ve) =) bh 7 git aiatee ae i a i ine ray ae : a dabean adh gee yen tia ut ata! ns) pet sbi! hea, ia ‘ike Poenius if at matin as ENA mes if ins J Ht Wa ah ay iit ; th hit bot oe a S ae ny ' i Yate it — ‘ ae Ch ne i i Hira atigal : it rane ips oA) " (Bier aA TW as joerg lay TATE Shia Rall ee {3 et iN Lt wv RRs tle ts ra ie eines ayy Chott oe eet PDAS Jyvsvb sted oF AN) iiyeaat s Ap ohpe \ PPT Ay Ti Heys ’ Hie a He ie Va letnriedy! 4 wide tw be tbaretis hid ery ¥ ate Bhs Sei hier hae. “ei * : . Pd OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. VOLUME 1. SECTION B. Facsimile Edition of Opinions 1-133 ARITHSON; SS Vie = 4aN DEC 29 1958 y, LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office | 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Three Pounds, Fifteen Shillings [ssued 30th September, 1958 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 1. SECTION B 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 f 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 FOREWORD With the kind permission of the Secretary to the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., the present volume is devoted to the reproduction in facsimile of the early Opinions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature which were originally published on behalf of that body by the Smithsonian Institution in its Miscellaneous Collections. The Opinions involved are Opinions 1 to 133 which were published in the above serial on various dates between 1910 and 1936. 2. When in 1936 the Secretariat of the Commission was transferred from Washington to London, it was decided that from then onwards Opinions embodying decisions taken by the International Commission should be published in London by the Commission itself. For this purpose arrangements were made for the establishment of a new serial to which was given the title “ Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature”, a title which was later expanded by the addition of the words “‘ and Declarations” after the word ** Opinions ”’. 3. In connection with the foregoing decision it was necessary to give consideration also to the position as regards the Opinions (Opinions 1—133) already published by the Smithsonian Institu- tion. For many of the earlier Opinions of this series were already out of print and copies were unobtainable. The difficulty so created was naturally particularly acute in Europe where complete sets of these Opinions appeared to be very scarce. It was accordingly decided that, subject to the grant of approval by the authorities of the Smithsonian Institution, the Opinions of the Commission which it had published should eventually be republished as Volume 1 of the ‘‘ Opinions ”’ Series. Accordingly the first group of Opinions to be published in London (starting with Opinion 134) was issued as Parts of Volume 2 of the new serial. A note explaining the arrangements proposed to be made eventually for the issue of a new edition of the earlier Opinions was inserted in Part 1 of the new volume (i.e. in the Part containing Opinion 134) (see 1939, Ops. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 32) and also in each of the next four succeeding Parts. SMITHSON INSTITUTION. NOV 12 1958 IV 4. In 1943 the plan described above was modified to the extent that it was then considered that it would be more convenient to zoologists generally if instead of republishing the older Opinions without comment those Opinions were to be reissued in an annotated form, the notes so added to draw attention to any matters where later action—for example, changes in the Régles—either called for some revision in the Ruling given in a particular Opinion or for the validation under the Plenary Powers of some part of that Ruling. Between 1944 and 1947 annotated re-issues of Opinions 1 to 16 were published as Parts of Volume 1 of the present Series, 5, These re-issues aroused considerable attention but at the same time the view was expressed in certain quarters that it would be preferable ifcomments on problems arising on these old Opinions were published as separate papers—in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature—rather than that they should take the form of notes actually attached to re-issues of the Opinions in question. This matter was considered by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948. It was then decided to reaffirm the earlier recommendation that arrangements should be made for the republication in Volume 1 of Opinions 1—133, subject to the modification that the edition so to be issued should consist of facsimile reproductions of the Opinions as originally published (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 591—594). The recommendation so submitted was approved by the Section on Nomenclature (1950, ibid. 5: 120—121) and later by the Paris Congress in Concilium Plenum (1950, ibid. 5 : 131). 6. The present question was considered again early in 1955 in connection with the review then being carried out by the Commission of the Rulings given in the period up to the end of 1936 (i.e., of the Rulings given in Opinions 1—133). That review, which had been undertaken in accordance with a Directive issued to the International Commission by the Paris Congress in 1948, had as its purpose the completion, clarification and, where necessary, the correction or validation of Rulings given in the foregoing group of Opinions, in order thereby to bring those Rulings up to the requisite standard as a preliminary to the publication of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Vv book-form. The problem which called for decision in 1955 was the method to be adopted for integrating into the Opinions and Declarations Series the Directions to be rendered by the Commission for completing the action needed in connection with the above Opinions. The decisions then taken in this matter (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(A) : i—v) were as follows :— (a) Volume 1 of the Opinions and Declarations Series to be reserved—as previously proposed—for the publication of Opinions 1—133 and of documents connected with those Opinions but to be divided into a number of separately-paged Sections distinguished from one another by serial letters, e.g., Section A, Section B, etc. (b) The portion issued as Volume 1 in 1943—1947 to be given the new style “ Section A of Volume 1’, to be provided with a Title Page and then closed. (c) Section B to be reserved for the publication in fascimile of Opinions 1—133 as decided upon by the Paris Congress in 1948, (d) Section C (and any necessary later Sections) to be reserved for the publication of Directions containing decisions by the Commission, amplifying, clarifying, correcting or validating the Rulings given in the Opinions belonging to the group to be published in fascimile in Section B. Immediate steps were taken to put the foregoing decisions into effect. The first Part of Section C was published in April 1955 and immediate arrangements were made for the closing of Section A as soon as a Subject Index could be prepared. The concluding Part of this latter Section was published in July of the same year. 7. In the summer of 1957 it was decided that arrangements should be made for the publication in book-form of a First Instalment of each of the various Official Lists and Official Indexes in time for copies to be available for the meeting of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology in London in July 1958. As part of this arrangement these First Instalments were closed as from 9th February 1958. It made VI it necessary also to postpone for further consideration a small number of entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936. By the time that full effect was given to the above decisions (that is, by the beginning of the present year) Sections C to E of Volume 1 of the Opinions and Declarations Series and some fourteen Parts of the next following Section (Section F) had been published. It had always been comtemplated that Volume 1 should be closed at the time when the First Instalments of the Official Lists were published in book-form. It was accordingly decided at this point to bring Section F to a close and arrangements were put in hand for the compilation of a Subject Index as a preliminary to the publication of a concluding Part containing the title Page for the Section so brought to a finish. 8. At the stage described above everything that required to be published in Volume 1 of the Opinions and Declarations Series had been published with the exception of Section B, the Section which had been provisionally reserved for the facsimile edition of Opinions 1 to 133. At this point the Trust invited Sir Gavin de Beer (Director, British Museum (Natural History), London) in his capacity as President of the forthcoming Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, to approach Dr. Leonard Carmichael, Secretary to the Smithsonian Institution, (a) recalling the wish expressed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that arrangements should be made by the Trust to publish at its own charges a volume of the Opinions and Declarations Series containing a fascimile reproduction of the Commission’s Opinions 1—133 as originally published in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections and (b) expressing the hope that the Smithsonian Institution would now authorise the Trust to publish the proposed volume. Sir Gavin de Beer wrote a letter in the above sense on 3rd June 1958 to Dr. Carmichael who on 5th June replied authorising the Trust to publish a facsimile edition of Opinions 1 to 133 as proposed, on the understanding that the material so made available was “* not to be copyrighted ”’. On 10th June 1958 Mr. Hemming, as Managing Director addressed a reply to Dr. Carmichael expressing the grateful thanks of the International Trust for the facilities accorded to it in Dr. Carmichael’s letter of 5th June and at the same time gave him the assurance asked in the matter of copyright. VII 9. Immediately upon receipt of the foregoing authority from the Smithsonian Institution arrangements were made for the preparation of the plates required for the facsimile edition, the necessary photographs being taken from Mr. Hemming’s personal copy which is believed to be the only set in private hands in London. The original Smithsonian running headings have been retained throughout but these have been supplemented by the allocation of continuous pagination for the volume as a whole, thereby facilitating reference. With the same object in view the Opinion Number of the Opinion concerned has been added at the top of each right-hand page. A Table of Contents has been provided, the page numbers cited being those allocated in the facsimile edition. This arrangement has been adopted in order to overcome the difficulties which would have arisen if the original page numbers had been cited in view of the fact that, as the Opinions in question were published in a number of different volumes of the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections they did not have con- tinuous pagination. Consideration has been given to the question of providing this volume with a subject index. It has, however, been decided not to do so, owing to the fact that such an Index would have been of limited utility only unless in addition there were to be included in it references to the supplementary action taken by the Commission in a large number of cases in Directions published in later Sections of the present volume and there already indexed. 10. In the period covered by the Opinions reproduced in the present Section it was the practice of the Commission to include in its Opinions both interpretations of the provisions of the Reégles and also Rulings on individual nomenclatorial problems. At Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology decided that Rulings giving interpretations of the provisions of the Regles should no longer be included with other matters in the ~ Opinions” Series but should be rendered separately in interpretative Declarations (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 135— 137). At the same time the Commission and the Congress examined the Opinions rendered in the period up to the end of 1936, that is, the Opinions reproduced in the present volume, in order to frame proposals for the inclusion in the Régles of Provisions embodying the substance of the Rulings given in the Opinions in question. Having completed this process, the VIII Commission then repealed the Opinions concerned “for inter- pretative purposes, that is to say, for all except historical purposes with effect from the date on which the amendments to the Régles made by the present [i.e. the Paris (1948)] Congress become operative’ (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 165—167). The Opinions and parts of Opinions so repealed were set out in the above decision as follows :— ‘““(a) the whole of the under-mentioned Opinions, namely :— Opinions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 35, 46, 62; 645 Gasrci/ es (b) the portions of the under-mentioned Opinions which contain interpretations of Articles of the Rég/es, namely:— Opinions 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, 27, 29, 36, 41, 43, 47, 49, 52, Sh 0, Gil, G85 BS, OZ, ws. 11. It is a happy coincidence that the publication of the present facsimile edition of the first One Hundred and Thirty-Three of the Commission’s Opinions will coincide almost exactly in time with the appearance in book-form of the First Instalment of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, for it was by the Rulings given in the Opinions reproduced in the present volume that a start was made to give effect to the decision to establish that Official List taken by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The total number of entries made on the Official List by the Rulings given in the Opinions referred to above is not very large but many of them are the names of taxonomically important genera. Moreover, the placing of these names on the Official List was of particular value as providing a signpost to the path which was to lead to determined and far-reaching efforts to promote stability in nomenclature when in later times the climate of opinion among zoologists favoured that course. 12. In presenting the present volume to the zoological public, the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature desires to express its grateful thanks to the Smithsonian Institution both for its action in publishing the Opinions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature when that body was in its infancy and possessed no funds or other assets of any kind, and for the facilities which it then offered to the IX Commission’s Secretariat. Finally, the Trust desires once more to thank the Smithsonian Institution for the permission now accorded by it for the publication in facsimile in the present Series of the 133 Opinions as originally published in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. Ist July 1958 XI TABLE OF. CONTENTS Page OPINION 1 The Meaning of the Word “ Indication ” in Art. 25a sf ae eer ne Bs 45 638 5 OPINION 2 The Nature of a Systematic Name .. ri 5 OPINION 3 The Status of Publications Dated 1758 .. 6 OPINION 4 Status of Certain Names Published as Manuscript Names ny me os Sa Mee 6 OPINION 5 Status of Certain Pre-Linnaean Names Reprinted Subsequent to 1757... fn ie ia 6 OPINION 6 In Case of a Genus A Linnaeus, 1758, with two species Aband Ac... bs Ai: 7 di OPINION 7 On the Interpretation of the mae “n.g., n.sp.” Under Article 30(a) ae i ; 10 OPINION 8 On the Retention of ii or i in Specific Patronymic Names Under Article 14(c) and Article 19 11 OPINION 9 The Use of the Name of a Composite Genus for a Component Part Requiring a Name Ws 13 OPINION 10 Designation of Genotypes for Genera Published with Identical Limits .. ae oe ate 15 OPINION 11 The Te woke of panics Fi Latreille, SAW. . oe 7! OPINION 12 Stephanoceros fimbriatus (Goldfuss, sas. vs. Stephanoceros eichhornii Ehrenberg, 1832 .. 19 OPINION 13 The Specific Name of the Sand Crab... 22 OPINION 14 The Type SD oi of Etheostoma Rafinesque, 1819 .. : 5 vF AS XII OPINION 15 Craspedacusta sowerbii Lankester, 1880, n.g., n.sp., vs. Limnocodium victoria Allman, 1880, n.g., n.sp., A Fresh Water Medusa OPINION 16 The Status of Prebinomial Specific Names (Published Prior to 1758) under Art. 30d F OPINION 17 Shall the Genera of Weber, 1795, be Accepted OPINION 18 The Type of Rite Schneider, 1799 OPINION 19 Plesiops vs. Pharopteryx OPINION 20 Shall the Genera of Gronow, 1763, be Accepted ? OPINION 21 Shall the Genera of Klein, 1744, Reprint by Walbaum, 1792, Be Accepted ? i OPINION 22. Ceraticthys vs. Cliola OPINION 23 Aspro vs. Cheilodipterus, or Ambassis OPINION 24 Antennarius Commerson, 1798, and Duvier, 1817, vs. Histrio Fischer, 1813 OPINION 25 Damesiella is une 1899, vs. Damesella Walcott, 1905 i f: OPINION 26 Cypsilurus vs. Cypselurus OPINION 27 Ruppelia and Rupellia vs. Riippellia OPINION 28 Shall the Nouvelle Classification of Meigen, 1800, Be Given Precedence Over ia s Versuch, 1803 ? ae : : : OPINION 29 Pachynathus vs. Pachygnathus OPINION 30 Swainson’s Bird Genera of 1827 .. OPINION 31 Columbina vs. Chaemepelia OPINION 32 The Type of the Genus Sphex Page 28 31 40 43 45 48 DiI 53 55 3)// ay) 63 65 66 68 69 73 76 OPINION 33 The oe of the Genus Rutilus aia . 820) ve: OPINION 34 Aeshna vs. Aeschna OPINION 35 Types of Genera of Binary but not Binominal Authors Ap ie a: a OPINION 36 Emendation of Trioxocera, Dioxocera, and Pentoxoxera OPINION 37 Shall the Genera of Brisson’s ‘* Orni- thologia ’’, 1760, Be Accepted ? OPINION 38 On the Status of the Latin Names in Tunstall, 1771 OPINION 39 On the Status of the Latin Names in Cuvier, 1800 OPINION 40 Salmo eriox vs. S. Trutta and S. es Heniochus acuminatus vs. H. macrolepidotus : OPINION 41 Athlennes vs. Ablennes OPINION 42 The Type of Carapus Rafinesque, 1810 .. OPINION 43 On the Status of Genera the Type Species of Which are Cited Without Additional Description OPINION 44 Leptocephalus vs. Conger OPINION 45 The Type of Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758 OPINION 46 Status of Genera for which no Species was Distinctly Named in the Original Publication OPINION 47: © Carcharias, Carcharhinus and Carcharodon OPINION 48 The Status of Certain Generic Names of Birds Published by Brehm in Isis, 1828 and 1830 OPINION 49 prtenanhera gehen vs. Nectaro- _ phora asclepiadis : XIII Page 78 79 82 84 87 89 91 o2 94 96 97 99 101 104 108 110 112 XIV OPINION 50 OPINION 51 Aphis aquilegiae flava vs. Aphis thirhoda Shall the Names of Museum Calonnianum, 1797, Be Accepted ? OPINION 52 OPINION 53 grayl OPINION 54 OPINION 55 OPINION 56 OPINION 57 Palaestinum ”’, Untenable OPINION 58 OPINION 59 OPINION 60 OPINION 61 OPINION 62 Semotilus corporalis vs. Semotilus bullaris Halicampus koilomatodon vs. Halicampus Phoxinus Rafinesque vs. Phoxinus Agassiz The Type of the Genus Ondatra Link The Type of Filaria Mueller, 1787 Names Dating from Hasselquist’s “ Iter 1757, and the Translation, 1762, are Esox, Lucius, and Belone Date of Amphimerus Salmo iridia vs. Salmo irideus Emendation of Chaemepeliato Chamaepelia Type Species of Other Genera are not Excluded from Consideration in the Selection of the Type of a Genus OPINION 63 hakonensis OPINION 64 Leuciscus hakuensis vs. Leuciscus Serial Letters as a, b, c, etc., are not Acceptable as Specific Names OPINION 65 Case of a Genus Based upon ene Determined Species Page 114 116 119 122 124 126 128 131 136 140 144 145 147 150 151 152 OPINION 66 Nematode and Gordiacea Names Placed in the Official List of Generic Names ie OPINION 67 One Hundred and Two Bird Names Placed in the Official List of Generic Names OPINION 68 The Type Species of Pleuronectes Linnaeus, 1758a oe a ws Ay on Ss OPINION 69 The Type Species of Sparus Linnaeus, 1758 OPINION 70 The Case of Libellula americana L., 1758, vs. Libellula americanus Drury, 1773 OPINION 71 Interpretation of the Expression “ Typical Species ’ in Westwood’s (1840) Synopsis 53 OPINION 72 Herrera’s Zoological Formulae OPINION 73 Five Generic Names in Crinoidea, Eighty- Six Generic Names in Crustacea, and Eight Generic Names in Acarina, Placed in the Official List of Generic Names a Oe at e aD oes OPINION 74 ces oe List of Nomina Con- servanda 5 a if OPINION 75 Twenty-seven Generic Names of Protozoa, Vermes, Pisces, Reptilia, and Mammalia Included in the Official List of Zoological Names .. OPINION 76 Status of Pyrosoma vs. Monophora ; Cyclosalpa vs. Holothuria ; Salpavs. eee Doliolum, Appendicularia and Fr eee a OPINION 77 Thirty-five Generic Names in Protozoa, Coelenterata, Trematoda, Cestoda, Cirripedia, Tunicata, and Pisces Placed in the Official List of Generic Names OPINION 78 Case of Dermacentor andersoni vs. Dermacentor venustus oa ae ae re XV Page WA 7 185 193 197 200 203 207 216 Dp) 222 255 261 XVI OPINION 79 Case of Lamarck’s oe ee des Animaux sans Vertebres ; OPINION 80 Suspension of Rules in the Case of Holothuria and Physalia = ay bs y OPINION 81 The Genotype of Cimex, Acanthia, Clinocoris, and Klinophilos ee “e {g OPINION 82 Suspension of the Rules for Musca Linnaeus, 1758a, type M. domestica a Se OPINION 83 Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Vigors and Hors- field, 1827, vs. Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Gould, 1848 OPINION 84 ‘Trematode, Cestode, and Acanthocephala Names Placed in the Official List of Generic Names OPINION 85 Ninety-eight Generic Names in Crustacea placed in the Official List of Generic Names "3 OPINION 86 Conulinus von Martens, 1895 OPINION 87 The Status of Proof Sheets in Nomen- clature OPINION 88 Otarion ee vs. Cyphaspis Bur- meisteri e ai - si OPINION 89 Suspension of the Rules in the Case of Gronow, 1763, Commerson, 1803, Gesellschaft Schau- platz, 1775 to 1781, Catesby, 1771, Browne, 1789, Valmont de Bomare, 1768 to 1775 a a OPINION 90 Report on Sixteen Generic Names of Mammals for Which Suspension of Rules was Requested OPINION 91. Thirty-five Generic Names of Mammals Placed in the Official List of Generic Names a OPINION 92. Sixteen Generic Names of Pisces, Amphibia and Reptilia Placed in the Official List of Generic Names Page 273 27 279 295 302 305 307 313 315 317 321 328 Spi) 338 OPINION 93 Twelve Generic Names of Fishes Placed in the Official List, by Suspension of the Rules ; OPINION 94 Twenty-two Mollusk and Tunicate Names Placed in the Official List of Generic Names oa OPINION 95 Two Generic Names of Protozoa Placed in the Official List of Generic Names Ae at OPINION 96 Museum Boltenianum OPINION 97 Did Hibner’s Tentamen, 1806, Create Monotypic Genera ? ae as He mys OPINION 98 Brauer and Bergenstamm .. OPINION 99 Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895 nS i OPINION 100 Suspension of the Rules, Spirifer and Syringothyris : ‘ : M i OPINION 101 Nomenclatorial Status of Danilewsky, “‘ Contribution a l'Etude de la Microbiose Malarique ” in Annales de l'Institut Pasteur, 1891, Vol. 5, pages 758—782 BS a Ms : OPINION 102 Proteocephala_ Blainville, 1828, vs. Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858 - a OPINION 103 The Generic Name Grus, Type Ardea grus OPINION 104 57 Generic Names Placed in the Official List ; oi ne ok a se iN OPINION 105 Dybowski’s (1926) Names of Crustacea Suppressed me at ate ra ue ae OPINION 106 The Type of Oestrus Linn., 1758, is O. ovis ee as a be a A =e OPINION 107 Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus minutus ae oe: it i 43 Ps XVII Page 341 348 350 3 355 369 372 37H] 381 386 389 393 399 402 407 XVIII OPINION 108 Suspension of Rules for Gazella, 1816 .. OPINION 109 Suspension of Rules for Hippotragus, 1846 OPINION 110 Suspension of Rules for Lagidium, 1833 OPINION 111 Suspension of Rules for Nyenernt Sy OPINION 112 Suspension Declined for Manatus, 1772 vs. Trichechus, 1758 te iyi ae (3 OPINION 113 Sarcopes Latreille, ais Type scabiei, Placed on Official List a or’ ra OPINION 114 Under Suspension Simia, Simia satyrus, and Pithecus Are Suppressed OPINION 115 Status of Leucochilus OPINION 116 Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, vs. Bulinus Mueller, 1781, vs. Bulimus Bruguicre, 1792 : OPINION 117 Type of Lithostrotion OPINION 118 ner Carr Wade, 1926, a Nomen Nudum : te: OPINION 119 Six Molluscan Generic Names Placed in the Official List of Generic Names OPINION 120 The Status of Achatinus, 1810 OPINION 121 Necessity for Suspension of Rules in Case of Agasoma Gabb, hare Type Sinuatum, Not Proved : e ee ae be : OPINION 122 Seven Generic Names in _ Primates Adopted in the Official List of Generic Names .. OPINION 123 P. F. Gmelin’s mos Historiae Naturalis Completa Suppressed ne OPINION 124 Linnaeus, 1758, Subdivisions of Genera Page 413 414 415 416 417 418 423 427 432 444 446 449 455 457 459 460 465 PINION 125 Boros Herbst, 1797, and Borus naar 1846, vs. Borus Albers, 1850 : : PINION 126 New Names in d’Orbigny’s, 1850, “ Prodrome ” Are Nomenclatorially Available . . PINION 127 Suspension of Rules for Lepidocyclina Gumbel, 1868, Type Nummulites mantelli sis PINION 128 Nycteribia, 1796, =‘ Pupipara, and Spinturnix, 1826, Acarine .. ah ae ee ny PINION 129 Bipinnaria 1835 vs. Luidia 1839 . PINION 130 Lytoceras Suess, 1865, Placed in the Official List of Generic Names a a ch PINION 131 The Pe ee of Tromikosoma Mor- tensen, 1903 : : ae se of Sobolew, 1914 PINION 132 Status of the “ ae ee PINION 133 Urothoe Dana and PHOXOCEPHALIDAE Sars XIX Page 467 469 487 493 496 498 501 503 505 Lo] ‘ aC ae Ye Cyt ae Ceo. pegaeaes Ay tie Tia a ; , USL OCU lia aed SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON PUBLICATION 1938. JULY, 1910 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 1 TO 25 HISTORY OF THE COMMISSION An International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was appointed in 1895 by the Third International Zoological Congress, held at Leyden, Holland. There were originally five members. The Commission was directed to study the various codes of nomenclature and to report upon the same to a later Congress. At the Fourth (Cambridge, England) Congress, 1898, the Com- mission was made a permanent body, and increased to fifteen mem- bers, who later (at the Berne Congress, 1904) were divided into three classes of five Commissioners each, each class to serve nine years. During the interval between the Congresses, the Commission has been in correspondence; it has held one meeting (1897) between Congresses, and regular meetings during the triennial Congresses. As a result of its labors, the original Paris-Moscow (1889, 1892, the Blanchard) Code was taken as the basis, and with certain amend- ments was adopted (Berlin Congress, 1901) by the International Congress. Amendments were presented by the Commission to the Boston Congress (1907) and were adopted. The Berlin meeting (1901) adopted a rule that no amendment to the Code should thereafter be presented to any Congress for vote unless said amendment was in the hands of the Commission at least one year prior to the meeting of the Congress to which it was pro- posed to present the amendment. Prior to the Boston Congress a desire had developed among zoolo- gists that the Commission should serve as a court for the interpre- T D OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 tation of the Code, and in accordance therewith the Commission presented to the Boston Congress five Opinions which were ratified by the Congress. Since the Boston meeting, a number of questions on nomenclature have been submitted to the Commission for opinion. Owing to the amount of time consumed in communicating with the fifteen Commissioners, it was impossible to act promptly upon these cases, but in the winter of 1909-1910 the Smithsonian Institution gave a grant to provide for the clerical work, and since that time it has been possible to render the opinions more promptly. The Commission has no legislative power. Its powers are re- stricted to studying questions of nomenclature, to reporting upon such questions to the International Congress, and to rendering opin- ions upon cases submitted to it. The Smithsonian Institution has now undertaken the publication of these Opinions up to a certain point. METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED IN SUBMITTING CASES FOR OPINION In submitting cases for opinion, zoologists will aid the Commis- sion in its work if they will recall the following points: (1) The Commission does not undertake to act as a bibliographic or nomenclatural bureau, but rather as an adviser in connection with the more difficult and disputed cases of nomenclature. (2) All cases submitted should be accompanied by (a) a concise statement of the point at issue; (b) the full arguments on both sides, in case a disputed point is involved, and (c) complete and exact bibliographic references to every book or article bearing on the point at issue. The more complete the data when the case is submitted, the more promptly can it be acted upon. (3) Of necessity, cases submitted with incomplete bibliographic references can not be studied, and must be returned by the Com- mission to the sender. (4) Cases upon which an opinion is desired may be sent to any — member of the Commission, but— (5) In order that the work of the Commission may be confined as much as possible to the more difficult and the disputed cases, it is urged that zoologists study the Code and settle for themselves as many cases as possible. CO-OPERATING COMMITTEES 1910 3 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3 COOPERATING COMMITTEES ON NOMENCLATURE The following Committees on Nomenclature have been formed and have offered to cooperate with the International Commission, and it is suggested that if zoologists submit most of their cases to these and similar Committees, which it is hoped various societies will form, not only will the subject of nomenclature become more generally understood because of discussions that will arise in the societies in question, but the International Commission can thereby be utilized to greater advantage as a Court of Appeal. The Committees on Nomenclature which have thus far agreed to coopetate with the International Commission are: COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE, ENTOMOLOGICAL SoOcIETY OF AMERICA: H. T. Fernald, Chairman, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, Mass. T. D. A. Cockerell, University of Colorado, Boulder, Col. E. P. Felt, Geological Hall, Albany, N. Y. COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE, ASSOCIATION OF EcoNoMIC ENTOMOLOGISTS: Herbert Osborn, Ohio State University, Columbus, O. A. L. Quaintance, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE, AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGIST’S UNION: J. A. Allen, American Museum of Natural History, New York, N. Y. Jonathan Dwight, Jr., 134 West 71st Street, New York, N. Y. C. Hart Merriam, 1919 16th Street, Washington, D. C. C. W. Richmond, U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. William Brewster, 145 Brattle Street, Cambridge, Mass. Robert Ridgway, U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. Witmer Stone, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa. COMMITTEE ON NoMENCIATURE, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ZOOLOGISTS : Eastern Branch: Henry B. Bigelow, Chairman, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cam- bridge, Mass. J. S. Kingsley, Tufts College, Mass. A. G. Mayer, Maplewood, N. J. J. Percy Moore, 3215 Summer Street, Philadelphia, Pa. A. Petrimkimtsch, 900 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Mass. Central Branch: C. C. Nutting, Chairman, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, lo. C. H. Eigemann, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Ind. C. A. Kofoid, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. H. B. Ward, University of Illinois, Urbana, III. S. W. Williston, University of Chicago, Chicago, Til. 4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION The present personnel of the International Commission is as follows: Class of 1910: Raphael Blanchard, President, Ecole de Médecine, Paris, France. L. Joubin, Museum d’historie naturelle, 88 boulevard Saint-Germain, Paris, France. Ch. Wardell Stiles, Secretary, Hygienic Laboratory, 25th & E Streets, N. W., Washington, D. C. Th. Studer, Zoologisches Institut, Berne, Switzerland. R. R. Wright, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Class of 1913: Ph. Dautzenberg, 213 Rue de l'Université, Paris, France. W. E. Hoyle, City Hall, Cardiff, Wales. L. von Graff, Zoologisches Institut, Graz, Austria. F. C. von Mehrenthal, Secretary, Invalidenstr. 43, Berlin N. 4, Germany. H. F. Osborn,* Columbia University, New-York, N. Y. Class of 1916: F. A. Jentink, Rijks Museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leyden, Holland David Starr Jordan, Leland Stanford University, Stanford University, Cal. S. Monticelli, Instituto Zoologico, R. Universita di Napoli, Naples, Italy. F. E. Schulze, Invalidenstr. 43, Berlin N. 4, Germany. Leonhard Stejneger, U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The text of the International Code may be found in the following publications : Reglés Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique adoptees par les Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie. Paris. F. R. de Rude- val. 8°. Avant-Propos, pp. 5-13. Reégles, pp. 15-28. International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Ibidem, pp. 20-42. Internationale Regeln der Zoologischen Nomenklatur. Ibidem, PP. 43-57: The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as applied to Medicine < Bull. 24, Hyg. Lab., U. S. Pub. Health and Mar.-Hosp. Serv., Wash., pp. I-50. Amendments to Articles 8, 14, 20, 29, 30 are to be found in Science, Vol. 26, October 18, 1907, pp. 520-522. * Resigned, to take effect August, 1910. OPINIONS | AND 2 5 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5 The present Code with amendments to date will appear in the Proceedings of the Boston Meeting of the International Zoological Congress. DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRINTED OPINIONS The Smithsonian Institution will distribute the printed Opinions to 1,100 libraries, to the members of the International Zoological Congress, and to a limited list of specialists. OPINIONS ALREADY PUBLISHED In order to make the present series complete, Opinions I to 5 are here reprinted. They were originally published in Science, Vol. 26, October 18, 1907, pp. 522-523, as follows: In response to certain questions, especially in reference to the Law of Priority (Art. 25) and its application (Art. 26), submitted for consideration, the Commission herewith unanimously renders the following opinions: OPINION 1 THE MEANING OF THE WorpD “INDICATION” IN ART. 25A. The word “indication” in Art. 25a is to be construed as follows: (A) With regard to specific names, an “indication” is (1) a bibliographic reference, or (2) a published figure (illustration), or (3) a definite citation of an earlier name for which a new name is proposed. (B) With regard to generic names, (1) a bibliographic reference, or (2) a definite citation of an earlier name for which a new name is proposed, or (3) the citation or designation of a type species. In no case is the word “ imdication” to be construed as including museum labels, museum specimens or vernacular names. OPINION 2 THE NATURE OF A SYSTEMATIC NAME The Commission is unanimously of the opinion that a name, in the sense of the Code, refers to the designation by which the actual objects are known. In other words, we name the objects themselves, not our conception of said objects. Names based upon hypotheticai forms have, therefore, no status in nomenclature and are not in anyway entitled to consideration under the Law of Priority. Ex- amples: Pithecanthropus Heckel, 1866, being the name of an hypo- thetical genus, has no status under the Code, and does not therefore 6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 invalidate Pithecanthropus Dubois, 1894; Gigantopora minuta Looss, 1907, 1. g., 1. Sp., has no status under the Code, since it is admittedly the name of a fantastic unit, not based upon any actual objects. OPINION 3 Tue Status oF PusiicaTions DaTED 1758 b) The tenth edition of Linné’s “ Systema Nature ” was issued very early in the year 1758. For practical reasons, this date may be as- sumed to be January 1, 1758, and any other zoological publication bearing the date 1758 may be construed as having appeared subse- quent to January 1. In so far as the date is concerned, all such publications may therefore be construed as entitled to consideration under the Law of Priority. OPINION 4 STATUS OF CERTAIN NAMES PUBLISHED AS Manuscript NAMES Manuscript names acquire standing in nomenclature when printed in connection with the provisions of Art. 25, and the question as to their validity is not influenced by the fact whether such names are accepted or rejected by the author responsible for their publication. OPINION 5 STATUS OF CERTAIN PRE-LINN#HAN NAMES REPRINTED SUBSEQUENT TO 1757 A pre-Linneean name, ineligible because of its publication prior to 1758, does not become eligible simply by being cited or reprinted with its original diagnosis after 1757. To become eligible under the Code, such names must be reinforced by adoption or acceptance by the author publishing the reprint. Examples: The citation, sub- sequent to 1757, of a bibliographic reference to a paper published prior to 1758 does not establish technical names which may appear in said reference; synonymic citation of pre-Linnzan names, as in the tenth edition of Linné’s “‘ Systema Nature,’ does not establish such names under the Code. OPINIONS 3 TO 6 7h OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE W. OPINION 6 In Case oF A GENUS 4A LINN&US, 1758, wiITH Two SPECIES, Ab AND Ac SUMMARY.— When a later author divides the genus 4, species Ab and Ac, leaving genus A, only species Ab, and genus C, monotypic with species Cc, the second author is to be construed as having fixed the type of the genus A. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Dr. L. Stejneger for opinion: A definite ruling is requested on the following hypothetical case as to the application of Art. 30 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The hypothetical form is selected in order to present the case as simply and uncomplicatedly as possible. Linnzus, in 1758, established a genus A—— with two species: (1) A b—. (2) A—— c—. Next, in 1768, Laurenti divided this genus in two, calling them: (1) Genus A——. I. Species A—— b-—.. (2) Genus C—— I. Species C tautonymic). Laurenti thus created two monotypic genera, one of which was tautonymic. But he did not say literally: “I make 0 type of A——” nor “I make C type of C——.” He did not say so, but he did do so. He did not “select” the type by means of words, but by means of deed. Even “ rigidly construed”’ “the expression ‘select a type’” (Art. 30 in fine) fits this action of Laurenti’s. The species are not mentioned by him as illustration or examples, there were known to him no other species but these. Twenty-five years later Fitzinger in express words makes c and designates D—— as type of a generic name D—_. The question then arises does Fitzinger’s selection (in words) undo Laurenti’s earlier selection (in deed) ? If this were allowed we would have to face the following absurdity: C. Laurenti, 1768, would become a synonym of the restricted genus A Linnezus, 1758, notwithstanding the fact that its monotype is not contained in the restricted genus A And again: C- Laurenti, 1768, would also become a synonym of the genus D—— Fitzinger, 1843, because both have the same type, but the latter name would take precedence of the earlier, absolutely equivalent name. Action like that would not only contravene the principle of the Law of Priority but also that underlying littera c and d of Article 30 itself. More- over, it would contravene all nomenclatorial practice heretofore in vogue under any of the existing codes. c—— (the latter combination being absolutely the type of A 8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 The final paragraph of Article 30 shows that the meaning of the expression “select a type” is to be construed. If the only construction it could bear were to the effect that the “selection” must be in express words, then the wording of the article would have been phrased so as to preclude any other interpretation and the final paragraph just quoted would have been super- fluous. It matters not whether we substitute the word “designate” for “select,” for the two words are used indiscriminately in the article. And if the type can be selected or designated in any other way than in express words, and the final paragraph proves that it can, then it is hard to conceive of a more effective way to designate or select a type than was done by Laurenti in the hypothetical case submitted above. I therefore hold that in this case submitted he did designate the type of both genera A—— C-—_. Discusston.—At the Boston meeting, when the report on Art. 30 was read before the public meeting of the Commission on Nomen- clature, the position of the Commission upon cases of this kind was asked, and the reply was made by all the members of the Commis- sion who were present that cases which were as clear as the one given in the diagram should be construed under Art. 30g, namely, that the type of the original genus was fixed when, through a di- vision of its species, it was definitely made into a monotypic genus. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mehrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Studer, Wright. Not voting: Osborn. Mehrenthal, Schulze, Graff, and Studer add: Wir sind auch der Meinung, dass der hypothetische Fall so entschieden werden mtisste, wie es die Kommission in Boston getan hat. Wir miissen aber darauf hinweisen, dass diese Entscheidung dem Wortlaut des Art. 30 nicht entspricht. Eine “subsequent designation” (Art. 30g) muss offenbar in derselben Form geschehen wie eine “original designation” (Art. 30a). In dem vorliegenden Fall hat erst Fitzinger die typische Species “ designated.” Die Elimination, welche durch Begriindung des Genus C—— Laurenti’s stattgefunden hat, ware gemass Art. 30k (Recommendation!) irrelevant.* Note by Stiles and Stejneger—On the contrary, this does correspond to Art. 30c—If a genus is monotypic this is ipso facto type designation of the most definite kind. *We are of the opinion that the hypothetical case is to be decided in the sense adopted by the Commission in Boston. We must point out, however, that this decision does not correspond to the wording of Art. 30. A “subse- quent designation” (Art. 30g) must obviously occur in the same form as an “original designation” (Art. 30a). In the case in question, Fitzinger first “ designated” the genotype. The elimination which occurred by the estab- lishment of C—— Laurenti, would be irrelevant according to Art. 30k (Recommendation !). OPINION 6 9 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9 Note by Dautzenberg—A mon avis lorsqu ’un genre est monotypique il est évident que la designation expresse du type est superflue & que l’espéce indiquée doit étre admise comme en etant le type.’ *In my opinion, when a genus is monotypic, it is evident that the verbal designation of the type is superfluous and that the species indicated should be admitted as being the type. 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 OPINION 7 OPINION RENDERED ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION “Nw.G., N. SP.” UNDER ART. 30A SUMMARY.—The expression “n. g., n. sp.” used in publication of a new genus for which no other species is otherwise designated as genotype, is to be accepted as designation under Art. 30a. Discusston.—lf an author publishes a new genus and marks one of the species “n. gyn. sp.”, but does not otherwise specifically desig- nate the genotype, such citation (“n.g., n.sp.”) is to be construed under Art. 30a as type by original designation. Examples: Diorchis Clerc, 1903, Rev. suisse de Zool., v. 11, p. 281. 1. Diorchis acuminata, n. g., n. sp. 2. Diorchts inflata (Rudolphi). Platynosomum Looss, 1907, Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. [etc.], v. 43 (©), Os C07. Platynosomum (n. g.) semifuscum (n. sp.). This method of designating the type species does not, in the opinion of the Commission, represent the best method to adopt; on the contrary, the Commission urges all authors to state definitely that a certain species is type, regardless of the number of species placed in the genus. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 8 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Jentink, Jordan, Monticelli, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 3 Commissioners: Hoyle, Mehrenthal, Schulze. Not voting: Osborn, Studer. Vote both ways: Dautzenberg, Joubin. Hoyle says: I do not think that this constitutes the fixation of a type at all and I shall not hold that such a statement as that regarding Diorchis above invalidated any subsequent selection of a type by a later author. Mehrenthal and Schulze say: Ein neues Prinzip, dessen Zweckmassigkeit nicht einzusehen ist. Die Anwendung einer solchen neuen Bestimmung hatte notwendige Konsequenzen: z. b. wenn nicht eine, sondern mehrere “w. sp.” angefiithrt werden, wenn das gen. nicht als “mov.,’ die spec. nicht als “ nov.,” ausdriicklich bezeichnet, aber als solche erkennbar sind, u. s. w. Remark by Stiles: The cases mentioned by Mehrenthal and Schulze do not come under this opinion which definitely states that one of the species is marked as “n. g., n. sp.” *A new principle, the expediency of which is not clear. The application of such a new provision would have necessary consequences. For instance, if not one, but several “wn. sp.’ were mentioned; if the genus and the species are not expressly designated as “new,” but are recognized as such. OPINIONS 7 AND 8 i OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE II OPINION 8 ON THE RETENTION OF 11 OR 7 IN SPECIFIC PaTronyMic NAMES, UNDER ArT. 14 (C) AND ART. I9 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE SUMMARY.—Specific patronymics originally published as ending in 7 (as Schranku, ebbesbornii) are, according to Art. 19, to be retained in their original form, despite the provision of Art. 14c that they should have been formed with only one 7. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following cases have been submitted by Prof. Charles A. Kofoid for opinion: Ceratium schranki Kofoid, described in Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. vol. 3, p. 306, 1907, is cited by Karsten in 1908 (Wiss. Ergebn. d. deutsch. Tiefsee Exped., Bd. 2, p. 539) as Ceratium tripos schrankti Kofoid. Should not the second 7 be omitted in accordance with the rule for forming the genitive of a proper name used as a specific name as stated in Art. 14 of the Code? Hudson in 1883 (Journ. Roy. Micr. Soc., vol. 3, Ser. 2, p. 621) described Asplanchna Ebbesbornii. Jennings in 1901 (Bull. U. S. Fish Comm., Vol. 19, p. 80) cites Asplanchna ebbesbornii Hudson. Should not the second 7 be omitted ? The two cases above cited differ in the fact that the first is subsequent, the second prior to the establishment of the Code, in so far as the proposal of the specific name is concerned. Discussion.—The point raised by Professor Kofoid applies to a very large number of specific names which have presented occasion for a great lack of uniformity among authors. The origin of this confusion is to be seen in the lack of uniformity as to the method followed by various authors in originally introducing names. Many authors in proposing a specific patronymic have first created a Latin form of the name (as Schrankius) of the person (Schrank) to whom the species was to be dedicated, and have taken the geni- tive (schrankii) of the Latin name. Other authors have formed a Latin genitive by the simple addition of the single 7 (schranki) as now provided for in Art. 14c¢. It would undoubtedly be a great convenience if all the names ending in 7 could be changed uniformly to 1, as a number of authors have tried to do. At the same time it may be pointed out that this attempt to simplify the names has in reality created still further con- fusion in another direction, namely: There exist a number of au- thors’ names which end in 1, as Monticelli, and various writers who have apparently not known the exact name of the author have changed patronymics (such as monticellit) based on these names to 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 the single 1 (as monticelli), thus making the specific name identical with the author’s name. In some cases authors write these patronymics with a capital initial letter (Monticelli, Monticelli) in accordance with the option given in Art. 13. As a result, confusion has repeatedly occurred because it thus becomes impossible for an author, not familiar with all the circumstances, to distinguish whether he is dealing with a generic name proposed by Monticelli or with a specific combination dedicated to Monticelli. In general, it is a relatively simple matter to determine the original form in which the specific name was published, but it is frequently almost impossible to determine the exact name of the person to whom the species was dedicated. On this account, the change from 7 to 1 is not authorized by Art. 19, which reads: The original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that under the present Code the original form of the name should be retained, regardless of the question whether it ends in 7 or #, although authors are ad- vised to be very careful about this point in forming new names, and to adopt the 1 only when the person’s name used as basis for the specific name ends in 1. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mzhrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Blanchard. Not voting: Osborn, Studer. Vote both ways: Dautzenberg. Monticelli adds: I accept as maxima the opinion given by Stiles, but I think it not impossible that an author in a revisional work of a genus, a family, or a group of animals, as in works like the “Thierreich,’ should change the orthography of all the specific patronymic names to accord strictly with Art. r4c. OPINION 9 13 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE T3 OPINION 9 THe USE oF THE NAME OF A COMPOSITE GENUS FOR A COMPONENT Part REQUIRING A NAME SUMMARY.—The decision as to whether the name of a composite genus, when made up wholly of older genera, is tenable for a component part re- quiting a name, depends upon a variety of circumstances. There are circum- stances under which such a name may be used, others under which it may not be used (Art. 30). STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted for opinion : Is the name of a composite genus, when made up wholly of older genera, tenable for a component part requiring a name? Example: Phalangipus Latreille, 1825, is equivalent to Libinia Leach, 1815, + Doclea Leach, 1815, + Egeria Leach, 1815 (no more and no less). Libinia and Doclea are valid names, but Egeria is preoccupied. May Phal- angipus be used in its place? Discussion.—The data regarding Phalangipus given in the fore- going are not sufficient to permit an opinion on this particular case, but the principles involved are quite clear and can be illustrated diagrammatically. Let it be assumed that there is a genus X-us Smith, 1850. If, Jones, 1860, proposes a substitute, Y-uws, for X-ws 1850, the type of either becomes automically type of the other (Art. 30f), and Y-us may be an available name for the genus, but it does not become valid unless X-us is invalidated. Thus— X-us Smith, 1850, type X-us albus. Y-us Jones, 1860 = X-us 1850 renamed, albus becomes the type of Y-us; see Art. 30f. Or— X-us Smith, 1850, no type designated. Y-us Jones, 1860, = X-us renamed with X-us albus designated type; albus becomes type of X-us also (see Art. 30f). If X-us, 1850, is preoccupied (as by X-us 1800), Y-1#s, 1860, if available, may become valid. If Jones, 1860, instead of proposing Y-us as substitute for X-us, simply uses it in connection with the species which happen to be in X-us, it becomes necessary to inquire into the type species (Art. 30). If the type of either or of both has not been designated, any author has a right to make such designation (Art. 30g), and the later history of the names depends upon the genotypes selected. Thus— X-us Smith, 1850, with albus (designated type), cinereus, and niger—Art. 30a. 14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 Y-us Jones, 1860, with albus, cinereus, and niger (designated type)—Art. 30a. Let it be assumed that in 1870 albus and cinereus are considered congeneric, but generically distinct from niger; both X-us and Y-us may be valid for the respective genera, in case they are available— se. Ai, (lr X-us Smith, 1850, with albus (designated type, Art. 30a), cinereus, and niger. Y-us Jones, 1860, with albus, cinereus, and niger; no types designated, and Y-us was proposed as distinct genus, not as X-ws renamed. Let it be assumed that in 1870 the foregoing data are found, and that it is desired to divide the three species in question into two genera (one with albus and cinereus, the other with mger). Any author has the right to designate the type for Y-ws (see Art. 30g). If albus or cinereus be designated, Y-ws becomes synonym of X-us; if miger be designated, Y-us, if available for the genus recognized for miger, may become its generic name (Art. 25). The principles shown in the foregoing examples are to be applied to the more complicated cases also. For instance— X-us albus 1850, monotypic.—(Art. 30c.) Y-us cinereus 1860, monotypic.—(Art. 30c.) Z-us miger 1870, monotypic (not Z-us 1800).—(Art. 30c.) Let it be assumed that in 1880, all three of these monotypic genera are united into one genus which an author, not familiar with nomen- clatural principles, calls M-us. If this union is justified, X-us should stand as name of the genus and M-us drops as synonym.—(Art. 25.) In 1890, Jones wishes to redivide this genus, with albus and cimereus congeneric, but niger generically distinct. It now becomes necessary to inquire whether the type species of M-ws has ever been designated (Art. 30). If it has, then M-us must follow that type. If no genotype has been designated for M-uws, then any author has the right to make the designation (Art. 30g). Should he designate either albus or cinereus, it is clear that M-us is antedated by X-us and Y-us (Art. 25). Should he designate niger, then M-us may be used in place of Z-us 1870 (preoccupied in 1860).—(Arts. 25, 30.) Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in hy 13 Commissioners: Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Jouhin, Mehrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stej- neger, Stiles, Wright. Not voting 2: Osborn, Studer. OPINION 10 IS OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE T5 OPINION 10 DESIGNATION OF GENOTYPES FOR GENERA PUBLISHED WITH IDENTICAL LIMITS SUMMARY.—If two genera with the same limits are formed independently by different authors, without designation of genotypes, any subsequent author may designate the genotypes (Art. 30g), and if the types designated are not specifically identical, the two generic names may (other things being equal) be used for restricted genera containing the types in question.—(Art. 25.) STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Miss Mary J. Rathbun for opinion: If two genera with the same limits are formed by different authors without designation of types, may a subsequent author, or subsequent authors, desig- nate a different type for each genus and validate both genera? Example: Suppose Cancer Linnzus 1758 is composed of species a, b, c, and d. Phalangipus Fabricius 1799 is also composed of species a, b, c, and d. May Rathbun 1908 restrict Cancer to species a and b, designating a as type, and restrict Phalangipus to c and d, designating c as type? (Provided there has been no restriction or designation in the meantime.) Discuss1on.—The principle involved may be best shown if a dia- grammatic case be taken: X-uws 1850 and Y-us 1860. It is here assumed that Y-us 1860 was.not proposed as a substitute for X-us 1850, but that it is a mere accident that the contained species are identical : 1850 1860 X-us albus = Y-us albus X-us cinereus = Y-us cinereus X-us flavidus = V-us flavidus X-us niger ==: Y-us niger It is assumed that no type (Art. 30) has been designated by any author, upon any principle, for either genus, and that Rathbun 1908 wishes to recognize two genera, one containing albus and cmereus, the other containing niger and flavidus. Rathbun clearly has the right to designate types for both X-us and Y-us (Art. 30g) ; as such types she may select any one of the four species (Art. 30g) ; she may select the same species as type for both genera, or she may select a different species for each genus. The generic names in question follow the species selected.—(Art. 25.) Thus, if she selects either albus, cinereus, flavidus, or niger, as 16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 type of both genera, the two generic names become synonyms (Are 25); if she selects either albus or cinereus for X-us and either niger or flavidus for Y-us, or if she selects either albus or cinereus for Y-us, and either flavidus or niger for X-us, the two generic names would follow the genotypes designated, and might become valid for restricted genera.—(Arts. 30g, 25, 29.) Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 9 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Monticelli, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Joubin, Mzh- renthal, Schulze. Not voting 2: Osborn, Studer. Meehrenthal and Schulze say: (1) Nur die erste Bestimmung des Typus der Gattung, die zweimal begriindet und benannt wurde, kann giiltig sein. Sobald erkannt wird, dass Species a, b, c, d der beiden Gattungen identisch sind, hat eine andere Bestimmung des Typus keine Giltigkeit. (2) Der Fall gehdrt zu den vielen Fallen, in welchen subjektiv zu ent- scheiden ist, ob es sich nur um einen neuen Namen fur eine alte Gattung oder um einen Namen fiir eine neue Gattung handelt. In der Rehabilitierung bisher verworfener Synonyme k6nnte also die grésste Willkthr stattfinden.* Remark by Stiles: The view (1) advanced by Mehrenthal and Schulze involves the principle of “type by inclusion ”—a principle which failed to pass the International Commission. It is open to any author-to apply that principle, but according to the present Code it is not obligatory. (2) If a new name for an old genus, the case would come under Art. 30f. 1(1) Only the first designation of the type of a genus, which has been twice established and named, can be valid. As soon as it is recognized that species a, b, c, and d of both genera are identical, a further determination of genotype has no validity. (2) The case is one of many, in which it is to be subjectively determined, whether it involves only a new name for an old genus or a new name for a new genus. In the rehabilitation of synonyms rejected to date the greatest arbitrariness might occur. OPINION 11 U7) OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Wi OPINION 11 THE DESIGNATION OF GENOTYPES BY LATREILLE, I8I0 SUMMARY.—The “Table des genres avec Vindication de l’espéce qui leur sert de type,” in Latreille’s (1810) “considérations générales,’ should be accepted as designation of types of the genera in question (Art. 30). STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Miss Mary J. Rathbun for opinion: Shall the species indicated by Latreille in “ Considérations générales sur V’Ordre Naturel des Animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes; avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposes en familles,’ Paris, 1810, be accepted as types of their respective genera? This work is divided into 3 parts: The first part consists of general considerations; the second part of a “tableau méthodique des genres” in which the classes, orders, families and genera are given French and equivalent Latin names and definitions. The third part has the following heading “Table des genres avec lindication de Vespéce qui leur sert de type.” In this table the French name of each genus ‘given in Part 2 is repeated and followed by a species “qui sert de type.” Should these species be considered genotypes? Following is an extract from the table: ORDRE II. MALACOSTRACES. MALACOSTRACA FAMILLE I. CANCERIDES Podophthalme. Podophthalmus spin- Calappe. Calappa granulata Fab. osus Lam.; portunus vigil Fab. Ocypode. Ocypode ceratophthalma Portune. Portunus pelagicus Fab. Fab. Dromie. Dromia Rumphii Fab. Grapse. Cancer grapsus Fab. Crabe. Cancer pagurus Fab. +Plagusie. Cancer depressus Fab. +Heépate. Calappa angustata Fab. +Pinnothére. Cancer pisum Fab. FamiILieE II. OxyRyYNQUES Dorippe. Dorippe quadridens Fab. Maia. Parthenope horrida Fab.; +Mictyre. Mictyris longicarpus Lat. ejusd. Inachus sagittarius. Leucosie. Leucosia nucleus Fab. +Macrope. Inachus longirostris Fab. +Coryste. Albunea dentata Fab. Orithyie. Ovithyia memmillaris Fab. +Lithode. Inachas maja Fab. Matute. Matuta victor Fab. Ranine. Cancer raninus Fab. FaMIL_LeE III. PAGuRIENS Albunée. Albunea symnista Fab Hippe. Hippa emeritus Fab. +Remipéde. Hippa adactyla? Fab. Pagure. Pagurus Bernhardus Fab. FAMILLE IV. LANGOUSTINES Scyllare. Scyllarus arctus Fab. Porcellane. Cancer hexapus Fab. Langouste. Palinurus quadricornis Galathée. Galathea strigosa Fab. Fab. 18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 FAMILLE V. HoMARDIENS Ecrevisse. Astacus fluviatilis Fab. Alphée. Alpheus avarus Fab. +Thalassine. Thalassina scorpion- Pénée. Peneus monodon Fab. ides Lat.; Herpst. Canc. tab. Palémon. Palemon squilla Fab. 62; astacus scaber ? Fab. Crangon. Crangon vulgaris Fab. FAMILLE VI. SQUILLARES Squille. Squilla Mantis Fab. +Mysis. Cancer pedatus Oth. Fab. Note. The two species given after “ Podophthalme” are synonyms. The two species after “ Maia” represent two sections of the genus, sections which Fabricius called respectively Parthenope and Inachus. It has been argued that the word “type” as used by Latreille has not the same signification as the “type” of a genus to-day, but indicated “a type, an example, a specimen of the genus,” according to Stebbing. I discussed this book in “A Revision of the Nomenclature of the Bra- chyura” in Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. II, [1897], pp. 160, 197. Discussion.—Muiss Rathbun (1897, p. 160) elsewhere states that “It has been argued ‘that Astacus fluviatilis Fab.’ is given not as the type, but merely as a type, an example, a specimen of the genus, the handiest one for a Parisian reader to recognize.” ; The Secretary has examined Latreille (1810) in search of evi- dence in support of the contention which Miss Rathbun states has been advanced, but he has failed to find it. On the contrary he finds that Latreille distinctly says “avec l’indication de L’espéce,” and not avec l’indication d’une espece. If all earlier authors had done as Latreille has here done, there would be very little confusion in nomenclature to-day, and from the evidence submitted no reason is apparent why Latreille’s type des- ignations should not stand as such. It is self-understood that this opinion does not imply that Latreille’s (1810) designations should take precedence over any earlier writings. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Graff, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mzhrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by I Commissioner: Hoyle who says: “I think that the evidence adduced by Stebbing (1898) from Latreille’s writings shows that he did not use the word ‘type’ in the sense now attributed to it in zoological nomenclature. It was with him synonymous with ‘example.’ ” Not voting 2: Osborn, Studer. OPINION 12 19 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE I9 OPINION 12 STEPHANOCEROS FIMBRIATUS (GOLDFUSS, 1820) vs. STEPHANOCEROS EICHHORNII EHRENBERG, 1832 SUMMARY.—The generic name Stephanoceros, 1832, is to be used in prefer- ence to Coronella, 1820 (pre-occupied, 1768); the specific name fmbriatus, 1820, takes precedence over eichhornti, 1832, which is admittedly (Ehrenberg, 1832b, 125, and 1838a, 400-401) fimbriatus, 1820, renamed. Ehrenberg was right in rejecting Coronella, 1820, but in error in rejecting fimbriatus, 1820; no reason is apparent for perpetuating his error. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Professor Charles F. Rousselet for opinion: The well-known Rotifer “ Stephanoceros eichhorniu” was first discovered by Pastor Eichhorn at Danzig in 1761, and he published a figure and description of it in 1775, calling the animal “ Der Kron-Polyp.” In 1820 Goldfuss in his “ Handbuch der Zoologie” placed this Rotifer with Coryna and Cristatella amongst the polyps under the name of “ Coronella fimbriata,’ as cited by Ehrenberg. In 1831 Ehrenberg, recognizing the true nature of the creature as a Rotifer, gave the first correct description and figure, which in 1838 were reproduced in his great work “Die Infusionsthierchen,”’ as “ Stephanoceros eichhornit,” under which name it has been known ever since and referred to in numberless works. Quite recently some zoologists (beginning with Montgomery, 1903, Proc. Acad: Nat. Science, Philadelphia, v. 55, May, p. 374) have resuscitated Gold- fuss’ specific name of “ fimbriata” as having priority, which is likely to cause much needless confusion. I therefore desire to inquire whether there is under the present rules any justification for changing this name, and whether the new name of “ Stephanoceros fimbriatus” must be accepted? It seems to me that as regards Rotifera (and a few other classes of micro- scopic animals) the early descriptions are very wild and unreliable, until Ehrenberg in 1838, with a full knowledge of all his predecessors’ work, put this class in order. In the words of Dr. Hudson “ Ehrenberg’s work swal- lowed up as it were the very memory of all his predecessors,” and it may be well said of him that he was the founder of this branch of Zoology. To go beyond Ehrenberg in naming species of this class will certainly cause much confusion, as shown by above example, which might perhaps be avoided if it were possible to frame a proper rule by your committee. Discussion.—Upon basis of these premises the Commission draws the following conclusions: (1) Under Art. 34 of the Code, the name Coronella Goldfuss, 1820, v. I, p. 77, must be rejected as absolute homonym, since it is preoccupied by Coronella Laur.. 1768. reptile. 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 (2) Under Art. 25 of the Code, the specific name fimbriatus, 1820, takes precedence over the specific name eichhornu, 1832. Ehrenberg, 1832b, 125, and 1838a, 400-401, admits that echhornu is a new name for fAmbriata, but he gives no reason for rejecting fimbriata; neither is there any reason for such rejection given in the communication now before the Commission, nor can any be found in the literature cited. On the contrary, Ehrenberg shows by his statements and by his bibliographic references that Eichhorn’s pl. 1, fig. 1, which Ehrenberg distinctly refers to as a recognizable illustration, and which Goldfuss cites as basis for the specific name fimbriata, is also the basis for the specific name eichhornit. (3) From the foregoing, it is clear that Ehrenberg was right in rejecting the generic name Coronella, 1820, but his rejection of the specific name fmbriata, 1820, and substitution therefor of the specific name etchhornt, were not in harmony with any code of zoological nomenclature that has ever been established. (4) Montgomery, 1903, in adopting the combination Stephano- ceros fimbriatus (Goldfuss, 1820) was, under the premises, justified, and this combination should be accepted, unless additional facts can be adduced to show such action unwarranted under the Code. The words of Doctor Hudson, “ Ehrenberg’s work swallowed up as it were the very memory of all of his predecessors” can not be accepted as sufficient grounds for the perpetuation of Ehrenberg’s error in renaming a systematic unit which had been validly named by one of his predecessors. It may be admitted as possible that temporary confusion will re- sult from the application of the Law of Priority to the species in question, but such confusion will assuredly be less than would result from the recognition of the first exception to the Law of Priority, which would be permanent in character, and at the same time estab- lish a precedent for repeated waivers of its provisions by individual zoologists. The Commission is, therefore, clearly of the opinion that unless the Law of Priority is strictly applied no uniformity in International Zoological Nomenclature can obtain, and that it is wiser for the present generation to bear with the temporary inconvenience of a few changes than to transmit to future generations our nomen- clatural problems, augmented a hundred fold by the addition of the ever-increasing number of systematic units, made possible by the like increase in the amount of literature. OPINION 12 21 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 21 Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mehrenthal, Monticelli, Osborn, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Not voting: Studer. Stejneger adds: While concurring in the opinion Stephanoceros fimbriatus (Goldfuss, 1820) vs. Stephanoceros eichhornti Ehrenb. 1832 I wish to call attention to my separate vote in the case Crapedacusta sowerbit vs. Limno- codium victoria, first section, in which I protest against the practice of guar- anteeing the correctness of the nomenclatural premises. In the present case I do not wish to render a separate, formal opinion, because I take it for granted that if my colleagues on reconsideration adopt my views the phrase- ology will also be altered in the present case. The danger of complications is very great. The other day a case was sent to me for my personal opinion. Of course, I refused to give it, saying that as a member of the Commission before which the identical question may be brought some day, it would be improper to give an individual opinion. Nevertheless I looked up the case to some extent and found three errors in the statement of facts. It was a very complicated case and many of the most difficult ones are apt later to be presented to us by the ornithologists of the A. O. U. I would also suggest that the cases be numbered consecutively for easy citation. The amendment is accepted by Blanchard, Jentink, Joubin, Monticelli, Stiles. For remarks by Hoyle, see Opinion 15. The other Commissioners did not express any vote for or against the amendment, but as it was accepted by Stiles as part of the original opinion they inferentially accept it. 2D OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 22 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 OPINION 13 THE SpeEcIFIC NAME OF THE SAND CRAB SUMMARY.—Catesby’s (1743) pre-Linnzan name arenarius is not available under the Code, although “reprinted ” in 1771; quadratus 1793 is stated to be preoccupied; albicans 1802 being the next specific name in the list becomes valid, under the premises submitted. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Miss Mary J. Rathbun has submitted the following case to the Commission for opinion: Shall the Sand Crab be known under the specific name albicans? In Catesby’s Nat. Hist. Carolina, etc., vol. 2, pl. 35, 1743, we find the first reference to the crab which was later described by Bosc, 1802, as Ocypoda albicans. Catesby mentions it under the descriptive title “Cancer arenarius. The Sand Crab. Le Cancre de Sable.” In this work descriptive names are used which are mostly polynomial, but occasionally are binomial, as Avis tropi- corum (appendix, p. 14) and Monedula tota nigra (appendix, p. 3). They are always Latin translations of his vernacular English and French names. In 1771 this work was reprinted verbatim with new type, the same descriptive names being used as in 1743. On the title page, however, appears the follow- ing: “ Revised by Mr. Edwards, of the Royal College of Physicians, London. To the whole is now added a Linnean Index of the Animals and Plants.” In the Linnean Index, Edwards applies to Catesby’s “Cancer arenarius, The Sand Crab,” the name “ Cancer vocans L.” A copy of the Crustacea from Edwards’ list is given below. The list is headed as follows: “A Catalogue of the Animals and Plants represented in Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina: With the Linnean Names. Vol. 2.” 32. The Land-Crab. Cancer terrestris, cu- Cancer ruricola, L. niculos sub terra agens. Hist. Jam. Il, i 2 33. The Herbit-Crab. Cancellus terrestris Cancer Diogenes, L. Bahamensis. The same in a shell. Idem in Buccino petholato, L. 34. The Sea Hermit-Crab. Cancellus maxi- An Cancri Diogenis varietas? mus Bahamensis. Ik, 35. The Sand-Crab. Cancer arenarius. Cancer vocans, L. 36. The red mottled Rock-Crab. Pagurus Cancer grapsus, L. maculatus. The rough shelled Crab. Cancer chelis Cancer granulatus, L. crassissimis. 37. The red clawed Crab. Cancer marinus Cancer erythropus. Forst. N. chelis rubris. Am. Anim. 33. {n an article by Prof. Verrill,, a page of which (306) is appended, he has 1Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci., v. 13, April, 1908. OPINION 13 23 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 23 fallen into error in his statement of the ease. The footnote leads one to suppose that Edwards in his binomial list applied the name “Cancer are- narius” to the crab in question. “Ocypode arenarius (G. Edw.) Say. Ghost-Crab; Sprite; Beach Crab. Cancer arenarius Edwards in Catesby, Nat. Hist. Carolina, v. 2, pl. 35, 1771. Cancer quadratus J. C. Fabricius, Entomologia Systematica, v. 2, p. 430, 1793. (“ Habitat in Jamaica Mus. Dom. Banks.’’) Ocypode quadrata J. C. Fabricius, Suppl. Entomol. System., p. 347, 1708. 5S. I. Smith, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci. v. 4, p. 257, 1880. (Synonymy and distr. ). Ocypoda albicans Bosc. Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 1, p. 196 (not the fig.). (Caro- lina coast.) Ocypode arenarius Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 1, p. 60, 1817. M. Edwards, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 2, p. 44, pl. 19, figs. 13, 14, 1837 (Ocypoda arenaria) ; Coues, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1871, p. 122 (arenaria; North Carolina, habits). Smith. Amer. Journ. Sci. (3), v. 6, p. 67, 1873 (Monolepis mermis = megalops-stage) ; Inverteb. Vineyard Sd., Rep. U. S. Fish Comm., v. I, D. 545 (251), 534 (240), 1874 (Ocypoda arenaria). Kingsley, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1878, p. 322 (7), (Ocypoda arenaria) ; op. cit., for 1879, Pp. 400; op. cit., 1880, p. 184.7 Rankin, Crust. Bermuda Is., p. 525, 1900. Ocypoda rhombea M. Edwards, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 2, p. 46, 1837 (“ An- tilles et Bresil”) ; Ann. Sci. Nat., 3, 18, p. 143 (107), 1852 (Ocypode). Dana, U. S. Expl. Exped., Crust., p. 322, pl. 10, fig. 8, 1852 (Brazil). Monolepis mermis Say, Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 1, p. 157, 1817 (megalops-stage). Ocypode albicans M. J. Rathbun, Results Branner-Agassiz Exp. Brazil, Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., v. 2, p. 134, 1900; Brachy. and Macr. Porto Rico, p. 6, Toor (Descr.) ; Amer. Naturalist, 34, p. 585, figs. I, 2, 1900.” Discusston.—Under the premises, as submitted, Catesby’s name Cancer arenarius 1743 is excluded under Art. 26, which provides that, “The date 1758, therefore, is accepted as the starting point of zoological nomenclature and of the Law of Priority.” Professor Verrill (1908, 306, footnote) raises the point that in the 1771 edition of Catesby, “ The name Cancer arenarius is given in the text and is also engraved on the plate.” The Secretary of the Commission has examined the work in ques- tion, and in his judgment the references in question are reprints, without any evidence that Edwards, the reviser, added his authority to this name. On the contrary, Edwards “added a Linnean Index of the Animals and Plants.” This index, which the Secretary has * Kingsley, op. cit., p. 184, used the specific name arenaria, as from Catesby, 1731 and 1771, dating it from the later edition. That edition was edited by George Edwards, who gave binominal names to the species of Catesby. There is no valid reason for not adopting them when they have priority, as in this case. The name Cancer arenarius is given in the text and is also engraved on the plate. 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 examined, does not support the interpretation drawn by Professor Verrill. The new edition (1771) of Catesby does not therefore give this name availability; see Opinion 5: “Status of Certain Pre-Lin- nzan Names Reprinted Subsequent to 1758.” Linnzus (1758a, 626) cites C. arenarius, “ Catesb. car. 2, t. 25” [apparently misprint for 35], as specifically identical with “ Rumph. mus. 10, t. 14. f. E” under Cancer vocans, giving “ Habitat in Indiis.” . Under the premise that this citation forms an erroneous determina- tion (see Art. 31), we must look for the next mention of the animal. This, according to Professor Verrill (1908, 306, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci.), is “ Cancer quadratus,’* which, according to Miss Rathbun, is preoccupied, hence is not available. Ocypoda albicans 1802 is the next name which, according to the premises submitted, comes into consideration, and no point against the availability of albicans is raised either by Professor Verrill or by Miss Rathbun. On basis of the foregoing premises albicans would be the valid specific name for “ The Sand Crab,” as figured by Catesby, 1743 andeah77l, pleas. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Monticelli, Mzhrenthal, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. *See Weber, 1795, p. 92 and Fabricius, Ent. Syst—C. W. S. OPINION 14 25 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE oe | OPINION 14 THE Type Species oF ETHEOSTOMA RAFINESQUE, 1810. SUMMARY.—The designation of E. blennioides Rafinesque, 1819, as type of Etheostoma Rafinesque, 1819, by Agassiz, 1854, is not invalidated by the fact that Agassiz used as basis for his generic diagnosis characters taken from an erroneous specific determination of 1839. Not only does Agassiz distinctly state that “Eth. blennioides Raf.” is type of “ Etheostoma Raf.,” but even if the question of the erroneous identification of E. blennioides by Kirtland be taken into consideration the conclusion must be drawn that this erroneous identification did not exclude the original specimens of EF. blennioides from being covered by this specific name; on the contrary, the name as used by Kirtland, 1839, still involved the type specimens; removing now the erron- eously determined specimens of 1839, which by Article 30e (a) are excluded from consideration in designating the genotype, the original type specimens of 1819 remain and, upon the premises submitted, represent the type of the genus. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has submit- ted the following case to the Commission for opinion: Etheostoma vs. Catonotus and Diplesion. In 1819 (Journ. de Physique, p. 419) Rafinesque described the new genus Etheostoma, basing it on three species, not congeneric, caprodes, blennioides. and flabellare. Afterwards (omiting details not essential to the present question) Kirtland (Journ. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 1839, p. 340) figured a fish (aspro Cope and Jordan) not congeneric with any of these, identifying it-as Etheostoma blennioides. In revising the genus Etheostoma, Agassiz (Am. Journ. Sci. Arts 1854, 305) made blennioides the type of Etheostoma, drawing his diagnosis of the restricted genus from the species figured by Kirtland, which he supposed to be the original blennioides of Rafinesque. Meanwhile he described Etheostoma blennioides Rafinesque under the new name of Hyostoma newmani. in 1877 Cope and Jordan called attention to the fact that Etheostoma Rafinesque, as restricted by Agassiz, did not contain any of Rafinesque’s species, unless we except the reference to “ Etheostoma blennioides Rafines- que” as type of the genus. Because of the greater pertinence of the original _ definition and for other minor reasons, Cope and Jordan chose flabellare as the type of Etheostoma, thus replacing Agassiz’s name, Catonotus, 1854. In this arrangement they have been followed by all subsequent authors. The question is, does Agassiz’s restriction of the _enus to blennioides Rafinesque hold in view of the fact that he had in mind not Rafinesque’s but Kirtland’s blennioides, and drew up his diagnosis from the latter, making a new genus for the original blennioides. If Rafinesque’s blennioides is the type of Eth- _ eostoma, the name will stand in place of Diplesion Rafinesque (1820) and ; Hyostoma Agassiz, 1854, generic names later applied to the true blennioides of Rafinesque. If Agassiz’s revision is invalidated by his mistake in identi- fication, the type of Etheostoma should be Etheostoma flabellare, the type of _ Catonotus Agassiz, 1854. . 26 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 The case of Diplesion Rafinesque, 1820, noted above does not seem to affect the question of nomenclature. In the Ichthyologia Ohiensis, 1820, p. 37, Rafinesque divides Etheostoma into two subgenera, Aplesion and Diplesion. The first includes calliura, a new species, and flabellare, the second blen- nioides and caprodes. Duiplesion has been restricted (Girard, 1859; Jordan. 1878) to blennioides, and Aplesion was restricted (Jordan, 1878) to calliura, which is the young of the black bass, Micropterus Lacépéde (1803), a genus already named Calliurus by Rafinesque. As Rafinesque in 1820 indicated no type for Etheostoma, this division of the group into Aplesion and Diplesion does not seem to affect the case, which hinges on Agassiz’s use of the name Etheostoma. Caprodes, the first species named by Rafinesque, became type of Percina Haldeman (1842) and Pileoma Dekay (1842). It has never been chosen as type of Etheostoma. Driscussion.—F rom the data submitted, the Commission finds that two different species have been designated as type of the genus Etheostoma Rafinesque, 1819, as follows: (1) In 1854, Agassiz designated FE. blennioides as genotype, but according to the premises submitted he took his generic characters from an erroneous determination of FE. blennioides Raf. by Kirtland, 1839. The passage in question (Agassiz, 1854, 304-305) reads as follows: 1. Etheostoma, Rafin—Head elongated pointed; mouth terminal, widely open, not protractile, broad; jaws of equal length. Opercular apparatus and cheeks bare. First dorsal distinctly separated from the second. Anal and second dorsal smaller than the first dorsal, but equal to one another. Caudal lunate. Type of the genus: Eth. blennioides, Raf. (2) In 1877, Cope and Jordan designated E. flabellare as type of Etheostoma. , It appears from the quotation from Agassiz that he was dealing with an old genus, 1819, established by another author, and not with a new genus established by himself. It is further clear that he definitely states “ Type of the genus: Eth. blennioides Raf.” He has therefore complied with the condition of designating one of the original species as the genotype. The fact that Agassiz was misled, as alleged, in accepting in his subjective generic diagnosis certain characters which belonged to specimens erroneously determined as “ F. blenmioides Raf.” by Kirt- land, 1839, does not alter the objective fact that he definitely desig- nated “Eth. blennioides Raf.” as genotype. It is not stated by Agassiz (in the passage quoted) that he designated “ EF. blennioides Raf.” of Kirland. Kirtland’s erroneous use of the specific name £. blennioides did not exclude the original type specimens of 1819 from this name; on the contrary, Kirtland’s use of this name in 1839 must OPINION 14 27 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 27 have included not only his own specimens but the original types as well. Any other assumption would involve the self-evident contra- diction that Kirtland had in 1839 excluded the original type speci- mens of 1819 from F. blenmoides Raf., and, at the same time had identified his own specimens as specifically identical with the ex- cluded types. Accordingly, even on the premise that Agassiz based his subjective conception of Etheostoma Rafinesque, 1819, upon “E. blennioides Rai.” of Kirtland, 1839, it must be concluded that he based his genus on “ EF. blennioides,’ 1819, plus the misdeter- _ mined specimens of 1839. Since, now, the misdetermined specimens of 1839 are excluded by Art. 30e (a) from consideration as type, as they are not specifically identical with any of the three original species, the original specimens of 1819 remain as type. The fact submitted, that Agassiz redescribed E. blennioides under a new name, Hyostoma newmani, does not alter the case; at most, it shows that Agassiz unconsciously refers in two different places to the species E. blennioides Rafinesque. