectively. 6. No Objection Received : The publication of the Secretary’s Report and the consequential issue of Public Notices regarding DIRECTION 97 107 the action under the Plenary Powers recommended therein elicited no objection from any source. The publication of that Report did however give rise to a supplementary application on one point of detail. This is described in the immediately following paragraph. 7. Submission by J. A. Oliver (New York Zoological Society, New York City, N.Y., U.S.A.) of a Supplementary Application for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the emended spelling ** mississippiensis ’’ for the specific name for the North American Alligator : On 8th October 1956, Dr. J. A. Oliver (New York Zoological Society, New York City, N.Y., U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission asking for the validation by the Commission under its Plenary Powers of the emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name for the North American Alligator which, as published by Daudin in [1801], had appeared with the spelling mississipiensis. The receipt of Dr. Oliver’s Supplementary Application called for consideration of the pro- cedure to be adopted for co-ordinating that proposal with the proposals previously submitted in the Secretary’s Report of 9th May 1956 (paragraph 1 above). In order to deal with this aspect of the question, Mr. Hemming on 18th January 1957 prepared a Supplementary Report in which he set out the pro- cedure which he proposed should be adopted. The Report so prepared, to which Dr. Oliver’s letter was annexed as an Appendix, was as follows :— Report on Dr. James A. Oliver’s proposal for the emendation to “* mississippiensis ’’ of the specific name published as ‘‘ mississipiensis ”’ Daudin, [1801—1802], in the combination ‘‘ Crocodilus mississipiensis *’ (Class Reptilia) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Subsequent to the publication on 29th August 1956 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 163—175) of my report on the consultations which I had carried out on the question of the name to be regarded as the oldest available name for the North American Alligator, I received on 12th October 1956 a letter dated 8th October from Dr. James A. Oliver 108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (Curator of Reptiles, New York Zoological Society) in which he expressed the view that the proposals set out in the concluding paragraph of my report (paragraph 15) were “‘ sound and desirable ”’, except as regards the point numbered (2) relating to the spelling to be adopted for the specific name published by Daudin in [1801—1802] as mississipiensis in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis. 2. In reply I informed Dr. Oliver that I felt that, if the Commission were to be asked to consider the proposal that the emendation to a double “‘p”’ spelling of the original single “‘p”’ spelling should be accepted, it would wish to have particulars regarding the relative usage of the two spellings. I have today (16th January 1957) received from Dr. Oliver a letter dated 14th January in which he restates his proposal and gives particulars regarding usage. Dr. Oliver’s letter is annexed to the present report as an Appendix. 3. Although the question of the spelling of the specific name referred to above arises only incidentally in connection with my previous Report, which dealt mainly with the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807, a decision on Dr. Oliver’s proposal is essential as part of the settlement to be reached on the recommendations submitted in my earlier Report since those recommendations included a proposal that the specific name in question should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. \n order to provide the Commission with an opportunity of taking a decision on the spelling to be adopted for this specific name originally published as mississipiensis, it has been decided to adopt the following procedure :— (1) to publish the present supplementary Report in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as quickly as possible ; (2) to give Public Notice in the prescribed manner of the possible use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of approving the emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801—1802], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis ; (3) to defer the submission to the International Commission of a Voting Paper on the proposals submitted in my earlier Report (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 169—170, paragraph 15) until the expiry of the period of six months following the date of publication of the present supplementary Report. (4) at the close of the prescribed six-month period referred to in (3) above to invite the International Commission to vote separately (i) on the question of the acceptance of the emendation referred to in (2) above, and (ii) on the remaining recommendations set out in paragraph 15 of my original Report. DIRECTION 97 109 APPENDIX Copy of a letter with enclosure dated 14th January 1957 to the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature from James A. Oliver (Curator of Reptiles, New York Zoological Society, New York City, N.Y., U.S.A.) Spelling of specific name of Alligator mississippiensis. Your letter of November 30 1956 has been received. I would like to request the Commission to consider the official emendation of the specific name for the American Alligator, spelling it with two “ p’’s instead of one. Herpetologists currently spell the name both ways. I list below several reputable specialists who have spelled it with two “ p’’s in both scientific and popular literature. Most non-herpetologists speil the name with two “p’’s. I indicate below a few papers in which these spellings have appeared. Finally, printers and typesetters constantly correct the spelling from one “‘ p”’ to two “‘ p”’s. The argument put forth that Daudin, [1801—1802], consistently spelled the name of the river with a single “‘p” and that in former times this was an alternate spelling is not impressive. Not uncommonly incorrect spellings of geographic localities have gotten into the literature and required a number of years to eradicate. I believe the spelling of Mississippi with a single “‘ p”’ is a similar orthographic error. Why continue a misspelling that has long been corrected by everyone but a few specialists in herpetology ? I hope the Commission will take steps to emend this erroneous spelling. Amnex to Dr. James A. Oliver’s letter of 14th January 1957 Literature in which the spelling ‘‘ mississippiensis ’’ is used : Name of Author and date Title of Work Boulenger, A. G., 1889 Catalogue of the Chelonians, Rhynchoce- phalians and Crocodiles in the British Museum (Natural History) (I cite this older work because it is still a basic reference.) Carr, A. F., 1940 A Contribution to the Herpetology of Florida 110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Carr, A. F. and Guide to the Reptiles, Amphibians and C. J. Goin, 1955 Fresh-water Fishes of Florida Mertens, Robert, 1943 Die Rezenten Krokodile des Natur-Museums Senckenberg Harman, Ian, 1950 Reptiles as Pets Pope, Clifford, 1956 The Reptile World Coulson, R. A., Biochemical studies on the Alligator T. Hernandez and F. Brazda, 1950 Hopping, A., 1923 Seasonal changes in the gases and sugar of the blood and the nitrogen distribution in the blood and urine of the Alligator Hutton, Kenneth E., Variations in the Blood-chemistry of Turtles 1955 under active and hibernating conditions I have not made a thorough search of the literature on this, but have selected these from sources close at hand. I think they are adequate to illustrate the points raised in my letter. 8. Publication of J. A. Oliver’s Supplementary Application: The Secretary’s Report covering Dr. J. A. Oliver’s Supplementary application was published on 29th March 1957 in Double Part 2/3 of Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 73—75). 9. Issue of Public Notices on the action under the Plenary Powers recommended in J. A. Oliver’s Supplementary Application : 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 for the purpose of approving the emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name for the North American Alligator published by Daudin in [1801] with the spelling miississipiensis was given on 29th March 1957 (a) in Double Part 2/3 of Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the Secretary's Supplementary Report covering Dr. Oliver’s applica- tion was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serials. In DIRECTION 97 Et addition such Notice was given to four general zoological serial publications and to two herpetological serials in Europe and America respectively. 10. Comments received on J. A. Oliver’s Supplementary Application : The publication of J. A. Oliver’s Supplementary Application and the issue of Public Notices in regard thereto elicited comments from four specialists, of whom three supported Dr. Oliver’s proposal and one raised objection thereto. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 11. Support received from Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) : On 29th April 1957, Professor Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed the following note of support for Dr. Oliver’s proposal to the Office of the Commission (Smith, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 189) :-— I strongly urge the approval of the proposal for emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801— 1802], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis. 12. Support received from J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) : On 9th September 1957 there was received in the Office of the Commission the following note from Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) in support of Dr. Oliver’s proposal :— °’ The spelling “‘ mississipiensis”’ involved no error; Daudin was a Frenchman. He was describing a French reptile, living in French Territory in the lower reaches of a river which was then French. He naturally and correctly used the French spelling, which was and still is. with a single “‘ p”’ (cf. Larousse, or any other French dictionary). Before assuming that the author of a taxon has mis-spelled a geographical name it is necessary to know in what language he naturally thought, the spelling of the place-name in that language, and the. proper variants of spelling available to him. 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS But times have changed. Louisiana is no longer French territory ; the Mississippi River is wholly within the United States, and the alligator is an American reptile. By its very nature it has been and will continue to be frequently written about in popular literature. The spelling “ mississipiensis’’ offends American eyes, and will never come to be regarded as correct by any except the erudite few who know its history. Since its emendation “ mississippiensis ’’ has come widely into use, the Commission will do well to bend to the wind and legalize it. 13. Support received from Carl Kauffeld (Staten Island Zoo- logical Society, N.Y., U.S.A.) : On 13th September 1957, Dr. Carl Kauffeld (Staten Island Zoological Society, N. Y., U.S.A.) addressed the following note of support for Dr. Oliver’s proposal to the Office of the Commission :— I heartily endorse Dr. James A. Oliver’s application for emendation of the name Alligator mississipiensis Daudin whereby the specific name would thenceforth be spelled with two “ p’”’s, i.e. “ mississippiensis ”’. 14. Objection received from T. J. Hunt (London) : On 19th May 1957, Mr. T. J. Hunt (London) sent the following objection to Dr. Oliver’s proposals to the Office of the Commission :— This objection is made after a study of the proposal by Dr. James A. Oliver which would invalidate the original specific name mississipiensis. In deciding which form of spelling should in future be used for the specific name four factors should be taken into consideration :— (1) The valid original spelling of the name ; (2) The use of the spellings in published literature ; (3) Whether the invalidation of the original spelling would cause any inconvenience or other difficulties ; (4) Whether the adoption of a spelling other than that of the original form would in this particular case be advantageous. 2. My views on any consideration to invalidate the original spelling in keeping with the above factors in this case are :-— (1) The valid original spelling in this case is mississipiensis. (2) The adoption of the spelling mississipiensis has undoubtedly been used more in published literature than the proposed mississippiensis. (3) The invalidation of the original spelling mississipiensis would be an unfortunate circumstance as besides being a test case for original spellings of specific names, there is no proved case a a — eee eae DIRECTION 97 113 that the spelling mississipiensis is erroneous as stated in the letter of Dr. Oliver. (4) The adoption of mississippiensis as the specific name would in no way merit favour or have advantages over the original spelling. 15. Submission to the Commission by the Secretary in September 1957 of a comprehensive Report covering both the proposals included in the original Application and those included in J. A. Oliver’s Supplementary Application : The prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period, as extended by the directions given by the Secretary on 18th January 1957 (paragraph 7 above) expired on 29th September 1957, thus making it possible for the Commission to take decisions on both branches of the present case, namely, on the proposals set forth in the Secretary’s Report of 9th May 1956 and also those contained in the Supplementary Application submitted by Dr. J. A. Oliver on 8th October 1956. Accordingly, upon the close of the extended Waiting Period the Secretary prepared (on 30th September 1957) the following Report in which, after recalling the chief features of the present case, he submitted comprehensive proposals for the consideration of the Com- mission. ‘In accordance with the procedure laid down in the Secretary's Supplementary Report of 18th January 1957, these proposals were so drawn up as to provide an opportunity for the Commission to vote on the proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the emendation to mississippi- ensis of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin as the specific . mame for the North American Alligator separately from the other proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers involved in this case. The Report so prepared was as follows :— Proposed validation and amplification of the entry relating to the generic name ‘‘ Alligator’? Cuvier, 1807 (Class Reptilia) made on the ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ by the Ruling given in ‘* Opinion ”’ 92 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Introductory The purposes of the present paper is to bring together in a concise form the salient features of the problem raised by the incomplete 114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and, in part, incorrect entry relating to the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 92 and thus to assist the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in reaching decisions on the issues so involved. 2. The present problem came to light in the course of work in this Office in connection with the preparation of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book-form. Extensive consulta- tions then took place with specialists and these led ultimately to the formulation of substantially agreed proposals for remedying the technical defects in the existing entry on the Official List relating to the above generic name. In the course of my Report on the foregoing survey I drew attention to the fact that the specific name for the North American Alligator was originally published with the—from the present-day point of view—incorrect spelling “‘ mississipiensis ”’ instead of ‘‘ mississippiensis”’ but I did not include in that Report a proposal in regard to the possible validation of the spelling with the double ‘“‘ p”’, thinking it better to make a reservation on this point in the recommendations then submitted, leaving the matter open for discussion by specialists after the publication of my Report. Later a proposal for the validation of the foregoing emendation was, however, received in this Office. The two subjects thus involved in the present case—namely (1) the correction of the mistakes made in Opinion 92 and (2) the question of the possible emendation of the spelling of the specific name for the North American Alligator—are quite distinct from one another and are accordingly treated separately both in the present paper and in the Voting Paper now submitted. (a) Questions arising directly on the entry on the ‘‘ Official List ’’ regarding the generic name “‘ Alligator ’’ Cuvier, 1807 3. Two questions at issue: So far as concerns the question of the accuracy of the entry regarding the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807, made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 92, two questions came to light in the course of the survey of the entries made on the Official List by the Ruling given in the foregoing Opinion. These were :— (a) Is the name alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator, an actual or potential senior subjective synonym of the name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis ? DIRECTION 97 iS (b) Does the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807, represent the same taxonomic species (the North American Alligator) as the nominal species Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801] (a nominal species not cited by Cuvier when establishing the nominal taxon Alligator Cuvier, 1807, but cited as the type species of that taxon in Opinion 92)? 4. Specialists consulted : In order to obtain a representative sample of expert opinion on the issues set out above, a Questionnaire was issued on 7th February 1956. The majority of those whom it was decided to consult in this way were specialists in the group concerned, but in a few cases the Questionnaire was issued to specialists in other groups under cover of a letter asking that the Questionnaire be passed on to any specialist in the Class Reptilia who might be working in the same institution. The number of specialists to whom the Questionnaire was issued was twenty. The names of the specialists to whom this Questionnaire was issued are given in Appendix 1 to the present paper. The replies received to this questionnaire were annexed to the Report in which I submitted this case to the Commission (1956, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 163—175). The grateful thanks of the Commission are due to all those furnishing information and advice in response to the request made in the foregoing Questionnaire. 5. Advice received from specialists on the question of the treatment to be accorded to the specific name ‘‘ alligator ’’ Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination ‘‘ Lacerta alligator ’’ : The advice received from the specialists who replied to the first part of the Questionnaire of 7th February 1956 was decisively in favour of the removal by the Commission by the use of its Plenary Powers of the threat to the specific name mississipiensis Daudin represented by the existence of the senior synonym—or possible synonym—alligator Blumenbach. Of the twelve (12) specialists who furnished advice on this question nine (9) recommended the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name alligator Blumenbach, two (2) (J. Guibé ; Malcolm Smith) considered that this name was a nomen dubium and doubted whether it was necessary that it should be suppressed and one (1) (H. W. Parker) was opposed to the use of the Plenary Powers in cases such as the present. The nine specialists who recommended the suppression of the specific name alligator Blumenbach were: E. M. Hering; Tadeusz Jaczewski; Arthur Loveridge; Robert Mertens; A. I. Ortenburger; J. M. Savage; Karl P. Schmidt ; Hobart M. Smith ; Heinz Wermuth. The comments received from the foregoing specialists were reproduced in Annexe 1 (Joc. cit. 12 : 171— 172) to my Report to the Commission on the present case. 6. Advice received on the question of the identity of the nominal species ‘‘ Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius ’’ Cuvier, 1807, and ‘‘ Crocodilus 116 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS mississipiensis ’’ Daudin, [1801]: On the second of the questions referred to in paragraph 3(b) above the advice received from the eleven specialists who replied to the second part of the Questionnaire of 7th February 1956 was equally decisive, all being agreed that the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807 (cited by Cuvier when establishing the—as he considered—nominal subgenus Alligator) represents the same taxonomic unit as that represented by the nominal species Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801] (a nominal species not cited by Cuvier when establishing the taxon Alligator). The communications received from specialists on this subject were reproduced in Annexe 2 (1956, Joc. cit. 12 : 173—174) of my Report to the Commission on the present case. Further—and very fortunately —it transpired in the course of the investigations carried out by this Office that in part the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807, was based upon the same material as that on which in [1801] Daudin had based his nominal species Crocodilus mississipiensis. This made it possible for Mertens (1956, Joc. cit. 12 : 175) to make the foregoing names objective synonyms of one another by selecting the holotype of Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin to be the lectotype of Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier. This had the great advantage that under Declaration 25 the selection by Stejneger & Barbour (1917) of the non-included nominal species Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin to be the type species of Alligator Cuvier, 1807, became a valid type selection by reason of that nominal species being objectively identical with the nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier which was included by Cuvier in the subgenus Alligator when he established that nominal taxon. Further under Declaration 21 the taxon Alligator Cuvier, 1807, is to be cited as having as its type species the nominal species Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801] and not the objectively identical nominal species Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius Cuvier, 1807, notwithstanding the fact that, when Cuvier established the nominal taxon Alligator in 1807 it was the latter and not the former of the above pair of objectively identical nominal species which he cited as belonging to his taxon Alligator. (Note :—The next three paragraphs (paragraph 7 to 9) gave particulars of the publication of the Secretary’s Report of 9th May 1956, the issue of Public Notices in regard to the possible use of the Plenary Powers in connection therewith and the fact that those Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed from any source. These paragraphs are omitted here, as the information contained in them has already been given in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the present Direction.) 10. General Conclusion: The wide coverage of the consultations undertaken in regard to this part of the case, the decisive nature of the advice received and the complete absence, after the publication of the Report, of any opposition to, or criticism of, the action recommended in DIRECTION 97 117 it, appears to me to justify the conclusion that that action commends itself generally to specialists in this field and is the action which it is desirable should be taken by the Commission. (b) The question of the relative merits of the Original Spelling ** mississipiensis ’’ and the Emendation ‘‘ mississippiensis ”’ for the specific name of the North American Alligator 11. Receipt from J. A. Oliver (New York Zoological Society) of an application for the validation of the Emendation ‘‘ mississippiensis ’’ as the specific name for the North American Alligator : On 8th October 1956 Dr. James A. Oliver (New York Zoological Society, New York City, N. Y., U.S.A.) submitted an application to the Commission for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin as the specific name for the North American Alligator. In this application Dr. Oliver stated that both spellings were currently in use among herpetologists, but that the spelling with a double “‘ p”’ was that employed by most non- herpetologists. Dr. Oliver gave particulars of eleven works in which the double ““p” spelling had been used for this name, of which five had been published during the immediately preceding five years. He added that he had not been able to make a thorough search of the literature, the works cited in his list having been drawn from sources close at hand. He believed, however, that the works cited were sufficient to illustrate the point made in his application. (Note :—The next four paragraphs (paragraphs 12 to 15) gave particulars of the publication of Dr. Oliver’s Supplementary Application, the issue of Public Notices in regard thereto and the names of the specialists who had commented on that proposal, either in support of, or in opposition to, the action recommended. These paragraphs are omitted here, as the information contained in them has already been given in paragraphs 8 to 14 of the present Direction.) (c) Voting Procedure proposed 16. Extension of the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period in respect of the Principal Application to secure that that Period should coincide with the close of the corresponding Period in respect of J. A. Oliver’s Supplementary Application: At the time of the publication of Dr. Oliver’s Supplementary Application on the question of the spelling to be adopted for the specific name of the North American Alligator, I published a note intimating that as Secretary I had extended the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period in respect of the Principal Application (i.e. that contained in my Report on the case (paragraph 7 aboye)) so as to make its close coincide with the close of the corresponding period in respect of Dr. Oliver’s Supplementary 118 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Application, thereby making it possible for the Commission to deal simultaneously with the aspects of the present case. The latter Period expired on 29th September 1957 and accordingly all the required procedural steps have now been taken to enable a Voting Paper to be submitted to the Commission in the present case. 17. Form of Voting Paper now issued: When Dr. Oliver’s Supplementary Application was published I gave an undertaking that, when the time came to vote on this case an opportunity would be provided for voting separately on the question whether the emendation mississippiensis or the original spelling mississipiensis should be adopted as the spelling to be used for the specific name of the North American Alligator (Hemming, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13:74). In pursuance of the foregoing undertaking the Voting Paper now submitted (Voting Paper V.P.(57)59) is divided into two Parts. Part 1 deals with all those portions of the original application (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 170) which are independent of the question whether the specific name for the North American Alligator should be emended by the insertion of a second letter “‘p” (so as to make the name read mississippiensis) and would thus be unaffected by any decision on the foregoing point. Part 2 of the Voting Paper deals primarily with the question whether the name published as mississipiensis shall be emended to mississippiensis (by the insertion of a second letter “‘p”’). In this Part of the Voting Paper the Commission is being asked to vote also on those portions of the original application where the above specific name appears in any context. 18. Texts of the Propositions on which the Commission is now being asked to Vote : These are set out as follows in Annexe 3 to the present paper :— (1) Proposition *“‘A’’?: This is the proposition dealing with all matters dealt with in the present application, except the question of the spelling to be adopted for the specific name of the North American Alligator. Proposition ““A’” is the Proposition on which the Commission is being asked to Vote in Part 1 of the Voting Paper. (2) Proposition ‘‘ B®’ : This is the proposition dealing only with the question of the single or double “ p”’ spelling for the specific name (mississippiensis or mississipiensis) for the North American Alligator. (At the foot of this proposition a note has been added setting out for information the decision which would be embodied in the Direction to be adopted in this case if the Commission were to reject the proposal for the validation of the double “‘ p”’ spelling for the above specific name.) Proposition “‘B” is the Proposition on which the Commission is being asked to vote in Part 2 of the Voting Paper. DIRECTION 97 119 APPENDIX 1 Alphabetical list of specialists to whom the Questionnaire regarding the action required to complete and, in part, correct the entry on the ‘‘ Official List’ relating to the generic name **Alligator *’ Cuvier, 1807, was issued on 7th February 1956 (Note :—This Appendix is here omitted in view of the fact that full particulars regarding the names of, and the appointments held by, the specialists who kindly replied to the Questionnaire issued on 7th February 1956 are given in paragraph 6 of the Report sub- mitted by the Secretary on 9th May 1956 which is reproduced in paragraph 1 of the present Direction.) APPENDIX 2 Comments on J. A. Oliver’s proposal for the validation of the. emendation to ‘‘ mississippiensis ’’ of the name ‘‘ mississipi- ensis ’? Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination ‘* Crocodilus mississipiensis ’’ as the name for the North American Alligator (Note :—This Appendix is here omitted in view of the fact that the comments by the four specialists which were set out in it have been reproduced in para- graphs 11 to 14 of the present Direction.) APPENDIX 3 Propositions regarding the generic name ‘‘Alligator ”’ Cuvier submitted for decision with Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 PROPOSITION ‘‘ A ”’ (proposals relating to the generic name ‘‘ Alligator ’’ Cuvier case, exclusive of the portion relating to the spelling of the specific name of the type species of the genus so named) (proposition submitted with Part 1 of Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 submitted herewith) (1) Under the Plenary Powers the specific name alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator, to be 120 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned specific name to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— alligator Blumenbach, 1799, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above. (3) The under-mentioned family-group name to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— ALLIGATORIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1844 (type genus: Alligator Cuvier, 1807). PROPOSITION “B” (proposals relating to the spelling to be adopted for the specific name of the North American Alligator) (proposition submitted with Part 2 of Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 submitted herewith) (1) Under the Plenary Powers the Emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis, is hereby validated. (2) It is hereby directed that the following entry be substituted for the existing entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807 :— 427. Alligator Cuvier, 1807 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Stejneger (L.) & Barbour (T.), (1917), and through Declarations 25 and 21: Crocodilus mississippiensis (emend. under the Plenary Powers in (1) above of mississipiensis Daudin, [1801]) (5) The specific name mississippiensis (emend. of mississipiensis) Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis (specific name of type species of Alligator Cuvier, 1807) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combina- tion Crocodilus mississipiensis (rejected under the Plenary DIRECTION 97 121 Powers in (1) above as an Invalid Original Spelling for mississippiensis) ; (b) the under-mentioned Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for mississippiensis (emend. of mississipiensis) Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis :— missisipensis Gray (J.E.), 1831, as published in the combination Alligator missisipensis ; (c) lucius Cuvier, 1807, as published in the combination Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius (a junior objective synonym of mississippiensis (emend. of mississipiensis) Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis, through the lectotype selection made by Mertens (R.) in Annexe 3 to the original application in this case (Bull. 12 : 175). Note to Proposition ‘‘ B ”’ In the event of the rejection by the Commission of the proposal submitted above as Proposition “‘ B’’, the opposing alternative which would be embodied in the Direction to be rendered by the Commission would be as follows :— (1) The proposal for the validation under the Plenary Powers of the Emendation mississippiensis of the specific name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis is hereby rejected. (2) It is hereby directed that the following entry be substituted for the existing entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic name A/ligator Cuvier, 1807 :— 427. Alligator Cuvier, 1807 (gender: masculine) (type species by selection by Stejneger (L.) & Barbour (T.), (1917), and through Declarations 25 and 21: Crocodilus mississipiensis Daudin, [1801]) (3) The specific name mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis (specific name of type species of Alligator Cuvier, 1807) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) mississippiensis Holbrook (J.E.), 1842, as published in the combination Crocodilus mississippiensis (an Invalid 122 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Emendation of mississipiensis Daudin [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis) ; (b) the under-mentioned Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis :— missisipensis Gray (J.E.), 1831, as published in the combination Alligator missisipensis ; (c) lucius Cuvier, 1807, as published in the combination Crocodilus (Alligator) lucius (a junior objective synonym of mississipiensis Daudin, [1801], as published in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis through the lectotype selection made by Mertens (R.) in Annexe 3 to the original application in this case (Bull. 12 : 175). Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 16. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 : On 11th October 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(57)59) was issued to the Members of the Commission in relation to the present case. This Voting Paper was divided into two Parts, in the first of which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote upon the proposals submitted in the Report originally submitted by the Secretary (paragraph 1 of the present Direction), exclusive of the portion relating to the spelling (mississippiensis or mississipiensis) to be adopted for the North American Alligator which formed the subject of the Supplementary Application submitted by Dr. J. A. Oliver (paragraph 7 of the present Direction), this latter question being the subject matter of the vote invited in Part 2 of the Voting Paper. The proposals so submitted for decision were as follows :— PART 1 The proposals relating to the generic name Alligator Cuvier, 1807, as set out as Proposition “A” in Appendix 3 to the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 551 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper.* 4 For the text of Proposition ‘‘A” see page 119 of the present Direction. 1 . DIRECTION 97 123 PART 2 The proposals relating to the alternative spellings mississippiensis and mississipiensis for the specific name of the North American Alligator as set out as Proposition “‘ B’”’ in Appendix 3 to the paper submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper.°® IMPORTANT NOTE: Members of the Commission are particularly asked to complete both Parts of the present Voting Paper, a decision on each being necessary for the disposal of the present case. 17. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 11th January 1958. 18. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on both parts of Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 was as follows :— (1) Particulars of the voting on Part 1 of Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Bonnet ; Mayr ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Riley ; do Amaral ; Lemche ; Hering ; Dymond ; Hank6o ; Prantl ; Esaki ; Bodenheimer ; Boschma ; Hemming ; Mertens ; Jaczewski; Miller ; Stoll ; Kihnelt ; Cabrera ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Key ; Tortonese ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; 6 For the text of Proposition “‘ B”’ see page 120 of the present Direction. 124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. (2) Particulars of the voting on Part 2 of Voting Paper V.P.(57)59 :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Vokes ; Bonnet ; Mayr ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Riley ; do Amaral ; Lemche ; Hering ; Dymond ; Hank6o ; Esaki; Bodenheimer ; Boschma ; Hem- ming ; Kihnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Tortonese ; (b) Negative Votes, seven (7): Prantl ; Mertens; Jaczewski; Miller; Stoll ; Cabrera ; Key ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 19. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 19th January 1958, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(57)59, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 18 above and declaring that the proposals submitted in each part of the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 20. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Direction ”’ : On 14th January 1958, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those a ee DIRECTION 97 125 of the proposal: approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(57)59. 21. Original References for generic and specific names : 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 Direction :— alligator, Lacerta, Blumenbach, 1779, Handb. Naturgesch. (1) : 263 lucius, Crocodilus (Alligator), Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 10 : 28 missisipensis, Alligator, Gray (J.E.), 1831, Syn. Rept. : 62 mississipiensis, Crocodilus, Daudin, [1801] (an Invalid Original _ Spelling for mississippiensis) mississippiensis (emend. of mississipiensis), Crocodilus, Daudin, [1801], in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Rept.2 : 412, nota (1) 22. Reference for the selection of a type species for a nominal genus : The following is the reference for the selection of a type species for a nominal genus specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— For Alligator Cuvier Stejneger (L.) & Barbour (T.), (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807 1917, Check List N. Amer. Amphib. Rept. (ed. 1) : 41 23. Reference for the selection of a lectotype for a nominal species : The following is the reference for the selection of a lectotype for a nominal species specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— For Crocodilus (Alligator) Mertens (R.), 1956, Bull. zool. lucius Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), Nomencl. 12: 175 1807 126 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24. Original References for Family-Group Names : The following is the original reference for the family-group name placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Direction :— ALLIGATORIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1844, Cat. Tortoises Crocodiles Amphi- baenians Coll. Brit. Mus. : 56 25. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures: 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 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. 26. ‘‘ Direction ’’ Number: The present Direction shall be known as Direction Ninety-Seven (97) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Done in London, this Fourteenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 1. Section F. Part F.9. Pp. 127—160 _ —— DIRECTION 98 JUN 6 1958 q f rc =) AT b ; Interpretation under the Plenary Powers of the-nominak-—~ species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, and insertion in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of a revised entry relating to the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) (Direction supplemen- tary to Opinion 91) 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 1958 Price One Pound, Two Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 16th May, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 98 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) BE ee 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 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) (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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, 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. HoLttHuts (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 KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) eon F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 3) 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 98 INTERPRETATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES “ VESPERTILIO MURINUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND INSERTION IN THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF A REVISED ENTRY RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ VESPERTILIO ? LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS MAMMALIA) (‘DIRECTION ” SUPPLEMENTARY TO “OPINION” 91) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers it is hereby directed (a) that the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) be interpreted in the manner adopted by Nilsson (S.) (1847) and therefore (b) that the type specimen of the nominal species Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS.) Kuhl, 1817, be treated as the type specimen of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. (2) It is hereby directed that the following revised entry in regard to the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, be substituted for the entry in regard thereto made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 91 :— 376 Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as inter- preted under the Plenary Powers in (1) above). (3) It # hereby directed that the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, be treated as being of the masculine gender. 130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1271 :— Myotis Kaup, 1829 (gender, as determined under (3) above : masculine) (type species, by mono- typy : Vespertilio murinus Schreber, [1775)). (5) 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) murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Vespertilio murinus, as interpreted under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (specific name of type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Now i5ii3)): (b) myotis Borkhausen, 1797, as published in the com- bination Vespertilio myotis (Name No. 1519). (6) 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) discolor (Natterer MS.) Kuhl, 1817, as published in the combination Vespertilio discolor (a junior objective synonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus under the direction given under the Plenary Powers in (1) above) (Name No. 525) ; (b) murinus Schreber, [1775], as published in the com- bination Vespertilio murinus (a junior homonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus) (Name No. 526). DIRECTION 98 131 (7) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 224 :— VESPERTILIONIDAE (correction of VESPERTILIA) Rafin- esque, 1815 (type genus: Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758). (8) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 263 :— VESPERTILIA Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus : Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) (an Invalid Original Spelling for VESPERTILIONIDAE). im RE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The purpose of the application submitted in the present case was to secure from the International Commission certain clarifications of the entry relating to the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia), made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 91. The need for action in this matter came to light in the course of a survey of the entries made on the above Official List in the period up to the end of 1936 undertaken by the Office of the Commission in connection with the preparations for the publica- tion of that List in book-form. The problems involved in the present case were found to be of considerable complexity and to raise issues of a taxonomic, as well as of a nomenclatorial, nature. The Secretary accordingly took the view that, before any recom- mendations could usefully be placed before the Commission in this case, it was desirable to hold a canvas of opinion among £32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS interested specialists. These consultations were completed in the autumn of 1956 and on 30th November of that year Mr. Hemming drew up the following Report in which, after setting out the nature of the problems involved and giving particulars of the advice received from specialists in response to the question- naire which had been issued on 13th March 1956, he submitted for the consideration of the Commission a series of recommen- dations based upon the views expressed by the majority of the specialists consulted :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine the interpretation of the nominal species ‘‘ Vespertilio murinus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, type species of the genus ‘ Vespertilio” Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) (Proposed clarification of a Ruling given in ‘* Opinion ’’ 91) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The object of the present Report is to set out certain difficulties which have arisen in connection with the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia), a name which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 91 (1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 1—2), and to seek to overcome those difficulties by placing before the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature proposals based upon the advice of specialists who have been kind enough to assist in the preliminary consideration of the problems raised in the present case. 2. The present problem was first brought to the attention of the Office of the International Commission when in 1955 steps were being taken in compliance with a General Directive issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (a) the specific name of the type species of every genus, the name of which had up till that time been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology where that name was the oldest available name for the species in question, and (b) in other cases whatever specific name was currently regarded as the oldest name available for that species. At this stage Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski drew attention to a paper in which Dr. Olof Ryberg, a well-known specialist in the bats, had expressed the view that the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, the specific name of the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, was a nomen dubium, the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus being DIRECTION 98 133 indeterminable. In these circumstances it was clearly not possible at that time to proceed with the proposal that the foregoing specific name should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Accordingly, on 19th April 1955 in my capacity as Secretary to the Commission I executed a Minute withdrawing the proposal which had been submitted in this matter in order to permit of the study of the issues involved. 3. As a first step investigations were undertaken by the Office of the Commission for the purpose of determining the factual background of the present problem. This investigation showed that, while some specialists identify the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus with the later established nominal species Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817,* and apply the name murinus Linnaeus to that species, other specialists reject the name Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus as a nomen dubium and use the name discolor Kuhl (which it is agreed represents a species which can be identified with certainty). 4. The following information collected in the Office of the Commission is relevant to the consideration of the foregoing question :— (a) The nominal species Vespertilio murinus, with the interpretation of which the present paper is concerned, was established by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 32). (b) In [1775] Schreber (Die Sdughthiere 1 : 165, pl. 11) established another nominal speciesto whichhealso gavethename Vespertilio murinus. This name is invalid as it is a junior homonym of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. The identity of the species so named by Schreber is not in doubt and that species is the type species of the genus Myotis Kaup, 1829. + 1 The text of the Minute here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 4 of Direction 22 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(C) : 179—200), the Direction embodying the decisions taken by the Commission when com- plying so far as concerns the names of mammals, with the General Directive referred to above. * This name is commonly attributed either to ‘“‘ Natterer’’ or to ‘“‘ Natterer in Kuhl” and treated as having been published in 1819 in the Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde. The consultations with specialists carried out in the course of the preparation of the present paper have, however, shown (a) that Kuhl was alone responsible for the publication of this name, (b) that it was published separately in 1817 in Kuhl’s “* Die deutschen Fledermduse’’ prior to the publication of that paper in the Annalen referred to above in 1818—1819. For full particulars see Appendix 1 to the present paper. [In the historical account given in the above paragraph the name Vespertilio discolor is cited as haying been published by Natterer when it was so attributed by the authors under discussion. ] + For a note on certain difficulties arising in connection with this name see Appendix 2. 2 eo 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) In 1817 (Die dtsch. Fledermduse : 43) Kuhl published with an “* indication ’’ the name Vespertilio discolor previously proposed by Natterer in manuscript.* As shown in (d) and (e) below, the species so named was identified by later authors with Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. In the original description of discolor it is stated that this species only occurs in the southern part of “our area” [i.e., Germany]. Kuhl added that he had not found this species either in central or northern Germany or in Holland. (d) In 1847 (Skand. Faun., Daggdjuren : 17—20) Nilsson discussed the interpretation of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus. He identified this with Vespertilio discolor Natterer} and reinstated the name murinus Linnaeus for the species in question. At the same time he rightly rejected the invalid name Vespertilio murinus Schreber (see (b) above) for the type species of Myotis Kaup, using for the latter species the name Vespertilio myotis Bechstein, 1801.1 (e) In 1897 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 20 : 379—383) Miller (G.S.) discussed the interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus. After drawing attention to the opposite view taken by Blasius (1857) and Lilljeborg (1874), Miller concluded that, despite the inconvenience involved there was no valid reason for rejecting the action of Nilsson (1847) (see (d) above) in identifying the foregoing species with Vespertilio discolor Natterer. An extract from Miller’s paper is attached to the present note as Section A of Appendix 3. In 1912 (Cat. Mamm. w. Europe Coll. Brit. Mus. : 238) Miller made the same identification without, however, making any further comment on it. (f) In 1926 the International Commission, when placing the name Vespertilio Linnaeus on the Official List, accepted Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus without comment as the type species of the genus so named. The proposals on which that Opinion was based had been submitted by Dr. Karl Apstein of Berlin and it was stated in the Opinion that those proposals had been studied by Miller who had reported that the names included in that application were valid and therefore that the proposals in question could be properly accepted. It is clear that the question of the interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio * See the Footnote to paragraph 3 above and also the full discussion given in Appendix 1. 7 See Footnote to paragraph 3 above. = See Appendix 2. DIRECTION 98 135 murinus Linnaeus was not expressly placed before the Com- mission on that occasion and that it cannot be held that by the action taken in the foregoing Opinion the Commission expressed any view on this subject. (g) In 1947 Olof Ryberg (Bats and Bat Parasites : 79—80) strongly attacked the identification of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus with Vespertilio discolor Natterer,* stating that Nilsson, by whom this identification was first made (see (d) above), was fully aware that the Linnean species could not be safely identified in this way. He concluded that the name murinus Linnaeus must be regarded as a nomen dubium. He added that “it would be a significant gain and a release from a heavy burden for the chiropterologist if this harmful name which cannot be referred to a definite species were avoided in the future’”’. An extract from Ryberg’s paper is attached to the present note as Section B of Appendix 3. (h) In 1951 (Checklist pal. ind. Mamm. : 152) Ellerman & Morrison- Scott accepted the name murinus Linnaeus for the Parti- coloured Bat, citing discolor Natterer* (attributed to Kuhl) as a synonym. 5. In order to obtain the necessary taxonomic information on which to base a proposal for the consideration of the International Commission, a questionnaire asking for advice on the action which it was desirable should be taken by the Commission in this case was prepared for submission to a number of specialists who, it was thought, would be interested in the issues involved and would be in a position to furnish advice on those issues. The specialists whom it was decided so to consult were either known to be specialists in the group concerned or, by reason of working at National Natural History Museums, were in a position to obtain and furnish to the Office of the Commission the views of specialists in their respective museums or of other representat- ive specialists in their own countries. The questions on which the advice of specialists was so sought, which appeared as paragraph 8 of the questionnaire, were the following :— (1) What during (say) the last fifty years has been the majority usage in the literature ? Has the name murinus been mostly common used or has the name discolor been most commonly used ? (2) If the name murinus has been most commonly used, would you be in favour of the Commission putting a stop to further argument and doubt on the question of interpretation by using its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Vespertilio * See Footnote to paragraph 3 above. 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS murinus Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847) and therefore identified with Vespertilio discolor Natterer, 1818 (or 1819) ?* (3) If the name discolor has been most commonly used, would you be in favour of the Commission using its Plenary Powers (i) to suppress the name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, thereby validating the name discolor Natterer, 1818,* as published in the combination Vespertilio discolor, and (ii) to designate Vespertilio discolor Natterer* to be the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 ? Note (A): If the name murinus Linnaeus were suppressed in the manner indicated above, the later name murinus Schreber, [1775], for the type species of Myotis Kaup, 1829,+ would remain invalid under the Law of Homonymy. Note (B): If it were to be decided to suppress murinus Linnaeus and to validate discolor, it would be essential that Vespertilio discolor Natterer should be made the type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, for it would be impossible to leave that genus without a type species. 6. As the question of issue was primarily one of interest to workers on the Palaearctic Fauna, the majority of the specialists consulted were workers in European Institutions. The following is the list of specialists consulted. To these would have been added Dr. C. C. Sanborn (Chicago Natural History Museum), the well-known specialist in the Chiroptera, if it had not been understood that the state of his health prevented him from undertaking investigations of the present kind. For assistance in drawing up the list of specialists to be consulted I am particularly indebted to Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski and Dr. W. Serafinski (Warsaw). Specialists to whom the questionnaire prepared in the present case was issued L. Bels (Utrecht, The Netherlands) A. C. V. van Bemmel (Alkmaar, The Netherlands) H. von. Boetticher (Coburg, Germany) * See Footnote to paragraph 3 above. 7 See Appendix 2. DIRECTION 98 137 J. Dorst (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) E. Eisentraut (Stuttgart, Germany) A. H. de Faveaux (Abbaye de Maredsous, Belgium) S. Frechkop (Bruxelles, Belgium) T. Haltenorth (Miinchen, Germany) R. W. Hayman (British Museum (Natural History), London) A. M. Husson (Leiden, The Netherlands) W. P. Issel (Miinchen, Germany) Remington Kellogg (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I. O. Kaisila (Helsinki, Finland) A. P. Kuzjekin (Moscow, U.S.S.R.) H. Mislin (Basel, Switzerland) Erna Mohr (Hamburg, Germany) T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History) London) O. Ryberg (Alnarp Institut, Sweden) W. Serafinski (Warsaw, Poland) G. G. Simpson (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) 7. As the result of the consultations described above, the views of ten specialists were obtained. Of these, eight (8) favoured the retention of the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as the name for the type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, subject to the interpretation of that species under the Plenary Powers in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847), while two (2) only favoured the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name murinus Linnaeus and the desig- nation under the same Powers of Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, to be the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus. Extracts from the communications so received are given in Appendix 4. In that Appendix comments received from specialists who support the retention and definitive interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, are given in Section A, while those received from specialists who support the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, are given in Section B. The International Commission is greatly indebted to these specialists for the help given in assembling the data required for the consideration of the present case. 8. In view of the clear preponderance of the views of specialists in favour of the retention of the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, subject to the interpretation under the Plenary Powers of the nominal species so named in the manner proposed, I recommend that that course be adopted by the International Commission. As will be appreciated, a decision in the present case is a matter of considerable urgency, since the present is one of the relatively small number of cases connected with the clarification or rectification of entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made in the period up to the end of 1936 on which the taking of decisions is an indispensable preliminary to the forthcoming publication of the Official List in book-form. 9. Under the General Directive given to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, to which reference has been made in paragraph 2 of the present paper, it will be necessary to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, as proposed to be defined under the Plenary Powers in paragraph 8 above if the recommendation there submitted is approved by the International Commission. 10. Under a further General Directive issued by the foregoing Congress directing that decisions by the Commission on applications relating to individual names are to be comprehensive in scope and to deal with all names which arise in connection with the cases in question, it will be necessary as part of the general settlement of the present case for the Commission : (1) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a) the specific name discolor Kuhl, 1817, as published in the combination Vespertilio discolor (which under the proposals now submitted would become a junior objective synonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus) (paragraph 4(c) above) and (b) the specific name murinus Schreber, [1775], as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, a junior homonym of the name published in thé same combination by Linnaeus in 1758 (paragraph 4(b) above) ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829 (paragraph 4(b) above) and for the reasons given in Appendix 2 to direct that this name be treated as being of the masculine gender ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name myotis Borkhausen, 1797, as published in the combination Vespertilio myotis the oldest available specific name for the type species of Myotis Kaup, 1829.* 11. Finally, under a General Directive issued by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, it is necessary to consider the family-group-name problems involved in the present case. Here it is necessary to note that the nominal genus Vespertilio * See Appendix 2. DIRECTION 98 139 Linnaeus, 1758, is the type genus of the currently accepted family VESPERTILIONIDAE. ‘This nominal family-group taxon was first estab- lished in the incorrect form VESPERTILIA by Rafinesque in 1815 (Analyse Nature : 54) ; it was first published in the correct form VESPERTILIONIDAE by Gray (J.E.) in 1821 (London med. Repository 15 : 299). The generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, has not been taken as the base for a family- group name, the genus so named being currently placed in the family VESPERTILIONIDAE. 12. In the light of the considerations set out in the present Report I recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847) and therefore that the type specimen of the nominal species Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, is to be treated as the type specimen also of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758 ; (2) to substitute the following revised entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, for that made in respect of the foregoing name by the Ruling given in Opinion 91 :— Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, interpreted as proposed in (1) above under the Plenary Powers) (3) to direct that the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, be treated as being of the masculine gender ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Myotis Kaup, 1829 (gender, as determined under (3) above : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Vespertilio murinus Schreber, [1775]*) (5) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, as proposed to be interpreted under * This name is a junior primary homonym of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, and is therefore invalid. The oldest available name for the species concerned is Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1797. 140 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the Plenary Powers in (1) above (specific name of type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) myotis Borkhausen, 1797, as published in the combination Vespertilio myotis* (6) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, as published in the combination Vespertilio discolor (a junior objective synonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus under the Ruling under the Plenary Powers recommended in (1) above) ; (b) murinus Schreber, [1775], as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus (a junior primary homonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus) ; (7) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— VESPERTILIONIDAE (correction of VESPERTILIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus: Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) ; (8) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— VESPERTILIA Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus: Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) (an Invalid Original Spelling for VESPERTILIONIDAE). APPENDIX 1 TO THE SECRETARY’S REPORT Note on the authorship and date attributable to the name ‘°° Vespertilio discolor ’? commonly attributed to Natterer and treated as having been published in 1819 At the time when I drew up the questionnaire regarding the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, there seemed to be some doubt both as to the date of the publi- cation of the name Vespertilio discolor (a name commonly attributed to Natterer) and as to the paper in which this name was first published. I accordingly included in the questionnaire a request to specialists for information on this matter. * See the immediately preceding Footnote. DIRECTION 98 14] 2. Two of the specialists to whom the questionnaire was despatched very kindly gave valuable assistance in this matter. These were: Father A. M. Husson (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands); Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (at that time of the British Museum (Natural History), London, and now Director, The Science Museum. London). The relevant portions of the letters received from these specialists are reproduced in Annexes | and 2 respectively to the present note. The information so furnished is summarised in the immediately following paragraphs. 3. Authorship : The name Vespertilio discolor is commonly attributed either to “‘ Natterer’’ or more frequently to “‘ Natterer in Kuhl’’. Father Husson has, however, shown clearly that, while Natterer was responsible for the above name in manuscript, it was Kuhl who alone provided the “indication ’’ on which under Article 25 the availability of this name rests. Accordingly this name should be attributed to Kuhl, either with or without a note that, as published by that author, it was a manuscript name of Natterer’s. 4. Date of publication: The name Vespertilio discolor appeared twice in a paper by Kuhl entitled “‘ Die deutschen Fledermduse”’. This paper was published in the serial publication Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde. The volume in question was published both as Volume 4 of the above Society’s Annalen and also as Volume | of the Second Series of that serial. Kuhl’s paper was published in two instalments, of which the first appeared in Part 1, and the second in Part 2, of the foregoing volume. The first of these Parts appeared in 1818, the second in 1819. Hence it is that the name Vespertilio discolor has been treated by some authors as having been published in 1818 and by others as having been published in 1819. In the first of these Parts the above name appeared only as a nomen nudum. Accordingly, so far as concerns the publication of the above name in the Annalen, it ranks for priority only as from the publication of Part 2 of the volume concerned, where for the first time it appeared with an “‘indication’’, ie., from 1819. Father Husson has drawn attention, however, to the fact that Kuhl’s paper was published as a separate unit in 1817 under the title quoted above, and has advanced evidence in support of the view that this was not a mere preprint and that it should therefore be accepted as the place where the above name was first validly published. In this edition the name Vespertilio discolor appeared on page 43. 5. From the evidence summarised above it may be concluded that the correct attribution, date, and reference for the name under con- sideration is Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, Die dtsch. Fledermause : 43. 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ANNEXE 1 TO APPENDIX 1 Extract from a letter dated 22nd March 1956 from A. M. Husson (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) As to the author’s name and the date of Vespertilio discolor 1 can give you the following information, which I obtained with the help of Dr. L. B. Holthius of the Leiden Museum. Natterer often is incorrectly cited as the author of this species, while this actually should be Kuhl, who is the author of the paper (entitled ** Die deutschen Fledermduse”’) in which the description of the species was first published. Though Kuhl gave the name of his new species as Vespertilio discolor Natterer, there is not the slightest indication that the description was made by Natterer. On the contrary the description is of exactly the same set-up as the other descriptions given by Kuhl. Natterer discovered the species near Vienna, from where he sent (“‘ mittheilte ’’?) material to Kuhl. Evidently Natterer recognised the species as new and suggested the name discolor to Kuhl. The same situation exists with Vespertilio kuhlii, also described for the first time in Kuhl’s paper and for which he too cites Natterer as the author. Of this species Kuhl remarked : “‘ Herr Natterer schoss diese Fledermaus selbst in Triest. Seiner Giite verdanke ich mehrere Exemplare, nach welchen ich diese Beschreibung entworfen. Das er sie nach meinen Namen genannt, erkenne ich dankbar als ein Zeichen der Freundschaft dieses verdienstvollen Mannes.”’ (op. cit. p. 57). Here it is quite clear that Kuhl drew up the description and that Natterer only suggested the name. Both here as well as in Vespertilio discolor and the other species first described in Kuhl’s paper, Kuhl must be regarded as the author. G. S. Miller in his “* Catalogue of the mammals of western Europe ”’ (1912, p. 238) already correctly cited Kuhl as the author of all the new species described in his ‘‘ Die deutschen Fledermduse ”’. The date of publication of Vespertilio discolor causes another difficulty. Sherborn cites it as Vespertilio discolor Natterer, 1818, N. Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk. (1) : 14, while Miller (op. cit., p. 238) cites the name as Vespertilio discolor Kuhl, 1819, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk., iv (= Neue Ann., 1) pt. 2, p. 187. Kuhl’s paper appeared in two parts, the first of these occupied pp. 11—49 of Heft 1 of Bd. 4 of the Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesells- chaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde (= Abt. 1 of Bd. 1 of Neue Annalen, etc.), which was published in 1818, the second part including pp. 185—215 was published in Heft 2 of Bd. 4 of the Annalen (= Abt. 2 of Bd. 1 of the Neue Annalen, etc.), in 1819. On p. 14 a list of the species is given among which is Vespertilio discolor, but since no description DIRECTION 98 143 is given here, the 1818 name is a nomen nudum, so that Miller is correct in his opinion that the first description of V. discolor in the Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk., Bd. 4, p. 187 was published in 1819. However, both Sherborn and Miller evidently overlooked the fact that before being published in the Ann. Wetterau. Ges., etc., Kuhl’s paper was issued as an independent publication in 1817. The Leiden Museum possesses a copy of this paper, which reads on the title page : Die/ deutschen Flederméuse/ von/ Heinreich Kuhl./ Hanau, 1817. This publication also is referred to in Engelmann’s 1846 Bibliotheca Historico Naturalis : 359. The fact that the Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk. were published in Frankfurt am Main (though printed in Hanau) shows that Kuhl’s 1817 version is not just an antedated reprint The type setting, apart from a different heading on the first page is exactly like that in the paper in the Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk., so that it is evident that the same type-matter was used for both papers. The two plates in the 1817 paper are the same as those of the 1818— 1819 publication. The correct reference to Vespertilio discolor thus is: Vespertilio discolor Kuhl, 1817, Die deutschen Fledermduse : 43. ANNEXE 2 TO APPENDIX 1 Extract from a letter dated 6th April 1956, from T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) I can give you the following information regarding the bibliographical reference to discolor. The work has two title pages: Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde Band IV, and Neue ditto, Band I. Both title pages are of equal prominence and you can take your choice. I believe that Band I of the new series was also the last. Now Part 1, page 14 (published in 1818) is a nominal list of the fifteen German bats in which No. 8 is, “ Vespertilio discolor NATTERERI, zweifarbige Fledermaus.”’. The “ bi-coloured bat ’’ is not intended as a description ; it is the common name in German, and corresponds in this list to such names as “‘ spatfliegende Fledermaus ”’, “ langohrige F.”, “ zwerg F.’’, ‘““ Daubenton’sche F.”, “ Bechsteinische F.”, etc. But in Part 2 (published in or about June 1819, according to a pencil note inserted in the work by Sherborn) on p. 187, there is given a very detailed description of discolor, together with Plate XXV which shows the animal. 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The earlier mention of discolor is simply a sort of index and there is no doubt that the right reference is 1819, Part 2, p. 187. Incidentally we are concerned with just one paper by Kuhl, called “* Die deutschen Fledermduse’’, and it was published in two instalments. It is not quite clear to me that the description is really by Natterer, though Kuhl does give some information about the bats occurrence, which he says that he obtained from Natterer. APPENDIX 2 TO THE SECRETARY'S, REPORG Two points arising in connection with the generic name ** Myotis *? Kaup, 1829 As a generic name involved in the Vespertilio case, it will be necessary, as part of the settlement to be arrived at in that case, that the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829 (Skizz. Entwickel.-Gesch. nat. Syst. europ. Thierwelt : 106, 105), being an available name in current use, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. There are two points in connection with this name which call for special mention. The first is concerned with the gender to be attributed to this name, the second with the determination of its type species. These matters are discussed below. (a) Gender attributable to the generic name ‘‘ Myotis ”’ Kaup, 1829 2. In accordance with standard practice I invited Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser, to furnish a Report on the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, when consideration comes to be given to the addition of that name to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. On Sth December 1956 Professor Grensted furnished the Report asked for and on 12th December 1956 he amplified this in a brief Supplementary Report. The texts of these Reports are given in the Annexe to the present Appendix. 3. Professor Grensted’s Report shows that, if the word “‘ myotis ” were a Classical Latin word, it would be reasonable to expect that its gender would be feminine, though it must be noted that many nouns ending in “‘ -is ” take the masculine gender. Professor Grensted - points out that in the case of the names of animals some nouns in ““-is”? are of common gender. He concludes that, as the word “* myotis ’’ is not a classical word, it would be defensible to treat it as being masculine in gender. This is the gender which has been widely used for this name by mammalogists. DIRECTION 98 145 4. In view of the fact that ‘‘ myotis ’ is not a Classical Latin word, the rules applicable to such words are more of the nature of a guide than of that of strictly binding mandatory provisions. For this reason I am of the opinion that, having regard to the terms of the Reports furnished by the Consulting Classical Adviser, it would be legitimate for the International Commission to give a Ruling that the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, be treated as being of the masculine gender and that, having regard to the substantial usage of the masculine gender for adjectival specific names of species and subspecies in this genus it is desirable that such a Ruling be given. I accordingly recommend the adoption of this course. (b) Question of the type species of the genus ** Myotis ’’ Kaup, 1829 5. It is commonly stated in standard works of reference (e.g. by Miller (G.S.), 1912, Cat. Mamm. w. Europe Coll. Brit. Mus. : 166) that Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1797 (Deutschl. Fauna 1 : 80) is the type species of the genus Myotis Kaup, 1829. From the strictly nomenclatorial standpoint, however, this statement is incorrect, for Kaup, when establishing the nominal genus Myotis, made no mention whatever of the specific name myotis Borkhausen. 6. An inspection of Kaup’s strange little work shows that in it he pursued a fanciful system of grouping under which assemblages of species were placed in successive “‘ Reihe ’’, each assemblage consisting of a number of species of bird and one species of mammal. At the end of each of these lists was added the expression “* genus of so-and- so’, examples being “‘ Genus Plesiosauris Ranarum ”’ (: 72), “* Genus Plesiosaurum ” (: 74), ““ Genus Ichthyosaurorum ” (: 83), etc. The species comprised in each assemblage were allotted numbers in con- secutive order, the species at the head of the list being given the highest number and that at the bottom of the list the lowest. Each of these lists was followed by a series of short generic diagnoses related to the species cited in the preceding list by the use of the same serial numbers but arranged in the opposite order to that adopted for the lists of names of species. In these generic diagnoses new generic names were some- times introduced. No nominal species were cited in these diagnoses. The species intended to be included in any given genus may, however, readily be ascertained by reference to the use of the same serial number (i) for the generic diagnosis and (ii) for the species concerned in the preceding list. 7. In the light of the foregoing explanation of the system employed in Kaup’s book we may now examine his treatment of the generic name Myotis. For this purpose we have to turn to his “‘ Funf und zwanzigste Reihe ’’ (: 105). This assemblage consists of the following 146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS nominal species numbered and arranged as follows: “3. Vespertilio murinus. 2. Caprimulgus europaeus. 1. Procellaria glacialis. Genus Ichthyosaurorum”’. Then Kaup gave the corresponding generic diagnosis as follows: “‘ 1. Fulmar. Rhantistes”’ (: 105) [referring back to Procellaria glacialis|; ‘“‘2. Ziegenmelter. Caprimulgus’”’ (: 106) [referring to Caprimulgus europaeus] ; “‘ 3. Mauseohr. Myotis” (: 106) [referring to Vespertilio murinus]. We see therefore, that the genus Myotis Kaup was established for the single nominal species Vespertilio murinus, which is therefore the type species by monotypy. 8. It is unfortunate that Kaup did not cite authors’ names for the species mentioned in his book, for the binomen Vespertilio murinus was published twice as a new name before Kaup’s time, first by Linnaeus in 1758 (for the species “‘indicated’’ by Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Vespertilio) and second, by Schreber in [1775] for a different species to which later (1797) Borkhausen gave the name Vespertilio myotis. Aided by the diagnosis provided by Kaup, specialists have always accepted the latter species as the type species of the genus Myotis Kaup, 1829. From the point of view of nomen- clature the type species of that genus is therefore Vespertilio murinus Schreber, [1775] (Die Sdugthiere 1 : 165, pl. 11) and not, as commonly stated, Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1797. This distinction is, however, purely formal, since (as we have seen) the first of these names is an invalid homonym, while the latter is the oldest available name for the same species. ANNEXE TO APPENDIX 2 Reports on the gender attributable to the generic name ‘‘ Myotis ”’ Kaup, 1829, furnished by Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (a) Report dated 5th December 1956 Normally Myotis would be feminine, like the closely related Myosotis. The only parallel that I have noted, Amphotis, is treated as feminine, and so are nouns in “‘-itis’’. (Orobitis cyaneus (L.)—so given in Kloet & Hincks—seems to be just wrong, since orobitis is a rare classical noun taken over from the Greek by Pliny and given as feminine). The only doubt in the case of Myotis arises from the use of the name for a mammal, where considerations of sex do sometimes mean that a name gets its gender from its meaning and not from its form. The word Myotis is not classical. It should be feminine, but, if declared masculine, there would be some case for so doing. ec DIRECTION 98 147 (b) Supplementary Report dated 12th December 1956 Perhaps I had better add a further line about these nouns in “ -is ”’. It seems, in classical Latin, that the sex question went a bit with the size of the animal. Thus canisis common gender. So is figris, though it is masculine in prose writers and feminine in the poets. Felis is very rare in classical Latin, and is feminine—but it meant a small cat allied to weasels and such things. Leo is masculine—and, of course, such a name as Felis leo did not occur to classical writers. I have a feeling that a bat would be too small to come under this common gender principle and that, if Myotis had been a classical word for a bat, it would certainly have been feminine. But, as I have said, we have no direct classical precedent. Many nouns in “-is”’ are masculine and there is a considerable taxonomic tradition for making Myotis mas- culine. The word has, of course, nothing to do with ofis (a bustard), which is feminine. iAbeeNDIXS 3)1O THE SECRETARY'S REPORT Views as to the interpretation of the nominal species ‘‘ Vespertilio murinus *’ Linnaeus, 1758, published by Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. in 1897 and by Olof Ryberg in 1947 respectively (a) Extract from a paper by Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. entitled ‘*The Nomenclature of some European Bats ”’ published in 1897 (Miller (G.S.), 1897, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 20 : 379—383) The exact identification of the species murinus among the Scandinav- ian members of the genus Vespertilio, although a matter of considerable difficulty, does not affect the use of the generic name. Nilsson,* after a careful review of the facts, decided that the animal must have been the bat to which Natterer afterwards applied the name discolor. He therefore very properly placed the latter in the synonymy of V. murinus Linnaeus, and reinstated Bechstein’s name myotis for the Vespertilio murinus of Schreber. Nilsson did not recognise “* Vesperugo”’ as distinct from “‘ Vespertilio”’. Hence he said nothing in regard to the tenability of the generic names. Ten years later, Blasius,+ although admitting that the Vespertilio murinus of Linnaeus could not be the bat commonly known by that name, considered the species undetermin- able, and therefore reasoned that the name first applied to it might * Skand. Fauna, Daggdjuren, pp. 17—20 (andra upplagen) (1847). + Fauna der Wirbelthiere Deutschlands, Saugethiere, p. 74 (1857). 148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS afterwards be properly used by Schreber in a different sense. It is not surprising, then, that Blasius continued to apply the name Vespertilio Linnaeus to the genus to which he had restricted it eighteen years before, notwithstanding the fact that, according to his own statement, it could not be made to include any of the Linnean species. In these rulings Blasius was followed by Lilljeborg,* who gave detailed reasons for his belief that it is impossible to determine whether Linnaeus’s bat is the species afterwards called Vespertilio discolor by Natterer, or that called Vespertilio Nilssoni by Keyserling and Blasius. In his opinion, contrary to that of Nilsson, the odds are in favour of the latter. Lilljeborg calls attention to Blasius’s mistake in applying the generic name Vespertilio to a group containing no species known to Linnaeus, but concludes that since this error has become time-honoured, it were better uncorrected. (b) Extract from a work by Olof Ryberg entitled ‘‘ Bats and Bat Parasites ’’ published in 1947 (Ryberg, 1947, Bats and Bat Paras. : 79—80) Nomenclature : The forms appearing in Sweden agree most nearly to the typical races. Therefore when discussing their biology a binary instead of a ternary (trinary) nomenclature has been used. As regards nomenclature in this chapter I follow Miller, 1912. With reference to synonyms this work should be consulted. An exception is made in the case of Vespertilio discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. For this species Miller uses the name “* Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758”. Natterer’s description is undoubtedly to be assigned to a determined species. Linnaeus’s diagnosis is such as to make it im- possible to identify a determined species. From references in the works of Linnaeus it is obvious even with full evidence that the name is a collective designation for several different European species. The collective name has during different periods and in different lands been used to designate a large number of different European species. Although Nilsson was fully aware that a safe interpretation of the Linnean name was impossible he used it in 1847 for Vespertilio discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. This designation was also used by the leading American bat specialist Gerrit Miller from 1897 onwards. I know * Sveriges och Norges Ryggradsdjur, i, pp. 124—126, 144 (1874). DIRECTION 98 149 of no other change in nomenclature which has caused a more hopeless confusion in the literature. Ifthe name murinus is used with or without a mention of Linnaeus as author, one can seldom with certainty know to which species reference is being made. One could search out hundreds of mistakes, confusions and errors which have arisen in the literature quotations when this obsolete name has been used. It would be a significant gain and a release from a heavy burden for the chiropterologist, if this harmful name which cannot be referred to a definite species were avoided in the future. Even if it may be illogical, it would perhaps be an advantage to retain the name Vespertilio as a genus-designation for the species discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. Among the authors who perceived the confusion that arose through the use of the name Vespertilio murinus can be mentioned, among others, Lilljeborg, 1874, pp. 124—126; Brandt, 1855, pp. 26—27 ; Mohr, 1931, p. 19; Stiles & Nolan, 1931, p. 727. APPENDIX 4 TO THE SECRETARY’S REPORT Views as to the interpretation of the nominal species ‘‘ Vespertilio murinus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, received from specialists in answer to the questionnaire issued on 13th March 1956 SECTION A: Comments received from specialists who favour the retention of the specific name ‘‘ murinus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination ‘‘ Vespertilio murinus ”’, as the name for the type species of ‘‘ Vespertilio ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 1. G. G. Simpson (New York) (16th March 1956) It is my impression that murinus has been much more commonly used in recent years than discolor. 