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 9 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Jentink, Jordan (reservation), Joubin, Monticelli, Stejneger (reservation), Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Hoyle, Mzh- renthal, Schulze. Not voting 2: Osborn, Studer. Reservation by Stejneger (concurred in by Jordan): I agree with Dr. Stiles in his conclusion that Agassiz in providing one of Rafinesque’s genera with a type is restricted, as respects his selection, to the species as defined by Rafinesque, and that Agassiz’s diagnosis of the genus based on a different species has no effect, but I cannot subscribe to that part of the argument which begins as follows (p. 26): “It is not stated by Agassiz (in the passage quoted) that he designated ‘FE. blennioides’ Raf. of Kirtland.” It is entirely hypothetical and does not involve the question as to the status of the case as it is subinitted. One may easily agree with the conclusions regarding the actual case and at the same time disagree with the conclusions regarding the hypothetical case.* Dr. Hoyle says: It does not seem to me that Agassiz did fix E. blen- nioides as the type of Etheostoma; he says he did and he thought he did, but he did not. What he took for the type of Etheostoma was something quite different. It seems to me, therefore, that it was quite open to Cope and Jordan to select flabellare as the type of Etheostoma and that their action must be upheld. I should infez from the evidence above that Agassiz had never seen specimens of E. blennioides, perhaps not even the original diagnosis and what he had in mind was Kirtland’s E. blennioides not that of Rafinesque. *The point Stejneger raises is booked for discussion at the Graz meeting. 28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 28 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 OPINION 15 CRASPEDACUSTA SOWERBII LANKESTER, 1880, N. G., N. SP., VS. LIM- NOCODIUM VICTORIA ALLMAN, 1880, N. G., N. SP., A FRESH-W ATER MEDUSA SUMMARY.—Craspedacusta sowerbii Lankester, 1880, June 17, has clear priority over Limnocodium victoria Allman, 1880, June 24., Presentation of a paper before a scientific society does not constitute publication in the sense of the Code. The Commission is without authority to sanction usage in contra- vention of the provisions of the Code. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Prof. Alfred G. Mayer has submitted the following case to the Commission for opinion: I have recently completed the manuscript of a systematic work upon the Medusz of the World, and respectfully request a decision upon the following case: The generic name Craspedacusta was given to a new Hydromedusa by R. Lankester in a short description published in Nature, vol. 22, p. 147, issued” June 17, 1880. On the same day (June 17, 1880) Professor Allman read a paper before the Linnzan Society of London in which he described the same medusa under the generic name Limnocodium. He did not publish this name, however, until June 24, 1880; when it appeared in Nature, vol. 22, p. 178; together with a description of the medusa. If it is true that generic names must date from the time of printed publica- tion, the name Craspedacusta clearly takes precedence over that of Limno- codium. Lankester and Allman, however, came into conflict over the medusa, and published short papers upon it (see Nature, vol. 22, pp. 147, 177, 178, 190, 218, 241, 290). The upshot of the controversy was that Lankester agreed to give up his name Craspedacusta, provided Allman would accept his specific name sowerbi. The medusa has ever since this date (1880) been known and referred to as Limnocodium sowerbii. The generic name being that of Allman and the specific that of Lankester. I respectfully request the sanction of your committee to retain the name Limnocodium sowerbii, for if we are to revive Craspedacusta as a generic name we must substitute a neglected and unknown name for one very familiar to all students of Medusx, Limnocodium. having been frequently used, and Craspedacusta neglected since 1880. Discussion.—Upon these premises the Commission bases the fol- | lowing opinions: (1) The presentation of a paper by Professor Allman before the Linnean Society of London on June 17, 1880, does not constitute publication in the sense of Art. 25 (Law of Priority) of the Inter- OPINION 15 29 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 29 national Code of Zoological Nomenclature, hence the name Lim- nocodium does not date from June 17, 1880. Publication, in the sense of the Code, consists in the public issue of printed matter. It was not until June 24, 1880, that Limnocodium was published in this sense. It clearly is antedated by Craspedacusta, 1880, June 17. (2) The following extracts from Professor Lankester’s articles, published in Nature, Lond., v. 22, pp. 178, 191, do not affect the application of the Law of Priority to the question at issue: IT am quite willing to give up the name Craspelacustes [misprint for Craspedacusta]—Nature, Lond., v. 22, June 24, p. 178. While I waive the right of priority for the generic term Craspedacustes [misprint for Craspedacusta], and adopt Prof. Allman’s term Limnocodium, I feel it only right to maintain the association of Mr. Sowerby’s name with this discovery, which I had originally proposed, and I shall accordingly henceforth speak of the Medusa as Limnocodium sowerbii Allman and Lan- kester.— Nature, Lond., v. 22, July I, p. 101. Lankester’s abandonment of the generic name originally proposed by him would imply that an author of a published name has rights over that name which are not common to other writers. Such a view is contrary to the spirit of Art. 32 of the Code, which states that: A generic or a specific name, once published, can not be rejected, even by its author, because of inappropriateness. To grant, under the Code, to an author the right of abandonment of names originally published by him, would, in effect, render all names unstable until after the death of the original author. (3) The fact that since 1880 the medusa in question has been known and frequently referred to as Limnocodium sowerbu is of historical interest, but from a nomenclatural point of view, under the Code, it is not effective. Since this name is not in harmony with the Law of Priority (Art. 25), and contravenes Art. 32, it has no just basis for acceptance. (4) The Commission has no authority to sanction the use of any name that does not conform to the principles of nomenclature as prescribed by the Code adopted by the International Zoological Con- gresses. In view of the fact that Professor Mayer is about to publish a systematic work on the Medusz of the World, this time is regarded by the Commission as very opportune in which to adjust the status of the names in question. | 30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 30 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 © Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 15 Commissioners. Hoyle adds: In regard to the enclosed I hold that your decisions are absolutely correct according to the Code and I have signed them, though with a reservation. ‘These two cases [Nos. 12 and 15] are I think good instances of the point, which I wish to bring before the Commission at its next sitting, as I believe {1 have already notified you. . The proposal is that we shouid imitate the botanists and draw up a list of names which are not to be altered under any pretext whatever. I believe this would conduce to uniformity and to the acceptance of the labors of the Commission by zoologists in general. In the first case the species has never been called anything but Limnocodium sowerbui, and though I quite agree with you that scientific names are not matters for negotiation and compromise [| think that in a case where this was done at the very outset before any comparison had time to arise, zoologists would be well advised in ratifying the arrangement. I thoroughly agree with Stejneger’s observations. Stejneger made two amendments which were accepted by Blanch- ard, Dautzenberg, Jentink, Hoyle, Graff, Joubin, Schulze, Monti- celli and Stiles; the other Commissioners express no opinion on Stejneger’s points, but as the latter were accepted by Stiles, they thus became part of the original opinion and were inferentially ac- cepted by the other Commissioners. They are now incorporated in the decision. OPINION 16 31 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 31 OPINION 16 THE STATUS OF PREBINOMIAL SPECIFIC NAMES (PUBLISHED Prior TO 1758) UNDER ART. 30D SUMMARY.— In deciding whether a case of absolute tautonymy is present (under Art. 30d), the citation of a clear prebinomial specific name in syn- onymy is to be construed as complying with the demands of Art. 30d. Examples: Equus caballus (Equus cited in synonymy in the sense of “the horse”), Alca torda (Alca cited in synonymy in the sense of “the alca”). STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Doctor Stejneger for opinion: Although I myself have very little doubt as to the correctness of applying Art. 30, paragr. 1. litt. d. of the International Code to the class of cases mentioned in this communication, I bring it to the attention of the Com- mission in order that a definite ruling may prevent misunderstandings. and consequent deplorable instability and insecurity in the nomenclature of a large number of genera. I allude to the numerous cases of Linnean species which among their cited synonyms have pre-Linnzan specific names consisting of one word only. The question which has arisen is this: Does the citation of a non-binominal specific name ipso facto make the species to which it belongs the type of the genus having this name for its generic term; in other words, is such a species the “type by absolute tautonymy ”? To quote an example: The genus Alca was instituted by Linnzus in 1758 (Syst. Nat., to ed., 1, p. 130). In order to ascertain its type by the aid of Art. 30, we make sure, first, that there is no type by original designation (litt. a); second, that the word typicus or typus is not used (litt. 6b); third, that it is not monotypic (litt. c). Now the question arises: does the genus Alca contain among its original species one possessing the name Alca as its specific name among its synonyms quoted? ‘The very first species given by Linneus, viz., Alca torda, has the following synonymy quoted by him: “ Alca. Clus. exot. 367. Worm. mus. 363. Will. om. 243, t. 64 f. 2. Raj. av. 119. Alb. av. 3. p. 90 t. 95.” The single name Alca as thus quoted is a SPECIFIC name and not a generic name. It was first made a generic name by Linnzus as here cited. The case thus fits exactly litt. d. of Art. 30, and Alca torda “ becomes ipso facto type of the genus,” i. e., “ by absolute tautonymy ” as provided therein. Discuss1on.—The question raised by Doctor Stejneger is an im- portant one, which requires a careful study not only of the wording of the present Code but also of a number of the generic names used by Linnzus, and the principles which induced him to adopt certain generic and certain specific names found in the tenth edition of the Systema Nature. As examples of the Linnzan generic names which come into consideration, the following list may be studied: | OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS sy) SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 L061 ‘ual[y** ” ”? 9 ee ee Fo61 ‘r1ewyegq:: ZbQI ‘1aS0]5) ” ted Ee) »” 39 ” +061 ‘roweg op vob! ‘1awyeg pue zzgi ‘suruie, yy’ * OL DNIGXODDV ee ee eee oe eee etree see eee eee ee eeee se cee 7s sny dhs: eeee s1ydjap° * snjaausiur: * sniguy dun: $nj]DqQ0I° 855 snanpy: Sa14D° sos smoary: Ouro snyqnja- SNUDIAJIDG © * SMADpaMmodp* 77" SLYDS)N2° SNIIDA- meee s gay: =) snpnuy: 5 ppisiag* "* SIUAOIIUN* “"* SNAaUDAD* ** pandosna- cee ee DJOAIS* SOJIAD* SnNYDI* “* stapyyups* SHULANU © snatyjns* SOND 4O AdAL . see eee An}]N 4° sors snuiydjaq’ reeeeseeeeeeess pyapg: snupjododquyy: Pees ece se ees ‘US95) sunbz* treterereress susan sog: ‘US95) S12Q° “""* “usar pidny- "ot" USar) SN24a)° ‘uSot) SnjaUiDy* ace ee ses es eee ° eo ese ee ee ee ecee es se eee eC ee et ee "212 “Msax) Snjauin5:**: eens . . . TERDD) SHIPINGE CP 0097 49 90 08 pnooo 0000000 ‘usay) snp’: eee e ce eee ‘uSax) 40j509° * cusan) sndaT: “usa) 414450 FH] - ° . ° . ‘UUIT, va405° use) 0q]D [,° " usay sng: "US9D) SNS4)* "SIP “IPTV S12" ‘usox) sip): puynpiar tits “US9D) DI0Y f° vrreeses cusan oisadsa 4° Jousey) p1mis: daLI0 SI HOIHM wadNN sosav0ulyy** ee es ce ee se oe ec ese eee . ee oe ee te oe ec eee ee ee ee ce ° eee cee . Sa1IoddS ee eu ee ee ee eee ‘Z€ ‘d ‘uolssndsip 19}k] 29S , eee eee pdod:t tts tteeees 7nd e eee siyqdjap° °° * snjaayskus” " sniquydun: “"* snjjpqna: SnAnndy* SaUAD* SNIALY* eee snyqnja* * SNUD1LAIIDG SNLADPIWOAp * ee ee eee see ec ese . "Slaps ]N2°* ee “* SNINISNU resets yagy: “5+ sprung "+ siusoowun: SNIUDAD* “** nando.ina: ee ee eee DJosIS* 501940" SnN4DI" SLADYUUD | - DUN 12" see SAULANU snunajits: aavd Woo * D4IDISIAI" * ° . . eevee ee eee DU eee . . ee ee ee ee oe 4 ee ee ec ee ee es tenet eeeee e Y ee ee ee ee ee to ee ee te ee ee oe Ce CC ee ee ee ee ee ew ee ee ee ea eeere eee ee ee ee eee snuydjaq apjpg sniuojoqoddipy eee ee ees snnbz sog 512.0 pAqny SN24d) samp) SHANI S IAN ojsp7 ecco sndaT HIAISK EY SOLDIOUI ST 40405 Dq]0 I, sng SnSAl) SHE sIUuD I DIOYT o1piz4adsa 4 , DIU S GWYN Q1IYaNa9 98 LL SZ 33 OPINION 16 33) NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL ogi ‘Ae14) ZZQ1 ‘SUIWO] , ee eee orgi ‘Aert4) Z2QI ‘SUIWOT T°" OFRI ‘AI4) ZZQI ‘SUIWIO, *** bed orgi ‘Avr ” ” orgi ‘Aety) ” Dvn Ajayuyop 281 “U0jMaN AutAu -0jnNe} Aq OQZI “UOSsIIg Ajjuosedde zzgi “surwep yy ** OL DNIGXYODDV ‘gf ‘d ‘UOIsssuSIp Joqe] 99S, . GaLId SI HOIHM Aaann Riohomeiieieentsits iets SNIIWI10I Orc d: Gp) Ontong. Gch O&O snupispy J Sooo 0ou 708 sieli(e sngvyI}or° “ cee SnUDISDY I QSI 6 0 D100 Oo-6 boo vavgojns: * Glo to 0 a promeo doG S189] 2 J So 0 OG dsc aetromerce . o2ngoij03’ 5 siietenetielie S189] 3 J OSI nono anod aod SAIS HID 20 220 poaoo GoGo fot UDO . Onn’ * Ott 9 teouceon0 cso: 080 SNDISIAD* Sticleiacere eee 0nng SI Otfoo00 Oo . Smpauing:*°*** SNJIULDI-O1YINATS * C0 Om BONO Oa OG SWI OUD Ee eer ONAL S SS Dodo ooD OOo Ona HO DpAv4 ceo Go ooo S120 DpADI “s SuUO conotcoonooo odo oO 5 DpAD] eve cree alceketre! SYuO Cy Cob OO OND hea MAN 290 590 Con coo F006 DUVET cee ates aire ana tae DAD Rares ese ao UTE zSI at , USoX) SMAPDADY D) ~*~" SNMIUIIPIO pu doo Oono oO , SNUDIIALD* °°“ DINIYwI ET “Ss SORMoOTON| a)? Pree OHA a8 faypeaniyepyypo ee eo OS , SMAPDADY I oS1 so0boGDo0tDS SHAUL ON > Rien ere (DISA) pee 56.0 0 -a00 snyqo4190° aus, elena selvel site DSU T, QrI naeooo0e0na Gg (DO DUNS oae E TOSES h LOG OROIE? "OPE CoO RE OBS MOMS GES 29020 28% 4#040J0IS Sri poo COdoMO Oooo OpUnAry’ * dodoprHea CoO 0600 DIMA A RE ser ae! ge tegen: Opunaly* ° eibeveitadetiell sitsieii« DUALS ZE1 i Cer no SN]DIOAIOUO® *SNHUDIALA I “ts SH DIDAT OLN Os en SNJDJOAJOUO™ ~~ ~*~ ~~ ~*~" © SHUDIIIIT raat sicsyfolatelcetis) were. fo) OHO) ae tae ee Sh 5 DO EZ ale Die aegis ppsoq*** cComooocdog don DIIP Of1 eevee Bio. Wa O SDYISOQ* * LOU ponNDAOL DABQ SON Pare oo Oo . spyrsoqg’** moooooaano 6 SOUP LZzI . ete. stupyiuon | Hao O GOO 6 Gdacooud DIYyp4a7Z Cab Cb0 00 Mo ee siapyyun* °° SeteMelieice piUyj4a9 QII eisHisiewelisuletetteh eels sdoda:* Condado Bo000000 GIVI Gyan oo oDo.on oo 6 sdoda°*: co oaGk aa o poqdngQ ZiI . nao 000.0 dajspigD* A eWelemetemsne oe SCOUPINT te Se ea ee 4ajspiqp*** Sooconodd $4043 Jy ZII oe oe SNAOUDI* ct tt ‘uSd5) Seay 7 O° = Giowan6 6-06.00 * snuouno'**° ei ielehisieKaue te snjnmng OIL nHad odo ooo SOC 10/0 a TSS) S210 is a ae eirelie emetic iets “+ wp4o2"* sue! es SESH AO@) Cor eee eee eee oe 2 DIM DIAS: © 9° 7 =" eee eee eee EAI Gea ge Dy ape ees DINPIAjs* °° eo ee ee oe see LIAS =6 SONGS #0 UdAL SaIogadS DAAVd WOO GANVN JIYANYD aoVd OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 34 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 She [essere eS. saq]S unelg** £061 ‘TJID °° [TesseH 2 seyys 7ZQt ‘SUIWO]Y see eee eee eee oe snayonbp ee eee eee Ce eC et Ca Snipso+)* cere eee eee eee snayonbop* . woyegss'*: 50 endDuoS Sess supplant sootoo6 hs ginger supinaat ee eee ee seen SnANyS oo" CeCe eC Ce ECC smpjs** uew -1oAq WF uepsOl JON ‘Zggi Jou Ing Pogl [ID SHTARSeHeraNe - pioulasi ct eves ' sramayog ttt paomans: UCULIOAY 2) uep.1of CCC Cn i i Ct CCC sngiun ee ee eee eee eee e snsajqojany***** eee eee cee ew snqwuny:* ee Bo eee D1 01]DY Se CeCe ar ey ° SnaqDwos,s” ee ee se ee eee wees D100 ° . gaye ee Ce CC i CC Odpivo CeCe CCC CC i SHIOUUIR °° oe ore eres odv4apo°* UeUIDAW 29 UepIOf zegr ‘Burwioy,q ° ebeeobno one OLAMJS ttre “+ yasuadiap ttt tet onanyse: UCUI8AT UEpsOf fzzgi Bumapqs ss WsoAJsuoM Soas Ot - paanuuy yi rs Dsoussuout* ogi ‘KeID)" ob CO0 GND 00000 oar) snapdosna 60000050000000 snsjpnwmisgoy: eheanite ee eee snavdosina* . way tees paige ttt ett <5) pmopjopp ttt * pgp" ogi ‘Aen ZZQI SOUPS [ifs een ween gee wa aa 5991209 CeCe CC cI se eee DIS °°" . were ae sqa]a0I°* i BBD eS OD ODU DUET yy ri! 17> SSO Oo S60 ndOOO “ maxogT tt oo DAISOAU2ANI** UONVAL Se oe ae ee S1DdIna "7°" EO ISIE CV erie pata ae OL . S14D3] N02" * zegt ‘Burmopg soso ee Pe opaja po. Baoan se waagage OL DNIGXODDV SOND 40 AMAL da119 SI HOIHM AaNNn SaI0adS FAVd WOO CCC Ce SOpyoe tee eee ee cee pskyds e077: . “* SoDYyI KORO YZ ***** * yuayrIS piuany-**** pidas. “59 piumyyojo fy’ *** nem eloe snayjosg’ Creat "LOLi “uUur'T sSopy) “SLD S]N2* * ""* sypMaIyo* * “"* supshyd: ‘d ‘UOISSNOSIp J9}k] 99S , :osje oiedwio5 Cea ENN OIE L710) fi eee ee ere ee oo e 1 DW aS reeeesss pLanyqolo H SO ORSIG OIG OL O5) Dees ee ee 5) pf BI CS HAS reeeeeeees siguayam snsazqojak D reste: gnammmods eeeese eee SNJOUMK £) eeee sere 4asua qua eee ee ee eee DLaDULy +) Rea cuatro snanunrsdn 7 ast herceo'd-6 O"0 01119040 eee ee se eee DIPS UAT Ser OST og psi at et emi aol OAD aNVN OLYANAD 61g 859 ZS9 6Z1 IZI Z91 OSI adovd OPINION 16 35 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 35 If the specific names in the foregoing list are compared with other specific names used by Linnzus, 1758, as for instance: p. 73.—Equus asinus, cites Asinus Gesn. in references. p. 74.—Equus zebra, cites Zebra in references, it is seen that the general plan followed by Linnzus was to adopt older names unless this resulted in tautonymy. As the adoption of Equus Gesn. as specific name with the generic name Equius would have resulted in tautonymy, Linnzeus adopted Equus caballus instead. This point comes out again very clearly in the case of Volvox chaos 1758; when later, in 1767, Linneus used Chaos as generic name, he adopted protheus (Chaos protheus) to avoid using the tautonymic combination Chaos chaos. Linnzus’ custom in this re- spect is so clear that there is no room for doubt as to his ideas in regard to the use of tautonymy. Referring to Linnzus’ Code, the following articles are of interest as having some bearing upon the subject: 242,—Nomen genericum antiquum antiquo generi convenit. 246.—Si genus receptum, secundum jus naturae & artis, in plura dirimi debet, tum nomen antea commune manebit vulgatissimae & officinali plantae. It is seen that Linnzus’ idea was to preserve names in general in their prebinominal sense, and had he not been opposed to tautonymy he would undoubtedly have formed tautonymic combinations in nearly all of the cases given in the list quoted in the foregoing. Had he done this, the question raised by Doctor Stejneger would not come up for consideration, for the genotypes would be definitely settled. The question which is now raised, therefore, brings up the point: Since Linnzus directly avoided tautonymy, are we justified in con- sidering the specific names in question as coming under Art. 30d? This article reads as follows: (d) If a genus, without originally designated (see a) or indicated (see 5) type, contains among its original species one possessing the generic name as its specific or subspecific name, either as valid name or synonym, that species or subspecies becomes ipso facto type of the genus. (Type by absolute tau- tonymy. ) In searching for precedents, the interesting point arises that the Nomenclatural Commission of the Botanical Club of the American- Association for the Advancement of Science apparently considered a point involving a very similar principle, for in its 1904 (p. 256) report we find the following: When a prebinomial generic name is displaced by the publication of a- generic name within binomial usage, the application of the displaced name to a 36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 36 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 species under the new generic name designates the type. Example—Dianthus L. sp. pl. 409, a genus adopted from Tournefort with a change of his name Caryophyllus, is typified by Dianthus caryophyllus, one of the fifteen original species of Linnzus. Examining the particular case raised by Doctor Stejneger, the following points come to attention: (1) The genera in question were published “ without originally designated (a*) or indicated (b*) type.” (2) The genera in question do not contain among their original species any species possessing the generic name as a valid specific or subspecific name. In fact, as stated, Linnzus carefully and con- | sistently avoided making absolute tautonymic combinations, as may be seen from the list of cases cited in the foregoing. (3) The cases in question have certain prebinominal names cited in connection with the specific names used, and the Commission has already accepted these citations (see Opinion 5) as representing synonymic citations, hence it follows that the names in question are synonyms. (4) From the citation and from the references, it seems clear that many of these names are prebinominal specific names, used in the sense of “the horse,” “the dog,” etc., hence it follows that cer- tain of the Linnzan generic names in question contain among their original species “one possessing the generic name as its specific or subspecific name, either as valid name or synonym,” and these species in question, therefore, become, ipso facto, types of the respective genera, unless it be shown that some other paragraph of the Code excludes these synonyms from consideration. The only paragraph which would come into consideration is found in Art. 26 (see portion here italicized), which reads: Art. 26.—The tenth edition of Linné’s Systema nature, 1758, is the work which inaugurated the consistent general application of the binary nomen- clature in zoology. The date 1758, therefore, is accepted as the starting point of zoological nomenclature and of the Law of Priority. This paragraph gives rise to the question whether any zoological nomenclature is recognized as existing prior to 1758. This ques- * Art. 30a.—When in the original publication of a genus, one of the species is definitely designated as type, this species shall be accepted as type regard- less of any other considerations. (Type by original designation.) * Art. 30b.—If, in the original publication of a genus, typicus or typus is used as a mew specific name for one of the species, such use shall be construed as “type by original designation.” ee OPINION 16 37 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 20, tion appears to have been settled in the atfirmative in an earlier de- cision (see Opinion 5). It may, in addition, be pointed out that the views advanced in the foregoing are entirely in harmony with the views expressed in Arts. 242 and 246 of the Linnzan Code as quoted above (p. 35). In the list of genera given on pp. 32-34 it will be noticed that in nearly every case the genotype determined on basis of Art. 30d agrees with the type as generally accepted, or at least as adopted by good authority. Several cases, however, call for special consideration. Case of Simia.—At first it might appear that Simia sylvanus ‘should be the type cf Simua, although Palmer has adopted S. satyrus as type. An examination of Gesner’s text shows, however, that he did not use Sima in the specific sense of the simia. Accordingly, this case is not disturbed by the present ruling. From Linnzus’ entry, “ Simisze veterum,” it seems clear that Linnzus intended the generic name to follow the two species S. satyrus and S. sylvanus, and, according to Palmer, S. satyrus is to be accepted as type. * Case of Mus.—Mus was proposed without definitely designated type but containing, beside other species, M. rattus and M. musculus. The Linnzan rule would indicate that the type should lie between these two species. The fact that Linnzus cites Mus Gesner under M. musculus would seem to indicate this as type, but this interpre- tation is not in harmony with Palmer, 1904, who adopts M. rattus as genotype. This particular case is disposed of under the Inter- national Code, by Art. 30d and f, in this way: Rafinesque, 1814, — proposed the generic name Musculus as substitute for Mus. Mus musculus becomes type of Musculus by Art. 30d, and by Art. 30f it thereby automatically becomes type of Mus. This is in harmony with the present ruling also. Case of Camelus.—The type, under Stejneger’s proposition,’ is confined to dromedarius and bactrianus. Gloger, 1842, pp. xxxill and 134 divided Camelus into (1) Dromedarius, to contain D. afri- canus (syn. C. dromedarius) [monotype and tautonymy]; and (2) Camelus, to contain C. bactrianus [which now becomes monotypic]. According to this, unless some one prior to 1842 designated a type for Camelus, Palmer’s acceptance of dromedarius as type (apparently on basis of Hay, 1902) is not in harmony with Art. 30g, but the action of Gloger, 1840, is in harmony with the present ruling cov- ering Alca torda. Case of Vultur.—It is shown in the foregoing list that Allen, 1907, takes V. gryphus as type, while the present ruling would bring up 38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 38 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 the question whether V. papa is not the genotype. Linnzus (1758a, p. 86) cites ~ Vultur, Alb: au. 2, p. 4, t. 4,” but thisveratenme:s erroneous ; Albini does not use the word Vultur; the heading of the text is “ The Warworwen, or Indian Vulture,” while on the plate it is “ Rex Warwouwenum occidentalis—The Warwouwen.” Case of Charadrius.—Comparing Gesner’s original text we find that he says: ‘“‘ Charadrius, ni fallor, Aristotelis hzec avis est,’’ which would appear to rule @dicnemus out of consideration under the present interpretation. The species C. africanus, accepted as geno- type by Allen is not one of the original species of 1758. Case of Strix.—The case of Strix has been the subject of consid- erable discussion. It appears to have been settled under Art. 30d, in 1760, p. 500, by Brisson’s tautonymic Strix strix [stridula]. From the foregoing cases it is clear that a simple citation by Linneus of a name as “ Sima’ under Simia sylvanus or of “ Tenia” under Tenia vulgaris, is not sufficient justification for rejecting a generally accepted genotype on basis of the precedent of Alca torda. On the contrary, it is necessary for an author to show that the name cited by Linnzus was used in a specific sense, as “ the horse,” “the dog,” etc. When this can be shown, an author is justified in apply- ing Art. 30d to cases in which the citation of a prebinominal specific name would have resulted in tautonymy. Case of Sepia.—tli the Linnzan rule 246 (see International Code, Art. 30h) be applied, S. officinalis would be type. This statement does not constitute a designation of type. The following genera, if construed under the present ruling, would seem to retain as types the same species which are accepted by good authority as genotypes, but their inclusion in this paragraph does not constitute a ruling by this Commission: Mammnats.—lespertilio, Phoca, Canis, Felis, Ursus, Sus, Talpa, Sorex, Rhinoccros, Hystrix, Lepus, Castor, Sciurus, Cervus, Ovts, Bos, Equus, Hip- popotamus, Balena, Delphinus. Birvs.—Strix, Cervus, Cuculus, Merops, Upupa, Certhia, Anas, Alca, Pele- canus, Sterna, Scolopax, Fulica, Otis, Struthio, Pavo, Meleagris, Phasianus, Tetrao, Sturnus, Loxia, Fringilla, Motacilla, Caprimulgus. Fisu.—Chimera, Acipenser, Gymnotus, Stromateus, Cyclopterus, Echeneis. INVERTEBRATES.—Pulex, Gordius, Holothuria. The following genera, if construed under the present ruling, would seem to take as type a species which is not accepted by certain authorities, but their inclusion in this paragraph does not constitute a ruling to the effect that the authorities in question are in error, \ OPINION 16 39 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 39 and if any author attempts to construe the cases under the present ruling the burden of proof to show that he is justified in this proced- ure rests upon him: MamMaAts.—Simia.* Birps.—V ultur, Tringa, Charadrius. INVERTEBRATES.— / @nia. It is the opinion of the Commission that the types for the follow- ing genera are the species here cited: MammMaAts.—Mus (musculus, by Art. 30f), Camelus (bactrianus, by Art. 30g). Birps.—Alca (torda by Art. 30d). INVERTEBRATES.—Chaos (chaos, by Art. 30d). Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 10 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle (Alca, Mus, Chacs, Camelus), Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Monticelli (reser- vation), Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 2 Commissioners: Mehrenthal, Schulze. Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. Mehrenthal and Schuize say: Wenn die von Linné 1758 zitierten Namen aus den Schriften von Gesner, Aldrovandi und anderen Autoren, die keine binare Nomenklatur anwandten, Namen von Species sind, so sind sie deshalb noch keine spezifischen Namen, die notwendigerweise generische Namen zur Bedingung haben. Diese von Linné zitierten Namen konnen daher nicht als Synonyme von spezifischen und subspezifischen Namen im Sinne der binaren Nomenklatur angesehen werden.” * See special discussion, pp. 37, 38. *Tf the names cited by Linné, 1758, from the writings of Gesner, Aldrovandi, and other authors (who did not use binary nomenclature) are names of species, still they are not~ in consequence specific names, which necessarily presuppose generic names as prerequisite. These names, cited by Linné, can not therefore be viewed as specific and subspecific names in the sense of binary nomenclature. 40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 40 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 OPINION 17 SHALL THE GENERA OF WEBER, 1795, BE ACCEPTED? SUMMARY.— Weber’s Nomenclator entomologicus, 1795, complies with the re- quirements of Article 25, hence the genera in question are to be accepted, in so far as they individually compiy with the conditions of the Code. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Miss Mary J. Rathbun has submitted the following case for opinion: Shall the genera of Weber, 1795, be accepted? The papers submitted are: 1. A copy of pp. 91-96 inclusive of Weber. 2. ‘Discussion of same by Mary J. Rathbun, publ. Dec. 27, 1904. 3. Criticism of the above, by T. R. R. Stebbing, publ. 1905. (See pp. 332-334.) Discusston.—The question at issue involves Art. 25 and an inter- pretation of the word “indication.” Art. 25 reads as follows: . Lhe valid name of a genus or species can be only that name under which it was first designated on the condition: a. That this name was published and accompanied by an indication, or a definition, or a description; and b. That the author has applied the principles of binary nomenclature. The Commission has already rendered an interpretation of the word “indication” (see Opinion 7). An examination of Weber, 1795, shows that on p. 11 of the intro- duction he gives certain bibliographic references such as: F= Entomologia systematica Fabricii. ' S= Supplementum [published 17098]. As the Supplementum was not published until 1798, it is clear that all names published by Weber in 1795 and dependent entirely ‘upon the Supplementum are to be construed as nomuna nuda in 1795 ; hence, under Art. 25, these are to be ignored so far as the date 1795 is coneerned. The names which Weber follows with an “ F” are, however, seen to refer distinctly to the use of these names by Fabricius in his Entomologia systematica, hence they are accompanied by a “ biblio- graphic reference,’ which constitutes an “indication”’; hence they must be considered. : For instance, on p. 93, Weber gives the following: ORITHUJA mammillaris (Cancer F.). This clearly means that mammillaris is the Cancer mammillaris as given by Fabricius in his Entomologia systematica [see p. 465, OPINION 17 4] OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4I no. 91], and as Orithuja is cited with only one species, Orithuja is a monotypic genus, hence it is given with a definite “ citation or designation of a type species,” therefore it is published in accordance with the provisions of Art. 25 and must be considered. Similar cases are: Symethis (p. 92), Euryala (p. 94). On p. 94, .Weber gives, PALLINURUS (Astacus F. [i. e. in part, as seen from context]), homarus S. [a manuscript nomen nudum, hence to be ignored], fasciatus S. [a manu- script nomen nudum, hence to be ignored], quadricornis (A. elephas F.) [i. e. Astacus elephas as given by Fabricius in his Entomologia systematica is here renamed guadricornis and as it is the only known species cited with Pailinurus it is its monotype. From the standpoint of 1795 Pallinurus is clearly monotypic]. Similar cases are: Matuta (p. 92), Crangon (p. 94), Posydon (p. 94). | Dromia, p. 92, is established under Art. 25 and Art. 30d (type rumphu = dromia renamed, hence type by absolute tautonymy). On p. 92, Weber gives a case of another sort in— OCYPODE (Cancer F.) ceratophtalma, quadrata rhombea S. [= nomen nudum, 1795]. This generic name is thus given for the two species Cancer cerato- phialma and C. quadrata Fabricius, and includes the characters as given by Fabricius for these two species in his Entomologia sys- tematica. It is therefore accompanied by “a bibliographic reference ” and must be considered. Similar cases are: Calappa (p. 92), Parthenope (p. 92), Ligia (p. 92). On p. 92, Weber gives a somewhat complicated case in— Alpheus.—Here we find that Alpheus is proposed to contain a number of species which Fabricius in his Entomologia systematica placed under Cancer; compare reference “ Cancer F.” and compare the species menas, parvulus, bispinosus, etc., in Fabricius. Weber further gives certain characters which are common to the species, respectively, which he places in certain groups. These characters are to a degree given in form of an analytical key, hence despite the fact that Alpheus is not monotypic, and therefore does not comply with the provision of an indication in the sense of a citation or des- ignation of a type species, it is published in accordance with Art. 25 because it is accompanied by the “ description” given in this key- like arrangement. This does not necessarily mean that the Commission adopts Miss 42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 42 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 Rathbun’s conclusion that Alpheus is to be taken as synonym of Cancer—a point not involved in the question submitted for opinion. Similar cases are: Leucosia (p. 92), Portunus (p. 93), Inachus (p. 93). The question at issue is not whether this Nomenclator represents a method of publication which is to be recommended as an example to be followed by other authors, nor does the question at issue in- volve any relations existing between Weber and Fabricius, nor the point as to whether Fabricius approved or disapproved of what Weber did. On the contrary, to take a concrete case, the question is whether, for instance, Weber’s citation of Symethis with only one species, namely, Hippa variolosa Fabricius as given in Fabricius’ Entomologia systematica entitles this genus Symethis to be consid- ered under Art. 25 from the date 1795. This question, which is taken as example, the Commission must answer in the affirmative, with, however, the caution to workers that since Weber uses many nomina nuda, care should be exercised not to be misled into error in taking any of his 1795 specific names followed by the letter “S ” as basis for work, but, on the contrary, all such names are to be ignored so far as this Nomenclator (1795) is concerned. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Graff, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mzhrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Hoyle. Not voting 2: Osborn, Studer. Hoyle says: I do not think Weber creates these genera; he merely states that they are about to be created. It seems to me such a case as would occur if a publisher were to issue a prospectus of a forthcoming work and in a table of contents mention such a genus as containing such a species. OPINION 18 43 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 43 OPINION 18 Tue Type or Hyprus SCHNEIDER, 1799 SUMMARY.— On basis of the premises, caspius Schneider, syn. hydrus Pallas, is type of Hydrus Schneider.—Art. 30d. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Doctor Stejneger for opinion: The following case, like that of Alca simultaneously submitted, involves the interpretation of litt. d. of Art. 30 of the International Code and requires adjudication before that article can be applied effectively. The genus Hydrus was established by Schneider (Hist. Amphib., I, 1799. P. 233), without designating a type, for nine water snakes as follows: 1. colubrinus; ii. fasciatus; iti. bicolor; iv. granulatus; v. caspius; vi. enhy- dris; vii. rynchops; viii. piscator; ix. palustris. The two last-mentioned species are identical, and the number of species to be considered is consequently eight. All of these are easily identified species, none of them being species inquirendae from the standpoint of the author, and anyone may therefore become the type. In order to ascertain which species is the type according to Art. 30 we make sure, first, that there is no type by original designation (litt. a.) ; second, that the word typicus or typus is not used (litt. b.); third, that it is not monotypic (litt. c.). Now the question arises: does the genus Hydrus contain among its original Species one possessing the name hydrus as its specific name among the synonyms quoted? The fifth species, Hydrus caspius of Schneider, is based exclusively on “Pallas Hiner: J, p. 459, no. 18,” thus quoted by Schneider (op. cit. p. 245). Pallas, J. c. names and describes a snake as Coluber hydrus. Schneider re- produces his description almost verbatim not knowing it from any other source and selects the specific name Aydrus as the generic name Hydrus for his genus containing this species, and renames the species caspius so as to avoid the combination Hydrus hydrus. From this it would appear that the genus Hydrus really contains among its original species one possessing the name Aydrus as its specific name among the synonyms quoted. The only question is: Does Schneider’s omission of quoting the words “Coluber hydrus” exclude it from being considered, although he explicitly refers to the page upon which it is found. Now, is Hydrus caspius Schneider [= Coluber hydrus Pallas, as stated above] the type of Schneider’s genus Hydrus according to Art. 30, litt. d? Discussion.—On the basis of the premises submitted by Doctor Stejneger, Hydrus caspius Schneider, syn. Coluber hydrus Pallas, is the type of Schneider’s genus Hydrus, according to Art. 30d. The fact that Schneider refers to the page and number of this species 44 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 44 | SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 establishes the point in question, and the fact that the name Coluber hydrus was not quoted is perhaps unfortunate, but not essential to the question at issue. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mehrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Studer, Wright. Not voting 1: Osborn. OPINION 19 45 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 45 OPINION 19 PLESIops vs. PHAROPTERYX SUMMARY.— From the evidence, it is not clear that this case is one of nomenclatorial rather than of zoological nature. So far as the evidence goes, the question as to whether Riippell was in error in accepting Plesiops as identical with Pharopteryx must be answered from a systematic point of view. If, from our present-day conception of generic limits, Riippell was correct, no reason is apparent for not accepting his nomenclatorial decision. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan submits the following case for opinion: Plésiops vs. Pharopteryx Les Plésiops Cuvier, Régne Animal, v. 2, p. 266, 1817. (Diagnosis, reference to no known species.) Plesiops Oken, Isis, p. 1782, 1817. (Name only, Latinised form.) Pharopteryx Riuppell, Atlas’ Fische Rothen Meeres, p. 15, 1828. (mnigri- cans, New species, monotypic. ) Plesiops Rippell, Neue Wirbelthiere, Abyssinia, p. 5, 1835. (Monotypic, identification of Plesiops with Pharopteryx nigricans. Cuvier.) Cuvier says: “Les Plésiops, Cuv. sont des chromis a téte comprimée, a yeux rapprochés; a tres longues ventrales.” Oken lists the name in its Latin form as Plesiops. No species was then known, none was mentioned by Cuvier. Rtippel examined Cuvier’s specimens in Paris and found that the genus was based, or would have been based, on his Pharopteryx nigricans. Discussion.—An examination of the references given shows one point of importance which is not in harmony with Doctor Jordan’s presentation of the case, and which has a distinct bearing upon the conclusions to be formed. Cuvier (1817) followed, in general, the plan of quoting both Latin and French names in his headings when these were materially differ- ent, but when they were identical, or identical except for the French accent, his tendency was to quote the name but once in his headings. For instance: p. 265—‘“ Les Rasons. (NovacuLa. Cuv.)” p. 266.—‘“‘ Les CHromis. Cuv.” p. 207— “Les Scares. (Scarus L.)” On p. 266, Cuvier says: Les Piésiors, Cuv. sont des chromis a téte comprimée, a yeux rapprochés; a trés-longues ventrales. He gives no specific name, specific diagnosis, or reference. Accord- ingly, while Plésiops, despite the French accent, might be interpreted 46 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 46 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 as published as a Latin generic name, we have no information what- ever as to the species upon which this genus is based, other than that contained in the generic diagnosis. Not even the locality of the species is given. Plesiops Oken’s Isis, 1817 [p. 1183], is clearly a quoted name taken from Plésiops Cuvier. Its status remains the same as in Cuvier, 1817, but no question can now arise as to its not being in Latin form. Pharopteryx was published by Ruppell, 1828, 15, as new genus, monotypic, nigricans, Red Sea. Riippell refers to “ Plesiops”’ Cuvier, quotes the diagnosis and says in regard to it: “ kann ich unmoglich auf den in Rede stehenden Fisch beziehen.”* Later (1835, 4) Rup- pell says: “ Spater erkannte ich in Paris, dass diese vermeinte neue Gattung [Pharopteryx| mit derjenigen identisch ist, die Cuvier Plesiops benannte, was jedoch nicht frtther von mir ausgemittelt werden konnte, da der Pariser Gelehrte die von ihm also benahmte Gattung nie charakterisirt hatte, noch irgend eine Abbildung der- selben vorhanden ist.”* In no way does Riippell intimate any points in respect to the species upon which Cuvier based his genus Plesiops. The case, therefore, reduces itself to the following: (1) Plesiops 1817 is a genus, the type species of which is, so far as records go, undescribed. (2) Pharopteryx 1828 was described with a type:species. (3) In 1835 the author of Pharopteryx, arguing from the con- ception of genera of his day, accepted Pharopteryx as identical with Plesiops, and he adopted Plesiops. He still leaves us without any information in respect to the type species of Plesiops. The first question at issue in this case is zoological rather than nomenclatorial, namely, from our present-day conception of generic limits, is Plesiops as indicated by the only definite accessible data [namely, the original generic diagnosis] identical with our present- day generic conception * of Pharopteryx? If the answer is in the negative, the case does not come up for a nomenclatorial ruling. If the answer is doubtful, Pharopteryx should be accepted, with Plesiops as doubtful synonym. If the answer is in the affirmative, Plesiops *Tt is impossible for me to refer it to the fish in question. * Later I recognized in Paris that this supposed new genus is identical with that one which Cuvier named Plesiops, a point, however, which I could not ascertain earlier as the Parisian scholar had never characterized the genus thus named by him, nor is there any illustration (picture) of it accessible. * According to a note by Jordan, this is the case. a OPINION 19 47 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 47 should be accepted under Arts. 2 and 25 of the International Code, unless some points at present not accessible to this Commission alter this view. As, however, Rtippell, the author of Pharopteryx accepted Plesiops as identical with Pharopteryx, the burden of proof rests upon other persons to show that the two genera are not identical, before Riip- pell’s identification is rejected. The general principle involved is that an identification is to be accepted as correct until shown to be incorrect. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle, Jordan, Joubin, Mzhrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by I Commissioner: Jentink. Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. 48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 48 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 OPINION 20 SHALL THE GENERA OF GRONOW, 1763, BE ACCEPTED? SUMMARY.— Gronow, 1763, is binary, though not consistently binominal. Article 25 demands that an author be binary and Article 2 demands that generic names be uninominal. Under these articles, Gronow’s genera are to be accepted as complying with the conditions prescribed by the Code to rendez a name available under the Code. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has pre- sented the following case for opinion: Amia vs. Amiatus. Amia vs. Apogon. Amia Gronow, Zoophylaceum, 1763, p. 80. (generic diagnosis: the single species, “Amia cauda bifurcata,’ not binominally named. This species belongs to the genus usually called Apogon (Lacépéde, Hist. Nat. Poiss., 3, p. 411. 1802, ruber = imberbis). The name Amia was used by Linnzus, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, 1766, p. 500 (calva) in a very different sense for a genus of ganoids. Later, Rafinesque, Analyse de la Nature, p. 88, 1815, proposed to substitute for Amia Linnzus the name Amiatus, apparently on the ground that the name Amia was too short for symmetry. The use of the name by Gronow has clear priority unless it be ruled out on the ground that Gronow was a non-binomial writer, his genera being well defined, but his species indicated by polynomial names. If Amua is accepted from Gronow for the percoid genus commonly called Apogon, Amiatus must replace Amia for the ganoid genus. Certain other genera of Gronow must be also adopted as follows: Callorhynchus Gronow (1763) for Callorhynchus (Gronow) Cuvier (1817). Cyclogaster Gronow (1763) for Liparis Scopoli (1777). Gonorhynchus Gronow (1763) for Gonorhynchus (Gronow) Cuvier (1829). Holocentrus Gronow (1763) for Holocentrus (Artedi) Scopoli (1777). Coracinus Gronow (1763) for Dichistius Gill (1888) (not Coracinus Pallas 1833 = Sciaena L.). Callyodon Gronow (1763) for Scarus Forskal (1775) = Calliodon Bloch and Schneider (1801). Enchelyopus (Klein) Gronow (1763) for Zoarces Cuvier (1829). Pholis Gronow (1763) for Phohs (Gronow) Scopolt (1777). (= Mu- raenoides Lacépéde (1800) = Gunnellus Cuv. and Val. 1839.) Eleotris Gronow (1763) for Eleotris (Gronow) Scopoli (1777). Clarias Gronow (1763) for Chlarias Scopoli (1777). Aspredo Gronow (1763) for Platystacus Bloch (1794). Albula Gronow (1763) for Albula (&ronow) Bloch and Schneider (1801). Synodus Gronow (1763) for Synodus (Gronow) Bloch and Schneider (1801). Hepatus Gronow (1763) for Teuwthis Linnzeus (1766 = Acanthurus For- skal (1775). OPINION 20 49 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 49 Erythrinus Gronow (1763) for Erythrinus (Gronow) Miller and Troschel (1844). Umbra Gronow (1763) for Umbra (Kramer) Miller (1842). Anostomus Gronow (1763) for Anostomus (Gronow) Miller and Troschel (1844). Charax eeorow? (1763) foe some genus of Characinidae. Mystus Gronow (1763) for some genus of Siluridae. Callichthys Gronow (1763) for Callichthys (Linn) Cuv. and Val. 1840). Plecostomus Gronow (1763) for Plecostomus (Gronow) 1854 = Hypos- tomus Lacépéde (1803). Mastacembelus Gronow (1763) en Mastacembelus (Gronow) Cuv. and Val. (1831). Channa Gronow (1763) for Channa (Gronow) Bloch and Schneider (1801). Gasteropelecus Gronow (1763) for Gasteropelecus (Gronow) Pallas (1769). Leptocephalus Gronow (1763) for Leptocephalus Scopoli (1777) = (Larval Conger). Pteraclis Gronow (1763) for Pterachs Gronow (1772). The following generic names of Gronow are untenable: Uranoscopus Gronow (1763) not Linnzeus (1758) is Cottus Linneys + Callionymus Linneus. Cynaedus Gronow (1763) is substantially Sparus Linnzus (1758). Sparus aurata L. may be taken as type of both. 4 Scarus Gronow (1763) (not Forskal, 1775) is identical with Labrus Lin- nus (1758). Cataphractus Gronow (1763) is identical with mere Linnzus (1758). Solenostomus Gronow (1763) is identical with Fistularia Linnzus (1758). Gymnogaster Gronow (1763) is identical with Trichiurus Linneus (1758). It is evidently of great importance to the stability of nomenclature in ichthyology to have a final decision as to the availability of Gronow’s post- Linnzan generic names, his nomenclature being non-binomial as to species. Discussion.—An examination of Gronow’s (1763) Zoophylacii [etc.], Fasciculus prinus, establishes the fact that Gronow uses mono- nominal generic names, quoted with references from other authors, or published with diagnosis. Under the genera he cites species, with references or diagnoses or both; these species are not named binominally except in so far as binominal names are given in synon- ymy ; essentially, Gronow’s specific designations are polynominal and diagnostic. Art. 2 of the Code reads as follows: The scientific designation of: animals is uninominal for subgenera and all higher groups, binominal for species, and trinominal for subspecies. Art. 25 of the Code reads as follows: The valid name of a genus or species can be only that name under which it was first designated on the condition: 50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 50 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 a. That this name was published and accompanied by an indication or a definition, or a description; and b. That the author has applied the principles of binary nomenclature. It is clear that Gronow’s nomenclature is binary, that is, he names two units or things, genera and species. His generic names, there- fore, correspond to the provisions of the Code, and are to be accepted as available under the Code. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mzhrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Hoyle, who says: I do not think that Gronow has “applied” the “principles of binary nomenclature.” Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. Monticelli says: In principio sono d’accordo sulla validita dei nomi generici del Gronow, ma ritenendo questa validita non si sara costretti ad un grande rimaneggiamento di nomi generici? perché, evidentemente ammesso il principio, bisognera applicarlo rivendicando la priorita dei nomi generici del Gronow. Cio parmi, se non vado errato, sia la consequenza che ne deriva. Ed é questo pratico? e praticamente attuabile senza confusionismo ? * *In principle, I am in accord as regards the validity of Gronow’s generic names; but, admitting their validity, would we not be forced to make a grand revision of generic names? For evidently, if the principle be admitted, it will be necessary to apply it, thus vindicating the priority of Gronow’s generic names. That appears to me, if I mistake not, to be the logical consequence. Is this practicable? Can it be carried out without confusion? OPINION 21 51 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 51 OPINION 21 SHALL THE GENERA OF KLEIN, 1744, REPRINTED BY WALBAUM, 1792, BE ACCEPTED? SUMMARY.— When Walbaum, 1792, reprinted in condensed form (but did not accept) the genera of Klein, 1744, he did not thereby give to Klein’s genera any nomenclatorial status, and Klein’s genera do not therefore gain availability under the present Code by reason of being quoted by Walbaum. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: Psallisostomus vs. Lepidosteus: Psallisostomus, Klein Hist. Pisc. Nat. 1744; fasc. 2, p. 23 (Esox species Linneus Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1758, p. 313, not type). Psallisostomus, Walbaum; Artedi Pisc. 1792, p. 581; (genus not accepted; generic diagnosis recast, with analytical key, noted as “ Esocis species L.”). Lepisosieus, Lacépéde. Hist. Nat. Pois, 5, p. 331, 1803 (gavialis =osseus L.). In 1744, Jakob Theodor Klein published an elaborate Historia Piscium Naturalis. The various genera adopted are defined and the species described under non-binominal names. As all these are prior to the date of the Systema Nature, they have no status in nomenclature. In 1792, Johann Julius Walbaum in his work Artedi Piscium, gives an historic account of the schemes of classification of fishes, adopting for his own work only the genera of Artedi and Linneus. Without accepting the genera of Klein, Walbaum gives each one a rewritten diagnosis, with an analytical key showing how the different genera were separated by Klein. An illustration of his method may be given by comparing the diagnosis of Klein and of Walbaum in the genus Psallisostomus, the group being equivalent to the later Lepisosteus or Lepidosteus. According to Klein: “ Utraque, mandibula aequaliter rostratus, PSALLIS- OSTOMUS: rostro forcipato longo; xeAc¢, forceps oréuavoc, Ore denticulato; a similitudine forcepes, quo Chirirgi utuntur in allis vulneribus, rostrum for- cepatum dicitur.” Description of four species follows. Three of them identical with Lepisosteus osseus (L.). According to Walbaum: “ PSALLISOSTOMUS, Die Zangeneschnautze, Mandibula aequaliter rostrate. Rostrum forcepatum longum. Os denticula- tum (Esocis species L).” From the key we learn that this genus belongs among the “ Pisces branchias apertis.” “Series a partibus notabilus et corpore anguilliformes, notabiliter rostrari, ore vario, ore fisso.” In another work (1793), called Jacobi Theodori Kleinii Ichthyologia Enodata, Dr. Walbaum gives an index to Klein’s writings with a condensed diagnosis of each species, but with no other reference to the genera. Here Walbaum correctly identifies three of the species called Psallisostomus with Esox osseus L. and the fourth with Esox belone. It may be noted that the 52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 52 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 present writer’s copy of Klein’s book was the one owned by Walbaum himself, and filled with his manuscript notes. The writer has assumed that these genera of Klein and Walbaum of which Psallisostomus is a typical example should not be adopted, as Walbaum has not himself adopted them nor reinforced them in rearranging and reprinting the original diagnosis. As, however, the nomenclature of about 20 well- known genera is concerned, it is desired to have a final decision from the International Committee. Discusston.—The case in question is covered by Opinion 5, ren- dered by the Commission before the International Congress at Boston. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle, Jent- ink, Jordan, Joubin, Mzhrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. OPINION 22 2/5) OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 53 OPINION 22 CERATICTHYS VS. CLIOLA SUMMARY.— Whatever Baird’s original intentions may have been, he and Girard originally published (1853) Ceraticthys as a monotypic genus, describ- ing the genotype (C. vigilax) and giving no indication that there were any intentions other than to publish a “x. g., 1. sp.’ Under Article 30c, vigilax is the type of Ceraticthys. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President Jordan has submitted the follow- ing case for opinion: Ceratichthys vs. Cliola. Ceraticthys Baird and Girard (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1853, p. 390), name only appearing in description of Ceraticthys vigilax, Baird and Girard, new species, afterwards type of Cliola Girard (1856). Ceratichthys Baird, MS. Girard, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1856, p. 212, biguttatus, a synonym of the prior genus Nocomis Gerard (1856), itself a sub-genus of Hybopsis Agassiz (1854). The name Ceraticthys first appears without explanation or diagnosis in the description of Ceraticthys vigilax, a new species. It next appears with a diagnosis and with a different species as its type, while vigilax appears as type of a new genus, Cliola. We know from other data that the original intent of Professor Baird was to frame the genus as in the second arrangement (1856) and that the association of vigilax with the genus was not warranted. Ceraticthys of 1853 was a name only—prefixed to an undescribed species. Should it replace Cliola, or pass into the synonymy of Nocomis? Discussion.—The original publication reads as follows: 5. CERATICTHYS VIGILAX, B. and G.—Body fusiform, compressed; specimens before us two inches long, probably immature. The head forms the fifth of the length. The eyes are rather small. The dorsal fin is longer than high; its anterior margin situated almost at the same distance from the snout and the base of the caudal fin. Caudal fin forked. Anal back of the dorsal. Base of ventrals behind the anterior margin of the dorsal; tip not reaching the anal fin. Pectorals not reaching the base of ventrals. The pectorals, ventrals and anal are proportionately small compared to the dorsal. ID). ©, AX Gh Cay MU CE ee NAS Ee ay Scales large; lateral line running through the middle of the sides, slightly bent downwards on the abdomen. Back brownish-yellow; a greenish-grey stripe down each side covering the lateral line. Caught in Otter creek, Arkansas. So far as this citation gives evidence, we have a “ new genus, new species,” the genus being monotypic, hence in the absence of any in- 54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 54 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 dication in the original publication that other species are to be orig- inally included under this new generic name no doubt can arise as to the genotype. See Art. 30c. That Girard (1856) three years later cited vigilax under Chola, and three other species (without designation of type) under Cera- ttcthys (which he now writes Ceratichthys), or that he or Baird may have stated later that they intended to do something other than what they did do, does not come into consideration. The first reference (1853) was the original publication of the genus and the genus dates from that time, rather than from 1856. Girard (1856, Sept., p. 192) published the genus Chola (without designation of genotype) to contain wigilax (type of Ceraticthys, 1853), velox, and vivax. Before determining the relation of Cliola 1856 to Ceraticthys 1853, it is necessary to know which of the three species of Cliola was first designated as its genotype. Ceratichthys Baird in Girard, 1856, is to be construed as published independently of Ceraticthys 1853. Under the premises given by President Jordan, Ceratichthys 1856 becomes a synonym of Nocomis 1856. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mzhrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. OPINION 23 55 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 55 OPINION 23 ASPRO VS. CHEILODIPTERUS, OR AMBASSIS SUMMARY.— Under the premises given, Cenitropomus macrodon may be taken as type of Aspro 1802 and this generic name suppressed as synonym of Cheilodipterus, thus safeguarding Ambassis. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President Jordan has submitted the follow- ing case for opinion: Aspro vs. Cheilodipterus or Ambassis. Under the head of Centropomus ambassis (new species), Lacépéde, Hist. Nat. Poiss. Vol. 4, p. 273, 1803, quotes from the manuscripts of Commerson five species polynomially named under the generic name of Aspro, no definition or explanation of the name Aspro being given. The first of these descriptions reads thus: 1. “ Aspro ambassis (de deux sous) lambasse du Gol) dorso dipterygio, macula minima nigra in apice pinne dorsalis prime fere obsoleta, ventre per transparentiam peritonaéi argentii albicante.” Commerson, manuscrits déja cités. The other four species follow—more briefly characterized. For the first, Lacépéde gives the name of Centropomus ambassis. The species are not congeneric, belonging (1) to Ambassis Cuvier, 1829. (2) to Kuhlia Gill. (3) to Chetlodipterus Lacépéde, 1802. (4) to Amia Gronow (1763) = Apogon, Lacépéde 1802, and (4) to Myripristis Cuvier, 1817. In this case has Aspro (Commerson) Lacépéde any status in nomenclature to the prejudice of Aspro Cuv. and Val., 1828, in a different group? If so, cannot species 3, Centropomus macrodon be chosen as type of Aspro, the same species under another name having been previously placed in the genus Cheitlodipterus, of which by first restriction it has become the type? Or should Aspro apply only to the first named and best known species, to the exclusion of Ambassis? Discusston.—The citations, as verified by the Secretary, are not entirely in harmony with President Jordan’s statement of the case. Lacépéde ([1802*] p. 273) named binominally five species of Centropomus, citing descriptions from the manuscript of Commer- son. These descriptions are practically polynominal names also, and all begin with Aspro, which is apparently a generic name intended to cover the five species in question. _ Lacépéde here simply quotes Aspro Commerson, but does not adopt or reinforce it; in fact he rejects it. Nevertheless, as Aspro is post- Linnzan it does not come under the opinion rendered in the case of pre- *The Library of Congress copy bears in pencil the date 1802. 56 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 56 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 Linnzan names, and must apparently be accepted as published (see Opinion 4, Boston Meeting) in the sense of the Code, and apparently takes its date from 1802. It thus preoccupies Aspro Cuy. and Val. 1828. Any one of the five species in question could be taken as geno- type for Aspro 1802. If no genotype has as yet been designated, the third species (Centropomus macrodon) would be available. Under the premises given by President Jordan, that this species macrodon has already been made type of Cheilodipterus Lacépéde, 1802, Aspro 1802 could thus be suppressed as a synonym of Cheilodipterus. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 8 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Jordan, Mehrenthal, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Monticelli. Not voting 6: Dautzenberg, Hoyle, Jentink, Joubin, Osborn, Studer. OPINION 24 S/ OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 57 OPINION 24 ANTENNARIUS COMMERSON, 1798, AND CUVIER, 1817, vs. HistRIo FISCHER, I813 SUMMARY.—Antennarius Commerson is a uninominal generic name (Art. 2) of an author who used a binary (Art. 25) (though not binominal) nomenclature. It received nomenclatorial status by virtue of its publication by Lacépéde, 1798, and should date from that time instead of from Cuvier, 1817. It is therefore not necessary to suppress it in favor of Histrio 1813. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President Jordan has presented the follow- ing case for opinion: Antennarius vs. Histrio. The generic name Antennarius (Commerson) Lacépéde, introduced in the same fashion by Lacépéde, as part of the names of polynomial species, quoted in footnotes from Commerson, rests on a basis exactly parallel to that of Aspro, except that the species indicated in Commerson’s manuscripts are all congeneric. The name is in common use being accepted from Cuvier, 1817. If Antennarius has not received standing from publication by Lacépéde, the name Histrio, Fischer 1813, should replace it. Discussion.—In the genus Lophius, Lacépéde (1898, pp. 301-303), referring to “ Cinquiéme genre. Les Lophies,” recognizes three sub- genera, which he does not name. In the second subgenus he includes four species: Lophie histrion, Lophie chironecte, Lophie double- bosse, and Lophie commerson. In footnotes to these species he gives the following: [Under Lophie histrion, p. 323] “Antennarius antenna tricorni. Com- merson, manuscrits déposés dans le Muséum d’histoire naturelle.” [La Lophie chironecte,’ et la Lophie double-bosse,’ p. 325.] [La Lophie commerson, p. 327] “ Antennarius bivertex, totus ater, puncto mediorum laterum albo. Commerson, manuscrits déja cités.” Thus it is clear that the second subgenus of Loplius is Antennarius Commerson MS. Thus, Antennariis is a generic name of Commer- son published, but not used, by Lacépéde, and based upon four species. Scudder’s Nomenclator quotes Antennarius from this date (1798) and reference, giving Agassiz as authority. Sherborne quotes the same name and reference but adds: “ Lacépéde is merely quoting Commerson MS. in synonymy.” *“ Antennarius chironectes, obscuré rubens, maculis nigris raris inspersus. Commerson, manuscrits déja cités.” 2" Antennarius bigibbus, nigro et griseo variegatus. Jd. ibid.” 58 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 58 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 It seems clear from the evidence that we have to deal with a uni- nominal generic name (Art. 2) of an author (Commerson) who ap- plied the principles of binary (Art. 25) [though not binomial] nomenclature, and this MS. name was published by another author (Lacépéde) and thus given nomenclatorial status (Opinion 4). It may therefore be accepted as a generic name dating from 1798. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle, Jent- ink, Jordan, Joubin, Mehrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. OPINION 25 59 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 59 OPINION 25 DAMESIELLA TORNQUIST, 1899, vs. DAMESELLA WALCOTT, 1905 SUMMARY.— Under Article 36, Recommendations, it is not necessary to reject Damesella, 1905, because of the existence of Damesiella, 1898 (1899?). STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Secretary Charles D. Walcott for opinion: In 1905 (Proc. U. S. National Museum, Vol. 29, p. 34) I proposed the name Damesella ior a genus of Cambrian trilobites, naming it after Doctor W. Dames. The genus is described and four species are referred to it and described. I have just been looking over a paper by Tornquist (Zeitschr. Deutschen geol.. Gesellsch., Bd. 50, Heft 4, 1898 [or 1809? C. W. S.]), and find that on page 66 (676) he proposes the genus Damesiella for a genus of Triassic gastropods. He describes the genus and refers one [two—C. W. S.] species to it. The two names, Damesella and Damesiella, were proposed in honor of the same man, were both described, and species were assigned to each. Damesiella Tornquist antedates Damesella Walcott by seven years, Dame- stella being proposed for a Triassic gastropod and Damesella for a Cambrian trilobite. The question which I should like the Commission to pass upon is whether or not I shall propose a new generic name in place of Damesella. Discussion.—Art. 8, Recommendations, gives certain usages it is well to follow in forming generic names based upon names of persons. Both Tornquist and Walcott have formed generic names on models other than those mentioned in the Code. The only para- graph now in the Code under which the names Damesiella and Damesella can be judged is the one reading “8, k. Words formed by an arbitrary combination of letters.” Under this paragraph, Damesiella is not identical with Damesella. Further, Art. 36, Recommendations, provide that: It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from generic names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in spelling which might lead to confusion. But when once introduced such names are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: Picus, Pica; Polyodus, Polyodon, Polyodonta, Polyodontas, Polyodontus; Macrodon, Microdon. The same recommendation applies to new specific names in any given genus. Examples: necator, necatrix; furcigera, furcifera; rhopalocephala, rhopaliocephala. 60 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 60 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 1938 If from the radical of a geographic name two or more adjectives are derived, it is not advisable to use more than one of them as specific name in the same genus, but if once introduced, they are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: hAispanus, hispanicus; moluccensis, moluccanus; sinensis, sinicus, chinensis; cylonicus, zeylanicus. The same recommendation applies also to other words derived from the same radical and differing from each other only in termination or by a simple change in spelling. Examples: ce@ruleus, ceruleus; silvestris, sylvestris, silvaticus, sylvaticus; littoralis, litoralis; autumnalis, auctumnalis; dama, damma,; fluvialis, fluviatilis, fluviaticus. It would appear that Damesella and Damesiella belong in the same category as the names cited as examples under Art. 36, Recommenda- tions, and that while it is well to avoid names so similar as these, “When once introduced such names are not to be rejected on this account.” Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Graff, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Joubin, Mehrenthal, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by I Commissioner: Blanchard, who says: La recommandation citée est mauvaise et devrait étre supprimée.* Not voting 3: Dautzenberg, Osborn, Studer. Monticelli says: In risposta al quesito del Walcott osservo che i due nomi generici, pur essendo equivalenti, non sono identici e comunque composti (§8k) devono essere mantenuti. Le raccomandazioni (consigli) non possono aver valore di legge, ne in questo caso puo farsi una /egge che importerebbe, nella pratica applica- zione, una retro-atiivita oltrecché per se stessa assurda, anche, diro, confu- sionaria; perché si sarebbe costretti a cambiare tutta la nomenclatura dei non pochi casi di equivalenza di nomi generici e specifici scritti in maniera differente. Senza dire che bisognerebbe poi, con non poca difficolta, codificare questo cambiamento di nomi, ec. ec. Per quanto sia molto consigliabile si evitino casi simili, io credo che non Si riuscird mai ad impedirlo! E, da altra parte, il codice di nomenclatura non lo impedisce, né, come ho ragionato sopra, potrebbe vietare, per le con- seguenze che ne deriverebbero, agli A. di scrivere lo stesso nome in maniera diversa affibbiandolo a generi e specie diverse! Sarebbe per una limitazione di liberta nella formazione dei nomi in contraddizione col codice stesso. Per queste considerazione io sono in associabile conclusioni del Segre- tario e ritengo che i due nomi Damesella e Damesiella si debbano con- servare.” * The recommendation cited is not a good one and should be suppressed. *In reply to Mr. Walcott’s question, I may remark that the two generic names, although equivalent, are not identical and composed in common (§8k). They should be maintained. Recommendations (counsels) cannot possess the force of laws, nor can laws be made in this case which in practical application would be retro-active OPINION 25 61 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 61 besides being intrinsically absurd and also, I may say, confusing, because we would be forced to change the entire nomenclature in the many cases where the generic and specific names are equivalent though written in different ways. It would then, moreover, be necessary with considerable difficulty to codify this change of names, etc. However advisable it may be to avoid such cases, I do not think it will ever be possible to prevent their occurrence; and, on the other hand, the code of nomenclature does not prevent it; nor, as I have reasoned above, will it ever be possible to prevent authors, whatever may be the consequences, from writing the same name in different ways, applying it to different genera and species. To do so would be a restriction of liberty in the formation of names in contradiction to the code itself. ' From these considerations, I agree with the conclusions of the Secretary, and hold that the two names, Damesella and Damesiella, should be retained. 7 i ; iat ay 4 iW sei } ? 4 fig . ere aA ve, , ; ' ia + f 7 , ' : ‘ Vie tee Y/ i ay ; ; = 4 é “ A ¥ : i Poy) Ses ' tons € ‘ ; 3 l i dl ‘ ay iN ‘ ' ee , b ‘ . a ’ a rt a “ 1,6 2 _ ' { ‘ : A 1 1 i 4 sve ¢ ay % Se ) = qin ip d i * c - ui - Th m Zz ¥ ‘ ? a j q F he ae ud , ie f ee i ra ood | on ; 4 ‘ c tip a5 , i ' a By a badaoine geet) aheiitted igaa sae ee tiie ; : . My mu r : ' rae ‘meble Dee, nitthcle ga thd, (horn= two-branched antennz,” which is the derivation that Pierce gives in 1909 for this name. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that Dioxocera Pierce, 1908, type insul- arum, should be emended to Diozgocera. Pentoxocera was published in 1908 as substitute for Bruesia Per- kins, 1905, nec Ashmead, 1903, as genus of the family Halicto- phagidz. In the family characteristics on p. 76, we find the follow- ing: “ Antennz seven-jointed, having the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth joints produced laterally [namely, branched] and the seventh elongate.” It is clear from this that at least four of the antennal joints are branched and that the antennz have in all, seven joints. Pierce shows that Pentoxocera is Bruesia Perkins, 1905, renamed, and the description that Perkins gives of the male states that the two basal joints are simple, “the following excessively short, being pro- duced laterally into an elongate and thin lamina, the first and fifth (or last) of these lamina being larger than the others and capable of in- closing them in a fan-like fashion; ” thus it is clear from the evidence given in the original document that five of the joints of the antennz are branched. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the original paper makes it evident that Pentoxocera should have been Pentozocera, and that this emendation of the erroneous transliter- ation should be made. The family name Dioxoceride should be emended to Diozocer- atidz. The Commission desires to emphasize again the point that in order that an error of transcription (seu transliteration), a lapsus calami, 86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 86 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2013 or a typographical error be evident, the evidence should in general be present in the original documents. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Not voting 1: Blanchard. Jordan adds: With considerable doubt; Athlennes (aBAevvy¢) is another case, the 8 in the Greek name being printed like a ¥. OPINION 37 87 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 87 OPINION 37 SHALL THE GENERA OF Brisson’s “ ORNITHOLOGIA,”’ 1760, BE ACCEPTED SumMaARY.-—Brisson’s (1760) generic names of birds are available under the Code. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The case has been submitted by Dr. Ernst Hartert, substantially as follows: Brisson’s work was non-binominal; his supposed generic names are not generic names in a nomenclatorial sense. For example, the first genus is called “Le genre du Pigeon—Genus Columbinum.” This is simply, in Ger- man, “die Taubengattung,’ but can a generic name be recognized in this? The Latin designations for genera and species are not generic and specific designations but translations of the French designations, the work being written in French with a parallel Latin translation. Discussion.—Brisson’s genera are, in form and treatment, as truly generic groups as those of any author of his time. It is true that the Latin names of his genera are in genitive or adjectival form where they stand as captions to his generic diagnoses. They are, however, used in the nominative form in his introductory tables of classification, in the tables of contents at the end of each volume, and always as the initial word in his Latin diagnoses of the species. ‘They are everywhere called genera by him in his work, and species are placed under them; in the text they are continuously numbered in Roman numerals as genera, and the species under them are numbered in Arabic numerals, consecutively under each genus, and not con- tinuously throughout the six volumes of the work, as are the genera. In every respect the two groups are as consistently treated as genera and species, as such groups are by any other author, early or modern; this is particularly clear in his Index Alphabeticus at the end of the volume, where the units are distinctly referred to as follows: “Litera G. Genus designat; Littera V, varietatum, & Littera S. speciem.” In his Synoptic Table he gives (vol. 1, p. 26) a diagnosis ending: “Columba. Genus 1,” not “I. Genus Columbinum.” And so on throughout. His generic names have availability under the Code, and have also had almost universal recognition since they were proposed. 88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 88 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2013 Article 25 of the Code provides: “ The valid name of a genus or species can be only that name under which it was first designated on the condition: a. That this name was published and accompanied by an indica- tion, or a definition, or a description ; and b. That the author has applied the principles of binary nomen- clature.” Brisson’s generic names were (a) published and accompanied by a definition or description; (b) his nomenclature is consistently binary. Opinion written by Allen. Opinion concurred in by 9 Commissioners: Allen, Dautzenberg, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Ludwig, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Hartert. Not voting 2: Blanchard, Monticelli. Hartert says: Every author since 1758 has distinguished genera and species, and would thus be called “binary” if the above ruling is accepted. Brisson has admittedly not used binominal nomenclature, or even binary one, as he frequently called species by a single name. It is no reason whatever that the majority of ornithologists have, for a long time, made illegal use of Brisson’s generic names. If Brisson’s generic names are accepted, this is an exception to the Rule, and such exceptions are not allowed. OPINION 38 89 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON PUBLICATION 2060. FEBRUARY, 1912 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPpINIons 38 To 51 OPINION 38 ON THE STATUS OF THE LaTIN NAMES IN TUNSTALL, 1771 SUMMARY.— The Latin names in Tunstall’s Ornithologia Britannica, 1771, are available in so far as they are identifiable through the bibliographic, page, and illustration references given, or through the English names quoted from Pen- nant, 1768, or through the French names quoted from Brisson, 1760. STATEMENT OF Case.—Doctor Ernst Hartert requests an opinion on the availability of the Latin names printed by Tunstall, 1771. He states that in regard to the availability of certain of these names no doubt can arise; in regard to other names, however, a difference of opinion exists. Discussion.—An examination of Tunstall’s Ornithologia Britan- nica shows that the genera are named uninominally and that the nomenclature is binary. A footnote to the words “ Aves Britannice” reads as follows: “Nomina Latina vel ex Linnzo vel ex ultima editione Zoologiz Bri- Pagination continuous with Publication 1938, Opinions I to 25; Publication 1989, Opinions 26 to 29; and Publication 2013, Opinions 30 to 37. Foot-note by Stiles—The following vote by Blanchard came in too late for publication: Concurred in Opinions 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 36. Dissented from Opinions 35 and 37. Foot-note by Stejneger—At the time of the writing of Opinion 31, the second edition of Gray’s List of the Genera of Birds, published 1841, had not been seen by the writer, nor was the point brought out clearly in the docu- ments submitted, and hence escaped notice, that Columbina strepitans Spix was designated by Gray, 1841, p. 75, as the type of Columbina. This action of Gray is undoubtedly valid and the type of Columbina is therefore C. strepi- tans Spix. In view of this fact, brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. W. E. Clyde Todd, Opinion 31 is hereby changed accordingly, and will be submitted to the members of the Commission for approval. 89 90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS go SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 tannice, Gallica vero ex ornithologia Brissonii plerumque decerpta sunt.” This footnote can not be correctly interpreted without consulting the works cited. An examination of these works shows that most of the Latin names are actually taken from Linnzus; Pen- nant did not employ Latin names except as they happen to occur in his bibliography, but his English names are clearly the basis for most of the English names cited by Tunstall; Brisson’s French names are clearly the basis for at least most of the French names cited by Tunstall. Certain of the Latin names have distinct bibliographic citation to the Zoologia Britannica [=Pennant’s British Zoology, 1768]. For instance, in Tunstall we find “ Falco pygargus, B. Zool. 131 Erne.” In Pennant, 1768, p. 131, we find the heading, “ The Erne, Tab. 3 ” and the citation of pygargus in synonymy. No possible question can arise regarding the validity of this citation. Some of the names used have no page reference but depend upon the general bibliographic references to Linnzeus, Penriant, and Bris- son. Just how far the word “plerumque” in the footnote is of significance and whether any French or English names.are not iden- tifiable through Brisson and Pennant it is difficult to state; the many instances examined have presented no difficulty in identification. If, however, any Latin name in the list is dependent entirely upon either the English or the French vernacular name, and this vernacular name is not identifiable through Pennant or Brisson, such name would, under Opinion 1, not be considered an “ indication” and hence would not in itself make its Latin equivalent available. Opinion written by Allen, Stejneger, and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. OPINION 39 91 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OI OPINION 39 ON THE STATUS OF THE LATIN NAMES IN CUVIER, 1800. SUMMARY.—The Latin names in the systematic tables given in Cuvier, 1800 (Lecons d’anatomie comparée), are available in so far as they are identifiable through the bibliographic references given on page xix of the introduction. STATEMENT OF CasE.—Doctor J. A. Allen requests an opinion on the avail- ability of the Latin names given in Cuvier’s Lecons d’anatomie comparée, An. viii, 1800. Discussion.—An examination of the book in question shows that in the systematic tables many genera are given with their French equivalents, and from page xix of the introduction it is clear that these French names are those used in Cuvier’s (Ann. 6, 17982) élémens de zoologie [=Tableau élémentaire de histoire naturelle], Lacépéde (birds and mammals), Lamarck (testacés), and Brong- niart (reptiles). The references on p. xix are bibliographic references, and any names identifiable through these are available, provided they are not rendered unavailable by being homonyms or for other cause. Opinion written by Allen, Stejneger, and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. 92 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS g2 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 OPINION 40 SALMO Eriox vs. S. TRUTTA AND S. Fario; HENIOoCHUS ACUMINATUS vs. H. MACROLEPIDOTUS SUMMARY.