1 have not made a long search but I find murinus used in all the standard reference works on my shelves. A further question here would be whether murinus has been recently used for any other species, and in spite of Ryberg’s statement to the contrary, I do not find any ambiguity in recent applications of. the name. I am on this basis strongly in favor of the alternative stated in paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (2). 150 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2. R. W. Hayman (London) (19th March 1956) I have looked into the major literature of the past 50 years on this subject, and can now reply to the three questions in paragraph 8 of your statement of the case. (a) Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus is the name that has certainly been most used in the literature of the last 50 years. All the major reviewers and writers have used it since Miller’s 1897 paper. (b) I should be in favour of murinus being validated by the Commis- sion in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847). 3. H. Mislin (Mainz, Germany) (19th March 1956) Soweit ich es tiberblicken kann, war der Name murinus in den letzten 50 Jahren gebrdulicher als discolor. 2. und 3. Auf diese beiden Fragen kann ich nicht naher eingehen, aber ich muss zum ganzen Fragenkomplex grundsatzlich das folgende bemerken. In Deutschland und in der Schweiz haben wir bisher 21 Fledermausarten gefunden, die sich auf die beiden Famiulien der RHINOLOPHIDAE und der VESPERTILIONIDAE verteilen. Die gefundenen Arten der VESPERTILIONIDAE verteilen sich auf 8 Gattungen. Davon waren die 4 Gattengun Nyctalus, Eptesicus, Vespertilio und Pipistrellus friiher zu einer Gattung Vesperugo vereinigt. Die Arten der Gattung Myotis wurden unter dem Namen Vespertilio gefiihrt, was leider infolge der verschiedenen Anwendung dieses Namens zu Verwechslungen fiirhte, zumal auch die Anwendung der Artnamen viele Anderungen erfahren hat. So tragt jetzt die zweifarbige Fledermaus, die frither © den Namen Vesperugo discolor den Namen Vespertilio murinus. Der Name Vespertilio murinus wurde abe friiher fiir die jetzige Myotis myotis gebraucht. Myotis myotis (Borkh.) war friiher Vespertilio murinus (Schreber). Ich habe diesen Exkurs nur gegeben um darauf aufmerksam zu machen dass der Name myotis und murinus oftmals verwechselt oder ausgetauscht worden ist. Aber nun noch kurz zu Ihrer Frage. Die zweifarbige Fledermaus wurde meines Wissens friiher nicht nur Vespertilio discolor genannt, sondern hiess auch Vespertilio discolor Natt. Ich méchte darum der Kommission vorschlagen, die in Frage stehenden Species als Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus zu bezeichnen. Da ja fiir die Mausohr-Fledermaus die friihere Bezeichnung Vespertilio murinus Schreber heute nicht mehr verwendet wird und wie oben schon ausgefiihrt durch Myotis myotis (Borkh.) ersetzt worden ist, kann nomenklatorisch keine Verwechslung mehr auftreten und man sollte deshalb bei der zweifarbigen Fledermaus (Vespertilio DIRECTION 98 151 discolor Natter.) auf den ersten Autor naémlich auf Linnaeus zuriick- greifen. 4. T. Haltenorth (Miinchen, Germany) (20th March 1956) I am in favour of the Commission putting a stop to further doubt on Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. Vespertilio discolor Natterer has to be a synonym of V. murinus Linnaeus. I am not in favour of the Commission suppressing the name murinus Linnaeus, 1758. 5. A. M. Husson (Leiden) (22nd March 1956) (1) It is very hard to say which of the two names murinus or discolor has been most commonly used in the last 50 years. My personal impression is that the ratio is about fifty-fifty, while the name murinus during that time has been used in several important publications like Miller’s Catalogue of the Mammals of Western Europe (1912), Eisen- traut’s Die Deutschen Fledermaiise (1937), and Ellerman & Morrison- Scott’s Checklist of Palearctic and Indian Mammals (1951). (2) In my opinion stability would be best served by accepting the interpretation of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, adopted by Nilsson and subsequently by Miller and numerous other authors. I am therefore in favour of placing the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, in the combination Vespertilio murinus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Furthermore I am in favour of the Commission using its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847) and therefore identified with Vespertilio discolor, 1817 (not 1818 or 1819 [see Appendix 5 as a Footnote]). 6. S. Frechkop (Bruxelles) (29th March 1956) J’ai Phoneur de vous faire savoir que je suis partisan de la conser- vation du nom Vespertilio murinus Linné qui est celui de la “ petite chauve-souris murine ’’, tandis que Myotis myotis (Borkhausen) est le nom technique pour “le Murin”’. 7. W. Serafinski (Warsaw) (4th April 1956) (1) In the majority of publications during the last fifty years there was used the name Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. Some authors added as a rule the synonym Vespertilio discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. (2) I am accordingly supporting the action proposed in point (2) of paragraph 8 of your paper. S52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (London) (6th April 1956) (1) There is no question about it. The name murinus has been the generally accepted one for this bat for the last sixty years. I am strongly in favour of proposal (2) of your questionnaire and hope that action will be taken on it. SECTION B: Comments received from specialists who favour the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name ‘‘ murinus ”’ Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination ‘‘ Vespertilio murinus *’, and the designation under the same Powers of ** Vespertilio discolor *’ Natterer, 1818, to be the type species of the genus ‘‘ Vespertilio ’’ Linnaeus 1. Erna Mohr (Hamburg) (17th March 1956) Habe ich bereits vor einem Vierteljahrhundert den Artnamen murinus Linnaeus abgelehnt zugunsten von discolor Kuhl resp. Natterer [see extract below]. Mohr Erna: The Mammals of Schleswig-Holstein, Altona/Elbe, 1931, p. 19: ‘*5. Zweifarbige Fledermaus, Vespertilio discolor Kuhl. ... Die von Miller angewendete Artbezeichnung murinus L. sollte besser vermieden werden ; die Artnamen murinus, myotis und die deutsche Bezeichnung Mausohr fiir mehrere Arten verschiedener Gattungen haben das Fledermausstudium ganz wungebihrlich belastet ”’. 2. E. Eisentraut (Szuttgart) (29th March 1956) Obgleich in den letzten Jahrzehnten fiir die in Frage kommende Species fast allgemein der Name Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, angewendet wurde, stimme ich der Ansicht Rybergs zu, dass infolge der bestehenden Unklarheiten, welche Species vorgelegen hat, der Name Vespertilio discolor Nat., 1818, Giiltigkeit haben soll. Vespertilio discolor Nat. ware daher als “‘ type species ”’ fiir das Genus Vespertilio zu bezeichnen. Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the discovery of the need for a revision of the entry relating to the generic DIRECTION 98 153 name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 91, the problem so involved was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 947. 3. Comments received before publication of the present applica- tion: As the result of the Questionnaire issued by the Office of the Commission on 13th March 1956, the views of ten specialists were obtained before the preparation of the Secretary’s Report. The communications so received were reproduced in Appendix 4 of that Report. In addition, statements published by two other specialists were reproduced in Appendix 3 of the Secretary’s Report. 4. Publication of the Secretary’s Report: The Secretary’s Report was sent to the printer on 22nd January 1957 and was published on 29th March of that year in Part 4 of Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 107—127). 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 29th March 1957 (a) in Part 4 of Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given to four general zoological serial publications and to two specialist serials in Europe and America respectively. 6. No Objection Received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. 154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. Submission to the Commission by the Secretary in October 1957 of a Report on the issues involved in the present case: On Ist October 1957 the Secretary prepared for the consideration of the Commission the following Report drawing attention to the salient features of the present case :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to clarify the entry on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ relating to the generic name “* Vespertilio ’? Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) made by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ’”’ 91 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The purpose of the present note is to draw attention in connection with Voting Paper V.P.(57)60 submitted herewith to the salient features of the problem arising in connection with the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) made by the Ruling given in Opinion 91. 2. The interpretation of the nominal species ‘‘ Vespertilio murinus ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 (type species of ‘‘ Vespertilio ’’ Linnaeus, 1758) : The type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus is the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, and it is the interpretation of this nominal species which forms the principal subject of the present application. For when this entry on the Official List was being examined by the Office of the Commission, it was found that there was diversity of practice in this matter, some specialists using the name murinus Linnaeus, other setting it on one side and using in its place the later name discolor Natterer or Kuhl. The facts in regard to this question are set out in paragraph 4 of the application submitted (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 108—110). Having ascertained what appeared to be the factual background in this matter, I took the view that the next step should be to consult specialists in this group—particularly those interested in the Palaearctic fauna—in order to elicit their views as. to the course which it was desirable that the Commission should take to place the interpretation of the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus upon a firm foundation, this being necessary in order to provide a determinate content to the concepts represented by the nominal genus Vespertilio and the nominal family VESPERTILIONIDAE. Accordingly, on 13th March 1956 I issued a questionnaire in which I sought the views of specialists on the three questions set out in DIRECTION 98 155 paragraph 5 of the application which J later submitted to the Commis- sion (loc. cit. 13 : 110—111). This Questionnaire was issued to twenty specialists, the names of whom are given in the Annexe to the present paper.! 3. Replies were received from ten (10) of the specialists consulted. Of these eight (8) favoured the retention of the specific name murinus Linnaeus for the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, subject to the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species so named be interpreted by reference to the type specimen of the nominal species Vespertilio discolor Natterer or Kuhl, 1817. The two (2) other specialists considered that it would be better for the Commission to suppress the name murinus Linnaeus, thus. clearing the way for the acceptance of the later name discolor. The communications so received are reproduced in Appendix 4 of the application submitted (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 124—127), while in Appendix 3 (Joc. cit. 13 : 122—124) are given extracts from important papers on the problem involved in this case, the one by Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. (1897), the other by Olof Ryberg (1947). In view of the replies received to the Questionnaire the recommendation submitted in my Report was that the name Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus should be retained, subject to a Ruling being given in the manner proposed as to the interpretation of the nominal species so named. 4. Authorship and date of publication to be attributed to the binomen “** Vespertilio discolor’? : A secondary point which arose in the consideration of the present case was whether the binomen Vespertilio discolor should be attributed to Natterer (as it often has been in the literature) or to Kuhl. The evidence in regard to this question is set out in Appendix 1 to the application submitted (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 115—118). From that evidence it has been concluded that the specific name discolor was proposed in manuscript by Natterer but that it was Kuhl who provided the “indication”? on which under Article 25 the availability of that name rests and that it was by Kuhl that this name was published. In these circumstances the name discolor is attributable to Kuhl and not to Natterer. This is however a case where it would be advantageous when citing this name to add in brackets (parenthesis) the words “* Natterer MS” before the name Kuhl. The evidence in regard to the date of publication of the above name is also discussed in the Appendix referred to above. That evidence shows that this name was duly published in 1817 and not in 1819, as has sometimes been stated. 1 The Annexe referred to is not reproduced here, the names contained in it having been given in full in paragraph 6 of the application submitted in this case, which has been reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction. 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. Two points arising in connection with the generic name ‘‘ Myotis ”’ Kaup, 1829: As will be seen from the application submitted on the present case the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, is involved to some extent owing to the fact that the genus so named has as its type species a nominal species (Vespertilio murinus Schreber, [1775]), the name of which is a junior homonym of the name (Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758) of the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus. Accord- ingly under the “‘ Completeness-of-Opinions ” Rule that name should be dealt with as part of the settlement to be reached in the present case. When the status of the name Myotis Kaup was being considered from this point of view, two points emerged which required special investigation. The first of these was the gender to be attributed to the generic name Myotis Kaup, the second the question of the species to be treated under Article 30 as being the type species of the genus so named. The evidence in regard to these matters is set out in Appendix 2 to the application submitted (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 119—122). The evidence regarding the first of these questions there set out shows that the masculine gender commonly attributed to this generic name may be accepted as correct. As regards the second of the above questions, the position disclosed is (a) that the nominal species Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1797, commonly treated as being the type species of the genus Myotis, was not mentioned by Kaup when he established this genus and therefore that the above nominal species cannot be the type species, (b) that the type species of the above genus is Vespertilio murinus Schreber, [1775], by monotypy, (c) that (as already noted) the above name is invalid as being a junior homonym of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, and (d) that the oldest available name for the type species of the genus Myotis Kaup is Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1797, the nominal species commonly—though incorrectly—cited as being the type species of that genus. Thus, the difficulty involved in this case is found to be purely formal and no change in current taxonomic practice is involved as the result of the acceptance as the type species of the nominal species (Vespertilio murinus Schreber) which is in fact the type species under the Reégles. (Note.—The next three paragraphs (paragraphs 6 to 8) gave particulars of the publication of the Secretary’s Report of 30th November 1956, of the issue of Public Notices in regard to the possible use of the Plenary Powers in connection therewith and the fact that those Notices had elicited no objection to the action proposed from any source. These paragraphs are omitted here, as the information contained in them has already been given in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the present Direction.) 6. Recommendation : In these circumstances the proposals set out in Points (1) to (8) in paragraph 12 of the application published in DIRECTION 98 157 this case (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 114—115) are now submitted for approval. Ist October 1956 Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(57)60 : On 11th October 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(57)60) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘ the proposal relating to the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, and associated names as set out in Points (1) to (8) in paragraph 12 on pages 114—115 of Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the Report reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction. | 9. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 11th January 1958. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)60 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)60 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 ; Bonnet ; Mayr ; Riley ; do Amaral ; Lemche ; Hering; Dymond; Esaki; Bodenheimer ; Boschma ; Hemming; Prantl; Hanko; Jaczewski ; Miller ; Stoll ; Kithnelt ; Cabrera ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Tortonese ; Key ; 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes, two (2) : Bradley (J.C.) ; Mertens ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 12th January 1958, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(57)60, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 10 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. _ 12. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 15th January 1958 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(57)60. 13. Original References for Generic and Specific Names : 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 Direction :— discolor, Vespertilio, (Natterer MS.) Kuhl, 1817, Die dtsch. Fledermduse : 43 murinus, Vespertilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 32 DIRECTION 98 159 murinus, Vespertilio, Schreber, [1775], Die Sdugthiere 1 : 165, pl. 11 Myotis Kaup, 1829, Skizz. Entwickel.-Gesch. nat. Syst. europ. Thierwelt : 106 myotis, Vespertilio, Borkhausen, 1797, Deutschl. Fauna 1 : 80 14. Reference to a determination by a First Reviser: The following is the reference to a determination by a First Reviser ‘specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— For Vespertilio murinus Nilsson, (S.), 1847, Skand. Faun., Linnaeus, 1758, inter- Daggdjuren : 17—20 pretation of 15. Original References for Family-Group Names : The follow- ing are the original references for the family-group names placed by the Ruling given in the present Direction on the Official List and Official Index of names for taxa of the family-group category tespectively :— WESPERTILIA Rafinesque, 1815 (an Invalid Original Spelling for VESPERTILIONIDAE) WESPERTILIONIDAE (correction of -VESPERTILIA) Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 54 16. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures : The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction 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. 160 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 17. ‘‘ Direction ’’ Number: The present Direction shall be known as Direction Ninety-Eight (98) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fifteenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & COOPER LIMITED, i0-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ana eh t pa be iV; . A C\N ee 7/1 ’ \ ge a a | | ( JUN6 7959 IN Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.m.c., Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.10. Pp. 161—174 DIRECTION 99 Addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of the names of certain family-gioup taxa belonging to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), the names of the type genera of which have already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoolegy 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 1958 Price Nine Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 16th May, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON — ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 99 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 Commissien (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. Seay (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 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) (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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August, 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi 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. 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 KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Protesser 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) DIRECTION 99 ADDITION TO THE ‘* OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE NAMES OF CERTAIN FAMILY-GROUP TAXA BELONGING TO THE ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA), THE NAMES OF THE TYPE GENERA OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLACED ON THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ RULING :—(1) The names of the under-mentioned nominal family-group taxa belonging to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), the names of the type genera of which have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in the Opinions severally specified below, are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified in each of the entries concerned :— (a) MORPHIDAE Westwood, [1851] (type genus : Morpho Fabricius, 1807) (Opinion 137) (Name No. 225) ; (b) SATYRIDAE (correction of SATYRIDES) Boisduval, [1833] (type genus: Satyrus Latreille, 1810) (Opinion 142) (Name No. 226) ; (c) COLIADINAE (correction of COLIANA) Swainson, 1827 (type genus: Colias Fabricius, 1807) (Opinion 146) (Name No. 227) ; (d) ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, 1844 (type genus : Argynnis Fabricius, 1807) (Opinion 161) (Name No. 228) ; (ec) APATURIDAE (correction of APATURIDES) Boisduval, 1840 (type genus: Apatura Fabricius, 1807) (Opinion 232) (Name No. 229) ; (f) DANAIDAE (correction of DANAIDES) Boisduval, [1833] type genus: Danaus Kluk, 1802) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 230) ; CAZITLIOSCVAIITA AT 164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (g) LIMENITIDINAE (correction of LIMENITIDES) Butler, 1869 (type genus: Limenitis Fabricius, 1807) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 231) ; (h) NYMPHALIDAE Swainson, 1827, (type genus: Nymphalis Kluk, 1802) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 23ie (i) PAPILIONIDAE (correction of PAPILIONIDA) [Leach], [1815] (type genus: Papilio Linnaeus, 1758) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 233). (2) The under-mentioned family-group names are here- by placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) SATYRIDES Boisduval, [1833] (type genus: Satyrus Latreille, 1810) (an Invalid Original Spelling for SATYRIDAE) (Opinion 142) (Name No. 264) ; (b) COLIANA Swainson, 1827 (type genus: Colias Fabricius, 1807) (an Invalid Original Spelling for COLIADINAE) (Opinion 146) (Name No. 265) ; (c) ARGYNNIDINAE Aurivillitus, [1911] (type genus: Argynnis Fabricius, 1807) (an Erroneous Sub- sequent Spelling for ARGYNNIDAE) (Opinion 161) (Name No. 266) ; (d) APATURIDES Boisduval, 1840 (type genus : Apatura Fabricius, 1807) (an Invalid Original Spelling for APATURIDAE) (Opinion 232) (Name No. 267) ; (e) DANAIDES Boisduval, [1833] (type genus: Danaus Kluk, 1802) (an Invalid Original Spelling for DANAIDAE) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 268) ; (f) DANAIDIDAE Reuter, 1897 (type genus: Danaus Kluk, 1802) (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for DANAIDAE) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 269) ; DIRECTION 99 165 (g) LIMENITIDES Butler, 1869 (type genus: Limenitis Fabricius, 1807) (an Invalid Original Spelling for LIMENITIDINAE) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 270) ; (h) PAPILIONIDA [Leach], [1815] (type genus: Papilio Linnaeus, 1758) (an Invalid Original Spelling for PAPILIONIDAE) (Opinion 278) (Name No. 271). I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ** DIRECTION ” The present Direction contains the first instalment of the last portion of the survey of the entries already made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, namely that concerned with the family-group names based upon the names of such genera. The present instalment is concerned with this problem in relation to the names of taxa belonging to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). The number of names involved is relatively small, partly because no generic names in the above group were placed by the Commission on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology prior to its Session held at Lisbon in 1935 and partly because in the more recent Opinions dealing with this group the family-group-name implications have been dealt with at the same time that the generic names concerned were placed on the Official List. 2. Since the present is the first of the present series of Directions, it may be convenient to recall for the sake of clarity that under a Directive issued by the International Congresses of Zoology the Commission is required, when placing a family-group name on the Official List, to cite that name as belonging to whatever category within the family-group was assigned to it by its original author. Thus, the fact that a name appears on the Official List as the name of a family does no more than indicate that the taxon so named was regarded as being of family rank by its original author. Accordingly, the entry of a family-group name on the 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Official List carries with it no implication as to the category (family, subfamily, tribe, etc.) within the family-group to which the taxon so named should on taxonomic grounds be regarded as belonging. All that such an entry indicates is that the name in question is an available name, that it is the oldest available name for a nominal taxon belonging to one or other of the categories within the family-group, and that it is the name which is to be used for that taxon in preference to any other name. 3. The decision embodied in the present Direction was based upon the following paper submitted to the Commission by the Secretary on 29th November 1957 :— Proposed completion at the family-group-name level of Rulings given in ‘* Opinions ”’ in which generic names were placed on the ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ : No. I. Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Now that the review of the entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology has been completed and arrangements have been made for the publication in book-form of that List as so far compiled, it is necessary to complete the action so taken by placing on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group names based upon the generic names already placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in all cases where such family-group names are the oldest available names for the taxa concerned and are currently in use by specialists in the groups concerned but have not yet been placed on the Official List. 2. The family-group names associated with generic names already placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology fall into three groups. First, in all the more recent Opinions the family-group-name implications of the proposal submitted were dealt with by the applicants in the proposals placed before the Commission and decisions were taken by the Commission thereon. The first of the Opinions falling in this group was Opinion 436, the Opinion with which Volume 15 of the Opinions and Declarations Series opened. The second group of DIRECTION 99 167 Opinions to be considered from this point of view is Opinions 334 to 435, which collectively constitute Volumes 10 to 14 of the above Series. In the majority of the Opinions comprised in this group the family-group-name implications involved were not discussed by the applicants concerned and accordingly were not dealt with in the Opinions subsequently rendered by the Commission. In all these cases however this deficiency has since been made good by the Com- mission in supplementary Directions. The Directions concerned are the following :—Directions 27 and 28, which were concerned with the Opinions (Opinions 334—350) comprised in Volume 10; Direction 41, which was concerned with the Opinions (Opinions 351—379) comprised in Volume 11 ; Directions 53 and 54, which were concerned with the Opinions (Opinions 380—400) comprised in Volume 12; Direction 58, which was concerned with the Opinions (Opinions 401— 416) comprised in Volume 13; Direction 62, which was concerned with ‘the Opinions (Opinions 417—435) comprised in Volume 14. The most recently adopted Opinion is Opinion 503, and it will be seen therefore that in the case of the 153 most recently rendered Opinions the family-group-name implications of the cases concerned have now been dealt with by the Commission. These Opinions represent almost exactly one-third of the total number of Opinions so far rendered by the Commission. A good start has therefore already been made by the Commission in dealing with the present problem. 