—On basis of the premises submitted, it is not necessary to sub- stitute eriox in ptace of fario or trutta; Cuvier’s (1817) selection of macro- lepidotus has precedence over the selection of acwminatus by Jordan & Seale, 1908. STATEMENT OF CasE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion : Salmo eriox vs. S. trutta and S. fario; Heniochus acuminatus vs. H. macrolepidotus. In naming the European trout, Linnzus, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1758, tom. I, p. 308, names Salmo eriox (No. 2), Salmo trutta (No. 3) and Salmo fario (No. 4), page 309. These three names belong to one species. The two names Salmo fario (based on brook trout) and Salmo trutta (based on sea- run specimens) have both been in common use, the name Salmo fario most generally. Salmo eriox, based on the gray trout of Sweden, has line priority over both, and page priority over the name most commonly used, Salmo fario. Which name should be used? The issue lies between convenience and common usage on the one hand, and page priority on the other. The same principle applies in the case of Heniochus acuminatus, the name having page priority, versus Heniochus macrolepidotus, the name in common use. Linnzeus, Syst. Nat. ed 10, 1758, tom. 1, page 272, describes Chetodon acuminatus, on page 274 he describes the same fish as Chetodon macrolepido- tus. This species has been known for a long time as Heniochus macrolepido- tus, it being the type of the genus Heniochus. Lately, 1908, in the Fishes of Samoa, Jordan & Seale call attention to the identity of acuminatus with macrolepidotus, and adopt the name Heniochus acuminaius instead of Heui- ochus macrolepidotus. Is this justifiable? Discusston.—According to Article 28, if two or more competitive names are of the same date, that selected by the first reviser shall stand. A Recommendation under Article 28 provides that in absence of any previous revision, the establishment of precedence by various methods is recommended; among these methods the following is mentioned: “Other things being equal, that name is to be pre- ferred which stands first in the publication (page precedence).” According to the premises submitted, the issue lies between con- venience and common usage on the one hand, and page priority on the other. Accordingly, all other things are not equal in this case, OPINION 40 93 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 93 and it is best to select the most commonly used name, which under the premises is Salmo fario. [See also note by Stejneger. ] The same general principles apply to acuminatus vs. macrolepi- dotus, and the name selected by the first reviser who recognized and published the correct synonymy should stand. According to the premises submitted, it would appear that Jordan & Seale, 1908, were the first to do this; they selected acuminatus in preference to macrolepidotus. Cuvier, 1817 (Rég. Animal, v. 2, p. 335), how- ever, stated that acuminatus is the female, and later (1829, 191) that it is only an individual variety of macrolepidotus, and he gave preference on both dates to the latter name. If it can be shown that some earlier author recognized the synonymy and selected acumina- tus, such selection would, according to the Code, take precedence over the selection of macrolepidotus by Cuvier, 1817; unless such earlier selection can be shown, Cuvier’s (1817) selection of macro- lepidotus stands. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzen- berg, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger (with reservation), Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Hartert. Hartert says: I can not agree that “accordingly all other things are not equal in that case,” bécause in cases of priority “convenience” and common usage can not decide. In Article 28 evidently “all other things being equal” iS meant in the sense of “all names being equally available.” The greatest convenience is undoubtedly page-priority, and as it is the only one which admits no discussion (convenience and common usage being uncertain quan- tities), it alone must decide. Cuvier, in my opinion, was not a “first revi- ser” or monographer. He did not revise nor monograph the South Sea fishes, but only mentioned some in his Régne Animal. Jentink says: Salmo eriox is the first published name, like also Chetodon acuminatus, and they have therefore priority. Jordan says: I personally much prefer the recognition of line and page priority as giving absolute fixity. But I agree that the above is the rule and shall abide by it. Stejneger says: I concur, as per appended separate vote. “ According to the premises submitted, the issue lies between convenience and common usage on the one hand, and page priority on the other,” but as a matter of fact the issue lies in the question as to who first united the three Linnzan specific names eriox, trutta, and fario, and which of the three names did he select for the united species. I ‘call attention to the fact that Professor Robert Collett so united them in 1875 (Norges Fiske, p. 157) and that he selected eriox as the collective name, thus: “125. S[almo] eriox, Lin. 1766. Salmo eriox, trutta, fario Lin. Syst. Nat. ed. 12, tom. I, p. 509.” This action must stand unless it can be shown that somebody else made a different selection before 1875. 94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Q4 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 OPINION 41 ATHLENNES vs. ABLENNES SUMMARY.—As the original publication shows an evident lapsus calami, the name Athlennes should be emended to read Ablennes. STATEMENT OF CasE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: In the Proceedings of the U. S. Nat. Mus., 1886, pp. 342, 343, 345, and 359, Jordan & Fordice define the subgenus Athlennes for Belone hians Cuv. & Val. In a note they say, “’AtAevv7¢, without mucosity, an epithet applied by early authors to their feAév7, or acus, according to Valenciennes.” The epithet thus applied is however ’ABAevv7c, Ablennes, and Athlennes is meaningless. In Jordan & Evermann, Fishes North America, 18096, v. 1, p. 717, is this note: “This name was inadvertently written Athlennes by its authors, and as this form has been several times used, it may remain so. Ablennes was intended, as the etymology shows. Athlennes is meaningless, but euphonious.” Which form should stand? Discussion.—The original publication, Jordan & Fordice, 1886, Pp. 359, gives the derivation of the generic name in question with English equivalent. In this derivation there is an evident lapsus calami, a 6 being inadvertently written instead of a 8. In trans- literating the Greek into Latin this lapsus was not noticed, and the Latin name was written Athlennes instead of Ablennes. ‘This lapsus was noticed by Gill (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 18, 1896, p. 170) ; it was admitted by Jordan in 1896a, 717, and is also admitted in the present statement of the case. The point advanced by Gill (1896, 170) that the expression “‘ without mucosity ’ would be especially appli- cable to the pipefish and not to the gar ” has no bearing (see Art. 32) upon the case. As an evident lapsus calami is present in the origi- nal publication, the name Athlennes should be emended to read Ablennes. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 10 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzen- berg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 2 Commissioners: Jentink, Stejneger. Jentink says: Athlennes, notwithstanding the fact that it is meaningless, must stand, as so many hundred nonsensical words. Stejneger says: I can not agree with Stiles that there is any Rule or Opinion which requires the proposed emendation. I do indeed claim that the OPINION 41 95 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 95 lapsus is not “evident.” It is so little evident that the two authors, the proofreaders and the editors all missed it at least three times (on p. 342, p. 345, D. 359). On the last page, p. 350, the derivation of Athlennes is given as follows: ‘“AvAevy7c, without mucosity,” an epithet applied by early authors to their feAévy or acus, according to Valenciennes.” It is not so much a question of Greek lexicon, although the ordinary ones have neither ABrevygc nor BAevy7c, but of the “early authors” or “ Valenciennes.” The ordinary zoologist must consider himself justified in unquestioningly accept- ing Jordan’s statement that the epithet “’AdAevv7¢ ” was so applied, otherwise he would have to verify by means of a dictionary or other auxiliaries whether an author’s statement as to the derivation of his names is correct or not before he can accept a name. It was to avoid this that the word “ evi- dent ” was inserted in the rule, otherwise he would have to accept any later emendation which could be proved to be correct. 96 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 96 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 OPINION 42 THE TYPE OF CARAPUS RAFINESQUE, I8IO SUMMARY.—Carapus Rafinesque, 1810, is monotypic, type Gymnotus acus Linnzus. STATEMENT OF CAsE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: In the Indice, page 37, Rafinesque mentions “ Carapus acus Raf. (Gymno- tus acus Linn.).” On page 57, he defines the genus Carapus, without mention of any species. His diagnosis is taken from Lacépéde’s Gymnotus, “ Second Sous-genre.” Under this are included by Lapépéde, Gymnotus carapo L., Gymnotus fierasfer, G. acus, and G. rostratus. In 1817, Cuvier bases his new genus Carapus on G. carapo, and gives the name Fierasfer to Gymmnotus acus. Is Carapus Rafinesque monotypic, or may we take Gymnotus carapo as its type? Discussion.—An examination of Rafinesque, 1810 (Indice d’It- tiologia, May, pp. 37, 57), shows that the genus Carapius was pub- lished with anatomical characters. The single species Carapus acus Rafinesque, synonym Gymnotus acus Linneus, was mentioned (p. 37). In connection with Carapus acus, Rafinesque gives an Ital- ianized name Carapo aguglia. It is perfectly possible that Rafi- nesque’s diagnosis is taken from Lacépéde’s “ Second Sous-genre ” as stated in the presentation of the case, and also by Gill (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1864, p. 204), but this point is not mentioned in Rafinesque, 1810, pp. 37, 57. As pointed out by Gill (1864, 204), and from the evidence given in the original, Carapus is monotypic with Gymnotus acus Linneus as type. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. OPINIONS 42 AND 43 97 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 97 OPINION 43 ON THE STATUS OF GENERA THE TYPE SPECIES OF WHICH ARE CITED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION SUMMARY.—The characters given for Teleogmus, Isoplata, Alloderma, and Aphobetoideus cover the genera and the type species, and the generic and specific names are published in the sense of the Code. STATEMENT OF Case.—Mrr. J. C. Crawford has submitted the fol- lowing case for opinion: Genera of which the type species are cited without a description being given. Arnold Foerster: Hymenopterologische Studien II, Aachen, 1856. Ex- amples, Teleogmus Foerster, p. 72, type T. orbitalis Foerst., p. 74; Isoplata Foerst., p. 60, type I.- geniculata Foerst., p. 62. Wm. H. Ashmead: Classification of the Chalcid flies or the superfamily Chalcidoidea, Memoirs Carnegie Museum, v. 1, No. 4. Examples, Alloderma Ashm., p. 273, type A. maculipennis Ashm.; Aphobetoideus Ashm., p. 328, type A. comperei Ashm. This work includes at least 30 similar genera. Are these genera valid and are these species described? The works cited are so far as possible tables of all of the genera of the group (Chalcidoidea) of the world. The species cited as types are merely given by name. I think the generic description may be said to include a specific description. It seems almost impossible, in establishing new genera OM One species, to give only generic characters; most of the characters used are liable to be found later to be only specific or of group value. Certainly one can not say that a specific description must be adequate enough to dis- tinguish the species from all other species that may be described later in the same genus. Under such a rule most of our species would be in danger. It is true that, in the cases under discussion, should other species be de- scribed in the genus found, it would be impossible from the tables to identify the type species, but it is equally impossible to identify a great many of Dr. Ashmead’s species from the longer specific descriptions written by him; that is, one must examine the type. Such wide-spread condition seems to show the impossibility of prescribing an “adequate description.” Apart from the question of adequacy of a description, this seems to me to be a question of nomenclature, that is, does such a form include a specific description? Discussion.—Teleogmus and Isoplata were published in tabular keys, and on later pages one species was mentioned for each of these genera; in the second references various differential generic characters were given, but no separate description was given of the species. The two cases are identical in premises. 98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 98 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 Alloderma and Aphobetoideus were published in tabular keys, which also contained the designation of the genotype; no additional specific characters were given. The two cases are identical in premises. The method of publication is essentially identical with that adopted in numerous zoological papers where an author describes a new monotypic genus, giving perhaps a short single diagnosis to cover both the genus and the species, or a lengthy anatomical description without separating generic from specific characters. In the opinion of the Commission this method of publication is only tolerated because it is more or less sanctioned by practice, but it is not to be recommended, and Mr. Crawford is correct in the interpretation that the characters given cover both the genus and the species, and that nomenclatorially both names are available under the Code. The question as to whether either the genus or the species can be recognized by subsequent authors is a zoological, not a nomenclatorial matter. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. OPINION 44 99 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 99 OPINION 44 LEPTOCEPHALUS vs. CONGER SUMMARY.—Lepiocephalus Gronovius, 1763, and Gmelin, 1789, type morrisii, takes precedence over any later generic name for which the adult stage of this animal has been designated as type., STATEMENT OF CasE.=—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: The genus Leptocephalus originates with Gronovius, Zoophylaceum, p. 409, 1763. It is quoted by Scopoli, 1777. and again by Gmelin, Syst. Nat. ed. XIII, 1789, who names the species Leptocephalus morrisi. It is a larval conger. Later, many species have been made known, and several genera, forming a so-called family, Leptocephalide. Still later, it was shown that all so-called leptocephalids are larval forms, and that Leptocephalus morristi was the young of the fish then known as Murena conger L., the type of the genus Conger Cuvier, 1817. Must Leptocephalus supercede Conger as a generic name, or may it be retained in its long usage of a designation for the band-shaped larvz of eels generally ? Discussion.—Leptocephalus Gronovius, 1763, 409; Scopoli, 1777; Gmelin, 1789a, p. 1150, was published as a monotypic genus, type morrisit, and not as an artificial collective group. Whether a larval form or otherwise, this name has full rights as a generic name. Cuvier, 1817, v. 2, p. 231, published “Les Congres” with “Le Congre commun.” (Murena conger Linneus), and “Le Myre” (Murena myrus Linneus). On the premise that Leptocephalus morrisu is the young of Murena conger, the generic name Lep- tocephalus, if otherwise available, must take priority (Article 27b) over all generic names for which Murena conger has been desig- nated as type, unless they antedate the publication of Leptocephalus. Article 8, in its Recommendation concerning biological groups, is applicable only when these have been proposed distinctly as collec- tive groups, and not as systematic units. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commisstoners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan, Ludwig, [Monticelli], Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Jentink. Jentink says: The diagnosis of Mure@na is quite different from that of Leptocephalus; therefore, one can not use the larval diagnosis, resp. title for the full-grown animal. 100 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS LOO SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 Monticelli says: Stando alle norme di nomenclatura le conclusioni di Stiles sono rigorosamente esatte: ma dal punto di vista della opportunita non credo siano praticamente applicabile; ne si possa senza generare confusioni cambiare il nome generico Murena in quello di Leptocephalus come dovrebbe praticassi accettando le conclusioni dello Stiles.* Note by Stiles: In reference to the question raised by Jentink, the point may be made that we name the objects, not our conception of objects. In reference to Monticelli’s point, it may be stated that the question is to be decided on basis of the existing rules, and as he admits that the Opinion is in accordance with the rules, he concurs in the Opinion. According to the prem- ises, it is the generic name Conger, rather than Murena, that is involved. This minor point does not, however, influence the principle involved. *On basis of the rules of nomenclature, Stiles’ conclusions are rigorously exact, but from the point of view of practicability I do not believe that they are applicable. One can not, without causing confusion, change the generic name of Murena to that of Leptocephalus, as one would be obliged to do it Stiles’ conclusions are accepted. OPINION 45 101 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IOI OPINION 45 THE TYPE oF SYNGNATHUS LINNZUS, 1758 'SUMMARY.—So far as one can judge from the premises submitted, the type of Syngnathus Linnzus, 1758, has never been definitely designated, and there is no objection to designating, as such, the species acus Linnzus to accord with general custom and convenience. STATEMENT: OF Case.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: What is the type of the genus Synguathus Linnzus, 1758? Compare Lin- nus, 1758a, pp. 330-338, Rafinesque, 1810 (Caratteri di Alcuni Nuovi Generi, p. 18) ; Rafinesque, 1810 (Indice d’Ittiologia, p. 36) ; Swainson, 1839 (Natural History of Fishes, etc., v. 2, pp. 332-333) ; Jordan & Evermann, 1896a (Fishes of North and Middle America, v. 1, pp. 761-778). Is it possible to ignore the passage in Rafinesque, 1810, in which @quoreus is cited, and to designate acus as type, to correspond to general custom and convenience? Discussion.—According to Jordan, the name Syngnathus is taken from Artedi, 1738, where it included polynominal species which Linnzus, 1758a, 336-338, named binominally as follows: 1. S. typhle, 2. S. acus, 3. S. pelagicus, 5.S. ophidion, 7.S. hippocampus. Linnzeus, 1758a, p. 337, added the following species: 4. S. e@quoreus, 6. S. barbarus. In accordance with the Linnean rule, an effort should be made to designate as type species number I, 2, 3, 5, or 7, although under the Code at present this is not absolutely obligatory. The Linnzan rule would point especially to S. acus as type, since this is alleged to be the oldest and best known of these species. In the next reference submitted, namely, Rafinesque, 1810, Carat- teri, p. 18, we find the following three genera published: XVII. Genus Tiphle, with species “T. hexagonus (Syngnathus tiphle Lin.)” and “T. heptagonus [S. acus Lin.].” XVIII. Genus Siphostoma, containing the species “ Syngnathus pelagicus”’ Linn. ; Rafinesque mentions the names I. acus, 2. fasciata, 3. neli, 4. caroliniana, 5. capensis. XIX. Genus Hippocampus, with species “S. hippocampus” [= “ H. heptagonus”’| and “ S. tetragonus.” It is clear that Tiphle takes S. tiphle and Hippocampus takes S. hippocampus (=H. heptagonus) as their respective genotypes by absolute tautonymy. Further, it is clear that Rafinesque left “S$. acus L.” (=T. heptagonus) in the genus Tiphle. 102 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 102 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2000 The genus Siphostoma is published with anatomical characters, and dates from this publication, but characters are not given on p. 18 for the five species mentioned, although S. pelagicus L. is mentioned as being a member of the genus. It is stated that the distinctive characters are to be found at the end of this work, but the Secretary has been unable to trace the reference in question. As pelagicus is the only decribed species at this date, this is the type by monotypy. No mention has been found in this publication of the designation of any species as the type of Syngnathus, and the statement by Jordan & Evermann, 1896a, p. 774, that Rafinesque, 1810, p. 18, restricted Syngnathus to equoreus is evidently a lapsus. In the next reference given, namely, Rafinesque, 1810, Indice, p. 36, Siphostoma acus Rafinesque, 1810, p. 18, is identified with Syngnathus pelagicus Linnzus, and the new genus Nerophis is pro- posed, pp. 37, 57, with N. maculatus and Syngnathus opmdion Linnzus, but without designation of type. On p. 57 Rafinesque gives characters for Syngnathus and states that in addition to S. punctatus, it contains S. equoreus L. This passage “ rigidly con- strued ” does not constitute designation of the genotype. In the next reference, namely, Swainson, 1839, p. 332, Syngnathus Linnzus is subdivided as follows: Syngnathus Linneus, with S. major Yarr (=S. acus of most writers, and S. acus Linnzus, accord- ing to letter from Jordan), typhle Yarr, and fasciatus Gray; Acus Willughby, which contains equoreus Yarr, ophidion Yarr, lumbricr- formis Yarr; and Solegnathus Swainson, monotypic based on S. hardwickit. Bonaparte (1846, 89, 90, 91) accepts: Siphostoma Raf. (with Syngnathus Swainson as synonym), which is divided into Tiphle Raf. and Siphostoma; Syngnathus 1.. Raf. (with Acus Swains., Acestra Jard., and Scyphius Risso as synonyms); and Nerophts Raf. In no instance does he designate a genotype for any one of these groups. Jordan & Evermann, 1896a, pp. 761, 774, state that Rafinesque, 1810, p. 18, restricted Syngnathus to equoreus, and on basis of this they accepted equoreus as type of Syngnathus, althongh they did not designate it as such. The reference is probably a lapsus for Indice, p. 57, see above. From the foregoing it seems clear that so far as shown by the premises submitted, and by Bonaparte, 1846, the type of Syngnathus Linnzus has not been definitely designated, and there is no objection to the designation of Syngnathus acus Linneus, 1758, as genotype. OPINION 45 103 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 103 Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Jordan. Jordan says: I dissent in part. Rafinesque’s restricted Syngnathus L. con- tains one Linnzan species only, equoreus. It is ipso facto restricted to this as type. Swainson’s Syngnathus contains acus only of Linnzan species; this is the type. Ginther and most authors use the name for the group to which acus belongs. The name Syngnathus was taken from Artedi, who knew typhle and acus, but not @quoreus nor pelagicus. I think that Rafi- nesque designated @quoreus as type before any other writer had selected a type. This choice was not legitimate, as Syngnathus occurs as a synonym of other species, not of that. Swainson’s choice comes next. The question turns on “rigidly construed.” I was the author of that ambiguous and perhaps unfortu- nate phrase. Few early writers in subdividing a genus construed it more “rigidly ” than Rafinesque and Swainson above. If no type is yet chosen for Syngnathus, I hasten to select Syngnathus acus L. 104 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 104 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 OPINION 46 STATUS OF GENERA FOR WHICH NO SPECIES WAS DISTINCTLY NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL PUBLICATION SUMMARY.—In genera published without mention, by name, of any species, no species is available as genotype unless it can be recognized from the original generic publication; if only one species is involved, the generic description is equivalent to the publication of “ X-us albus, n. g., n. sp.”; if several species are referred to but not mentioned by name, one of these species must be taken as type; if (as in Aclastus Foerster, 1868) it is not evident from the original publication of the genus how many or what species are involved, the genus contains all of the species of the world which would come under the generic description as originally published, and the first species published in connection with the genus (as Aclasius rufipes Ashmead, 1902) becomes ipso facto the type. STATEMENT OF CasE.—Mr. J. C. Crawford has submitted the fol- lowing case for opinion: Genera established without species, later a species included by another author. Arnold Foerster: Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Ichneumonen, Verhand. d. naturh. Ver. pr. Rheinl., XXV, 135 et seq., 1868. Example, Plesiophthalmus Foerster, p. 170. First species included, Mesochorus alarius Gravenhorst, included by Brischke in Schr. naturf. Ges. Danzig, n. f. 4, 183, 1880. Example Aclastus Foerster, p. 175, first species included, A. rufipes Ashmead, included by Ashmead in Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., v. 4, p. 187, 1902. Are these genera valid from date of first publication, or do they date from the time of inclusion of first species; if the latter, whom do you credit with being the author of the genus; if the former, does it make any difference whether the first species included is congeneric with the one the author of the genus had before him when establishing the genus? The work cited is virtually a generic monograph; that is, it includes, so far as was within the power of the author, all genera of the world. Assuming that the Code means to establish the validity of a generic name from the date when first published when without a species (and I would like to have the Commission cite the canon or Opinion covering this point), the following argument seems logical. So far as type is coricerned, these genera are on somewhat the same footing as genera which when established include several species, but no one is desig- nated as the type species. In the latter case the first reviser who cites one species as type, establishes the type. In the former, the first man to include a species does practically the same thing. Then the generic name dates from the first date of publication (so far as availability for use goes) ; but the genus and the type date from the day when the species was included, and the genus should bear the name of the original OPINION 46 105 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 105 describer, but in reality needs two dates, the date of description and the date of inclusion of the first species. Lastly, the first species included need not be strictly congeneric with the idea of the original describer as shown by specimens which may be found in his cabinet, for ideas as to the limits of genera constantly change, nor in most cases is it possible to say that the specimens found in a man’s cabinet after his death were the ones there when he established certain genera. Discussion.—In numerous instances authors have proposed new genera, but have failed to mention by name any species in their original publication. These cases may be divided into several gen- eral categories, among which may be mentioned the following: (1) In some instances authors have proposed a new generic name as substitute for an old generic name, but have not mentioned by name any species; (2) there are certain instances (such as Diocto- phyme Collet-Meygret, 1802a, 458-464, figs. I-4) where the author has distinctly proposed a new systematic unit, giving to it generic rank, and has described or described and figured, but has not named a species under this genus; (3) or an author may have described a genus, clearly giving generic characters, but failing to give either a separate description or figure (illustration) of the species he studied, while from the original publication it is clear that he based the genus on a single species, which he did not mention by name; (4) or an author may have described a genus, clearly giving generic characters, but failing to give either a separate description or figure (illustra- tion) of the species he studied, while from the original publication it is clear that he based his genus on a definite number of species (1, 2, 3, etc.), which he did not mention by name; (5) and there are instances in which an author has described a genus, clearly giv- ing generic characters, but failing to give either a separate descrip- tion or figure (illustration) of the species he studied, and from the original publication it is not clear how many species (none of which he mentioned by name) were included in the genus. Article 2 provides that the designation for subgenera and all higher groups is uninominal, and Article 25 provides that a name must be published and accompanied by an indication, or a definition, or a description, and further, that the author must have applied the principles. of binary nomenclature. If an author clearly shows that the name he proposed is to be ap- plied in a generic sense, and if this name is uninominal, the name in question becomes available under the Code, for his paper shows that he applied the principles of binary nomenclature, although he may have failed to name the species. 106 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 106 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 The instances cited as belonging to the first category (renaming a genus) come under Article 30f, but no species unavailable as type in connection with the earlier generic name is available as type in connection with the later generic name. In instances belonging to the second category (such as Dutocto- phyme), it is clear that the species described, or described and figured, represents the genotype. If this genotype is recognizable. the genus itself becomes recognizable. If the species in question is not recognizable, the genus becomes a genus dubium. The generic name retains its nomenclatorial status under the Code, but the ques- tion as to its recognition is a zoological, not a nomenclatorial, problem. In genera of the third category, the original description is to be construed in the same sense as if the author had described “ X-us albus, new genus, new species,” without separating generic from specific characters. If any author claims to recognize X-us albus, his recognition is assumed to be correct until proved to be incorrect. If X-us albus is not recognizable, X-us becomes a genus dubium. Likewise if any author claims to recognize the species which an author took as basis for a genus of the third category, his recognition is assumed to be correct until proved to be incorrect. If, however, the species taken by an author as basis of a genus of the third cate- gory is not recognizable, the genus in question becomes a genus dubtum. In connection with the genera of the fourth category, any one of the species referred to is available as type, and if an author claims to recognize one of these species his recognition is assumed to be cor- rect until proved to be incorrect. If he designates as type any one of the species in question which he claims to recognize, that species becomes the type, unless it can be proved that this is not one of the original species in question. If it is impossible to recognize any one of the original species, the genus becomes a genus dubium. The cases (Aclastus Foerster and Plestophthalmus Foerster) fall in the fifth category. Foerster gives analytical tables to the genera of the world, but does not mention species. Each new genus, there- fore, contains all of the species of the world which come in that category in the tables; if only one species had been mentioned in the original, this would be the type as the only available species at the time of publication ; if at the second, third, or tenth publication of the genus, one or more species are mentioned, these are the only species which become available as type, and if only one were mentioned this would be the type. In other words, in genera belonging to the fifth OPINION 46 107 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 107 category, the first species published as member or members of the genus are the only species avaiable as type. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. Allen says: I concur in the above Opinion so far as it goes. I think, how- ever, it should be amplified to include under each category actual examples illustrative of each, thus making it full and final as regards the whole subject of “genera without species.” 108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 108 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 OPINION 47 CARCHARIAS, CARCHARHINUS AND CARCHARODON SUMMARY.—Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810, is monotypic, type Carcharias taurus Rafinesque. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following. case for opinion : Rafinesque, dating his preface April 1, 1810, published under the name of “ Caratteri di Alcuni Nuovi Generi e Nuove Specie di Animale e plante delle Sicilie,’” a number of new genera and new species of fishes. It was his custom to adopt Linnzean specific names for his genera wherever available. It is evident that in this work he relied only on Linnzus’ “ Systema Nature” and on Lacépéde’s “ Histoire Naturelle des Poissons.” His new genera are in several cases based on definitions given to sections or unnamed subgenera by Lacépéde. In the same year, dating his preface May 15, Rafinesque published a cata- logue of the fishes of Sicily as “Indice d’Ittiologia Siciliana.” The Caratteri mentions new genera and species only. The Indice is a systematic list. In the Caratteri, the genus Carcharias is defined (p. 10) as follows: “1, G. CarcHariAs. Nessuno Spiraglio, due ale dorsali, un ala anale, cinque aperture branchiali da ogni lato, coda disuguale obbliqua. Oss. Questo genere é il primo nell ordine delli squalini, e contiene le specie le pitt enormi e le pit voraci, differisce notabilmente dal genere Galeus dalla mancanza degli Spiragli.” This diagnosis, quite correct, corresponds nearly to the first section of Squalus as given by Lacépéde, “ Une nageoire de l’anus, sans events.” The first species mentioned by Lacépéde is Squalus carcharias. This is not the original Squalus carcharias of Linnzeus, which is mostly based on the Great White Shark (€archarodon). Rafinesque’s idea is chiefly based on the Car- charias lamia of Rafinesque (Indice) and of subsequent authors. Rafinesque in the Caratteri mentions new species only, and describes one, Carcharias taurus. This is not congeneric with Squalus carcharias of Linnzus, nor of Lacépéde, nor of Rafinesque. It is the type of the later genus, Odontaspis of Agassiz. The question is this: Is Carcharias of Rafinesque monotypic? Or does it include “the most enormous and most voracious sharks known at that time,” one of which is Squalus carcharias? Rafinesque’s intentions are clear, for in his Indice (p. 44) he enumerates under Carcharias, as Sicilian species: 324. Carcharias lamia Rafinesque (Squalus carcharias Linn.), 325. Carcharias glaucus Raf. (Squalus glaucus Linn.), and 326. Carcharias taurus Rafinesque. If Carcharias Rafinesque be recognized as not monotypic, Squalus carcharias should be its type. In this case, is it the actual Squalus carcharias of Linneus, the type of the genus Carcharodon Smith, or is it the Squalus carcharias of Rafinesque and Lacépéde, Rafinesque’s Carcharias lamia? OPINION 47 109 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 109 The latter species became in 1816 the type of Blainville’s Carcharhinus and in 1817 of Cuvier’s Carcharias. It is for this Jamia and its relatives that the name Carcharias has been used by most authors. The questions are: Shall Carcharias be regarded as monotypic and thus replace Odountaspis, leaving Carcharhinus for lamia? Shall it be regarded as not monotypic, in view of Rafinesque's plain intention? In the latter case, is the latter the type, the original Squulus carcharias? In this case, Carcharias replaces Carcharodon. Or is the type the fish supposed by Rafinesque to be Squalus carcharias? In this case, Carcharias Rafinesque replaces Carcharhinus, and is equivalent to Carcharias of Cuvier, and of most subsequent authors. In an unpublished notebook, Rafinesque calls attention to the fact that his Carcharias is the same as Cuvier’s, seven years later, with the remark, “ But don’t you tell it.” The same reasoning will determine the vexed question of the proper type of Galeus Rafinesque, based on sharks with spiracles. Discussion.—It is clear from the premises submitted that in the original publication of Carcharias, Rafinesque (1810, p. 10) definitely mentions by name only one species, namely, C. taurus. The publi- cation also shows that he intended to include under Carcharias several other species, and it is not difficult for a specialist in Ichthy- ology to suspect with considerable degree of certainty what certain of these other species were. The fact remains, however, that no genus containing said species is definitely renamed, nor is any bibliographic reference to them given in the original publication. According to the Code, Carcharias is monotypic (taurus) in its first publication, and neither the later publication (Indice) by Rafinesque nor the earlier paper by Lacépéde has any necessary bearing upon the question as to the genotype. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. Jordan says: I regret that technical necessities set aside common usage, convenience, and the original meaning of the author as well. 110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Tio SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 OPINION 48 THE STATUS OF CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES OF BIRDS PUBLISHED BY BreHm IN Isis, 1828 AND 1830 SumMMARY.— In so far as the names in question are dependent solely upon a vernacular name, the generic names of Brehm, 1828 and 1830, are nomina nuda, and are not entitled to citation from the dates in question. STATEMENT OF CasE.—Doctor Ernst Hartert has submitted the following case for opinion: C. L. Brehm, Isis, 1828, pp. 1269-1285, published a list of German birds; this list contains a great many new names. All are nomina nuda, and were not described until 1831; their origin dates, therefore, from 1831. But there are also a number of generic names; if they are published with well-known species of course we accept them. There is, however, one case in which the specific names under the new genus are all new. The case is that of Monedula Brehm. Brehm says: II. S. Dohle, Monedula Br., and enumerates under Monedula (p. 1273) : (1) Die Thurmdohle, M. turrium Br. (2) Die Baumdohle, M. arborea Br. (3) Die nordische Dohle, M. septentrionalis Br. My reasoning is: Although Dohle is only a vernacular name, we know from Brehm’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte aller europ. Vogel, I, p. 97, 1823, what his idea of Dohle is, and in 1831 he did describe his M. turrium, arborea, and septentrionalis. May we not, therefore, accept his name Monedula, as it is quite clear from Brehm (1823) what his idea of Dohle is? Discussion.—The point advanced that a reference to Brehm, 1823, p- 97, will show us Brehm’s conception of the vernacular name “Dohle ” is not entirely free from objection. Brehm, 1823, p. 1035 (index) gives the word “Dohle” with references to pages 97 and 106. On p. 97 we find the following: “ Die Thurmkrahe. (Stadt- Schneckrahe. Dohle.) Corvus monedula, Linn.’ On p. 106 we find: “ Vierte Gattung. Dohle. Pyrrhocorax, Cuvier.” In 1828 Brehm gives no bibliographic reference to his book of 1823, but from the introduction it is evident that he is referring to his own previous writings. If, however, a person happens to know of the two works (1823 and 1828), he would immediately mistrust that the Dohle, Monedula of 1828 probably referred to the Dohle, Corvus monedula mentioned in 1823, rather than to Pyrrhocoraxz, but he would also immediately notice that the three specific names quoted in 1828 are different from Corvus monedula, and as they OPINION 48 111 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE iL igil were not accompanied by synonymy there is no proof that Monedula was based by Brehm on Corvus monedula until the issue of his book in 1831, when the three species of 1828 were again mentioned; the synonymy given in 1831 shows that these three species are Corvus monedula subdivided. In the meantime Kaup, 1829, p. 193, cites the generic name Mone- dula, and under it gives “ C. Monedula, frugilegus.” It is perfectly evident that “C” stands for Corvus in this citation. On p. 114, Kaup cites these same two species, namely, Corvus monedula and frugilegus, under the generic name Coleus, giving as derivation (zodotds), Dohle. Thus, in 1829, Kaup by absolute tauttonymy made Corvus monedula the type of Monedula, fixing Monedula Kaup, which happens to be identical with Brehm’s Monedula, 1831, and his Monedula nomen nudum of 1828. In this connection it may be pointed out that Monedula was used by Linnzus in Hasselquist, 1762, p. 294 [translation * of 1757], and that Richmond, 1902, gives [Monedula| Upupa pyrrhocorax Lin- nus, as type. It is the opinion of the Commission, therefore, that according to Article 25, and Opinion 1, the names in question which are admitted in the premises to be nomina nuda are not to be accepted on basis of their publication by Brehm, 1828 and 1830. Opinion written by Allen, Stejneger, and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. Allen says: I concur in the Opinion as regards Monedula, but not with respect to the genus Archibuteo, which is identifiable on the basis of the ver- nacular names accompanying it. 1 The status of this translation is now before the Commission. 112 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I12 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2000 OPINION 49 SIPHONOPHORA ASCLEPIADIFOLII vs. NECTAROPHORA ASCLEPIADIS SUMMARY.— On basis of the data submitted, asclepiadifolii Thomas, 1879, stands in preference to asclepiadis Cowen, 1895. STATEMENT oF Case.—Doctor John J. Davis has submitted the following case for opinion: Siphonophora asclepiadis ? Fitch-Thomas, 8th Report State Ent. IIl., p. 58, 1879. Thomas describes in full a species which is not Fitch’s Aphis asclepiadis, and he states that should the species prove distinct from Fitch’s species, “it may be named S. asclepiadifolit.”* Nectarophora asclepiadis n. sp. Cowen, Bull. Colo. Agr. Exp. Sta. No. 1 (Tech. Ser. No. 1), p. 123, 1895. This is the same species identified by Thomas as questionably asclepiadis Fitch. The question is, which name stands, Macrosiphum (= Siphonophora) asclepiadifolu or Macrosipbhum (= Nectarophora) asclepiadis Cowen? I did not know whether a name proposed in the manner in which Thomas proposed asclepiadifoli was valid or not. Discussion.—Thomas is clearly responsible for the publication of the specific name asclepiadifolu, and this name is published in connection with a description. It is subject, therefore, to the pro- visions of Article 25 on the Law of Priority, and on basis of the statement that the species in question is identical with Nectarophora asclepiadis Cowen, 1895, asclepiadifolit 1879 should be accepted in preference to asclepiadis 1895. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Jentink, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Hoyle. Blanchard says: Je signe, mais je fais observer que le principe adopté ici est en contradiction avec celui de Opinion 31. On pourrait dire ici: “ Thomas pense que son espéce est peut-étre distincte de ...., mais il ne l’affirme,” puis en tirer une conclusion qui lui soit opposée.” *Misprinted p. 58 as dsclediadifolii, corrected in the index, of same date, pp. vi, ix, to asclepiadifoltii—C. W. S. 71 concur, but 1 observe that the principle adopted here is in contradiction to that of Opinion 31. One might say here: “ Thomas thinks that his species is perhaps distinct from... . , but he does not affirm it,’ and draw from this a conclusion which might be opposed to his. OPINION 49 113 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 113 Hartert says: Similar cases are not infrequent in ornithological nomen- clature, and no one has ever doubted the validity of names proposed in the manner in which asclepiadifoliti was proposed, although the habit of intro- ducing names in this manner is not to be recommended. Hoyle says: I feel somewhat strongly that no hypothetical or conditional proposing of names ought to be recognized. If a man says, “ Should a species prove to be distinct it may be named so and so,’ I do not consider that he founds a species or that he actually applies a name. Such a procedure always appears to me an attempt to take the credit for the name without doing the necessary work to ascertain its validity. I would discourage this by every means in my power. On basis of Hoyle’s comments, the Opinion was resubmitted to the Commission with the following discussion: A very important question has been raised, namely, if a name is published only with reserve, conditionally, or provisionally, is the name published or unpublished in the sense of the Code? My own idea is that the publishing of a name involves respon- sibility rather than credit, and if an author publishes a name in any shape or form he is responsible for that name, and the name must be considered. Hoyle’s view starts from a different standpoint, namely, that there is credit connected with a name. It seems to me that the fundamental point involved is this: Do we hold a man responsible for a name, or do we give him credit? If we hold him respon- sible we must consider the name; if we give him credit, then I agree with Hoyle that no name published conditionally should be consid- ered until published unconditionally. In order to bring the matter in a concrete form before the Com- mission, the Secretary moves that it is the sense of the Commission that the fundamental idea in citing an author’s name is not in order to give him credit, but (1) to hold him responsible, and (2) as a bibliographic aid. If this motion is adopted, it will be considered that the original Opinion stands. Motion concurred in by all 12 Commissioners. Hoyle says: I concur in the above motion if the following clause is omitted : “not in order to give him credit, but (1) to hold him responsible.” Jentink says: I agree with Hoyle that the procedure is a bad one. How- ever, if as in Thomas’ case the animal has been well described, we can not refuse to admit it. 114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Ii4 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2060 OPINION 50 APHIS AQUILEGIZ FLAva vs. ApHiIs TRIRHODA SumMaRY.—Since the name Aphis aquilegie flava Kittel, 1827, is polynom- inal and is not available under the Code, Aphis trirhoda Walker, 1849, is the correct name for this species. | STATEMENT OF CasE.—Doctor John J. Davis has submitted the following case for opinion: Aphis aquilegie flava n. sp. Kittel, Mem. Soc. Linn. Paris, v. 5, p. 148, 1827. Aphis trirhoda n. sp. Walker, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Lond., v. 4, 2 S., pp. 45- 46, 1849. Hyalopterus aquilegié n. sp. Koch, Pflanzenlause, pp. 19-20, 1857. FAyalopterus flavus Kittel, Schouteden, Mem. Soc. Entom. de Belg., v. 12, p. 230, 1906. In this publication Schouteden drops the first name proposed by Kittel on the ground of inconvenience. Hyalopterus aquilegie-flavus (Kittel) Hayhurst, Journ. N. Y. Ent. Soc., v. 17, p. 107, 1909. He uses full name proposed by Kittel, in 1826, making it binominal in effect by use of a hyphen. I should like to know which is correct, Schouteden or Hayhurst. Discussion.—A reference to Kittel, 1827, p. 148, shows that he described 13 new species of Aphis, naming them after the hosts. Species number 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are named binominally, while species number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 13 have trinominal specific names, the specific name not being the specific binominal of the host ; one of these names, namely, Aphis aquilegie flava, is mentioned by Doctor Davis. Article 15 of the Code authorizes the use of the compound proper names indicating dedication, or compound words indicating a com- parison with a single object. Kittel’s first species is “ Aphis aquilegie nigra. Puceron noir de l’ancolie.” His second species is “ A. aquilegié flava. P. jaune de l’ancolie.” The host in both cases is Aquilegia vulgaris. From the foregoing its seems evident that Kittel has adopted for these two species a polynominal nomenclature; hence the specific names in question are not available under Articles 2, 14, 1 5, and 25 of the Code. According to the premises submitted, Aphis trirhoda Walker, 1849, is the next name proposed for the species which Kittel named Aphis aquilegie flava. Walker gives no synonyms, but the name was properly published, and on basis of the premises submitted is the correct name for the species. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. OPINION 50 115 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE I15 Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Jentink. Jentink says: As we have to consider Aphis aquilegie as a single word, as for instance Aphis urtice and so on, upon Aquilegia there are living more than one species of Aphis. Jordan says: I am not quite sure that we might not regard these as trinominals. In this case the names would he, (1) Aphis aquilegie, (2) Aphis flavus. As an important point has been raised, the Secretary has resub- mitted the above Opinion with the following discussion: Quite a number of cases are similar to this one, and authors trasne generally interpreted the names as available, but their selection has varied to a considerable degree. Given X-us as genus, species X-us albus typicus, X-us albus americanus, X-us albus europeus, or Given genus Y-us, species Y-us aquilegie niger, V-us aquilegie flavus [niger and flavus are not specific names of the host, which is Aquilegia vulgaris], or Given genus Z-us, species Z-us bovis tauri. According to the Secretary’s interpretation, the species mentioned under Z-us has an entirely different nomenclatorial status from those mentioned under X-us and V-us. In Z-us, bovis tauri is a com- pound specific name based on the host, while in X-us and Y-us the specific names are not based on a comparison with a single object. Compare Art. 15. It appears, therefore, that the example under Z-us comes under Arts. 2 and 15, while the names given under X-us and Y-us are not binominal for species, thus under Art. 2 are not proper specific names ; hence they are not available. Secretary’s interpretation under X-us, Y-us, and Z-us concurred in by II Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan, Lud- wig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Jentink. Allen says: There being doubt in the case I prefer, on the whole, to be still recorded as in concurrence. It seems to me that the case might be con- strued thus: that these trinominal forms were viewed by the author as forms of less grade than species, and that the names might stand as Aphis aquilegie and Aphis aquilegie flava; the name of the host in both cases is expressed in Aquilegie. Jentink says: Aphis aquilegie flava n. sp. has been described by Kittel, not as a variety (flava), but as a species (fava), therefore I say for Kittel Aphis aquilegi@ was one word. Jordan says: I would not see how X-us etc. differ from trinominals, Y-us a little less tenable; Z-us of course is all right. Schulze says: bovis-tauri to be written as one word. 116 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 116 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2000 OPINION 51 SHALL THE NAMES OF MUSEUM CALONNIANUM, 1797, BE ACCEPTED? SUMMARY.— The Museum Calonnianum, 1797, is not to be accepted as basis for any nomenclatorial work. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Doctor Wm. H. Dall has submitted the following case for opinion: Shall the anonymous catalogue, usually known as the Museum Calonnianum, printed in 1797, and distributed to prospective buyers by George Humphrey, auctioneer and dealer in shells, be accepted as a valid source of names or not? The fine collection of shells belonging to M. de Calonne, owing to circum- stances connected with the French revolution, was sent to London in 1796 to be sold at auction. A manuscript catalogue accompanied it. This catalogue was modified to serve as a sale catalogue., It was supposedly printed for the auc- tioneer, but contains no mention of a publisher or author. It contains no de- scriptions or specific references to literature or figures in other publications. We know from Humphrey himself that he was not the author. A large number of new generic names are used with lists of species under them, the specific names also with no diagnosis or figure, mostly absolutely nude names. But some of these names are followed by a Linnzan name without any reference to place of publication or figure, for example: “Genus LIX. Fusus. Le Fuseau. Spindle. 642. Ventricosus. a. young; b. full grown; c. ditto with its operculum, a dwarf: Le Ventru, Bellied, Arabia Felix, Strombus fusus Linn.” (p. 35). The above has been taken to constitute the proposal of a genus Fusus, for which Strombus fusus Linn. would be the genotype. In my own publications on nomenclature of late years, I have rejected this catalogue for the following reasons: I. It is anonymous. 2. It has no announced publisher or place of publication (although it states the collection is on view at Saville House, Leicester Square, London). 3. The acceptation of its names would in most cases not only upset names widely accepted and in general use, but would shift many names, now bearing a well-known signification, to groups entirely different from those which now bear them; the system of the catalogue being without merit. The third reason is avowedly subordinate to 1 and 2, which have seemed to me to warrant rejection of the pamphlet under the existing rules. Discussion.—The point raised by Doctor Dall involves primarily the question: “ What is publication?” In Opinion 15, the Com- mission stated: “ Publication, in the sense of the Code, consists in the public issue of printed matter.” The qualifying word “ public” OPINION 51 117 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 117 in this definition indicates that the printed matter in question is not intended for special persons only or for a limited time, but that it is given to the world, or used in the nature of a permanent scientific record. The Commission frankly admits the extreme difficulty of clearly defining “ publication,” and it finds that in some cases it is an easier matter to take a specific paper and decide the individual case on its merits, than it is to lay down a general rule which will be applicable to all cases. From the evidence submitted, and from the Secretary’s examina- tion of a copy of the Museum Calonnianum, the Commission is of the opinion that this was neither issued nor used in the sense of a permanent scientific record, and the new names contained in it are not published in the sense of the Code. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner : Stejneger. Dautzenberg says. A mon avis, cet ouvrage doit surtout étre eliminée parcequ’il est anonyme.” Stejneger says: I must dissent strongly from this Opinion. The copy seen by me was a substantial book, well bound, and had every indication of being intended for more than mere temporary use. The introduction moreover shows that the naming of new genera was intentional and meant as a contribution to science. In the days of its publication it was not unusual to utilize auction cata- logues as a means of publishing descriptive matter of this kind. As for its being “ published” it can not be doubted that it has been kept in various public libraries. *In my opinion, this work should be eliminated because it is anonymous. iy eke ene OPINION 52 119 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON PUBLICATION 2169. MAY, 1913 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE’ OPINIONS 52 To 56 OPINION 52 SEMOTILUS CORPORALIS vs. SEMOTILUS BULLARIS SUMMARY.—On the premises submitted, corporalis has priority over bul- laris. It is not feasible for the Commission to issue an opinion upon the question: What constitutes an adequate description? The citation of the type locality of a species is not sufficient to establish a name under Art. 25a of the Code. If specific characters are given in addition to the type locality, the type locality becomes a part of the description and is to be considered as an important element in determining the identity of species. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: In the American Monthly Magazine, 1817, v. 1(4), Aug., p. 289, Professor Mitchill records certain new fishes from the Walikill River, to be described later. Amor these are two referred to Cyprinus: “tT. The Corporal, or C. corporalis, a splendid silvery fish, inhabiting that stream, the sturgeon of Albany and western waters. (New.) (The name “sturgeon” is doubtless a misprint.) “3. The Red-fin, or C. cornutus, having elegant scarlet fins and knobs, or bony protuberances over the head. (New.)” In the same journal, 1817, v. 2(2), Dec., pp. 120-121, Rafinesque describes the same two fishes, the one as Cyprinus bullaris, the other as Cyprinus megalops. Mitchill, in the same journal (1818, v. 2(5), Mar., p. 324) gives detailed descriptons. Should his names corporalis and cornutus be awarded priority on the basis of the preliminary notice? ‘ Pagination continuous with Publication 1938, Opinions 1 to 25; Publication 1989, Opinions 26 to 29; Publication 2013, Opinions 30 to 37; and Publication 2060, Opinions 38 to SI. 119 120 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I20 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2169 This is the view of Jordan & Evermann, and the species are now currently known as Semotilus corporalis and Notropis cornutus. It rests on the fact that the first notes are identifiable among the fishes of Wallkill River, although they could not have been recognized had they not come from this restricted locality. The later descriptions are adequate. Discussion.—The names Cyprinus corporalis and Cyprinus cornu- tus were published in August, 1817, with very brief descriptions. The use of the generic name Cyprinus carries with it the characters recognized for that genus in 1817, and the additional description given in the text constitutes the differential specific characters. Under Art. 25a the names in question are available under the Code, provided that they are not homonyms, and they must take priority over any later names recognized as applying to the same species. It is entirely a zoological not a nomenclatorial question, whether corporalis actually takes priority over bullaris. If on zodlogical grounds the fishes described under these two names are recognized as specifically identical, the earlier name (corporalis) takes pre- cedence over the later name (bullaris). The Commission takes this occasion to emphasize the fact that it is exceedingly difficult to prescribe the extent and detail of a descrip- tion in order to make it “adequate.” A given description may be recognizable to one author and unrecognizable to another ; or it may be recognizable from the standpoint of science of 1800, and un- recognizable from the standpoint of science of 1900. It seems clear to the Commission that in ruling on cases of this kind, we are not justified in going beyond the point whether a description is present or net. In the case cited, the type locality is given. There is a difference of opinion among authors as to whether the citation of the type locality is a part of a description, but the fact remains that system- atists insert this detail in specific descriptions, that they lay con- siderable stress upon this point, and that they not infrequently collect additional material from the type locality in order to settle doubtful questions regarding the specific identity of given forms. In view of the importance attached to the type locality by systematists, the Commission does not feel justified in establishing any precedent which might be interpreted as meaning that the type locality is not to be considered in questions of this nature. It is, however, distinctly the opinion of the Commission that the citation of the type locality is of value, only in connection with the citation of descriptive char- acters, and that, therefore, if the citation of the type locality is the only point mentioned in connection with the specific name, such cita- OPINION 52 121 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 121 tion in itself is not sufficient to establish the name nomenclatorially. If, however, the type locality is given in addition to the citation of characters, it is the opinion of the Commission that this citation is often of very great value, that it should accompany every original specific description, and that it becomes ipso facto a part of the description. Opinion written by Stejneger and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Not voting 2: Blanchard, Mitchell. 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 122 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2169 OPINION 53 HALICAMPUS KOILOMATODON vs. HALICAMPUS GRAYI SUMMARY.—The specific name grayi Kaup, 1856, takes priority over koilomatodon Bleeker, “ about 1865.” STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: Under the head of Halicampus conspicillatus Kp., Kaup, 1856 (Cat. Lophobranch. Fish in Brit. Mus., 22-23), gives this synonymy: “ Syngnathus conspicillatus Jenyns, Voy. of Beagle, p. 147, pl. 27, f. 4 (1842). “ Halicampus grayi Kp. British Museum.” Kaup’s species is not identical with the type of conspicillatus, but it is a new species, later described by Bleeker, “about 1865” (Act. Soc. Sci. Indo- Neerl., v. 5, pp. 10-11, 1858-59) as Syngnathus koilomatodon. Gimther, 1870 (Cat. Fish. in Brit. Mus., v. 8, 169), adopts the name Syngnathus grayi. jordan & Snyder, 1902 (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 24, 10), call the species Halicampus kotlomatodon. Which specific name is to be chosen? What is the status of a manuscript or museum name, grayi, not adopted by Kaup, but mentioned in synonymy? Has it the right of priority over a later name properly proposed and defined for the same species? Discussion.—According to the premises, Kaup has misidentified Syngnathus conspicillatus Jenyns, 1842, and has transferred this species to the genus Halicampus as H. conspicillatus. Further, he has given in synonymy a name Halicampus grayi unpublished prior to Kaup, 1856, 22. An examination of the original publication shows that a description is given. Two possibilities are to be considered, namely, whether Halicampus grayi is identical with the original Syngnathus conspicillatus, or whether it is identical with the mis- determined Halicampus conspicillatus. There can be no question but that Halicampus grayi has been published in connection with a bibliographic reference, and in connection with a description, and on this account the name must be considered as dating from 1856. According to the premises, Bleeker, “‘ about 1865,” described Hali- campus conspicillatus of Kaup (the misdetermined Syngnathus conspicillatus Jenyns) as Syngnathus koilomatodon. An examina- tion of the original publication of Bleeker, “about 1865,” 10-11, shows, that he did not make reference to Kaup’s description, and he did not therefore express an opinion on a case of nomenclature that arose. GPINION 53 123 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 123 According to the premises, Giinther, 1870, 169, recognized Syngnathus kotlomatodon as identical with the form described as Halicampus conspicillatus by Kaup. It became Giinther’s duty to dis- pose of the name Halicampus grayi, and it was his privilege to rule that this was identical with Syngnathus conspicillatus Jenyns, or with Syngnathus koilomatodon, according to the premises before him. He definitely identified the specific name grayi of 1856 as synonymous with kotlomatodon, instead of making it identical with conspicillatus Jenyns (on basis of reéxamination of both type specimens). On the premises submitted, his ruling must be accepted. Jordan & Snyder, 1902, should have accepted the ruling on gray published by Giinther, 1870, 169, or should have shown that the ruling is incorrect. They state that'they use the name koilomatodon as being prior to the adoption of grayi by any other author. This is not sufficient ground for rejecting grayi. Opinion 4 by the Commission states that: “Manuscript names acquire standing in nomenclature when printed in connection with the provisions of Art. 25, and the question as to their validity is not influenced by the fact whether such names are accepted or rejected by the author responsible for their publi- cation.” Opinion written by Stejneger and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 9 Commissioners: Allen, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 2 Commissioners: Hoyle and Jentink. Not voting 2: Blanchard, Mitchell. Hoyle adds: Kaup never proposed or suggested the formation of a species Halicampus grayi. The meaning of his bibliographic reference is that a specimen or specimens in the British Museum which had at sometime or other been labelled by him “ Halicampus grayi,’ were really, in his opinion, referable to Syngnathus conspicillatus Jenyns. Whether he was right or wrong in this opinion does not seem to me to affect the question at issue. He did not create a new species. Jentink adds: As grayi Brit. Mus. never has been described as such, so it may turn out as being a species different from koilomatodon Bl.; therefore the latter must stand as specific title. 124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 124 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2169 OPINION 54 PHOXINUS RAFINESQUE vs. PHOXINUS AGASSIZ SUMMARY.—The genera Dobula, Phoxinus, and Alburnus date from Rafinesque, 1820. The claim is made by Jordan & Evermann, 1896, that Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835, is identical with Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820, therefore they claim to have recognized Phoxinus 1820. This claim is to be considered correct until proved to be incorrect, and Cyprinus phoxinus is the type both of Phoxinus 1820, and of Phoxinus 1835. If it is claimed that Alburnus 1820, is identical with Alburnus 1840, Cyprinus alburnus becomes the type of Alburnus 1820. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion : In Rafinesque’s Ichthologia Ohiensis, 1820, 46, he says: “Even the genus Leuciscus must be divided, since it contains more than one hundred anomalous species, differing in the position of the dorsal fin and the vent, the number of rays to the abdominal fins, etc., I venture to propose this (Minnilus) and the three following genera. Three other different genera might be established upon the European species, distinguished as follows: “Dobula. Dorsal fin nearer to the tail, abdominal fins with nine rays and an appendage: upper jaw longer. “Phoxinus differs by ten abdominal rays and no appendage. “ Alburnus differs from Dobula by no appendage and the lower jaw longer.” These characters have no distinct value, and no species are named. May we regard these genera as defined; assuming that their respective types are Cyprinus dobula L., Cyprinus phoxinus L., and Cyprinus alburnus L.? Later, Agassiz, 1835 (Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchatel, v. 1, 37), described as new the genus Phoxinus, based on Leuciscus phoxinus. Heckel in Rus- segger’s Reisen I, p. 1036, 1840, described Alburnus as new, basing it on Cyprinus alburnus L. Should Phoxinus be accredited to Rafinesque or to Agassiz? Should Alburnus be ascribed to Rafinesque or to Heckel? Dobula is congeneric with Cyprinus leuciscus L., which by tautonymy is taken as type of Leuciscus Cuvier, 1817. Discussion.—The genera Dobula, Phoxinus, and Alburnus were proposed by Rafinesque, 1820, 46. Rafinesque distinctly states that these three genera are based upon European species formerly classi- fied in Leuciscus. All three generic names are accompanied by generic characters, but no species is mentioned by name in connection with any one of the three genera. Under Articles 2 and 25 of the Code, these names have been pub- lished in the sense of the Code, and they date from Rafinesque 1820, OPINION 54 125 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 125 46. Under Opinion 46, each of these three genera contains all of the European species of Leuciscus known or unknown in 1820 which came under the diagnosis as given by Rafinesque, and the type for each of these genera must be selected from these species. If it is maintained by any author that he has recognized the species in question, his claim is to be accepted as correct until proved to be incorrect. Judgment on these three names now becomes a zoological not a nomenclatorial problem. Agassiz, 1835, 37, proposed Phosxinus with generic diagnosis, and he mentions two species in this genus. One of these is Phoxinus laevis Ag. for which he gives Cyprinus phoxinus L. as synonym. This become type of Phoxinus by absolute tautonymy. From the standpoint of nomenclature, Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820, and Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835, represent two different genera, pub- lished independently. If Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820, is unidentifiable it becomes a genus dubium, but the name preoccupies Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835. Jordan & Evermann, 1896 (Fishes of North and Middle America) claim to have recognized Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820, as identical with Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835. This claim is to be accepted as correct until proved to be incorrect, and the European Cyprinus phoxmus being thus claimed to be recognizable as a species of Phowxinus Rafinesque, becomes the type of Rafinesque’s genus by absolute tautonymy. The Secretary has been unable to obtain a copy of Heckel, 1840, 1036, and the discussion of the genus Alburnus is therefore based entirely upon the premises of the case as presented by Jordan. Alburnus Rafinesque, 1820, 46, has exactly the same nomenclatorial status as Phoxinus. According to the premises Heckel, 1840, 1036, described Alburnus as a new genus, basing it on Cyprinus alburnus. If Alburnus Rafinesque, 1820, is not recognizable it becomes a genus dubium, and it preoccupies Alburnus Heckel, 1840. If it is claimed that Alburnus 1840, is identical with Alburnus 1820, Cyprinus alburnus is type for both Alburnus 1820, and Alburnus 1840. Opinion written by Stejneger and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Ludwig, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. | Not voting 3: Blanchard, Kraeplin, Mitchell. 126 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 126 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2169 OPINION 55 Tue Type OF THE GENUS ONDATRA LINK SUMMARY.—On basis of the premises submitted, zibethicus is type of Ondaira Link. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Mr. Gerret S. Miller, Jr., has submitted the following case for opinion: In the 13th edition of the Systema Nature (1778), Gmelin divided the genus Mus into five sections, the first of which “cauda apice compressa” contained two species, (1) coypus, a South American Octodont and (2) zibethicus, a North American Murid. The synonymy of the two species was as follows: Mus coypus. M. cauda mediocri subcompressa pilosa, plantis palmatis. Molina hist. nat. Chil., p. 255. Mus sibethicus. Castor sibethicus. Syst. nat., XII, I, p. 79. Castor (mus moschiferus canadensis) cauda verticaliter plana, digitis omnibus a se invicem separatis. Briss. Quadr. 136. Rat musque. Sarrasin act. Paris, 1725, p. 323, t. II, s. 1. 2. Desmans rottor. Kalm. it. 3, p. 19. Ondatra. Buffon hist. nat. X, p. I, t. 1. Musk beaver. Penn. Quadr., p. 259, n. 191. This section-was named Myocastor by Kerr in 1792 (Anim. Kingd., p. 225) and Ondatra by Link in 1795 (Beytrage zur Naturgesch., II, p. 76). The species coypus has been selected as type in both instances; of Myocastor by Allen in 1895 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., VII, p. 181, June 19, 1905) and of Ondatra by Hollister in 1911 (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, XXIV, p. 14, January 28, 1911), thus making Ondatra a synonym of Myocastor. In case of Myocastor there is no question as to the validity of the selection ; the case of Ondatra depends on the interpretation of Art. 30 d.. This fact was clearly recognized by Hollister, who says: “Every logical argument is in favor of naming Ondatra zibethicus as the type of this genus. The name is distinctly applicable to the animal, and with a slightly broader interpre- tation of tautonymy than seems at present allowed by the code, zibethicus would automatically be the type.” The “slightly broader interpretation ” required te produce absolute tautonymy alludes to the facts (a) that Link did not actually cite Ondatra Buffon as a synonym of Ondatra zibethicus, though he definitely refers to the Mus zibethicus of the Systema where it is cited in full, and (b) that Ondatra Buffon occurs in a work in which both names and text are printed in French. The first objection appears to be sufficiently met by the wording of the code: “Ifa genus, without originally designated (see a) or indicated (see b) type, contains among its original species one possessing the generic name as its specific or subspecific name, either as valid name or synonym, that species or subspecies becomes ipso facto type of the genus. (Type by absolute tau- tonymy. )” OPINION 55 eT OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 127 The second objection appears to be met by “Opinion 16. The Status of Prebinomial Specific Names (Published prior to 1758) under Art. 30 d.” Here it is stated (Case of Strix, 38) that “ ... it is necessary ... to show that the name cited ... was used in a specific sense, as ‘the horse,’ ‘the dog,’ etc. When this can be shown, an author is justified in applying Art. 30 Coe aees Buffon’s use of the word Ondatra was absolutely specific as thus defined. Throughout his long and accurate description and on his excellent plate the animal is called “l’?Ondatra” and nothing else. The name was thus specific, even to the use of the definite article, and its “possession” as a synonym by one of the members of the genus Ondatra Link would seem to render that species type by absolute tautonymy under both the original “code” and the later “ opinion.” The opinion of the Commission is desired on the following questions: (a) was Hollister free to select the species coypus as type of the genus Ondatra? or (b) is the species zibethicus type of the genus Ondatra by absolute tautonymy ? ; Discussion.—On basis of the premises submitted by Mr. Miller, Mus zibethicus is the type of Ondatra Link. See Article 30d and Opinion 16. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzen- berg, Kraeplin, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Mitchell, Monticelli, Schulze, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Stejneger. Hoyle adds: The only point which seems to me doubtful in regard to this case is: If Myocastor and Ondatra were proposed with the same contents are they not absolute synonyms and if so ought not Ondatra to lapse without the possibility of being revived? 128 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 128 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2169 OPINION 56 THE Type oF FILARIA MUELLER, 1787 SUMMARY.—Mueller (1787, pp. 64 and 70) cites, clearly through error, the same figure (plate 9, fig. 1) of Redi for Ascaris renalis Gmel. and Filaria martis Gmel. Gmelin (1790a, 3032 and 3040) continued this lapsus. Rudolphi (1809a, 69) recognized and corrected the error, since his time Filaria martis has been consistently distinguished from Ascaris renalis, and no ground is now present for not recognizing Rudolphi’s correction of Mueller’s lapsus. Accordingly F. martis stands as type of Filaria, and Filaria is not to be substituted for Dioctophyme, Dioctophyma, or Eustrongylus. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Professor A. Railliet has submitted the following case for opinion: Herewith I transmit an exceedingly troublesome question in nomenclature which it seems should be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In 1905, Stiles & Hassall (The determination of generic types, p. 106) designated /ilaria martis Gmelin, 1790, as type of Filaria Mueller, 1787. Stiles did the same in 1907 (The zoological characters of the roundworm genus Filaria, etc., pp. 31-32). But the species Filaria martis Gmelin, 1790, is simply Strongylus gigas Rud., 1802 (= Ascaris visceralis et A. renalis Gmel., 1790= Dioctophyme Collet Meygret, 1802 = Dioctophyma Lamouroux, 1824). The references by. Gmelin leave no doubt upon this point; although I am not acquainted with the edition of Redi which he cites. One finds, in fact, in his Systema Nature, p. 3040 under Filaria, the following: leonis. 2. F. Red. anim. viv. n. an, viv. p. 14. t. 9. f. 2. Habitat in leone. martis. 3. F. Red. anim. viv. n. an. viv. p. 15. t. 9. f. 1. Habitat in marte. The copy of Redi at my disposal is the principal edition: Osservazioni di Francesco Rede, accademico della crusca, intorno agli animali viventi che si trovano negli animali viventi. Firenze, 1684. On pp. 24-25, one finds the subcutaneous “ Lombrichi” delle Faine, delle Martore, delle Puzzole; on p. 25, similar worms collected from under the skin of the lion; on p. 26-27, the large “ Lombrico” collected from the left kidney “delle Martore.” The explanation of plates, p. 269, corresponds exactly to these indications: Tavola nona. Fig. prima. Lombrico grossissimo trovato nel Rene di una Martore, e designato a capello nella sua naturale grandezza. Fig. seconda. Lombrico trovato sotto la pelle del Leone. Fig. terza. Lombrici, che frequentissi- mamente si trovano sotto la pelle delle Faine, delle Martore, e delle Puzzole. Thus, F. martis Gmelin (Redi, p. 14, tavola 9. fig. I) is without question the very large Lombric found in the kidney di una Martore, and it is easy to recognize this as Strongylus gigas. Rudolphi (1809a, p. 69) erroneously OPINION 56 129 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 129 made F. martis Gmelin synonym of F. siustelarum; for this latter species he refers correctly to Redi, p. 24, 25, tab. 9 fig. 3. Zeder (1803a, 38) had referred to figs. I and 3, in connection with F. martis. Accordingly, the name Filaria should pass to the genus Eustrongylus Diesing or Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret. This is a change of far-reaching consequences, such as we have not yet experienced in helminthology and of such a nature that it will be very difficult to induce its acceptance, especially by physicians. It leads, in fact, to the transfer of the name Filariide to the family Eustrongylide or Dioctophymide. It is for this reason that I believe the case should be submitted to a very close examination by the Commission. One might assume an error in the number of the figure indicated for Filaria martis (fig. 1), but then Gmelin would have said: ‘“ Habitat in Foina, Putorio et Marte.” There is in fact an error on p. 3031 in Ascaris leonis, for which Gmelin refers to Redi, 75 and 309, t. 9, f. 3 (at least, assuming that the numbers of the figures were not changed in the different editions of Redi). DISCUSSION OF CASE.—Since the type of the genus Filaria Mueller, 1787, must be some species included by its author in that genus in 1787, it is clear that Mueller’s paper is the first one that comes into consideration in connection with the question raised. Here we find the following p. 64, under Filaria: Im Loewen, Anim. viv. negli anim. (4. e. Redi), p. 14, t. 9, f. 2. (See Fiiaria leonis Gmelin, 1790a, 3040.) Im Marder, Anim. viv. n. anim. (i. e. Redi), p. 15, t.9, f. 1. (See Filaria martis Gmelin, 1790a, 3040.) P. 70, under Ascaris: Im Marder, Anim. viv. neg. anim. (1. e. Redi), p. 15, t. 9, f. 1. (See Ascaris renalis Gmelin, 1790a, 3040, cited as “ p. 309, t. 9, f. 1.”’) Since Mueller cites in this paper the same identical figure (Redi, p. 15, t. 9, f. 1) for two species which he (Mueller) classifies in two different genera (Filaria and Ascaris), it is clear that he has fallen into an error of some kind. To clear up the error, Mueller’s conception of the genera Filaria and Ascaris must be compared with Redi’s illustrations. An examination of Redi’s plate 9, figs. 1 and 3 shows distinctly that it would be an easy error to confuse the number “ 1 ” on the plate and to apply this to the subcutaneous thread worm instead of to the worm from the kidney. Comparing the species cited by Mueller under Filaria and Ascaris it is clear that Mueller intended to place the thread worms in the genus Filaria and that through a lapsus he cited figure “1” instead of figure “ 3 ” for the species which Gmelin named Filaria martis—a species similar (as stated in the premises submitted by Professor Railliet) to Filaria leonis, which is placed by Mueller in the genus Filaria. 130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 130 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2169 Gmelin (1790a, 3032 and 3040) has evidently continued this error in his citation of “t. 9, f. 1” for both Ascaris renalis and Filaria martis. Even if it were to be assumed that Gmelin’s citation is based upon an edition of Redi other than that used by Mueller, the fact remains that the species taken as type of Fiiaria must be based upon Mueller, and not upon Gmelin. , Rudolphi (180g9a, 69) evidently recognized the error in question, for in connection with Filaria mustelarum, of which he makes Filaria martis Gmelin a synonym, he gives “Hab. infra pellem et inter musculos Mustelz foinz, martis, et putorii”’ and he cites the correct figure from Redi, namelv “ Redi Anim. viv. p. 24, 25, Tab. 9, fig. 3, vers. p. 34.” Since Rudolphi’s time, Filaria martis has remained in the genus Fiiaria and has never been associated with Ascaris renalis, and in designating the tvpe of Filaria, Stiles & Hassall clearly had in mind, as Filaria martis, the thread worm, not the kidney worm. As a lapsus on the part of Mueller is evident, and as a similar lapsus on the part of Gmelin seems equally clear and as the correction made by Rudolphi corresponds to the evident intention of Mueller, 1787, there is no ground apparent for rejecting Rudolphi’s interpre- tation. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the designation of Filaria martis as type of Filaria does not result in a transfer of the name Filaria to the kidney worm genus now known as Dtocto- phyme 1802 = Dioctophyma 1824 = Eustrongylus 1850, but, on the contrary, that this designation preserves the name for the thread worm genus represented by the subcutaneous species Filaria martis. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan, Monticelli, Schulze, Stejneger, Stiles. Not voting 2: Ludwig, Mitchell. OPINION 57 131 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUiION W ASHINGTON PUBLICATION 2256. MARCH, 1914 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ~ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE? OPINIONS 57 To 65 OPINION 57 Names DaTING FROM HasseLguist’s “ITER PAL&STINUM,” 1757, AND THE TRANSLATION, 1762, ARE UNTENABLE SUMMARY.—Hasselquist’s “Iter Palestinum ” was published prior to 1758; it was edited as to its nomenclature by Linneus. The German translatibn by Gadebusch, published in 1762, does not give validity to the names published in the original edition in 1757. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Doctor Ernest Hartert for opinion: Hasselquist’s posthumous work “Iter Palzstinum,” edited by Linnzus, was published in 1757, thus antedating the tenth edition of Linnzus’ “Systema Nature.” A German translation of the work under the title “Reise nach Palaestina,’ was published in 1762. The translation was an exact verbal rendering of the original, and was not by Linnzus, although the names were. It does not give validity to names of genera and species published in the briginal work in 1757. Cf. Zool. Anzeiger, v. 28, No: 4, pp. 157-158. Discussion.—Linnezus, in his preface to the work, states that he alone is responsible for the nomenclature adopted therein. Yet in the following year, in the tenth edition of his “ Systema Nature,” he cited only a part of the species and genera he recognized in the “Iter Palestinum,” and adopted only a part of those he cited. Those he adopted date from 1758; those he did not adopt have no nomencla- torial standing. A few of these abandoned names have recently been * Pagination continuous with Publication 1938, Opinions 1 to 26; Publica- tion 1989, Opinions 26 to 29; Publication 2013, Opinions 30 to 37; Publication 2060, Opinions 38 to 51; and Publication 2169, Opinions 52 to 56. 