3. In the course of the last four years the earlier Opinions have been subjected to close scrutiny for the purpose of ascertaining what supplementary action was called for in the matter, for example, of determining the gender to be attributed to generic names placed on the Official List in those Opinions and of placing other names dealt with in those Opinions on Official Lists or Official Indexes, in order to complete the action required in connection with those Opinions at the generic-name and specific-name levels. As the result of the survey so undertaken the required supplementary action has now been taken by the Commission as respects all these Opinions and the decisions so taken have been embodied in Directions. At the outset of this survey it was decided that, in order to expedite the completion to date of the older Official Lists and Official Indexes, the proposals then to be submitted to the Commission should be confined to proposals relating to generic and specific names, the family-group-name prob- lems being deferred for submission-to the Commission at the close of the phase concerned with names of lower categories. The search of the literature needed for the preparation of proposals for submission to the Commission in regard to generic and specific names and the extensive consultations then entered into with specialists in the groups concerned provided however an excellent opportunity for collecting information in regard to the family-group-name problems later to be placed before the Commission. In this way a large amount of informa- tion was collected and is already available for submission to the Commission, 168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. The state of current knowledge regarding the early history of family-group names differs considerably from one group to another and for this reason it was decided some time ago that, when the stage was reached for placing proposals before the Commission, it would save time and also be more convenient to the Commission if the proposals to be submitted to it were grouped by reference to. Classes and Orders in the Animal Kingdom rather than by reference to the volumes in the Opinions and Declarations Series in which decisions had been taken by the Commission in regard to the corresponding generic names. As part of this arrangement it is proposed however in due course to submit reports to the Commission showing the extent to which the necessary action has been taken in respect of each of the volumes (Volumes !—10) of the above Series concerned. 5. It is proposed from now onwards to submit to the Commission a series of papers dealing with the family-group-name problems requiring consideration. Here and there it has been found that for one reason or another some question of difficulty arises in connection with a particular family-group name which will require special attention and may perhaps involve consideration being given to the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers if stability in the nomenclature of the group concerned is to be assured. In such cases separate papers setting out fully the nature of the problem involved will be submitted to the Commission for consideration. Accordingly, the series of papers which it is now proposed to place before the Commission will be confined to the enumeration of family- group names as regards which no nomenclatorial difficulty arises and which it has been ascertained by consultation with the specialists who took part in the preliminary consultations (paragraph 3 above) are currently in use in the groups concerned. 6. The first paper in the present series, which is concerned with family-group names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), is submitted in the Appendix attached to the present paper. APPENDIX TO SECRETARY’S REPORT Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ of the names of certain family-group taxa belonging to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), the names of the type genera of which have been placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ Particulars are given below of the names of certain family-group taxa in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) which it is recommended DIRECTION 99 169 should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. In each case the name of the type genus of the family-group taxon concerned has already been placed by the International Com- mission on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The family- group names listed below are all in current use by specialists in the Order Lepidoptera. In no case is there an older-established family- group taxon having as its type genus a genus which is subjectively regarded by specialists as belonging to the same family-group taxon as that represented by one of those now recommended for addition to the Official List. The names now submitted for inclusion in the List are thus not only themselves objectively available names but are in addition the oldest names subjectively available for the taxa con- cerned. In the case of none of the names given in the following list is there any doubt as to the correct form of the name in question, though in a few cases incorrect spellings have in the past been used by various authors. In the case of one or two names, notes based upon reports kindly furnished by Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have been added for information. OPINION 137 Recommended for addition to the Official List : MORPHIDAE Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 332 (type genus : Morpho Fabricius, 1807) Note : The earlier name MORPHIDES Boisduval, [1836] (Hist. nat. Ins., Spec. gén. Lépid. 1 : 166) is a vernacu- lar (French) word, as is shown by the fact that certain of the corresponding names included by Boisduval in the same table are printed with accents over certain of the vowels. OPINION 142 Recommended for addition to the Official List : SATYRIDAE (correction of SATYRIDES) Boisduval, [1833], Jcon. hist. Lépid. Europ. 1 (12) : 128 (type genus : Satyrus Latreille, 1810) Recommended for addition to the Official Index : SATYRIDES Boisduval, [1833] (an Invalid Original Spelling for SATYRIDAE) 170 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS OPINION 146 Recommended for addition to the Official List : COLIADINAE (correction of COLIANA) Swainson, 1827, Phil. Mag. (n.s.) 1 (3) : 188 (type genus : Colias Fabricius, 1807) Recommended for addition to the Official Index : COLIANA Swainson, 1827 (an Invalid Original Spelling for COLIADINAE) OPINION 161 Recommended for addition to the Official List : ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, 1844, Cat. méth. Lépid. Europ. :2 (type genus : Argynnis Fabricius, 1807) Recommended for addition to the Official Index : ARGYNNIDINAE Aurivillius, [1911], im Seitz, Grossschmett. Erde 13 (107) : 121 ; id., [1913], ibid. 13 (150) : 229 Note 1: This family-group name has been widely used by many authors in the shortened form employed by Duponchel. Aurivillius is alone in treating the name Argynnis as having an “ -id’”’ stem. Comment- ing on the generic name Argynnis Fabricius, Professor Grensted observed (in Jitt., 25th November 1957) :— “* This word is not classical, though it may be a version coined by Fabricius, of the proper name Argynnus (a boy loved by Agamemnon—mentioned by Propertius). Fabricius may well have done this in view of other butterfly names ending in “‘is”’. There is no Greek form of the name. I see no evidence for a stem in “id”? and the link with Argynnus makes this im- probable. This makes ARGYNNINAE the most natural form for the subfamily name.” Note 2: The present family-group taxon is currently treated by most authors as a _ sub- family but bysomeasatribe. Itwascalleda “tribus”’ by Duponchel but that term, as employed by that author, was the equivalent of a family as now under- stood. As Duponchel used an approved termination for this name, it is necessary under the Rules that that termination should be retained when this name is placed on the Official List. OPINION 232 Recommended for addition to the Official List : APATURIDAE (correction of APATURIDES) Boisduval, 1840, Gén. Index méth. Europ. Lépid. : 24 (type genus : Apatura Fabricius, 1807) Note: As used by Boisduval, the name APATURIDES denoted a taxon equivalent to a family as now under- stood. DIRECTION 99 171 Recommended for addition to the Official Index : APATURIDES Boisduval, 1840 (an Invalid Original Spelling for APATURIDAE) OPINION 278 Recommended for addition to the Official List : DANAIDAE (correction of DANAIDES) Boisduval, [1833], Icon. hist. Lépid. Europ. 1 (9) : 84 (type genus : Danaus Kluk, 1802) LIMENITIDINAE (correction of LIMENITIDES) Butler, 1869, Gen. diurn. Lep. Fabricius : 57 (type genus : Limenitis Fabricius, 1807) NYMPHALIDAE Swainson, 1827, Phil. Mag. (n.s.) 1 (2) : 187 (type genus : Nymphalis Kluk, 1802) PAPILIONIDAE (correction of PAPILIONIDA) [Leach], [1815], i Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. 9 : 127 (type genus : Papilio Linnaeus, 1758) Note : Of the words of which the names of the type genera of the above family-group taxa are composed, Danaus and Papilio are classical Latin nouns, the former of Greek origin, the genitive singular of these words being Danai and Papilionis respectively. No question arises, therefore, as regards their respective stems. As regards the two other names Professor Grensted has commented (in litt) as follows :— (a) Limenitis Fabricius : “‘ This is found in classical Greek—Awevitis, genitive “160s” with the stem “ Limenitid-, which would be repro- duced in Latin. The spelling LIMENITIDINAE for the subfamily name is correct” (letter dated 25th November 1957). (b) Nymphalis Kluk: “‘ This is a Latin formation with no Greek equivalent, of adjectival form. It occurs as an adjective in classical Latin, with the genitive ~ Nymphalis’. The stem is ‘Nymphal-’ and the spelling NyYMPHALIDAE for the family name is correct ’”’ (letter dated 15th May 1955). ‘‘ Nymphalis, as a Latin adjective, has nothing at all in common with Limenitis, which is a Greek noun” (letter dated 25th November 1957). Recommended for addition to the Official Index : DANAIDES Boisduval, [1833] (an Invalid Original Spelling for DANAIDAE) DANAIDIDAE Reuter, 1897, Acta. Soc. Sci. fenn. 22 : 301 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for DANAIDAE) LIMENITIDES Butler, 1869 (an Invalid Original Spelling for LIMENITIDINAE) PAPILIONIDA [Leach], [1815] (an Invalid Original Spelling for PAPILIONIDAE) 172 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of the Secretary’s paper the question of the addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of certain family- group taxa belonging to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1283. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)28 : On 4th December 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(57)28) 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 International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the General Directive supplementary thereto on the subject of family-group names issued to the Commission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the family-group names based upon generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) already placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology specified in the Appendix to the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1283 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in the Appendix to the paper reproduced in paragraph 3 of the present Direction] be placed on the Official List and Official Index for the names of taxa belonging to the family-group category, as there proposed ”’ and (2) if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate that item. 6. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 4th January 1958. 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)28 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the DIRECTION 99 73 voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)28 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; Boschma; Mertens; Vokes; Mayr; Hering ; Prantl; Miller; Cabrera ; Stoll; Hemming ; Bonnet ; Lemche ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Kiihnelt ; Jaczewski ; Dymond ; do Amaral; Bodenheimer ; Hanko; Riley ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Tortonese ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Key ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Esakil. 8. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 5th January 1958, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(57)28, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 7 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 9. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 17th January 1958 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given 1 Shortly after the close of the Prescribed Voting Period information was received that Professor Esaki had died during that Period on 14th December 1957. 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in the present Direction 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.)(57)28. 10. Original References: The original references for the family-group names placed by the Ruling given in the present Direction either on the Official List or on the Official Index of names for family-group taxa are as set out in the Appendix to the application submitted in the present case and reproduced in the first paragraph of this Direction. The names of the type genera of the family-group taxa concerned have in each case already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the references for those names have been given in the Opinions respectively concerned. 11. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures : The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under- signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 12. ‘*‘ Direction ’’ Number: The present Direction shall be known as Direction Ninety-Nine (99) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Dong in London, this Seventeenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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..G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F. 11. Pp. 175—190 DIRECTION 100 Determination of the gender to be attributed to certain generic names having the termination “‘ -gnathus”’ or, as the case may be, the termination “ -rhynchus’’ placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the ( JUN-254959 serene 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 Publieations Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 30th May, 195 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 100 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorRDAN (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 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. eo (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-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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (MezGgazdasdgi 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. HoLttuuts (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 V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ee 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 ToORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) DIRECTION 100 DETERMINATION OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES HAVING THE TERMI- NATION ‘‘ -GNATHUS ” OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE TERMINATION ‘“ -RHYNCHUS ”’ PLACED ON THE ‘ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” IN THE PERIOD UP TO THE END OF 1936 RULING :—It is hereby directed (a) that in accordance with the provisions of Declaration 39! the under- mentioned generic names having the termination “-onathus”’’ or, as the case may be, the termination “* -rhychus”’ are to be treated as being of the masculine gender and (b) that that gender be entered against each of the names in question at the point at which it was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 by the Rulings given in the Opinions severally specified below :— (1) Generic Names placed on the “ Official List” by the Ruling given in “* Opinion ”’ 67 (a) Aulacorhynchus Gould, 1834 (Class Aves) ; (b) Eurynorhynchus Nilsson, 1821 (Class Aves) ; (c) Sphenorynchus [sic] Lichtenstein, 1823 (Class Aves) ; (ii) Generic Names placed on the “ Official List ”’ by the Ruling given in “ Opinion” 77 (d) Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces) 1 This Declaration is being published simultaneously with the present Direction as Part 4 of Volume 19 of the Opinions and Declarations Series. SMITHSONIAN 178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (iii) Generic Names placed on the “ Official List ” by the Ruling given in “ Opinion” 84 (e) Gigantorhynchus Hamann, 1892 (Class Acanthoce- phala) (iv) Generic Names placed on the “ Official List ” by the Ruling given in “* Opinion” 85 (f) Asthenognathus Stimpson, 1858 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) ; (g) Chasmagnathus de Haan, [1833] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) ; (h) Ptychognathus Stimpson, 1858 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) ; (i) Pyxidognathus Milne Edwards (A.), 1879 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) ; (v) Generic Names placed on the “ Official List ” by the Ruling given in “* Opinion” 92 (j) Desmognathus Baird, (1850) (Class Amphibia). I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT *“ DIRECTION ” The present Direction is concerned with the determination of the gender to be attributed to ten generic names having either the termination “-gnathus”’ or the termination “ -rhynchus” which were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. A decision on this subject has been required for some time in connection with DIRECTION 100 179 the preparations in hand for the publication of the Official List in book-form but has hitherto been delayed because of doubts ’ as to the gender properly attributable to such names pending the review by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- -clature under Decision 85 of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 51) of the Rules for determining the gender attributable to generic names of certain classes, including those having the terminations “-gnathus” and “ -rhynchus’’, provisionally laid down by that Congress by its Decision 84 (op. cit. : 49—51). When the need for a decision as regards the names dealt with in the present Direction first came to light, it was not possible to foretell when the review referred to above would be completed and it was accordingly decided that, in order to put the Commission in a position to direct that, contrary to the provisional Rule referred to above, the names referred to above be treated as being masculine in gender, that being the gender commonly attributed to each, Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers to secure the above end should be given without delay. Under this arrangement a short note on this subject was prepared by the Secretary and was published on 7th July 1955 (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 260— 262). On the same day Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of providing a valid basis for the continued use for the generic names concerned of the gender customarily applied thereto was given in the prescribed manner. By the close of the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period in respect of the above proposal it seemed likely that at a fairly early date a Report might be expected from the Commission setting out the results of its survey of the Gender Rules provisionally adopted by the Copenhagen Congress. It was accordingly decided that, provided no delay in the publication of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology would thereby be involved, the better course would be to defer the submission to the Commission of a Voting Paper in regard to the gender to be attributed to the names ending in “ -gnathus ” and ‘“‘-rhynchus’’ respectively, specified in the application submitted by Mr. Hemming in July 1955, until on the receipt of the Commission’s Report on its review of the Gender Rules provisionally adopted by the Copenhagen Congress the gender properly attributable to such names had been authoritatively 180 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS determined. Eventually, the consultations with individual specialists and with Professor L. W. Grensted, the Commission’s Consulting Classical Adviser, undertaken by the Office of the Commission made it possible for the Secretary to submit a paper to the Commission to serve as the basis for an Interim Report by the Commission on the gender to be attributed to certain of the classes of name specified in Decision 84 of the Copenhagen Congress, including names having the terminations “ -gnathus ” and “‘ -rhynchus.”. The paper on this subject was completed by the Secretary at the close of October 1957 and was submitted to the Commission on 6th November 1957 under the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1277, together with Voting Paper V.P.(57)61.? 2. The considerations advanced in the paper submitted to the Commission in connection with its review of certain portions of the Rules for determining the gender to be attributed to generic names of various classes provisionally adopted by the Copen- hagen Congress in its Decision 84 threw an entirely new light on the problem of the gender to be attributed to generic names having the termination “-gnathus’”’ or, as the case might be, the termination “-rhynchus’”’. For in that paper evidence was advanced to show that fully-Latinised words having the above terminations should properly be regarded as masculine in gender, notwithstanding the fact that prior to Latinisation the word forming the second portion of generic names so compounded had been of a different gender. Thus, whatever decision might be taken on the proposals on the question of principle raised in the Voting Paper (V.P.(57)61) referred to in paragraph | above, that decision would determine automatically the gender which under the Régles was applicable to the generic names having “*-gnathus”’ or “ -rhynchus”’ terminations placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936. It was accordingly decided that in view of the urgency of obtaining Rulings as to the gender to be attributed to the above generic names in the book- form edition of the Official List then in an advanced state of preparation, the proper course would be to submit to the Commission simultaneously with the foregoing Voting Paper on the general issue of principle a second Voting Paper in which the The decision taken by the Commission on this Voting Paper has since been embodied in Declaration 39, See Footnote 1. DIRECTION 100 181 Commission would be asked to vote on the question of the gender attributable under the Régles to the “ -gnathus’’ and “*-rhynchus”” names concerned. Under this procedure con- siderable time would be saved if the Commission were to adopt the conclusions on the questions of principle raised in the paper submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(57)61, for it would at the same time be enabled to determine in the light of the decision taken on that Voting Paper the gender attributable under the Rég/es to the generic names in question, while, if on the other hand the Commission were to take a different view on the question of principle involved, no time would have been wasted in the consideration of the further question which would then arise as to whether or not it was desirable that, as foreshadowed by the Public Notices issued in July 1955, the Plenary Powers should be used for the purpose of securing that the gender to be attributed to the generic names concerned should be the masculine gender commonly attributed to them. 3. In accordance with the procedural decisions described above the following paper regarding the gender attributable to the generic names having the terminations “‘ -gnathus’’ and “* -rhynchus”’ respectively that had been placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936 was submitted to the Commission with Voting Paper V.P.(57)62, on 6th November 1957, simultaneously with the paper on the underlying question of principle and its associated Voting Paper (V.P.(57)61) :— Proposed determination of the gender to be assigned on the ‘‘ Official List’? to certain generic names having the terminations ‘* -onathus ”’ and ‘‘ -rhynchus ”’ respectively By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present is the second of a pair of papers in which consideration is given to the question of the gender properly attributable to generic names having the terminations ‘‘ -gnathus”’ or ‘‘-rhynchus”’. In the earlier paper this matter is discussed as a general problem in relation to the text of the Régles ; the present paper is confined to the much more limited question of the gender to be attributed to certain names having one or other of the above terminations that have already been placed on the Official List. The two papers are now submitted 182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to the Commission simultaneously in accordance with the procedure adopted in a recent parallel case where the Commission gave consideration simultaneously to two associated problems of this kind. In the case in question the general issue involved was the gender to be attributed under the Régles to generic names having the termination “ -ops’’, the associated individual case being the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Triops Schrank. 2. The first of the papers dealing with the present problem is being submitted to the Commission simultaneously with the present paper under the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1277, together with Voting Paper V.P.(57)61. In that paper is given the result of the review, carried out in compliance with Copenhagen Decision 85, of certain of the Gender Rules, including those relating to generic names having the terminations “ -gnathus”’ and “ -rhynchus”’, provisionally adopted for incorporation in the Régles by Copenhagen Decision 84. Under the provisional Rules in question the feminine gender was assigned to generic names having the termination “-gnathus”’ and the neuter gender to names having the termination “‘-rhynchus”’. In the review set out in the paper referred to above it is shown that fully Latinised words of the above type take the gender (as they would in a classical Latin word) of their nominative suffix and therefore that names having either of the above terminations are properly masculine in gender. It is accordingly recommended in the foregoing paper that, in accordance with the duty imposed upon it by Decision 85 of the Copenhagen Congress, the Commission should now render a Declaration revoking the provisional Rules described above and directing that they be replaced by Rules that names having the above terminations and also certain other names incorrectly treated in Decision 84 as having the neuter gender, be treated as being masculine in gender. 3. The present paper, which (as has been explained) is consequential upon the conclusions on matters of principle indicated in the paper discussed above, is concerned with the question of the gender to be attributed to certain generic names having the terminations “ -gnathus ”’ and “‘-rhynchus” already placed on the Official List. As will be appreciated, the settlement of this matter is now extremely urgent, it being necessary that an appropriate gender be assigned to each of the names concerned before the Official List, parts of which are ae in proof, can be published in book-form. a 4. Altogether eleven names are involved, six being names having the termination “‘-gnathus”’ and five the termination “‘ -rhynchus”’. The names in question are set out in the Annexe to the present paper. With the exception of one of the “‘ -rhynchus”’? names, which has only recently been placed on the Official List, all the names in question were placed on the List prior to the close of 1936. When the question of the gender to be attributed to generic names placed on the Official List in the foregoing period was investigated by this Office, it was found DIRECTION 100 183 that names having the above terminations were consistently treated by specialists in the groups concerned as being masculine in gender and strong opposition was expressed at the prospect of this practice being overturned by the Copenhagen Rules discussed in paragraph 2 above. For example, Dr. L. B. Holthuis was strongly of the opinion that in the case of the numerous names in the Decapod Crustacea having the termination “‘-gnathus’’ it would be most objectionable if it were necessary to adopt the feminine gender in place of the currently accepted masculine gender, while from the point of view of ornithological nomenclature Professor Ernst Mayr was equally emphatic in his objection to the substitution of the neuter gender for the masculine gender for names having the termination “ -rhynchus’’. 5. At the time when the foregoing consultations took place, the only means by which it would have been possible validly to assign the masculine gender either to “‘-gnathus”’ names or to “ -rhynchus”’ names . would have been by the use by the Commisson of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of directing that that gender be assigned to the names in question. Accordingly, in the early part of 1955 I prepared as Secretary a note drawing attention to the names having the above terminations that were concerned and also to certain names having other terminations which had also been placed on the Official List and as regards which similar difficulties had arisen. The names included in this latter group are being dealt with in papers which will be submitted to the Commission separately and in consequence the only names specified in the paper which I prepared in 1955 which are relevant to the present case are those having the terminations ** -gnathus’’ and “‘-rhynchus”’ respectively. The paper referred to above was published on 7th July 1955 (Hemming, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 260—262). The publication of the foregoing paper and the issue of the accompanying Public Notices elicited comments from a considerable number of specialists. In the altered situation disclosed in paragraph 2 above, these comments are no longer strictly relevant, for they were all based on the assumption—now seen to be unfounded— that, if the masculine gender was to be assigned to names having the above terminations, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to secure that end. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that there was an overwhelming consensus of opinion among specialists in the groups concerned in favour of the validation of the masculine gender as the gender to be accepted for the names in question. Thus, of the ten (10) specialists who commented on the ** -rhynchus ’’ names every one was in favour of the validation of the masculine gender, while of the fourteen (14) specialists who commented on the “‘-gnathus’’ names, ten (10) were in favour of the masculine gender, the remaining four (4) expressing opposition on the ground that, in their view, the gender to be attributed to generic names should in all cases be whatever was the classically correct gender for them. Now that it is seen that the masculine gender is in fact the classically correct gender for “‘-rhynchus”’ and ‘“‘-gnathus”’ names, the objection 184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to the acceptance of the masculine gender for these names lodged by the small minority referred to above falls to the ground and there is in consequence now no objection to that attribution from any source. 6. In the circumstances described above, we see (a) that the generic names having the terminations “‘-gnathus”’ and “ -rhynchus” respectively specified in the Annexe to the present paper are customarily treated by specialists in the groups concerned as being masculine in gender and (b) that under the Régles as proposed (in the paper Numbered Z.N.(S.) 1277 submitted, with Voting Paper V.P.(57)61, concurrently with the present paper) to be interpreted in the light of the review of the provisional gender Rules embodied in Copenhagen Decision 84, carried out under the instructions given to — the Commission by the Copenhagen Congress in its Decision 85, the gender properly attributable to generic names having the foregoing terminations is, in fact, the masculine gender and therefore (c) that, contrary to what was originally believed, the use of the Plenary Powers is not needed to secure the attribution of the masculine gender to these names. 7. It is accordingly recommended that under the provisions referred to above the Commission now direct that the masculine gender be attributed to each of the eleven names (six “‘-gnathus’’? names and five ‘‘ -rhynchus”’ names) specified in the Annexe to the present paper in the entries relating thereto already made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. ANNEXE TO SECRETARY’S REPORT OF 6TH NOVEMBER WDS7/ Particulars of eleven names having either the termination ‘‘ -gnathus ”’ or the termination ‘‘ -rhynchus ”’ already placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ to which it is proposed that the masculine gender be now assigned (a) Six names having the termination ‘‘ -gnathus ”’ (1) Asthenognathus Stimpson, 1858 (Class Crustacea) (Opinion 85) (2) Chasmagnathus de Haan, [1833] (Class Crustacea) (Opinion 85) (3) Ptychognathus Stimpson, 1858 (Class Crustacea) (Opinion 85) (4) Pyxidognathus Milne Edwards (A.), 1879 (Class Crustacea) (Opinion 85) (5) Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces) (Opinion 77) (6) Desmognathus Baird, [1850] (Class Amphibia) (Opinion 92) DIRECTION 100 © 185 (b) Five names having the termination ‘‘ -rhynchus ”’ (7) Aulacorhynchus Gould, 1834 (Class Aves) (Opinion 67) (8) Eurynorhynchus Nilsson, 1821 (Class Aves) (Opinion 67) (9) Sphenorynchus [sic] Lichtenstein, 1823 (Class Aves) (Opinion 67) (10) meer en Hamann, 1892 (Class Acanthocephala) (Opinion (11) Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878] (Class Crustacea) (Opinion not yet published). 4. Registration of the present application : In the initial stages the question of the gender to be attributed on the Official List to the generic names dealt with in the present Direction, together with the parallel problems arising in connection with certain other generic names placed on that List in the period up to the end of 1936, was dealt with on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 942. At a later stage it was considered that it would be more convenient if that File were to be reserved for the consideration of the problems arising in connection with generic names having the termination “ -opsis ’’, new files being opened for the consideration of the problems arising in connection with the names of other classes previously dealt with in it. Accordingly, the papers relating to names having the terminations “-gnathus’’ and ““--rhynchus’”’ respectively were re-registered in a separate File bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1278. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 : On 6th November 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(57)62) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the ’ The Opinion here referred to has since been rendered as Opinion 518 and is being published as Part 5 of Volume 19 of the Opinions and Declarations Series. See also Footnote 5, 186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS proposal relating to the gender to be attributed on the Official List to certain generic names having the terminations “ -gnathus ” and “‘-rhynchus’’ respectively, as set out in paragraph 7 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1278 [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in- paragraph 3 of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’. 6. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 6th February 1958. 7. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 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) :— Boschma; MHolthuis; Lemche; Hering; Mayr; Mertens; Dymond; Vokes; Esaki; Bradley (J.C.) ; Riley; Prantl; Bonnet; do Amaral; Jaczewski ; Miller; Bodenheimer; Hanké; Hemming; Stoll ; Key; Kihnelt ; Tortonese ; Sylvester-Bradley ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Cabrera. 8. Adoption in February 1958 of a ‘‘ Declaration ”’ prescribing the gender to be attributed under the ‘‘ Régles ”’ to generic names DIRECTION 100 ae having terminations ‘‘ -gnathus ’’ and ‘‘ -rhynchus ”’ respectively : On 6th February 1958 the Prescribed Voting Period in respect of Voting Paper V.P.(57)61 came to its close and it was then found that under the vote so taken the Commission had decided to adopt a Declaration prescribing inter alia that, as the result of its review carried out under Copenhagen Decision 85 of the Gender Rules for certain classes of generic names provisionally prescribed by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 under its Decision 84 (see paragraph 1 of the present Direction), the gender properly attributable under the Régles to generic names having the terminations “ -gnathus”’ and “ -rhynchus”’ respectively was the masculine gender. A decision in this sense was an essential preliminary to the Declaration of the Result of the Vote in regard to the gender to be attributed to certain generic names having the above terminations which had been placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936 which formed the subject of the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62, for, as has been explained in paragraph 2 of the present Direction, that Voting Paper was issued conditionally only and the subject dealt with in it would have required further consideration from the point of view of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers if the Commission had rejected the proposals on the underlying question of principle submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(57)61. The approval by the Commission of the proposals submitted with that Voting Paper thus cleared the way for the Declaration by the Secretary of the Result of the Vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62, the Voting Paper relating to the present case. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 7th February 1958, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62, signed a Certificate that the votes cast were as set out in paragraph 7 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 4 See Footnote 1. 188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10. Withdrawal from the scope of the Ruling to be prepared for the ‘‘ Direction’? embodying the decision taken by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 of the determination then made of the gender to be attributed to the generic name ‘* Euryrhynchus *’ Miers, [1878] : On 7th February 1958 Mr. Hemming as Secretary executed the following Minute in which for the reasons there stated directions were given for the exclusion from the Ruling to be prepared for the Direction embodying the decision taken by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 of the determination then made of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) :— Withdrawal from the scope of the Ruling to be given in the ‘‘ Direction ”’ embodying the decision taken by the International Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 of the decision then taken as regards the gender to be attributed to the generic name ‘‘ Euryrhynchus ”’ Miers, [1878] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The proposals which formed the subject of the vote just concluded by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 were concerned with the determination of the gender to be attributed to eleven generic names having either the termination “ -gnathus”’ or the termination **-rhynchus’’. Of these names all those having the termination ‘*-gnathus’’ and all except one of those having the termination ** -rhynchus ’’ were names which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. The last of the names having the termination “ -rhynchus”’ was the name Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) which had not as yet been placed on the above List but which had been included in the foregoing proposal because its addition thereto had formed the subject of a separate application (Z.N.(S.) 616) on which decisions had been taken by the Commission on all points, other than the gender attributable to that name. 2. On the question of procedure the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 in regard to the gender attributable to the ten generic names placed on the Official List during the period up to the end of 1936 will need to be embodied in a Direction to be published in the current Section of Volume 1 of the “‘ Opinions DIRECTION 100 189 and Declarations ”’ Series, the volume in which have been published all the other Directions rendered by the Commission on the subject of the gender to be attributed to generic names placed on the Official List during the above period. It would, however, be quite inappropriate that the determination of the gender attributable to the generic name Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878], should be included in the Ruling to be given in the foregoing Direction, for such a determination would be entirely out of place in a Direction concerned only with the attribution of appropriate genders to generic names placed on the Official List in a period which closed twenty-two years ago. Moreover, the proper place for such a determination would be in the Ruling to be given in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)86 on the application that the above generic name be placed on the Official List, the preparation of which has been postponed until now, in order to permit the inclusion therein of a determination of the gender to be attributed to this generic name. 3. For the reasons set forth above, I now, as Secretary to the International Commission, hereby direct as follows, namely :— (a) that the portion of the decision relating to the gender to be attributed to the generic name Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878], taken by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 be excluded from the Ruling to be prepared for the Direction embodying the decision taken by the vote on the above Voting Paper ; (b) that the determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878], so excluded from the Ruling to be given in the Direction giving effect to the vote of the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(57)62, be incorporated in the Ruling to be prepared for the Opinion embodying the decision in regard to the proposed addition of the above generic name to the Official List taken by the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)86. 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 7th February 1958 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(57)62, subject, as directed by the Minute executed by the Secretary earlier on the same day (the text of which has been reproduced in paragraph 10 of the present Direction), to the exclusion from the said Ruling of the 190 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS determination then made of the gender attributable to the generic name Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda).® 12. Original References : The original references for the generic names specified in the Ruling given in the present Direction have already been noted in connection with the preparations for publication in book-form of the portions of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in which those names were severally placed on that List in the period up to the end of 1936. 13. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures : 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 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. ‘‘ Direction’? Number: The present Direction shali be known as Direction One Hundred (100) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Seventh day of February, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING 5 The determination of the gender attributable to the generic name Euryrhynchus Miers, [1878], which (as has been explained) was excluded from the Ruling given in the present Direction by the direction given in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 7th February 1958, has since been embodied in the Ruling given in Opinion 518, the Opinion in which are set out the decisions taken by the Commission on the other matters involved in the application submitted in regard to the above name. © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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, co.c., cB. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.12. Pp. 191—200 DIRECTION 101 Determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Nephrops [Leach] [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Direction supplementary to Opinion 104) a ae LOL) coast hoofs fla—~~ oN A ' Vi, V/ 7 JUN 25 1958 LIB RA RY 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 1958 / Price Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Tssued 3rd June, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 101 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. SSR Eda (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly Professor Teiso EsAKI (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 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 August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi 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) d Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (i2th 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 KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ee 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 (Afuseo di Storia Naturale ‘“‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) DIRECTION 101 DETERMINATION OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ NEPHROPS ” [LEACH], [1814] (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) ON THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” (“ DIRECTION ’? SUPPLEMENTARY TO “ OPINION ” 104) RULING :—It is hereby directed that in accordance with the provisions of Declaration 36 the generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), a name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104, is to be treated as being of the masculine gender. Fr tHE SUBJECY MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction is concerned with the gender to be attributed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology to the SMITHSON ALA «A: 194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), a name placed on the foregoing Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25—28). The above is the only generic name having the termination “ ops” that was placed on the foregoing Official List in the period up to the end of 1936 and a gender must now be assigned to it. The delay in this case was necessitated by the need for the promulgation by the International Commission of a general Ruling as to the gender to be attributed to generic names having the foregoing termination. The Ruling in question was given by the Commission in its Declaration 36 (1958, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 : i—-xii). The adoption of the above Declaration on 16th June 1957 cleared the ground for the submission to the Commission by the Secretary on 25th October 1957 of the following paper containing proposals for the determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Nephrops {Leach] :— Proposed determination of the gender to be attributed to the generic name ‘‘ Nephrops ”’ [Leach], [1814] (Class Crustacea), a name placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’’ by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 104 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present paper is concerned with the single name comprised in the second of the three groups of names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936, for which a gender has not as yet been assigned by the International Commission. Proposals for the determination of the gender attributable to the ten names belonging to the first of these groups are contained in a paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1278 which is being submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(57)62,! concurrently with the present paper ; corresponding proposals regarding the three 1 For the decision taken by the Commission on Voting-Paper V.P.(57)62 see Direction 100 which is being published as Part F.11 of the present Section of Volume 1 of the “‘ Opinions and Declarations ’’ Series. DIRECTION 101 195 names comprised in the third of the- groups concerned are being submitted in a paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 942 which is being issued with Voting Paper V.P.(57)64.? 2. The reason why no gender has as yet been assigned to the fourteen names referred to above is that, when in 1955 this question was examined, it was found in each case that the gender customarily assigned to the generic name in question by specialists in the groups concerned was not in harmony with the requirements of the gender Rules provisionally approved by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 49—51, Decision 84). I accordingly at that time prepared a short note giving particulars of these names in order that consideration might be given to the question of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of directing that the gender to be attributed to the names in question should in each case be that currently used in the literature (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 260—262). At the same time Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers was given in the prescribed manner. 3. The measures described above elicited comments from three specialists in the group concerned :. (1) Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; (2) Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum (Natural History), London) ; (3) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Of these specialists, two (2) (Gordon ; Holthuis) advocated the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of securing a valid foundation for the continued use of the masculine gender for the generic name Nephrops [Leach], while the third specialist (Chace) was opposed to that course, considering that the gender to be attributed to a generic name should be in strict accordance with the classical gender rules and therefore that no exception should be made to the rule laid down by the Copenhagen Congress that names having the termination “‘ -ops’’ should be treated as being feminine in gender. 4. In the meantime the validity of the Rule in regard to the gender attributable to “‘ -ops ’’ names provisionally adopted by the Copenhagen Congress had been called in question in connection with the generic name Triops Schrank, 1801, a name which played a prominent part in an application submitted to the Commission for the purpose of putting 2 For the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 see - Direction 103 which is being published as Part F.14 of the present Section of Volume 1. 196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS an end to the confusion and lack of uniformity arising from the use of the generic name Apus both as the name for a genus of birds (the Swifts) and as the name for a genus of Phyllopod Crustacea.* This led to a decision that, in order to put an end to doubts regarding the gender attributable to “‘-ops’’ names, the validity of the Copenhagen Rule on this subject set out in Decision 84 of that Congress should be made the subject of an immediate review under the provisions of Decision 85 of that Congress instead of (as had previously been contemplated) being dealt with later as part of the general review of the provisional Gender Rules set out in Copenhagen Decision 84 prescribed by that Congress’s Decision 85. 5. The review so undertaken disclosed, broadly speaking, that names having the termination “‘ -ops”’ should be treated as being feminine in gender (as stated in the Copenhagen Rule) when the “ ops” portion of the word has the meaning of “‘ a voice ’’ but that such names should be treated as being masculine in gender when the “ops” portion has the meaning of “‘ an eye’ or “‘a face’. The Consulting Classical Adviser’s Report on this subject was set out in a paper (bearing the Number Z.N.(S.) 1206) which was submitted to the Commission on 15th March 1957, together with Voting Paper V.P.(57)25. The proposals so submitted were approved by the Commission by its vote on the above Voting Paper. The decision so taken has since been embodied in Declaration 36.4 6. Now that the question of principle has been settled in the manner described above, it is possible—and necessary—that a decision should be taken on the gender to be attributed on the Official List to the generic name Nephrops [Leach], the only name of this class on the Official List for which a gender has not yet been determined. Having regard to the fact that this is the name for a lobster, it would be surprising if the “‘ ops”’ portion of the name were derived from the Greek word “‘ 6% ’’ with a short “o” having the meaning “ a voice ”’, it being much more likely that the “‘ ops”’ portion of the name was derived from the Greek word w% having a long “‘o” meaning “an eye’’ or “a face’’. This likelihood becomes a certainty when it is realised that the “* Nephr-”’ portion of this generic name is based on the Greek word vedpos meaning “‘a kidney’, for a name for a lobster having the meaning ‘“‘ Kidney-like-Eye”’ would be quite appropriate while a name having the meaning “ Kidney-like-Voice ” would be meaningless and absurd. Accordingly, it is to be concluded 3 Opinion 502 was published on 24th January 1958 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 65—120). * Declaration 36 was published on 24th January 1957 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 : i—xii). —— a DIRECTION 101 197 that the ‘“‘ ops”’ portion of the name Nephrops is derived from the Greek word “ ops’’ with a long ‘“‘o” and therefore that under the provisions of Declaration 36 the gender to be attributed to this name is the masculine gender. 7. Professor Grensted, the Commission’s Consulting Classical Adviser, concurs in this view, all the more so because the attribution of the masculine gender to this name is in accordance with the settled practice of carcinologists who must therefore be assumed to have taken the view in the period immediately following the publication of this name that the “ops” portion was derived from the Greek word “ops ” with a long “‘ o ” having the meaning “‘ an eye ” (or “a face ’’). 8. From the particulars given in the preceding paragraph it will be seen that the correct gender for the generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814], is the gender currently attributed to it by specialists and therefore that, contrary to what was originally believed, there is no need to consider the question whether the Plenary Powers should be used the for purpose of validating the attribution of that gender to this generic name. 9. It is accordingly recommended that the Commission should now give a Ruling (a) that, in accordance with the provisions of Declaration 36, the gender to be attributed to the generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814], is the masculine gender and therefore (b) that the foregoing gender be attributed to that name in the entry relating thereto on the Official List made by the Ruling given in Opinion 104. 25th October 1957. 2. Registration of the present application : On the discovery of the problem with which the present Direction is concerned, this case, with certain somewhat similar cases was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 942. Later upon the adoption in June 1957 of a Declaration giving a general ruling as to the gender to be attributed to generic names having the termination “* -ops’’, the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814] was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1276. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(57)63 : On 6th November 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(57)63) was issued in which the Members of 198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘ the proposal relating to the gender to be attributed to the generic name Nephrops |Leach], [1814], as set out in paragraph 9 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1276 [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction] submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper’. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 6th February 1958. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)63 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)63 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) : Boschma; Holthuis; Lemche; MHering; Mayr; Mertens ; Dymond; Vokes; Esaki; Bradley (J.C.) ; Riley ; Prantl ; Bonnet ; Jaczewski ; Miller ; Bodenheimer; Hemming; Stoll; Key; Kiuhnelt ; Tortonese ; Sylvester-Bradley ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1) : do Amaral ; DIRECTION 101 199 (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Hank6o ; Cabrera. 6. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 7th February 1958, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(57)63, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 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. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 9th February 1958 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(57)63. 8. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures: 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 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. 9. ‘Direction’? Number: The present Direction shall be known as_ Direction One Hundred and One 200 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (101) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Ninth day of February, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & COOPER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c...G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.13. Pp. 201—216 DIRECTION 102 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class # Nematoda) (Direction supplementary to Opinion 66) 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 1958 Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 3rd June, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 102 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 (Corneil 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) DE ee LEMCHE (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) (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 (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, 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. 