13f 132 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 132 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 accepted as having nomenclatorial availability from the German translation of 1762. Article 26 of the Code provides: “ The date 1758, therefore, is accepted as the starting point of zoological nomenclature and of the Law of Priority.” Opinion 5 of the Commission provides that: “A pre-Linnzan name, ineligible because of its publication prior to 1758, does not become eligible simply by being cited or reprinted with its original diagnosis after 1757. To become eligible under the Code, such names must be reinforced by adoption or acceptance by the author publishing the reprint.” Opinion written by Allen. DISSENTING OPINION BY Doctor LEONHARD STEJNEGER—I am compelled to dissent from the Opinion headed: “ Names dating from Hasselquist’s ‘Iter Paleestinum,’ 1757, and the translation, 1762, are untenable.” Already this superscription is misleading. The question is not whether the names in the “Iter” of 1757 are tenable or not, but whether the names of his “ Reise nach Palestina,” published in 1762, are tenable or not. And I maintain that the latter are tenable for the following reasons: 1. The author has applied the principles of binary nomenclature (Art. 25b). 2. The names are accompanied by a description (Art. 25a). 3. The names are binominal in almost every instance (the few specific names not properly binominal have no standing, of course) and were given by Linnzus himself.’ 4. The “Reise” was published in 1762, consequently four years after the starting point of binominal zoological nomenclature (Art. ZA0))) The names in “ Reise” consequently fulfill all the conditions re- quired in order to make them eligible under the International Code. But, it is said, they are ineligible under the Opinion 5 of the Inter- national Commission, inasmuch as the “ Reise” (1762) is a transla- tion of the “Iter” (1757). It is obvious, however, that the Opinion quoted cannot be con- strued so as to negative the Code itself. Opinion 5 was not meant to and does not cover the present case. As we all know, that Opinion has reference to quotations and translations of non-binary and non- 1 The inconsistencies between a few of the names in the “Reise” and in the “Systema Nature” are not greater than between the tenth and twelfth editions of the latter. OPINION 57 133 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 133 binominal authors before 1758 by binary and binominal authors after 1758 in order not to make the latter responsible for the transforma- tion of a quasi-binominal name into a binominal one without his intention, thus giving it a status, which it has not before, simply by quoting it foriginal language or translation). Opinion 5, therefore, justly requires that the binominal author shall “reinforce” such names “ by adoption or acceptance.’”’ The whole context of the Opin- ion (which by the way is only a summary) shows that it was aimed at casual citations and that it cannot be extended to cover the present case. The present case differs in this essential point from the ones aimed at in Opinion 5, viz.: that we have here to deal with binominal names which have an absolutely independent status under the Code, of which no “Opinion” can deprive them. They need no reinforce- ment, Linnzus’ name is on the title page and on p. 9 of the “ Vor- rede” he makes himself responsible for the nomenclature, and it makes no difference whether he says so in Latin or in German. Some weight is attached by Doctor Hartert to the alleged faet that the German translation is anonymous, apparently because in such case there could be no “adoption or acceptance by the author pub- lishing the reprint,” but this is a mistake, for the book itself contains the statement that it was translated by Thomas Heinrich Gadebusch (“ meine Uebersetzung,” p. 2 of the dedication to the Swedish queen Luisa Ulrica, the same to whom Linnzus himself addressed the orig- inal preface and who was responsible for the original publication of the “ Iter ’’) and so far from being a pirated translation this dedi- cation by a Swedish subject (Greifswalde where the translator lived was a Swedish possession until 1815) shows pretty conclusively that the German edition of 1762 was fully authorized, consequently both “adopted ” and “ accepted.” Note By STILES—An examination of the Opinion written by Allen, the dissenting Opinion written by Stejneger, and the transla- tion (1762) [the original of 1757 is not accessible to me at present] leads me to the following conclusions: (1) The paper dated 1757 is not to be considered subject to the Law of Priority. (2) I agree with Allen in rejecting the 1762 translation, but I admit that there is room for a difference of opinion, and a reasonable doubt, and that Stejneger’s arguments are not entirely without a certain amount of plausibility. 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 134 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 (3) As this case (1762) presents at least a reasonable doubt in respect to its availability, I accept that doubt and vote against admit- ting the work under the Code. In view of the difference of opinion in the Commission, this case was held for the meeting at Monaco. After discussion, it was voted (10 to 3) to accept Allen’s opinion and this was ordered published. In favor of Allen’s opinion, 10 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Hartert, Jentink, Ludwig (former vote), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Rothschild, Schulze (former vote), Stiles. Opposed to Allen’s opinion, 3 Commissioners: Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Stejneger. OPINION 58 135 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 135 OPINION 58 Esox, Lucius, anD BELONE SUMMARY.— Rigidly construed,” neither Rafinesque (1810, Caratteri, p. 59) nor Cuvier (1817, p. 183) designated the type of Esox Linnzus, 1758; Jordan and Gilbert, 1882, p. 352, selected Esox lucius Linneus as type of Esox. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has submitted the following case for opinion: The name Esox was accepted by Linneus from Artedi, who mentions in his Genera Piscium, part III of his Ichthyologia, three species, corresponding to the Pike, the Needlefish and the Gar Pike. These three are named by Lin- neus, Esox lucius, Esox belone, and Esox osseus. In all three of these, Lin- nzus quotes the name Esox in the synonymy. In the Synonymia Nominum Piscium, Artedi mentions but one species under Esox, the “Esox rostro pla- gioplateo,’ named by Linneus Esox lucius. In his Nomina Generica, Artedi speaks of “ Esox Plinii vocabulum, sorte ab esitare, quia omnes species admo- dum voraces sunt.” The Esox of Pliny is some large fish not clearly identified, although Artedi apparently regarded it as a Pike. The first restriction of the generic name Esox was that of Rafinesque (Caratteri, p. 50, 1810) in which Esox belone is chosen as type. Rafinesque says: “Il genere Esox di Linneo e stato deviso da Lacépéde in quattro generi, Esox, Sphyraena, Synodus e Lepisosteus: io propongo di dividere nuovamente il suo genere Esor: lasciero questo nome alle specie marine che hanno il corpo tetragono con due linee laterali da ogni lato amo nel genero E-rocoetus, le mascelle lunghe e strette, etc. Mentre formaro un nuovo genera col nome di Lucius, delle specie fluviatile. che hanna il corpo cilindrico, etc.” The next restriction was that of Cuvier, 1817, in which Esox lucius was made type of Esor. This Artedi and Linneeus would doubtless have done, were the idea of type placed before them. Nearly all subsequent writers have followed Cuvier. Do these facts render it necessary to regard Esox belone L. as type of Esox, and to use the generic name Lucius for Esox lucius L.? If Rafinesque’s restriction does not hold, nor that of Cuvier, we have in Jordan & Gilbert, 1882, Esox Linnzus, Systema Nature; type Esox lucius L.” Discussion.—Linneus (17580, 313-315) took the name Esox from Artedi, including in this genus the following species: I. sphy- rena, 2. osseus, 3. vulpes, 4. synodus, 5. lucius, 6. hepsetus, 7. bel- lone (by error for belone), 8. brasiliensis, g. gymnocephalus. The name:Esoxv is mentioned in the synonymy of lucius and bellone, but not of the other species ; by the Linnzean rule (Art 30/) it would be best to take one of these as type. 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 136 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 Lacépéde (1803, Poisson, v. 5) placed the nine Linnzean species of Esox in four genera as follows: Esox (with luctus, belone, hepsetus [syn. of gambarur], brasilien- sis [syn. of gladius], and gymnocephalus; Synodus Gronovius, 1763 (with E. synodus [syn. of Synodus fas- ciatus|, and vulpes). Sphyrena Lacépéede, 1803 (with E. sphyrena [syn. of Sphyrena Spet]). Lepisosteus Lacépéde, 1803 (with E. osseus [syn. of Lepisosteus gavial] ). Although Lacépéde did not designate genotypes, it is clear that by absolute tautonymy (Art. 30d) synodus becomes type of Synodus, and sphyrena type of Sphyrena. Rafinesque (1810, Caratteri, 59 [see Exhibit A]) proposed to di- vide “il suo genere Esox” [namely, Esox Linn., as restricted by Lacépéde] into two genera, and leaving the name Esox to the marine species [plural] presenting certain characters, and forming a new genus Lucius for the river forms showing certain characters; the only Linnzean species he mentions in connection with Esox is E. belone (p. 60) ; in connection with Lucius he mentions no species by name. In his Indice, Rafinesque (1810, p. 34) mentions Esox belone un- der Esox, but apparently does not refer to Lucius. The two generic names (at the date 1810) involve different prin- ciples: Lucius is a generic name published with description of and refer- ence to species [plural], not mentioned by name, but recognized by authors as containing Esox lucius. This recognition justifies our accepting lJucius as the type of Lucius by absolute tautonymy. Lucius is one of the numerous genera (like Dioctophyme) pub- lished without mention by name of any species, but intended to include species at least one of which is recognizable. Esox Linn., as diagnosed (but not fixed by type) by Rafinesque, contains at least E. belone (for E. bellone Linn.) but Rafinesque’s reference to species (in the plural) does not exclude all other original species from the genus; “ rigidly construed”’ Rafinesque does not designate bellone as genotype, although it is beyond question that he had this species especially in mind as a representative, probably as the chief representative of the genus. As Linneus (1758a, 314) 1 According to Jordan & Evermann, 1896a, 411, vulpes =conorhynchus 1801, tvpe of Albula, and vulpes—=banana 1803, type of Butyrinus, 1803. OPINION 58 7 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7 mentions Esox in the synonymy only of Jucius and bellone, and as lucius had now become (1810) the type of Lucius, circumstances distinctly favored (1810) taking bellone as type of Esox Linn. Cuvier (1800 and 1805, table 4) mentioned “ Brochets—Esox.” He did not designate the type, nor did he mention Sphyrena, Lepi- sosteus, or Synodus. Cuvier, 1800 and 1805 cannot be construed as having determined the genotype of Esox. Later, Cuvier (1817, 183-186; 1820, 282-286) mentioned “ Bro- chets (Esox L.),’’ which he divided into several genera, of which only two come into direct consideration in the question before the Commission. These are: “ Les Brochets proprement dits (Esox Cuv.)” with mention (cs 7, 183) of only one species, namely, Esox lucius L. ~ Les Orphies (Belone Cuv.)” containing “ Esox belone Les! Be E. bellone Linn.] and several additional species. Here also the two genera (“ Esox Cuv.” and “ Belone Cuv.”) have a slightly different status, namely, Belone has its type clearly estab- lished by absolute tautonymy. ; “ Esox Cuy.” is a restricted group of “Esox Linn.” Only one species is mentioned, and this becomes the type (by monotypy) of “ Esox Cuvier.” This rigidly construed is not, however, a designa- tion of the genotype of “ Esox Linn.” Even the expression “ propre- ment dits ” does not involve a determination of the type for “ Esox Linn.,” for its use (as seen for instance in Ctivier SiSi7 spans Gr Syngathus, and p. 236, Gymnotus) does not constitute a restriction of the name to a single species. From the stand-point of nomencla- ture, Cuvier has proposed a new genus “ Esox Cuv.,” which may or may not prove to be identical with “Esox Linn.,” and the name of which, Esox 1817, is clearly preoccupied by Esox 1758. At this date (1817), therefore, we find the following status of the Linnean genus Esox: Its type has not been established, although of its original species, sphyrena has become type of Sphyrena 1803, by absolute tau- tonymy. .Synodus has become type of Synodus 1763, by absolute tautonymy. lucius has become type of Lucius 1810, by absolute tautonymy, and of Esox Cuv., 1817, by monotypy. belone has become type of Belone 1817, by absolute tautonymy. While the intention of Rafinesque (1810) to make belone the type of Esowx Linn., and the intention of Cuvier to make lucius the type of Esox Linn., seem apparent, still “ rigidly construed ” neither author actually made it the genotype for either of these genera. OD 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 138 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 It now remains to determine what author, either prior or subse- quent to Cuvier, 1817, first actually designated the type of Esox. The premises submitted contain only one reference bearing on this point, namely, Jordan & Gilbert, 1882, p. 352 (Synopsis of the Fishes of North America) where Esox lucius L. is definitely designated as the type of Esox. This designation holds unless it can be shown that some other species had been made the type prior to tae & Gilbert, 1882. In this connection attention may be drawn to the following pas- sage in Jordan & Evermann, 1896a, p: 625: “ This (Cuvier’s, 1817) later arrangement has received the sanction of general usage. It has the further justification, that the name Fsox itself was adopted by Artedi and Linnzus, from Pliny, who applied it to the Pike, its appli- cation to the Garfish also having been taken by Linnzeus from Artedi. It is true that Linnzeus would have regarded the Pike as his type of Esox. It is, however, also true that Rafinesque had the right to select either species as the type in dividing the genus, and in his arrange- ment, the Garfish remains Esox, and a new name, Lucius, is given to the Pike.” Authors interested in this case are also referred to Gill, 1896, Apr. 23, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. (1051), v. 18 (for 1895), p. 167-178. Opinion written by Stiles. This opinion has been the subject of considerable discussion by the Commission, during which several members have changed their votes. Finally, at the 1913 (Monaco) meeting, the secretary was instructed to publish the opinion in its present form. Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Kraepelin, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan (K.)’ Mitchell, Monticelli, Rothschild, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 2 Commissioners: Jordan (D. S.), Schulze. Hoyle adds: I am inclined to think this the best solution of the problem, though I think one would not be far wrong in regarding Cuvier as fixing the type. Jordan, D. S., adds: I would agree with the final result that lucius is the type of Esox. But I believe that the Esox of Artedi was primarily based on the Pike, the Esox of early authors, Esox lucius L. I think that Rafinesque fairly designated Esox belone as type Sitting with Commission in advisory capacity, and concurring in the conclusion. OPINION 58 139 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 139 of Esox and that Cuvier made Esox lucius such type. Esox lucius was the only fluviatile species of pike known to early authors. In a later letter he adds: Referring to the question of Esox vs. Belone, Regan has these pertinent remarks: “ There can be no ques- tion that Artedi and Linneus regarded the pike, Esox lucius, as the type of the genus Esoxr. Linnzeus, in the sixth edition of the ‘ Sys- tema Nature,’ included three species in the genus—t. lucius, 2. belone, 3. acus; and in the ‘Fauna Suecica’ two—t. lucius, 2. belone. Artedi, in the Bibliotheca Ichthyogica (1738), also placed the pike, Esox rostro plagioplateo, as the first species of the genus Esox, and as the first synonym gave Esox Pliny. Thus, by the rule of tautonymy, £. Jucius is the type of Esox, and Rafinesque’s restric- tion of the name FE. belone may be ignored. The fact that in all probability Artedi was mistaken in thinking that Pliny’s Esoxr was the pike has no importance in this connection.” Kraepelin adds: I agree with the conclusions on the following grounds: The view of Cuvier, 1800 (Brochet=Esox), is in my opinion clear in view of his statement in 1817 “ Brochets proprement dits=Esox,’ with the monotype species Esox lucius. Further, as Lacépéde, 1803, gives E. Jucius as the first species of his genus Esox, there can be no doubt that as early as that (1803) FE. lucius served as type of the genus Esox among leading specialists. Rafinesque’s action was therefore ungrounded and cannot be taken as serious support of the other side of the question, especially since he did not mention by name any particular fresh water species, while Cuvier in 1817 defined exactly his view of 1800, and Jordan & Gilbert (1882) formally designated E. lucius as type of Esovx. Monticelli adds: E. lucius is undoubtedly type of Esox. Schulze adds: In 1810, Rafinesque divided Esox into Esox and Lucius. For his new genus Esox he mentioned as only species E. belone and thus designated this as type of his genus Esox, while he placed in his new genus Lucius all fresh water fishes of the old Linnaean genus Esox. Accordingly, our well known fish (der Hecht), erroneously named until now in the newer literature as Esox lucius L., can unfortunately be named only Lucius lucius (L). 140 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I40 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 OPINION 59 DATE OF AMPHIMERUS SUMMARY.—The Trematode name Amphimerus Barker does not date from the appearance of the tirés 4 part, but from the date of issue of Studies from the Zoological Laboratory, The University of Nebraska, No. 103. STATEMENT OF CASE.—J. W. W. Stephens has submitted the fol- lowing case for opinion In April, 1912, Archives de Parasitologie, the last part of year 1911 which will contain pp. 513-561, etc., was not published and I believe is not yet pub- lished (July, 1912). In I9II or ? 1912, an author’s (Barker’s) reprint of these (unpublished) pages is “published” or, actually, privately circulated bearing inside, the legend “Studies from the Zoological Laboratory The University of Nebraska, No. 103 ” Extrait des Archives de Parasitologie, Tome XIV, pages 513-051, planches XVII-XX, tort. The outside, the title Archives de Parasitologie, etc., Extrait. Les tirés a part ne peuvent Ctre mis en vente. IOII In the Journal of the London School of Tropical Medicine, March, 1912, this author’s “reprint” (not for sale and hence I consider not published), having been privately circulated, is abstracted by Leiper, and the generic name Amphimerus quoted from the “ reprint.” Does this abstract of an unpublished paper give publication to this name Amphimerus, and if so, what date should it bear? If the author’s reprint had not borne on it “ Not for sale,” could it be con- sidered as published if the original paper has not appeared? Eventually it will, I suppose, appear in Archives de Parasitologie with the date 1911, which will be, of course, erroneous. Discusston.—This case was discussed by the Commission at its Monaco meeting, March, 1913. The fact was developed that the Archives de Parasitologie issued to the author, at the latter’s request, two sets of reprints. One of the reprints was issued with a cover and bears upon this cover “Les tirés a part ne peuvent étre mis en vente .. Paris.. 1911.”’ On the page corresponding to page 513, and also on the preceding fly-leaf is found the expression: “ Studies from the Zoological Laboratory, The University of Nebraska, No. 103.’ The second set of reprints was furnished the author, identical with the first set, except that at the author’s request, they were fur- nished without a cover. From the fly-leaf it appears that these re- OPINION 59 141 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE I4!I prints were prinied* in Paris. This second series of reprints, however, was furnished with a new cover in Lincoln, Nebraska. This American cover is headed as “Studies from the Zoological Laboratory, The University of Nebraska, No. 103.” The statement is made in English, “ Reprinted from Archives de Parasitologie, Vol. 14, No. 4, Separates Distributed Nov. 1, 1911.” At the foot of the cover “ Lincoln, Nebraska, U. S. A.” is given as the place of publi- cation. According to the information’ of the Commission, this latter set of reprints is, or was obtainable by purchase (Nov. I, I9I1) ; hence it was accessible to the public. Thus the article in question appears to exist with identical pagina- tion in three different covers, namely: Original in the Archives, a covered preprint issued in France and not for sale, and Studies, etc., No. 103 (issued according to the cover in Lincoln, Nebraska, and according to the fly-leaf in Paris). All three of these issues were printed in France from the same type at the same time, and two of them are preprints furnished to the author. Actually they are all the same press-prints; theoretically they represent two original editions, one issued in France, the other in Nebraska. After considerable discussion of this somewhat complicated case of publication, it was moved by Hartert, seconded by Hoyle, that on the premises submitted the name Amphimerus does not date from the “ tirés a part,” especially since these are distinctly marked as not being for sale; further that the name dates from the date of issue of the Studies, etc., No. 103, Lincoln, Nebraska, and appears to have been issued prior to the original article in the Archives. This motion was carried by a vote of 10 [+3 °] too [+3]: Allen, [Bather*], Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, [Horvath*], Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan* (K.), Monticelli, Rothschild,” [Skinner *], Stejne- ger and Stiles. Dissent from the opinion: Apstein (*), Kolbe (*), Schulze (°), and consider that the name Amphimerus dates from the reprint. Not voting: Jordan (D. S.), Roule. 1 Printed early in September, and received by author early in October, and 200 copies distributed by him at that time—C. W. S. ? Personal statement of Prof. Henry B. Ward to Secretary of Commission, that in order to comply with the point that publications should be for sale, an arrangement was made between the Zoological Laboratory, Univ. of Nebraska, afid a book dealer in Lincoln, whereby the latter was to keep the “Studies” on sale. ® Voted by mail, after adjournment of Commission. * Sitting with the Commission in advisory capacity and concurring in the conclusion. 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I42 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 Bather adds: On the facts as elicited by the Commission, I entirely agree with the conclusion. On the commercial aspect of the case the Commission is, of course, not entitled to express an opinion; but I think it might point out to the author and the publishing bodies concerned the inadvisability of their action from a scientific and bibliographic point of view, and draw their atten- tion to the disapproval of such action expressed in the Report. Apstein and Kolbe add: According to the rules [see note by secretary] in force, reprints (tirés a part) distributed prior to the issue of the volume in question, are said not to be valid and the same applies to the new genera they contain. As the Archives de Parasitologie, v. 14 (4), and the Studies Zool. Lab., Univ. Nebraska, v. 6 (which will contain No. 103), have not yet (Sept., 1913) been issued, the separata in question are not valid; in this con- nection, in my opinion, the point is of nc importance in reference to the ques- tion under consideration, whether or not the separata bear the statement “not for sale,’ as this statement means only that the author must not bring the separata into traffic. The conclusion is that the name Amphimerus has not yet been published by Barker, but that it was first published by Leiper, March, 1912, in the J. Lond. School of Trop. Med. The strict application of the rule [see note by secretary] thus leads to a conclusion that is contrary to reason. Therefore, I am in favor of the view that a separatum must be accepted, especially when the appearance of the journal is long delayed. I would, therefore, date Amphimerus from the time [October, 1911] when Barker distributed his separates from the Archives de Parasitologie.* Schulze adds: I also am of the opinion that the strict application of the rule [see note by secretary] that Separata are not publication leads to a con- clusion contrary to reason; therefore, that it is not acceptable. The content *Nach den gultigen Regeln sollen Separata (tirés a part), die vor der Veroffentlichung des betreffenden Bandes der Zeitschrift versandt werden, nicht gultig sein und damit die in ihnen enthaltenen neuen Genera. Da Archives de Parasitologie v. 14 (Heft 4) und Studies zool. Laborat. Nebraska, v. 6 (der No. 103 enthalten wird) bis jetzt September, 1913) noch nicht herausgegeben sind, so sind die betreffenden Separata auch un- gultig, wobei es nach meiner Meinung fir unsere Frage ohne Bedeutung ist ob das Separatum den Vermerk “nicht zum Verkauf, not for sale, les tires a part ne peuvent étre mis en vent” tragt oder nicht, da der Vermerk nur bedeutet, das der Autor seine Separata nicht in den Handel bringen darf. Es ergibt sich also, dass der Name Amphimerus von Barker bis her nicht verOffentlicht ist, sondern es hatte Leiper in J. London School of Trop. Med., March, 1912, den Genusnamen Amphimerus zum ersten Male publiciert! Die strikte Befolgung der Regel fuhrt also zu einer Wiedersinnigkeit. Deshalb bin ich daftir, das auch ein Separatum gelten muss, namentlich wenn das Ersche:nen der Zeitschrift Jahre lang auf sich warten lasst. Ich wiirde also Amphimerus Barker datieren von da an als Barker seine Separata (tirés a part) aus dem Archives de Parasitologie versandt hat (also vor I. Nov., 1911 ?). OPINION 59 143 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 143 of many Separata has become the property of Science, before the number, in question, of the archives or of the Journal had appeared” Note by the Secretary: There is no rule to this effect in the Inter- national Code.—C. W. S. * Auch ich bin der Ansicht dass die strikte Befolgung der Bestimmung “ das Separata keine Publikation bedeuten,” zu Wiedersinnigkeiten fiihrt; also un- annehmbar ist. Der Inhalt vieler Separata ist schon Eigentum der Wissen- schaft geworden, bevor noch die betreffende Nummer der Archives oder Journals erschienen war. 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 144 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 OPINION 60 SALMO IRIDIA vs. SALMO IRIDEUS SUMMARY.—Salmo iridia is evidently a lapsus calami or a typographical error and may be corrected to Salmo irideus. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has pre- sented the following case for opinion: Salmo iridia vs. Salmo irideus. Salmo iridia Gibbons, Proc. Cal. Ac. Nat. Sci., 1855, p. 36, San Lean- dro Creek, Cal. Salmo irideus Subsequent authors. In describing the Rainbow Trout of California, Dr. Gibbons accidentally, ignorantly, or inadvertently, printed the name “ Salmo iridia.” Are subsequent authors justified in regarding this as an “error of transcription,’ the noun Salmo being masculine, and there being no such word as irideus in recognized Latin? Discussion.—This case had been submitted twice to the Commis- sion and had resulted in such discordant views that it was again submitted at the 1913 (Monaco) meeting. Upon motion and second, it was voted to instruct the Secretary to publish the foregoing with the statement that the majority vote (9 to 4) is accepted as the opinion of the Commission. The 13 votes in question are the first and only 13 votes cast since the case has been under consideration. All other Commissioners in service during the discussions have failed to register their votes. Opinion concurred in by 9 Commissioners: Blanchard, Graff, Hoyle, Jor- dan (D. S.), Joubin, Monticelli, Stejneger, Stiles, Wright. Opinion dissented from by 4 Commissioners: Dautzenburg, Jentink, von Maehrenthral, Schulze. Not voting: All other Commissioners in service from 1910 to March, 1913. ; OPINIONS 60 AND 61 145 a OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 145 OPINION 61 EMENDATION OF CH#MEPELIA TO CHAMZPELIA SUMMARY.—The word Chemepelia Swainson, 1827, should be amended to Chamepela. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Mr. W. E. Clyde Todd has submitted the following case for opinion: I wish to submit the question of the proper orthography of the generic name Chemepelia to the Commission for consideration. The facts are as follows: The genus was proposed by Swainson in 1827 (Zoological Journal, Ill, p. 361, 1827), the evident intention being to give a Latinized rendering of the common English name of “Ground Dove” applied to the included species. The derivation is obviously from xaHar, on the ground, and zéAea, a dove; and by combination and transliteration the resultant word is Chame- pelia. In the writer’s opinion a lapsus calami or a typographical error seems plainly indicated. Ten years later Swainson (Classification of Birds, II, p. 340, 1837) evidently by a similar inadvertence, again wrote the word Cheme- pelia, but on this occasion he discovered the error in time to correct it in the index (p. 380) to Chamepelia. Although this correction does not appear in the original publication, the inference that no such absurd combination as Chemepelia was there intended is obvious. The Commission has already ruled that certain of Swainson’s names are to be corrected, and it would seem as if the present case were comparable with those already decided in Opinion 26. Discussion.—In the original publication, Swainson gives no clue of any kind to the derivation of the word Chemepelia. If a person happens to know that Chemepelia refers to the bird known under the English vernacular name “ ground dove,” or if the term “ Ground dove’ had been cited by Swainson in 1827, the derivation of the Latin name would be indicated to a certain extent. Since, however, the English vernacular name is not cited, and since there is no refer- ence to the Greek derivation of the generic name, a person unac- quainted with the bird and with American vernacular names would have-no way of knowing whether Chemepelia is actually derived from the Greek as stated, or whether it might be based on an American family name Chemepel. The later history of the genus has no necessary bearing on this subject. It is the opinion of the Commission, therefore, that the derivation of the generic name Chemepelia is noi “ evident” in the original publication, and that the name is not to be emended. 146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 146 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 The foregoing was submitted to the Commission with the fol- lowing: SumMMAry.—In the original publication of Chemepelia Swain- son, 1827, no clue is given to the derivation of the word, and there- fore a lapsus calami or a typographical error is not evident. The generic name Chemepelia accordingly is not to be emended. Such a difference of opinion was developed in the votes, and the Secretary’s view was carried by such a narrow margin that he held the papers for resubmission and discussion at the Monaco meeting of the Commission. At this meeting, several votes were changed, the opinion as prepared by the Secretary was defeated, and the Sec- retary was instructed to publish the opinion with the report that the name Chemepelia should be emended to Chamepelia. The final vote (including all Commissioners who have voted on the case) stood as follows: In favor of emendation, 12 Commissioners: Bather, Blanchard, Dautzen- berg, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan (D. S.), Kraepelin, Ludwig, Schulze, Stejneger. Not in favor of emendation, 7 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Jordan (K.), Mitchell, Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles. Not voting, 2 Commissioners: Kolbe, Roule. Remarks—By Bather: In this paper of Swainson, this appears to be the only name of which the derivation (under its erroneous spelling) is not immediately evident. The confusion of diphthongs is a common lapsus calami, so the correction which makes the derivation clear is at once suggested. By Dautzenberg: Correction appears justifiable. By Horvath: In view of the fact that Swainson himself corrected the name, the derivation is evident and the correction miust be admitted and accepted. By Hoyle: Pelia means dove, without question. Cheme is plainly a mis- print (Swainson’s work is full of misprints) and this was discovered and cor- rected by the author in the index. By Jordan: The emendation of such words, without check, gives us endless trouble. On the other hand, it seems hard to perpetuate the endless careless- ness of some writers. By Kraepelin: Calls attention to Chalcopelia, Melopelia, Uropelia, ete. Evidently a lapsus calami. By Schulze: Author himself corrected the name. OPINION 62 147 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 147 OPINION 62 TYPE SPECIES OF OTHER GENERA ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM CON- SIDERATION IN THE SELECTION OF THE TYPE OF A GENUS SUMMARY.—As Article 30 does not exclude the type species of other genera from consideration in the selection of the type of a given genus, the following type species, as designated by Gray, are, on basis of the data presented, the valid types of the following genera: Fulmarus, type Procellaria glactalis; Thalas- seus, type Sterna cantiaca; Herodias, type Ardea garzetia; Catharista, type Vultur aura; Morphnus, type Falco urubitinga; Helinaia, type Motacilla ver- mivora. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Mr. Witmer Stone submits the cases of the types of the following genera of birds for opinion: Alca Linnezus, Syst. Nat., 10 ed., v. I, 1758, p. 130. Fulmarus Stephens, Gen. Zool., v. 13, pt. 1, 1826, p. 223. Thalasseus Boie, Isis, 1822, p. 563. - Herodias Boie, Isis, 1822, p. 550. Catharista Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, p. 21. Morphnus Cuvier, Regne Animal, 1 ed., v. I, 1817, p. 318. Helinaia Audubon, Synopsis, 1839, p. 66. Discussion.——Of the above genera, the question as to the type of Alca has already been settled by the Commission in Opinion 16, and is therefore not considered in the present Opinion. The principle involved in the other six cases is entirely different from that of Alca, and although the details of each genus may vary slightly, the point can be best stated by selecting one as example. In 1822 Boie established the genus Thalasseus for a number of species, without designating a type. None of the originally included species, so far as the documents disclose, has the specific name typus or typicus, nor does any possess the generic name as its specific or subspecific name, either as valid name or synonym. The case consequently falls under Art. 30, IJ. In 1840, Gray, in his List of Genera of Birds, p. 79, designated Sterna cantiaca as the type (Art. 30, II, g). As this species was included under the generic name at the time of its original publication (Art. 30, II, e, a) ; as it is not a species inquirenda from the standpoint of the author, nor a species doubtfully referred to the genus (8, y) Sterna cantiaca must stand as the type of Thalasseus Boie. This is in brief the contention of 148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 148 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 Mr. Stone. Dr. J. A. Allen in a paper treating of the same subject (List of Genera, etc., p. 10), on the other hand, submits that Gray was barred from designating Sterna cantiaca as the type, because this species had already been made the type of the monotypic genus Actochelidon Kaup, 1829, and that some other species should have been designated as type of Thalasseus. Against Dr. Allen’s contention stands the fact that the Interna- tional Rules enumerate specifically only three kinds of species as “excluded from consideration in selecting the types of genera ” (Cavaco stor JUNE) 2 “(a) Species which were not included under the generic name at the time of its original publication. “(B) Species which were species inquirende from the standpoint of the author of the generic name at the time of its original publi- cation. “(y) Species which the author of the genus doubtfully referred to it.” There is consequently no authority in the Code for excluding a spe- cies from consideration in selecting it as type because it had already been made the type of some other genus. When a rule so specific- ally, as is done in Art. 30, enumerates the cases which form excep- tions, it is clear that it intends these to be the only ones. Whether the author designating a species as type does so in ignorance of pre- vious action of others or without knowledge of the previous litera- ture, or any similar reason, whether he does so rightly or erroneously as we may individually view the case, if he avoids the three classes enumerated under a, 8, and y, his “ designation is not subject to change,” either by himself or by others. To accept another view would be likely to endanger the stability of generic names, for if it should be found in the future that the species which it is now sup- posed the designator ought to have designated, also had been selected by a now unknown author as the type of a now unknown genus, the designation of a type of the original genus would have to be done over again, and would consequently be subject to change. Article 30 was framed in order to prevent the shifting of types once desig- nated; a difficulty which any other plan might involve may be seen from the following Hypothetical case: An author institutes a genus with two species but without designating type. Both of these species are made type of two new generic names by a subsequent author without knowledge of the older name embracing both. Finally a third author designates one of the species as the type of the original OPINION 62 149 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 149 genus. According to the view contrary to that held by the Commis- sion, he could not do so, as the species in question is already the designated type of another generic name, but neither could he desig- nate the other species as that also is the designated type of another generic name. The fear that the opposite view (as held by the Com- mission) would cause changes in current nomenclature can have no influence in reaching an objective conclusion. When Art. 30 was proposed and adopted it was well known that it would make a num- ber of such changes necessary, but so would any other rule which could possibly be framed. According to the opinion of the Commission the types of the other genera submitted by Stone, upon the data furnished by him in letter, Jan. 21, 1908, and by Allen (List of Genera of Birds, etc., pp. 10-11, 35, 43) would be as follows: Fulmarus Stephens, 1826, type: Procellaria glacialis Linn., by designation of Gray, 1855. Herodias Boie, 1822, type: Ardea garzetta Linn., by designation of Gray, 1841. Catharista Vieullot, 1816, type: Vultur aura Linn., by designation of Gray, 1855. . Morphnus Cuvier, 1817, type: Falco urubitinga Gmel., by desig- nation of Gray, 1841. Helinaia Audubon. 1839, type: Metacilla vermivora Gmel., by designation of Gray, 1841. Opinion written by Stejneger. This Opinion developed some difference of view on the first vote, and it came to discussion at the Monaco meeting of the Commission. After consideration the Opinion was adopted by a vote of 11 to I; the Commissioner voting in the negative was not, however, able to be present at the meeting. Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Blanchard, Dautzen- berg, Hartert, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan (D. S), Ludwig, Monticelli, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Schulze. 150 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 150 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 OPINION 63 LEUCISCUS HAKUENSIS vs. LEUCISCUS HAKONENSIS SUMMARY.—Leuciscus hakuensis is to be corrected to Leuciscus hakonensits on basis either of a lapsus calami or a typographic error. STATEMENT OF CASE.—President David Starr Jordan has presented the following case for opinion: I would like the decision of the Commission on Nomenclature of the Zoolog- ical Congress, on the following case, Leuciscus hakuensis vs. Leuciscus hako- nensis. Lake Hakone is one of the best-known bodies of water in Japan. A fish sent from it to the British Museum bore a label which was read there as “Lake Hakou.” It was described by Dr. Gunther as Leuciscus Hakuensis (Shore Fishes, Challenger, 1880, p. 72). This name, based on an error in reading a label, was changed by Dr. Ishikawa to Leuciscus hakonensis, Zool. Mag. Tokyo, 1895, 129. Which should be used?” Discussion.—This case was presented to the members of the Commission at its 1913 (Monaco) meeting. Upon motion of Hoyle it was voted (6 to 2) that hakuensis should be amended to hako- nensis on basis either of a lapsus calami or a typographic error (Art. 19). As the necessary majority (at least 8 votes) was not obtained, the Secretary was instructed to hold the case until the new members were elected and to submit it to all absent and new members for their votes. Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monti- celli, Schulze, Stejneger. : Opinion dissented from by 4 Commissioners: Jentink, Roule, Skinner, Stiles. Not voting: Kolbe. Apstein says: Leuciscus hakuensis would be right, but Gunther writes, loco citato, “Lake Hakou,” therefore the name should be hakouensis, not hakuensis or hakonensis. OPINIONS 63 AND 64 iy OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE I5I OPINION 64 SERIAL LETTERS, AS A, B, C, ETC., ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS SPECIFIC NAMES SUMMARY.—Serial letters, as a, b, c, etc., are not to be considered as proper specific names. STATEMENT OF CASE.——Prof. Charles A. Kofoid has submitted the following case for opinion: “Brandt (1908) in his ‘ Tintinnodeen’ of the Plankton Expedition describes a number of new varieties of species and designates them; for example (p. 296), as follows: “Ptychocylis undella var., a, b, c, d, e, f. “Ptychocylis undella var., g, bruhni nJ Are the legal names of the first group of varieties ‘a-f’ in sequence? Is the legal name of the last named ‘g, bruhni’ or ‘bruhni?’ Can a legal varietal name be substituted by a later writer for the designa- tion by letter in the case of var. f? The question here raised is whether an author’s serial designations of species Or varieties are to be accepted as their legal names in the absence of other designations by him.” Discussion.—At the Monaco meeting of the Commission this case was brought up for discussion. Upon motion of Dr. Hoyle it was voted (10 to 0) that serial letters such as a, b, c, etc., are not to be considered proper specific names. As subspecific names are subjected to the same rules as specific names, the letters are not available as subspecific names. The Secretary was instructed to publish this vote as the opinion of the Commission. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jentink, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K),* Kolbe, Monticelli, Rothschild,” Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Not voting: Dollo, Ludwig, Mitchell, Schulze. 2 Sitting with Commission in advisory capacity, and concurring in the conclusion. 152 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 152 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 OPINION 65 CASE OF A GENUS BASED UPON ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES SUMMARY.—If an author designates a certain species as genotype, it is to be assumed that his determination of the species is correct; if a case presents itself in which it appears that an author has based his genus upon certain definite specimens, rather than upon a species, it would be well to submit the case, with full details, to the Commission. At the present moment, it is difficult to lay down a general rule. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following statement of the case is taken from Science, April 21, 1911. WHAT IS THE GENOTYPE OF X-US JONES, 1900, BASED UPON A SPECIES ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED AS ALBUS SMITH, 1800 STATEMENT OF CASE.—Jones proposes the new genus, X-us, 1900, type species albus Smith, 1890. It later develops that albus Smith, 1890, as determined by Jones, 1900, is an erroneous determination. What is the genotype of X-us, 1900; albus Smith, 1890, or the form erron- eously identified by Jones as albus in 1900? Discussion.—The nomenclatorial problem expressed in the caption of this note is solved in two diametrically opposite ways by different authors. Some writers maintain that the original albus Smith, 1890, is the genotype, while others maintain that the gentoype is represented by the species actually studied by Jones and misdetermined as albus Smith. Cases of this general nature have given rise to considerable confusion in nomenclature, and several cases have been referred to the International Com- mission on Nomenclature for opinion. At the last meeting of the commission, the principles involved came up for discussion, but it was impossible to reach a unanimous agreement. On account of the differences of opinion, the secretary was instructed to make a careful study of a number of cases, and to report upon the same to the commission. It is not difficult to foresee that no matter how the cases are finally decided, great dissatisfaction will arise among zoologists because the opinion rendered is not the direct opposite of what it eventually will be. Recognizing that this is one of the most difficult cases that has ever been submitted to the commission, and recognizing the fact that regardless of our action we shall probably be criticized more on basis of our decision on this case than because of any other opinion that we have rendered, I am desirous of studying at least one hundred cases, if possible, that would come under such a ruling, before my report is formulated. In view of the foregoing premises, I respectfully request zoologists in differ- ent groups to call my attention to as many instances of this kind as possible, with which they are acquainted in their different specialties. Further, since OPINION 65 153 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 153 the arguments on both sides of the problem appear to be almost equally valid, it does not seem impossible that the final decision will have to be based upon an arbitrary choice between the two possible rulings, and on this account I am desirous of obtaining all possible arguments on both sides as they occur to different zoologists, and also any personal views based upon convenience or inconvenience, or other grounds, which may be held by different colleagues. I will hold the case open at least until September 1, for the presentation of arguments by any persons who may desire to submit their views. C. W. STILES, April 4, 1911. Secretary of the Commission. R. Blanchard submitted the following case: Taentorhynchus taemorhynchus Arribalzaga, 1891, is identical with Culex tittllans Walker, 1848, and not with C. taentorhynchus Wied., 1821; the genus contained also the new species T. confinis and T. fasciolatus; the three species in question belong in two distinct genera; the first is a Mansonia, the other two Taeniorhynchus. No type was indicated, except by tautonymy. A. N. Caudell presented the following statements : “T hold, in common with all my co-workers in this Museum I believe, Mr. ‘Coquillett excepted, that 1f a man proposes a new genus and indicates an old species as the type, that species so indicated is the type regardless of mis- identification. Otherwise a genus would scarcely ever be a settled factor as before one could have knowledge of what a given genus really is he would have to institute rigid investigation to find out if the describer, or author, of the genus knew what he was saying when he designated a type for his new genus. Besides, if we do not accept the author’s designation of type for his own genus, how can we logically accept later type designations by others than the author. I mean thus: I make a new genus and say the type is a—of Linneus. Now, if before accepting this type designation by myself for my own genus, one has to investigate and see if I really had the said a—of Lin- nzus, would we not likewise have to make the same investigations if I had not designated a type, but some future writer had been the one to designate it? In other words, suppose I find that the genus 4—of Latreille had four orig- inally included species, two described as new at that time and two old Lin- nzus species. Now, as no type has yet been designated for this genus, I am at liberty to designate any of the originally included ones, as all are eligible as gen- otypes. Sa I exercise my privilege and designate, say the third species, one of the old Linfzapr species. Now, in this case, would any one argue that before accepting this as a valid designation of type one would have to go back and investigate if Latreille really had this Linnzean species before him when he made the genus? I am sure this is never really done; if an originally included species is designated as the type of an old genus of which the type had never before been designated the action is accepted and the genus is accepted as then fixed. One may say that in case of Latreille aud other old authors it would be too difficult to investigate if he really had before him such and such a species, but that is no reason to treat such differently from later authors. Some one with peculiar information, as some of the preserved portions of the collection of an old author, might claim to know such a species was not before him and thus overthrow such genotype designated. Then some 154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 154 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2250 would accept his views while others would say he did not prove his case and so on. Not to accept an author’s statement that a designated species is the type of his genus is to leave most genera in an unsettled state and to sanction this will be a serious mistake. However, it will be no worse than to sanction the use of genera without any included species—a question of equal impor- tance with the above. In fact they are similar, for in one case the species is named wrongly and in the other it is not named at all, but in both it is the- oretically present as the genus would not be expected to be made if some insect were not before the author. But so far as the world is concerned it is all hidden matter. For the satisfactory advancement of science the genus without named species should be declared invalid and a genus with a valid originally included species cited as its type should be considered as fixed. An interesting question has occurred to me. Let us assume that it is ruled that misidentifications do count in type designations, that is that the real spe- cies before the author is his type and not the one he states it to be, in case it is a misidentification. Then suppose I make a new genus which I name Aledia with three species as follows: minor n. sp. Gryllus aledia Linnzus and nigra Latreille. Say also that | designate the second species aledia Linn. as type, though this is not necessary for this illustration. The thing is that the inclusion of aledia Linn. is tautonymy and for that reason, according to the printed code, is therefore the type. But now it is shown that what I had before me was not really the aledia of Linn., but some other species. In this case is tautonymy eliminated as a method of genotype designation the same as that of original designation? I should hope not and this, it seems to me, shows the fallacy of considering misidentifications in such cases and shows the con- fusion and lasting difficulties it will bring about. S. A. Rohwer presented the following: Leach described the genus Messa and included only one species which should, of course, be the type, but the species included by Leach does not fit his description, therefore old authors have considered the genus to be some- thing entirely different from that of the genotype if the species named by Leach is the type of the genus. In the Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 38 (17390), p. 201, I consider as the type of the genus Messa Leach, the species named by him under the genus, and made the necessary changes. Later in letter one of my correspondents held that I was entirely in error and endeavored to obtain the specimen Leach had before him at the time, or at least to find a specimen determined as Messa by Leach. The Leach collection is in the British Museum and also other collections which are supposed to have been named by Leach. After much searching no such specimen could be found. When my correspondent received this news he wrote me that he would be forced to adopt my view although at first he had been opposed to it. Ashmead in 1808 founded the genus Liolyda for an American sawfly which he identified as Lyda frontalis Westwood. On study of the type of West- wood’s species it was found that it did not belong to the genus Ltolyda Ashmead but to the genus Cephaleia. Therefore I have in the Can. Ent., 1910, June, pp. 657, considered the genus Liolyda Ashmead to be a synonym of the genus Cephaleia. Now by a study of the Museum collection and from some OPINION 65 155 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 155 of Ashmead’s manuscripts it is evident that, later, Ashmead realized that he had not determined the Westwoodian species correctly. But this does not alter the case in the least, the species he said was the type of his genus must always be the type, even by the code. Now the case of the genus Messa is just the same. Leach, by making the genus monobasic, established its type. If anyone holds that the species placed in the genus Messa by Leach is not the genotype then the genus will be without a species and will remain in the liter- ature as undeterminable. Not only that, but one with such a view would need a new code of nomenclature, because according to the code the genus Messa is established by the mere fact that it has a valid species placed in it. Patton (Ent. N., vol. 3, 1892, p. 90) described the genus Larropsis and gave as the type Larrada tenuicornis Smith, a well-known species, but his de- scription does not fit this species nor has any entomologist as yet been able to get a species to fit his description. Fox, one of our most careful students, and the well-known European student, Kohl, considered this genus as unde- terminable, and Fox went so far as to make a new genus which included the type of Larropsis. I have set this matter straight, according to my lights, in a paper to be published in the Proceedings of the U. S. N. M. These are only a few cases, but they will tend to show how some students of Hymenoptera are treating such things. I think that everyone in my division of the Museum would hold that the type of the genus X-us is albus Smith and not what Jones had before him. Personally I am much opposed to any other interpretation. If for no other reason than it is in many cases impossible to find out what the author really had before him. Take the case of Leach for example: As far as can be ascertained there is no specimen in existence determined by Leach as Messa. Now what is the type? Some will say that a species which fits the description given by Leach. Well, there are at least ten species which will fit the very short description, and although I might hold that the species which I have before me fits the description best, any of the other writers, to-day or ten years from now, might, with equal propriety, hold that some other species should be the type as it agrees much better than the one I had considered to be the type of the genus with the description given by Leach. W. Dwight Pierce presented the following: In the case of the genotype of X-us Jones (1900), based upon a species erroneously determined as albus Smith (1890), I have two examples and argu- ments to offer. Chas. DeGeer, in Mémoires pour servir a l’histoire des Insectes, Vol. v, pp. 190-283 (1775), describes the genus Jps. Bergroth, Berl. ent. Zeit. (1884), p. 230, and Bedel, Faune des Coléoptéres du Bassin de la Seine (1888), Vol. VI, p. 395, define the first species, typographus, as type, but state that DeGeer wrongly identified typographus Linn., and in reality had what was subsequently described as sexdentatus Born. This synonymy is borne out by Eichhoff (1879) and Blandford (1898). Now it happens this time that typographus Linnzus is congeneric with sexrdentatus Borner (typographus Degeer) and no perplexing changes arise. Latreille in Hist. Nat. Crust. et Ins., III, 203 (1802), describes the genus Tomicus with a single species under the name “ piniperda Fabr.” Bedel 1. c. 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 156 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 (1888), p. 388, states that Latreille’s species is not piniperda (Fabricius) Linnzus, which it purports to be and gives it the new name of pinicola. Bedel furthermore considers Hylastes Erichson (1836) to be absolutely synonymous with Latreille’s conception of Tomicus and therefore so writes it. He also allows piniperda Linnzus to find its place in Myelophilus Eichhoff. The matter becomes still further complicated. Latreille, in 1807, redescribed Tomicus for typographus Linnzus and in 1810 reaffirmed typographus as type of Tomicus. This proves that Latreille had no fixed idea of his genus Tomicus In 1836 Erichson described Dendroctonus and in 1840 Westwood cited pini- perda as the typical species of Dendroctonus. Now you can see that which ever way we decide upon 7Jomicus (1802), a genus falls. To decide with Bedel on the form erroneously determined by Latreille as piniperda, we cause Hylastes Erichson to fall. To decide that piniperda (Fabr.) Linnzus is type, because Latreille said he founded the genus on this species, is to cause Myelophilus Erichson to fall, and if we accept Westwood’s designation as a type designation, Dendroctonus must fall. Dr. Hopkins gives Dendroctonus a very different meaning. In my opinion we should decide on the species quoted and not on the definition given. This may not seem logical to many workers, but the fact is that we seldom know what a describer has in his hand and must go, more or less, on faith in his ability to know what he has. If he states that a certain previously described species is type of his genus or if an included species, accredited to another author, is subsequently designated as type of his genus, he means that we should so accept it. The majority of zoologists are compelled to accept the determination as correct. It appears to me that we will have to be arbitary even if it does sometimes go against the grain of common sense.” T. D. A, Cockerell presented the following: “That is a difficult question you raise in Science. In Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., May 1900, I propose— Dianthidium n. subg. of Anthidium (bees). “Type A. curvatum Smith (interruptum Say) This is Cresson’s section 2.” Now the species familiar to entomologists in this country as “ curvatum Sm. (interruptum Say)” was really D. sayt Ckll., 1907, (= interruptum Say preocc; curvatum auctt., not Smith). I have taken it that Sayi is really the type. Dianthidium is now recognized as a genus; its status is not affected either way, curvatum Smith being con- generic. Macroglossa Rad., 1834 (preoce.) was named Macroglossapis Ckll., 1899. In the meanwhile, however, Holmberg, in 1884, had proposed Thygater in a rather casual manner, citing terminata Sm. as type. Bréthes (An. Mus. nac. Buenos Aires, XIx, 1909, p. 220) stated that Holmber’s “terminata” was not really Smith’s insect, but an undescribed (congeneric) species which he called holmbergi. Consequently Bréthes proposed to retain Macroglossapis, but in this I do not follow him. My feeling is that the assigned type should be taken as the type, unless it is apparent from the context that some other species is referred to. To take an extreme (hypothetical) case— In 1899 (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., p. 261), I showed that Coccus cactt L. was not the cochineal, but was a monophlebid, a conclusion now generally accepted. Supposing that in 1859, [ had described a new genus, with Coc- OPINION 65 BS OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 157 cus cacti as the type, would it be justifiable to now reter tnat genus to the monophlebids, in spite of the fact nobody at that time had the remotest idea that C. cacti was anything but the cochineal? I think it ought to be possible to devise a common sense ruling, which will cover most of the cases. E. P. Fleet presented the following: My observations are limited mostly to conditions obtaining among the Itonidae, better known as the Cecidomyiidae or gall midges. We have in this group, iarge numbers of minute flies, many of them pre- senting a close superficial resemblance to one another, and under a micro- scope, exhibiting marked structural differences. Furthermore, there is in this group a close restriction of food habits in certain forms, while the reverse apparently obtains in others; that is, determinations based on similarity of appearance and rearings from individual galls may be very erroneous. It is nearly impossible to recognize some undoubtedly valid generic or even tribal characters without recourse to the microscope. Furthermore, some of the earlier names of species have been based largely upon superficial descriptions, that is, the vital anatomical characters have been overlooked and dependence placed in large numbers upon the species being obtained from a certain plant or plant deformity. Our studies show this latter criterion to be extremely unsafe, since under certain conditions several species may produce very similar galls, not to mention the fact that predaceous forms and inquilines may also be obtained. I do not wish to advance any argument to justify careless work, and yet we must recognize the fact that in some groups, especially such a one as this, it is almost impossible to eliminate all errors. It seems to me that if we assume as the genotype, the species named by the author of the genus, irrespective of the characters given, we may be doing a grave injustice. In the first place, the species or supposed species, cited as type, may be nothing more than a form known only in a larval stage or one relying for its identifica- tion upon being reared from a certain gall and known to possess specified superficial characters. In other words, this specific name may stand for a species that cannot be recognized with certainty without a study of the type. In many instances the species named as the type may perhaps be a well described form, easily recognized on account of its cogently stated structural characters. The description of this supposed species by the author may be accompanied by illustrations showing that he is dealing with an entirely different insect. The holding that the species named must be the genotype in such an instance violates the evident intention of the author, and some cases at least, may give more weight to a misidentification or even an error in orthography than to a carefully written page of descriptive matter, accompanied possibly by accurate and thoroughly characteristic illustrations. It would seem to the writer that a common-sense interpretation would compel us to hold that the species named by the author of a genus is the genotype, unless there is clear evidence in the description or published illustrations to show that there has been a misidentification, in which case the species actually studied, be it described or not, should be held to be the genotype and described, if such characteriza- tion is lacking, in order to validate the genus. The name of the species sup- posed to be the type would simply be cited as an erroneous identification. 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 158 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 The following correspondence between Caudell—Stiles—Coquil- lett—Stiles bears on the subject— Caudell to Stiles: There are many cases in Orthoptera similar to the hypo- thetical one 1 gave you. The following is one: Bolivar. Zichy, Asiat. Forsch. ii, Zool. Ergebn., p. 240 (1901). Describes new genus Deracanthella and gives Deracantharanea Fisch as the type. Aranea was the only species included. Later, 1906, Kirby, in his Syn. Cat. Orth., Vol. ii, p. 178, places aranea Bolivar as used above, not of Fischer, in synonymy under verrucosa Fischer and quoted that species as the type of Deracanthella. Following cases in Diptera furnished by Coquillett : Devoidy, Essai Myod., p. 433 (1830). Founds genus Calliphora, describing it and designating Musca vomitoria Linn., 1758, as the type. In the genus he described 17 species, among them Musca vomitoria Linn., but it is evident from his description that he had misidentified this species and that the one he had before him was really Musca erythrocephala Meigen, 1826. Is vomi- toria the type? or is erythrocephala? Arribalzaga. Revista Museo La Plata, Vol i, p. 389 (1891). Describes new genus Te@niorhynchus, followed by descriptions of three species: Culex teniorhynchus Wiedemann, T. confinis n. sp. and T. fasciolatus n. sp. No type designated. The first species should be the type by tautonymy, but it is evident from the description that this was a misidentification and that the species before him was Culex titillans Walker, 1848. Is teniorhynchus Wiedemann the type? or is C. titallans Walker? Rondani. Dipt. Ital. Prodr., Vol. 1, p.94 (1856). Describes genus Onodontha and designates Hydrotea floccosa McQ., 1835, as the type, not giving any description of this species however. In Vol. vi of the same work, issued in 1877, p. 28, he states that his determination of McQuart’s species was errone- ous and describes the species as penicillata n. sp. Is floccosa McQ., 1835, the type? or is penicillata Rond, 1877 the type? Stiles to Caudell: Referring to your letter of January 12, case of Dera- canthella, please read pages 68-90, Bull. 79, Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture on The Determination of Genotypes. It seems to me that according to the evidence aranea Fischer is unquestion- ably included by its bibliographic reference in the genotype of Deracanthella. Aranea of Bolivar includes aranea Fisch. plus other specimens which we will call x—. Kirby, 1906, divides x— from aranea. The fact remains that Bolivar distinctly says that aranea is the type of Deracanthella. This is an objective statement while the separation of +— from aranea is subjective so far as we can judge, although that separation may be correct. I have been unable to obtain Devoidy, 1830, therefore prefer not to discuss that case. Teniorhynchus—According to your statement of the case Teniorhynchus as used by Arribalzaga includes teniorhynchus Wiedemann plus titillans Walker. The union or separation of these species is a variable matter depen- dent upon our systematic knowledge and this varies in different years, but in my opinion the fact that we have absolute tautonymy here holds for all time despite our interpretation of specific characters. OPINION 65 159 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 159 Onodoniha.—A difference of 21 years between the issuance of the two books by Rondani easily brings about a difference in conception of systematic units. According to the distinct statement made by Rondani, 1856, page 94, floccosa is the type of Onodontha. As a worker in another group I can establish that fact as an absolutely objective fact, but it would be difficult for me to test the subjective conception contained in the generic diagnosis. Please consider these views personal and not those of the Commission. I will take this matter up in the meeting at Gratz with the other members of the Commission. Coquillett to Stiles: Mr. Caudell has shown me your letter to him bearing the date of May 16th of the present year, and I get the impression that in your ruling in regard to the types of the genera mentioned you have misun- derstood the real situation. Thus in speaking of Bolivar’s genus Deracan- thella you say “ aranea of Bolivar includes aranea Fisch. plus other specimens which we will call +—.’ But this is not at all the case, only one species was before Bolivar when he founded this genus, and that species was verrucosa Fischer, but Bolivar thought it was aranea Fischer and published it as such. Of course where a genus was founded upon only one species as in case of this one, this species must be the type of the genus. The question therefore resolves itself into this: Did Bolivar found the genus Dera- canthella upon the species aranea Fischer, which he had never seen, or did he found it upon verrucosa Fischer, specimens of which were before him, and from which he drew his published description? Of course we might say that the type is “aranea Bolivar, not Fischer, equals verrucosa Fischer,” but I think that the great majority of zoologists would prefer to come right out and say that the type is verrucosa Fischer, which is the valid name of this species. The case of the genus Teniorhynchus you have also evidently misunder- stood, because you state that “ T@niorhynchus as used by Arribalzaga includes teniorhynchus Wiedemann plus titillans Walker.” Only one species was con- cerned here and this was ttti/lans Walker, which Arribalzaga thought was the earlier described species, teniorhynchus Wiedemann. Now as the genus was not founded even in part upon the true teniorhynchus Wiedemann the question comes up: Can a genus have for its type a species upon which it was not wholly or in part founded? So here also we have two expedients; either we may say that the type is “tentorhynchus Arribalzaga not Wiedemann, equals titillans Walker,’ or we may cut it short by saying that the type is “ titallans Walker.” Pardon me for intruding, if such it is, but I am deeply interested in this subject and wish to see it settled in a manner that cannot reasonably be objected to by other zoologists. Stiles to Coquillett: Referring to your kind letter of May 17th, it seems to me that two possibilities are present. First, when Bolivar quoted aranea Fischer, he either intended to include in this species the type specimens of the species or, second, he intended to ex- clude them from that species. My interpretation is that he clearly intended to include under aranea Fischer the original type specimen, otherwise he would not have attributed the species to Fischer. 160 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 160 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 Likewise Teniorhynchus Wiedemann wherever quoted as such must, of necessity, include the type specimen of this species. The point at issue is interpreted differently by different authors, and no matter on which side it is decided, the decision will doubtless be objected to by those who believe in the opposite view. My point is that if such cases are decided in the sense that I propose, we can have a uniform rule which can be uniformly applied. If decided in the sense that you support it is necessary to prove that not a single specimen of aranea examined by Bolivar belonged to aranea Fischer. I do not see how it is possible to bring forward such proof in connection with the older species, especially of small animals, for part of the material may have been destroyed in process of study. Far from intruding in the matter, your letter was most welcome, and I should be glad to discuss the case with you personally should you care to do so. Charles H. T. Townsend presented the following: GENOTYPES ARE THE SPECIES UPon WHICH GENERA ARE BASED The case presented by Dr. Stiles on page 620 of Science for April 21 last, possesses exceptional importance for the student of muscoid flies. Prob- ably in no other superfamily of animals have as many misidentifications been made as in the Muscoidea. Species have been repeatedly confused, combined, jumbled and wrongly determined ever since the time of Meigen, if not before, until the tangle has now become frightfully intricate in character. Especially within the past decade or two have misidentifications of North American forms enormously increased, so that the literature is now overbur- dened with the resulting error, from which it will be a labor of great magni- tude to free it. The principle involved in misidentifications or cases of mistaken identity is always the same for all cases, and the problem is capable of only one correct solution. Of two diametrically opposed propositions, one must necessarily be right and the other wrong. While I can see the case clearly from both points of view, the wrong premises of the one view stand forth distinctly in my mind, and I cannot grant that there exists here any necessity for arbitrary decision. The whole matter rests, of course, upon the adoption of rational and correct premises. Properly approaching the question its solution is simple, and I need only repeat here the axiomatic title at the head of these remarks. The correct and only logical premises are represented in the axiom that every record of a species or other taxonomic unit in the literature becomes at once a part of the synonymy of the species or unit intended for record by the recorder. it makes no difference under what name the record be made, the entity referred to remains the same, and the synonymy of that entity is thereby enriched by the name used, followed by the name of the author making the record together with the date of same. This precludes confusion whether or not misidentification exists. The genus X-us Jones, 1900, unmistakably has for its type, under the conditions of the problem as stated, the species albus Jones, 1900. The genotype can be no other than this, which is the particular form so identified by Jones at the time and by him intended as the type of his genus. Jones has misidentified his genotype with Smith’s species, hence OPINION 65 161 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 161 the name albus Jones, 1900 (xon Smith, 1890), becomes a synonym of the name that shall finally hold for the genotype, that is to say, the particular form indicated by Jones. It is conceivable that Jones might differently identify the same form at different times, hence the necessity for a synonym to take the date of publication, which should include the month and day if Jones is a voluminous and frequent publisher. ; The fallacy of the opposite premises is very evident. Were we to admit the latter it would be impossible to present a rational synonymy of forms. In the above. case, albus Smith, 1890, has no further connection with the matter in hand after it has been proved that albus Jones, 1900, is a different form. It should be evident that an author’s record of a form must remain always a record of that form in his sense at the time of record. The name he uses is merely a handle by which we can ourselves find and locate that form. If we ever decide that a record of a form is not a record of the form in the sense intended to be recorded, we are clearly on the wrong road. And this is exactly where we should be were we to decide in the above stated ques- tion that the record of albus Jones, 1900, is not a record of albus Jones, 1900, but a record of albus Smith, 1890, knowing the contrary to be the case. The wording of the question itself in Dr. Stiles’s title carries the correct solution. The species upon which a genus is based is necessarily the type of that genus. If it be found that the species has been erroneously determined, the determina- tion must be corrected, and if it is found to be undescribed it should be at once characterized by the discoverer of the erroneous determination; otherwise the genus might by some be held to fall, being left without a described type species that can be designated. I would suggest that a special provision be made for such cases, whereby the genus need not fall in event of its type species proving undescribed. It can always be referred to by the name used in the original record, as albus Jones, 1900 (non Smith, 1890), until it can be better characterized. The species, whatever it proves to be, remains the type. Suppose the case of A and B, two men who are look-alike twins. I am acquainted with A, but I am ignorant of the existence of B. I see B, whom I believe to be A, commit a crime, and I give evidence in court, in my mistaken, but conscientious belief, due to the misidentification of individuals, that A com- mitted the said crime. Does this make A the criminal in the case, or does B remain the criminal? J think no argument is needed to show clearly that the person whom I saw commit the crime is bound to remain the criminal in the case regardless of the name by which I designate him; my A is synonymous with B. Entities must be maintained. If individuals are confounded, their individuality is lost. Following still further the principle of mistaken identity, it is evident that an author cannot correctly put a previously published record into his synonymy without correctly ascertaining the identity of the forms concerned. It is equally evident that, whether he has or has not correctly ascertained the same, he personally and no other is responsible for the synonymy published under or over his name. Still further it is evident that, if his synonymy be found incorrect, it does not hold and the status of the particular forms which he has wrongly so indicated remains the same as before. No synonymy is entitled to recognition unless founded on material studied, hence the detection of error carries with it a location of the material under consideration at the time by the 162 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 162 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 said author. If the points involved in the same ever become of sufficient impor- tance to warrant, then the forms represented in the said material must properly, for synonymic purposes, take the names by which the said author recorded them plus his own name and date. The element of protection demands consideration. It is evident that a taxonomic unit once correctly defined and named must be recognized and protected from distortion. What protection has albus Smith, 1890, if we allow it to be cited as the type of a genus that not only was manifestly not intended for it by its author but may even prove to be incompatible with it in its char- acters? If the characters of the genus X-us Jones, 1900, are not stated by its author, the same are to be found only in the material of albus Jones, 1900. If no such material has been studied and the new genus has been proposed on the strength of the description of the genotype cited, then no misidentification exists, and the case as stated does not apply. Likewise, if the type material of the genotype is cited the case does not apply. All phases which do not carry the misidentification principle may be similarly eliminated from the present consideration. Those who would maintain, in the face of the above remarks and under the conditions of the question as stated by Doctor Stiles, that albus Smith, 18go, is the genotype of X-us Jones, 1q00, can in my opinion have no other excuse for their action than the desire to shirk taxonomic responsibilities because they involve increased labor. Clearly an author has no right to treat a subject in the literature without complying with the responsibilities which his treatment, so far as it goes, demands. If he does so, he alone is at fault and he alone must suffer. Slipshod taxonomic methods carry their own germs of decay. If I myself have offended in this respect, I neither deserve nor desire sym- pathy as to the particular points of my offense. Every author’s work must be verified until it becomes apparent that correctness has been attained. In this manner only can we put taxonomy on a sound basis. It is evident that the desired consummation of demonstrated taxonomic correctness for most forms is a long way off, but deplorable as this may be, and, as difficult of achieve- ment as it is deplorable, we cannot in any event justly dodge the points at issue. Nomenclatorial problems must be fairly met or we shall never attain the desired end. I have heretofore held aloof from discussions of nomenclatorial intri- cacies in general, knowing that the conditions of muscoid taxonomy are at present such that few cases can yet be definitely stated, although the future holds a multitude of them for ultimate solution. But I consider that the necessity for deciding the present question as above suggested is of such paramount importance to the welfare of future taxonomy that I have, at the risk of prolixity, presented the evidence both direct and indirect as fully as I am able to see it at the present time. The effect of the final decision by the International Commission of questions involving the misidentification principle will have the utmost bearing on muscoid taxonomy, from which confusion will never be eliminated until we know the morphology of the reproduc- tive system, egg and early stages thoroughly, as well as every detail of the external anatomy of the fly, and perhaps all the details of the internal anat- omy. The conditions in the Muscoidea are quite unique, forms belonging to distinct genera and tribes, or even distinct subfamilies, often being closely OPINION 65 163 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 163 similar in external adult structure. Many authors have in consequence sadly mixed and confused distinct forms throughout their work, and if we ever decide against the zuztent of an author it goes without saying that we shall be irretrievably lost in muscoid synonymy. Correct interpretation of an author’s meaning is as important to us as priority in nomenclature. Therefore the importance of securing a rational working decision cannot be overrated. - Piura, Peru, May 7th, to1t. Wm. H. Dall presented the following: “Tt seems to me that questions of this kind should be settled on general principles such as the following: 1. An author must be supposed to mean what he says. 2aliieit is clear, (a) from references given by him, (b) from his description, if any, or (c) from his actual type specimen positively identified as such, that the name given by him to his type was not that properly belong- ing to it, the species indicated by his specimen, description, or reference should be taken as the type of his genus. 