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 V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) ee 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) DIRECTION 102 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ DRACUNCULUS ” REICHARD, 1759 (CLASS NEMATODA) (“‘ DIRECTION ” SUPPLEMEN- TARY TO ‘ OPINION ” 66) RULING :—The following action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :— (a) The generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class Nematoda) is hereby validated. (b) The nominal species Gerdius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated to be the type species of the genus Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (a) above. (2) The following revised entry relating to the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, is hereby inserted in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in place of the entry made thereon as Name Number 3 by the Ruling given in Opinion 66 :— 3. Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above : Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758). SM am THSONIAN (a ol GG oe eee iY enn) Pp 4AMa 204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1525 :— medinensis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gordius medinensis (specific name of type species of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759). (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) Draconculus Penel, 1904 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Dracunculus Reichard, 1759) (Name No 1162); 7 (b) Dracunculus Wiegmann, 1834 (a junior homonym of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759) (Name No. 1163); (c) Dracunculus Kroyer, [1838—1840] (a junior homonym of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759) (Name No. 1164) ; (d) Dracuncuus Moniez, 1896 (an Erroneous Sub- sequent Spelling for Dracunculus Reichard, 1759) (Name No. 1165) ; (e) Fuellebornius Leiper, 1926 (a junior objective syno- nym of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as defined under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above) (Name No. 1166) ; | (f) Vermiculus Moerch, 1860 (a junior homonym of Vermiculus Dalyell, 1853) (Name No. 1167) ; (g) Vermiculus Goodrich, 1892 (a junior homonym of Vermiculus Dalyell, 1853) (Name No. 1168) ; DIRECTION 102 205 (h) Vermiculus Dunglison, 1895 (a junior homonym of Vermiculus Dalyell, 1853) (Name No. 1169). (5) The under-mentioned family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 236 :— DRACUNCULIDAE Stiles (C.W.), 1907 (type genus: Dracunculus Reichard, 1759). (6) The titles of the under-mentioned works are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Numbers severally specified below :— (a) Reichard (J.J.), 1759, De Pediculis inquinalibus, insectis, et vermibus homini molestis [Praeses : Kniphof (J.H.)] (Title No. 57) ; (b) Gallandat (D.H.), 1773, Dissertatio de Dracunculo sive Vena Medinensi (Title No. 58). I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present Direction is concerned with the rectification of the entry relating to the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class Nematoda) made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 66. The need for action in this case came to light in the course of the preparations for the publication of the above Official List in book-form. This is the last of the cases arising in connection with Opinions published in the period up to the end of 1936 on which corrective action will be taken before the publication of the above volume, the relatively small number of further cases on which such action 206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS is required having been postponed by the Commission for consideration after the publication of the Official List volume, in order to avoid further delay in its publication and to ensure that it shall be available before the meeting of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology in London in July 1958. The material upon which the decision was taken by the Commission in the present case was based was submitted to the Commission by the Secretary in the following Report on 4th February 1957 :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name ‘* Dracunculus ’’ Reichard, 1759, and to designate ‘* Gordius medinensis *’ Linnaeus, 1758, as type species in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Nematoda) (validation of an erroneous entry on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ made by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 66) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The purpose of the present Report is to bring to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the defective character of the entry relating to the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class Nematoda) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made by the Ruling given in Opinion 66 (1915, Smithson. Publ. 2359 : 171—176) and to submit recommendations for the validation of the entry so made. The problems involved in the present case were brought to my attention by Professor R. T. Leiper, D.Sc., F.R.S., who very kindly supplied me with an offprint of a paper entitled “‘ Discussion of the Validity of certain Generic Names at present in use in Medical Helminthology ”’ published in 1926 (Arch. Schiffs-u. Tropenhyg. 30 : 484—491), in which he had discussed the present and certain other generic names in the Nematodes. An extract from Professor Leiper’s paper is attached to the present application as Annexe I. 2. In accordance with the practice which obtained up to the year 1935, the entry of the generic name Dracunculus Reichard on the Official List was of an extremely abbreviated character and did not contain full bibliographical references for the names concerned. The entry in question read as follows : ‘* Dracunculus ‘ Kniphof, 1759, 12’ (not verified); Gallandat, 1773a, 103—116, type medinensis (in Homo)”?. DIRECTION 102 207 3. The work published in 1759 to which the name Dracunculus was attributed in Opinion 66 is a doctoral thesis of the type commonly found in the XVIIIth century. The thesis was presented by Reichard who had studied under Kniphof, whose name, as that of the professor concerned, appears on the title page as well as that of Reichard. The title of this thesis was : De Pediculis inguinalibus, insectis, et vermibus homini molestis. Since this thesis was published in Germany (Erfurt), new names in it are attributable to Reichard and not to his professor (Kniphof), for the system under which theses were written by the professor and not by the student which was universal in Sweden in the XVIIIth century is believed not to have obtained in Germany. The name “‘ Dracunculus ”’ appears on page 12 of this thesis (the page so indicated in Opinion 66). This work has been examined in the Office of the Commission and this examination shows that, as published in 1759, the name Dracunculus was used only as a univerbal species-name or as a vernacular (Latin) term to denote the species there styled in German the “Nestel-wurm’”. This examination shows also that in this thesis the system of nomenclature employed was of the pre-1758 mixed system comprising multiverbal and univerbal names applied indiscriminately to species. This conclusion is illustrated by the detailed particulars given in Annexe 2 to the present paper. The examination now carried out fully confirms the view expressed by Professor Leiper (paragraph 1 above) that the name Dracunculus cannot be regarded under the normal provisions of the Régles as having been validly published as a generic name in the Reichard/ Kniphof thesis. It is seen also that the system employed in this thesis, being non-binominal, disqualifies the thesis as a whole from considera- tion from the point of view of zoological nomenclature. 4. It will be noted from the entry in Opinion 66 that the original reference for the so-called generic name Dracunculus Reichard had not been examined at the time when the recommendation for the addition of that name to the Official List was submitted to the Commission. It may be inferred, however, that the author of that application himself had some doubts as to the availability of the name Dracunculus as from 1759, for it is not easy otherwise to account for the fact that he thought it necessary to add the supplementary reference to *‘ Gallandat, 1773’. The reference here is to another thesis. This thesis was published in Nuremburg. It was entitled “‘ Dissertatio de Dracunculo sive Vena Medinensi ”’, and is fully discussed by Professor Leiper in the paper to which reference has already been made. Particulars are given in the extract from that paper reproduced in Annexe 1. From this it will be seen (a) that David Henri Gallandat did not use the word ‘‘ Dracunculus ”’ as a generic name, and (b) that in this thesis he did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. 5. Professor Leiper showed also (Annexe 1) that the name Dracunculus had not been validly used for the Nematoda genus in question by the time when in 1834 the situation was further complicated 208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS by the publication by Wiegmann of the name Dracunculus for a genus of reptiles (Dracunculus Wiegmann, 1834, Herpet. mex. : 14). There is also a reputed generic name Dracunculus for a genus of fishes (Dracunculus Kroyer (H.N.),[ 1838—1840], Danmarks Fiske 1 (No.8): 1). Neither of these names is currently in use and it is very doubtful whether, as published by Kroyer, the name Dracunculus was really intended to be a generic name. 6. The name Dracunculus began to come into use for the present Nematode genus in the early sixties of the last century and has been used on innumerable occasions during the following ninety years. For this ‘reason its overthrow at this date would be extremely confusing not only in taxonomic literature but also in medical literature, where it has given its name to the widely used term “* Dracunculosis ”’ (see Stiles & Hassall, 1920, Bull. Hyg. Lab., Washington 114 : 360—364 “ Index-Cat. med. vet. Zool., Roundworms’’). Incidentally it may be noted that, apart from Dracunculus, the oldest name for this genus is Vermiculus Dunglison, 1895 (Med. Lex., Philadelphia (ed. 21) : 1150), which however, is itself invalid as a junior homonym of three other generic names consisting of the same word, the earliest being Vermiculus Dalyell, 1853 (Powers Creator 2 : iv, 88). Professor Leiper concluded (1926) (Annexe 1) that, if the name Dracunculus were to be rejected for this genus, the Guineaworm, Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 647), would be left without a valid generic name. He therefore on that occasion erected the new nominal genus Fuellebornius for Gordius medinensis Linnaeus (Leiper, 1936, Arch. Schiffs-Tropenhyg. 30 : 491). 7. The genus Dracunculus Reichard is treated as the type genus of a family-group taxon. This nominal taxon was first established as a subfamily DRACUNCULINAE by Stiles (C.W.) in 1907 (Bull. hyg. Lab., Washington 34 : 38, 39), but was elevated to full family rank by Leiper in 1912 (J. London School trop. Med. 1(2) : 115—123). 8. Having regard to the fact that the name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, is and for long has been, in general use and is moreover a name of importance in medical literature, this appears to be a case where the correct course will be to take such action as is necessary to validate the entry of this name made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology forty-two years ago. Like other cases concerned with the validation or correction of entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made in the period up to the end of 1936, the present case is one of considerable urgency, for a decision on it is a prerequisite to the publication of the Official Lists in book-form, the preparations for which are now well advanced. The proposals which for the reasons set out above are now submitted for consideration are that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— DIRECTION 102 209 (1) use its Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, with Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ; (2) substitute the following amended entry regarding the above generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the entry therefor made by the Ruling given in Opinion 66 :— Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1) above : Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758) (3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— medinensis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gordius medinensis (specific name of type species of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above) (4) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) the under-mentioned junior homonyms of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above :— (i) Dracunculus Wiegmann, 1834 ; (ii) Dracunculus Kregyer, [1838—1840] ; (b) Fuellebornius Leiper, 1926 (type species : Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758) (a junior objective synonym of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above) ; (c) Vermiculus Dunglison, 1895 (a junior homonym of Vermiculus Dalyell, 1853) ; (d) the under-mentioned Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 :— (i) Draconculus Penel, 1904, Filaires Sang Il’ Homme 2 G8; > (ii) Dracuncuus Moniez, 1896, Traité Parasitol. : 317 ; (5) place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— DRACUNCULINAE Stiles (C.W.), 1907 (type genus : Dracunculus Reichard, 1759) 210 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the titles of the under-mentioned works, with an endorsement in each case that the work is unavailable for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, the author concerned not having applied therein the principles of binominal nomenclature :— (a) Reichard (J.J.), 1759, De Pediculis inguinalibus, insectis, et vermibus homini molestis [Praeses : Kniphof (J.H.)] ; (b) Gallandat (D.H.), 1773, Dissertatio de Dracunculo sive Vena Medinensi. ANNEXE 1 TO THE SECRETARY’S REPORT Extract from a paper by Professor R. T. Leiper entitled ‘‘ Discussion of the Validity of certain Generic Names in use in medical Helminthology ”’ published in 1926 (Leiper, 1926, Arch. Schiffs-u. Tropenhyg. 30 : 490—491) Dracunculus Among pre-Linnaean writers the Guineaworm was familiarly known in Latin vernacular as the “‘ Dracunculus”’ or “‘ Vena medinensis ” according to the views of the individual author on the nature of the object found in cases of Dracontiasis. I cannot find any grounds for believing that Dracunculus was used as a valid generic term after Linnaeus, 1758, and prior to its use for a genus of Reptilia by Wiegmann in 1834. In 1758 Linnaeus named the Guineaworm Gordius medinensis. Gmelin in 1790 transferred it to the genus Filaria and there it remained, so far as I have been able to ascertain, until Cobbold 1864, i.e., many years after the term Dracunculus had been taken by Wiegmann for the name of an entirely different group. The usual citation is Kniphof, 1759 or Reichard, 1759. Consultation of the original shows that the thesis quoted is by Reichard, while the presiding examiner was Kniphof ! There is no evidence in the text that the use of Dracunculus was in other than the vernacular sense. The same comment applies to Gallandat, 1773, so frequently cited. Gallandat’s thesis is entitled ‘‘ Dissertatio de Dracunculo sive Vena Medinensi’’. I quote two paragraphs which appear to bear on the subject. 1. “‘ Tales inter morbos referendus omnino is est, qui Dracunculus dicitur, sive Vena medinensis. Qui morbus, quo in Europa rarior, eo etiam est periculosior”. 2. ‘‘ Morbus hic obvius DIRECTION 102 211 est non tantum in Guinea et in India orientali, sed et Medinae, a qua urbe nomen Venae Medinensis assumsit ... Partes corporis adficit varias ; pectus, ventrem, scrotum, saepius tamen crura; unde et Vena cruris dicitur. Morbus incipit a tumore inflamatorio... Fit apertura, qua exit major minorve puris quantitas, simulque corpus quoddam longum, rotundem, flexile, abbicans funiculi speciem figura et crassita referens ; quod corpus est organicum ac vivum, verboque ut dicam, verus mirae longitudinis vermis ; cui inditum fuit nomen Dracunculi ”’. The above quotations surely suffice to establish clearly that Gallandat makes no pretension to consideration in zoological nomenclature. Similarly the Malis dracunculus used by Chisholm 1815 cannot be considered bionomial in intention. With Dracunculus already pre-occupied there only remains in its synonymy Vermiculus Dunglison, 1895 ; listed by Baylis and Daubney and by Yorke and Maplestone. This, however, is likewise pre-occupied. Apparently the Guineaworm still lacks a valid name among nematode genera. The present seems a suitable occasion to link with one of the most remarkable of the nematodes of man the name of one who has contributed so greatly to our knowledge of this group of parasites. I designate therefore, Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758 type of Fuellebornius nom. nov. ANNEXE 2 TO THE SECRETARY’S REPORT Note on the thesis by Reichard (J.J.), entitled ‘‘ De Pediculis inquinalibus, insectis, et vermibus homini molestis ’’ [Praeses : Kniphof (J.H.)] published in 1759 The thesis is divided into numbered paragraphs, which are grouped into short sections. The names of the animals dealt with in each section are given as cross-headings. As will be seen from the following particulars of the headings used for the sections no attempt was made to apply the principles of binominal nomenclature :— Lumbricus ; Vermis Sancti Viti; Ascarides; Taenia [4 spp., polynominally named, with refs. to the Faun. svec.] ; Cucurbitini ; Dracunculus; Pulex; Pulex minimus, cutem penetrans ameri- canus; Catuli; Hirundo; Culex; Crinones; Acarus; Acari capitis ; Acari oculorum ;. Acari facei; Acari Dentium ; Acari Scabei; Acari manuum; Acari in urina; Cimex; Pediculus ; Morpion ; DID OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS b) 2. The section referring to “‘ Dracunculus”’ reads as follows :— §XIV DRACUNCULUS Der nestel-wurm, das Faden Schlenglein, der Drache, Dracunculus. Animalculum Africae cumprimis, tum Asiae-provinciis, compluribus domesticum Vena medinensis, chordae in cithara crassitae, cubite longitudine, infectum Culebrilla dictum serpentis similitudine, qui Hispanico idomate Culebra nuncupator, a latino Coluber. Efficit in cute tumorum ... [etc.] Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: When in 1951 it became apparent that there were serious defects in the entry relating to the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 66 and that, when all the required data had been obtained, it would be necessary to submit a Report on this case to the International Commission, the problem so involved was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 553. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 7th February 1957 and was published on 6th May of that year in Part 5 of Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 154—159). 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 6th May 1957 (a) in Part 5 of Volume 13 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which the Secretary’s Report was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given to four general zoological serial publications. 5. No Objection Received : No objection to the action proposed in the present case was received from any source. DIRECTION 102 213 III. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(57)65 : On 6th November 1957 a Voting Paper (V.P.(57)65) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal relating to the validation of the entry relating to the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class Nematoda), made on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 66, as set out in Points (1) to (6) in paragraph 8 on pages 156 and 157 of Volume 13 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 Direction]. 7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 6th February 1958. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)65: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)65 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) : Boschma; Holthuis; Lemche; Hering; Mayr ; Mertens ; Dymond; Vokes; Esaki; Bradley (J.C.) ; Riley; Prantl; Bonnet; do Amaral; Miller; Bodenheimer; Hanké6; Hemming; Stoll; Key; Kuhnelt ; Jaczewski ; Tortonese ; Sylvester-Bradley ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; 214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1): Cabrera. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 7th February 1958, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(57)65, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 10. Addition to the ‘° Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ of two further junior homonyms of ** Vermiculus ’’ Dalyell, 1853: During the Presccibed Voting Period in respect of Voting Paper V.P.(57)65 it came to light that through some inadvertence two junior homonyms of the generic name Vermiculus Dalyell, 1853, a name involved in the present case, had not been included among the names recom- mended for addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. On receipt of this information the omission so detected was immediately made good by the following Minute executed by the Secretary on 24th January 1958 :— Addition to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ’’ of two further junior homonyms of ‘‘ Vermiculus ”’ Dalyell, 1853 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) _Since the opening of the Prescribed Votirig Period for Voting Paper V.P. (57) 65 relatingto the case of the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class Nematoda) my attention has been drawn by Commissioner K. H. L. Key (Canberra, Australia) to the fact that, although in paragraph 6 of the Report which I submitted in this case, I noted that the name Vermiculus Dunglison, 1895, was a junior homonym not only of Vermiculus Dalyell, 1853, but also of two other names consisting DIRECTION 102 215 of the same word published before 1895, I did not cite those names and did not recommend that, as objectively invalid names, they should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology at the same time as the name Vermiculus Dunglison, 1895, was so added. I regret this oversight on my part which it is the object of the present Minute to rectify. 2. The two invalid homonyms referred to above are the following :— Vermiculus Moerch, 1860, J. Conchyliol. 8 : 28 Vermiculus Goodrich, 1892, Zool. Anz. 15 : 474 3. I now, as Secretary, direct that under the ‘‘ Completeness-of- Opinions ”’ Rule the objectively invalid names specified in paragraph 2 above be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology in the Ruling later to be prepared for the Direction giving effect to the decision by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(57)65. 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 9th February 1958 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction 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.(57)65, subject to the minor adjustment specified in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 24th January 1958, the text of which has been reproduced in paragraph 10 of the present Direction. 12. Original References for Generic and Specific Names : 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 Direction :— Draconculus Penel, 1904, Filaires Sang de ’ Homme : 61 Dracunculus Wiegmann, 1834, Herpet. mex. : 14 Dracunculus Kroyer (H.N.), [1838—1840], Danmarks Fiske 1 (No. 8) : 1 Dracuncuus Moniez, 1896, Traité Parisitol. : 317 Fuellebornius Leiper, 1926, Arch. Schiffs-u. Tropenhyg. 30 : 491 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS medinensis, Gordius, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 647 Vermiculus Moerch, 1860, J. Conchyliol. 8 : 28 Vermiculus Goodrich, 1892, Zool. Anz. 15 : 474 Vermiculus Dunglison, 1895, Med. Lex. (ed. 21) : 1150 13. Original References for Family-Group Names: The following is the original reference for the family-group name placed by the Ruling given in the present Direction on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— DRACUNCULIDAE Stiles (C.W.), 1907, Bull. hyg. Lab. Washington 34 : 38, 39 14. Titles of Works: The titles of the works placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature by the Ruling given in the present Direction are set out in full in the said Ruling. 15. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures : 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 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. ‘‘ Direction’? Number: The present Direction shall be known as Direction One Hundred and Two (102) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Ninth day of February, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALVE & COOPER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.».G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.14. Pp. 217—232 DIRECTION 103 Rejection of a proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating the masculine gender to be the gender to be attributed to three generic names having the termination “‘ -opsis’’ in the Order Decapoda (Class Crustacea) ee ™ Yall ‘at ee “ rn ok a ie) - Ca é [ 1 Ore«enr \ LONDON : QQ. Lippe ary 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 1958 Price Ten Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) ssued 3rd June, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 103 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) (12tk 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. Sees (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. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953 Professor Béla HANKO (MezOzazdasdgi 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 (Commvunwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Aiden 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) 3 Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Bir 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) DIRECTION 103 REJECTION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIG- NATING THE MASCULINE GENDER TO BE THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THREE GENERIC NAMES HAVING THE TERMINATION “ -OPSIS ” IN THE ORDER DECAPODA (CLASS CRUSTACEA) RULING :—(1) The application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of directing that the gender to be attributed to the names of the under-mentioned genera belonging to the Class Crustacea (Order Decapoda) be the masculine gender is hereby rejected :— (a) Atergatopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1862 (Opinion 73) ; (b) Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1873 (Opinion 73) ; (c) Eucratopsis Smith (S.I.), 1869 (Opinion 85). (2) It is hereby directed that in the entries relating to the foregoing generic names made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in the case of the first two of the names concerned in Opinion 73 and in the case of the third name in Opinion 85 the gender to be attributed to those names be the feminine gender. SMITHSONIAN INSTITtiTinag; IN 4 23 8 40K¢0 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction is concerned with the gender to be attributed to three generic names having the termination “ -opsis ”’ in the Order Decapoda (Class Crustacea) which were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the close of 1936. A decision on this subject has been required for some time in connection with the preparations in hand for the publication of the Official List in book form, but has hitherto been delayed because of doubts as to the gender properly attri- butable to such names, pending the review by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under Decision 85° of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 51) of the Rules provisionally laid down by that Congress by its Decision 84 (op. cit. : 49—51) for determining the gender attributable to generic names of certain classes, including those having the termination ** -opsis”’. When the need for a decision as regards the names dealt with in the present Direction first came to light, it was not possible to foretell when the review referred to above would be completed and it was accordingly decided that, in order to put the Commission in a position to direct, should it desire so to do, that, contrary to the provisional Rule referred to above, the names dealt with in this Direction should be treated as being of the masculine gender, that being the gender commonly attributed to each, Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers to secure that end should be given without delay. Under this arrangement a short note on this subject was prepared by the Secretary and was published on 7th July 1955 (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 260—262). On the same day Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of providing a valid basis for the continued use for the three generic names with which the present Direction is concerned of the masculine gender customarily applied thereto was given in the prescribed manner. By the close of the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period in respect of the above proposal it seemed likely that at a fairly early date a Report might be expected from the Commission setting out the results of its survey of the Gender Rules provisionally adopted by the Copenhagen Congress. It was accordingly decided that, provided no delay in the publication DIRECTION 103 221 of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology would thereby be involved, the better course would be to defer the submission to the Commission of a Voting Paper in regard to the gender to be attributed to the names of genera in the Order Decapoda (Class Crustacea) having the termination “-opsis”’ specified in the note by Mr. Hemming published in July 1955 until, on the receipt of the Commission’s Report on its review of the Gender Rules provisionally adopted by the Copenhagen Congress, the gender properly attributable to such names had been authorita- tively determined. Eventually, the consultations with individual specialists and with Professor L. W. Grensted, the Commission’s Consulting Classical Adviser, undertaken by the Office of the Commission made it possible for the Secretary to submit a paper to the Commission to serve as the basis for an Interim Report by the Commission on the gender to be attributed to certain of the classes of name specified in Decision 84 of the Copenhagen Congress, including names having the termination “ -opsis” The paper on this subject was submitted to the Commission by the Secretary on 15th March 1957 under the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1206, together with Voting Paper V.P.