3. Unless it is quite certain that he made a misidentification, the type should stand as he cited it. No changes should rest on uncertainties. For this reason I thtink the ornithologists were wrong when they made a new species in a paper by Smith, stated by him to have Brown as its author, Smith’s species. We have no right to go behind the returns. If Smith said it was Brown who was the author, his dictum should settle it, since no one can possibly know better than Smith whether he had a right to claim the species or not.” David Starr Jordan presented the following: In regard to the genus X-us Jones, based on albus, wrongly identified, it seems to me that our only safeguard is, in case we know positively what the author had in mind, to accept that as his type. In most cases we may assume that the type is correctly identified, but where it distinctly is not I think that we must go by our knowledge of what the author really meant. W. D. Mathew presented the following: The two solutions given involve diverse principles which would have a very important bearing on nomenclature in vertebrate paleontology. I venture, therefore, to present what I understood to be the principles that would con- trol in this case as derived from the accepted usage and nomenclature in our branch of science. These are: (1) A species is based upon the type specimen (or specimens) ; (2) A genus is based upon a species (or upon more than cne, but), not upon a definition, nor directly upon 2 specimen ; (3) An adequate definition, even though wholly erroneous, validates a genus. If you accept these three principles, the first solution given is the only one possible. If you do not accept them fully, you have numerous instances 164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 164 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 in vertebrate paleontology, and no doubt in other branches, where no consistent and uniform rulings would be practicable. It is very common for a new species of fossil vertebrates to be named upon a fragmentary specimen and referred to a known genus. Subse- quently better material is referred to that species and shows it to be a new genus. If this better material is afterwards shown to be incorrectly so referred, the generic name must remain with the type specimen in revising the species. For a part of the generic characters are necessarily based ulti- mately upon the type specimen, and the proportion will vary in each instance. The concept of the genus does not rest wholly in the stated definition (which is merely an evidence of good faith) but consists largely in the previous references of the species upon which it is founded. Of the characters of the definition the original type of the species may show from zero to nearly all, the remainder being derived from the newly referred material. If you adopt a ruling that will make the genus name go with the referred material where the type shows zero of the definition characters, but with the type where it shows most or all of the definition characters of the new genus, what will you do with the intermediate cases, or with those in which some or all of the generic characters are doubtfully or inferentially shown by the type specimen of its typical species, while certainly or directly shown by the wrongly referred material. Such a ruling can only lead to a setting up of individual opinion as a guide, and to arbritrary and inconsistent decisions. In the interests of stability it seems to me that the first two principles should be strictly applied. The third principle appears to me equally necessary for fixity in nomencla- ture. Many names have been based upon partly or wholly misinterpreted characters and retained with amended definition after the error has been cor- rected. This principle depends upon the former one; that a genus rests upon a species, not upon a definition nor directly upon a specimen. This leaves the definition subject to necessary amendment and alteration without disturbing the nomenclature. If so, then partly or even wholly erroneous definitions would not invalidate or transfer the generic name. The retention of genera proposed without species by early authors is, of course, in conflict with this view. For the purpose of retaining such names one must assume that the author failed to specify the species of which the definition was predicated, but that in view of the more careless earlier usage they may be considered as specified and the type indicated from among them by a later author. These are exceptional cases which will not recur. On the other hand, if you try to make a genus rest upon a definition or a referred specimen, you cannot radically alter the definition or revise the material without disturbing and confusing the nomenclature, and this is a very general case which will continually recur.” Hubert Lyman Clark presented the following: In 1830, Lesson (Centurie zoologique, etc., p. 155) described a small holo- thurian from the Falkland Islands, as “ Holothuria (Fistularia) purpurea. Less.” Among other things he says “Cette holothurie . . . appartient évi- demment au petit genre chiridota de M. Eschscholtz..... La bouche est arrondie, entourée de dix tentacules..... OPINION 65 165 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 165 In 1876, Studer (“Ueber Echinodermen aus dem Antarktischen Meere,” etc. in Monatsb. der Konigl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, July, 1876, p. 454) established a new genus thus: “Sigmodota n. g. Tentacula duodecim, digitiformia; cutis mollis, laevis, corpuscula calcarea rara, sigmoidea. S. purpurea Less. Kerguelen, fretum Magalhaents, ins. Falkland. Eine art, die der Lesson’schen Beschreibung von Chirodota purpurea entspricht, fand sich hatifig im Schlatum auf 5 Faden bei Kerguelen, sowie in der Magelhaenstrasse. Das neue Genus berechtigt die eigenthtmliche Form der Kalkkorper, die Stabschen darstellen, deren beide Enden hackenformig nach verschiedenen Richtungen umgebogen sind.’ This is all that Studer says. Note that while Lesson said “dix” tentacles, Studer says in his diag- nosis “ duodecim.” In 1808, Ludwig (Holothurien: in “ Hamburger Magalhaenische Sammel- reise) discusses Lesson’s and Studer’s species fully (pp. 68, 69) and I quote from him as follows: “Studer war (18760) der Meinung, dass die von ihm an der Kerguelen-Insel und in der Magalhaens-Strasse gefundene Sigmodota purpurea die Lesson’sche Art sei” (p. 68). Auch mit Studer’s Sigmodota purpurea kann die Lesson’sche Art wegen ihrer Fihlerzahl nicht ohne weiters vereinigt werden. Denn Studer sagt in seiner diagnose ausdriicklich, ‘tentacula duodecim.’ Ferner stammen Studer’s Exemplare Nicht von den Falkland-Inseln und lebten im Schlamm, nicht an Tangwurzeln. Im Gegensatze zu Studer’s eigener Angabe steht nun freilich die Mittheilung vom Lampert, dass er an einem von ihm fir identisch mit Studer’s Art gehaltenen und von derselben Expedition heimgebrachten Ex- emplare nun zehn Fihler gefunden habe. Ich kann mir diesen Widerspruch nicht anders auflosen als durch die Annahme dass Studer sowonl die 10—fuh- lerige echte Lesson’sche Art als die 12-ftihlerige Chiridota contorta, die sich in Grosse und Habitus sehr ahnlich sehen gesammelt, aber nich als zwei gesonderte Arten unterschieden hat. Fiir die Aufstellung seiner Diagnose hat er, wenigstens soweit die Fithlerzahl in betracht kommt, ein Exemplar der Chiridota contorta benutzt, wahrend das Exemplar, das Lampert unter dem von Studer unbestimmt gelassenen “ Gazelle—” Material fand, und als Chiri- dota studert beschrieb, und ebenso das andere Exemplar des Berliner Museums, von den ihm ein Preparat der Kalkkorper vorlag, in Wirklichkeit zu der 10 fiihlerigen Lesson’schen Chiridota purpurea gehoren, wovon ich mich dank der freundlichen Erlaubnis des Herrn Geheimraths Mobius durch eigene Unter- suchung tberzeugen konnte. In 1908, I settled the case for my own use as follows (The Apodous Holo- thurians, in Smithsonian Contributions to knowledge, Vol. 35, p. 17). At first sight, it might seem that Ludwig’s name “ [Trochodota] ” is antedated by Studer’s Sigmodota, but although Studer states that his type species is Lesson’s purpurea, a perfectly recognizable species which Ludwig makes the type of Trochodota, he incorrectly identified the Chiridotine be- fore him and in spite of their: having 12 tentacles, called them purpurea; consequently he states that Sigmodota has 12 tentacles.” .... “ Ludwig (98b) has shown that the species Studer had in hand was undoubtedly Chiridota contorta Ludw., and as his generic diagnosis fits that species, contorta be- comes the type of Sigmodota.” 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 166 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 I have never been satisfied with this settlement of the case and I shall be interested to learn what the Commission decides. In my opinion, stability would be furthered by maintaining that where a species is designated as the type (or where only a single species is mentioned), that species is the type of the genus regardless of the specimens the author had in hand, and regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, justice and common sense seem to me to require that the species the author has in hand and intends to make the type, should be recognized as the type.” Oldfield Thomas presented the following: In answer to your appeal in Nature for cases bearing on the question of the genotype of X-us, may I direct your attention to that of Galeopithecus, and my own paper on it (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) I, p. 252, 1908). I have there taken the view that the genotype should remain as the species originally quoted as such, whether or not the author Jones has named his species rightly, but I have since modified the extreme view there advanced, and would now hold that in cases where there is clear evidence in the descrip- tion of the genus as to what the animals are that are called “albus Smith,” the generic name should then follow these animals whether they are or are not the true albus of Smith, but that this should not cover cases where distinction from albus is only found out by the after examination of labelied specimens, no decisive indication being given in the generic description. I would venture to suggest that the decision of the Commission, based on some such lines as are here indicated, would have the agreement of the majority of naturalists. Incidentally I would say that this modification of my view does not effect the case of Galeopithecus for that name is distinctly given to the animal obtained by Camellius (7. e., Phillipine Colugo.... ), reference to which forms the first half of Pallas’ paper. As it is only at the end of Pallas’ paper that the specimens of this genus, Galeopithecus, get mentioned by him. Mr. Gerrit Miller has also investigated the case, and quite agrees that Galeopithecus should be considered synonymous with Cynocephalus, from whatever personal standpoint the case is viewed. P. Chalmers Mitchell presented the following: According to the rules of nomenclature, Jones has established the name of his new genus only if he proposes the name, indicates the characters, and allocates to the genus a type-species. X-us Jones, 1900, is valid if the type- species albus Smith, 1890, is correctly determined by Jones. It is also valid if the actual species which Jones had before him and identified as albus Smith, 1890, turns out to be y-us of any author before 1900, only in that case the type- species automatically was the proper specified name of the beast that Jones had before him. This case is of some importance where the species in ques- tion is a well-known an:mal named by one of the earlier writers, and rather difficult to identify. The fact, however, that Jones had before him an actual beast with an actuai specific name is the important point in his genus; that he was wrong in the name has nothing to do with the case. At the moment of his making the genus the specimen and the correct name existed, and he has completely complied with the conditions of nomenclature. OPINION 65 167 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 167 If, however, the beast which Jones wrongly identified as albus Smith turns out to be an unnamed species then of course there was no type-species at- tached to the proposed genus (as a type species for the purpose of nomencla- ture must mean a named species), and the proposed generic name is invalid because the conditions of making a generic name were not complied with. Ph. Dautzenberg presented the following: “Tt seems to me that the genotype [in the case under discussion] can be only that species viseed by the author of the genus, for it is for this form that he has established his genus. The genotype of the genus X-us Jones is, according to my opinion, albus Jones, 1900, and not albus Smith, 1890. Franz Poche presented the following: In the case as stated I am decidedly of the opinion that albus Smith, 1890, is the type of X-us. (By saying decidedly I by no means wish to imply that it was superfluous to put the question; on the contrary I fully concur with you that the case is a very difficult one and I even believe that at first sight most zoologists would tend toward the contrary decision.) My reasons therefor are the following: Jones, in the original publication, definitely des- ignates albus Smith, 1890, as type, which therefore “shall be accepted as type regardless of any other considerations ”—and that Jones erroneously deter- mined the specimens he thought to belong to this species is surely another consideration. The above decision is thus not only in accordance with, but directly prescribed by the clear wording of the code, and the question is therefore settled under the existing rules. But also apart from Art. 30a, I consider that the same conclusion would have to be reached. For Jones distinctly states that albus Smith, 1890, is the type of X-us; and even if it should have been his intention to make the species to which his specimens belong the type, action precedes intention in matters of nomencla- ture (of course not always in ethics, etc.). It is further a recognized principle that nomenclature should as far as possible (1. e., as compatible with the princi- ples of a rational terminology) be independent of the essentially always subjec- tive systematic views ( I surely need not cite examples therefor) ; and in case of the repudiation of the opinion developed above the nomenclatorial question as to the type of X-us would depend on the subjective view of the systematist whether the specimens determined as albus by Jones are really albus in which case, of course, albus Smith, 1890, is the type—or not, in which case then the species to which they belong would be the type. Of course, this argument is not decisive, but can well be used as of an auxiliary nature. Further, the arguments used by you in Opinion 14, which, according to my convictions, are perfectly cogent, to which for sake of brevity, I only refer here, are in all essentials applicable to the case in question and lead to the same result. Except, of course, the sentence “It appears from the... established by himself,’ which is true enough in that case, but irrelevant, as shown by the fact that all the argument there following it in no way rests upon it and is just as conclusive if that sentence be left out. That sentence can thus not righty be used as an argument that in the case of an author establishing a new genus matters would be different than in the case there discussed—as it might seem to imply. I am well aware that 168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 168 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2256 in concurring in your argumentation as mentioned above, I encounter the opposition of as acute and careful a thinker as Prof. Stejneger; but after the most careful criticism I cannot but find it absolutely correct. It is true that in compiling the synonymy of the respective species one would in gen- eral simply quote “FE. blenn. Kirtl.,’ perhaps adding “non Raf.” resp. X-us albus Jones, perhaps adding “non... . albus Smith,” and not add “ part.,” as one ought to do to be quite correct in respect to the line of thought in ques- tion, and on the other side not quote “E. blenn. Kirtl. part.” resp. X-us albus Jones pt.” at all in compiling an attemptedly complete synonymy of E£. blenn. Raf., resp..... albus Smith; a fact that Stejneger might adduce in support of the opinion apparently held’by him; but a strictly logical argument cannot be upset by an appeal to a rather universal—and generally very harm- less, though not strictly correct—usage; and further: how seldom does one quote e. g. Fringilla L. pt. under any of the numerous other genera based on species originally contained in this genus, or adds “pt” when the genus Fringilla is quoted from Linné in its modern sense? (I hope I have succeeded in making clear what I mean.) As to the arguments of Mr. Hoyle, I think his first sentence can be met by Art. 30a, as used above, while his second sen- tence would be quite correct if changed to “ What he took for Eiheostoma blennioides was something quite different,” and would then no more be avail- able as argument in his sense. As to convenience, the ruling advocated above will evidently give rise to fewer changes than would the opposite one, as in general, when an author has stated that albus Smith is the type of a genus, naturally the real a/bus Smith will universally have been or be taken as such, nobody supposing a priori that the author has misdetermined his specimens— and if this then later turns out to be the case, under the opposite ruling the type would have to be changed. However, not much stress can be laid on this point, as cases like this are, comparatively speaking, very rare. As to possible arguments from the opposite side, it might be urged that the definition or description of X-us or X-us albus by Jones, if any such be given by him, might, resp. would not be in accord with the characters of .... albus Smith; this would easily be refuted by recalling the universally admitted fact that in fixing a name or the typical part (type) of the unit designated by it not the diagno- sis given, but the units or objects actually referred to the respective unit or designated as typical of it—if there are such—are of decisive importance, whenever there is a discordance between the two. This principal evidently also underlies your sentence in Op. 14: “The fact that Agassiz was... . as genotype.” In respect to similar cases I, at the present, only recollect that of Noctua Gm. See Stone, Auk. 24, p. 192, 25, p. 221 [not verified by mel], should I however come across any others, I will not fail to call your attention to them. In support of the view held by me I further refer to the second sentence of Art. 31 (cf. the authentic French version, whereas in the English and Ger- man text erroneously * the word afterwards is added, in which case, of course, already the principal of homonymy would forbid the use of the name in ques- tion), where an analogous point of view is taken. The underlying principal * The word afterwards was inserted intentionally, not erroneously.—C. W. S. OPINION 65 169 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 169 could be formulated somewhat as follows, so as to cover as well this case as the one raised by you: “ The appliance [application] of a systematic name to objects which undoubtedly rest upon an error of identification has no bearing (influence) on the nomenclatorial status of said objects.” It can thus not be construed as making them the type of a genus—which would be influencing their nom. status in a very important way. Universal usage is in full harmony with the principle thus formulated in another instance, viz., that when a mis- identified species is recognized as such and received a new name, it is uni- versally—I willingly admit exceptions—introduced and recorded as n. sp., and not simply the name as nom. nov., although it may be a very well-known form, thus recognizing the truths that the name hitherto applied to it has no standing in nomenclature for it and that from the point of view of nomenclature a systematic unit is not established until it receives a name having standing in nomenclature (for it). Vote or Commission.—The foregoing papers, in part or in whole, have been presented to the Commission at two meetings (Gratz, 1910, and Monaco, 1913). At the Monaco meeting, upon motion of the Secretary, all the documents were referred to a special Committee for recommenda- tion as to action. This motion prevailed and Commissioners Hart- ert, Allen, and Hoyle were designated as members of the special committee, which reported as follows: “Case of a genus based upon a wrongly determined species: The Committee is of the opinion that as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of a genus, and hence that when an author names a particular species as type of a new genus it is to be assumed that it has been correctly determined. If a case should present itself’ in which it appears that an author has based his genus upon certain definite specimens rather than upon a species it should be submitted to the Commission for consideration.” Upon motion and second this report was accepted and adopted and ordered published. 1 Gatesius was based distinctly upon certain specimens, because of a some- what remote possibility that these specimens from Florida might not be specifically identical with the type specimens of the species from Japan.— COW. S: ~ te ry » " ; ye mr ' Wet, Myce A keys BAS, wali ¥ - att : x f i 1” ‘ 2 iy r 2 ! \ cx } ¥ vi 2 7a hye y ) t : y ‘ = ¢ 1h) aT } H ¥ i “25 OPINION 66 171 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON PUBLICATION 2359. FEBRUARY, 1915 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE? OPINION 66 NEMATODE AND GORDIACEA NAMES PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL LIST oF GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY.—The following Nematode and Gordiacea names are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: Ancylostoma, Ascaris, Dracun- culus, Gnathostoma, Necator, Strongyloides, Trichostrongylus, Gordius, and Paragordius. STATEMENT OF CASE.—-The Secretary of the Commission submitted to a special Advisory Committee certain generic names of parasites reported for man with request that said Advisory Committee give to the International Commission the benefit of its ideas in regard to Said names as coming into consideration in connection with the In- ternational Official List of Generic Names. The names in question have already been published in Science, March 29, 1912, page 507, in the proceedings of the Ninth International Zoological Congress, 1914, pages 858 to 859, and in the Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1912, p. 558. The special committee, consisting of Prof. Max Braun (Konigs- berg), Prof. A. Railliet (Alfort), Prof. H. B. Ward (Urbana), Dr. B. H. Ransom (Secretary, Washington, D. C.), has submitted the following report: To the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Committee report on names of Nematoda and Gordiacea The undersigned members of a committee of five requested by your Secretary to consider the generic names of Nematoda and Gordiacea hereinafter men- + Pagination continuous with Publication 1938, Opinions 1 to 26; Publica- tion 1989, Opinions 26 to 29; Publication 2013, Opinions 30 to 37; Publication 2060, Opinions 38 to 51; Publication 2160, Opinions 52 to 56; and Publication 2256, Opinions 57 to 65. 17I i 72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 172 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2359 tioned, with reference to their inclusion in an Official List of Generic Names, beg leave to submit the following report: In preparing this report we have taken into consideration the views of 68 zoologists, physicians, and veterinarians, as expressed in replies to a cir- cular, a copy of which is herewith submitted. A synopsis of the replies to this circular is also submitted. We recommend the adoption of the following names, all of which, so far as we have been able to determine by careful study, are nomenclatorially valid. Ancylostoma (Dubini, 1843a,” 5-13) emendation Creplin, 1845a, 325, type duodenale (in Homo; Italy). Ascaris Linneus, 1758a, 644, 648, type lumbricoides (in Homo; Europe). Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, 12, type medinensis (in Homo). Gnathostoma Owen, 1836f, 123-126, type spinigerum in (Felis tigris; London). Necator Stiles, 19031, 14; type americanus (in Homo; U. S. A.). Strongyloides Grassi, 1879f, 497, type imtestinalis = stercoralis (in Homo). Trichostrongylus Looss, 19050, 413-417, type retorteformis (in Lepus timidus; Europe). Gordius Linnzus, 1758a, 644, 647, type aquaticus (free; Europe). Paragordius Camerano, 1897g, 368, 390-402, type varius (free; Europe). Signed by: _ M. Braun, A. Rariiet, B. H. Ransom, H. B. Warp. Bureau oF ANIMAL INDUSTRY WasuinctTon, D. C., November 18, 1913. Professor Max Braun, Zoological Institute, Konigsberg, Prussia. Professor Arthur Looss, Government Medical School, Cairo, Egypt. Professor A. Railliet, Ecole National Veterinaire, Alfort, France. Professor B. H. Ward, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. Gentlemen.—A copy of this letter is sent to each of the gentlemen mentioned above. In order to obtain additional information relative to the names of genera of Nematoda and Gordiacea contained in the list submitted to the special com- mittee for study and report by the Section on Nomenclature of the last Inter- national Zoological Congress, I sent out, last July, 167 circulars similar to those enclosed. The circulars were intended particularly to bring out any obj ections which might exist in various quarters with regard to any of the names. Most of those to whom circulars were sent were parasitologists, but a good many zoologists not immediately interested in parasitology, and a few physiciaris and veterinarians were also included in the list. The list was largely made up from my own list of correspondents, otherwise the names were chosen more or less at random. Replies were received from 77 of those to whom circulars were sent; 9 of these declined to vote, so that altogether 68 voted on the names. Forty-six acceded to all the names without expressed reservation, as follows: G. Allesandrini, \M. Braun, N. Cholodkovsky, J. B. Cleland, A. F.. Conradi, For full bibliographic references see Stiles and Hassall, Index Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology. OPINION 66 173 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 173 W. W. Cort, Oswaldo Cruz, W. C. Curtis, E. V. Daday, E. Dietz, C. A. Ewald, B. Galli Valerio, J. Goldberger, M. C. Hall, A. Hassall, K. Heider, A. Henry, R. Hertwig, S. J. Johnston, C. A. Kofold, H. Krabbe, F. Lahille, G. R. LaRue, O. v. Linstow, A. Lutz, G. A. MacCallum, F. R. S. Monticelli, M. Neveu- Lemaire, Wm. Nicoll, H. Osborn, R. v. Ostertag, A. S. Pearse, L. Plate, C. E. Porter, A. Railliet, W. A. Riley, L. G. Sourat, A. E. Shipley, J. W. W. Stephens, C. W. Stiles, Georgina Sweet, T. Studer, L. D. Swingle, F. V. Theobald, L. Van Es, F. Zschokke. H. B. Ward accepted all the names, but reserved opinion as to authors, dates, and types noted in the circular list. A. Brauer accepted all the names, but accepted Dracunculus on the condition that Filaria was retained for F. martis, otherwise not. Ancylostoma was accepted by W. B. Herme, A. Collin, H. F. Nachtrieb, L. Gedoelst, O. Maas, R. Heymons, J. W. Spengel, S. Goto, O. Fuhrmann, G. Neumann, W. T. Councilman, R. T. Leiper, E. R. Stitt. Not voting on Ancylostoma, R. P. Strong, L. Camerano, G. H. F. Nuttall, A. Jacobi. J. S. Kingsley accepts Ancylostoma if amended to Anchylostomum. J. Guiart objects to Ancylostoma, but would accept Ankylostoma, or preferably Anky- lostomum. E. Brumpt would substitute Ankylostomum for Ancylostoma. Total in favor of Ancylostoma, including the 48 names first given, 61. Ascaris was accepted by E. Brumpt, A. Collin, W. T. Councilman, O. Fuhrmann, L. Gedoelst, S. Goto, J. Guiart, W. B. Herms, R. Heymons, J. S. Kingsley, R. T. Leiper, O. Maas, R. F. Nachtrieb, G. Neumann, G. H. F. Nuttall, J. W. Spengel, E. R. Stitt, R. P. Strong. L. Camerano and A. Jacobi did not vote on Ascaris. Total in favor of Ascaris, including the 48 names first given, 66. Dracunculus was accepted by E. Brumpt, W. T. Councilman, J. Guiart, W. B. Herms, R. Heymons, J. S. Kingsley, R. T. Leiper, O. Maas, G. Neumann, E. R. Stitt, R. P. Strong. Not voting on Dracunculus, L. Camerano, O. Fuhrmann, G. H. F. Nuttall. Brauer’s opinion relative to Dracunculus has already been noted. A Collin states that it seems to him desirable to retain Filaria instead of recognizing Dracunculus. O. Fuhrmann asks if F. medinensis is not an Ichthyonema. L. Gedoelst and H. F. Nachtrieb question Dracunculus without further com- ment. S. Goto votes against Dracunculus “ because it will supplant the univer- sally known Filaria.” A. Jacobi votes against Dracunculus with the comment that Filaria medinensis is to be preferred to D. medinensis because it is the established name of a species frequently referred to from medical and geo- graphical standpoints. J. W. Spengel votes against Dracunculus because the genus appears to him a doubtful one, inasmuch as, so far as his knowledge goes, it has not been proved to be distinct from Filaria. Total in favor of Dracunculus, including the 47 names first given, 58. Gnathostoma was accepted by E. Brumpt, A. Collin, W. T. Councilman, O. Fuhrmann, L. Gedoelst, S. Goto, J. Guiart, R. T. Leiper, H. F. Nachtrieb, G. Neumann, F. R. Stitt. Not voting, L. Camerano, W. B. Herms, R. Hey- mons, A. Jacobi, J. S. Kingsley, G. H. F. Nuttall, J. W. Spengel, R. P. Strong. O. Maas questions Guathostoma without further comment. Total in favor of Gnathostoma, including the 48 names first given, 59. Necator was accepted by E. Brumpt, A. Collin, W. T. Councilman, O. Fuhrmann, L. Gedoelst, S. Goto, J. Guiart, W. B. Herms, R. T. Leiper, H. I. 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 174 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2359 Nachtrieb, G. Neumann, G. H. F. Nuttall, J. W. Spengel, E. R. Stitt, R. P. Strong. Not voting, R. Heymons, A. Jacobi, J. S. Kingsley. O. Maas questions Necator without comment. Total in favor of Necator, including the 48 names first given, 63. Strongyloides was accepted by E. Brumpt, A. Collin, W. T. Councilman, O. Fuhrmgann, L. Gedoelst, S. Goto, J. Guiart, W. B. Herms, R. T. Leiper, O. Maas, H. F. Nachtrieb, G. Neumann, J. W. Spengel, E. R. Stitt, R. P. Strong. Not voting, L. Camerano, R. Heymons, A. Jacobi, J. S. Kingsley, G. H. F. Nuttall. Total in favor of Strongyloides, including the 48 names first given, 63. Trichostrongylus was accepted by E. Brumpt, A. Collin,‘\W. T. Councilman, O. Fuhrmann, L. Gedoelst, S. Goto, J. Guiart, R. T. Leiper, H. F. Nachtrieb, G. Neumann, E. R. Stitt. Not voting, L. Camerano, W. B. Herms, R. Hey- mons, A. Jacobi, J. S. Kingsley, G. H. F. Nuttall, J. W. Spengel, R. P. Strong. O: Maas questions Trichostrongylus without further comment. Total in favor of Trichostrongylus, including the 48 names first given, 59. Gordius was accepted by E. Brumpt, L. Camerano, A. Collin, O. Fuhrmann, L. Gedoelst, S. Goto, J. Guiart, W. B. Herms, R. Heymons, J. S. Kingsley, R. T. Leiper, O. Maas, H. F. Nachtrieb, J. W. Spengel. Not voting, W. T. Councilman, A. Jacobi, G. Neumann, G. H. F. Nuttall, E. R. Stitt, R. P. Strong. Total in favor of Gordius, including the 48 names first given, 62. Paragordius was accepted by E. Brumpt, L. Camerano, A. Collin, O. Fuhr- mann, L. Gedoelst, S. Goto, J. Guiart, H. F. Nachtrieb, H. W. Spengel. Not voting, W. T. Councilman, W. B. Herms, R. Heymons, A. Jacobi, J. S. Kings- ley, R. T. Leiper, G. Neumann, G. H. F. Nuttall, E. R. Stitt, R. P. Strong. O. Maas questions Paragordius without further comment. Total in favor of Paragordius, including the 48 names first given, 57. SUMMARY Doubt- Not For Against ful Voting AIEWIOSHOUAG 25006 ceo cc 61 3 4 A'SCONES cotter greater 66 2 Dracunculus .......... 58 3 3 Gnathostoma ......... 59 ae I 8 WNiecator ere sea ae 63 ae I 3 Strongyloides ........ 63 Be His 5 Trichostrongylus ...... 50 He I 8 Gordiuts. S525 cas ecnine 62 ; 6 Paragordius .......... Sez, i I 10 Please give the generic names in question early consideration, and sign and return to me the accompanying report if it accords with your ideas in the matter. : If not in harmony with your opinions, I shall be glad to receive a special report, which I shall submit with the rest of the reports from the Committee, to the [nternational Commission. Very respectfully, (Signed) B. H. Ransom. OPINION 66 175 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 175 [SAMPLE CIRCULAR] UniTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BuREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, Wasuincton, D. C., July 2, 1913. Dear Sir—The undersigned is acting on behalf of a special committee selected by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature -to study the names of the Nematoda (and Gordiacea), particularly the names of nematodes which have been recorded as parasites of man. The other members of the committee are Prof. Max Braun, Prof. Arthur Looss, Prof. A. Railliet, and Prof. H. B. Ward. The names of genera given in the accompanying list were adopted by the International Commission at its last meeting, but the Section on Nomenclature of the International Zoological Congress requested that the names be resubmitted to the special committee for further study and report. Please vote “ Yes” or “ No” on each name according as you approve or disapprove its inclusion in an official list of generic names, and in case of disapproval of any name supply the data which render the adoption of the name undesirable. By your cooperation you will materially assist the com- mittee in preparing its report. A prompt reply will be highly appreciated not only by the committee, but also by the Bureau of Animal Industry, which is greatly interested in the establishment of a stable nomenclature, particularly in the case of those parasitic organisms which have to be considered in the study, control, and eradication of diseases, and in meat inspection. Your vote should be returned not later than October 1, 1913. Very respectfully, Secretary, Special Committee on Nomenclature of Nematoda. [SAMPLE VOTING SHEET] NAmEs oF NEMATODA AND GORDIACEA FOR THE OFFICIAL List or GENERA Vote “Yes” or “No” on each of the following names according as you approve or disapprove its inclusion in the Official List of Zoological Names. Additional expressions of opinion may be given on the reverse of this sheet. For complete reference to articles in which the names were first published, see the Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology. Return before October I, 1913, to Chief Zoologist, Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 176 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 176 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2359 NEMATODA Ancylostoma (Dubini, 1843a, 5-13) emendation Creplin, 1845a, 325, type duodenale (in Homo; Italy).......... Ascaris Linneus, 1758a, 644, 648, type Iumbricoides (in ROMO EMTOPeC)? ecsccisn cee eaio. eee Se Dracunculus “Kniphof, 1759, 12” (not verified); Gal- landat, 1773a, 103-116, type medinensis (in Homo).... Gnathostoma Owen, 1836f, 123-126, type spinigerum (in Felis vtigriss Wondom) ack mcenen ce tee conee Necator Stiles, 1903y, 312, type americanus (in Homo; TES SAS ee ae tererag ate Roe Path eee nn een rere Strongyloides Grassi, 1879f, 497, type intestinalis = ster- Corals Mine oma one: ak eee ee aoe Trichostrongylus Looss, 19050, 413-417, type retorteformis (in Lepus timidus; Europe)....................+.-+- GORDIACEA Gordius Linneus, 1758a, 644, 647, type aquaticus (free; TSURODE) 0 eaten Sevaiese ses oes eect. ie Gita Sines te eee eee Paragordius Camerano, 1897g, 368. 3099-402, type varius Gireee EUROPE) io skccsheni Arsene antic cee ais GPS one I (Signature) once ase ee saesnie ae VOTE YES OR NO Ce er) Ce eT cy cy cy Ce ec a oee coe eee ee ee ects et eee eee ew oo CC er ry Discussion.—On basis of the report by the Advisory Committee as given in the foregoing, the Secretary of the Commission submitted said list of names to the International Commission with the recom- mendation that the names be accepted. The result oF the voting is as follows: Recommendation concurred in by 14 commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan /D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Roule, Schulze, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Not voting: Allen, Dautzenberg, and Kolbe. Vacancy in Commission: one. OPINION 67 177 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON PUBLICATION 2409. APRIL, 1916 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE? OPINION 67 OnE HUNDRED anD Two Brirp Names PLAceD IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES F SUMMARY.—The following 102 bird names are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: Acrylhum, 4ichmophorus, A githina, A:gotheles, 4ipyornis, Aix, Alauda, Anas, Apaloderma, Aptenodytes, Apteryx, Aramus, Ardea, Astrapia, Asturina, Aulacorhynchus, Baleniceps, Batrachostomus, Bro- togeris, Bubo, Burhinus, Cairina, Campephaga, Capito, Cathartes, Centrocercus, Cephalopterus, Cereopsis, Chauna, Chrysolophus, Cicinnurus, Circaétus, Cla- mator, Coccyzus, Cereba, Colaptes, Colluricincla, Coturnix, Crotophaga, Dio- medea, Dromas, Ectopistes, Egretia, Elanus, Eurynorhynchus, Eurylaimus, Eurypyga, Fulmarus, Galiinago, Gampsonyx, Goura, Gypaétus, Hematopus, Halieetus, Haliastur, Heliornis, Ibidorhyncha, Jynx, Lanius, Letstes, Manu- codia, Musophaga, Neophron, Notornis, Nunuda, Nyctea, Edicnemus, Opis- thocomus, Oriolus, Pachycephala, Pandion, Parotia, Parus, Pesoporus, Phaéthon, Pharomachrus, Phenicopterus, Piatalea, Platycercus, Polyplectron, Porzana, Psittacus, Psophia, Pteroglossus, Ptiloris, Rallus, Recurvirostra, Sericulus, Sitta, Sphenorynchus, Spindalis, Strigops, Struthio, Sturnella, Sturnus, Surmia, Syrrhaptes, Tachyphonus, Thamnophilus, Trichoglossus, Uratelornis, Vireo. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following specialists in Ornithology, namely, Allen, Hartert, Hellmayr, Oberholser, Richmond, Ridgway, Stejneger, and Stone, were invited to act as a special Advisory Com- mittee, with Richmond as secretary, on the Nomenclature of Birds, and to submit to the Commission a list of the more common and more important generic names of birds, which said committee could unanimously agree upon as valid under the Code, and which said committee would recommend for adoption in the Official List of - 1 Pagination continuous with Publication 1938, Opinions 1 to 26; Publication 1989, Opinions 26 to 29; Publication 2013, Opinions 30 to 37; Publication 2060, Opinions 38 to 51; Publication 2169, Opinions 52 to 56; Publication 2256, Opinions 57 to 65; and Publication 2359, Opinion 66. 177 178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 178 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2409 Generic Names authorized by the Gratz International Zoological Congress. The Advisory Committee in question submitted a list of 189 generic names of birds, upon which its members unanimously agreed, giving also the author,-literature reference, the genotype, and the method of genotype designation. The list in question, with details, was made public by publication in the Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1913, Vol. 42 (11), Sept. 26, pp. 520- 28, and in the Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress on Zoology, Monaco (published 1914), pp. 859-866. Further, the list was sent out by the secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the form of Circular Letter No. 8, to approximately 350 zoologists and zoological institutions in the Argen- tine, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Holland, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nor- way, Philippine Islands, Porto Rico, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, United States, and Wales. Twenty copies were sent to each member of the Commission for further distribution, especially in his own country. Copies were sent to 44 persons specially interested in the nomenclature of birds, whose names were furnished by Dr. Rich- mond, and to the members of the Advisory Committee on Birds. In this circular letter a cordial invitation was extended to all zoologists to express their opinion upon the names in question. Of the total of 189 names, objection or question has been raised to 87 names. These objections and questions have been referred to the special Advisory Committee on the Nomenclature of Birds for fur- ther opinion. There remain 102 names in the list to which no objection of any kind appears to have reached the Secretary’s office. These 102 names were reported to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for final vote in Circular Letter No. 13, dated October, 1915, and the Secretary recommended to the Commission that these 102 names be included in the Official List of Generic Names as authorized by the Gratz Congress. The 102 names in question, with author, bibliographic reference to place of publication, and method of designation of genotype, are as follows : ABBREVIATIONS. Tod. = Type by original designation. Tld. = Type by later designation. Tpd. = Type by present designation. Tsd. = Type by subsequent designation. Mt. = Monotypy. Tt. = Tautonymy. OPINION 67 179 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 179 Acryllium Gray, 1840, 61. List Gen. Birds, Mt. Tod., Numida vulturina Hardwicke. 4ichmophorus Coues, 1862, 229. Proc. Phil. Acad., Mt., Tod., Podiceps occi- dentalis Lawrence. githina Vieillot, 1816, 44. Analyse, Mt., Sylvia Icucoptera Vieillot=Motacilla eepiia Winn. 4igotheles Vigors & Horsfield, 1827, 194. Tr. Linn. Soc. Lond., 15, i, Mt., Caprimulgus nove-hollandie Latham=C. cristatus White. 4épyornis I. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool.), (3), 14, 1851, 209. Mt., 4. maximus I. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire. Aix Boie, Isis, 1828, 329, Anas sponsa Linn. (Subs. desig. Eyton 1838, Gray 1840). Alauda Linnzus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 165. Alauda arvensis Linn. (Tsd., Swainson 1827). Anas Linneus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 122. boschas Linn.=platyrhyuchos Linn. (Tsd., Lesson 1828). Apaloderma Swainson, Zool. Illustr., (25, 3, 1832, pl. 107. Tod., Mt., Trogon narina Stephens. Aptenodytes Miller, Various Subjects Nat. Hist., No. 4, 1778, pl. 23. Mt., patagonica Miller. Apteryx Shaw, Nat. Misc., 24, 1813, plates 1057-1058. Mt., australis Shaw. Aramus Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 58. Mt., drdea scolopacea Gmelin. Ardea Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 141. Tsd., cinerea Linn. (Gray 1840). Astrapia Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 36. Mt., Paradisea nigra Gmelin. Asturina Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 24. Mt., Asturia cinerea Vieillot=Falco nitidus Latham. : Aulacorhynchus Gould, Mon. Ramphast., 1834, Addenda to Introd. (cf. also text to pl. of Pter. sulcatus). Tod., Pteroglossus sulcatus Swainson. Baleniceps Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1852, i.. Mt., B. rex Gould. Batrachostomus Gould, Icones Avium, pt. 2, 1838, pl. 17. Mt., Podargus auritus Gray or Vigors. Brotogeris Vigors, Zool. Journ., 2, 1825, 400. Mt., Psittacus pyrrhopterus Latham. Bubo Wumeril, Zool. Analyt., 1806, 34. Mt., Tt., Tsd., “Les Ducs "=Stria bubo Linn. (Iroriep 1806; Opinion 46). Burhinus Mliger, Prodromus, 1811, 250. Mt., Charadrius magnirostris Latham. Cairina Fleming, Philos. Zoology., 2, 1822, 260. Mt., Anas moschata Linn. Campephaga Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 39. Mt. C. nigra Vieillot—=C. flava Vieillot. . Capito Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 27. Mt., Bucco niger Mueller. Cathartes Iliger, Prodromus, 1811, 236. Tsd., Vigors 1825; Swainson 1836, Vultur aura Linn. Centrocercus Swainson, Fauna Bor.-Amer., 2, 1831 (1832), 358, 496. Mt., Tetrao urophasianus Bonaparte. Cephalopterus Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat., 13, 1809, 238. Mt., ornatus Geoffroy St.-Hilaire. Cereopsis Latham, Suppl. Ind. Orn., 1801, Ixvii. Mt., nove hollandie Latham. Chauna Iliger, Prodromus, 1811, 253. Mt., Parra chavaria Linn. 180 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 180 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2409 Chrysolophus Gray, Ulustr. Ind. Zool., 2, 1833-1834, pl. 41, f. 2. Mt., Phasianus pictus Linn. Cicinnurus Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 35. Mt., Paradisea regia Linn. Circaétus Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 23. Mt., Falco gallicus Gmelin. Clamator Kaup, Nat. Syst., 1829, 53. Mt., Cuculus glandarius Linn. Coccyzus Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 28. Mt., Cuculus americanus Linn. Cereba Vieillot, Ois. Amer. Sept., 2, 1807 (18097), 70. Mt., Certhia flaveola Linn. Colaptes (Swainson MS.) Vigors, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 14, iii, 1825, 457. Mt., Cuculus auratus Linn. Colluricincla Vigors & Horsfield, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 15, 1827, 213. Mct., cinerea Vigots & Horsfield. Coturnix Bonnaterre, Tabl. Enc. Méth., I, 1791, 1xxxvii, 1792, 216. Tt., com- mums Bonn.= Tetrao coturm«x Linn. Crotophaga Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 105. Mt., am Linn. Diomedea Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 132. Tsd., Gray 1840, exulans Linn. Dromas Paykull, K. Vet. Akad. Nya Handl., 26, 1805, 188. Mt., ardeola Paykull. Ectopistes Swainson, Zool. Journ. 3, 1827, 362. Only certain species and Tsd., same volume 614, Columba migratoria Linn. Egretta Forster, Synop. Cat. Brit. Birds, 1817, 590. Mt., Ardea garzetta Linn. Elanus Savigny, Descr. Egypte, I, 1809, 60, 97. Mt., cesius Savigny = Falco melanopterus Daudin. Eurynorhynchus Nilsson, Orn. Suecica, 2, 1821, 29. Mt., griseus Nilsson = Platalea pygmea Linn. Eurylaimus Horsfield, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 13, 1, 1821, 170. Mt., javanicus Horsfield. Eurypyga Ulliger, Prodromus, 1811, 257. Mt., Ardea helias Pallas. Fulmarus Stephens, Shaw’s General Zool., 13, i, 1826, 233. Tsd., Palmer 1836, Procellaria glacialis Linn. Gallinago Koch, Syst. Baier. Zool., 1816, 312. Tt., media of Koch= Scolopax gallinago Linn. Gampsonyx Vigors, Zool. Journ., 2, 1825, 69. Mt., swainsoniu Vigors. Goura Stephens, Shaw’s General Zool., 11, i, 1819, 119. Tsd., Gray 1840; Columba coronata Linn., 1766= cristata Pallas, 1764. Gypaétus Storr, Alpenreise, I, 1784, 69. Mt., grandis Storr = Vultur barbatus Linn. Hematopus Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 152. Mt., ostralegus Linn. Halieetus Savigny, Descr. Egypte, I, 1800, 68, 85. Mt., nisus Savigny = Falco albicilla Linn. Haliastur Selby, Cat. Gen. & Subgen. Types Birds, 1840, 3. Mt. & Tod., “ F. Pondecerianus Auct.”= Falco indus Bodd. Helhornis Bonnaterre, Tabl. Enc. Méth., I, 1791, Ixxxiv, 64. Mt., fulicarius Bonn.—= Colymbus fulica Bodd. Ibidorhyncha Vigors, Proc. Comm. Sci. Zool. Soc. Lond., I, 1832, 174. Mt., strutherst Vigors. Jynx Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 112. Mt., torquilla Linn. Lanius Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 93. Tsd., Swainson 1824, excubitor Linn. OPINION 67 181 OPINIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE I8I Leistes Vigors, Zool. Journ., 2, 1825, 191. Tod., Oriolus americanus Gmelin = Emberiza militaris Linn. Manucodia Boddaert, Table Pl. Enl., 1783, 39. Mt., chalybea Bodd.= Paradisea chalybeata Forster 1781. Musophaga Isert, Schriften Gesellsch. Nat. Freunde, Berlin, 9, 1788, 17. Mt., violacea Isert. a Neophron Savigny, Descr. Egypte, I, 1800, 68, 75. Mt., Vultur percnopterus Linn. Notornis Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., 3, v, 1848, 366. Mt., mantelli Owen. Numida Linneus, Mus. Ad. Frid., 1764, 27. Mt., Phasianus meleagris Linn. 1758. Nyctea Stephens, Shaw’s General Zoology, 13, ii, 1826, 62. Tt., only certain species; also Mt., Strix erminea Shaw = nyctea Linn. Cdicnemus Temminck, Man. d’Orn., 1815, 321. Mt., & Tt., crepitans Temm. = Charadrius edicnemus Linn. Opisthocomus Illiger, Prodromus, 1811, 239. Mt., Phasianus cristatus Gmelin =P. hoazin Mueller. ' Oriolus Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 12, I, 1766, 160. Tt., galbula Linn. = Coracias oriolus Linn. 1758. . Pachycephala Vigors, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 14, i111, 1825, 444. Mt., & Tod., Muscicapa pectoralis Latham. Pandion Savigny, Descr. Egypte, I, 1809, 69,95. Mt., Auvialis Savigny = Falco halietus Linn. Parotia Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 35. Mt., Paradisea sefilata Forster 1781. Parus Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 189. Tsd., Gray 1840, major Linn. Pezoporus Mlliger, Prodromus, 1811, 201. Mt., Psittacus formosus Latham = P. terrestris Shaw. ; Phaéthon Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. to, I, 1758, 134. Tsd., Gray 1840, ethereus Linn. Pharomachrus de la Liave, Registro Trimestre, J, 1832, 48. Mt., mocinno de la Llave. Phenicopterus Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 139. Mt., ruber Linn. Platalea Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 139. Tsd., Gray 1840, leucorodia Linn. Platycercus Vigors, Zool. Journ. I, 1825, 527. Tod., Psittacus pennantiu Latham = P. elegans Gmelin. Polyplectren Temminck, Cat. Syst. 1807, 149. Mt. argus Temm.= Pavo bicalcaratus Linn. Porzana Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 61. Mt., Rallus porzana Linn. Psittacus Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 96. Tsd., Gray 1840, erithacus Linn. Psophia Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 154. Mt., crepitans Linn. Pteroglossus Wliger, Prodromus, 1811, 202. Tsd., Swainson 1821, Ramphastos aracari Linn. Ptiloris Swainson, Zool. Journ. I, 1825, 479. Mt., paradiseus Swainson. Rallus Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 153. Tsd., Fleming 1821, aquaticus Linn. Recurvirostra Linneus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 151. Mt., avosetta Linn. Sericulus Swainson, Zool. Journ. I, 1825, 476. Mt. Meliphaga chrysocephala Lewin. 182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 182 SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 2409 Sitta Linnzeus, Syst. Nat., ed. to, I, 1758, 115. Mt., europea Linn. Sphenorynchus (Hempr. & Ehrenb. MS.) Lichtenstein, Verz. Doubl., 1823, 76. Mt., Ciconia abdimu Licht. Spindalis Jardine & Selby, Ill. Orn. N. S., 1837, pl. 9. Mt., bilineatus J. & S. = Tanagra nigricephala Jameson. Strigops Gray, Gen. Birds, II, 1845, 426. Mt., habroptilus Gray. Struthio Linnzeus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 155. Tt., Opinion 16, camelus Linn. Sturnella Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 34. Mt., Alauda magna Linn. Sturnus Linnzus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, 167. Tt., Opinion 16, also Tsd., Stephens 1817, vulgaris Linn. Surnia Duméril, Zool. Analytique, 1806, 34. Tsd., Froriep, 1806, & Mt., Strix caparoch Mueller. Syrrhaptes Uliger, Prodromus, 1811, 243. Mt., Tetrao paradoxus Pallas. Tachyphonus Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 33. Mt., Tanagra rufa Boddaert. Thamnophilus Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, 40. Tsd., Swainson 1824, Lanius doliaius Linn. Trichoglossus (Vigors MS.) Stephens, General Zool. 14, i, 1826, 129. Tsd., ’ Swainson, 1832, swainsoni Jardine & Selby, 1831 =hematopus Stephens (nec hematodus Linn.) =Psitiacus nove hollandie Gmelin. Uratelornis Rothschild, Novit. Zool. II, 1895, 479. Tod., & Mt., chimera Rothschild. Vireo Vieillot, Ois. Amer. Sept., I, 1807 (1808?), 83. Tsd., Gray, 1840, musicus Vieillot — Tanagra grisea Bodd. Discussion. The recommendation of the Secretary, based upon the report by the Advisory Committee on the Nomenclature of Birds, and upon the other premises mentioned in the foregoing, resulted in the following action by the International Commission: Recommendation concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan D. S., Jordan K., Kolbe, Skinner, and Stiles. Negative votes on recommendation: None. Not voting, 6 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Monti- celli, Roule, Simon, and Stejneger. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ~ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 68 TO 77 (PUBLICATION 2657) GITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION JANUARY 31, 1922 184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS NOTICE Previous Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have been issued as Special. Publications of the Smithsonian Institution, unbound, as follows: Opinions I to 25, 1938, July, 1910 (out of print). s 26 “ 29, 1989, October, 1910 “ “ ss 66 30 66 8Y7. 2013, July, IOQII ce 6c 6c is 38 “ 51, 2060, February,I9o12 “ “ a 52 “ 56, 2169, May, 1913 « By (Os, Zax, IWleitesi, non! Opinion 66 2350, February, I915 67 2409, April, 1916 Beginning with the present issue, a volume of the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections will hereafter be reserved exclusively for the Opinions. The Lord Baltimore Press BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. OPINION 68 185 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 68 TO 77 OPINION 68 THE TYPE SPECIES OF PLEURONECTES LINNZ#US, I758A SUMMARY.—Fleming, 1828, p. 196, does not designate the type of Pleuronectes. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Chancellor David Starr Jordan has submitted the following case for opinion: EY PE OM TPE UIRONE CEES Iv; The Linnean genus Pleuronectes, containing many species, was subdivided by Rafinesque, 1810, Indice d’Ittiologia Siciliana, pp. 14-15, and by Cuvier, 1817, Le Régne Animal, vol. 2, pp. 218-224. In neither case was the name Pleuro- nectes applied to any one of these subdivisions. Such application to a restricted group was first made by Fleming, 1828, pp. 196-199 (History of British Animals). He recognizes four genera of flounders, Pleuronectes, Solea (Rafinesque), Platessa (Cuvier), and Hippoglossus (Cuvier). The types of the last three genera are clearly Pleuronectes solea L., Pleuronecies platessa L., and Pleuronectes hippoglossus L. As to Pleuronectes Fleming says: “Gen. XLVI. Pxeuronectes. Turbot. Mouth entire; teeth numerous, slender. Lateral line curved. Eyes on the left side.” The five species named represent five modern genera, all allies of the turbot. Pleuronectes maximus L. is the type of the genus Psetta Swainson. The first species named by Fleming is “96, P. maximus. Common Turbot.” Under the rules of the Zoological Congress, does this act of Fleming restrict the name of Pleuronectes to the Turbot group? In this case later usage has made Pleuronectes maximus L., the Turbot, the type. Or does Fleming fail to fix the type? In this case we go on to Bleeker, 1862, pp. 422-429 (Versl. en Mededeel. Kon. Akad. Wetens. Amsterdam), who makes Pleuronectes synonymous with Platessa Cuvier, the type being Pleuronectes platessa L. In this Bleeker has been followed by common usage. Discussion.—It is to be noticed that Doctor Jordan does not ask the Commission to determine the type of Pleuronectes, but only whether Fleming in 1828 does, or does not, fix the type of this genus. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 1 186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 The question at issue involves an interpretation of the expression used in Article 30g of the International Rules, reading: The meaning of the expression, “select the type,” is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or an example of a genus does not con- stitute a selection of a type as applied to Fleming’s action in 1828, p. 196. For earlier opinion on this general point (Art. 30g), see Opinion 45 (The Type of Syn- gnathus L. 1758), p. 103 (as applied to Rafinesque and Swainson). The details of the premises presented by Doctor Jordan are as follows: Linnzus (1758a, pp. 268-271) included the following 16 species in his genus Pleuronectes: 1, achirus; 2, trichodactylus; 3, lineatus; 4, ocellatus; 5, lunatus; 6, hippoglossus; 7, cynoglossus; 8, platessa; 9, flesus; 10, limanda; 11, solea; 12, linguatula; 13, rhombus; 14, maxi- mus; 15, passer; 16, papillosus. Rafinesque (1810, pp. 14-15, and 52-53, Indice d’Ittiologia Sicil- iana) mentions under his sixth order, I Pleronetti, three genera, as being represented among the Sicilian fishes, as follows: VI. Orvine. I. PLERONETTI. (Pages 14-15) 45. Solea (Raf. app. gen. 4.) buglossa. Raf. (Pleuronectes solea Linn.): Sogliola comune. Linguata. a Messina Palaja. a Catania Linguatu. 46. —— Limanda. Raf. (Pleuronectes Linguata Linn.) Sogliola limanda. Lema, 6 Lima, 6 Passar. 47. —— Platessa. Raf. (Pl. platessa Linn.) Sogliola pianosa. Pianussu, 0 Passera. 48. —— Rhomboide. Raf. app. sp. 6. (PI. limanda. var. Lac.) Sogliola romboide. Rumbu impiriali. 49. —— Cithara. Raf. app. sp. 7. Sogliola citara. Cantinu. 50. —— pegusa. Raf. (Pl. pegusa. Lac.) Sogliola pegusa. Linguata ucchiuta. 51. —— Arnoglossa. Raf. app. sp. 8. Sogliola arnaglossa. Linguata liscia. ; ‘52. —— cynoglossa. Raf. app. sp. 9. Sogliola linguacane. Linguata mavista. 53. Scophthalmus (Raf. app. gen. 5.) maximus. (Pleuronectes maximus Linn.) Rombo massimo. Rumolo impirialt. 54. —— Rhombus. Raf. (Pl. rhombus Linn.) Rombo comune. Rumbu, 0 Linguata masculu. a Messina Passera. 55. —— diurus. Raf. app. sp. 10. Rombo doppiacoda. Rumbu dupi- acuda. 56..Bothus rumolo. Raf. car. gen. 23, sp. 54. Boto rumolo. Rumolo. a Catania Lumeru. 57. —— Tappa. . Raf. car. sp.55. Bototappa. Tappa. a Catania Panta. 58. —— Imperialis. Raf. car. sp. 56. Boto imperiale. Tappa impiriali, 6 Linguata impiriali. OPINION 68 187 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 St Thus, the genus Solea 1810 (see also Quensel, 1806, p. 230, genus Solea, with S. vulgaris, syn. Pleuronectes solea Linn.) contains the species Pleuronectes solea, which in 1806 and 1810 became the type of Solea by absolute tautonymy (Article 30d), and the Linnzan species Pleuronectes rhombus and Pleuronectes maximus were placed (1810) in Scophthalmus. Cuvier (1817, pp. 218-224, Régne Animal) distributes the Linnzean species of Pleuronectes L. as follows (‘“‘ Nous les divisions comme il Suit..’)); Pleuronectes [no species mentioned as type, and no subgenus mentioned as Pleuronectes]. subg. Platessa Cuvier, 1817, contains— La Plie franche ou Carrelet (Pleur. platessa L.) [type by absolute tau- tonymy]. Le Flet ou Picaud (Pleur, flesus L.). La Limande (Pleur, limanda L.). subg. Hippoglossus Cuvier, 1817, contains— Le Flétan (Pleuronectes hippoglossus) |type by absolute tautonymy], and several species in footnote. subg. Rhombus Cuvier, 1817 [not Rhombus Lacépéde, 1800, of which the type is alepidotus teste Jordan & Evermann, not Rhombus Da Costa, 1776, mollusk, not Rhombus Humph., 1797, mollusk, not Rhombus Montt., 1810, mollusk], contains— ‘Le Turbot (Pleuronectes maximus) (“Le pl. passer d’Artédi et de Linn. n’est point different du turbot”). La Barbue (Pleuronectes rhombus) [type by absolute tautonymy]; he mentions also Pleuronectes nudus Risso, Diaphanus Sh., Arnoglossum Rondelet, and further, in footnote, several other species. subg. Solea Cuvier, 1817, containing— Pleuronectes solea L. [type by absolute tautonymy]. Pleuronectes cynoglossus L. subg. Monochires Cuvier, 1817 [not clear whether French or Latin], con- taining— ‘ Le Linguatula Rondelet (Pleuronectes microchirus). subg. Achirus Lacépéde, 1802, containing— ‘Pleuronectes achirus L., and in footnote several other species including Pleuronectes lineatus [author not given]. subg. Plagusia Brown, 1756, not Plagusia Latreille, 1806, crustacean. Fleming, 1828, “in the enumeration of British animals contained in this volume” (p. xviii), “as a compiler” (p. xxi), gives descrip- *“ History of British Animals, exhibiting the descriptive characters and systematical arrangement of the genera and species of quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, fishes, mollusca, and radiata of the United Kingdom; including the indigenous, extirpated, and extinct kinds, together with periodical and occa- sional visitors.” 188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOE WA tions, synonymy, and occurrence in British waters for the following fishes that come under consideration in connection with this case: g. 46. Pleuronectes. Turbot. [5 species reported.] 96. P. maximus. Common Turbot. 97. P. rhombus. Brill. g. 47. Solea. Sole. [2 species reported.] 101. S. vulgaris. Common sole. Syn. Pleuronectes solea Linn. g. 48. Platessa. Fluke. [5 species reported.] 103. P. vulgaris. Plaise. Syn. Pleuronectes platessa Linn. 104. P. flesus. Flounder. Syn. Pleuronectes flesus Linn. 105. P. limanda. Dab. Syn. Pleuronectes limanda Linn. ge. 49. Hippoglossus. Holibut. [1 species reported.] 108. H. vulgaris. Common holibut. Syn. Pleuronectes hippoglossus Linn. The author does not state in connection with any one of these four genera what species he accepts as type species. None of the five species mentioned under Pleuronectes appears, from the premises presented, to be the type of Pleuronectes by absolute tautonymy, but species No. 97, Pleuronectes rhombus, is type of Rhombus 1817 (not Rhombus Lacép, 1800), by absolute tautonymy, and both Pleu- ronectes maximus and Pleuronectes rhombus had been placed in the genus Scophthalmus by Rafinesque, 1810. The fact that Fleming gives the vernacular name “ Turbot ” to the genus Pleuronectes, and “Common Turbot” to the species Pleuronectes maximus, cannot, “rigidly construed,” be taken as designation of type. In the introduction to this work, Fleming (1828, p. xxi) states that his History (1828) “is destined to serve as an adjunct ” to his Phil- osophy of Zoology (1822), and this statement leads the Secretary to consult said ‘“* Philosophy,” in order to better understand the premises. Fleming (1822, v. 2, Philosophy of Zoology), in the general dis- cussion on nomenclature and species, says: p. 153, Where synonymes have unavoidably been created in consequence of the want of communication between distant observers, the rule uni- versally known, but not equally extensively observed, is to give the preference to the name first rmposed. p. 157, Where useless changes are thus produced in nomenclature, their authors, and their names should be overlooked. In a number of places Fleming clearly determines the type species of a genus, for instance: Pp. 173, 2. MIMeETES (of Dr. Leach), Chimpanze..... The Simia troglodytes of authors, is the type of the genus. 3. Stm1A. Orang-Outang..... The Simia Satyrus is the type. Wh Wb tig, IWR 5 6 6 4 The Lemur Macaco is the type of this genus. OPINION 68 189 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 5 In many cases Fleming simply mentions a single species under the genus without stating that it is the type. For instance: p. 178, 27. RHINOLOPHUS..... Rh. ferrum equinum. BOsMNVCTERIS?) 6). N. hispidus. The foregoing citations clearly show that Fleming had a distinct conception of the type species as we understand it to-day. The practical point arises whether Fleming intended that the citation of a single species should be accepted as a designation by him of the type species. If Fleming avers in any portion of his book that this interpretation is to be made, the Secretary has thus far been unable to find the statement. The general tendency of the entire work toward the naming of a type species is, however, striking for a book published in 1822, and the temptation is very great indeed to make the interpre- tation that Fleming actually intended to designate a type species for nearly every genus he mentioned. In his Philosophy, Fleming (1822, vol. 2) refers to Pleuronectes as follows: p. 388, 64. PLeuRONEcTES. With pectoral fins. This genus includes 1. Pleuro- nectes (P. platessa). 2. Hippoglossus (R. [P.] hippoglossus). 3. Rhombus (P. maximus). 4. Solea (P. solea). 65. AcuirRuS. Destitute of pectoral fins. Pleuronectes achirus. The point is to be noticed that in 1822 Fleming used Pleuronectes for Pleuronectes platessa, and Rhombus for Pleuronectes maximus, while in 1828 he changed his view and used Pleuronectes for Pleuronectes maximus and Pleuronectes rhombus, but he placed Pleuronectes platessa in the genus Platessa. Accordingly the premise presented by Doctor Jordan that Fleming (1828, 196-199) was the first to restrict the name Pleuronectes to a subdivision of the original genus is found to be erroneous. Such restriction appears to have been made at least as early as 1822 by Fleming, and his 1822 action was reversed in 1828. It will be noticed that Fleming in 1822 adopted the four subgeneric groups used by Cuvier, 1817, and that he corrected the nomenclatural error of Cuvier, in that Fleming recognized Pleuronectes for one of the subgenera, namely, for that group which Cuvier named Platessa, and the type of which by absolute tautonymy is Pleuronectes platessa. The question is: Did Fleming here select platessa as type of Pleuro- nectes s. str.? At least four views are possible: (1) Type by inclusion--By the principle of “type by inclusion” platessa would become, ipso facto, the type of Pleuronectes s. str., because Pleuronectes s. str., here clearly includes Platessa 1817, for 190 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 which platessa is type by tautonymy. But the proposal to insert into Art. 30 the principle of “ type by inclusion ” was rejected by the Com- mission at its Boston meeting. (2) Typical subgenus —The view might be advanced that Fleming here proposed, apparently for the first time, the typical subgenus Pleuronectes, and that by citing only the name Pleuronectes platessa, he designated the type by monotypy. Art. 30c. (3) Type oy renaming.—The view might be advanced that Fleming deliberately renamed Platessa 1817, for which the type had already been determined by absolute tautonymy, hence that platessa became automatically type of Pleuronectes s. str. Art. 30f. (4) Type by monotypy.—The view might be advanced that Flem- ing, by quoting only platessa under Pleuronectes, definitely intended to take this as type. In respect to this last view (4) different authors might differ in opinion, for the point might be advanced that Fleming did not dispose of all the original species of Pleuronectes 1758, and that he simply mentioned platessa as an example of Pleuronectes s. str., hence, that “rigidly construed ” this is not a type selection. Nevertheless, from the premises here presented it seems clear that Fleming, 1822, actually did propose the typical subgenus of Pleuro- nectes, that he correctly named this subgenus as Pleuronectes, and that he mentioned only one species (platessa) as representative of this typical subgenus. Accordingly, unless there are important reasons to the contrary, it would seem best to take platessa as type of Pleuro- nectes. While the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that platessa should be taken as type species of Pleuronectes on basis of Fleming (1822, p. 388), it seems wise, in view of the possibility of a difference of opinion (4), to follow the case further in order to see how the views given under (2) and (3) would coincide with the later history of the generic name. Without entering upon a detailed discussion of this very confused case of nomenclature, which involves many references in addition to those cited by Doctor Jordan, attention is invited to the facts that— (a) Fleming’s action in 1822 in substituting Pleuronectes for Cuvier’s genus Platessa, 1817, is followed by Bleeker (1862), Giinther (1862), Leunis (1883), and Claus (1895), while Jordan* and Ever- mann (1898), and Apstein (1915) definitely mention Pleuronectes platessa as the type of Pleuronectes, and * Jordan (1917a, 13, The genera of fishes) accepts platessa as type of Pleuronectes. OPINION 68 191] NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 7 (b) On the other hand Fleming’s action of 1828 in placing Pleu- ronectes rhombus and Pleuronectes maximus in the genus Pleuro- nectes is followed later by Fleming (1842), while Jordan & Goss (1889) definitely designate Pleuronectes maximus as type of Pleuro- nectes. In answering Doctor Jordan’s question, the Commission is of the opinion that Fleming’s action of 1828 (pp. 196-199) is not to be con- strued as fixing the type of Pleuronectes. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. The foregoing Opinion was submitted to all Commissioners for vote and to more than 350 zoologists, zoological laboratories, colleges, and scientific institutions for comment. No adverse criticism has been received by the Secretary, but the following comments have been sent to him: Commissioner Allen: It seems to me that Fleming in 1822, by including only Pleuronectes platessa L. in his subgenus Pleuronectes, distinctly indicates, in view of his clear recognition of the need of type designations, that he regarded P. platessa L. as the type and that his action in 1828 has not necessarily any bearing on the case. Commissioner Bather: I agree with the conclusion arrived at, but I am perhaps more influenced in coming to the conclusion by the fact that Fleming’s book of 1828 was professedly a history of British animals only, and that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it should be so accepted. Therefore, quite apart from the existence of the 1822 work, I should not regard Fleming as fixing types in 1828. Commissioner Hartert: It is clear that Fleming did not formally fix the types in this case, which is perfectly parallel to that of the genera of the swallows of Forster, 1817. I accepted Forster’s genera, but the A. O. U. and as competent nomenclaturists of England and Germany disagreed with my action, holding that Forster did not formally designate the type of Hirundo. Commissioner Hoyle: Fleming, 1828, did not fix the type of Pleu- ronectes, but I am inclined to think (from the data given) that he made platessa the type in 1822. Commissioner D. S. Jordan: I think both cases [Pleuronectes and Sparus] practically above question—fortunately coinciding with usage. 192 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Commissioner Stejneger: I hold that Fleming, in 1822, actually designated the types [for Pleuronectes and Sparus] as understood in the International Code of Nomenclature. Doctor Pappenheim (Berlin) studied the case, upon the request of Commissioner Kolbe, and presented to him the following memo- randum: Ich schlage vor die Fischgattungsnamen “Pleuronectes L.” und “ Sparus L.” unbedingt zu verwerfen und durch Platessa Cuv. und Chrysophrys Cuv. zu ersetzen. Als Type fur die Gattung Platessa hat nach meiner Auffassung die Art Pl. platessa (L.), fir Chryso- phrys die Art aurata (L.) zu gelten. Die gegenteiligen Ansichten konnten sich m. M. nur auf Fleming sttitzen, dessen Arbeiten ein systematischer Wert nicht zukommt. Anderseits geniigt zur Begrundung der Wahrung der von Cuvier auf- gestellten Namen das in den Anlagen (Letter No. 27 und No. 28) gegebene Material. Eine Notwendigkeit, bei Verwerfung der Namen “ Pleuronectes” und “ Sparus” und auch die Familien Namen “ Pleuronectide” und “ Sparid®” aus nomenclatorischer Gritnden zu verwerfen, liegt m. M. n. nicht vor, wie ich iberhaupt der Meinung bin, dass die angeblich allgemein giltigen, weit international festgelegten Nomenclaturregeln in begriindeten Fallen, wie den beiden vorliegenden aus systematisch- morphologischen Griinden vernachlassigt werden konnen. Ich werde jedenfalls in Zukunft ohne Ruchtsicht auf etwaige gegen- seitige Entscheidungen der Kommission die Namen “ Pleuronectes” und “ Sparus” nicht mehr anwenden. William C. Kendall, Lewis Radcliffe, and Hugh M. Smith (U. S. Fish Commission) unite in the conclusion that Fleming (1822) should be regarded as having designated platessa as the type of Pleuronectes and the fact that the disposal of the matter otherwise in 1828 should not affect the question; that if, however, Fleming or other authors cannot be accepted, the question lies between Swainson (1839, v. 2, p. 302) and Bleeker (1862, 428), and that Bleeker does not designate the type in the sense that the exact rule of the Zoological Congress seems to require any more specifically than was evidently intended by Swainson. Miss Mary J. Rathbun: My opinion is that platessa should be regarded as the type of Pleuronectes by action of Fleming in 1822, and that Fleming 1828, 196, does not designate the type of Pleuronectes. Favorable replies have been received also from: P. P. Calvert, C. Tate Regan, A. A. Tyler, and H. L. Viereck. Oldfield Thomas: The tendency of the proposed answers appears to be that Fleming’s 1822 quotations of species should be accepted as genuine selections, a view with which I agree. OPINION 69 193 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 9 OPINION 69 THE TYPE SPECIES OF SPARUS LINNZUS, 1758 SUMMARY.—Fleming, 1828, 211, does not designate the type of Sparus. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Chancellor David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion: PEEVE OR SAMUS: The genus Sparus L. was subdivided by Cuvier (1817, vol. 2, pp. 271-274, Régne Animal), who failed to retain the name for any of its parts. Fleming (1828, pp. 211-212, History of British Animals) recognized three genera among the Linnzan species—Sparus, Pagrus Cuvier (Sparus pagrus L.) and Dentex Cuvier (Sparus dentex L.). Under Sparus he says: “Gen. LXVII. Sparus, GittHEeAD. Four or six teeth in each jaw, in one row; the rest of the jaw paved with large round teeth, with blunt summits.” One species is mentioned, Sparus aurata L., which is the common “ Gilt- head,” the type of Chrysophrys Cuvier, 1817, and of Aurata Risso, 1826. Does this constitute a restriction of Sparus to S. aurata? Common usage so regards it. Later authors have proposed to use the name for other Lin- nan species of Sparus. The other species, formerly referred to Sparus, are never called “ Gilthead.” Discuss1on.—The case of Sparus involves the same principles as the case of Pleuronectes (see Opinion 68). The details of the premises presented by Doctor Jordan are as follows: Linneus (1758a, pp. 277-282, Systema Naturz) included in the genus Sparus 22 species, as follows: 1, aurata; 2, annularis ; 3, sargus ; 4, melanurus; 5, smaris; 6, mena; 7, saxatilis; 8, orphus; 9, hurta; 10, erythrinus; 11, pagrus; 12, boops; 13, cantharus ; 14, chromis; 15, salpa; 16, synagris ; 17, dentex ; 18, spinus ; 19, virginicus ; 20, mormy- rus; 21, capistratus; 22, galilzus. Cuvier (1817, vol. 2, pp. 268-272, Regne Animal) distributed original Linnzean species among the following systematic units : PERCOIDES g. Smaris Cuvier, 1817 [not Smaris Latreille, 1796, arach.], including— Sparus mena L. Sparus smaris L. [type by absolute tautonymy], together with certain other species mentioned in footnote. g. Boops Cuvier, 1817, including— Sparus salpa L. Sparus melanurus L. Sparus boops L. [type by absolute tautonymy]. 194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS TO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 g. Sparus Cuvier, 1817. [Cf. Sparus Linn., 1758.] (“Que je réduits aux espéces de l’ancien genre de ce nom, dont les machoires peu extensibles sont garnies, sur les cOtes, de molaires rondes, semblables a des pavés. Ils vivent généralement de fucus. Je les subdivise comme il suit’’) : [subg.] Sargus Cuvier, 1817 [not Sargus Fabr., 1798, dipteron], con- taining— La Sargue ordinaire (Sp[arus] sargus L.) [type by absolute tautonymy]. [subg.] Les Daurades [Latin name not given], containing— La Daurade ordinaire (Sp[arus] aurata L.), together with several other species mentioned in footnote. [subg.] Pagrus Cuvier, 1817, containing— Le Pagre ordinaire (Sp[arus] argenteus Schn.) [=pagrus Linn., teste Jordan and Evermann]. Le Pagel (Sp[arus] erythrinus L.), and 3 species in footnote. g. Dentex Cuvier, 1817, containing— } Le Denté ordinaire (Sp[arus] dentex L.) [type by absolute tau- tonymy], and several species mentioned in footnote. g. Cantharus Cuvier, 1817 [not Cantharus Bolt, 1798, mollusk, not Can- tharus Montf., 1808, mollusk], containing— Le Canthére ordinaire (Sp[arus] cantharus L.) [type by absolute tautonymy]|, and several species in footnote. Fleming (1828, pp. 211-212, History of British Animals) reports and describes the following original Linnzean species of the genus Sparus for Great Britain: g. 47. Sparus Gilthead. [1 species reported.] 136, S. aurata. g. 48. Pagrus Braize. [2 species reported.| 137, P. vulgaris. Common Braize. Syn. Sparus pagrus Linn. g. 49. Dentex. [1 species reported.] 139, D. vulgaris. Syn. Sparus dentex Linn. The author does not state in connection with any one of these three genera what species he accepts as type species ; but Sparus pagrus had become the type of Pagrus in 1817, by absolute tautonymy (argen- teus= pagrus, see Jordan and Evermann, 1898). Sparus denitex had become the type of Dentex in 1817, by absolute tautonymy. Sparus aurata does not appear, from the premises presented, to be the type of Sparus by absolute tautonymy, but Cuvier, 1817, had placed Sparus aurata in the genus Sparus, subgenus Les Daurades (no Latin name used), to which subgenus Cuvier later (1829) gives the name Chryso- phris (=Chrysophrys, 1830), of which it was the first species men- tioned. Prior to this date (1829), however, Fleming (1822, Philoso- phy of Zoology) had adopted three of Cuvier’s subgenera of Sparus, OPINION 69 195 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 II and had retained for Les Daurades the subgeneric name Sparus, as shown in the following quotation: p. 392, 92. Sparus. Teeth on the sides round, with flat summits. Jaws nearly fixed. 1. Sargus (S. sargus). 2. Sparus (S. aurata). 3. Pagrus (S. pagrus). Accordingly, the premises presented by Doctor Jordan appear to be incomplete, for Fleming’s action of 1828 in adopting Sparus for Sparus aurata is virtually simply an adoption of his action of 1822. The same question and the same possibilities of interpretation now arise in respect to Fleming’s action of 1822 in regard to Sparus, that arose in connection with his action of 1822 in regard to Pleuronectes (see Opinion No. 68, The Type of Pleuronectes L.). While the evidence in the foregoing seems to point to the conclusion that aurata should be taken as type species of Sparus on basis of Flem- ing 1822, p. 392, it seems wise, in view of the possibility of a difference of opinion in regard to the interpretation, to follow the case further, in order to see how this view would coincide with the later history of the generic name. Without entering upon a detailed discussion of this case, which involves many references in addition to those cited by Doctor Jordan, attention is invited to the facts that— (a) Fleming’s action of 1822 in retaining Sparus for the species Sparus aurata is followed by Fleming, 1828, and Fleming, 1842*; and (b) Cuvier’s action of 1829 in placing the species Sparus aurata in the genus Chrysophris, 1829 (Chrysophrys, 1830) is followed by Swainson (1829), Cuvier & Valenciennes (1830), Burmeister (1837) who gives Sparus Linn. as synonym, Giinther (1859) , Ludwig’s Leunis (1883), Claus (1885), Knauer (1887), R. Blanchard (1890), and Railliet (1895), while Apstein (1915a), definitely designates Sparus aurata as type of Chrysophrys. From the two quotations given in the foregoing—1822 and 1828— it will be seen that in 1828 Fleming is simply reporting the presence of Sparus aurata in British waters, and that, “ rigidly construed,” he does not here designate a type species for the genus Sparus, but in 1822 he distinctly recognizes a typical subgenus (Sparus s. str.) to include Cuvier’s 1817 “ Les Daurades.”’ Cuvier’s 1829 genus Chryso- phris (1830 Chrysophrys), therefore, includes Fleming’s 1822 typical subgenus Sparus. In answering the question presented by Doctor Jordan, the Com- mission is therefore of the opinion that Fleming, 1828, p. 211, did * Also Jordan (1917a, 13, The genera of fishes). 196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 not designate the type for Sparus aurata for British waters, and that in using the generic name Sparus for the species Sparus aurata, he simply acted nomenclaturally in accordance with his action of 1822. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. The foregoing Opinion was submitted to all Commissioners for vote and to more than 350 zoologists, zoological laboratories, colleges, and scientific institutions for comment. No adverse criticism has been received by the Secretary, but the following comments have been sent to him: Commissioner Allen: Again it seems to me that Fleming may be correctly assumed to have fixed the type of Sparus in 1822 (by mono- typy) as Sparus aurata Linn. Fleming’s Sparus (1822 and 1828) = Les Daurades Cuvier (1817), to which Fleming appears to have been the first to assign a name, selecting Sparus for it. While Fleming did not formally, or in the strict sense of Article 30 of the International Code, designate a type for either Pleuronectes or Sparus, I should not in the least hesitate, were I forced to give a decision in the case, to decide that, for all practical purposes, Fleming did indicate Pl. platessa L. as the type of Pleuronectes, and Sp. aurata L. as the type of Sparus; at least I should hold that such a decision was warranted by usage and in harmony with many precedents. Commissioners Bather, Hartert, D. S. Jordan, and Stejneger: Same . remarks as under Opinion 68. Commissioner Hoyle: As regards Sparus, I am not clear about the action of Cuvier, 1817. If an author divides the genus and does not retain the original name for one of the parts, does not that render his action null and void? Or can we pick out one of his parts, apply the old name to that and neglect his new one? Favorable opinions have been received from: P. P. Calvert, Barton W. Evermann, W. C. Kendall, Lewis Radcliffe, Hugh M. Smith, Oldfield Thomas, A. A. Tyler, and H. L. Viereck. Miss Mary J. Rathbun: Also that aurata became the type of Sparus in 1822 by Fleming, and, therefore, he did not designate the type of that genus in 1828. Doctor Pappenheim: See remarks under Opinion 68. OPINION 70 197 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 13 OPINION 70 ‘THE CASE OF LIBELLULA AMERICANA L., 1758, vs. LIBELLULA AMERICANUS DRuRY, 1773 SUMMARY.—In view of the fact that Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, is an evident lapsus calanu for Gryllus americanus, the lapsus is to be corrected, and the specific name in this instance, americanus 1773, is not invalidated by Libellula americana 1758. STATEMENT OF CASE.—A. N. Caudell presents the following case for opinion: Shall the specific name americanus Drury, 1773, be suppressed in favor of serialis Thunberg, 1815? The pertinent references are: 1770, Drury, Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 1, plate 49. 1771, Linnzus, Mantissa Plantarum, p. 533. 1773, Drury, Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 1, index. 1815, Thunberg, Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci., St. Petersb., vol. 5, p. 241. Drury, 1770, figured two locusts, but used no names except an indication that figure 2 of the plate was related to [or identical with*] Gryllus tartaricus of Linneus. Linneus, 1771, refers to the above plate by Drury, and names figure I as Gryllus ? squarrosus. Drury, 1773, in index, refers to the above work of Linnzus, quoting the name squarrosus, but the species is placed under the generic name Libellula. No. 2 of the plate is here given the specific name americanus and is, like the name squarrosus Linn., placed under Libellula. Thunberg, 1815, described the species Gryllus serialis, which has been found to be a synonym of the above americanus of Drury. In the tenth edition of Linnzus’ Systema Nature, there is described a true dragon fly under the name Libellula americana, and thus the above combina- tion of Libellula americanus by Drury apparently makes the latter a primary homonym. However, this inclusion of this species by Drury in the genus Libellula seems to be an error, or lapsus calamt, for the following reason: 1. The insect Gryllus tartaricus of Linnzus, which Drury mentions in 1770 as related to his figure 2, is a locust, that is, the genus Gryllus as then used. 2. In the index of vol. 1 of Drury’s Illustrations in 1773, mention is made of the reference of squarrosus to the genus Gryllus by Linnzus in 1771, and in the absence of other evidence there seems no reason to think Drury intended other than to follow him; squarrosus is figure I of the plate, and the second figure, americanus, also a locust, would clearly be treated the same. 3. The termination of the two species as appearing in the index, 1773, is “us,” an ending agreeing with Gryllus but not with Libellula. It is to be noted, however, that Drury is not consistent in his termination, as in the index the names cincta and squamosus are included under the genus Vespa. +“T have not seen it anywhere described unless the insect mentioned by Linneus .... is the same with this.” 198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 4. The previous plate, no. 48, contains only dragon flies, that is, the genus Libellula, and the mistake of failing to change the name of the genus to Gryllus for the species figured on plate 49, either by the author or the type- setter, seems easy. s. Drury was an entomologist and one not likely to mistake a locust for a dragon fly, and thus not liable to place this large grasshopper in a Neuropterous genus. The above reasons make it quite clear that the inclusion of americanus, at its first appearance, in the genus Libellula was an etror or a lapsus calami, and Art. 19 is apparently an authority for setting aside such reference. Discusston.—The Secretary has, in the presence of A. N. Caudell, verified the facts submitted in respect to Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, index, as applied to plate 49, figure 2, of Drury, 1770, and is con- vinced that a lapsus for Gryllus americanus is present.’ The portions of the Code which come into consideration in this case are as follows: ARTICLE 35.—A specific name is to be rejected as a homonym (1) when it has previously been used for some other species of the same genus. Ex- amples: Tema ovilla Rivolta, 1878 (n. sp.), is rejected as homonym of T. ovilla Gmelin, 1790. ARTICLE 19.—The original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. In the Code of the American Ornithologists’ Union, 1892, p. 47, Canon 33, which corresponds to Articles 34 and 35 of the International Code, reads as follows: A generic name is to be changed which has previously been used for some other genus in the same kingdom; a specific or subspecific name is to be changed when it has been applied to some other species of the same genus, or used previously in combination with the same generic name. [Italics not in the original. ] By astrict construction of Canon 33 of the A. O. U. Code, the inter- pretation might be made that Libellula americanus 1773, even though a lapsus, is invalidated by Libellula americana 1758. The case in question is one of several of its kind that has come to the attention of the Secretary, but this is the first instance in which the Commission has been requested to render a definite ona upon cases of this nature. 2A reference to Drury, 1782 (Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 3, p. xviii, footnote), has been brought to the attention of the Secretary. This reads: “The reader is desired to correct an error in the index, where this and the following insect aré ranked among the Libellula, but should be among the Grilli Locusta’’ This quotation supports the opinion as written. OPINION 70 199 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 15 It is clearly the intent of the International Code, as shown by Article 19, to permit the correction of an evident error of transcription, a lapsus calami or a typographical error, and upon basis of this intention the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its opinion the following : In view of the fact that Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, is an evident lapsus calami for Gryllus americanus, the lapsus is to be cor- rected, and the specific name in this instance, americanus 1773, is not invalidated by Libellula americana 1758. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 15 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, 3 Commissioners: Kolbe, Roule, Simon. Bather agrees with the conclusion but submits evidence from Dur- rant contained in footnote, p. 73. Hartert adds: The Commission has nothing to do with the A. O. U. Code. K. Jordan adds: Article 35 is not clear. The expression “ pre- viously used for some other species in the same genus ” is too general. It should be stated that the species new at the time and published in combination with the “ same generic name” are meant. 200 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 71 INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION ‘“‘ TYPICAL SPECIES” IN WEStTWoop’s (1840) SYNOPSIS. SUMMARY.—The species cited by Westwood, 1840 (An Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects, vol. 2, Synopsis, separate pagination, pages 1 to 158), as “typical species” are to be accepted as definite designations of genotypes for the respective genera. The question whether any given species under consideration represents the valid genotype or not is dependent upon two points: First, whether the species was available as genotype and, second, whether this designation in 1840 is antedated by some other designation. STATEMENT OF CASE.—J. C. Crawford and Chas. H. T. Townsend have requested an Opinion upon the question whether the species cited by Westwood (1840) in his Synopsis, and designated ‘“ Typical species” are to be accepted as types of the genera in question. Dr. Townsend’s presentation of the case reads as follows: J. O. Westwood published in volume 2 of his Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects, in 1840, under the title of “ Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects,’ 158 octavo pages of generic diagnoses, including a specific name with each genus. With reference to the function of this specific name, we find footnote on first page stating that following data are given in first line of each genus: “1. Name of the genus; 2. Name of its founder; 3. Synonym of the genus; 4. Author of the synonymical genus; 5. Number of British species; 6. Typical species; 7. Reference to the best figure.” It is plainly evident that this “ Synopsis” is entirely restricted to the British species, and that the selection of the “typical species” has necessarily been restricted in each case to the British fauna, thereby resulting often in a geno- type that is not typical in the sense of the founder of the genus. Does the Commission rule that mention in this “ Synopsis” of the “typical species,” meaning unquestionably “typical British species,” constitutes a valid designation of genotype? Westwood makes the following statement in the preface (p. vi, vol. 1) to his “Introduction”: “ At the same time, in order that this work may serve as a precursor to the works of Curtis, Stephens, &c., I have added a synopsis of the British genera, brought down to the present time. The idea of the addition of this synopsis was derived from Latreille’s “ Considérations Générales,’ in which the genera are shortly characterised, and the names of the typical species given in an Appendix. The additions of generic synonymes, references to generic figures, and indications of the number of British species, will render the synopsis more complete, although it must be evident that it can serve but as a guide to more extended research.” CH. i i OPINION 71] 201 NO. I OPINIONS 68 To 77 17 Discussion.— The question has been submitted by the Secretary of this Commission to the Secretary of the International Commission on Entomological Nomenclature, who has reported as follows: Although some members of the Entomological Committee are of opinion that Westwood did not mean to designate genotypes in the modern sense, it is unanimously agreed that the species mentioned by W'estwood under a genus should be considered genotype, if it was originally included in the genus, and if no genotype has been designated prior to Westwood. That some authors have used the expression “ Typical species ” simply in the sense of a characteristic example of a genus, and that others have used it in the sense of “ Type species,” seems quite clear. Accordingly each paper must be judged separately in deciding whether the case in question fulfills the requirements of the Code that “ the meaning of the expression ‘ select the type ” is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not constitute a selection of a type.” In connection with Westwood’s Synopsis, there are two points of evidence that seem to come into special consideration in arriving at an interpretation of his use of the expression “ Typical species.” First, Westwood (1839, vol. 1, p. vi, Introduction to Modern Classi- fication of Insects) distinctly states that “ The idea of the addition of this synopsis was derived from Latreille’s Considérations Générales, in which the genera are shortly characterised, and the names of the typical species given in an Appendix”; accordingly Westwood intended that his Synopsis with “ Typical species’ should correspond to Latreille’s “ Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert de type” [italics not in the original]. The Commission has already adopted the Opinion (no. II, pp. 17-18) that Latreille’s Table .... “should be accepted as desig- nation of types of the genera in question (Art. 30).” Accordingly, since Westwood definitely states that his idea was obtained from Latreille’s (1810) publication, it would appear logical to conclude that Westwood’s (1840) Synopsis also is to be construed as designation of genotype. Second: The foregoing interpretation of Westwood’s citation receives support in the fact that in his Synopsis (see the case of Demetrias) he cites the original generic name under which the species was published. For instance, on p. 1, he gives the following: “ Demetrias Bonelli. Rhyzophilus Leach. 4 sp. Carab. atricapillus Linn.” This is a method of citation very common among authors who are designating genotypes, but it is relatively uncommon when an author is simply citing a species as an example of a genus. In the 202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 latter case it is usually the custom to cite the specific name only in combination with the name of the genus for which it is quoted as an example. On the basis of the foregoing premises the Secretary recommends that the Commission confirm the report from the Entomological Com- mission, and adopt as its opinion the following: The species cited by Westwood, 1840 (An Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects, vol. 2, Synopsis, separate pagination, pages I to 158), as “ Typical species” are to be accepted as definite designations of genotypes for the respective genera. The question whether any given species under consideration represents the valid genotype or not is dependent upon two points: First, whether the species was available as genotype, and second, whether this desig- nation in 1840 is antedated by some other designation. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- chard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Apstein. Not voting, 3 Commissioners: Kolbe, Roule, Simon. _ Apstein signs the concurrence in the Opinion but adds: Ich halte es ausgeschlossen dass Westwood Type in unserem jetzigen Sinne gemeint hat. Sind Typen bis jetzt bestimmt, so sollen sie nicht zu Gunsten von Westwood geandert werden, wenn sie auch erst zwischen 1840-1916 bestimmt sind. [In the last line of the Opinion Apstein inserts between the words “ other ” and “ designation ” the expression “auch spateren (als 1840) ”; thus in reality he dissents from the Opinion.—C. W. S.] . OPINION 72 203 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 19 OPINION 72 HERRERA’S ZOOLOGICAL FORMULE SUMMARY.—Designations of animals, according to the system proposed by ‘Herrera in the case submitted for Opinion, are formule, and not names. Ac- cordingly they have no status in Nomenclature, and are therefore not subject to consideration under the Law of Priority. No author is under obligation to cite these designations in any table of synonymy, index, or other list of names. STATEMENT OF CASE—W. Dwight Pierce submits the following case for opinion: Herrera, in 1900, proposed to prefix all zoological generic names with a syllable to indicate class, and to terminate them with “us” or “s,” and to place behind them certain initials further to assist in locating the genus: Insapis mellifica (1, Hy, A). Discussion.—The foregoing case was submitted, for consideration and report, to the International Commission on Entomological Nomen- clature, from the Secretary (Karl Jordan) of which the following report has been received: The case, though based on insects, is of a general nature, and therefore one for the Commission to deal with. It has been submitted to European Ento- mological Committees only. Ten members have given their opinion. All agree as follows: - According to Herrera’s own showing, the names of the genera are Apis, Musca, Otus, etc. If any of these names should be preoccupied, the formule Insmuscas, Insbombyxus, etc., cannot be considered as replacing preoccupied names. If Herrera has published such a formula as a title for a new genus (Insexus), Exus should be regarded as the name of the new genus. In quoting literally from the work of Herrera, the formula “ Insbombyxus ” should be placed between inverted commas, “....”: “Insmuscas” domes- tica, without the initials following in Herrera’s formula. If the quotation is not literal, Musca, Bombyx, etc., should be used. Ket. The Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature concurs in general with the foregoing report, but invites attention to certain features of the case submitted. In principle, according to the premises submitted, the designations by Herrera are of essentially the same kind as the designations by Rhumbler, 1910, Zoologischer Anzeiger, pp. 453 to 471, and Ver- handlungen des VII Internationalen Zoologen-Kongresses, zu Graz, 1910 (published 1912), pp. 859 to 874. 204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 The following case is an example which illustrates Rhumbler’s system: Pachynodon reverendus Amegh. Eupachnodontos éreverendos A. m ! != fossiler Ungulate aus. dem ostlichen Siidamerika.—E — Saugetier; u= Ungulat. It has long been a principle in zoological nomenclature that a name is only a name. For instance, the Code of Nomenclature adopted by the American Ornithologists’ Union, 1892, pp. 21-22, contains the following : PRINCIPLE V.—A name is only a name, having no meaning until invested with one by being used as the handle of a fact; and the meaning of a name so used, in zoological nomenclature, does not depend upon its signification in any other connection. REMARKS.—The bearing of this principle upon the much desired fixity of names in Zoology, and its tendency to check those confusing changes which are too often made upon philological grounds, or for reasons of ease, elegance, or what not, may be best illustrated by the following quotation: “Tt being admitted on all hands that words are only the conventional signs of ideas, it is evident that language can only attain its ends effectually by being permanently established and generally recognized. This consideration ought, it would seem, to have checked those who are continually attempting to sub- vert the established language of zoology by substituting terms of their own coinage. But, forgetting the true nature of language, they persist in confound- ing the name of a species or [other] group with its definition; and because the former often falls short of the fulness of expression found in the latter, they cancel it without hesitation, and introduce some new term which appears to them more characteristic, but which is utterly unknown to the science, and is therefore devoid of any authority. If these persons were to object to such names of men as Long, Little, Armstrong, Golightly, etc., in cases where they fail to apply to the individuals who bear them, or should complain of the names Gough, Lawrence, or Harvey, that they were devoid of meaning, and should hence propose to change them for more characteristic appelations, they would not act more unphilosophically or inconsiderately than they do in the case before us; for, in truth, it matters not in the least by what conventional sound we agree to designate an individual object, provided the sign to be employed be stamped with such an authority as will suffice to make it pass current.” (B. A. Code, 1842) These words, which in the original lead up to the consideration of the “law of priority,” seem equally sound and pertinent in connection with the above principle of wider scope. Regeln ftir die wissenschaftliche Benennung der Thiere zusam- mengestellt von der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft, 1894, p. 5, paragraph 5c, states: 1 . . . ° e e Linneus says on this subject: ‘“ Abstinendum ab hac innovatione que numquam cessaret, quin indies aptiora detegerentur ad infinitum.” OPINION 72 205 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 21 c. Ein Name darf nicht verworfen oder geandert werden etwa aus dem Grunde, weil er “nicht bezeichnend” ist oder weil seine Bildung “ unter Missachtung philologischer Sprachregeln ” erfolgte oder “ weil er zu lang ist, schlecht klingt” und so weiter; doch sind fortan derartige fehlerhafte Wort- bildungen, z. B. hybride Worter, zu vermeiden. Es darf z.B. der Name Oriolus persicus L. nicht etwa deshalb geandert werden, weil es ein amerikanischer, in Persien nicht vorkommender Vogel ist, oder Voluta lapponica L., weil es eine indische, in Lappland nicht vorkommende Schnecke ist. Auch Artbezeichnungen mit gleichem Art- und Gattungsnamen sind daher zulassig, z.B. Buteo buteo, Arctus arctus. Article 32 of the International Code reads as follows: A generic or specific name, once published, cannot be rejected, even by its author, because of inappropriateness. Examples: Names like Polyodon, Apus, albus, etc., when once published are not to be rejected because of a claim that they indicate characters contradictory to those possessed by the animals in question. Rhumbler’s proposition was discussed informally by séveral of the members of the Commission at the Gratz meeting, and their inter- pretation was to the effect that the designations suggested by Rhum- bler represented formulz and not names, hence that they had no status whatever under the Code. Were these to be accepted as names, they could not be changed in case it was discovered later that they had been given erroneous prefixes designating classification. Further, the prefix Eu would lead to confusion because of such names as Eustrongylus—a nema- tode, not a mammal (E) ungulate (u). It is obvious that the formulz in question suggested by Rhumbler and by Herrera would not be clear to readers unless they had con- stantly at hand the keys to these formule. Accordingly, in general usage it would be impossible for the average reader clearly to recog- nize which portions of the formule represented generic names and which portions designated classification, or whether a formula or a name were present (cf. Eustrongylus) and this confusion would be increased by changes in the classification. The result would be a chaotic condition in Nomenclature, in which it would be impossible for the average reader to orientate himself. If, on the other hand, the entire combination of letters and punc- tuation marks adopted were accepted as the technical name, the com- binations resulting from change of names depending upon change of knowledge in respect to classification and. distribution would be such as to outweigh any possible advantage that could be gained by recognizing the combinations as names, since as names they would not be in this case subject to emendation. 206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. TS Finally, the propositions made by Rhumbler and Herrera have never been adopted in the International Code, and the only para- graph in the Code which, in the most liberal interpretation, could be cited in favor of these designations is Article 8, Recommendation k, which provides that one may take as generic names: Words formed by an arbitrary combination of letters. Examples: Neda, Clanculus, Salifa, Torix. Recommendation k, however, was written without any considera- tion of cases such as are proposed by Rhumbler and Herrera, and the formule in question are admittedly not arbitrary combinations of letters. In view of the foregoing premises, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: Designations of animals, according to the system proposed by Her- rera in the case submitted for opinion, are formule, and not names. Accordingly they have no status in Nomenclature, and are there- fore not subject to consideration under the Law of Priority. No author is under obligation to cite these designations in any table of synonymy, index, or other list of names. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Horvath, Hoyle, Jor- dan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Hartert, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. Bather: The whole matter seems to be still simpler than -this elaborate Opinion (with which I entirely agree), viz., Herrera and Rhumbler were merely making proposals of a general nature; they were in fact proposing a new scheme of nomenclature. Their pro- posals were not accepted and we have nothing to do with their sug- gested examples. Jordan (D. S.): By all means discourage this sort of thing. Monticelli: Perfettamente d’accordo. OPINION 73 207 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 23 OPINION 73 FivE GENERIC NAMES IN CRINOIDEA, ErGHTy-S1x GENERIC NAMES IN CRUSTACEA, AND EIGHT GENERIC NAMES IN ACARINA, PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List ofr GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: CriNnomwEA: Antedon, Bathycrinus, Holopus, Metacrinus, Rhizocrinus. CRUSTACEA: Acanthocyclus, Actea, Actezomorpha, Actumnus, Arcania, Archias, Arenzeus, Atergatis, Atergatopsis, Banareia, Bathynectes, Bellia, Benthochascon, Caphyra, Carpilius, Carpilodes, Carpoporus, Carupa, Chlorodopsis, Cenophthalmus, Corystoides, Cryptocnemus, Cyclodius, Cymo, Dacryopilumnus, Daira, Deckenia, Domecia, Ebalia, Epilobocera, Epimelus, Erimacrus, Erimetopus, Euphylax, Favus, Gecarcinucus, Hepatella, Heterolithadia, Heteronucia, Heterozius, Hydrothelphusa, Iliacantha, Iphicu- lus, Iphis, Ira, Leucosilia, Lissocarcinus, Lithadia, Lupocyclus, Merocryptus, Myrodes, Nucia, Nursia, Nursilia, Onychomorpha, Oreophorus, Osachila, Para- cyclois, Parathelphusa, Parathranites, Parilia, Pariphiculus, Persephona, Phliyxia, Pirimela, Platymera, Podophthalmus, Polybius, Portumnus, Potamo- carcinus, Potamonautes, Pseudophilyra, Pseudothelphusa, Randallia, Scylla, Speleophorus, Spherocarcinus, Telmessus, Thalamita, Thalamitoides, Thala- monyx, Tlos, Trachycarcinus, Trichodactylus, Trichopeltarion, Valdivia. Acarina: Amblyomma, Argas, Dermacentor, Hxemaphysalis, Hyalomma, Ixodes, Rhipicentor, Rhipicephalus. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Crinoidea. The following five generic names in Crinoidea were submitted to the International Commission by Mr. Austin Hobart Clark, Secretary to the Advisory Committee on the Nomenclature of Echinoderms, with recommendation that they be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Mr. Clark reported that all of these names are in general use, that under the International Rules they are nomenclatorially correct and valid, and that no question or objection can arise as to their status. The names were brought to the attention of the zoological profession in the Secretary’s Circular Letter no. 7, dated May, 1915. In reply to this [Circular Letter no. 7], no person has raised any question or objec- tion of any kind whatsoever to the five names here submitted for final vote. These same five names, with identical types, were sub- 2 Abbreviations used in the above and following lists: tod= Type by original designation. tpd—= Type by present designation. tsd = Type by subsequent designation. mt= Type by monotypy. 208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 mitted to the Commission independently by Apstein (1915a, 129) upon recommendation of Doderlein (Strassburg). Aniedon de Fréminville, 1811, 349 (Bull. Soc. Philom., Paris, vol. 2), type, A. gorgowa = Asterias bifida Pennant, 1777. Bathycrinus Wryville-Thompson, 1872, 772 (Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., vol. 7), type, B. gracilis. Holopus @Orbigny, 1837, 1 (Mag. Zool., 7 ann., classe 10), type H. rangu d’Orbigny. Metacrinus (Wyville-Thomson MS. in) Carpenter, 1882, 167 (Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Camb., vol. 10 (4), tsd. (Clark 1908t, 527), M. wyvillu Carpenter, 1884. ee M. Sars, 1864, 127 (Forhandl. Vidensk. Selsk.), type, R. lofotensis. Crustacea. A list of 99 generic names in Crustacea was submitted to the Commission by Miss Mary J. Rathbun, Secretary to the Ad- visory Committee on the Nomenclature of Crustacea, who reported that, under the International Rules, she considered the names nomen- clatorially correct and valid, and she recommended that they be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. The list in question was brought to the attention of the zoological profession in the Secretary’s Circular Letter no. 4, dated April, 1915, and a special effort was made to reach specialists in the group. Replies have been received from various zoologists including W. T. Calman, Stanley Kemp, J. S. Kingsley, J. G. de Man, and Thomas R. R. Stebbing. Every name has been eliminated from the original list in regard to which either the foregoing or any other zoologist has raised the slightest objection or question in their correspondence with the Secre- tary of the Commission, and said names have been referred again to Miss Rathbun for further opinion. The following list of eighty-six generic names (for bibliography see footnote*) contains no name. or type designation to which the slightest question or objection has been raised by any person: ? BIBLIOGRAPHY Apams and Wuite, 1848, Zool. Voy. H. M. S. Samarang, Crust. Atcocxk, 1896, Jour. Asiatic Soc., Bengal, v. 65, pt. 2, No. 2. Atcock and ANpERSON, 1899, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), v« 3. BELL, 1855, Trans. Linn. Soc., Lond., v. 21. BeENeEnIcT, 1892, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 15. Dana, 1851, Am. Journ. Sci. (2), v. 12. ——, 1852, Crust. U. S. Expl. Exped., v. 1. Eypoux and SouLeyEtT, 1842, Voy. Bonite, v. 1, Crust. Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 24. Guerin, 1830, Voy. Coquille, Zool., v. 2, Crust. OPINION 73 209 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 25 Acanthocyclus Milne Edwards and Lucas, 1844, 29, mt. A. gayi Milne Edwards and Lucas, 1844. De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japonica. HitcenporF, 1869, S. B. Ges. Naturf. Freunde, Berlin, Jan. 21, 1868. LAMARCK, 18o1a, Syst. Anim. sans Vert. LANCHESTER, I900, Proc. Zool. Soc., Lond., pt. 3. ’ LATREILLE, 1825, Encyc. Méth., v. Io. ——, 1829a, Cuvier’s Regne Anim. (2), v. 4, footnote. LeEaAcH, 1814, Edin. Encyc. —, 1815a, Trans. Linn. Soc., Lond., v. 11. ——, 1816, Mal. Podoph. Brit., text of pl. 3. ——, 1817a, Zool. Misc., v. 3. —, 1817b, Mal. Podoph. Brit., text of pl. 25. ——, 1820, Mal. Podoph. Brit., text of pl. oB. LeracuH in Desmarest, 1823, Dict. Sci. Nat., v. 28. MacLeay, 1838, Zool. S. Africa, Annulosa. Miers, 1877, Journ. Linn. Soc.; Lond., v. 13. TOO TOGZools Soc, Lond: ——, 1886, Chall. Rep. Zool., v. 17. MiLtnNe Epwarps, 1837, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 2. ——, 1844, Jacquemont’s Voy. dans I’Inde, v. 4, Zool. Crust. ——, 1848, Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), v. 9. ——, 1653, Ann. Sci. Nat. (), v. 20: ——, 1865, Ann. Soc. Entom., France (4), v. 5. ——, 1867, Ann. Soc. Entom., France (4), v. 7. ——, 1869a, Ann. Soc. Entom., France (4), v. 9. —, 1869b, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Nat., Paris, v. 5. eee oem Scie Nat. (5)k ve 0S. ——, 1873a, Jour. Mus. Godeffroy, v. 4. ——, 1873b, Nouv. Arch. Hist. Nat., Paris, v. 9. ——, 1878, Bull. Soc. Philom. (7), v. 2. ——, 1870, Crust. Rég. Mex. ——., 1880, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 8. MILNE Epwarps, and Lucas, 1844, d’Orbigny’s Voy. lAmér. Meérid., v. 6, pt. 1. Nopsiut, 1906, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat., Paris. PAULSON, 1875, Invest. Crust. Red Sea, v. 1. RATHBUN, 1894, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 17. RUPPELL, 1830, Krabben d. rothen Meeres. SAUSSURE, 1857, Rev. et Mag. Zool. (2), v. 9. SmitTH, 1870, in Verrill, Amer. Nat., v. 3. Stimpson, 1857, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., v. 6. ——, 1858, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. Io. ——, 1860, Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist., N. Y., v. 7. ——, 1871, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 2. Waite, 1846, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., v. 17. ——, 1847, Proc. Zool. Soc., Lond., v. 15. Woop-Mason, 1891, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (6), v. 7. ZEHNTNER, 1894, Rev. Suisse Zool., v. 17. ~ - 210 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Actzxa de Haan, 1833, 4, 18, tpd. (1st sp.) A. savignii Milne Edwards, 1834= Cancer (Actzxa) granulatus de Haan, 1833 =C. granulatus Audouin, 1825, not C. granulatus Linneus, 1758. Actzomorpha Miers, 1877, 183, mt. A. erosa Miers, 1877. Actumnus Dana, 1851, 128, tpd. (1st sp.) A. tomentosus Dana, 1852. Species not named until 1852. Arcania Leach, 1817, 19, mt. A. erinacea = Cancer erinaceus Fabricius, 1787. Archias Paulson, 1875, 56, mt. A. sexdentatus Paulson, 1875. Arenzus Dana, 1851, 130, mt. A. cribrarius—= Lupa cribraria Milne Edwards, 1834 = Portunus cribrarius Lamarck, 1818. Atergatis de Haan, 1833, 4, 17, tpd. (1st sp.) Cancer (Atergatis) 4ntegerrimus de Haan, 1833 —=C. integerrimus Lamarck, 1818. Atergatopsis A. Milne Edwards, 1862, 43, Ann. Sci. Nat. (4), v. 18, mt. Carpilius signatus White, 1848. Banareia A. Milne Edwards, 1869, 168, mt. B. armata A. Milne Edwards, 1860. Bathynectes Stimpson, 1871, 145, tod. B. superba=Portunus superba Costa, 1838? = B. longtspina Stimpson, 1871. Bellia Milne Edwards, 1848, 192, mt. B. picta Milne Edwards, 1848. Benthochascon Alcock and Anderson, 1899, 10, mt. B. hemingi Alcock and Anderson, 1899. Caphyra Guérin,. 1830, 26, mt. C. roux Guérin, 1830. Carpilius Leach in Desmarest, 1823, 228, mt. C. maculatus Fabricius=C. maculatus Linneus, 1758. Carpilodes Dana, 1851, 126, mt. C. tristis Dana, 1852. Species not named until 1852. Carpoporus Stimpson, 1871, 138, mt. C. papulosus Stimpson, 1871. Carupa Dana, 1851, 129, mt. C. tenwipes Dana, 1852. Species not named until 1852. Chlorodopsis A. Milne Edwards, 1873, 227, tpd. (1st sp.) C. melanochirus A. Milne Edwards, 1873. Cenophthalmus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, 236, mt. C. tridentatus A. Milne Edwards, 1879. : Corystoides Milne Edwards and Lucas, 1844, 31, mt. C. chilensis Milne Edwards and Lucas, 1844. Cryptocnemus Stimpson, 1858, 161, mt. C. pentagonus Stimpson, 1858. Cyclodius Dana, 1851, 126, tpd. (1st sp.) C. ornatus Dana, 1852. Species not named until 1852. Cymo de Haan, 1833, 5, 22, type Cancer (Cymo) andreossiji de Haan, 1833 = Pilumnus (?) andreossyt Audouin, 1825. Only valid species; the remain- ing species given by de Haan is a nomen nudum. Dacryopilumnus Nobili, 1906, 263, mt. D. eremita Nobili, 1906. Daira de Haan, 1833, 4, 18, mt. D. perlata—= Cancer (Daira) perlatus de Haan, 1833 —==C. perlatus Herbst, 1790. Deckema Hilgendorf, 1860, 2, mt. D. imitatrix Hilgendorf, 1860. Domecia Eydoux and Souleyet, 1842, 234, mt. D. hispida Eydoux and Souleyet, 1842. Ebalia Leach, £817, tpd. (1st sp.) E. tuberosa—= Cancer tuberosus Pennant, 1777 = pennaniu Leach, 1817. Epilobocera Stimpson, 1860, 234, mt. E. cubensis Stimpson, 1860. Epimelus A. Miine Edwards, 1878, 227, mt. E. cessactti A. Milne Edwards, 1878. OPINION 73 P| NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 27 Erimacrus Benedict, 1892, 229, substituted for Podacanthus, mt. Platycorystes (Podacanthus) isenbecku Brandt, 1848. Erimetopus Rathbun, 1894, 26, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 17, mt. E. spinosus Rathbun, 1894. Euphylax Stimpson, 1860, 225, mt. E. dovii Stimpson, 1860. Favus Lanchester, 1900, 767, mt. F. granulatus Lanchester, 1900. Gecarcinucus Milne Edwards, 1844, 4, mt. G. jacquemontii Milne Edwards, 1844. Hepatella Smith, 1870, 250, mt. H. amica Smith, 1870. Heterohthadia Alcock, 1896, 171, 261, mt. H. fallax = Ebalia fallax Henderson, 1893. Heteronucia Alcock, 1896, 170, 177, Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, v. 65, pt. 2, No. 2, mt. H’. vesiculosa Alcock, 1806. Heterozius A. Milne Edwards 1867, 275, mt. H. rotundifrons A. Milne Edwards, 1867. Hydrothelphusa A. Milne Edwards, 1872, 2, mt. H. agilis A. Milne Edwards, 1872. Ihacantha Stimpson, 1871, 155, tpd. (1st sp.) J. subglobosa Stimpson. Iphiculus Adams and ee 1848, 57, mt. J. spongiosus Adams and White, 1848. Iphis Leach, 1817, 10, 25, mt. J. septemspinosa=Leucosia septemspinosa Fabricius, 1798 = Cancer septemspinosus Fabricius, 1787. . Iva Leach, 1815, 310, 334, mt. J. cylindrus = Cancer cylindrus Fabricius, 1777. Leucosilia Bell, 1855, 205, mt. L. jurinet—=Guaia (Ilia) jurines Saussure, 1853 =L. jurinii Bell, 1855. Lissocarcinus Adams and White, 1848, 45, mt. L. polybioides Adams and White, _ 1848. Lithadia Bell, 1855, 305,.mt, L. cumingti Bell, 1855. Lupocyclus Adams and White, 1848, 46, mt. L. rotundatus Adams and White, 1848. Merocryptus A. Milne Edwards, 1873, 84, mt. M. lambriformis A. Milne Edwards, 1873. Myrodes Bell, 1855, 208, mt. M. eudactylus Bell, 1855. Nucia Dana, 1852, 392, 397, mt. N. speciosa Dana, 1852. Nursia Leach, 1817, 18, mt. N. hardwickw Leach, 1817. Nursilia Bell, 1855, 308, mt. N. dentata Bell, 1855. Onychomorpha Stimpson, 1858, 162, mt. O, lamelligera Stimpson, 1858. Oreophorus Rippell, 1830, 18, mt. O. horridus Riippell, 1830. Osachila Stimpson, 1871, 154, mt. O. tuberosa Stimpson, 1871. Paracyclois Miers, 1886, 288, mt. P. milne-edwardsu Miers, 1886. Parathelphusa Milne Edwards, 1853, 213 (179), tsd. (Rathbun, 1905) P. triden- tata Milne Edwards, 1853. In the above mentioned article references are made to the Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, v. 7; that the former was, how- ever, published first is recognized in Arch. f. Naturg., Jhg. 20, v. 2, 1855, p. 285. Parathranites Miers, 1886, 185, mt. Lupocyclus (Parathranites) orientalis Miers, 1886. Parilia Wood-Mason, 1891, 264, mt. P. alcocki Wood-Mason, 1801. Pariphiculus Alcock, 1896, 171, 257, tpd. (1st sp.) P. coronatus = Randallia coronata Alcock and Anderson, 1894. DD OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VO He Persephona Leach, 1817, 18, 22, tpd. (1st sp.) P. punctata—=Cancer punctatus Linn., 1758 (part) Cancer punctatus Linn., 1767=P, latreillu Leach, 1817 =P. lamarcku Leach, 1817. Phlyxia Bell, 1855, 303, tpd. (1st sp.) P. crassipes Bell, 1855. Pirimela Leach, 1816, mt. P. denticulata = Cancer denticulatus Montagu, 1808. Platymera Milne Edwards, 1837, 107, mt. P. gaudichaudu Milne Edwards, 1837. Podophthalmus Lamarck, 1801, 152, mt. P. vigil—Portunus vigil Fabricius, 1798 = Podophthalmus spinosus Lamarck, 1801. In 1801 Lamarck wrote “ Podophtalmus” but later (1818) “ Podophthalmus.” Polybius Leach, 1820, mt. P. henslowu Leach, 1820. Portumnus Leach, 1814, 391, 420, mt. P. latipes—= Cancer latipes Pennant, 1777 =P. variegatus Leach, 1814. Potamocarcinus Milne Edwards, 1853, 208 (174), mt. P. armatus Milne Ed- wards, 1853. Potamonautes MacLeay, 1838, 64, type Thelphusa perlata Milne Edwards, 1837; the only species designated by name by MacLeay. Pseudophilyra Miers, 1870, 40, tpd. (ist sp.) P. tridentata Miers, 1870. Pseudothelphusa Saussure, 1857, 305, mt. P. americana Saussure, 1857. Origi- nally written Pseudo-Thelphusa. Randallia Stimpson, 1857, Feb., 85, mt. R. ornata=Tlia ornata Randall, 1839. Scylla de Haan, 1833, 3, 11, mt. S. serrata—==Cancer serratus Forskal, 1775 = Portunus (Scylla) serratus de Haan, 1833. Only two species were given by de Haan, and they are synonymous. Speleophorus A. Milne Edwards, 1865, 148, tpd. (1st. sp.) S. nodosus = Oreo- phorus nodosus Bell, 1855. Spherocarcinus Zehntner, 1894, 163, mt. S. bedoti Zehntner, 1894. Telmessus White, 1846, 497, mt. T. cheiragonus—=T. serratus White, 1846= Cancer cheiragonus Tilesius, 1815. Thalamuita Latreille, 1820, 33, mt. Cancer admcete Herbst, 1803. Thalamitoides A. Milne Edwards, 1869, 146, tpd. (1st sp.) T. quadridens A. Milne Edwards, 1860. Thalamonyx A. Milne Edwards, 1873, 168, tpd. (1st sp.) Gontosoma danz A. Milne Edwards, 1860. Tlos Adams and White, 1848, 57, mt. T. muriger Adams and White, 1848. Trachycarcinus Faxon, 1893, 156, mt. T. corallinus Faxon, 1893. Trichodactylus Latreille, 1825, 705, mt. T. fluviatilis Latr. 1825. Trichopeltarion A. Milne Edwards, 1880, Dec. 29, 19, mt. T. nobile A. Milne Edwards, 1880. Valdivia White, 1847, 85, mt. V. serrata White, 1847. AcarinA. The following eight names in Acarina (Ixodoidea) have been made public to the zoological profession by publication in the following journals: Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1915, p. 88, v. 40; Nature, 1911, p. 42, v. 88; Proc. Int. Cong. Zool. Monaco, 1913, published 1914, p. 859; Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1911, pp. 589-590, v. 38. In addition they were brought to the attention of the zoological profession in the Secretary’s Circular Letter no. I, 1915. OPINION 73 aS NO. I OPINIONS 68 To 77 29 The same list was submitted in Circular Letter no. 10, dated July, 1915, addressed to the members of the International Commission on Medical Zoology (Parasitology). The list has also been submitted to Dr. Hassall, Secretary to the Advisory Committee on the Nomenclature of the Ixodoidea, and he reports favorably upon them. Finally the names were submitted to Doctor Jordan, Secretary to the International Commission on Ento- mological Nomenclature, and word has been received from him recommending that the Commission proceed to vote on the names in question. Not a single objection or question of any kind has been received at the Secretary’s office in regard to these names. All of the generic names have been verified personally by the Secretary to the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and he considers them nomenclatorially correct and valid. Amblyomma Koch, 1844a, 223-231 (Arch. Naturg.), type Acarus cajennensis Fabricius, 17874. Argas Latreille, 1796a, 178 (Précis), type Acarus reflexus Fabricius, 1794. Dermacentor Koch, 1844a, 235-237, type Acarus reticulatus Fabricius, 1794. Hemaphysalis Koch, 1844a, 237, type H. concinna Koch, 1844. ' Hyalomma Koch, 1844a, 220-223, type Acarus xgyptius Linn., 1758. Ixodes Latreille, 1796a, 179, type Acarus ricinus Linnéus, 1758. Rhipicentor Nuttall and Warburton, 1908, 398 (Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., vol. 14), mt. R. bicornis N. & W., 1908. Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844a, 238-239, type Ixodes sanguineus ateeaites 1806. Discussion.—In view of the foregoing premises, and on basis of the study given by specialists in each of the three groups in question, the Secretary recommends that the foregoing names be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, 5 Commissioners: Handlirsch, Kolbe, Roule, Simon, Stejneger. Apstein: Sollen die Off. Listen von Gattungsnamen wirklich durch Unmengen beliebiger Namen beschwert werden? Von den 92 Namen Crustaceen sind die meisten wohl iberfliissig, da kein Zweitel moglich ist. Es ist eine Kleinigkeit mehrere 1,000 Namen zu notieren, aber was ist damit erreicht? Entweder soll man eine kleine Zahl wichtiger, all bekannter und streittiger Gattungen auf- nehmen oder alle Gattungen, dann ergiebt sich ein dicker Band. 214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Dautzenberg: Je ne puis approuver des listes des nomina conser- vanda, si les noms qu’elles enferment sont considérés comme devant subsister et continuer a étre employés alors méme qu’on s’apercevrait un jour que l’un ou l’autre est en contradiction avec la loi de priorite. Mais s’il est entendu que les listes dressées par des speécialistes com- pétents ne pourront étre modifiées que s'il est clairement démontré que tel ou tel nom est en contradiction évidente avec la loi de priorité, je suis pret a apposer ma signature au bas de ces listes. Jordan (D. S.): I have no objection, but I think that a study beginning from Linnzeus and proceeding upward will save time. Stiles: The problem is not a theoretical one as to what is the best way to establish an Official List, or what kind of a list to establish, but rather what is any way to meet the divergent views of scores of independent workers and make progress by voluntary (namely unpaid) cooperation. A long list of Nomina Conservanda has been proposed by one Commissioner (Apstein) and this has brought to the Secretary a storm of protests together with urgent appeals from general zoologists to establish some sort of list so that nomenclature will be more stable. Careful studies of various groups have been made by various Commissioners and other zoologists, but numerous cases and questions have been left open and undecided. A Code has been adopted which covers the vast majority of cases and persons who understand nomenclature can apply these rules to most of the names with which they have to deal. Still, up to recent years the striking trend of nomenclature has been to emphasize differences rather than agreements of views as respects names. The Official List is an attempt to allow the troubled waters to settle awhile and to sce im how far we all agree; thus it is trying out a new technique in the hope of obtaining results, and the more names that can he shown to be acceptable to all workers, despite divergent views as to why they are acceptable, the more settled will be the subject of nomenclature, even if many disputed points must be left to future generations. To insist at present upon an immediate application of the Code to all disputed cases or to an adoption of Nomina Conservanda to cover all disputed cases would inevitably result in two independent nomenclatures and this is not practical until we find out which are the disputed names, into what categories these can be classified, and why they are in dispute. Herein lies the value in comparing the Apstein (Nomina Conservanda) and the Jordan (Priority) lists. When certain generic names of fishes appear in both lists, and are OPINION 73 215 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 31 placed in an Official List, while other names show disagreement, we obtain a clearer vision of our problems. The Official List has a chief object and a chief result in view: The chief object is to give to the general zoologists a list of names which, so far as can humanly be determined, seem to be beyond dis- pute; the chief result is to find out where we all can agree, thereby bringing us all more closely together before we reach the final differ- ences of opinion on cases which are in dispute. The outlook for settling all cases by any one method in our genera- tion is hopeless—unless we can change human nature. Our lives in general are made up of a series of compromises in policies in order to carry out principles; nomenclature can hardly hope to escape this same necessity. The great principles in nomenclature are (1) stability in so far as this is possible under a system of chang- ing conceptions as to classification, and (2) objectivity as to selec- tion between competitive names; the methods by which these de- siderata are to be reached are dependent fully as much upon policy as upon principle, and secondary principles can well afford to make way for policies which, by compromises, hold out hope for success of the primary principle. 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 74 APSTEIN’S (1915) List oF NoMINA CONSERVANDA SUMMARY.—The Commission has no power to adopt en bloc Apstein’s list of proposed Nomina Conservanda, but is prepared to consider names separately upon presentation of reasonably complete evidence. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Commissioner Apstein has submitted to the Commission a list of Nomina Conservanda which was printed in the Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, No. 5, Mai, 1915, pages 119-202, and which he suggests be used as basis for studies, the results of which can be submitted to the next International Zoological Congress. The printed document is herewith accepted as Presentation of Case, and reference is made to the printed list for details. Copies of the list have been mailed to members of the Commission, and the Secretary’s Circular Letter no. 19, December, 1915, contains the correspondence on the subject, between Commissioner Apstein and the Secretary. i Discusstion.—An examination of different portions of Apstein’s list shows clearly that although full data are not presented in respect to the individual names, many of the generic names quoted are valid under the Code, and in many cases the type species cited is correct. On the other hand, the list contains some names that are not valid under the Code, and in some cases the type species cited is not the correct genotype under the Code. The list in question corresponds, nevertheless, to the general invi- tation issued by the Commission in its report to the Gratz Congress, to send to the Secretary of the Commission zoological generic names to be studied in connection with the preparation of an Official List of Generic Names, and whatever may be the individual opinion of zoologists in respect to the names in question, Commissioner Apstein has accomplished an excellent piece of work in compiling this list and thus bringing to the attention of the Commission a number of names that are, more or less, in general use by various zoologists. It is equally clear, however, that the Commission has no authority either under the Rules, or under its Plenary Power, to act upon this list as a unit. The Secretary has submitted several groups of names to special- ists in the respective groups for special study, and has already placed some of the names before the Commission, for vote. OPINION 74 27 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 33) In order that definite action may be taken upon the general ques- tion concerning this list, the Secretary recommends that the Com- mission adopt as its Opinion the following: (1) The Commission is not authorized, either under the Rules, or under the Plenary Power, to adopt en bloc the list of names pre- sented by Commissioner Apstein. (2) The Secretary is authorized and instructed to submit to the Commission for adoption in the Official List of Generic Names, any of the names in Apstein’s (1915a) List for which he may be able to find proper authority under the Rules. (3) The Commission invites Commissioner Apstein to submit full data respecting any name in said list which he considers should be adopted under the Plenary Power, said data to show that “a strict application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than uni- formity.” . (4) The Commission can, at least for the present, consider names under the Plenary Power only as individual cases, each name to be considered on its own merits. (5) The foregoing paragraph (4) is not, however, to be construed as preventing the Commission from considering any given publica- tion (article, book, or catalogue) as a whole, in which more than a single name is involved, all of which come under the same general conditions. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 10 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- chard, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Skin- ner, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Handlirsch. Not voting, 7 Commissioners: Apstein, Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Monti- celli, Roule, Simon, Stejneger. Commissioner Apstein makes the following statement, which is concurred in by Commissioner Kolbe: Die Liste der Nomina Conservanda (1915) habe ich als Antrag an die Intern. Nomenclatur Kommission ftir den nachsten Internat. Zoologen Congress eingereicht. Dass sie nicht auf dem Prioritats- gesetz strikt basiert, geht aus dem Antrage (Zool. Anz., v. 46, 31, viii, I5) so wie aus der Einleitung zu der Liste hervor, liegt auch schon in dem Titel ‘“ Nomina Conservanda.” Die Liste bildet also ein Novum tiber das der nachste Internat. Zoolog. Congress zu beschliessen haben wird. Wenn die Nomencla- tur-Regeln Ausnahmen (suspensions!) nur zulassen in dem Falle der Verwirrung und bei Larven, so sind die Regeln eben viel zu eng 218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 gefasst und muss der nachste Intern. Zoologen Congress hiergegen Abhelfe schaffen. Was Punkt 3 in Circular letter 32 betrifit, das ich “full data respecting any name in said list” vorlegen soll, so ist das 1, nicht moglich wegen des Umfanges der Arbeit, 2, nicht notig, da es sich bei den Namen der Liste um ganz gebrauchliche Namen handelt die wie ich schon sagte, nicht auf strikter Prioritat basieren sondern von einem anderen Standpunkt aus beurteilt werden miussen. OPINION 75 219 NO. I OPINIONS 68 To 77 35 OPINION 75 TWENTY-SEVEN GENERIC NAMES OF PROTOZOA, VERMES, PISCES, REPTILIA AND MAMMALIA INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL List oF ZOOLOGICAL NAMES SUMMARY.—The following twenty-seven generic names are herewith placed in the Official List of Zoological Names, with the type species given in the body of this Opinion: Protozoa: Volvox. VermeEs: Hirudo, Lumbricus. Pisces: Ammodytes, Anarhichas, Atherina, Fistularia, Mugil, Myxine, Tra- chinus, Uranoscopus, Xiphias. Reptitta: Draco. MammMatia: Balzna, Bos, Castor, Delphinus, Erinaceus, Hippopotamus, Hystrix, Monodon, Moschus, Ovis, Phoca, Sus, Talpa, Ursus. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Circular Letter no..26, dated April 29, 1916, contained a list of 30 generic names proposed for inclusion in the Official List of Zoological Names. Said Circular Letter was mailed to approximately 350 zoological institutions, laboratories, and professional zoologists throughout the world, and 20 copies were sent to each Commissioner for distribution in his own country. The Circular Letter contained an invitation to all persons interested to express their approval or disapproval of these names. All of the names were published by Apstein in 1915. The names of fishes have been reported upon favorably by Commissioner Jordan, who has studied them for the Commission. The names of the mammals have been laid before the Advisory Committee on the Nomenclature of Mammals; the genotypes of the mammalian names agree with the genotypes accepted by Palmer 1904. It would appear, therefore, that ample notification has been given the zoological profession that these names would come before the Commission for final vote. Seventy-five zoologists have responded to Circular Letter no. 26; sixteen of these expressed approval of all of the names. Twenty- six additional responses raised no objection and made no comment on any of the names. In thirty-three instances only a portion of Circular Letter no. 26 was returned to the Secretary, but no adverse comment was made on any names in the rest of the list. In connection with 27 of the generic names in said Circular Letter, no objection, question, or adverse comment of any kind whatsoever has been raised. In connection with three names, namely, Doris, Elephas, and Equus, points have been raised which indicate the advisability of again referring these three names to specialists in the groups in question for further consideration. 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS vol. 73 The point was also raised in regard to the general advisability of including in the list the original type localities of certain type species as ‘published by the original authors. Discusst1on.—The Secretary feels very strongly on the point that at the present moment the Commission should show preference to cases which can be agreed upon by unanimous consent, and that so far as possible, it seems wise to postpone consideration of names that may be questioned from any point of view whatsoever, until the world conditions become more settled. In accordance with this policy, three of the names in question, namely, Doris, Elephas, and Equus, have been tabled temporarily and without prejudice, and the original type localities have been omitted from the list. After elimination of the three names and the type localities just referred to, there remain 27 generic names with genotypes, in regard to which no objection, question, or criticism of any kind has been raised. The Secretary has verified personally all the references given below, and so far as evidence is available it appears that these 27 generic names are nomenclatorially available and valid under the Code, and that the type designations given are in accord with the Rules. The only question which it seems possible to raise in respect to these type designations is the point whether certain of them are type by subsequent designation, or type by absolute tautonymy ; whichever method is followed the end result remains the same. Upon basis of the foregoing premises, the Secretary recommends that the following 27 generic names, as definitely fixed by the type species mentioned, be adopted in the Official List of Zoological Names. ABBREVIATIONS Art.= Article . ... Internat’] Rules Zool. Nomenclature. Op.= Opinion .... issued by the Internat’1 Commission. mt. = Monotypic. tod.—= Type by Original Designation. tsd.—= Type of Subsequent Designation. tat. = Type by Absolute Tautonymy. tt.—= Type by tautonymy. PROTOZOA Volvox Linn., 1758a, 646, 820, tsd. V. globator Linn., 1758a, 820. VERMES Hirudo Linn., 1758a, 640, tsd. H. medicinalis Linn., 1758a, 649. Lumbricus Linn., 1758a, 647, tsd. L. terrestris Linn., 1758a, 647. OPINION 75 221 NO. I OPINIONS 68 To 77 37 PISCES Ammodytes Linn., 1758a, 247, mt. A. tobianus Linn., 1758a, 247. Anarhichas Linn., 1758a, 247, mt. A. lupus Linn., 1758a, 247. Atherina Linn., 1758a, 315, mt. A. hepsetus Linn., 1758a, 315. Fistularia Linn., 1758a, 312, mt. F. tabacaria Linn., 1758a, 312. Mugil Linn., 1758a, 316, mt. M. cephalus Linn., 1758a, 316. My-sxine Linn., 1758a, 650, mt. M. glutinosa Linn., 1758a, 650. Trachinus Linn., 1758a, 250, mt. T. draco Linn., 1758a, 250. Uranoscopus Linn., 1758a, 250, mt. U. scaber Linn., 1758a, 250. Xiphias Linn., 1758a, 248, mt. X. gladius Linn., 1758a, 248. REPTILIA Draco Linn., 1758a, 199, mt. D. volans Linn., 1758a, 199. MAMMALS Balzna Linn., 1758a, 75, tsd. (or tt.) B. mysticetus Linn., 1758a, 75. Bos Linn., 1758a, 71, tsd. (or tt.) B. taurus Linn., 1758a, 71. ‘Castor Linn., 1758a, 58, tsd. (or tt.) C. fiber Linn., 1758a, 58. Delphinus Linn., 1758a, 77, tsd. (or tt.) D. delphis Linn., 1758a, 77. Erinaceus Linn., 1758a, 52, mt. E. europeus Linn., 1758a, 52. Hippopotamus Linn., 1758a, 74, tsd. (or tt.) H. amphibius Linn., 1758a, 74. HA ystrix Linn., 1758a, 56, tsd. (or tt.) H. cristata Linn., 1758a, 56. Monodon Linn., 1758a, 75, mt. M. monoceros Linn., 1758a, 75. Moschus Linn., 1758a, 66, mt. M. moschiferus Linn., 1758a, 66. Ovis Linn., 1758a, 70, tsd. (or tt.)- O. aries Linn., 1758a, 70. Phoca Linn., 1758a, 37, tsd. (or tt.) P. vitulina Linn., 1758a, 38. Sus Linn., 1758a, 49, tsd. (or tt.) S. scrofa Linn., 1758a, 40. Talpa Linn., 1758a, 52, tsd. (or tt.) T. europea Linn., 1758a, 52. Ursus Linn., 1758a, 47, tsd. (or tt.) U. arctos Linn., 1758a, 47. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, 5 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon, Stejneger. pp) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 38 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 76 Status oF Pyrosoma vs. MoNopHoRA; CYCLOSALPA VS. HoLoTHuRIA; SALPA vs. Dacysa; DOLIOLUM, APPENDICULARIA AND FRITILLARIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Sumntary: hc. eis Bec aed alc ties wile at eacoleie is 6:0: /eihos alee ern er 38 Statementronicasemee eee eenoee edibiatesene a epetayee Tale doe kOe CECE 38 PDISCUSSION® oss celia s claveiedvareiatoe s ehaerert erases iis Heoicialos eke ee oe eC Eee 40 Duty of the Commission under the Plenary Power Resolutions .... 42 Incompleteness of the Statement of Case ............cccceccceccees 42 Nomenclatorial Views of Writers on Tumicata ...... bec 43 Classes of ‘Cases “Presented: .)c6sc:is cS eo deeisieee does see ee eee 45 Bibliography js c.c-.es,e0ye.< aijeie's stese give ee we eineyie eee see ante een 46 Case of Pyrosoma Peron, on, 3 vs. Monophora Bory, 1804........... 47 Case of Cyclosalpa 1827, Thalia 1791, and Holothuria 1758 ......... 49 Case of Yagysa 1773) vs) Salpa 1775) saeco ee eee eee Eee eee 57 Case of Appendicularia 1820, Oikopleura 1831, Appendicularia 1874, Appendicula 1915, and Appendiculariid® ............. eevee eeees 61 Case of Doliolum 1823, Pyrosoma 1804, Doliolum 1834, Dolioletia 1894, ANG DOOM. oe ocsiare seh ateetus leer eo adie amie tee ear ee EOE oe 64 Case of Fretillaria 1842, Fritillaria 1851, Fritillaria 1872, and Fritillum TOUS so acco t.cihwis ae ds Qeieiec eters is 2 aie 61 Sloe ee ite oe 66 Motion to Table the Cases of Appendicularia, Doliolum, Fritillaria and SGP: Gabi Siew. losdbea ae densi, oe gene dawned eRe eee 69 SUMMARY.—The Secretary is authorized and instructed to insist that cases presented for opinion shall be accompanied by reasonably complete data to enable fair consideration of the points at issue. Pyrosoma 1804 has priority over Monophora 1804. Cyclosalpa 1827 is not invalidated by Holothuria 1758 (type physalis), which does, however, invalidate Physalia 1801. The present — use of Holothuria (type iubulosa) in echinoderms is not in accord with the Rules, but authors are advised to use Physalia 1801 for the Portuguese Man of War, and Holothuria 1791 as genus of Sea Cucumber, pending action upon possible suspension of the Rules in these two cases. As presentation of the cases of Salpa, Appendicularia, Doliolum, and Fritillaria is incomplete and contains errors, these cases are laid upon the table indefinitely, but without prejudice; unless it can be shown that an application of the Rules in these cases will result in greater confusion than uniformity, the Rules should be enforced. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following names were submitted to the Commission by 12 special workers in the Tunicata, with request that the names be protected against change: Doliolum, Pyrosoma, Salpa, Cyclosalpa, Appendicularia, und Fritillaria sind gegen Aenderung zu stiitzen. OPINION 76 pups! NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 39 Wir 12 unterzeichneten Tunicatenforscher sind tibereingekommen, die 6 genannten Genusnamen pelagischer Tunicaten als giiltig anzunehmen. Die Namen dieser Tunicaten werden von jedem Zoologen als vollkommen einge- biirgert anerkannt werden, ihr Gebrauch hat bisher niemals zu Missverstand- nissen Anlass gegeben, die Genera sind Paradigmata in der zoologischen Systematik, sie spielen in der Entwicklungsgeschichte eine grosse Rolle und beanspruchen in der Tiergeographie, Planktonforschung und auch in der Hydrogeographie einen ganz hervorragenden Platz. Eine Aenderung der Namen wtirde eine schwere Schadigung bedeuten. (1) Doliolum Quoy und Gaimard, 1834—Doliolum ist von Otto 1823 (N. Acta Ac. Leop., v. II, p. 313) ftir eine wohl durch Phronima ausgefressene Pyrosoma aufgestellt worden. Dann ist Doliolum von Quoy und Gaimard, 1834 (Voy. Astrolabe, v. 3, p. 599) gut beschrieben und jetzt in letzterem Sinne allgemein in Gebrauch. Den bisherigen Regeln nach wiirde Doliolum Synonym zu Pyrosoma werden, fur Doliolum in heutigem Sinne wtirde ein neuer Name gebildet werden miissen. Der Familienname Doliolide wirde verschwinden. (2) Pyrosoma Péron, 1804.—1804 beschrieb Péron (Ann. Mus., Paris, v. 4, p. 440) Pyrosoma und ebenfalls 1804 Bory (Voy. Iles Afr., v. 1, p. 107, nota) Monophora. Welcher der beiden Namen der altere ist, lasst sich nicht fest- stellen, aber aus Quoy und Gaimard, 1824 (Voy. Uranie und Physicienne, p. 495), scheint hervorzugehen dass Monophora Alter ist; sie schreiben, “ Bory— avait donné le nom de monophore a un mollusque, qui depuis a été appelé pyro- some Péron.” Es empfiehlt sich den Namen Pyrosoma fir alle Falle zu sichern. (3, 4) Salpa Forskal, 1775, und Cyclosalpa Blainville, 1827——Diese beiden Genera sind durch Thle, tot1 (Zool. Anz., v. 38, pp. 585-589) verteidigt und auch in seine Bearbeitung in “Das Tierreich” (v. 37, 1912; Siehe auch Nota p. 27, von F. E. Schulze) tibergegangen. Wir glauben uns mit diesem Hinweise begniigen zu konnen und erlauben uns noch an die gegenteiligen Aufsatze von Poche (Zool. Anz., v. 32, 1907, pp. 106-109; v. 39, 1912, pp. 410-413) zu erinnern. (5) Appendicularia Fol, 1874.—Appendicularia wurde von Chamisso und Eisenhardt, 1820 (N. Acta Ac. Leop., v. 10 (11), p. 362, t. 34 F. 4), fur eine arctische, nicht erkennbare Art, aufgestellt. Fol hat 1874 (Arch. Zool. exper., v. 3, notes, p. 49) den Gattungsnamen fiir die tropische Art Appendicularia sicula, die von der arctischen sicher generisch verschieden ist, ubernommen und darauf hin hat sich der Name in letzterem Sinne allgemein eingebiirgert. Appendicularia wiirde anderenfalls eine Species incerta enthalten und fur Appendicularia mit der Species sicula wiirde ein neuer Gattungsnamen aufzu- stellen sein. Der Name der Ordnung Appendicularide wirde verschwinden. (6) Fritillaria Fol, 1874.—Quoy und Gaimard, 1834 (Voy. Astrolabe, v. 4, p. 306), stellen den Namen Frétillaires auf [(Fritillaria Huxley 1851, Philos. Trans. (London), part 2, p. 595), Fritillaire C. Vogt, 1854 (Mém. Inst. Genéve, v. 2, no. 2, p. 74)] identificierten ihn aber sofort mit Ovkopleura Mer- tens, 1831. Um den Namen Fritillaria zu retten, hat Fol, 1874 (Arch. exper., v. 3, notes, p. 49) ihn in bestimmten von fritherem abweichendem Sinne ge- braucht, in welchem er sich vollstandig eingebiirgert hat. Fritillaria wiirde Synonym zu Oikopleura und eine Neubenennung notig. C. Apstein (Berlin), A. Borgert (Bonn), G. P. Farran (Dublin), G. H. Fowler (Apsley-Guise), R. Hartmeyer (Berlin), W. A. Herdman (Liverpool), J. E. 'W. Ihle (Utrecht), H. Lohmann (Hamburg), W. Michaelsen (Ham- 224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4O SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. WR burg), G. Neumann (Dresden), C. Ph. Sluiter (Amsterdam), F. Todaro (Rome). Discusston.—According to the premises submitted, these cases call for an exercise of the Plenary Power granted to the Commission by the Monaco Congress to suspend the Rules of Nomenclature under certain conditions. As this is the first instance of this kind that comes to vote, attention is invited to the wording of the resolu- tions * upon which said power is based. In accordance with the provisions of §113°* notice that the names in question had been submitted for action under the Plenary Power, by suspension of the Rules, was duly published.’ * See Proceedings Ninth International Congress on Zoology, Monaco (1913), 1914, pp. 890-801: (§113) Resolved, That plenary power is herewith conferred upon the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for this Congress, to suspend the Régles as applied to any given case, where in its judgment the strict application of the Régles will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided, however, that not less than one year’s notice shall be given in any two or more of the following publications, namely, Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, Monitore Zoologico, Nature, Science (N. Y.), and Zoologischer Anzeiger, that the question of a possible suspension of the Régles as applied to such case is under consideration, thereby making it possible for zoologists, particularly for specialists in the group in question, to present arguments for or against the suspension under consideration; and provided, also, that the vote in Commission is unanimously in favor of sus- pension; and provided further, that if the vote in Commission is a two-thirds majority of the full Commission, but not a unanimous vote in favor of sus- pension, the Commission is hereby instructed to report the facts to the next succeeding International Congress; and (§114) Resolved, That in the event that a case reaches the Congress, as hereinbefore described, with two-thirds majority of the Commission in favor of suspension, but without unanimous report, it shall be the duty of the Presi- dent of the section on Nomenclature to select a special board of 3 members, consisting of one member of the Commission who vo‘ed on each side of the question and one ex-member of the Commission who has not expressed any public opinion on the case; and this special board shall review the evidence presented to it, and its report, either majority or unanimous, shall be final and without appeal, so far as the Congress is concerned; and (§115) Resolved, That the foregoing authority refers in the first instance and especially to cases of the names of larval stages and the transference of names from one genus or species to another. *See Science (N. Y.), v. 39, pp. 619-620, April 24, 1914; Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, v. 39, pp. 142-144, May 12, 1914; Monitore Zoologico Italiano, Anno 25, pp. 74-76; Zoologischer Anzeiger, v. 44, pp. 238- 240, May 12, 1914. OPINION 76 p25 NQ. I OPINIONS 68 To 77 4I In addition, these names were included in Circular Letter no. 2, Series 1915, mailed March 1915 to approximately 350 zoologists and zoological institutions of various kinds. As a result of publication and Circular Letter no. 2, seven persons returned the list with no action taken, hence these persons come under the paragraph which reads: “In case you fail to mark any name one _way or the other, I will interpret this as meaning that you have no opinion either for or against the name in question.” Twenty-eight persons took action on various names; some on all of the names, others only on names with which they were best ac- quainted. Twenty-seven persons raised no objection to any of the names and made no comment of any objective importance, except that, at the request of the Secretary, Commissioner Apstein, who originally submitted the list, added the species he considered should be accepted as type species for each of the six genera in question. One reply was received discussing the cases in detail and objecting to a suspension of the Rules as unnecessary. The data collected were summarized in Circular Letter no. 11° and transmitted to the Commission. ®The following is a portion of Circular Letter no. 11: As this is the first case that comes to the Commission for action under the Plenary Power, it seems wise that the papers in the case be laid before the Commission for discussion before the Secretary prepares a formal Opinion for vote. In accordance with this thought the Secretary has the honor to invite your attention to the Seventh List of Generic Names, to Circular Letter no. 2, and to the foregoing replies to said letter. If you will give me your views as to the general direction that the formal Opinion should take, I will collate all of the views expressed, and report to you upon them. This plan will naturally result in some delay, but the case is one of such importance, because it makes a precedent, that I cannot escape the feeling that the Secretary should receive from all of the Commissioners their preliminary views before he attempts to frame an Opinion. In, connection with your views kindly give consideration to the following points: 1. The names in question have been submitted favorably and unanimously by 12 specialists in the group involved; 2, All of the provisions prescribed by the Congress in reference to the suspension of the Rules have been complied with; 3. No objection to any of the said names has been raised— a. By any specialist in the group in question, b. By any specialist [except Bartsch] in any other group, c. By any general zoologist. 4. Is it your “Opinion” that a suspension of the Rules in these six cases is based upon a question of convenience, or that the application of the Rules in these cases would “clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity”? 226 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 42 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 The various points raised in reply “ to Circular Letter no. 11 have been held in mind by the Secretary in framing this Opinion. Duty of the Commission under the Plenary Power Resolutions. —Ilt will be noticed that in reply to Circular Letter no. 11, the point is raised that the Commission should take very seriously the responsi- bility the International Congress has placed upon us and that the ex- pression “ where in its judgment the strict application of the Rules will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity ” is advanced as the standard upon which we must base our opinion; further, also, that this extraordinary Plenary Power must be exercised with the utmost care and discretion. Incompleteness of the statement of case.—In respect to the State- ment of Case, two points of view may be considered: (1) It is clear that no Court at Law would consider that the evi- dence submitted by the Appellants is presented in a manner that permits a fair judicial consideration of these cases. The Commission is practically a Court that should decide questions on basis of the evidence submitted, but it has a right to insist that this evidence shall be reasonably complete in order to enable the Commission to consider the cases from every essential point of view. From this standpoint, the Commission would be justified in declining to con- 5. If only a matter of convenience is involved, is this convenience of suffi- ciently far reaching importance to justify a suspension of the Rules? 6. If it is your “ Opinion” that “greater confusion than uniformity ” would result, does this apply to all of the names or only to certain of them? 7, Have the signers of the Seventh List submitted evidence that the appli- cation of the Rules in these cases would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, and is this evidence sufficient to justify favorable action on the part of the Commission? 8. Is the Secretary correct in accepting the genotypes suggested by Com- missioner Apstein, or should the Secretary, as a precautional measure, request that these genotypes be confirmed by the other signers of the Seventh List? 9. Would the suspension of the Rules in these six cases involve an action sufficiently conservative to show that the Commission is using the Plenary Power with caution, or would it be sufficiently radical to indicate that the Commission invites a general suspension of the Rules in cases where con- venience only is involved? 10. Do you consider all of the six names equal in importance from the stand- point of the suspension of the Rules, or should a distinction be made among them ? 11. Is evidence submitted that any of the names come under paragraph 3 (115). I£ so, for which names? “The replies were copied and transmitted to the Commissioners, but it is not necessary to print them with the Opinion. *See p. 38, Statement of Case. OPINION 76 O27 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 43 sider these cases because of the incomplete preparation of the evi- dence. (2) It has, however, been the custom of the Commission to aid former Appellants by adding data not submitted by them, and in view of the fact that these names are the first to come up for consideration under the Plenary Power Resolutions, it would appear questionable whether the Commission should suddenly become more strict as to completeness of presentation. Accordingly, the Secretary has felt it better policy to add data that will enable the Commission to show every possible consideration to the Appellants. Nevertheless, in view of the great amount of work involved, the Secretary recommends that the Commission take this occasion to establish for the future the policy involved in the following reso- lutions: Resolved, That the Secretary is hereby authorized and instructed to insist that cases presented to the Commission for consideration shall be accompanied by reasonably complete data to enable a fair consideration of tha nomengcla- torial points at issue, and Resolved, That in order to give opportunity to submit complete evidenice, the Secretary is hereby authorized and instructed to return to Appellants cases not stated with a reasonable degree of completeness. RESULT OF VOTE.—Resolution concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Not voting, 6 Commissioners: Apstein, Dautzenberg, Horvath, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. Nomenclatorial views of writers on Tumcata.—During a study of the cases under consideration, the Secretary has had another oppor- tunity to gain an insight into some of the nomenclatorial customs of writers on tunicates, and thus to see the origin of at least some of the difficulties presented. The chief nomenclatorial difficulties in this group appear to be referable to certain fundamental factors: (1) In general, authors on the tunicates appear to take no ac- count of the principle of type species for genera. As a consequence, confusion results. The impression gained from the literature is that the authors have been working on the basis only of a morphological norm and without reference to a nomenclatorial type. In the judg- ment of the Secretary, the present nomenclatorial confusion in this group is likely to continue until some author gives himself the trouble to examine systematically the entire literature of the group and to determine, according to Article 30 of the Rules, the correct nomen- 228 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 44 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 clatorial type species for every generic name. Even the monographic works of Seeliger and Hartmeyer (Bronn’s Thierreich) and of Ihle ‘(1912a) and Neumann (1913a) (in Das Tierreich) do not appear to have been based upon the principle of type species. If any work ex- ists in which genotypes have been determined for the entire tunicate group, the Appellants have not mentioned this in their evidence. (2) Certain important authors in this group do not appear to have based their nomenclatorial work upon a careful study of the Rules of Nomenclature that existed at the time they wrote. Thus, early authors appear to have been unfamiliar with the Linnean Rules, and more recent authors (since 1842) appear to have been unfamiliar with, or to have misinterpreted, or to have ignored, the rules as pro- posed or adopted by various societies from 1842 to 1910. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that confusion has resulted. (3) A striking feature of tunicate literature is that authors con- ‘sider that if the description upon which a given name is based seems obscure to them, they are at liberty to apply said name to any group they may desire, regardless of its original application,’ or to rename the original group.’ * For examples see the following quotations: Quoy and Gaimard (1834a, 509) in proposing a new genus Doliolum, say: “Tl ne faut pas confondre ce genre avec celui ainsi nommé par M. Otto, dans les Nova acta curios. natur., t. 42, fig. 7, qui n’est qu’un Biphore tronqué aux deux extrémités par une espéce de crustacé pélagien nommé Phronyme, qui s’y loge et fait développer ses petits. Nous avons trouvé deux fois et rapporté ce singulier animal dans son logement.” Fol (1872a, 460) in proposing a family “ Appendiculaires ” and a new genus Fritillaria says: “Les descriptions que donnent Chamisso de son Appendicu- laire, et Quoy et Gaimard de leur Fritillaria sont si vagues, que je me crois en droit de faire de ces noms l’usage que je voudrai. Je conserve comme nom de famille, le nom donné par Chamisso, et applique le terme de Fritillaria au second de mes genres que ce nom désigne assez bien.” Under Fritillaria he gives F. furcata (Vogt), and four new species: F. megachile, F. aplostoma, F. formica, and F. urticans. Fol (1874a, xlix) in proposing a new genus Appendicularia, says: “Les noms Appendicularia (Cham.) et Fritillaria (Q. & G.) se rapportent clairement a des animaux de la famille qui nous occupe, mais il est impossible d’appliquer les descriptions dont ces-‘noms ont été accompagnés a l’une plutdt qu’a I’autre des formes qui la composent. Je persiste donc a me considerér comme libre de les donner au genre que bon me semble, tout en faisant suivre le nom de cette réserve: Diagnosis emendata. Le nom donné par Chamisso n’ayant pas encore trouve son emploi, je l’appliquerai au genre actuel.” Of the species of Fritillaria he now cites: F. aplostoma (which he changes to haplostoma), F. megachile, and F. furcata. “Mertens (1831a, 205-206) in proposing the new genus and species Oiko- pleura chamissonis says: “Das in Anfrage stehende Thier ist freilich schon OPINION 76 229 NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 45 (4) At least one specialist in tunicates, who is so rigid in regard to priority that he rejects one name for another merely on basis of page precedence,’ does not consider it necessary to confine the geno- type to the original species published under a genus.’ In the cases that are presented by the 12 specialists in tunicates, the Commission is, accordingly, requested to validate certain names ‘ina group which does not as yet appear to have been subjected to any serious or systematic nomenclatorial study on basis of the Interna- tional Rules. In the judgment of the Secretary, this fact alone should make the Commission exceedingly cautious, lest an Opinion be ren- dered which may possibly result in distinct and unnecessary confusion that might be avoided if some tunicate specialist will subject the group to the very necessary nomenclatorial study it deserves before important final steps are taken. Classes of cases presented.—A study of the cases under considera- tion indicates that they naturally fall into certain categories, as follows: I. Pyrosoma 1804 vs. Monophora 1804: This case involves simply a determination of the facts as regards the dates. If exact dates cannot be determined more closely than 1804, the case is amply pro- vided for by Article 28.” II. Cyclosalpa 1827 vs. Holothuria 1758 of Litehe, 1912: This case involves a determination of the genotypes according to Article 30. von Chamisso, vor mir, an derselben Stelle, wo ich es beobachtete, gesehen und bereits vor 10 Jahren in der 1. Abtheilung des 10. Bandes der Verhandlungen der Kaiserlichen Leopolinisch-Carolinischen Akadamie der Naturforscher als eine neue Gattung unter dem Namen Appendicularia aufgefiihrt worden. Allein die Beschreibung und Darstellung ist so unvollkommen, das ich mein Thier fiiglich als nicht bekannt annehmen kann und muss....(p. 218). Ich habe diese Art mit dem Namen meines....Freundes belegt....weil er der erste war der die Aufmerksamkeit der Naturforscher auf dieses Thier gelenkt hat.” * Thus Ihle (191ta, 588) says: “K. Heider (1895, S. 308 Anm.) hat schon darauf hingewiesen, dass S. mucronata in S. democratica umzuandern ist, denn Forskal beschreibt letzgenannte Art auf S. 113 seiner Arbeit und S. mucronata erst auf der folgenden Seite.... Wir kommen also zum Ergebnis, das....S. mucronata in S. democratica Forskal....zu andern ist.” * But Ihle (1o1ta, 585-586) also says: “Nun hat Linné [1767a] in der 12. Ausgabe seines Systema Nature der Gattung Holothuria [1758] noch mehrere Arten zugeftigt, welche teilweise echte Holothurien sind, und der Typus der Gattung Holothuria ist unter den in dieser Gattung verbleibenden Arten zu suchen.” 10“ Tf the names are of the same date, that selected by the first reviser shall stand.” 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 46 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 III. Dagysa 1773 vs. Salpa 1775: This case involves (a) a deter- mination of the genotypes (Art. 30) and an application of the Law of Priority (Arts. 26-27). IV. Appendicularia, Doliolum and Fritillaria: These cases involve the principle (footnote 6) cited above, that an author who considers the original description of a genus insufficient from his point of view is at liberty to use the name in any way he may desire, regard- less of rules or consequences. Bibliography.—In discussing these cases, the Secretary refers to the articles mentioned in footnote.” “ BIBLIOGRAPHY.—Ihe Secretary desires to acknowledge, with the greatest appreciation, the very valuable aid extended to him by Dr. Paul Bartsch, Curator of the Division of Marine Invertebrates, United States National Museum, in obtaining literature and in a study of these cases. Acassiz, 1842a, Nomenclator Zool., fasc. 1, Acalaphe. APSTEIN, 1915a, Nomina Conservanda o suresy| Nu TANNA OO ADO oO ON DO WM = . | = 2 ona 3.8 OO FOOD DO Coo NDAO! Nn SS = ss Ss Oe Lal ae eS a et oye i : S or re ue es ie Sree Hom a a: : Su 2 Sce gee S288 ne Pte SPESSSL ST LSS S 2.98 SES SSSESESSSSaes SGOBYSMWCOCAQSTHKES HAMAMNO NO Hon dai oat uo 334 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 39 and, the following names receive a two-thirds majority or more in favor of suspension: Cercopithecus, Gazella, Hippotragus, Lagidium, Nycteris, and Manaius. Accordingly, persuant to the Plenary Power provisions (see Proceedings 9th International Zoological Congress, Monaco (1913) 1914, pp. 890-891, §114, reprinted also p. 40, Opin- ion 76) it becomes incumbent upon the Secretary to report these six names for final action to the section on nomenclature of the next international zoological congress. §114 reads as follows: Resolved, That in the event that a case reaches the Congress, as hereinbefore described, with two-thirds majority of the Commission in favor of suspension, but without unanimous report, it shall be the duty of the President of the section on nomenclature to select a special board of 3 members, consisting of one member of the Commission who voted on each side of the question and one ex-member of the Commission who has not expressed any public opinion on the case; and this special board shall review the evidence presented to it, and its report, either majority or unanimous, shall be final and without appeal, so far as the Congress is concerned. 3d, the following ten names fail to receive a two-thirds vote in favor of suspension and therefore it becomes incumbent upon the Secretary to report that suspension is not authorized for them and that the Rules are to be applied to them: Echidna, Anthropo- pithecus, Coelogenys, Chiromys, Dasypus, Dicotyles, Galeopithecus, Hapale, Rhytma, and Simia. ' In order that zoologists interested in these cases may know the exact status of the votes, these are appended in tabular form. + signi- fies favorable to suspension, o unfavorable to suspension, and ? not voting. Report prepared by Secretary. Note by Secretary: During the final proof-reading of this Opinion, based on the report by Commissioner Allen, additional data have been obtained by the Secretary which persuade him that it is by no means clear, under the Rules, that (1) Cercopithecus should be transferred to the Tarmarin Marmosets, or that (15) Sima should be transferred to the Barbary Ape. The premises appear to be in- complete and the cases require careful restudy before these changes are adopted. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 73, NUMBER 4 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 91 TO 97 (PUBLICATION 2873) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION OCTOBER 8, 1926 The Bord Waltimore Press BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. OPINION 91 S18)7/ OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 91 TO 97 OPINION 91 THIRTY-FIVE GENERIC NAMES OF MAMMALS PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of Names: Alces, Arvicola, Ateles, Bison, Bradypus, Canis, Capra, Cebus, Cer- vus, Cholocpus, Condylura, Cricetus, Crocidura, Cystophora, Dasyprocta, Didelphis, Erethizon, Felis, Gulo, Halichoerus, Lepus, Lynx, Mus, Myrme- cophaga, Nasua, Ovibos, Phyllostomus, Procyon, Putorius, Rangifer, Rhino- lophus, Rupicapra, Sciurus, Sorex, Vespertilio. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner Apstein (1915a, pp. 198- 202) has proposed the following generic nathnes of mammals as nomina ~ conservanda : Alces Gray, 1821, 307, tat. Cervus alces Linn., 1758a, 66. Arvicola Lac., 1799, 10, type Mus amphibius Linn., 1758a, 61. Ateles Geoffr., 1806, 262, type Simia paniscus Linn., 1758a, 26. Bison Smith, H., 1827, 373, tat. Bos bison Linn., 1758a, 72. Bradypus Linn., 1758a, 34, type B. tridactylus Linn., 1758a, 34. Canis Linn., 17583, 38, type C. familiaris Linn., 1758a, 38. Capra Linn., 1758a, €8, type C. hircus Linn., 1758a, 68. Cebus Erxl., 1777, 44, type Simia capucina Linn., 1758a, 29. Cervus Linn., 1758a, 66, type C. elaphus Linn., 1758a,; 67. Choloepus Ill., 1811, 108, type Bradypus didactylus Linn., 1758a, 35. Condylura Ill., 1811, 125, type Sorex cristatus Linn., 1758a, 53. Cricetus Leske, 1779, 168, tat. Mus cricetus Linn., 1758a, 60. Crocidura Wagl., 1832, 275, type Sorex leucodon Herm., 1780, 382. Cystophora Nills., 1820, 382, type Phoca cristata Erxl., 1777, 590. Dasyprocta Ill., 1811, 93, type Mus aguti Linn., 1766, 80. Didelphis Linn., 1758a, 54, type D. marsupialis Linn., 1758a, 54. Erethizon Cuv., 1822, 432, type Hystrix dorsata Linn., 1758a, 57. Felis Linn., 1758a, 41, type F. catus Linn., 1758a, 42. Gulo Pallas, 1780, 25, tat. Mustela gulo Linn., 1758a, 45. Halichoerus Nills., 1820, 376, type Phoca grypus Fabr., 1791, 167. Lepus Linn., 1758a, 57, type L. timidus Linn., 1758a, 57. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73 No.4 338 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. HS Lynx Kerr, 1792, .32, tat. Felis iynx Linn., 1758a, 43. Mus Linn., 1758a, 50, type M. musculus Linn., 1758a, 62. Myrmecophaga Linn., 1758a, 35, type M. tridactyla Linn., 1758a, 35. Nasua Storr, 1780, 35, tat. Viverra nasua Linn., 1766, 64. Ovibos Blainv., 1816, 76, type Bos moschatus Zimm., 1780, 86. Phyllostomus Lac., 1799, 16, type Kespertilio hastatus Pall., 1767, 7. Procyon Storr, 1780, 35, type Ursus lotor Linn., 1758a, 48. Putorius Cuv., 1817, 147, tat. Mustela putorius Linn., 1758a, 46. Rangifer Smith, H., 1827, 304, type Cervus tarandus Linn., 1758a, 67. Rhinolophus Lac., 1799, 15, type Vespertilio. ferrum-equinum Schreb., 1774, 174, pl. 62. Rupicapra Blainv., 1816, 75, tat. Capra rupicapra Linn., 1758a, 68. Sciurus Linn., 1758a, 63, type S. vulgaris Linn., 1758a, 63.’ Sorex Linn., 1758a, 53, type S. araneus Linn., 1758a, 53. Vespertilio Linn., 1758a, 31, type V. murinus Linn., 1758a, 32. Discussion.