(57)25. The proposals submitted with the foregoing Voting Paper were approved by the Commission and on Sth November 1957 the decision so taken was embodied in Declaration 36}. 2. Under the terms of the foregoing decision the Commission upheld the Rule provisionally adopted by the Copenhagen Con- gress that the gender properly attributable to generic names having the termination “-opsis”’ is the feminine gender. While this decision cleared the air on the question of principle involved, it left unsettled the question whether existing practice as regards the three generic names with which the present Direction is concerned should be dealt with under the terms of the foregoing Declaration and therefore treated as being feminine in gender or whether under the Public Notice issued in July 1955 (paragraph 1 above) the Plenary Powers should be used to secure that the current practice of specialists in the group concerned should be validated by the attribution of the masculine gender to the names in question in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology when _1 Declaration 36 was published on 24th January 1958 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 : i—xii). 222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS under arrangements already made that List was shortly thereafter published in book-form. In order to obtain a decision from the Commission on the above subject which for the reasons just explained had now become extremely urgent, the following paper together with Voting Paper V.P.(57)64, was submitted to the Com- mission by the Secretary on 6th November 1957 :— Proposed determination of the gender to be attributed to the names of three genera belonging to the Class Crustacea (Order Decapoda) having the termination ‘‘ -opsis ’’, of which two were placed on the ‘‘ Official List ’’ by the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 73 and one by that given in ‘‘ Opinion ’”’ 85 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present paper is concerned with the three generic names com- prised in the last of the three groups of names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936, to which a gender has not as yet been assigned by the International Commission. Proposals for settling the gender to be attributed to the names in the first and second of the groups referred to above are being submitted to the Commission with Voting Papers V.P.(57)62? and 63 respectively which are being issued concurrently with the present paper. 2. The names with which the present paper is concerned are the following :— Atergatopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1862 (Opinion 73) Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1873 (Opinion 73) Eucratopsis Smith (S.I.), 1869 (Opinion 85) 2 Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 was concerned with the question of the gender to be attributed to certain generic names having the terminations “‘ -gnathus ”’ or, as the case may be, “‘ -rhynchus’’. The decision taken by the Commission on this Voting Paper has since been embodied in Direction 100 (which has been published as Part F.11 of the present Section (Section F) of Volume 1 of the Opinions and Declarations Series). 8 Voting Paper V.P.(57)63 was concerned with the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). The decision taken by the Commission on this Voting Paper has since been embodied in Direction 101 (which has been published as Part F.12 of the present Section (Section F) of Volume 1 of the Opinions and Declarations Series).. DIRECTION 103 223 3. The reason why no gender has as yet been assigned to the three names cited above or to the eleven names comprised in the other groups of names referred to above is that, when in 1955 this question was examined, it was found in each case that the gender customarily assigned to the generic names in question by specialists in the groups concerned was not in harmony with the Gender Rules adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 49—51, Decision 84). I accordingly at that time prepared a short note giving particulars of these names, in order that consideration might be given to the question of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of directing that the gender to be attributed to the names in question should in each case be that currently used in the literature (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 260—262). At the same time Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers was given in the prescribed manner. 4. The measures described above elicited comments from three specialists in the group concerned :—(1) Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; (2) Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum (Natural History), London) ; (3) L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Of these specialists, two (2) (Gordon ; Holthuis) advocated the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of securing a valid foundation for the continued use of the masculine gender for the three “-opsis”’ names with which the present paper is concerned. The third specialist (Chace) was opposed to the fore- going course, considering that the gender to be attributed to generic names should be in strict accordance with the classical Gender Rules and therefore that no exceptions should be made in the Rule laid down by the Copenhagen Congress that names having the termination “* -opsis”’ should be treated as being feminine in gender. 5. The foregoing provision in relation to the gender to be attributed to names having the termination “ -opsis’’ was included by the Copenhagen Congress in the same Rule (Rule (7)(b)(iii)) as that in which it was directed also that the above gender should be attributed to names having the termination “‘ ops’. Later, it was found that, so far as concerns names having the termination “‘ ops’”’ the above Rule was misleading and, in part, incorrect. These defects were remedied by the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(57)25.The decision so taken has since been embodied in Declaration 36. So far as con- cerns names having the termination ‘‘-opsis’’, the investigation described above supported the attribution by the Copenhagen Congress of the feminine gender to such names, and accordingly the portion of Copenhagen Rule (7)(b)(iii) relating to “* -opsis ’’ names was re-enacted in Declaration 36 when the portion of the above Rule in relation to ** -ops ”’ names was remodelled and corrected. 224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. Thus, so far as the three “‘ -opsis’’ names specified in paragraph 2 above are concerned, the Commission is faced with a simple choice. Is it desirable in the interests of nomenclatorial. stability that the currently accepted masculine gender be validated for these names or is it not? If the Commission were to take the view that it would be undesirable to require carcinologists to abandon the use of the mas- culine gender for these names, it would use its Plenary Powers to validate the attribution of that gender to these names. If, on the other hand, the Commission were to take the opposite view, then it would withhold the use of its Plenary Powers in these cases and the unaccustomed feminine gender would in consequence need to be entered for each of them in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The need for a definite decision on this subject is extremely urgent, for it is essential that a gender be inserted in the Official List against each of these names before the text of that List is published—as, in accordance with present plans, it will be—within the next few months. Accordingly, in order to provide the Commission with an opportunity for taking a decision on this matter in one sense or another, it is being invited in the annexed Voting Paper to vote on the proposition that the Plenary Powers be used to preserve current nomenclatorial practice by the issue of a direction that the masculine gender be entered in the Official List as the gender to be attributed to the three “‘ -opsis ’’ names here in question. 3. Registration of the present case : When the question arose of the possible use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating existing nomenclatorial practice in the matter of the gender to be attributed to names having certain terminations that had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936, the problems so involved were registered collectively under the Number Z.N.(S.) 942. Later, as it became evident that the problems involved differed from one class of name to another, a separate Registered Number was assigned to each of the classes of name concerned, new Files being opened for this purpose for each group, other than for the group of names having the termination “ -opsis °— with which the present Direction is concerned—which thereupon became the only problem remaining to be dealt with under the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 942. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 : On 6th November 1957, a Voting Paper (V.P.(57)64) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal relating to the gender to be attributed to the names DIRECTION 103 225 of three genera of Decapod Crustacea having the termination ** -opsis”’ placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936, as set out in paragraph 6 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 942 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper” [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in para- graph 2 of the present Direction]. 5. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 6th February 1958. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following fourteen (14) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : ) Hering ; Mertens ; Dymond ; Riley ; Prantl ; Bonnet ; Bradley (J.C.); Miller; Bodenheimer; Hemming ; Stoll ; Key ; Kuhnelt ; Tortonese ; (b) Negative Votes, nine (9) : Boschma ; Holthuis ; Lemche ; Mayr ; Vokes ; Esaki ; do Amaral ; Jaczewski; Sylvester-Bradley ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Cabrera ; Hanko. 7. Indecisive Result of the Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 and the action taken to resolve the situation of deadlock so created : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period in respect of Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 it was found by Mr. Hemming, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on the said Voting Paper, 226 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS that the Voting was as set out in paragraph 6 above, that is, that, although a majority of the Members of the Commission had voted in favour of the use of the Plenary Powers in the manner proposed, the number of votes cast in favour of that course did not amount to two votes out of every three votes cast, the minimum number of votes required to secure action under the Plenary Powers. Until recently there had existed no provision as to the procedure to be followed in cases involving the possible use of the Commis- sion’s Plenary Powers where a majority but not a two-thirds majority of the Commissioners voting had voted in favour of the use of the foregoing Powers. A situation of deadlock of this kind had however arisen in June 1956 when a majority but not a two-thirds majority of the Commissioners voting had voted in favour of the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Aucella Keyserling, 1846 (Class Pelecypoda) by suppressing the older but for many years over- looked—or rejected—name Buchia Rouillier, 1845*. In order to meet the situation so created the Commission had thereupon adopted a Declaration prescribing that, where a proposal involving the possible use of the Plenary Powers secured a majority of the votes of the Commissioners voting but failed to obtain the requisite two-thirds majority, the vote so taken was to be treated as having been a preliminary vote only and the proposal in question was at once to be re-submitted to the Commission for a final vote, under which, if that proposal still failed to obtain a two-thirds majority, an Opinion (or Direction) was at once to be rendered containing a Ruling rejecting the proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers and giving directions on such other matters as might call for action in order to secure that decisions were given on all matters involved in the application in question. The decision so taken was embodied in a Declaration which was immediately rendered as Declaration 34. The Declaration so ~adopted was published on 3rd September 1957 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 17 : i—xii). When therefore on 6th February 1958 the result of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64, as set out in paragraph 6 of the present Opinion, disclosed a situation of deadlock arising from the fact that, although the 4 For the decision ultimately taken by the Commission on the case relating to the names Aucella and Buchia see Opinion 492 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 209—254). DIRECTION 103 Da proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers in the present case had secured a majority of the votes cast on the above Voting Paper, it had failed to secure the requisite two-thirds majority, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, immediately executed a Minute giving directions that for the reasons specified above the proposal submitted with the above Voting Paper be dealt with thereafter under the procedure prescribed by Declaration 34. 8. Report to the Commission on the outcome of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 submitted by the Secretary under the procedure specified in ‘‘ Declaration ’’ 34: In accordance with the procedure prescribed by Declaration 34, Mr. Hemming prepared on 6th February 1958 the following Report for the information of the Commission on the outcome of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 :— Gender to be attributed to three generic names having the termination ** -opsis ’’ in the Class Crustacea (Order Decapoda) placed on the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ in the period up to the end of 1936 Re-submission under the provisions of ‘‘ Declaration ’? 34 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present is a Report submitted to the Commission under the provisions of Declaration 34 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 17 : i—xii) which places upon the Secretary the duty of making an immediate Report to the Commission in any case where on an application involving the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers a majority of the Members of the Commission vote in favour of the use of the above Powers but that majority is not a two-thirds majority. 2. The case with which the present Report is concerned is a proposal that in the interests of nomenclatorial stability the masculine gender be attributed to three generic names having the termination “ -opsis ’ which were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. The names concerned are all names of genera belonging to the Class Crustacea (Order Decapoda). 228 OPINIONS AND. DECLARATIONS They are the following :—(a) Atergatopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1862 (Opinion 73); (b) Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1873 (Opinion 73) 5 (c) Eucratopsis Smith (S.I.) 1869 (Opinion 85). 3. Full particulars of these cases, including details of the comments ~ received from carcinologists, are given in the paper dated 25th October 1957 bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 942 which I submitted to the Commission on 6th November 1957 simultaneously with Voting Paper V.P. (57)64. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period in respect of the above Voting Paper closed on 6th February 1958. The votes then counted were found to be as follows :— (a) In favour of the use of the Plenary Powers, fourteen (14) votes : Hering; Mertens; Dymond; Riley; Prantl; Bonnet; Bradley (J.C.) ; Miller; Bodenheimer; Hemming; Stoll; Key ; Kiihnelt ; Tortonese ; (b) Against the use of the Plenary Powers, nine (9) votes : Boschma; Holthuis; Lemche; Mayr; Vokes; Esaki; do Amaral ; Jaczewski; Sylvester-Bradley ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, two (2) : Cabrera ; Hanko. 5. It will be seen from the foregoing particulars (a) that in the vote on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64 the Commission voted by a majority of fourteen (14) votes to nine (9) votes in favour of the use of the Plenary Powers in the present case but (b) that the majority so obtained for this proposal did not amount to two votes out of every three votes and therefore (c) that the above did not secure a definite decision either in favour of, or against, the proposal submitted and accordingly (d) that the vote so taken is under the provisions of Declaration 34 to be treated as a provisional vote only. 6. Under the provisions of the foregoing Declaration it is my duty as Secretary to the Commission, when submitting the present Report on the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(57)64, at the same time (i) to resubmit the proposal in question for final decision and (ii) to submit also a statement setting out the terms of the Ruling which would require to be given in the event of the proposal, on so being resubmitted, not receiving two out of every three of the votes cast. 7. In accordance with the foregoing provisions, I nowas Secretary :-— (1) submit herewith a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(58)1), in which, as required by Declaration 34, the Commission is invited to take DIRECTION 103 229 a final vote on the proposal that the Plenary Powers be used to direct that the gender to be attributed to each of the three generic names specified in paragraph 2 above shall be the masculine gender, that being the gender customarily attributed to those names ; (2) submit in the Annexe attached to the present Report a statement setting out the terms of the Ruling which would require to be given if the Commission were to reject the proposal now resubmitted. ANNEXE TO REPORT BY THE SECRETARY DATED 6TH FEBRUARY 1958 Statement setting out the terms of the Ruling which would require to be given if the Commission were to reject the application now resubmitted RULING :—(1) The application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of directing that the gender to be attributed to the names of the under-mentioned genera belonging to the Class Crustacea (Order Decapoda) be the masculine gender is hereby rejected :— (a) Atergatopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1862 (Opinion 73) ; (b) Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1873 (Opinion 73) ; (c) Eucratopsis Smith (S.I.), 1869 (Opinion 85). (2) It is hereby directed that in the entries relating to the foregoing generic names made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in the case of the first two of the names concerned in Opinion 73 and in the case of the third name in Opinion 85 the gender to be attributed to those names be the feminine gender. 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(58)1 : On 6th February 1958, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(58)1) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal resubmitted under the provisions of Declaration 34 in the Report bearing the Registered Number 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Z.N.(S.) 942 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper that the Plenary Powers be used to direct that the gender to be attributed to the three generic names specified in paragraph 2 of the above Report [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the Report reproduced in paragraph 8 of the present Direction] in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology be the masculine gender ” 10. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (58)1 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One- Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 6th March 1958. 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(58)1 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(58)1 was as follows® :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following thirteen (13) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Prantl ; Hering ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Tortonese ; Dymond ; Bodenheimer ; Kihnelt; Bradley (J.C.); Hemming ; Bonnet ; Riley ; Hank6 ; (b) Negative Votes, ten (10) : Lemche;_ Sylvester-Bradley; Holthuis; Mertens ; Key; Vokes; Boschma; Jaczewski ; Mayr ; do Amaral ; 5 The membership of the International Commission at the time of the vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(58)1 amounted to twenty-four, whereas at the time of the vote on the earlier Voting Paper (V.P.(57)64) on this case it had amounted to twenty-five. This difference was due to the death during the intervening period of Commissioner Teiso Esaki (Japan). DIRECTION 103 24 (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Miller ; (d) Voting Papers not returned None. 12. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (58)1 : On 7th March 1958, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(58)1 signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were’ as set out in paragraph 11 above and declaring (a) that the proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers resubmitted with the above Voting Paper under the provisions of Declaration 34 had failed to secure two votes out of every three votes cast, (b) that the proposal so resubmitted had accord- ingly been rejected, (c) that under the terms of the foregoing Declaration the Commission had adopted the alternative decision set out in the Annexe to the Report submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the above Voting Paper [i.e. in the Annexe to the Report reproduced in paragraph 8 of the present Direction], and (d) that the decision so taken was the decision of the Inter- national Commission in the matter aforesaid. 13. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 14th March 1958 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the decision taken by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(58)1. 14. Compliance with Prescribed Procedures : The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under- signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Com- 232 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS mission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 15. ‘* Direction’? Number: The present Direction shall be known as Direction One Hundred and Three (103) of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourteenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Eight. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING © 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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. as Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.15. (Concluding Part) NT HSOW 14 DEC 3 1958 LIBRARY LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Seventeen Shillings (All rights reserved) “a Issued 8th August, 1958 re OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. as Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 1. SECTION F. Part F.15. Pp. 233—248 (also published with this Part : T.P.—XIV) CONTENTS Corrigenda ; 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, $.W.7 1958 Price Seventeen Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 8th August, 1958 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE DIRECTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT SECTION OF VOLUME 1 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. Taina yaa a (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly 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. 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. VoxKEs (University oy Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953 Brotessor 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. 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. Miter (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) Seed 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) Corrigenda page 15. Paragraph 8, line 5: substitute “(1)7” for “*7(1)” page 55. Fourth paragraph, first line: substitute “5” for “4” page 91. Ruling (4)(c), line 3: substitute “‘(1)(b)” for “(1)(a)”’ Volume 1, Section F 237 SUBJECT INDEX Page Acarus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Arachnida), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology \ with Name No. 1267, with Acarus siro Linnaeus, 1758, as type species aus : ae 715 gender of name .. ee a a ee sie oe ae ir KS 715 Alligator Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1807 ces Repiilia),.s substitution of revised oa for (correction of Opinion 92) . 90 alligator Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the combination Lacerta alligator (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 ... ne Re SE 89 placed on the Official Index of elects and Invalid Oe Names in eGOnlOsy with Name No. 521 .. 90 ALLIGATORIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1844 (Class Reptilia), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 223, with “esas Cuvier aA: L.C.F.D. ), 1807, as type genus a 91 APATURIDAE (correction of APATURIDES) Boisduval, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Pooley with Name No. 229, with Apatura Fabricius, 1807, as type genus : 163 APATURIDES Boisduval, 1840 (an Invalid Original Spelling for APATURIDAE), placed on the Official Index of Ronee and Invalid re Oe Names in es with Name No. 267 a 164 Argas Latreille, 1795 (Class Feaeauice), compen of eves Saar to ous leas of, given in Opinion IBY se 41 Argas Scouler, 1835 (a junior homonym of Argas Latreille, 1795), placed on the Official Index of Bes and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology \ with Name No. ‘ 1136 2 ARGYNNIDAE Duponchel, 1844 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in aie with Name No. 228, with AN Fabricius, 1807, as type genus 163 ARGYNNIDINAE Aurivillius, [1911] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ARGYN- NIDAE), placed on the Official Index oy Boece and Invalid EY Lae, Names in Zoology with Name No. 266.. 164 asellus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda), Sit on the oie List neh midi Names in ee with Name No. — Bie 19 SMITHSONIA pee ts 1042 238 Opinions and Declarations asellus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1792, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus (a junior homonym of asellus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Oniscus asellus), placed on the ia Index of Rejected and Invalid pues Names in Zoology with Name No. 502 ae Asthenognathus Stimpson, 1858 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 85, determination of gender of Atergatopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1862 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in AoE e as in Opinion 73, determination of gender of Ane ote ae ¢ ; he ee <5 ve, ne Aulacorhynchus Gould, 1834 (Class Aves), placed on the Ome List on Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 67, determination of gender of.. avium, Dermanyssus, Dugés, 1834, selection of a iectouine for Ove ya ee (1958) es A ne oe ~ placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid ed Names in Zoology with Name No. 504 as a junior objective synonym, through the lectoniee selection referred to above, of gallinae, Acarus, De Geer, 1778 oe Pe a caprae, Sarcoptes (Class Arachnida), ruled to have been first ee ee in January 1858 by Delafond (H.M.O.) & Bourguignon (H.W.) : placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 1489 Chasmagnathus de Haan, [1835] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), placed on the eee List of Generic Names in Zora: in gee 85, determination of gender fo) ite se ; i : : a: ate ate ee Be Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1873 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Beit in Bea 73, determination of gender of Be ar Be