—Dr. G. S. Miller, of the United States National Museum, has studied these names from the standpoint of the Inter- national Rules and he reports that in his opinion they are available and valid under the rules. Accordingly, it is not necessary to adopt them as “ nomina conservanda” under suspension of the rules, but they appear to be eligible for the official list in their own right. The names have been published in several scientific journals for the information of zoologists and no objection of any kind has been re- ceived by the Secretary to these names. In view of the foregoing data, the Secretary recommends that the 35 names in question be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion written by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. . Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Dautzenberg, Hoyle, Stejneger. OPINION 92 339 NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 3 OPINION 92 SIXTEEN GENERIC NAMES oF Pisces, AMPHIBIA, AND REPTILIA PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY .—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: Pisces: Blennius, Echeneis, Esox, Ophidion. AMPHIBIA: Cryptobranchus, Desmognathus, Siren. ReptirtA: Alligator, Calamaria, Chelydra, Crotalus, Dermochelys, Eremias, Lacerta, Mabuya, Phrynosoma. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner Apstein (1915a, pp. 190- 192) has proposed the adoption of the following generic names of Pisces, Amphibia, and Reptilia, as “ nomina conservanda.” PIScES Blennius Linn., 1758a, 256, type B. ocellaris Linn., 1758a, 256. Echeneis Linn., 1758a, 260, type E. naucrates Linn., 1758a, 261. Esox Linn., 1758a, 313, type E. lucius Linn., 1758a, 314. Ophidion Linn., 1758a, 259, type O. barbatum Linn., 1758a, 259. AMPHIBIA _Cryptobranchus Leuck., 1821, 259, mt. Salamandra gigantea Barton = allegani- ensis Daud., 1803, 231 = alleghaniensis Harlan, 1825, 233. Desmognathus Baird, 1849, 282, type Triturus fuscus Raf., 1820, 4. Siren Linn., 1765, addenda, mt. S. lacertina Linn., 1766, addenda. REPTILIA Alligator Cuv., 1807, 25, type Crocodilus mississipiensis Daud., 1803, v. 2, 412. Calamaria Boie, 1827, 236, tat. Coluber calamaria Linn., 1758a, 216. Chelydra Schweigg., 1812, 292, mt. Testudo serpentina Linn., 1758a, 199. Crotalus Linn., 1758a, 214, type C. horridus Linn., 1758a, 214. Dermochelys Blainy., 1816, 119, type Testudo coriacea Linn., 1766, 350. Eremias Wiegm., 1834, 9, type Lacerta velox Pall., 1771, 457. Lacerta Linn., 1758a, 200, type L. agilis Linn., 1758a, 203. Mabuya Fitz., 1826, 23, type Scincus sloanii Daud., 1803, v. 4, 287. . Phrynosoma Wiegm., 1828, 367, type Lacerta orbiculare Linn., 1758a, 206. Discussion.—The 4 names of fishes have been studied by Com- missioner David Starr Jordan from the standpoint of the Interna- tional Rules, and he reports that they are valid under the rules. The 3 names of Amphibia and the 9 names of Reptilia have re- cently been studied by Commissioner Stejneger from the standpoint of the International Rules and he reports that they are valid under the rules. 340 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 The names of the Amphibia have also been studied by Dr. Arthur E. Brown (Proceedings Academy Natural Science, Philadelphia, 1908) and he adopts them. All of these names have been published in certain zoological journals for the information of zoologists, and in order to give mem- bers of the profession the opportunity to express their opinion for or against them. Not a single objection to any one of these names has reached the Secretary’s office. In view of the foregoing premises the Secretary recommends that the names in question, with types cited, be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Hor- vath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skin- ner, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bather, Dabbene, Dautzen- berg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Hoyle, Stejneger. OPINION 93 341 NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 5 OPINION 93 — TWELVE GENERIC NAMES OF FISHES PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List, BY SUSPENSION OF THE RULES SUMMARY .—The following 12 generic names of fishes are herewith placed in the Official List of Generic Names, under the Plenary Power for Suspen- sion of the Rules: Conger Cuv., 1817 (Muraena conger L.); Coregonus Linn., 1758 (Salmo lavaretus L.) ; Eleotris Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (gyrinus Cuv. & Val.) ; Epinephelus Bloch, 1792 (marginalis Bloch) ; Gymnothorax Bloch, 1795 (reticularis Bloch); Malapterurus Lacépéde, 1803 (Silurus electricus L.); Mustelus Linck, 1790 (Squalus mustelus L. [=Mustelus laevis]) ; Polynemus Linn., 1758 (paradisaeus L.); Sciaena Linn., 1758 (umbra L.= Cheilodipterus aquila Lacép. as restr. by Cuvier, 1815) ; Serranus Cuv. (Perca cabrilla L.); Stolephorus Lacép., 1803 (commersonianus Lacép.); Teuthis Linn., 1766 (javus L.). Names now current are not to be discarded unless the reasons for change show a clear-cut necessity. STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF CASE.—The followtng cases are submitted and discussed by Commissioner David Starr Jordan. The U. S. Bureau of Fisheries (signature H. F. Moore, Acting Commis- sioner) concurs in the recommendations regarding them. It seems to me that a legitimate use of the plenary power will be to cast it on the side of names now current unless the reason for change is a clear-cut necessity, priority of actual date for example. But in cases where a reasonable argument on both sides exists, it seems better to give current nomenclature the preference. The earlier writers had no conception of genotype, regarding a "genus merely as a convenient pigeon-hole in which to stow species, to be more or less arbitrarily divided when the receptacle became too full or its contents too obviously incongruous. In applying the rule of the first reviser, we find many difficulties as every taxonomist knows. Often a name has been dislocated by application to a species unknown to the original author. Often a wiser or more characteristic choice could have been made; still more often a writer mentions a given species not as a type, but rather as an illustration. And it is a rare case where a designated type among the early authors can be “ rigidly construed ” as indicated in accepted rules. I now ask the Commission to consider stabilizing current nomen- clature in a number of genera of fishes, in which the pertinence of current nomenclature has been questioned, for reasons more or less plausible, but in no case beyond question. 342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 I propose that, subject to possible new information, the following current generic names be provisionally legalized with the type species indicated, notwithstanding certain contrary arguments of greater or less validity, but in no case clear-cut and conclusive. Agtosatus Blainville, 1816: type Raja narinari Euphracen. The name Aétobatus was applied by Blainville to the Eagle Rays, of which Raja aquila L. = Aétobatus vulgaris Blainville would be the natural type. But as the genus Myltobatis (Duméril) Cuvier, 1817, had been established also for the Fagle Rays, the first reviser, Miller & Henle adopted both names, assigning R. aquila to Myhobatis and an unwonted type, R. narinari to Aétobatus. From this arrangement Cantor (1849) dissented making Myliobatis a synonym of Aétobatus and giving a new name, Stoasodon to R. narinari. It will create less confusion, however, to let the first revision stand, accepting R. narinari as type of Aétobatus. ConGER Cuvier, 1817: type Muraena conger L. The name Lepiocephalus was given by Gronow, a non-binomial author, in 1763 to a translucent ribbon-like larva, now shown to be that of the Conger Fel. In binomial nomenclature, this name dates from its adoption by Scopoli in 1777. The name Conger, used by Houttuyn in 1764, is said not to be available, although noted as such in Jordan, Genera of Fishes, p. 22. As Leptocephalus and its derivatives have been in use for more than a century as the designation of these peculiar larvae I recommend that this use be continued and that the generic name of the Conger eels be established as Conger, in accordance with current usage. [Apstein, 1915a, 187: Conger Cuv., 1817, type vulgaris Richards, 1844.] Coreconus Linnaeus, 1758: type Salmo lavaretus L. The generic name Coregonus, taken from Artedi, is given by Linnaeus in the plural form only as Coregont. The sub-generic names Truttae (Salmo trutta), Osmeruis (Salmo eperlanus) and Characinus (Salmo gibbosus) appear in the same fashion as plurals. To reject these names in almost universal use, to substitute some possible later synonym would be a source of needless confusion. I recommend that these plural nouns be maintained as valid. [Apstein, 1915a, 187: Coregonus Cuv., 1817, type wartmanni BI., 1784.] Exeotris Bloch and Schneider, 1801: type Elcotris gyrinus Cuv. & Val. The generic name Eleotris first appears in Gronow, Zoophylaceum p. 183, 1763, with a good description and three species polynomially named, the name Eleotris being especially associated with a Chinese species, Gobius eleotris L., Gobius chinensis Osbeck. The other, apparently a true “ Eleotris’’? was named Gobius pisonis by Gmelin (1789), and Gobius amorea by Walbaum (1792). The first binomial author to revive the name Eleotris is Schneider in his edition of Bloch. The genus is here nominally equivalent to Gobius, the ventral fins being described as ‘‘connexae,” a statement true of some of the species named but not of the Elcotris of Gronow. No species belonging to the genus Eleotris as now understood is included, though reference is made to Eleotris pisonis as a “species non definienda.” OPINION 93 343 NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 7, Meanwhile the Amore Pixuma of Marcgrave’s pre-Linnaean Historia Natur- alis Brasiliae edited by Dr. Wilhelm Piso is brought into the synonymy. This is a crude figure of some small goby with two dorsal fins, perhaps an Eleotris, but not the actual type of any specific name. In 1800, Lacépéde established a genus Gobiomoroides on a dried fish “ sent by Holland to France,” which he identified as Gobius pisonis, naming it Gobio- moroides piso. It could, however, not be either Eleotris pisonis or “ Amore pixuma” as it had a single dorsal of 45 rays and canine teeth. It was probably not a goby, and the name cannot be used for Eleotris. Eleotris 1.ext appears with Cuvier (Régne Animal 1, 257, 1817) who accepts the name from Gronow, and gives a correct definition. His types are specimens from Leyvaillant taken in Surinam. The species described by Cuvier and Valen- ciennes as Eleotris gyrints later authors have generally regarded as the type of Eleotris. It is identified by Jordan & Evermann with Gobius pisonis Gmelin. We have apparently two alternatives in case Gronow’s natnes, “binary” but not binomial, are not accepted. (1) We may use the name Eleotris as dating from Schneider, taking Gobius pisonis Gmelin, waiving the fact that this is a “species non definienda” in Schneider’s conception—thus stabilizing current nomenclature. (2) We may apply the name Fleotris to some one of the species enumerated by Schneider, thus arbitrarily displacing one of the following well-established names: Valenciennea, Nomeus, Apocryptes, Hypseleotris, Boleophthalmus or Pomatomus, genera of later date included in the incoherent mass. Convenience as well as justice is served by adopting the first alternative, using the name Electris in the sense of Gronow and Cuvier with Gobius pisonis as the type. : The name Gobiomoroides has no place in this connection, and its type is as yet unidentified. EPpINEPHELUS Bloch, 1792: type Epinephelus marginalis Bloch. The genus Epinephelus was based on E. afer, E. marginalis, E. merra, and E. ruber: marginalis and merra are congeneric, and belong to the great group called Epinephelus by Gill, Bleeker, and nearly all recent authors. Of these, marginalis is typical. The species named first, afer, has been on that account chosen as type by Fowler. This species was separated as the type of Alphestes by Bloch & Schneider, 1801; ruber was named as type by Jordan & Gilbert, in 1882, who supposed it to be congeneric with marginalis and this species under another name (acutirostris Cuy. & Val.) became the type of Parepinephelus Bleeker, 1875. Justice and convenience are best served by retaining the name Epinephelus for its chief components, typified by E. marginalis, as understood by nearly all authors. Otherwise the genus would stand as Cerna Bonaparte, 1837, unless, with Fowler, we recognize Epinephelus gigas (Perca gigas) L. as the type of Serranus Cuvier, 1817, a change I think unnecessary. GyMNOTHORAX Bloch, 1795: type Gymnothorax reticularis Bloch. As originally given, Gymnothorax was simply a substitute name for Muraena L. Later, in dividing this extensive genus, Bleeker and after him Giinther used the name Gymnothorax for one of its great divisions, and this arrangement has teen largely followed. The first fixation of type may be held to separate Gymnothorax from Muraena, and I think that the use of the former name 344 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. Ts should be preferred to the later Lycodontis McClelland based on one of the species of Gymnothorax. The case for the use of Gymnothorax is stated in Jordan, Genera of Fishes p. 168, that for its suppression on p. 53. LAmpETRA Gray, 1851: type Petromyson fluviatilis L. The type of Ammocoetus Duméril, 1806, Petromyzon planeri, is a larval lamprey of uncertain genus, and the name may be preferably used (as Ammo- coetes) as the designation for larval lampreys; while Lampetra, the earliest name based on Petromyzon fluviatilis L. may be retained. MALAPTERURUS Lacépéde, 1803: type Silurus electricus L. In 1775, Forskal discovered the Electric Catfish of the Nile (Silurus elec- tricus L.), which he confused with the Electric Ray (Raja torpedo L.) and which seemed to him to justify generic separation from Raja. He questions whether it might be allied to Mormyrus or whether it might find a place among the torpedoes of Rondelet, or might it be type of a new:genus. “Aut potius novum constituere genus. Certe determinatur torpedinis Character Genericus: Piscis branchiostegus: apertura lineari, obliqua supra pinnae pectorales; cor- pore nudo; pinnis ventralibus seu abdominalibus; dentibus numerossissimis densis, subulatis.” This statement leaves no question as to the species in mind. In view of the confusion in Forskal’s account, and the uncertain fashion in which he describes the supposititious new genus, I suggest that the current use of Torpedo for the Electric Ray and Malapterurus for the Electric Cat- fish be approved. [Apstein 1915a, 188: Malapterurus Lacép., 1803, type electricus Gmel., 1788.] Mustetus Linck, 1790: type Squalus mustelus L. (= Mustelus laevis). The generic name Mustelus has been applied to a genus of sharks, typified by Squalus mustelus L. by several authors (Linck, 1790; Leach, 1812; Fischer, 1813; and Cuvier, 1817). This Linnaean species is however based on refer- ences to both the two European species of this group, now usually regarded as belonging to different genera or subgenera. These have been usually called Mustelus lacvis Risso, the “smooth hound” and Mustelus stellatus Risso (canis), the “spotted hound.” Those of the early writers who recognized these fishes failed to use the specific name mustelus for either, or else applied it to both. Linck, the earliest writer to propose the name Mustelus, however, dis- tinctly mentions Mustelus laevis as a synonym of Squalus mustelus L. and as his type, a fact which must fix the name Mustelus mustelus on the “ Smooth Hound.” The name thus replaces Pleuracromylon Gill. Galeus Rafinesque (as restricted by Jordan and Evermann, to S. mustelus L.) is also a synonym of Mustelus. The genus containing the “Spotted Hound” should then stand as Cynias Gill, the type species standing as Cynias canis (Mitchill). Valmont de Bomare, 1768, speaks of the “Spotted Hound” as “ Galeus asterias aut Mustelus stellaris; chien de mer & taches rondes.” But this binomial combination is merely a Latin translation of the French, certainly not intended as a scientific name. OPINION 93 345 NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 9 Garman (Plagiostomia, 1913) rejects the name Mustelus altogether, be- cause of its similarity to Mustela. But Mustela is a weasel and Mustelus a shark, a case parallel to that of Pica and Picus. [Apstein, 1915a, 188: Mustelus Cuv., 1817, type vulgaris J. Mill. & Henle, 1841. ] - PotyneMuS Linnaeus, 1758: type Polynemus paradisacus L. The first-real restriction seems to be that of Giinther, Cat. Fishes, II, 1860, 319. No type is specified, but the non-congeneric species, P. quinquarius L., is removed to form the genus Pentanemus, a name originally employed by Artedi, but changed to Polynemus by Gronow. As this species, quinquarius, was the only one known to Artedi or to Gronow, Dr. Gill, with numerous writers, ourselves included, has regarded it as the type of Polynemus. But common usage with the formal selection of P. paradiseus L. as type by the first reviser, Jordan & Gilbert, Synopsis Fishes, 1882, should prevail. ScIAENA Linnaeus, 1758: type Sciaena umbra L.—=Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde, as restricted by Cuvier, 1815. Sciaena umbra of Linnaeus was a complex species made up of the later Sciaena aquila Lacépéde and Corvina nigra (Bloch); umbra is the natural type of Sciaena, but its component parts are not congeneric. The two species were confused until Cuvier (Mém. du Museum, 1815, and later in the Régne Animal, Edition II, 1829) made clear the difference and definitely chose aquila as the type of Sciaena. Jordan & Evermann have adopted Corvina nigra, under the name of Sciaena umobra, as type of Sciaena. An argument can be made for either arrangement, but convenience is best served and prob- ably justice also by accepting the name umbra for the species called aquila and recognizing this as type of Sciaena. The two species concerned should then stand as Sciaena umbra L. and Corvina nigra (Bloch). Bleeker has chosen as type Sciaena cirrosa, the species placed first as the type of Umbrina Cuvier, but this arrangement is not the first revision. [Apstein, 1915a, 189: Sciaena L., 1758, type aquila Risso, 1826.] SERRANUS Cuvier: type Perca cabrilla L. In proposing the generic name Serranus, Cuvier speaks of the species of the genus as “les serrans;’ “leur nom sur plusieurs cétes du Méditerranée.” “La Méditerranée en produit beaucoup, dont les plus communes s’y confon- dent sous les noms vulgaires de perche de mer, de serran, etc., et sont fort remarquables par la vivacité de leurs couleurs surtout a l’époque de l’amour.” These Serrans thus designated are obviously the species still called by that name, Serranus cabrilla and Serranus scriba of authors. But Cuvier neglects to mention either by its scientific name. In a further paragraph he mentions in Serranus, another species “beaucoup plus grand,’ Holocentrus gigas Schneider, which is a species of Epinephelus. For this reason, Mowler (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1907, 266) has taken gigas as the type of Scrranus, thus replacing Epinephelus of authors, which name he leaves to Alphestes afer. No other writer has taken this view of the case, and I recommend the ap- proval of the current nomenclature, regarding Perca cabrilla L. as the geno- type of Serranus. [Apstein, I915a, 189: Serranus Cuv., 18209, type scriba L., 1758.] 346 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS iK@) SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. AS STOLEPHORUS Lacépéde, 1803: type Stolephorus commersonianus Lacépede. Under the head of Stolephorus, Lacépéde (Hist. Nat. Poiss. V. 381, 1803) mentions two species, the first the Atherina japonica of Houttuyn, the second his own S. commersonianus. From the latter he derives his description, and on the latter Bleeker bases the genus Stolephorus as largely accepted. The Atherina japonica is very briefly and incorrectly described by Houttuyn, and it has been taken for granted that it was congeneric with the other, and being the first species named, it was indicated as type of the genus by Jordan & Evermann in 1896. It is probable, however, that Houttuyn had in mind the species of another family, named by Bleeker, Spratelloides argyrotaema. In 1917 (Genera of Fishes, 67) the present writer gave reasons for retaining A, japonica as type of Stolephorus, thus replacing Spratelloides Bleeker, while Stolephorus of Bleeker and authors generally would stand as Anchoviella Fowler. But it would make far less confusion as well as secure substantial justice to retain Stolephorus for the large group of which S. commersonianus is typical. TeutuHis Linnaeus, 1766: type Teuthis javus L.. In the twelfth edition of the Systema Naturae, Linnaeus introduces the genus Teuthis, with two species, Teuthis hepatus and Teuthis javus. Thesé species under polynomial names constitute the genus Hepatus, of the non- binomial Zoophylaceum of Gronow, 1763. The name Teuthis was taken from Browne (Jamaica), 1756, a pre-Linnaean writer, whose type was congeneric with that of Forskal’s Acanthurus. 3 The two Linnaean species of Teuthis are but distantly related, a fact recog- nized by various subsequent writers. In 1775, the relatives of hepatus were set off by Forskal as Acanthurus, those of javus as Siganus. Cuvier used Teuthyes as a group name covering both types, the one being called Acan- thurus, the other, after Bloch and Schneider, 1801, Amphacanthus. The first author after Linnaeus to use Teuthis as a generic name was Cantor, 1849. It here replaces Siganus, with a correct definition and the Lin- naean species Teuthis javus, placed at the head of the series. In this usage, Giinther and all European writers have followed, and al- though the word “type” is not mentioned by Cantor, the arrangement will bear rigorous interpretation. Later Gill showed reasons why Teuthis hepatus should have been taken as type, Teuthis being a re-naming of Hepatus of Gronow, by reverting to the still earlier name of Browne. There is room for argument on both sides, but inasmuch as the first reviser (Cantor) selected Teuthis javus as type of Teuthis and current nomenclature outside of America uses Acanthurus for hepatus and its relatives and Teuthis instead of Siganus, I recommend that this course be approved by the Commission. In my own papers I have lately fol- lowed the suggestion of Dr. Gill; replacing the familiar Acanthurus by Teuthis or by Hepatus, reviving Siganus for the javus group. I am inclined to think this change unnecessary as it was certainly confusing, and that to follow Cantor is in better accord with established rules. Opinion prepared by Commissioner David Starr Jordan. : Report on final vote: Two names Aétobatus and Lampetra have been tabled without prejudice pending further discussion at the next OPINION 93 347 NO. a OPINIONS QI TO 97 Dr meeting of the Commission. The other 12 names are unanimously adopted by a vote of 13 too. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Loennberg, Monticelli, Neveu-Lemaire, Skinner, Stiles, and Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hoyle, Kolbe, and Stejneger. 348 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 94 Twenty-[T wo MoLituskK AND TUNICATE NAMES PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY.—The following names are hezeby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: Mottusca: Anodonta, Argonauta, Buccinum, Calyptraea, Columbella, Dentalium, Helix, Limax, Mactra, Mya, Mytilus, Ostrea, Physa, Sepia, Sphaerium, Succinea, Teredo. TunicatTa: Botryllus, Clavelina, Diagona, Distaplia, Molgula. STATEMENT OF CASE.—In Circular Letter No. 78, March, 1924, the Secretary submitted 39 generic names which had been proposed by Commissioner Apstein (1915a, pp. 181-184) as “nomina conser- vanda.” These names were studied independently, especially by Dr. Bartsch of the United States National Museum and by Mr. B. B. Woodward of London, England. Several other specialists were also kind enough to consider the names, and the bibliographic references were checked in the Secretary’s office. It appears from the reports reaching the Secretary’s office that of these, 22 names are valid under the International Rules and that, therefore, they do not have to be adopted as “ nomina conservanda ” under “ Suspension of the Rules.” Considerable correspondence has reached the Secretary in regard to the names. | Discussion.—In regard to 22 of the names no objection of any kind has reached the Secretary. In regard to 17 of the names, objection of one kind or another has reached the Secretary and these 17 cases are tabled without prejudice for consideration at the next meeting of the Commission. The following 22 names have not been objected to, and on this account and on basis of reports by specialists the Secretary recom- mends their inclusion in the Official List of Generic Names subject of course to the usual conditions: Anodonta Lam., 1790, 87, mt. Mytilus cygneus Linn., 1758a, 706. Argonauta L., 1758a, 708, type A. argo L., 17584, 708. Botryilus Gaert., 1774, 35, type Alcyonmium schlosseri Pallas, 1766, 355, Ss. Botryllus stellatus. Buccinum L., 1758a, 734, type B. undatum L., 1758a, 740. Calyptraea Lam., 1790, 78, mt. Patella chinensis L., 1758a, 781. Clavelina Savig., 1816, 171, type Ascidia lepadiformis Miller, 1776a, 226. Columbella Lam., 1799, 70, mt. Voluta mercatoria L., 1758a, 730. Dentalium L., 1758a, 785, type D. elephantinum L., 1758a, 785. Diasona Savig., 1816, 35, tod. D. violacea Savig., 1816, 35. OPINION 94 349 NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 13 Distaplia Della Valle, 1881, 14, [mt. D. magnilarva Della Valle, not men- tioned in 1881, 14-15, in Latin, but “grossa larva” given on p. 14, later (1882, 47) published in Latin]. Helix L., 1758a, 768, type H. pomatia L., 1758a, 771. Limax L., 1758a, 652, type L. maximus L., 1758a, 652. Mactra L., 1767, 1125, type M. stultorum L., 1767, 1126. - Molgula Forbes, 1848; 1853, 36, type M. oculata Forbes, 1848; 1853, 36. Mya L., 1758a, 670, type M. truncata L., 1758a, 670. Mytilus L., 1758a, 704, type M. edulis L., 1758a, 705. Ostrea L., 1758a, 696, type O. edulis L., 1758a, 600. Physa Drap., 1801, 31, type Bulla fontinalis L., 1758a, 727. Sepia L., 1758a, 658, type S. officinalis L., 1758a, 658. Sphaerium Scop., 1777, 397, type Tellina cornea L., 1758a, 678. Succinea Drap., 1801, 32, type Helix putris L., 1758a, 774. Teredo L., 1758a, 651, type T. navalis L., 1758a, 651. Opinion prepared by Secretary. Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by nd Commissioner. Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hoyle, Stejneger. 350 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 95 Two GENERIC NAMES OF PROTOZOA PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names—Protozoa: Endamoeba, Trypanosoma. STATEMENT OF CASE.—I. Professor R. W. Hegner, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, has recommended to the Helminthological Society of Washington, that the said Society bring to the attention of the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature the following five generic names of important para- sitic Protozoa, with a view to inserting them in the Official List of Generic Names. The Society has voted to support the names. 2. The Secretary of the Commission has studied all five of these cases in detail, and believes that they are nomenclatorially available and valid under the International Rules, and he recommends their adoption by the Commission. 3. The names are as follows: Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, 300, mt. blattae Buetschli, 1878a, 273, t. h. Blatta orientalis. Giardia Kunstler, 1882, CrAS, v. 95, 349, mt. G. agllis Kunstler, 1882, 349, in intestine of tadpole of Rana. Trichomonas (Donné, 1837) Ehrenb., 1838a, 331 (emendation of Tricomo- nas), mt. vaginalis Donné, 1837. Trypanosoma Gruby, 1843a, 1134, mt. T. sanguinis Gruby, 1843a, Nov. 13,= Amoeba rotctoria Mayer, 1843, in blood of Rana. Balantidium Clap. & Lachm., 1858b, 247, mt. Bursaria entozoon Ehrenb., 1838b, 327. 4. Commissioner Apstein has proposed three of the foregoing names in his paper of 1915a, nomina conservanda, p. 122, as follows: Balantidium Clap. & Lachm., 1858, type coli Malmst., 1857. Trichomonas Donne, 1837, type vaginalis Donné, 1837. Trypanosoma Gruby, 1843, type sanguinis Gruby, 1843. 5. Commissioner Apstein and the Secretary agree in all details in regard to Trichomonas and Trypanosoma. Apstein accepts coli as the type of Balantidium, but Balantidium 1858 was monotypic (ento- zoon), and C. & L. in the same paper classified coli as a Plagiotoma; accordingly under the Code, coli is excluded as type of Balantidium. Commissioner Apstein does not mention Endamoeba or Giardia. OPINION 95 Soul NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 15 6. Report on Voting: Endamoeba, type blattae, and Trypanosoma, type sanguinis=rotatoria, received 14 affirmative votes and no vote in the negative. Giardia, Trichomonas and Balantidium are tabled without preju- dice. They will be discussed further at the next meeting of the ~ Commission. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Annandale, Apstein, Bather, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Neveu-Lemaire, Skinner, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Stejneger. BSP) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLs 75 OPINION 96 MuseEuM BoLTENIANUM SUMMARY .—The Commission accepts the Museum Boltenianum 1798 as nomenclatorially available under the International Rules. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. C. Tate Regan of London submits the following case for opinion: ‘Are the names in the Museum Boltenianum to be accepted? Museum Boltenianum is the title of a catalogue of the shells, minerals, and objects of art collected by Dr. Bolten. It was printed in 1798, after his death, by his family, who wished to sell the collections. Failing in their object to sell the collections as a whole the catalogue was reprinted in 1819, when the title-page states it is a catalogue of the shells, minerals, etc., which will be openly sold by J. Noodt on April 26 at 10 o’clock in the morning. Bolten had his own system of nomenclature of shells and to make his names intelligible to intending purchasers one Roeding was employed to add the names in Gmelin’s Edition of Linnaeus. There is no author’s name on the catalogue. No indication that it was published, or sold. It was, in fact, a sale catalogue, doubtless distributed to likely purchasers, but without other circulation. Opinion 51 seems to apply. Discusston.—In Opinion 51 the Commission has frankly admitted the extreme difficulty of clearly defining the word “ publication ” and it has expressed the opinion “ that in some cases it is an easier matter to take a specific paper and decide the individual case on its merits, than it is to lay down a general rule which will be applicable to all cases.” The Museum Boltenianum has been discussed by Wm. H. Dall in Publication 2360 Smithsonian Institution (copies herewith submitted to members of the Commission) which is herewith made a part of Opinion No. 96. The Secretary has submitted the case again to Dr. Wm. H. Dall and to Dr. Paul Bartsch, specialists in conchology. Dr. Dall has not changed the opinion he expressed in 1915 and he reports to the Secretary as follows: It was not a sale-catalogue in the ordina1y sense of being made for the purpose of selling, and the additions of Roding were a labor of love. Bolten’s names have been adopted by all first class workers in conchology, and I know of only one man, a German, who objects to them. Since they are practically in universal use, any action invalidating them would be a calamity. OPINION 96 355 NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 7, Dr. Bartsch concurs with Dr. Dall. The Secretary has examined three prints of this Catalogue, one of 1798, a second of 1819, and a third of 1906. If this case rested upon the edition of 1819, the Secretary would feel that there is distinct room for a legitimate difference of opinion on the question at issue, although he would find it very difficult to explain why an auctioneer’s catalogue should contain detailed biblio- graphic references, the compiling of which probably cost much more than the price the collection would bring at auction. The edition of 1798, however, bears all the earmarks of a carefully prepared manuscript intended to be printed as a permanent record with only incidental reference to sale. The Secretary is constrained to concur with Doctors Dall and Bartsch that this (first edition, at least) represents a scientific document rather than a sales catalogue, and the fact that the family of the deceased author wished to sell the collection seems to have its parallel in some modern zoological papers in which authors offer to exchange specimens (namely, to dispose of their specimens for a consideration) ; the fact that the return-consideration asked is specimens (with a money value) in one case and money itself in another case, appears to represent conditions identical in general but differing only in detail. The Commission has the statement of two specialists in Conchology that “ Bolten’s names” “are practically in universal use” and that “any action invalidating them would be a calamity.” On basis of this expert testimony combined with the fact that no formal necessity (under the Rules) appears to be present to indicate the necessity of rejecting the (first edition, 1798, of this) publication, the Sec- retary recommends that the Commission accept the Museum Bol- tenianum, 1798, as nomenclatorially available under the International Rules. Opinion written by Stiles. The foregoing Opinion was submitted to the Commission and a vote was taken with the following result : Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Dautzenberg, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: Annandale, Handlirsch, Loennberg. Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Hoyle. Commissioner Annandale states: I feel obliged to dissent from the opinion proposed in your circular letter No. 72. I think it necessary to give my reasons. In the first place I do not 354 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 agree with Dr. Dall that all first class workers on conchology have accepted the nomenclature of the Museum Boltenianum, ~ In the second place, the question is, as is acknowledged, an extremely diffi- cult one and I do not believe in revising nomenclature that has been uwni- versally accepted for many years, in doubtful cases. I should state, however, that my colleague, Dr. Baini Prashad, the only other zoologist in Asia but myself who has yet done considerable systematic work in malacology, is now prepared to accept the Boltenianum nomenclature, although he has not done so in his published papers up to the present. Commissioner Handlirsch states: Die Bolten’schen Namen sind nur in Amerika in “universal use ”’—in Europa keineswegs. Man sieht aus diesem Beispiele wieder, dass eine aus- giebige Liste von ‘“nomina conservanda” ein Segen ftir unsere Wissenschaft ware. Commissioner Skinner states: Dr. H. A. Pilsbry takes exception to the opinion on the ground of what “constitutes publication,’ a paucity of copies, not accessible to nearly con- temporary writers, this making all the trouble. The foregoing objections were submitted to the Commission and a new vote was taken with the following result : Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Bather, Chapman, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Neveu- Lemaire, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, and Warren. Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: Apstein, Handlirsch, and Kolbe. Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Hoyle, Loennberg. Nore By SECRETARY.—During the proof-reading of Opinion 96, Dr. H. A. Pilsbry has submitted to the Secretary an elaboration of his views cited briefly by Commissioner Skinner. This document will be sent to the Commissioners. OPINION 97 B35 NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 19 OPINION 97 Dip HuBNER’s TENTAMEN, 1806, CREATE Monotypic GENERA? SUMMARY.—Hibner’s Tentamen, 1806, was obviously prepared essentially as a manifolded manuscript, or as a proof sheet (cf. Opinion 87), for examina- tion and opinion by a restricted group of experts, 7. ¢., in Lepidoptera, and not for general distribution as a record in Zoology. Accordingly, the conclusion that it was published in 1806 is subject to debate. Even if the premise be admitted that it was published in 1806, the point is debatable whether the contained binomials should be cunstrued as generic plus specific names. Even if it be admitted that the binomials represent combinations of generic plus specific names, they are essentially nomina nuda (as of the date in question) since authors who do not possess esoteric information in regard to them are unable definitely to interpret them without reference to later literature. If published with more definite data at later dates, these names have their status in regard to availability as of their date of such republication. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. J. McDunnough, Entomological Branch, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada, has submitted to the Commission the question: Did Hutbner’s Tentamen, 1806, create monotypical and valid genera? As the validity of the units in question is a zoological, not a nomenclatorial problem, the Secretary modifies the question to read: Did Hitbner’s Tentamen, 1806, create mono- typic genera? Dr. McDunnough presented the following data: In the May number of the Entomologist’s Record for 1919, the second instal- ment of Baker and Durrant’s comparison of Jacob Htibner’s Tentamen and Verzeichniss, elucidating his system of Lepidoptera, is prefaced by a few remarks by Mr. Bethune Baker, who strongly supports the view that the Tentamen creates generic names perfectly valid for use by systematic workers. As my name is mentioned as one of those opposing the adoption of the Tentamen terms as valid genera, perhaps a few brief words, explaining my views more explicitly than I have heretofore done, may not be amiss. The question of the validity or non-validity of the so-called ‘genera’ of the Tentamen has already been the subject of much controversy and no one is more anxious than I am to arrive at a definite decision regarding this per- plexing pamphlet. Until this is done it will be impossible to introduce sta- bility into the generic nomenclature of Lepidoptera as, owing to the early date of issue (1806), the Tentamen names, if accepted, will take priority over numerous long established generic names. Since the publication of the brief statement in the introduction to Barnes & McDunnough’s Check List of North American Lepidoptera, I have given the matter considerable further study, and I am now perfectly willing to agree with Mr. Baker that we must consider the Tentamen to have at least been published and that it certainly will not be sufficient to discard the names therein proposed as inedited. This, however, does not settle the matter to 356 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 my mind and we are still faced with the question as to whether Hubner created what can be termed modern genera in the aforesaid work or not. It is a well-known fact that Htibner did not employ the term ‘genus’ to signify the category immediately ebove a species. The Hiibnerian ‘coitus’ as used in the Verzeichniss has been, however, generally accepted as typi- fying the modern ‘genus’ and as fulfilling the requirements of the Inter- national Code in respect to generic validity. Turning to the Tentamen, we at once see from the title that Htibner is not dealing with coiti but with sfirpes and that, in fact, the Tentamen is but the merest skeleton of a system which was amplified ten years later in the Verzeichniss, where the stirpes of the Tentamen are employed only in a plural sense [in the text, but in the singular in the index—C. W. S.] and correspond with our modern ideas of a sub- family or even a family. The unfortunate fect remains that in the Tentamen Hiibner, besides his plural usage, actually has employed the stirps name in the singular in connection with a specific name. It must seem evident that the intention was merely to cite a species considered by the author to be typi- cal of each stirps and the usage of the term in the singular number was prob- ably merely to conform to the rules of correct Latin [the paper is entirely in Latin —C. W. S.]; one of the strongest arguments in favor of this view is the fact that in the Verzeichniss each and every specific [107—-C. W. S.] name used in the Tentamen is placed by Hubner in a coitus not identical in name with the term employed in the Tentamen (2s would naturally be the case if he had intended creating coiti in this pamphlet) but for which he either uses a generic name created by one of the early writers (Fabricius, Schrank, Ochsenheimer, etc.) or, failing this, actually proposes a new name. The vital question then is, briefly stated—did Htibner by his employment of a stirps name in the singular along with a valid specific name actually— even if unintentionally—create a valid generic name? Common sense would seem to tell us, No, but on the other hand there is nothing in the Interna- tional Code which would definitely forbid the usage of these terms as genera nor can I find any ruling under the Opinions rendered by the International Commission which would cover this case. Under the Code the sole absolute requirements for generic validity [availability—-C. W. S.] would appear to be uninominality and association with a valid [valid?—C. W. S.] specific name. I would, therefore, offer the suggestion that the decision be left to an International Committee; I, for one, would willingly abide by their ruling and I am sure that most systematic workers in Lepidoptera would be glad to see the end of a vexatious question which, while affecting considerably the nomenclature of Lepidoptera, has, after all, no vital bearing on the larger problem of the interrelationships of the various species. DISCUSSION BY SECRETARY.—The case now before the Commission has for many years been the subject of earnest controversy. It has been before the Commission for many months and has resulted in voluminous correspondence. The Committee on Nomenclature of the Washington Entomologi- cal Society has studied the case and reports to the Secretary as follows: In the minds of this Committee there is no doubt that Hiibner’s Tentamen is a publication and should therefore be treated as such. - OPINION 97 Bom NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 21 To certain entomologists, Sir George H. Hampson, Bart., sub- mitted this case in the following form, namely: Are the genera of Htibner’s Tentamen to be accepted or not? If accepted, what date is assigned to them? and J. H. Durant * (1899) summarizes the replies as follows: 1. As To VALIDITY. To be accepted: 1 Walsingham, 2 Kirby, 3 Fernald, 4 Grote (= 4/11). It may be assumed from his writings and note that Scudder concurs (—5/11). To be rejected: 1 Hampson, 2 Meyrick, 3 Smith, 4 Snellen, 5 Aurivillius, 6 Staudinger (=6/11). Result 5-6/11; majority against accepting genera. 2. As To DATE. No reply received from 1 Hampson, 2 Meyrick, 3 Snellen, 4 Aurivillius Gi) Published in 1806: 1 Walsingham, 2 Fernald, 3 Staudinger, 4 Grote, 5 Smith (=5/7). It may be assumed that Scudder concurs as he has adopted this daten@— 6/7) Commissioner Karl Jordan submitted the case to “ Members of the Entomological Committee on Nomenclature” and “ various local committees and .... ,” in addition, asked “a number of entomologists for their views.” He reports to the Secretary as follows: 1. Arguments for the acceptance of the Tentamen names—t. The Tenta- men was distributéd as a printed quarto sheet in 1806. Htibner in Verzeich- niss 1816, says of it that he made it at once known “10 years ago.” Ochsen- heimer states in 1816 that ‘“Hiibner has issued .... the plan of a classi- fication of the Lepidoptera printed on a quarto sheet,’ and treats it as a publication of valid names, which he adopts; a reference in Vol. III of Ochsenheimer implies that he knew the Tentamen to have been in existence before 1810. Several copies are known, some discovered bound up in other books on Lepidoptera, which is evidence that the recipients of a copy did not consider it to be a mere advertisement, but scientific matter well worth pre- serving. The classification published in the Tentamen was adopted by Hub- ner on the plates of Vol. I of his Samml. Exot. Schmett. (1806-1834). 2. The stirpes (genera) are well defined by the fact that only one species is cited under each stirps. All these species (types of genera) were known. In every case the names of the Tentamen can be identified through Hiibner’s own illustrations of the species cited. “ We can find out to a dead certainty what Hiibner meant” (Grote), and there can be no doubt about the publica- tion of each generic name. 4Nomenclature of Lepidoptera ¢ TRS (PUBLICATION 2973) GITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SEPTEMBER 19, 1928 The Bord Gerenore Press BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. OPINION 98 369 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 98 TO 104 OPINION 98 BRAUER AND BERGENSTAMM SUMMARY.—Rigidly constiued, Brauer and Bergenstamm (1889 to 1894) did not fix the types for the older generic names, except in the cases where they distinctly state that the species mentioned is the type of the genus. STATEMENT OF CASE—Dr. Charles H. T. Townsend submitted the following case for opinion : Friedrich Brauer and Julius Edlen von Bergenstamm published in the Denk- schriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, from 1889 to 1894, an elaborate work entitled “ Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der Muscaria schizometopa (exclusive Anthomyidae),” in four parts, comprising a total of 494 royal quarto pages and 11 royal quarto plates containing some 310 faithful drawings representing fully 300 distinct genera, the whole illustrating the authors’ conceptions of the genera treated. This is a monumental work wholly unapproached in character by any work ever published on the Muscoidea. It treats the fauna of the world, giving the results of an exhaustive intensive study of external adult characters. The authors went as far as it is possible to go on external adult characters alone. Synopses of groups and genera embodying full diagnoses are given in both German and Latin. In each case the generic diagnosis is accompanied by one or more specific names, usually only one, and in that case immediately following the generic name, indicating the species which the authors employed to typify and illustrate their concept of a genus. In some cases the word type follows the specific name, but in most cases it is omitted. The word type, when it occurs, may in some cases be held as referring either to the type specimen of the species cited or the species itself in the sense of a genotype designation. In some cases the specific name imme- diately following a genus represents a species not originally included, but in a few of these cases an originally included species is also cited in or after the diagnosis, either following or preceding the generic name. It seems plain that in every case the intention of the authors, in citing the specific name or names, was to designate either the type species alone, or several typical species includ- ing the type species thereby fixing their conception of the genus. The same authors published in the Verhandlungen der k. k. zoologisch-botani- schen Gesellschaft in Wien, in 1893, a paper with exactly the same title as the SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 5 370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 above, comprising 79 octavo pages, referring in a footnote to the three parts of the above-cited quarto work so far published at that time. In this work the authors gave synopses of the European genera and groups, in Gerrnan, similar in plan to those given in the quarto work but in each case they preceded with the word “ Type” the specific name. This paper is practically a repetition of the European faunal element in the quarto work. It is plainly evident that the above quarto work was intended by its authors as a practically complete elucidation of the muscoid genera of the world known in collections up to that time, and it does in reality constitute such an elucida- tion. It is evident also that all possible consistent adherence to the generic con- cepts of this work will greatly advance the interests of muscoid taxonomy by facilitating the fixation of the numerous genera. If such adherence is not possi- ble to obtain, certain genotype designations published subsequently to the above quarto work will hold, resulting in an entirely different interpretation of many of the genera treated. In view of these facts, does the Commission rule that in all cases in said quarto work where a single originally included species immediately follows the generic name, the species in question shall be taken as the genotype; and that in all cases where the species immediately following the generic name is not an originally included species, the genotype shall be the first originally in- cluded species, if any, cited in connection with the generic diagnosis; provided in all cases that no conflicting valid genotype fixation had previously been effected ? Discussion.—The foregoing case was submitted to Commissoner Karl Jordan for special study. At the meeting of the Commission in Budapest, August 30, 1927, he presented a verbal report discussing in detail the various documents involved. He also presented the following written report: In this work, which is preliminary to a more extensive work, the authors give diagnoses of all genera of these flies known to them. They quote behind the name of the genus usually one species, rarely two, and still more rarely no species. Nothing is said as to whether these species are meant to be exam- ples or genotypes. The genera should be grouped in three categories for the purpose of arriv- ing at an opinion about the question ‘‘ genotype” versus “example.” (1) New genera.—If only one species is mentioned, this must be accepted as genotype; if two are mentioned, one of them is the genotype. (2) Old genera where a species is distinctly stated to be “ Typus” of the genus.—In many cases B. and B. say “Typus,” but it is clear that in these cases the addition of the word Typus means that B. and B. have examined the type [specimen] of the species. (3) Old genera where one or two species are quoted without one of them being distinctly designated type of the genus.—In these cases the quoted species are merely “examples.” In the later work, 1893, where for each genus a geno- type is given, the genotypes are not always the same species as those quoted in the preliminary work under consideration; evidently B. and B. were not yet quite clear about the concept genotype when they published their preliminary studies. OPINION 98 371 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 3 In summary he found that, rigidly construed, Brauer and Bergen- stamm did not fix the types for the older generic names, except in the cases where they distinctly state that the species mentioned is the type of the genus. The findings were unanimously approved by the 8 Commissioners and Alternates present, namely: Apstein, Bather, Hartert, Jordan (K.), Muesebeck, Rothschild, Stejneger, and Stiles. Later, the case with Commissioner Jordan’s conclusion was sub- mitted in Circular Letter No. 127 to all absent Commissioners. The final vote stands as follows: Opinion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren, and two (2) Alternates, Muesebeck and Rothschild: Total 17. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting two (2) Commissioners: Handlirsch, Ishikawa. B72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 99 Endamoeba \rtpy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba CASAGRANDI and BARBAGALLO, 1895 SUMMARY.—Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) designation, is absolute synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, and invalidates Entamoeba 1895, type by subsequent (1913) designa- tion hominis = coll. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. W. H. Taliaferro presents the follow- ing case for Opinion: Should the two generic names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casa- grandi & Barbagallo, 1895, both be retained or should they be considered homonyms? It is impossible to decide this question from the existing Inter- - national Rules. The spirit of Article 35, a-e, would point to the conclusion that they were homonyms, but Article 36 (recommendations) would allow the interpretation that both should be retained. In the past, authors have disagreed in regard to this question. Dobell (1919, “ The Amoebae Living in Man”), for example, advocates the retention of both names whereas others consider them homonyms. Discussion.—This is a case upon which legitimate difference of opinion may arise. It has both its academic and its practical aspects. The first point at issue is whether Endamoeba and Entamoeba are homonyms, or whether they come under the first recommendation of Article 36 which reads as follows: It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from generic names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in spelling which might lead to confusion. But when once introduced, such names are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: Picus, Pica; Polyodus, Polyodon, Polyodonta, Polyodontas, Polyodontus. Neither Leidy, 1879, nor Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 and 1897, gave the derivation of their generic name. Accordingly, the conceiv- able possibilities as to etymology seem to lie in recommendations e and k of Article 8 which read as follows: The following words may be taken as generic names: e. Greek or Latin derivatives expressing diminution, comparison, resemblance, or possession. Examples: Dolium, Doliolum; Strongylus, Eustrongylus; Limax, Limacella, Limacia, Limacina, Limacites, Limacula; Lingula, Lingulella, Lingulepis, Lingulina, Lingulops, Lingulopsis; Neomenia, Proneomenia; Buteo, Archibuteo; Gordius, Paragordius, Polygordius. k. Words formed by an arbitrary combination of letters. Examples: Neda, Clanculus, Salifa, Torix. _ OPINION 99 B73 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 5 In view of the history of the genus Amoeba it would be difficult to assume that recommendation k obtains in this case. In attempting to derive the two names from the Greek, it seems not absolutely inconceivable that the authors might have united the Greek words év and duoBy, Leidy using a d and Casagrandi & Barbagallo using a ¢ for sake of euphony. If this possibility were actually the fact, the case would be somewhat similar to Microdon and Mikrodon, but more similar to Taeniarhynchus Weinl., 1858a, and Taentorhyn- chus Arribalzaga, 1891, and etymologically [not necessarily taxo- nomically] the words would be not only synonyms but, if used for two different things, virtually homonyms. _ Another, certainly more probable and more scholastic line of argu- ment would be that while both names are based on apoB, Leidy derived his Greek prefix from évéov and Casagrandi & Barbagallo derived their prefix from évrds, Professor J. M. Campbell, of the Catholic University of America, has kindly furnished the Secretary with the following memorandum in regard to these two words: éydov, seen in our ordinary lexica, is derived from év + Indo-European -dom. Its original signification is “in the house” (-dom. cf, Latin domus). évtos, of our lexica, is derived from év + Indo-European -tos (meaning “from”). Its original signification is “in from,” 7.e., “from within.” The Indo-European -tos (“from”) is seen in the Sanscrit mukha-tah (“ from the mouth”) and in the Latin caelitus (“from heaven’’). Both évdov and évrés, according to Boisacq’s “ Dictionnaire étymologique de la Langue gréque” (Paris, 1910), are now synonymous, signifying “ a l’intérieur.” Their early confusion of meaning is indicated by the career of €vdoy in the dialects. In Cretan, Megarian, and Syracusan, @véov became written évdés on analogy with évrés. Such an analogical form probably arose from the approxi- mate similarity in spelling of évéov and éyrés and, what is of more interest to us, from their similarity in meaning. Accordingly, endon and entos are now synonyms and from this point of view Endamoeba and Entamoeba are words of identical meaning but of slightly different etymology in their historic develop- ment, in that both of them have in common the Greek words év and éyo.Bn but differ in the Indo-European dom and tos. Words of similar derivations as respects the end and ent are well known in terminology in zoology and are often interchangeable. For instance, endoplasm is interchangeable with entoplasm, and endoderm with entoderm. Not only would the concurrent use of these terms in different senses be confusing but zoologists have come to use them as absolute synonyms. 374 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Turning now to the more practical and less academic side of the question we are faced by the following taxonomic situation. Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, has for its monotype Amoeba blattae. The generic name was emended by Chatton, 1910, Ann. Zool. exp. gén., 282, and 1912, Bull. Soc. zool. France, p. 110, to read Enta- moeba, and by Chatton and Lalung, 1912, BSPe, p. 142, in the same sense. Accordingly, there is a generic name Endamoeba and one Enta- moeba with the same species (FE. blattae) as type. Entamoeba* Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895c, p. 18, contained Amoeba coli and A. blattae without designation of type. Apparently the first type designation in words was by Brumpt (1913, p. 21) as Entamoeba hominis which is Amoeba coli renamed. It will be noted that the type designation is three years later than Chatton’s emendation of Endamoeba to Entamoeba. It is also clear that Chatton (1912) quotes the generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1897, and invites attention to the fact that as early as 1910 he (Chatton,’ AZeg, 282) had shown that protozoologists had erroneously attributed the parentage of the genus Entamoeba to Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1897. Accordingly, for Chatton Endamoeba 1879 and Entamoeba 1897 were simple orthographic variants and it is not at all impossible (renaming and cf. Opinion 6) to construe his papers (1910, 282, and 1912, 110) as a designation of blattae as the type of Entamoeba Casa- grandi & Barbagallo, 1897. This point of view receives support in the fact that Chatton eliminated F. coli from Entamoeba and made it type of Léschia. If this point of view be accepted, Endamoeba 1879 and Entamoeba 1895 are to be interpreted as having the same geno- type, on the premise that Chatton in 1912 determined the type of Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo as blattae while Brumpt did not make his determination (hominis=coli) until 1913. We are further faced by the complication that some authors con- sider the species blattae and coli as congeneric, others as belonging to two different genera in the same family, and still others as belonging to two different subgenera in the same genus. *It is obvious that Casagrandi & Barbagallo were discussing E. coli rather than E. blattae, and that they cited only incidentally the latter species. To take E. blattae as type of their Entamoeba is theoretically possible under the Rules, but is contraindicated by Art. 30, n, p, qg, t, also by the obvious fact that Casa- grandi & Barbagallo had &. coli especially in mind. The difficulty is solved equally well by considering Entamoeba a variant of Endamoeba, as Chatton (1910) did, before Chatton & Lalung, 1912, eliminated coli to Léschia. *“ Entamoeba Leidy, 1879” .... “C’est a tort que Doflein (1909) attribue la paternité du genre Entamoeba a Casagrandi & Barbagallo (1897).” OPINION 99 375 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 7 The case has already produced considerable confusion in literature and it seems obvious that unless the name Entamoeba is definitely suppressed both the nomenclatorial and the taxonomic status of the species which come into consideration will become even more con- fused. Accordingly, (a) since the original authors did not give the derivation of the two names in question, (b) since Chatton (1910, Ann. Zool. exp. gén., 282, and 1912, Bull. Soc. zool. France, p. 115) interpreted the two names as orthographic variants, hence identical in origin, and therefore homonyms, (c) since Chatton’s action appears to be the earliest interpretation available to the Secretary and therefore has priority, (d) since (under Opinion 6) Chatton’s paper (1912, Bull. Soc. zool. France, p. 113) is to be interpreted as designating blattae as type of “ Entamoeba” 1897 (=1895), [emendation of Endamoeba, but obviously construed as identical with Entamoeba], (e) since the concurrent use of the two generic names as closely allied separate units has already given rise to a confusion which prom- ises to increase rather than to decrease, (£4) since zoologists are accustomed to use words of similar deri- vation as respects the end and ent interchangeably, and (g) since, conceivably, Entamoeba and Endamoeba might have been derived from ev and ayo.8y with d and ¢ for sake of euphony, or still more probably, and more scholastically, derived from €véov or evros and apyo.Bn, the one or the other adverb being used as seemed the better at the moment, whether for euphony’s sake or for other reason (that they have the same meaning, etc.) and since they are therefore of the same meaning and practically, though not academic- ally, of the same ultimate derivation é€v (+ tos or + dom) and dpouBn, the Secretary recommends that the name Entamoeba 1895, either with type hominis=coli as definitely designated by Brumpt, 1913, p. 21, or with blattae as accepted by Chatton and Lalung (1912, 111) and as implied by Chatton (1910, 282), be definitely invalidated by Enda- moeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, irrespective of the point whether the type of Entamoeba be considered blattae or colt. The foregoing Opinion was submitted to vote by mail and carried as follows: ‘ Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Neveu- Lemaire, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 376 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Opinion dissented from by thrée (3) Commissioners: Bather, Handlirsch, Jordan (K.). Me Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Chapman, Hartert. The points raised in the dissenting votes were sent to all Com- missioners and a new ballot was taken with the following result: Concur with the original Opinion, eight (8) Commissioners : Hand- lirsch, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Neveu-Lemaire, Monticelli, Stiles, Stone, and Warren. Dissent from original Opinion, three (3) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, and Horvath. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Chapman, Dabbene, Hartert, Kolbe, Loennberg, and Stejneger. All papers were tabled until the Budapest meeting of the Commis- sion. Commissioner K. Jordan was appointed a committee of one to restudy the case for the Commission. He reported as follows: Endamocba Leidy, 1879 with blattae as only species. Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, with two species, blatiae and coli, none being designated as genotype. When Casagrandi and Barbagallo proposed Entamoeba as a new genus they were unaware of the existence of the name Endamoeba Leidy, 1870. Which spelling of the name should be used? The question can be decided on nomenclatorial grounds and on philological grounds: A. NOMENCLATORIAL CONSIDERATIONS In 1912 Chatton separated from Entamoeba the species coli as genotype of his new genus Loschia, leaving blattae as only original species in Entamoeba. As nobody had dealt, nomenclatorially, with Entamoeba prior to 1912, Chat- ton’s action made blattae the type of Entamoeba. In 1912 the two concepts stood like this: Endamocba Leidy, 1870, type blattae. Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, type blattae. That is to say, the second name falls as a synonym of Endamoeba. B. PHILOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS In zoology the prefixes Ento- and Endo- are frequently interchanged. In zoological terminology they are located as being identical. They come under the category of names of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight extent and which the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different, such as auctum- nalis and autumnalis (p. 87 of Rules). Entamoeba is philologically the same as Endamoeba. On motion and second, the foregoing report was adopted by unani- mous vote of those present, namely: Apstein, Bather, Hartert, He- dicke, Jordan (K.), Muesebeck, Rothschild, Stejneger, and Stiles, and authorized to be published. OPINION 100 377 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 9 OPINION 100 SUSPENSION OF RULES, Spirifer AND Syringothyris _SUMMARyY.—Under Suspension of the Rules the genotype of Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, is fixed as Anomua striata Martin, and the genotype of Syringo- thyris Winchell, 1863, is fixed as Syringothyris typa Winchell (= Spirifer carteri Hall). STATEMENT OF Case.—Miss Helen M. Muir Wood has submitted the following case for opinion under Suspension of the Rules: The genus Spirifer was first named and described by James Sowerby, Feb. 1, 1816, in Mineral Conchology, Vol. 11, p. 41. The only species mentioned is “ Spirifer cuspidatus” [Anomia cuspidata of W. Martin, 1798, Trans. Linn. Soc., Vol. 4, p. 45]. In his discussion of Spirifer Sowerby writes: “this genus will comprehend nearly all the shells retained as Terebratula by Lamarck which have a triangular foramen and not a perforation at the apex of the beak as the character of that genus. requires. The several individuals in which I have dis- covered spiral appendages bear a considerable affinity to each other..... v He adds in a footnote, “I gave a paper sometime since to the Linnean Society on the construction of this tubular cartilage which almost fills the shells .... ” “.... 1 conceive that all those in Martin’s division of Anomitae d. d. (Martin’s outlines and p. 243) which he describes as having both valves convex and a large trigonal foramen belong to this genus and also perhaps those of his next section with a small foramen....” [This refers to Petrificata Derbiensia of Martin, 1800, p. 9, and includes the following species of Martin: first, Anomites trigonalis, triangularis, striatus, subconicus, cuspidatus; secondly, acutus, rotundus, glaber, resupinatus, and lineatus.] In December 1814 and February 1815 James Sowerby had read a paper before the Linnean Society entitled “Some Account of the Spiral tubes or ligaments in the genus Terebratula of Lamarck as observed in several species of fossil shells.” This paper which did not appear in print until 1818 (Trans. Linn. Soc., Vol. 12, p, 514) contained an account and figures of the spires in Anomia, Terebratula striata of Martin (Petrifcata Derbiensia, 1809, pl. 23, figs. 1 and 2) and is referred to in the footnote in the Mineral Conchology. Sowerby states, p. 515: “I suspect Anomia cuspidata . ... with the beak of the perforated valve lengthened and reverse may have a similar construction within as well as Anomia subconica of Martin tab. 47.” A footnote on the same page, added at the time of publication, referring to Anomua cuspidata, states “ Figured since the reading of this paper as Spirifer cuspidata in Mineral Conchology tab. 120.” From the preceding it follows (1) that Spirifer was neither named nor diagnosed before February 1816 (Min. Conch.), (2) that the diagnostic char- acter by which the genus was distinguished from Terebratula was the shape of the foramen, (3) that the possession of spires by species so distinguished was inferred in the case of Spirifer cuspidatus, (4) that the only species actually namied as Spirifer was Anomia cuspidata Martin, which therefore is the geno- ‘type (monotypic). 378 : OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10) SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73, Konig in 1825 (Icones Foss.) proposed the name Trigonotreta for a miscel- laneous collection of forms including species now assigned to Spirifer and Orthis. He mentions resupinatus, cuspidatus, minimus, in his text but figures and describes only stokesi and speciosus. Dalman in 1828 (K. Svensk. Vetensk. Acad. Handl., p. 99) referred Spirifer cuspidatus to Cyrtia with Cyrtia exporrecta as one of the syntypes, subse- quently lectotype. Von Buch in 1840 (Mém. Soc. géol. France, sér. I) and M’Coy in 1844 (Syn. Carb. Limestone Fossils of Ireland) referred cuspidatus to genus Cyrtia Dalman. M’Coy considered Cyrtia to be a subgenus of Spirifer. He describes Spirifer striatus as being “very well known on the continent as the species in which Mr. Sowerby first discovered spiral appendages,” a state- ment which may have been correct but had no bearing on the nomenclature. King in 1850 (Permian Fossils) quoted Spirifer Sow., 1815 = Cyrtia Dalman, 1828, and stated: “ This genus is typified by the Anomites cuspidatus of Martin . as the typical species Anomites exporrectus Wahlenberg of Dalman’s Cyrtia agrees with type of Sowerby’s Spirifer in form... . I am led to as- sume that these genera are one and the same. . ” He revived the genus Trigonotreta Konig as = Spirifer auctt., but gave no type and did not refer to Spirifer striatus. If any choice had existed before, the question of genotype of Spirifer was thus definitely settled. Confusion was first introduced by Davidson in 1853 (Mon. Foss. Brach., Vol. I) who in discussing the genotype of Spirifer stated that Sowerby in- tended Anomia striata as his type and not cuspidatus of whose internal charac- ter he was not quite certain. He also quoted in support of his views M’Coy, 1844, and the alleged fact that King had at first taken cuspidatus as type of Spirifer and later abandoned it. In 1857 Davidson (Mon. Foss. Brach., Vol. 2, p. 44) described cuspidatus as belonging to “ Spirifera” and not to the subgenus Cyrtia, and also quoted Spirifera striata as the type of the genus “ Spirifera.” In spite of Davidson, Meek & Hayden, 1864 (Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. 14, p. 18) accepted Spirifer cuspidatus as the genotype of Spirifer and revived Trigonotreta Konig, 1825 for Spirifer striatus and related species. The genotype of Trigonotreta Konig is, however, T. stokesit which is not synonymous with Spirifer striatus. Meek in 1865 (Palaeontology of the Upper Missouri, p. 19) accepts cuspidatus as genotype of Spirifer and tcok Spirifer striatus as genotype of Trigonotreta Konig. This is inadmissible since this species was not mentioned by Konig. In 1863 A. Winchell described his genus Syringothyris (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Vol. VII, p. 6) with genotype S. typa Winchell. In 1867 Davidson and Meek, in Geol. Mag., Vol. IV, pointed out the simi- larity in structure of Spirifer cuspidatus with Syringothyris of Winchell. King in 1868 (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., 4th ser., Vol. 2, p. 1) assigned “ cuspidatus”’ to genus Syringothyris and assumed its identity with S. typa of Winchell. In 1877 Dall (‘‘ Index to Names which have been applied to the Subdivisions of the Class Brachiopoda,” Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 8) stated correctly that Spirifer cuspidatus, the sole species mentioned by Sowerby in Min. Conch., 1816, after his definition of Spirifer, should be the genotype. In spite of this he was in favor of retaining Spirifer striatus as the type of Spirifer and of OPINION 100 379 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 II placing cuspidatus in the genus Syringothyris of Winchell. Under heading Trigonotreta, Dall said “ T. stokesii Kon. 1. c. selected as type.” Davidson, 1880 (Mon. Foss. Brach., Vol. 4, p. 278) described cuspidatus as belonging to the genus Syringothyris of Winchell 1863 and placed it in the synonymy of S.-typa Winchell. In 1890 Schuchert (oth Ann. Rep. State Geol. New York, p. 30) distinguished Syringothyris cuspidata from S. typa but accepted it as belonging to Syringo- thyris and not Spirifer. S. typa he showed to be synonymous with S. carteri of Hall, which, having priority, became the genotype of Syringothyris. Anomia striata has been accepted as genotype of Spirifer by Hall & Clarke (Paleontology, New York, Vol. 8, pt. 2, p. 7, 1894), Schuchert (Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., 1897, p. 380), S. S. Buckman (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1908, Vol. 64, p. 29) and by others. Hall and Clarke after a brief review of the facts stated that “an inversion of the terms could only induce lamentable disorder in nomenclature.” They regarded Trigonotreta as a precise synonym of Spirifer. Buckman quoted Trigonotreta, genotype stokesii, for a group of species distinct from Spirifer striatus. In 1913 F. J. North (Geol. Mag., Vol. X, p. 394), among other statements inconsistent with the data as here given, says that J. Sowerby in 1815 founded his genus Spirifer with Anomia striata as his genotype. In 1919, J. Allan Thomson (Geol. Mag., Vol. VI, p. 371) draws attention to the fact that the generic name Spirifer is wrongly used for the group including Anomites striatus Martin, and that it should be restricted to the group including Anomites cuspidatus of Martin, and should replace Syringothyris Winchell. He is, however, in favor of retaining the genus Spirifer with geno- type A. striatus contrary to the laws of nomenclature. In consideration of these facts it is asked that the Law of Priority be sus- pended in the case of Spirifer Sowerby, and that it be fixed with Anomia (or Terebratula) striata Martin as genotype, leaving Syringothyris with Spiri- fer carteri Hall as genotype and including Syringothyris cuspidata (Martin). Discussion.—Commissioner Bather reports: I have checked the references in Miss Wood’s statement of the case, and I find that (1) According to the rules the genotype of Spirifer is Anomia cuspidata Martin; (2) According to the rules Syringothyris is a synonym of Spirifer; (3) All writers of importance for the past 70 years, in conscious opposition to the rules, take Anomia striata Martin as genotype of Spirifer, and maintain Syringothyris with genotype Spirifer carteri Hall or a synonym thereof. To avoid the confusion that would be introduced into two well-known Brachiopod genera, one of which is widely distributed with a large number of species, I propose as the opinion of the Commission: That the Rules be suspended in the case of Spirifer and Syringothyris so that the former may be fixed with genotype Anomia striata Martin and the latter with genotype Syringothyris typa Winchell (= Spirifer carteri Hall). 380 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS WA SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 In accordance with the prescribed routine, notice that Suspension of the Rules has been asked in these cases has been published in the fol- lowing journals: Nature, No. 2813, Vol. 112, p. 473, Sept. 29, 1923. Science, No. 1508, Vol. 58, p. 422, Nov. 23, 1923. Zoologischer Anzeiger, Vol. 58 (Heft 1-2), p. 55, Dec. 18, 1923. Monitore Zoologico Italiano, Anno 35, No. 2-3, 1924. - As no expression of opinion against Suspension has been received by the Secretary to date (one year from publication in three journals) the Secretary calls for vote on the Opinion as prepared by Commis- sioner Bather, namely, that under Suspension of the Rules the geno- type of Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, be fixed as Anomia striata Martin, and the genotype of Syringothyris Winchell, 1863, be fixed as Syrin- gothyris typa Winchell (= Spirifer carteri Hall). At the Budapest meeting of the Commission, Commissioner Bather was appointed a committee of one to restudy this case, and on August 30 he presented the following report: Under Suspension of the Rules, the genotype of Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, is fixed as Anonua striata Martin instead of Anomia cuspidata Martin. This action makes it unnecessary to regard Syringothyris as a synonym of Spirifer — even on the assumption that its genotype, Syringothyris typa, is congeneric with Anomia cuspidata. After considerable discussion and on motion and second the con- clusions were unanimously adopted by the 8 Commissioners and Alternates present, namely: Apstein, Bather, Hartert, Jordan (K.), Muesebeck, Rothschild, Stejyneger, and Stiles. The foregoing data were submitted in Circular Letter No. 129 to the absent Commissioners and the final vote stands as follows: Opinion concurred in by seventeen (17) Commissioners dnd Alter-_ nates: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Muesebeck, Mon- ticelli, Rothschild, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, and Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Ishikawa, Neveu- Lemaire, and Stone. OPINION 101 381 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 ne OPINION 101 NOMENCLATORIAL STATUS OF DANILEWSKy, “ CONTRIBUTION A L’ETUDE DE LA MICROBIOSE MALARIQUE.””’ IN ANNALES DE L’ INSTITUT Pasteur, 1891, VOL. 5, PAGES 758-782. SUMMARY.—The technical Latin designations used by Danilewsky, 1891, Annales de l'Institut Pasteur, Vol. 5 (12), pp. 758-782, are not in harmony with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature and are thezefoie not subject to citation or the Law of Priority on basis of said publication. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Ernest Hartman, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has submitted the following case for Opinion: In looking over the paper of Danilewsky, “Contribution a l'étude de la microbiose malarique” in Annales de l'Institut Pasteur, 1891, Vol. 5, pages 758-782, I am unable to interpret his naming under the present rules of the Commission. I refer this paper to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for an interpretation of the names therein or for elimination as a source of zoological names. Discusston.—The Contribution under consideration was published at a time when there existed very divergent views regarding the mala- rial parasites and many articles on this subject were written by per- ~ sons who were obviously not entirely at home in respect to the pre- vailing conceptions of genera, species, and varieties, and who were unfamiliar with the principles and practices of zoological nomencla- ture. Some of these authors were obviously under the impression that zoological nomenclature consisted in using I, 2, 3, or 4 Latin names as designations of organisms, but they evidently did not use the words in the sense of the system of nomenclature proposed by Linnaeus and adopted by zoologists and botanists. Furthermore, some of the zoologists who published on this subject either did not consider them- selves governed by zoological rules or were unfamiliar with them. The result is that the nomenclature of the parasites of malaria in man and birds represents one of the most confusing chapters in the entire history of zoological nomenclature. To straighten out the difficulties authors familiar with the principles and practices of zoological no- menclature have obviously endeavored to interpret the rules as applied to this field with the utmost consideration for their colleagues who were less familiar with nomenclatorial customs. 382 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 The following extract from the Contribution under consideration will serve to give a conception of Danilewsky’s viewpoint: (P. 762) Nous allons passer maintenant a l’étude du microbe de infection malarique aigué. I] doit etre distingué de celui de la forme chronique. Tous les microbes de nature animale vivant et se développant a l’intérieur des cellules sont ordinairement appelés cytozoaires, cyto-parasites ou cyto-microbes. Ces noms indiquent le lieu ot ils se trouvent. En me conformant a cette nomen- clature, j’ai proposé de remplacer la dénomination du plasmodium malarique de Vhomme, Haemamaeba, en celle de Cytamaeba. Mais comme chez les oiseaux le méme parasite, n’étant pas mobile, n’a pas de caractére amiboide, ce nom d’amaeba ne peut lui etre appliqué. Aussi, et surtout a cause de la propriété fondamentale du microbe de donner des spores, je l’appellerai Cytosporon malariae.’ (P. 780) Au point de vue de Il’hypothése unitaire de l’infection malarique on pourrait proposer le rapprochement suivant des diverses formes du parasite, sans entrer pour cela dans la discussion de sa place dans le systéme zoologique: ‘ Cytozoon praecox {(a) Haemamaeba-Cytamaeba Cytozoon malariae ‘i : pete s. Cytosporon (b) Cytosporon avium ominis : ee : Polymitus (c) (d) Haemogregarina avium avium : ; us Laverania (e) Laverania hominis Thus two generic names are used by Danilewsky on page 762 for what he designates “le meme parasite.” The table of designations given on page 780 is subject to various interpretations. Under the most favorable interpretation Danilewsky recognizes one species, Cytozoon malariae with 2 varieties or sub- species, hominis and avium, and attempts to harmonize early names with his nomenclature. Even this interpretation, however, does not leave the reader clear as to the author’s intention; possibly he con- sidered earlier names as inappropriate and substituted for them the generic name, Cytamaeba; then, considering this latter inappropriate, he appears to have substituted for it Haemocytosporon which he con- tracted to Cytosporon. During the past thirty years the Secretary has repeatedly endeavored to interpret the nomenclature of Danilewsky’s Contribution, but is unable to reach a conclusion which he considers in harmony with the rules of any code of nomenclature in effect at present or at date of publication of said Contribution or prior thereto. In conference with other zoologists, the Secretary has learned that they also find the same difficulty in interpreting said Contribution. The Secretary invites the attention of the Commission to the fact that there is an enormous accumulative economic loss in science result- 1On ne doit voir dans ce nom provisoire (abrégé de Haemocytosporon) aucune allusion a une parenté de ce microbe avec les champignons, les monades ou les mycétozoaires. Sa classification zoologique sera discutée plus loin. OPINION 101 383 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 15 ing from the designations used by some authors, even in papers which represent not only interesting but valuable contributions to our knowl- edge of biology, physiology, anatomy, etc.; later their colleagues endeavor to show the utmost consideration and broadest possible in- terpretation of the rules in order to bring as many of these papers as possible into harmony with the rules. The Secretary is persuaded that as an economic measure in the interest of the advancement of science the time is opportune to judge the nomenclatorial status of many of these nomenclatorial confusions from a practical point of view and to relieve systematists from the expensive burden of time necessary in order to interpret or save the nomenclature used by authors who either innocently or purposely do not present their technical names in a reasonably interpretable method—whatever may be the value of their contributions from a standpoint of biology, ana- tomy, physiology, pathology, etc. On the principle that it is encumbent upon an author who proposes new names, to familiarize himself with, and reasonably apply the rules of zoological grammar, namely, nomenclature, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt the following Opinion in answer to the question raised by Ernest Hartman: The technical Latin designations used by Danilewsky, 1891, Annales de l’Institut Pasteur, Vol. 5 (12), pp. 758-782, are not in harmony with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature and are therefore not subject to citation under the Law of Priority on basis of said publication. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Warren, and Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioners. Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Kolbe, Monticelli, and Stejneger. 384 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VGL. 73 OPINION 102 Proteocephala BLAINVILLE, 1828, vs. Proteocephalus WEINLAND, 1858 SUMMARY.—A generic name (example Proteoccphalus, 1858) is not invali- dated by the earlier publication of the identical or a similar name of higher rank (example Proteoccphala, 1828). If Taena ambigua (tod. of Proteo- cephalus, 1858) is congeneric with occellata (tsd. of [chthyotaenia, 1894), Ichthyo- taenia is a subjective synonym of Proteocephalus. SATEMENT OF CASE.—Prof. George R. LaRue of the University of Michigan has presented the following case for opinion: I wish to submit for a ruling the question of the availability of the generic name Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858. The facts are substantially these: Weinland (1858a, p. 53) proposed the generic name Proteocephalus, desig- nating Taenia ambigua Dujardin as type and assigning Taenia filicolliis and T. dispar to the genus. It so happens that Blainville (1828, p. 552) had already used the name Proteocephala for a family of Cestodaria with the single genus Caryophyl- laeus. The question now arises whether Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858, is invalidated by the prior use of Proteocephala Blainville, 1828, as the designa- tion of a family. As I see it the question resolves itself into two parts, namely, whether two words differing only in termination (“us” and “a”) are to be considered as homonyms, and whether the use of a name to designate a family bars the subsequent use of that name to designate a genus. The first question seems to have been answered in the first recommendation following Art. 36 of the International Code, see Bulletin No. 24, Hygienic Laboratory, Wash., p. 47. The second question does not seem to be covered by the Code as published in 1905. Art. 34 which governs the rejection of a generic name which has previously been used to designate another genus obviously does not apply and no recommendation appears to have been made by the Commission to cover cases similar to the one in question. The argument against the use of the name Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858, has been stated by Luehe (1899, Zool. Anz., v. 22: 525-526). Since he has been followed in his use of the name -/chthyotaenia, by Rudin (1916), Meggitt (1914), Wagner (1917), M. Plehn (1924), it has seemed well to quote Luehe’s argument : “ Railliet (1890, Sur la classification des Téniadés. In: Centrbl. f. Bact. u. Paraskde. Bd. 26, p. 33{) hat inzwischen den Namen I/chthyotaenia Lonnb., 1894, als synonym eingezogen zu Proteocephglus Weinl., 1858. Dass letzterer Name an sich seines grosseren Alters wegen prioritatsberechtigt ware, ist suzugeben und war auch mir bekannt. Gleichwohl sehe ich keine Veranlassung ihn zu Ungunsten des hisher allgemein tiblichen Gattungsnamens /chthyotaenia auszugraben. Schon 1828 namlich hat Blainville (Dict. Sci. nat., T. 57, p. 552) den Namen Proteocephala gebraucht ftir eine Cestodenfamilie (einzige Gat- tung Caryophyllaeus). Wenn nun auch dieser Name, weil den heute geltenden OPINION 102 385 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 17 Vorschriften fiir die Bildung der Familiennamen nicht entsprechend, in Weg- fall kommt, so darf doch meines Erachtens ein homonymer Gattungsname nicht anerkannt werden. Dass es sich bei Blainville um einen Familien-, nicht um einen Gattungsnamen handelt, kommt hierbei fiir mich um so weniger in Betracht, als wir heute allgemein die Familiennamen von den Gattungsnamen ableiten. “Nicht besser ist es um das Prioritatsrecht von Tetracotylus Montic., 1892, bestellt. Dieser Name unterscheidet sich nur durch das Geschlecht von Tetra- cotyle Filippi, 1854, mit welchem er im tibrigen vollstandig gleich gebildet ist. Ich muss daher beide Namen als homonym ansehen, sonst kénnte ja beispiels- weise auch noch einmal der Name Bothriocephalum (neben Bothriocephalus Rud.) gebildet werden. Das in No. 4 der von der Deutsch. Zoolog. Gesellsch. bearbeiteten Nomenclaturregeln angeftihrte Beispiel “ Picus und Pica” kann gegen diese meine Anschauung nicht geltend gemacht werden, da dies beides altlateinische Worte sind, welche schon von den Romern in der ihnen auch heute noch von uns beigelegten verschiedenen Bedeutung gebraucht wurden und welche daher mit einem anderen Massstabe gemessen werden miissen als neue Wortbildungen. “Tch gebe zu, dass es sich hier um strittige Fragen handelt. Stiles ist, wie er mir brieflich mitgetheilt hat, hinsichtlich beider Puncte anderer Ansicht wie ich. So lange indessen diese Fragen noch nicht in einer allgemein giiltigen und auch mich bindenden Weise entschieden sind (wozu diese Zeilen vielleicht die Anregung geben), beanspruche ich ftir mich das Recht, den bisher allge- mein tiblichen Gattungsnamen I/chthyotaenia auch fernerhin zu gebrauchen. Als typische Art dieser Gattung sehe ich [chthyotaenia ocellata (Rud.) L6nn- berg an, da dies nicht nur die Art ist, welche Lonnberg (Centrbl. f. Bact. u. Paraskde., Bd. 15, 1804, p. 803) an erster Stelle nennt (J. filicollis [Rud.] Loénnbg. ist synonym zu /. ocellata [Rud.] Lonnberg), sondern auch diejenige von den von Lonnberg aufgeftthrten Arten, welche am besten bekannt ist... . . “Tch bin gern bereit zuzugeben, dass dereinst vielleicht auch die Ichthyotaenien wieder eine Auftheilung erfahren miissen, aber vorlaufig ist unsere Kenntnis der itberwiegenden Mehrzahl der hierher gehorigen Arten noch viel zu gering, um eine solche Auftheilung zuzulassen. Am allerwenigsten wurde dieselbe gerechtfertigt sein, wenn wirklich der Name Protcocephalus Weinl. zur Aner- kennung gelangen sollte und damit eine Species inquirenda (Taenia ambigua Duj.). Typus der Gattung wiirde. Wenn “ibrigens Weinland in dieselbe Gat- tung auch die Taenia dispar Gze. einreiht, so ist dies zweifellos unberechtigt.” Concerning Tetracotylus Monticelli, 18911, I have pointed out (LaRue, 1914) that T. coryphicephalus, the type of this genus, is not congeneric with Proteo- cephalus filicollis, P. percae, and other species of Proteocephalus. Hence I can not agree that Tetracotylus is a synonym of Proteocephalus and Ichthyotaema. As for Taenia ambigua, which Liihe considered to be a species inquirenda, I have pointed out that it is a synonym of Taenia filicollis Rud., (LaRue, 1914, 38-48). I am unable to accept Liihe’s statement that Jchthyotaenia fili- collis is a synonym of J. ocellata. The arguments for my view are too long to state here. They are given in full in my monograph (LaRue, 1914, 38-48, and 93-108). The fact that Weinland included Taenia dispar in his genus Proteocephalus is.not a serious matter. 386 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Discuss1ion.—Professor [LaRue’s premises raise two distinct points. The first of formal nomenclature, the second a question of nomenclature dependent to some extent upon subjective conceptions of synonymy. Proteocephalus Weinl., 1858a, 53, tod. Taema ambigua versus the dead family name Proteocephala Blainville, 1828a, v. 57, 552.—Art. 34 of the International Code is unambiguous. It reads as follows: “A generic name is to be rejected as a homonym when it has previ- ously been used for some other genus of animals. Example: Trichina Owen, 1835, nematode, is rejected as homonym of Trichina Meigen, 1830, insect.” There is nothing in Art. 34 which provides that a generic name becomes a homonym if the identical name has previously been used for a systematic unit of some other rank (for instance, species, family, order, etc.). On the contrary Art. 33 definitely states that: “A name is not to be rejected because of tautonymy, that is, because the specific or the specific and subspecific names are identical with the generic name. Examples: Trutta trutta, Apus apus apus.” The fact that Proteocephala is a dead family name because it is not formed in accordance with Art. 4 (ending idae) has no bearing upon the present case, which opens up the very broad question whether generic names are to be invalidated as: homonyms because of the prior publication of an identical name for a supergeneric group. If this kind of homonymy were to be admitted, numerous cases would arise for adjudication. The history of nomenclature clearly shows that the rule of homonyms is applicable only as applied to systematic units of identical rank except in so far as the contrary might be implied from the custom of some authors to consider tautonyms as homonyms. As pointed out above, however, Art. 33 distinctly provides that tau- tonyms are not homonyms. The answer to Professor LaRue’s first question is, therefore, that Proteocephala, 1828, has no nomenclatorial bearing on Proteocephalus, 1858. Proteocephalus, 1858, tod. ambigua versus Ichthyotaenia, 1894, tsd. ocellata.—It is to be noticed that Taenia ambigua: is a species inquir- enda fide Liihe, 1899k, but that it is a synonym of filicollis fide LaRue, 1914; also that flicollis is a synonym of ocellata fide Lithe, 1899k, but that it is distinct from ocellata fide LaRue, 1911. Thus there is a difference of opinion between Ltthe and LaRue in regard to the sub- jective synonymy in case of the names ambigua, filicollis, and ocellata. This difference of opinion belongs in the field of systematic zoology, not in the field of nomenclature. OPINION 102 387 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 19 If ambigua and ocellata (the type species of Proteocephalus and Ichthyotaema) are congeneric, Proteocephalus, 1858, has clear pri- ority over Ichthyotaenia, 1894, and Ichthyotaenia is a subjective synonym of Proteocephalus regardless of the subjective synonymic status of ambigua, filicollis, and ocellata. On basis of the foregoing premises and argument the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt the following opinion: A generic name (example, Proteocephalus, 1858) is not invalidated by the earlier publication of the identical or a similar name of different [higher] rank (example, Proteocephala, 1828). If Taenia ambigua (tod. of Proteocephalus, 1858) is congeneric with ocellata (tsd. of Ichthyotaema, 1894), Ichthyotaenia is a subjective synonym of Pro- teocephalus. The foregoing Opinion was submitted at the Budapest (1927) Meeting to Lord Rothschild as special subcommittee of one for con- sideration and report. He reported as follows: I desire to report on Circular Letter No. 124 that I find that Proteocephalus as a generic name can and must stand beside Proteocephala, as Family names and names of higher groups have no connection with generic designations. Opinion written by the Secretary. Opinion concurred in— (a), regarding Proteocephalus, by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, jerdan (DE s:), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, and Warren. : Commissioner Stone states: “ With the understanding that generic and subgeneric names are treated exactly alike nomenclatorially, 7. ¢., an earlier subgeneric name of identical form, renders invalid a sub- sequent generic name. So with species and subspecies.” Commissioner Stejneger appended a footnote, as follows: “I sug- gest, however, that the summary is not quite clear. The subgenus has not the same ‘rank’ as the genus, hence someone might argue that ‘a generic name is not invalidated by the earlier publication of the identical or similar subgeneric name.’ Would not ‘higher’ for ‘ dif- ferent’ remedy that?’’ [Change adopted as an editorial correction. —C. W. S.] i (b), regarding synonymy, by eleven (11) Commissioners: Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stiles, and Warren. Opinion dissented from— (a), regarding Proteocephalus, by no Commissioner. (b), regarding synonymy, by no Commissioner. 388 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. HS Not voting— (a), regarding Proteocephalus, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Ishikawa, and Loennberg. (b), regarding synonymy, six (6) Commissioners: Apstein, Dab- bene, Hartert, Ishikawa, Loennberg, and Stone. Votes not clear on either (a) or (b) cast by Commissioner Monti- celli. OPINION 103 389 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 21 OPINION 103 THE GENERIC NAME Grus, TYPE Ardea grus SUMMARY.—The type of Grus Pallas, 1767, is Ardea grus Linn., 1758, by ‘absolute tautonymy. Grus is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. PRESENTATION OF CASE——Dr. Witmer Stone of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, requests an opinion on the type of Grus. His presentation of case is as follows: Application of Generic Name Grus. In his Systema Natura, 1758, Linnaeus divides the genus Ardea into four sec- tions, Cristatae, Grues, Ciconiae, and Ardeae. (1) Are any of these citable as genera? The last three seem to be exactly parallel to the divisions of Simia regarded as subgenera by Stiles and Orleman (Jour. of Mam. Feb. 1926). (2) If not citable from here, are not Grus and Ciconia citable from Pallas (Spicilegia Zool. IV, p. 1, 1767) as covering the species inciuded in Linnaeus’ groups? Pallas in his work discusses and describes a new species Grus psophia and the genus Grus has recently been quoted from here as applying solely to this species (the only one mentioned) thus becoming a synonym of Psophia. Previously it was regarded as applying to all the species of Linnaeus’ section Grues, and Ardea grus was by tautonymy the type. This I think is the correct view. Pallas states that the birds included in Ardea by Linnaeus are divisible into three genera and then cites Ardeae, Ciconiae and Grues—the three Lin- naean groups and refers to “Gruibus reliquis” in describing and comparing his new and evidently aberrant species. Discussion OF CASE.—by Commissioner Stejneger. THE TYPE OF Grus PALLAS, 1767, 1s Ardea grus LINNAEUS, 1758. The question of the recognition of the quasigeneric names which Linnaeus and subsequent authors of the eighteenth century applied to sectional divisions of genera without apparent intention to use them nomenclatorially is so complicated and requires such extensive re- search, not only as to the manner of their application by these authors themselves, but particularly as to the effect their legitimation at this late date would have upon already otherwise stabilized and current nomenclature, that it is thought unwise to raise it with regard to a case which is susceptible of definite and identical settlement by other means. The question laid before the Commission by Dr. Stone is essentially this: 390 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 What species is the type of the genus Grus instituted by Pallas in ey) E ae The main object of Pallas’ paper entitled “ Grus psophia” (in Spicilegia Zoologica, fasc. 4, 1767, pp. 3-9, pl. 1) was to give a des- cription of the bird hitherto known as Psoplia crepitans based on autopsy of a fresh specimen of this then rare South American bird and to show that it does not constitute a separate genus, as postulated by Linné, but that it must be attached to one of the sections of the Linnaean genus Ardea, which Pallas, however, regards and names as a distinct genus Grus. It therefore becomes necessary to review briefly the treatment ac- corded the two genera by Linne. In 1758 (10 ed. Syst. Nat., vol. 1, p. 154) Linnaeus has the genus Psophia (with one species: crepitans). The genus Ardea, with 19 species, is found on page 141. The latter Linné enumerated under four section headings as follows: x Cristatae: rostro vix capite longiore (species 1-2) xx Grues: capite calvo (species 3-6) xxx Cicomae (species 7-8) xxxx Ardeae (species 9-19) In the 12th Edition (pp. 263 and 233 respectively) the treatment is exactly the same, except that the section of Ardeae there includes eight more species (species 9-26) and that one species, Ardea ibis, has been transferred to the genus Tantalus. Pallas begins his article as follows: Aves ab Jll. LINNAEO sub Ardearum nomine recensitae constantivus et evidentissimis characteribus in tria genera, ab antiquioribus jam olim Orni- thologis agnita et judiciole adoptata, distingui possunt: Ardearum nempe Ciconiarum atque Gruum. (The birds enumerated by Linné under the name Ardea can be distinguished by constant and most obvious characters in three genera which were already recognized and judiciously adopted by the older ornithologists, viz.: Ardea, Ciconia and Grus.) He then proceeds to enumerate the characters of these genera, in- cluding in Ciconia Linné’s genus Mycteria, and in Grus the Linnaean genus Psophia, at the same time referring Linne’s Tantalus, together with his Ardea ibis and Ardea aequinoctialis, to Numenius. The sen- tence in which Pallas relegates the generic term Psophia to the synonymy of Grus (p. 4) reads as follows: Ex autopsia quoque dedici, avem Americanam, quam PSOPHIAE nomine indigitarunt BARRERIUS et post eum Linnaeus; non pro peculiaris generis ave habendum, sed Gruibus esse accessendam, quibus characteres, habitu, mori- busque convenit. (From autopsy I have also learned that the American bird which Barrére, and after him Linné, have published under the name Psopha, OPINION 103 391 NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 23 is not to be regarded as a separate genus but must be added to the Grues, with which it agrees in characters, habitus, and habits.) All this by way of introduction to a minute description of the exter- nal characters and internal anatomy of a fresh specimen of a Psophia from the vivarium of the Prince of Orange, which forms the real object of the memoir, since no specimen had come under the eyes of _ any other zoologist since the time of Marcgrave and Barreére. It is quite obvious that Pallas did not make Grus a monotypic genus with psophia as type. The argument that he mentions no other specific term in conjunction with the generic name cannot prevail against the fact that Pallas repeatedly refers to the existence of other Grues, and to the species enumerated by Linné in particular. In addition to the previous quotations it is only necessary to cite the first paragraph of his “ Descriptio Gruis Psophiae” (p. 7) which reads as follows: Magmitudo circiter Numenu Arquatae; sed corpus paulo crassius atque bre- vius. Proportiones membrorum omnes longe breviores etiam sunt, quam. in Gruibus reliquis; ceteroquin habitus consimilis. (Size about that of Numenius arquata,; but the body a little heavier and shorter. All the proportions of the limbs are also much shorter than in the other Grues; habitus otherwise entirely similar. ) “The other Grues” refers plainly to the species enumerated by Linné in the tenth edition,’ viz.: Ardea canadensis, A. grus, A. americana, and A. antigone. The type of the genus Grus Pallas must therefore be looked for among one of these species (including of course Grus psophia Pallas) in which case Ardea grus Linné becomes the type by tautonymy. REMARKS BY THE SECRETARY.—Commissioner Apstein (19I5a, 195) agrees with Commissioner Stejneger that grus Linn., 1758, is a type of Grus Pallas, but both he and Sherborn date the latter as 1766, instead of 1767. The Secretary views Grus as dating from Linn., 1758a, tat. Ardea grus. As the argument by Stejneger and the data by Apstein give the same general results as the argument by the Secretary, and as the question of date appears to be non-essential in disposing of the case, the Secretary supports the conclusions by Stejneger and Apstein and does not emphasize his own view as to date. The Secretary moves that: If Commissioner Stejneger’s Opinion on Grus is adopted by the Commission, the generic name Grus Pallas, 1766 or 1767, tat. Ardea grus, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. * By referring specifically to Ardea ibis, see above, Pallas shows that he is dealing with the 1oth edition though it makes no difference inasmuch as the 12th edition is identical in the treatment of the Grues. 392 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. We The foregoing Opinion was submitted to the Cornmission in Cir- cular Letter No. 112. Lele Opinion prepared by Commissioner Stejneger. Opinion concurred in by sixteen (16) Commissioners, namely: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath. Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kelbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, and Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioners. Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Ishikawa, and Monticelli. Secretary’s motion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners, namely: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Loennberg, Monticelli, Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, and Warren. | Secretary's motion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Kolbe, Stejneger, and Ishi- kawa. OPINION 104 393 NO. OPINIONS 98 TO 104 25 on OPINION 104 57 GENERIC NAMES PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL LIST SUMMARY .—The following 57 generic names, with type species cited. are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: Protozoa: Bursaria, Eimeria, Laverania, Plasmodium, Sarcocys- tis. ‘Cestopa : Ligula. Nematopa: Filaria, Heterodera, Rhabditis, Strongylus, Syngamus. OLIGOCHAETA: Enchytraeus. HiruDINEA: Haemadipsa, Limnatis. Crustacea: Armadillidium, Astacus, Cancer, Diaptomus, Gamma- rus, Homarus, Nephrops, Oniscus, Pandalus, Penaeus, Porcellio. XipHosuRA: Limulus. ScORPIONIDEA : Scorpio. ARANEAE seu ARANEIDA: Avicularia, Dendryphantes, Dysdera, Latrodectus, Segestria. AcariIna: Cheyletus, Chorioptes, Demodex, Dermanyssus, Glyci- phagus, Polydesmus, Psoroptes, Rhizoglyphus, Trombidium. THysANURA: Lepisma. CoLLEMBOLA: Podura. OrtHopTERA: Blatia, Ectobius, Gryllus, Periplaneta. AnopLuraA: Pediculus, Phtluirus. HemipPTerRA: Anthocoris, Nabis, Notonecta, Reduvius, Triatoma. DERMAPTERA: Forficula. SucToria Ss. SIPHONAPTERA S. APHANIPTERA: Pulex. Mammnatta: Cercopithecus. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—The Secretary’s Circular Letter No. 122 contained a list of 61 names suggested for inclusion in the Official List of Generic Names. Practically all of these are in Commissioner Apstein’s (1915) list of Nomina Conservanda. The addition of Laverania is made in order to meet a difference of opinion among specialists as to classification. The Secretary has personally checked these names and believes that they are all nomenclatorially available and valid, and that, therefore, they can be adopted in harmony with the Rules instead of as Nomina Conservanda. He has changed the dates given by Commissioner Apstein in several instances to agree with the dates found in Wash- ington. 394 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 The Secretary has altered several genotypes given by Commissioner Apstein as the genera were published as monotypic. These alter- ations do not however influence the position of the genera. The Notice that the 61 names in question were under consideration was published in -Science, May 13, 1927, v. 65 (1689), pp. 471- 472, and Zoologischer Anzeiger, v. 71 (1/2), p. 64. Objection or question of one sort or another has been raised to five of the 61 names (Atropos, Daphne, Termes, Nepa and Corixa), and these have, therefore, been tabled, temporarily and without prejudice. In addition to the 56 names in the Secretary’s Circular Letter No. 122, one name (Cercopithecus from Circular Letter No. 102) is added to the list. This name had been tabled temporarily pending a confer- ence between Commissioner Apstein and the Secretary. This con- ference has been held and the slight differences of Opinion on the case have been harmonized, thus making the vote unanimous. Com- missioner Apstein was appointed a special committee of one for special study of this case. The list of 57 names follows (for complete bibliographic references see standard nomenclators and bibliographies; the letters, as 1758a, are taken from Stiles and Hassall, Index Catalogue) : PROTOZOA : Bursaria Mueller, 1773a, 62, tsd. truncatella. Eimeria Schneider, 1875d, xli, mt. falciformis (erroneously quoted as simplex in Zool. Record, v. 12, Prot., 579), type host Mus musculus. Laverania Grassi & Feletti, 1890a, 60, mt. malariae (homonym) so. falci- para Welch, 1897, 36, 47, type host Homo. [For authors who consider the parasite of aestivo-autumnal malaria generically distinct from that of quartan malaria.]} Not Laverania Labbé, 1899a, 82, type ranarum, type host Rana esculenta. Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885d, 791, mt. tsd. malariae (as re- stricted to quartan fever), type host Homo. Sarcocystis Lankester, 1882, QJMS, 54, mt. miescheri syn. miescheriana. CESTODA : Ligula Bloch, 1782a, 1, pl. 1, figs. 1-2, tsd. avium. NeEMATODA : Filaria Mueller, 1787a, 64-67, tsd. martis. Heterodera Schmidt, 1871a, 1, mt. schachtii. Rhabditis Dujardin, 1845a, 230, 239-243, tsd. (1865) terricola. Strongylus Mueller, 1780, pl. 42, figs. 1-12; or Goeze, 1782a, 41, 137; mt. equi =tsd. equinus. Absolute synonym Sclerostoma Rud., 1809a, 35, type equinum. Syngamus Siebold, 1836a, 105-116, mt. trachealis Sieb., syn. of trachea. OLIGOCHAETA : Enchytraeus Henle, 1837, Arch. Anat. Phys. Med., 74, mt. albidus. NO. OPINION 104 395 E OPINIONS 98 TO 104 27, HIRUDINEA: Haemadipsa Tennent, 1859, Ceylon, v. I, 302, mt. zeylanica Mogq.-Tand., 1827a, 120: or ?1826. Limnatis Mogq.-Tand., ?1826; or 1827a, 122, mt. nilotica Sav., 1820, 113. CRUSTACEA: Armadillidium Brandt, 1831, Thiere in der Artzneimittel, v. 2, 81; or 1833, Bull. Soc. imp. nat. Moscow, 184, tsd. (1915) vulgare Latr., 1804¢, 47, so. armadillo Linn., 1758a, 637. Astacus Pall., 1772, 81; and Fabr., 1775a, 413, tat. Cancer astacus Linn., 1758a, 631, syn. fluviatilis Fabr., 1775a, 413. Cancer Linn., 1758a, 625, tsd. (1810) pagurus. Diaptomus Westwood, 1836, Brit. Encyclop., v. 2, 228, type Cyclops castor. Gammarus Fabr., 1775, 418, tsd. (1810) pulex Linn., 1758a, 633. Homarus Fabr., in Weber, 1795a, 94, tsd. gammarus = marinus. s. vul- garis. Same as Milne-Edw., 1837, HnC, 320, 333. Nephrops Leach, 1815, Edinb. Encycl., v. 7, 398; 1815, TLSL, 344; mt. norvegicus. Oniscus Linn., 1758a, 636, tsd. (1804) asellus Linn., 1758a, 637, (1810) murarius 1792 so. asellus. Pandalus Leach, 1815, TLSL, 376, mt. annulicornis. Penaeus Fabr., in Weber, 1795a, 94 (1798 emendation of 1795 misprint) tsd. (1810) monodon. Porcellio Latr., 1804c, 39, 49, tod. Oniscus scaber Latr., 1804. XIPHOSURA: Limulus Mueller, 1785, 124, tsd. (1810) polephemus Linn., 1758a. SCORPIONIDEA : Scorpio Linn., 1758a, 624, tsd. (1810) europaeus Linn., 1758a. - ARANEAE seu ARANEIDA: Avicularia Lam., 1818a, 107, tat. avicularia Linn., 1758a. Dendryphantes Koch, 1837a, 31, tsd. (1869) hastatus. Dysdera Latr., 1804, Nouv. Dic. Hist. nat., 34, mt. punctoria Latr., 1804 syn. erythrina. Latrodectus Walck., 1805, 81, tsd. (1810) 13-guftatus. Segestria Walck., 1805, 48, tsd. (1810) florentina. ACARINA.: Cheyletus Latr., 1796a, 179, mt. eruditus. Chorioptes Gerv., in Gerv. & Ben., 1859a, 463, tod. caprae-. Pemodex Owen, 1843, 252, mt. folliculorum Simon, 1842, 218-237, pl. 11. Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834, Ann. Sci. nat., 18, tsd. gallinae deGeer, 1778a, 111, pl. 6, fig. 8, syn. avium. Glyciphagus Hering, 1838, 619, type domesticus. Palydesmus Latr., 1802b, 44, mt. complanatus. Psoroptes Gerv., 1841a, 9, mt. equi Gerv., 18414, 9. Rhizoglyphus Clap., 1869a, 506, tod. robini Clap., 1869. Trombidium Fabr.; 1775a, 430, tsd. (1810) holosericeum Linn., 1758a, 617. THYSANURA: Lepisma Linn., 1758a, 344, 608, tsd. (1810; 1915) saccharin Linn., 1758a, 608. COLLEMBOLA: Podura Linn., 1758a, 344, 608, tsd. (1810) plumbea [; tsd. antedated (1915) aquatica]. 396 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 ORTHOPTERA : Blatta Linn., 1758a, 342, 424, tsd. (1810; 1915) orientalis Linn., 1758a, 424. Ectobius Stephens, 1835, Ill. Brit. Ent. Mandib., v. 6, 45, tsd. (1840) Blaita lapponica Linn., 1758a, 425. Gryllus Linn., 1758a, 342, 425, tsd. (1810; 1915) campestris Linn., 1758a, 428. . Periplaneta Burm., 1838, Handb. Ent., v. 2, 502, tsd. (1903) Blatta ameri- cana Linn., 1758a, 424. ANOPLURA: Pediculus Linn., 1758a, 610, tsd. (1810) humanus, restricted later to syn. of tsd. (1915; 1916) capitis. Phthirus Leach, 1815, Edinb. Encycl., v. 9 (1), 77, mt. ingwinalis so. Pedicu- lus pubts Linn., 1758a, 611. Same as Phthirius, emendation. HEMIPTERA : Anthocoris Rodhe in Fallén, 1814, 9, tsd. (1840; I910; 1915; 1917) Cimex nemorum Linn., 1761, 254, so. sylvestris Linn., 1758a, 449. Nabis Latr., 1802b, 248, tsd. (1840; 1917) vagans Fabr., so. (tsd. 1915) Cimex ferus Linn., 1758a, 449. Notonecta Linn., 1758a, 343, 4390, tsd. (1810; 1915) glauca Linn., 1758a, 439. Europe. Reduvius Fabr., 1775a, 729, tsd. (1810; 1840; 1915; 1917) Cimex per- sonatus Linn., 1758a, 446 [; tsd. by error (1803) fuscipes]. Triatoma Laporte, 1832, Mag. de Zool., v. 2, 11, mt. gigas Fabr. = rubro- fasciatus deGeer; tsd. (by error, 1915) infestans. DERMAPTERA : Forficula Linn., 1758a, 342, 423, tat. (1758) and tsd. (1810; 1915) auricu- laria s. (1758) forficula s. vulgaris. StctTorIA s. SIPHONAPTERA s. APHANIPTERA : Pulex Linn., 1758a, 614, tsd. (1810; 1915) irritans Linn., 1758a, 614. Europe. MAMMALIA: Cercopithecus Linn., 1758a, 26, tsd. (1926) Simia diana Linn., 1758a, 26. Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Monticelli, Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bather, Handlirsch, Hartert, Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Stejneger. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 73, NUMBER 6 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 105 TO 114 0202800, (PUBLICATION 3016) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION JUNE 8, 1929 ae | a The Lord Baltimore Press BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. é ; ae ie he - A | La ; nk TDpitisek SE -Oe RY o 1 Sk >) oben OCR PRE so a Ne raga ah “RSE toe, ee so Real ha OPINION 105 399 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 105 TO 114 OPINION 105 _ Dygpowski’s (1926) NAMES OF CRUSTACEA SUPPRESSED SUMMARY.—Resolved: That all of the new names published in Dybowski’s paper, “ Synoptisches Verzeichnis mit kurzer Besprechung der Gattunger und Arten dieser Abteilung der Baikalflohkrebse” (Bul. internat. Acad. polonaise d. Sci. et d. Lettres, 1926, No. 1-2b, Jan.-Feb., pp. 1-77), are hereby sup- pressed, under Suspension of the Rules, on the ground that the application of the Rules in accepting them “will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.” STATEMENT OF CASE——Miss Mary J. Rathbun, U. S. National Museum, has raised the question whether the new designations of genera and species published by Dybowski in “ Synoptisches Verzeich- nis mit kurzer Besprechung der Gattungen und Arten dieser Abteil- ung der Baikalflohkrebse ” (Bul. internat. Acad. polonaise d. Sci. et d. Lettres, 1926, No. 1-2b, Jan.-Feb., pp. 1-77) are available under the International Rules, and, if so, whether it is not wise to suppress the names under Suspension of the Rules on the ground that the acceptance of the names under the Rules will produce greater confusion than uniformity. As examples of the designations in ques- tion she cites the following: Siemienkiewicziechinogammarus siemienkiewitschi, Cancelloidokytodermogammarus (Loveninuskytodermogammarus) loveni, Axelbgeckiakytodermogammarus carpenteri, Garjajewiakytodermogammarus dershawini, Parapallaseakytodermogammarus borowskii var. dichrous. Discussion.—Notice to the zoological profession that this paper was under consideration for suppression by Suspension of the Rules has been published as follows: Monitore Zoologico Italiano, Anno 38, 1927, no. 9. Nature, vol. 119, June 4, 1927. Zoologischer Anzeiger, Band 71 (11-12), 28 Mai, 1927. The question was laid before the Commission in the Secretary’s Circular Letter No. 120, dated March, 1927, with request for sugges- SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 6 400 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 tions from the Commissioners as to the best procedure. In reply to this- Circular Letter the following suggestions reached the Secretary : A.—The following thirteen Commissioners suggested that the names should be suppressed: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, D. S. Jordan, K. Jordan, Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, and Warren; B.—The following four Commissioners suggested that the names should be suppressed under Suspension of the Rules: Horvath, D. S. Jordan, Stiles, and Warren; ; C.—The following two Commissioners suggested that the names are not available under the Rules: Kolbe and Loennberg ; D.—The following two Commissioners suggested that the question be further discussed in the August 1927 (Budapest) meeting of the Commission: Bather and Monticelli; E.—The following four Commissioners suggested that the author be re- quested to introduce for the designations in question names more in harmony with the International Rules: Chapman, D. S. Jordan, Stiles, and Stone; F.—Not voting, four Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Ishikawa, and Stejneger. The Secretary has communicated with Professor Dybowski who has replied that he intended the designations in question only as pro- visional names and that the time is not ripe for the definite naming of these animals. In Circular Letter No. 138 the attention of the Commission was invited to the fact that 13 of the 14 Commissioners who replied to Circular Letter No. 120 agree that the designations in question should be suppressed and that the only difference of opinion which had arisen involved the question whether they should be suppressed under Suspension of the Rules or whether they should be declared not available under the Rules. No Commissioner voted for the retention of the names. Professor Dybowski’s statement that the names were only pro- visional implies that an author may suggest a provisional name and afterwards change it. This suggestion, however, is not in harmony with Article 32, The names are available under Article 8j & k, and the question that they have not been published has not been raised by any person. On the contrary; they have distinctly been published under Article 25 of the International Rules. It appears to the Secretary that of the two methods suggested (namely, suspension or unavailability) the suppression of the names under Suspension of the Rules is the more practical, although either method would bring about the same ultimate result, and that by sup- pressing the names under Suspension of the Rules, this result will OPINION 105 40] No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 3 be obtained without the necessity for discussion of the question of availability, upon which there would appear to be a possible dif- ference of opinion. Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution: Resolved: That all of the new names published in Dybowski’s paper, “ Synoptisches Verzeichnis mit kurzer Besprechung der Gat- tungen und Arten dieser Abteilung der Baikalflohkrebse” (Bul. internat. Acad. polonaise d. Sci. et d. Lettres, 1926, No. 1-2b, Jan.- Feb., pp. 1-77), are hereby suppressed under Suspension of the Rules on the ground that the application of the Rules in accepting them “will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.” Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Stone, Stiles, Ishikawa, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, four (4), Commissioners: Dabbene, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger. 402 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 106 Tue Tyre or Oestrus LinN., 1758, 18 O. ovis. SUMMARY.—The type of Oestrus Linn., 1758, is O. ovis (Art. 30g). Latreille’s designation of Oestrus equi Fabr. as type of Oestrus is not valid (Art. 30g). The following five names of dipterous genera are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: Cephenemyia (type trompe), Gasterophilus (type equi of Clark, synonym of intestinalis de Geer), Hypoderma (type bovis), Oedemagena (type tarandi), and Oestrus (type ovis). STATEMENT OF CASE.—Professor W. S. Patton, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, has submitted the following case: I am writing to request you to place before the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature data on which an application is based for Suspension of the Rules of Priority on the following cases: Oecstrus L., 1758 (Gasterophilus Leach, 1817, nec Gastrophilus auct.) with Oestrus intestinalis de Geer as type, and to place Gasterophilus Leach, 1817, in the Official List of Generic Names with G. intestinalis as type; Cephalemyia Latr., 1810, with C. ovis L. as type, and to place Oestrus L. in the Official List of Generic Names with O. ovis as type. The facts connected with the nomenclature of the horse bots and warble flies are briefly as follows: In 1758 Linnaeus founded the genus Oesirus including in it the following five species, the first being the type of the genus. 1. Oestrus bovis [type host Bos taurus]. 2. Oestrus tarandi [type host Cervus tarandus]. 3. Oestrus nasalis [type host Equus caballus]. 4. Oestrus haemorrhoidalis [type host Equus caballus]. 5. Oestrus ovis [type host Ovts aries]. It is quite clear from the description of Oestrus bovis that Linnaeus meant - the common horse bot which has for more than a century been known as Gasterophilus intestinalis de Geer (equi Clark), and not the equally familiar warble fly of cattle, Hypoderma bovis. In 1818 Latreille revised these species and erected four genera for the reception of the Linnaean species as follows: 1. Hypoderma for Oestrus bovis. 2. Cephalemsna for Oestrus ovis. 3. Oedemagena for Oestrus tarandi. 4. Cephenemyia for Oestrus nasalis. In 1817 Leach erected the genus Gasterophilus (nec Gastrophilus auct.) with bovis L. (equi Clark) as type, and included.in it haemorrhoidalis L. Clark later clearly recognized Linnaeus’s original mistake, and pointed out that many of the older authors used the name bovis in this erroneous sense. Without going further into this extremely involved question of nomenclature, it is clear that if the Law of Priority is to be strictly adhered to, the horse ‘ bots should be placed in the genus Oestrus and the common species known specifically as bovis. The results would then be as follows: OPINION 106 403 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 5 1. It would be necessary to erect a new genus for the warble flies of cattle and goats, flies now placed in the genus Hypoderma. 2. The horse bots would have to be placed in the genus Oestrus (synonym Gasterophilus) with bovis as type. 3. The ruminant nasal bots would have to be nk in the genus Cephalemyia with ovis as type. These changes have already been partially adopted in the “Review of Ap- plied Entomology,” Series B, Medical and Veterinary, and if you will refer to recent summaries of papers of these flies in this Review, you will see that the horse bots are placed in the genus Oestrus and the nasal bots in the genus Cephalemyia. This change has already been accepted as authoritative by some writers. The strict application of the Rule of Priority causing such a transfer will result in the utmost confusion involving generic, subfamily, and family names and designation in both veterinary and human medicine. As a teacher of medical and veterinary entomology I am strongly of the opinion that Suspension of the Rules, thereby validating accepted nomenclature, which has been in con- sistent use for more than a century in veterinary medicine, is highly desirable. J am aware that Oestrus L., 1758, type ovis was suggested for adoption in the - Official List by the Commission in 1913, but I am not aware as to whether it has been formally adopted. The documents were submitted by the Secretary to the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington for special study and this Committee has presented two reports (April II, 1927, and May 12, 1928), summarized as follows: The genus Oestrus was described by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat., roth ed., p. 584) and included the following five species: Oestrus bovis. Oestrus tarandi. Oestrus nasalis. Oestrus haemorrhoidalis. Oestrus ovis. ROD A The first species, bovis, was composite, as the original description described the adult which is now known as Gasterophilus intestinalis de Geer, while the larva and habits were those common to the species now known as Hypoderma bovis. None of the species was designated as type by the original describer. In 1810 (Consid. Générales, p. 444) Latreille named as type of Oestrus, “ Oestrus equi Fabr.,” 1787. In 1818 (Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. nat., vol. 23, pp. 271-274) Latreille proposed four genera, removing four of the species originally included in the genus Oestrus. The first species, bovis, as applied to the larva, was referred to Hypoderma; the second species, tarandi, was made the type of Oedemagena; the third species, nasalis, was not mentioned by name, but trompe Fabr., which is the same as nasalis, was made the type of the genus Cephenemyia; and the fifth species, ovis, was made the type of the genus Cephalemyia. In this work Latreille re- stricted the genus Oestrus to equi Fabr. and haemorrhoidalis, the fourth species, 404 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Apparently writers have not followed Latreille, and in 1826 Curtis (Brit. Ent., vol. 3, p. 106) designated in a very definite manner, by the use of the words “type of the genus,” Oestrus ovis as the type of Oestrus. Since 1826 dipterologists have generally followed Curtis’ designation and have considered the nasal bots of sheep as belonging to the genus Oestrus, the warble flies of cattle and goats as belonging to the genus Hypoderma, and the horse bot flies as belonging to the genus Gasterophilus, a genus proposed by Leach in 1817. However, in recent years some workers have considered that Latreille’s designation of 1810 made it necessary to use the name Oesitrus for the horse bots and have resurrected the name Cephalemyia for the nasal bots of sheep. This committee has examined into the literature and finds that Clark was not the first author to propose the name equi. The name equi was first proposed by Fabricius in 1787 (Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 2, p. 321) as follows: “4. QO. alis immaculatis, thorace ferrugineo, abdomine nigro: pilis flauis. a. Oestrus nasalis Sp. Ins. 2. 399. 4. b. Oestrus haemorrhoidalis Sp. Ins. 2. 390. 5. a. et b. merae varietates nullo modo specie sed tantum loco diversae.” This same description and understanding of equi was used by Fabricius in Entomologia Systematica, vol. 4, 1794, p. 232. Clark in 1797 (Trans. Linn. Soc.,,vol. 3, pp. 289-328) considers Oestrus equi Fabr. of the Syst. Ent. to be the same as Oesirus veterinus, and Oestrus equi var. b. as a synonym of Oestrus haemorrhoidalis; and very definitely points out that Oestrus bovis Linn. is a composite species, the adult described being a species which is a common horse bot and for which he uses the name equi, and the larva and habits being those of the common warble flies, for which he uses the name bovis. Dipterists have apparently followed Clark’s usage and many of them have credited the name equi to Clark rather than to Fabricius. It would seem, however, that this is untenable, and that the name equi Clark must be con- sidered as a homonym and the species commonly known as equt should have a different name. The name intestinalis de Geer is available. Oestrus intesti- nalis de Geer was described from the immature stages, but recently has been accepted by certain workers as the proper name for equt. Students who have claimed that Latreille in 1810 designated the type of Oestrus have undoubtedly been in error, because the name equt was not in- cluded in the original account of the genus either as a name of a valid species or as one of the components of a composite species. From the information available—namely, that which has been presented by Dr. Patton and the litera- ture which has been examined—the committee is of the opinion that the first valid designation for the type of the genus Oestrus is that of Curtis in 1826, when he named Oestrus ovis as the type. Even admitting that the species equi Fabr., designated type of Oestrus by Latreille, 1810, was originally included within the genus by Linnaeus—and this can be done only because Fabricius’ equi is a new name for nasalis and haemor- rhoidalis—the designation by Latreille would not hold, for the equi he cited is a composite of two of the forms originally included and the designation is equivalent to citing two of the originally included species as type. Since only one of the species originally included can be selected as type, regardless of sub- jective synonymy, the 1810 designation of Latreille does not hold. OPINION 106 405 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 7 According to our findings it is not necessary to set aside any of the Rules or Opinions of the International Commission or to suspend the Law of Priority. Summarizing briefly the findings, we have the following: Oesirus Linn., 1758, type ovis by designation of Curtis, 1826. (Westwood, 1840 [Intr. Mod. Class. Ins., vol. 2, p. 154] did not concur but desig- nated Oestrus bovis Fabr. as type. This selection is untenable, as Curtis’ has priority.) Syn. Cephalemyia Latr., 1818, type ovis (Monobasic-Isogenotypic). (West- wood, 1840, also uses ovis as type of Cephalemyia.) Gasterophilus Leach, 1818,* proposed for three species, equi Clark, haemor- rhoidalis Linn., and clarku n. sp. Equi was designated as the type by _ Curtis, 1826 (p. 146). (Westwood, 1840, used the same species as type.) Hypoderma Latr., 1818, type bovis Linn. as restricted by Clark. Cephenemyia Latr., 1818, type (Oestrus trompe Fabr.=) O. nasalis Linn. (Monobasic). Oedemagena Latr., 1818, type tarandi L. (Monobasic). It is recommended that the foregoing five generic names, with types as desig- nated, be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion written by S. A. Rohwer. Concurred in by Drs. J. M. Aldrich, E. A. Chapin, A. C. Baker and Carl Heinrich. DISCUSSION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary has reverified Linn. (1758), and Latr. (1810 and 1818) which are the most important papers involving the type designations of Oestrus prior to Curtis (1826). He reaches the same conclusion in regard to the invalidity of the designation by Latreille. ; On basis of the study by Rohwer and his colleagues, te Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its opinion the following: 1. The type of Oestrus Linn., 1758a, 584, is Oestrus ovis, as defi- nitely designated (Art. 30g) by Curtis, 1826. 2. Latreille’s (1810) designation of Oestrus equi as type is not valid, as this (equi) contained two of the original species, hence was not designation of one original species as type. Further the Secretary recommends the adoption of the proposal by Rohwer and his colleagues that the following five names be placed in the Official List of Generic Names: Cephenemyia Latr., 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. 23, 271, mt. trompe Fabr., syn. of Oestrus nasalis Linn., 1758a. *The usual reference to this genus is 1817. Although the paper in which the generic name was proposed was read before the Wernerian Natural History Society on April 6, 1811, it was published in volume 2 of the Memoirs of this society, which is dated 1818, and we cannot find any indication in the volume itself to prove that it was published in 1817. It is certain that Leach’s paper was published prior to Latreille’s because Latreille in his 1818 paper refers to Gasterophilus Leach. 406 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 74 Gasterophilus Leach, 1817, Brewster’s Edin. Encycl., vol. 12 (1), 162; tsd. (1826; 1840; I910; 1915) equi of Clark, 1797 [not Fabr., 1787] syn. of intestinalis de Geer, 1776. Hypoderma Latr., 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. 23, Sept., 272, mt. bovis [not Hypoderma Geoffr., 1828, Dict. Class. Hist. nat., vol. 14, Sept. or Oct., 707, mammal]. Oecdemagena Latr., 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. 23, 272, mt. Oestrus tarandi Linn., 1758a. Oestrus Linn., 1758a, 584; tsd. (1826; 1910; 1915) ovis. Absolute syn. is Cephalemyia Latr., 1818, mt. ovis. Opinion prepared by Dr. Rohwer and colleagues. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Loennberg, Neveu- Lemaire, Stejneger. OPINION 107 407 No. 6 OPINIONS I05 TO I14 9 OPINION 107 Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus minutus SUMMARY.—tThe case of Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus minutus - is subject to two diametrically opposed interpretations. On basis of the prin- ciple that a name in current use is not to be supplanted by an earlier but tarely adopted or an unadopted name unless the argument is unambiguous and unless the premises are not subject to difference of opinion, the Commis- sion, because of the somewhat uncertain status of minutus, is of the Opinion that pusillus 1776 should not be suppressed by minutus 1774. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by Dr. Th. Mortensen, Copenhagen, for Opinion: The name pusillus dates from 1776, when O. Fr. Miller [1776a] in his “ Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus,” p. 236, established the species Spatagus pusil- lus. The diagnosis “ovaiis, ambulacris quinis, ano remoto,” although short, is sufficient for distinguishing the species from the two other Spatagus-species there described, and the species was later on excellently figured on Plate g1 of the “ Zoologia Danica,” so that there is not the slightest doubt about which species is meant by the “ Spatagus pusillus” of the “ Prodromus.” In 1778 the name Echinocyamus angulosus was given to the same species by N. G. Leske, in his “Additamenta ad Jac. Th. Kleinii Naturalem dispositionem Echinodermatum,” p. 151. But, of course, the name pusillus has priority. As a matter of fact, this common European species has almost universally been designated as Echinocyamus pusillus (O. Fr. Miuller)—until in 1914 H. L. Clark, in the work “ Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini. The Clypeastridae, Arachnoididae, Laganidae, Fibulariidae and Scutellidae” (Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 46 (1), p. 61), designated it as Echinocyamus minutus, reviving the name Echinus minutus from P. S. Pallas (1774) Spicilegia Zoologica, Fasc. 10, stating: “When Pallas’ description of his Echinus minutus is carefully exam- ined in connection with his fig. 25, pl. 1, and due consideration is given to his remarks about habitat and occurrence, it is almost impossible to doubt that his name was given to the fibulariid which O. F. Miller two years later called Spatagus pusillus. Although Echinocyamus pusillus is the name used in the Revision and other later publications, I am therefore obliged to replace it with Echinocyamus minutus (Pallas).” In my paper “ Notes on some Scandinavian Echinoderms, with Descriptions of Two New Ophiurids” (Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturhist. Foren., Bd. 72, 1920, p. 69) I objected to this: “On examining Pallas’ description of this ‘Echinus minutus’” it is, however, easily seen that he does not name any Echinus minutus at all. He writes:* “In Tabula I hujus fasciculi sub figura 24 & 25 Echinos minutos adjeci, de quibus hic verbulo,” ® which means “I have added some small sea-urchins.” Nowhere does he name a species “ Echinus minutus”; if he had so named a species he would not have omitted a reference *P. S. Pallas, Spicilegia Zoologica, Fasc. 10, 1774 (p. 34). *In the quotation erroneously “ verbiculus.” 408 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Io SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 to it in the index at the end of the fascicle, where all the species described are very carefully cited; but the name is not found there. Thus the name pusillus, published in 1776, undoubtedly has priority, even under the strictest interpre- tation of the priority rule. The fact that Gmelin* in [1790] 1788 and Blain- ville? in 1834 made the same interpretation as Clark (1914) does not alter thi fact that there is no “ Echinus minutus Pallas.” Furthermore it is beyond doubt that, even if Pallas had really meant to give the scientific name Echinus minutus to these smiall sea-urchins, this name could not rightly have been used for Echinocyamus pusillus. There is no doubt that his figure 25 really represents this species, as becomes quite evident from his statement “Abundat hic autem inter minuta testacea arenae Belgicae”; there is no other echinoid occurring on the Belgian coasts with which it could be con- founded, and I personally have collected a number of specimens on the sandy beach near Ostend. But Pallas refers to two different forms with his “ Echinos minutos”; the first of them, fig. 24, “priore icone expressus subglobosus ex Orientali India crebro adfertur’”’; this species is beyond’ doubt a Fibularia, and if there had really been an “ Echinus minutus Pallas” the name would then have to be applied to this East Indian form, not to the second form referred to by Pallas, that from the Belgian coast.” In his “ Catalogue of the Recent Sea-Urchins (Echinoidea) in the Collection of the British Museum,” 1925, p. 167, H. L. Clark again accepts “ minutus” of Pallas [1774, 34] as the proper name of the species in question, stating: “I think that Pallas certainly named the small sea-urchins that he figured, Echinus minutus; this is clearly shown by the type in which the words are printed. That he used the accusative plural instead of the nominative singular is not impor- tant, for all through the fascicle he varied case and number of his scientific names to suit the sense. The omission of the name from the index is natural, as the index includes only the names used for headings of sections, paragraphs, etc. printed in big type, and Echinus minutus was not so used. Finally, if Echinus minutus is not the name of the objects shown in figs. 24 and 25 of Pallas’s plate 1, then there is no name given at all, and this not only does vio- lence to the context, but is unique in the fascicle. “ Mortensen goes on to say that even if Pallas did create the name Echinus minutus, it should be used for the Fibularia that Pallas also figures under his ‘Echinos minutos.’ But again Dr. Mortensen’s reasoning seems to me erro- neous. Pallas included at least two species in his Echinus minutus, but Gmelin (1788, Syst. Nat. Linn., Ed. 13, p. 3194) very clearly restricted the name to the form common on the coast of Belgium.” While it must be conceded that Gmelin did restrict the name Echinus minutus to the form common on the coast of Belgium (= the only European species of the genus Echinocyamus), it still seems clear to me that Pallas did not mean to name any species Echinus minutus. True he gives some names in the accusa- tive singular—but these are definitely designated as names, viz., p. 33,“ Buccinum quod Geuersianum appellabo” and “quod Helicem Lyonetianum ... . appel- lare liceat,’ and they are found in the Index. But he does not thus designate his “ Echinos minutos” as a name, and it is not found in the Index as are all the true names in his work. * Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, cura Gmelin, 1788, p. 3104. [Definitely admits and cites “ Echinus minutus” as a species.] * 1H. de Blainville, Manuel d’Actinologie, 1834, p. 214. [Follows Gmelin.]. OPINION 107 409 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 II Other names with certainty referring to the same European species are: Echinus pulvinulus Pennant (British Zoology, 1812 [, 140]) (not in the I. Ed., 1777). Fibularia tarentina Lamarck, 1816 [b, 17], Echinocyamus minimus Girard, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., 1850, [367,] Echinocyamus parthenopaeus Costa and Echinocyamus speciosus Costa (Monogr. degli Echinociami viventi e fossili nelle Province Napolitane, Mem. Atti r. Accad. Sci. Fis. e Matem. Napoli III, [14,] 1869). None of these, of course, comes into consideration ; neither can the name angulosus of Leske be used, as this is later than the name pusillus. The question reduces itself to this: Must the species be named pusillus, the name under which the species is first duly described and—excel- lently—figured, and under which the species has been universally known for more than half a century, or should we reject this name for minutus of Pallas, almost certainly not meant by this author as a name, very poorly described, exceedingly poorly figured, and only from the locality given recognizable as referring partly to the European species of Echinocyamus? Discussion.—The Secretary has verified the reference to Pallas, 1774, which is the most important reference involved in this case. He has also reverified certain of the other references which form im- portant premises. The article by Pallas is written in Latin and, as frequently happens in such circumstances, a confusion can easily arise by interpreting as binomials a purely descriptive combination of words consisting of a noun and an adjective or by interpreting a binomial as descriptive rather than as a taxonomic name. A case in point is Pallas, 1772, fasc. 9, page 83; “ Cancrum caninum” is obviously a translation of Hondskrabbe, but it might easily be erroneously inter- preted as a specific binominal used possibly in some earlier publica- tion. The fact that ‘ Echinos minutos” is printed in the plural does not seem to be decisive as respects the point at issue, for on page 35 Botryllus stellatus* (in singular) is given also as “ Botrylli stellati ” (in plural). ECHINOS is printed in small caps while minutos is given in italics. This does not appear to give a definite clue; on page 33 the same editorial method is used for BUCcINUM (small caps) and monodon (italics) which is apparently a specific name and is given in the Index. In the interpretation by the Secretary the case at hand is one in which there can be a legitimate difference of opinion, and in regard to which either of the proposed interpretations appears reasonable. The omission of the name from the Index might easily be a purely editorial oversight. While inclining to the interpretation advanced by Mortensen, the Secretary would not be willing to argue very strongly against that advanced by Clark. Under the circumstances three courses appear to be open: (1) to decide the case by majority vote based upon rather fine distinctions and from the Secretary’s point 410 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 of view interpretations which are debatable; (2) to follow historical method and to accept on the principle of priority the interpretation made by the first author who quotes this passage; (3) to decide the case on basis of a general principle that in case of doubt it is best ‘to accept the interpretation which will upset as little as possible cur- rent nomenclature. The Secretary recommends that the Commission give as its Opinion one in harmony with this third method as applied to this par- ticular case. On basis of the premises presented to the Commission the Opinion would fall in favor of pusillus. Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: SumMMary.—The case of Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus minutus is subject to two diametrically opposed interpretations. On basis of the principle that a name in current use is not to be sup- planted by an earlier but rarely adopted or an unadopted name unless the argument is unambiguous and unless the premises are not subject to difference of opinion, the Commission, because of the somewhat uncertain status of minutus, is of the Opinion that pusillus 1776 should not be suppressed by minutus 1774. The foregoing Opinion was submitted to Commissioner Bather for a special study and he has reported as follows: The question put by Dr. Mortensen may be resolved into (A) a question of interpretation and (B) a question of expediency. A. Interpretation of the phrase “ECHINOS minutos.’ Two inter- pretations are possible. 1. That Pallas intended to establish a specific name “ Echinus minutus.” ; 2. That Pallas was merely referring to some which he did not name. Interpretation 1. The arguments in favor of this are: a. That the words are printed in small capitals for ECHINOS and italics for minutos. b. That if this be not a name, then the objects depicted in Pallas, plate I, figs. 24, 25, are the only objects in the fascicle left without a name. c. That Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat. Linn., Ed. 13, p. 3194, definitely accepts Echinus minutus as a species, citing Pallas (loc. cit.) [N. B. The date of Gmelin tom. et pag. cit. is 1790]. ¢ “small echini,” OPINION 107 411 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 13 d. That de Blainville, 1834, Manuel d’Actinol., p. 214, follows Gmelin. [Referring to a wrong page (86) : strictly speak- ing he merely quotes Gmelin as well as Miller, Zool. Dan. ; the name de Blainville uses is Echinocyame mignon. | Interpretation 2. The arguments in favor of this are: a. All species indubitably named are indexed at the end of the fascicle—E. minutus is not. b. When Pallas does name a species, he leaves no room for doubt, but introduces the name by some such phrase as “quod ... . appellabo.” c. Gmelin may have made a mistake, and except for de Blain- ville (who does not give a correct page) the general opin- ion of zoologists has been that he did so. Comments on the above arguments: I. a. There is considerable variety of type used in this Chapter. Other names of genera under which new species are pro- posed are in full capitals. Italics are used frequently for emphasis or distinction, as in this very paragraph. 1. b. This argument seems to be cancelled by 2. a. But it does not seem to be a good argument in itself, for Pallas is clearly, as he states, throwing these two little specimens in at the last moment, squeezing them in at the bottom of a plate, out of order, and jotting down what he calls a “ verbulo.” I. c. Gmelin takes minutos, but Sherborn (Index Anim.) who put in every name he could, and who had Gmelin’s refer- ence does not cite Pallas as the authority. Sherborn aside, this argument seems balanced by 2. c. This leaves only argument 2. b. and that certainly is in itself more weighty than any of the others. It may be added that the word minutus is used twice again on the same page merely to signify small: ‘“ Zoophyta quaedam minuta ” is the very next sentence. Surely Pallas would not have taken so banal a word for a specific name. Additional argument in favor of Interpretation 2: Both Mortensen - and Clark point out that the specimens figured by Pallas represent two species, but they do not draw the obvious inference. The words of Pallas show that he was aware of this fact ; and part of his “ verbulo ” is taken up with showing the difference of form, and by the word “autem” he emphasizes also the difference of locality. Had Pallas been going to give a name at all he would have named both. 412 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 On the question of interpretation, it seems that the arguments against “ Echinos minutos” being a name, if not absolutely decisive, are more numerous and more weighty. B. Expediency. 1. In favor of adopting E. minutus, the argument is: a. That it has been used by Dr. H. L. Clark in his larger Memoir on Hawaiian Echini (Mem. Mus. Harvard) and in a British Museum Catalogue. 2. Against E. minutus the argument is: a. The otherwise universal usage of zoologists since O. F. Miiller, 1776. b. The other historical data submitted are irrelevant. CoMMENT AND CONCLUSION There is no room for doubt that, if the question is to be decided on grounds of expediency by Suspension of the Rules, the vote should go in favor of pusillus. I therefore beg to report in favor of the third course recommended by the Secretary. Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Com*aissioner. Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Dabbene, Neveu-Lemaire. OPINION 107 413 NO. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 15 OPINION 108 SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Gagella 1816 SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Gazella Blainville, 1816, type species Capra dorcas Linn., 1758a, is adopted in preference to Oryx, and is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 90, p. 36. Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood sixteen (16) in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Gagzella, and two (2) against this action. In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of Commissioner Loennberg representing the affirmative, Commissioner Dabbene the negative, and Ex-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as third member of the Committee. : The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; all three (3) votes are in the affirmative, a unanimous vote has been obtained, Suspension is therefore authorized, and Gazella is to be recognized in preference to Oryx. The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the re- sult, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Gazella Blainville, 1816, type Capra dorcas Linn., is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 414 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 109 SUSPENSION OF RULES For Hippotragus 1846 SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules (if need be), Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846, type species Antilope leucophaea Pallas, 1766, is adopted in preference to Egocerus Desmarest, 1822, and Ozanna Reichenbach, 1845, (not Aegoceros Pallas, 1811) and is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names, STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 99, p. 36. Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood fourteen (14) in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Hz pore and four (4) against this action. In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of Commissioner D. S. Jordan representing the negative, Commissioner Loennberg the affirmative, and Ex-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as third member of the Committee. The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; two (2) of them are in favor of Suspension of the Rules if necessary to vali- date Hippotragus; the third vote upholds Egocerus, but this last vote is accompanied by a statement that if this vote is the only negative vote, the member of the Committee is willing to change his vote to — make it unanimous. A majority and subsequently a unanimous vote having been obtained in this case, Hippotragus is to be recognized in preference to either Egocerus or Ozanna. The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the result, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Hippotragus Sunde- vall, 1846, type Antilope leucophaea Pallas, 1766, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. OPINIONS 109 AND 110 415 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 17 OPINION 110 SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Lagidiwm 1833 SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Lagidium Meyen, 1833, type species Lagidium peruanum Meyen, is adopted in preference to Viscaccia Oken, 1816, genotype “Lepus chilensis Molina,” and is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 99, p. 36. Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood sixteen (16) in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Lagidium, and two (2) against this action. In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of Commissioner Apstein representing the affirmative, Commissioner Dabbene the negative, and Ex-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as third member of the Committee. The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; all three (3) votes are in the affirmative, a unanimous vote has been obtained, Suspension is therefore authorized, and Lagidium is to be recognized in preference to Viscaccia. The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the result, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Lagidium Meyen, 1833, type Lagidium peruanum Meyen, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 416 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 111 SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Nycteris 1795 SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Nycteris Cuvier & Geoffroy, 1795, type species Vespertilio hispidus Schreber, 1774, is adopted in prefer- ence to Petalia Gray, 1838, genotype Nycteris javanica Geoffroy, and is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 90, p. 36. Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood sixteen (16) in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Nycteris, and two (2) against this action. In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of Commissioner Hartert representing the affirmative, Commissioner Dabbene the negative, and Ex-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as third member of the Committee. The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; all three (3) votes are in the affirmative, a unanimous vote has been obtained, Suspension is therefore authorized, and Nycteris is to be recognized in preference to Petaha. The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the re- sult, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Nycteris Cuvier & Geoffroy, 1795, type species Vespertilio hispidus Schreber, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. OPINIONS 111 AND 112 417 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 19 OPINION 112 SUSPENSION DECLINED FoR Manatus 1772 vs. Trichechus 1758 SUMMARY.—Suspension of the Rules is declined for Manaius Briinnich, 1772, type species Trichechus manatus Linn., 1758a, type locality West Indies, vs. Trichechus Linn., 1758a, monotype 7. manatus; accordingly, the name Trichechus is to be used for the manatee instead of for the walrus. Trichechus Linn., 1758a, type T. manatus is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 90, p. 36. Discusston.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood thirteen (13) in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Manatus, and five (5) against this action. In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of Commissioner K. Jordan representing the affirmative, Commissioner Stejneger the negative, and Ex-Commissioner Osborn as third mem- ber of the Committee. The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; two (2) of them uphold Trichechus, the third vote is in favor of Suspension of the Rules to validate Manatus. A majority vote has been obtained, Suspension is declined, and Trichechus is to be recognized in pre- ference to Manatus. The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the re- sult, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Trichechus Linn., 1758a, type T. manatus, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 418 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 113 Sarcoptes LATREILLE, 1802, TYPE scabiet, PLACED IN OFFICIAL LIST SUMMARY.—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 is invalid under Arti- cle 30c and 30ea. 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. scabici is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—This case has been presented to the Com- mission in correspondence and verbally by several persons. The docu- ments are too extensive to be reprinted here in full but they may be summarized briefly as follows: A. Oudemans maintains that the pre-Linnaean history of the generic name Acarus and of the specific name siro clearly shows that these two names were used for the itch mite of man. In a very learned discussion he traces this use of the word Acarus to the following dates: 1557, 1567, 1577, 1622, 1630, 1634, 1641, 1650, 1657, 1658, 1660, 1663, 1664, 1667, 1671, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1680, 1686, 1689, 1691, 1692, 1696, 1699, 1700, 1703, 1708, 1722, 1724, 1733, 1735, 1739, 1740, 1756; and this use of the word siro to the following dates: 1513, 1516, 1570, 1602, 1607, 1608, 1619, 1631, 1641, 1650, 1652, 1656, 1660, 1661, 1670, 1676, 1679, 1680, 1682, 1686, 1687, 1680, 1691, 1695, 1697, 1690, 1701, 1703, 1708, 1709, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1722, 1723, 1724, 1729, 1731, 1733, 1735, 1736, 1740, 1741, 1751, 1753, 1754, 1756. Oudemans’ position is that Linnaeus chose the generic name Acarus because this had become classic and that the species present to his mind was the itch mite; further that Acarus siro permitted him to avoid tautonymy, and to his mind Acarus siro was consequently and basically the itch mite, and this species, therefore, he (Oudemans) definitely takes as type species of Acarus. B. Vitzthum (1927, Zool. Anz., v. 72 (3-4), June,20, pp. 115-126) reviews the literature from 1758 to 1927 and arguing on basis of the International Rules he concludes that Acarus siro in the sense of the itch mite is the type species of Acarus and that Acarus passerinus is the type species of Sarcoptes. C. Several authors date Sarcoptes as 1804 or 1806; if this date be accepted the designation of passerinus as type species of Sarcoptes by Latreille, 1810a, p. 425, is valid, and will result in a considerable amount of confusion in nomen- clature of generic, subfamily, and family names in zoology, and in considerable confusion in terminology in human and veterinary medicine and pathology. Under this premise the question of a Suspension of Rules comes up for con- sideration. OPINION 113 419 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 Al D. Some authors point out that the earliest publication of the generic name Sarcoptes was by Latreille, 1802, and that at this date the name was monotypic, since only Acarus scabiei was mentioned in, connection with it. The Commission is requested to review the premises and to render an Opinion. Discussion.—This case is, in some respects, much more complicated than at first it appears. To understand it, one must start with Lin- naeus, 1758a. The case involves the names Acarus 1758, Siro 1759, 1795, 1796, 1802, Sarcoptes 1802, Glyciphagus 1838, Eusarcoptes 1888, and Analges 1818. Linnaeus, 1758a, 615-618, used Acarus as generic name for 31 species ; of these, the following are of special importance in this case: No. 10. A. passerinus. Habitat in Passeribus variis. No. 15. A. siro, which he divided under two headings in quoting earlier lit- erature, namely, farinae and scabiei. “ Habitat in Farina Europae, Americae. Inter Sirones farinae, scabiei, dysenteriae, hemitritaei, non reperi alias differ- entias, quam a loco petitas. Amoen. acad. 3. p. 333.” No. 16. A. exulcerans. Habitat in Scabie ferina. According to the Linnaean rule, Article 30h, the following most conimon and medicinal species come into special consideration as possible genotype: . aegyptius; tsd. of Hyalomma 1844; . reduvius; syn. of (6) ricinus; . americanus; now in Amblyomma 1844; . ricinus; tsd. (1810) of Ixodes 1796; . siro; later restricted to farinae by Latreille: farinae ; habitat in Farina, Europe (tpd.) and America; scabiet; on Homo, type host, Europe (tpd.); mt. of Sarcoptes 1802; tsd. of Acarus by Oudemans; 16. A. exulcerans; habitat in Scabie ferina. ARwh D&A A A - oes Of these 6 Linnaean species, A. siro in the sense of scabiei could best have been chosen as type. Kniphof (1759, De Pediculus inguinalibus insectis et vermibus homini molestis, pp. 20-26) cites § XXI Acarus, with a number of subheadings “ Acari capitis,” “ Acari scabiei,” etc., which Sherborn (1902a Index) does not cite as specific combinations as of 1759, and the Secretary inclines to agree with him. On page 20, Kniphof cites “Cyro, Siro,’ and on p. 52, he cites “ Sirones.”’ Sherborn (1902a, go0g) accepts Siro from p. 52, as of generic status but the reason is not clear to the Secretary, and on this account he (the Secretary) accepts this Siro as dating from Sherborn, 1902a, 909, instead of from Kniphof, 1759, 52. Linné (1758a, 617) also cited Sitrones but ap- parently not as a generic name. 420 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Latreille, 1795 (Mag. encycl., v. 4, p. 7) and 1796a (Précis) pub- lished two papers in which he cited single species as examples for var- ious acarine genera, and these’ examples are interpreted by some authors as definite designations of type species for the genera in question. For the generic names which are new in these two papers this in- terpretation is undoubtedly correct, for these particular genera are monotypic by original publication. But for those generic names which are old—namely, published prior to these two papers—citation of the species is not made in such a way that they can be interpreted as types under the following provision of Article 30g: “ The meaning of the expression ‘ select the type’ is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not con- stitute a selection of a type.” Accordingly, for the older genera these citations are to be interpreted as examples, not as type species. With this conclusion in mind some of the existing confusion can be cleared. _ Sarcoptes Latreille, 1802b, Hist. nat. d’Ins., v. 3, 67, was first pub- lished as monotypic, namely mt. Acarus scabiei. Article 30c. In the same publication Latreille (1802b) cites (p. 64) Acarus example A. siro syn. Tyroglyphus 1796, mt. Acarus siro and (p. 62) Siro Latreille, 1795, 19, with Siro rubens Latreille; as rubens is the first and only species mentioned with the generic name Siro it be- comes automatically the type of Siro. See Art. 30g and Opinion 46. This publication of 1802 definitely fixes the type species of Sarcoptes. The type species of Acarus was first definitely designated by Latreille, 1810a, p. 425, when he cited as type Acarus siro from which scabiet was eliminated, thus leaving siro in the sense of farinae. The question at issue can be closed with the works of Latreille, 1802 and 1810, but for a clearer understanding of the various com- plications which have arisen the following table of historical data is given herewith. Acarus Linn., 1758a, 344, 615, with 31 species, including siro (with 2 varieties, farinae [tsd.] and scabiei [eliminated]). [Objective syn. Tyroglyphus Latr., 1802, mt. siro (i.e., farinae).] 1795: Acarus coleoptratus Linn., 1758a, 616, no. 13, cited as example (not as type) by Latreille, 1795, Mag. encycl., v. 4, 19. [CE. Notaspis Herm., 1804]. Some authors have construed this as type designation. 1796: Acarus geniculatus Linn., 1758a, 617, no. 17, cited as example (not as type) by Latreille, 1796a, 184. Some authors have construed this as type designation. [1796: siro [not scabiei] mt. of Tyroglyphus by Latreille, 1796a, 185.] OPINION 113 421 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 23 1802: Acarus siro Linn., 1758a, p. 616, no. 15, cited as example (not as type) by Latreille, 1802b, 64, with Tyroglyphus 1796 as syn. In 1796 this was mt. of Tyroglyphus [cf. farinae 1758]; scabiei eliminated to Sarcoptes as mt. Some authors have construed this as type designation. 1810: Acarus siro Fabr. definitely designated type by Latreille, 1810a, 425. [The variety scabiei had been eliminated to Sarcoptes, leaving farinae as type of siro.] 1826: Acarus siro [not including scabiei] Linn., definitely designated type by Heyden, 1826, Isis, 611. 1834: Acarus domesticus de Geer, 1778, definite but erroneous designation by Dugeés, 1834. Not an original (1758) species, hence pseudotype, etc. Cf. Glyciphagus. 1877: Acarus domesticus cited as Ist species (not as definite type designation) by Canestrini and Fanzago, 1877, 196, Atti r. Inst. Ven. Sci. Lett. Art., v. 4. 1926: tsd. Acarus siro (= scabiet) definitely designated type by Oudemans, in various articles and letters. 1927: type siro 1758 (syn. scabiei) by Vitzthum, 1927, Zool. Anz., v. 72, 115-126. Thus, under the Rules, Acarus supplants Tyroglyphus, unless the Rules be suspended by suppressing Acarus entirely on utilitarian grounds. Sarcoptes Latr., 1802b, 67, mt. scabiet. 1802: Acarus scabiei Linn., 1758a, 616, no. 15 var., only species cited for Sarcoptes. [1808: nidulans classified by Nitzsch, 1808, E. and G. Encycl., v. 1, p. 251, as a Sarcoptes.] 1810: etd. passerinus Linn., 1758a, 616, no. 10 (not an original, 1802, species), definitely designated type by Latr., 1810a, 425. [Transferred to Analges by Nitzsch, 1818.] 1826: etd. nidulans Nitzsch (not an original, 1802, species) definitely desig- nated type by Heyden, 1826, 611. 1861: emended to Sarcoptus Mog.-Tand., 1861a, 307. 1888: subg. Eusarcoptes Rail., 1888, tsd. (1927) scabiet by Stiles and Hassall, 1927, 263. 1892: emended to Sarcopta Anacker, 1892b, 61. ——: emended to Sarkoptes by various German authors. 1903: siro assumed to be type by absolute tautonymy of Siro Latr., 1795, by Michael, 1903, 102, and syn. of scabiet. See, however, Siro rubens in Latr., 1802b. 1915: scabiei accepted as type by Apstein, 1g15a. 1927: scabiei accepted as mt. of Sarcoptes by Stiles and Hassall, 1927, p. 263. 1927: passerinus accepted as type by Vitzthum, 1927, Zool. Anz., v. 72, 125. In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: 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 is invalid under Article 30c and 30ea. The acceptance of Acarus scabiet 422 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 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 in the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Dabbene, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D.S.), Jordan (K), Kolbe, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire. OPINION 114 423 No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 25 OPINION 114 UNDER SUSPENSION Simia, Simia satyrus AND Pithecus ARE SUPPRESSED SUMMARyY.—Under Suspension of the Rules the names Simia, Simia satyrus, and Pithecus are hereby suppressed on the ground that their retention under the Rules will produce greater confusion than uniformity. STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 90, p. 38; and The Nomen- clature for Man, the Chimpanzee, the Orang-Utan, and the Barbary Ape < Bul. 145, Hyg. Lab., U. S. Pub. Health Service, Wash., 1927, pp. 1-66, figs. 1-16. Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood ten (10) in favor of, and eight (8) against, suspending the Rules in order to validate Simia, type S. satyrus, for the Orang-Utan; and nine (9) to nine (9) on the proposition to suspend the Rules in order to validate Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838, type Simia troglodytes Gmelin, 1788, for the chimpanzee. According to the premises of the proposals which failed of acceptance, the specific name satyrus Linn., 1758, would have to be applied to the chimpanzee, while the application of Simia remained in doubt; according to the appellants, Simia would supplant Macaca (type sylvanus), but according to some authors Simia would become the generic name of the chimpanzee in place of Pan. The complicated nomenclatorial situation was studied in consider- able detail by Stiles and Orleman (1927) who invited attention to the potential danger which might arise in medical and public health work because of continued confusion, and they expressed the view that the nomenclatorial situation in regard to Simia, S. satyrus, and Pithecus, was so hopeless that the most practical solution of the problem was to be found in a total suppression of these three names. The data shown in the bulletin (no. 145) are made part of the premises of this Opinion 114. On motion, the Commission voted (12 to 2) to reopen the case of Simia in order to examine the detailed facts to be presented. At the Budapest (1926) meeting of the Commission, Commissioner Apstein was appointed a committee of one to consider the case and to report his recommendations to the Commission. His report was discussed at length by the Commission which unanimously adopted two resolutions, namely : 424 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 (1) That the names Simia, S. satyrus, and Pithecus, be entirely suppressed under Suspension of the Rules; and (2) That except as already provided in the foregoing (Ist resolu- tion), the Law of Priority be enforced. Voting in favor of these two resolutions were: Apstein, Bather, Hartert, Jordan (K.), Muesebeck, Stejneger, and Stiles. Voting negatively, none. Not voting, Howard, and all absent Commissioners. The resolutions in question were reported to the absent Commis- sioners in Circular Letter No. 128, and affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), and Stone; no nega- tive vote was received; thus the final vote is ten (10) to none (0). The vote returned by Commissioner Loennberg referred to the original Opinion go, not to the motion before the Commission. No vote on the resolutions has been returned by nine (9) Commis- sioners who had an opportunity to vote: Chapman, Dabbene, Hand- lirsch, Ishikawa, Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli (deceased), Neveu- Lemaire, Warren. Circular Letter No. 128 was held open fourteen (14) months for vote, and was finally closed February 12, 1929. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 73, NUMBER 7 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 115 TO 123 Ady (PUBLICATION 3072) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION JANUARY 10, 1931 ‘ ; ‘ sip ; : hy: ‘ ree Be eH The Bord Galtimore Press j j 4 BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. wa ey ' MOTE TRAL WAIN TRA Bier \ ae a i TRAM AG oe wt vi oat ar OPINION 115 427 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 115 TO 123 OPINION 115 Stratus oF Leucochilus SUMMARY .—The Commission herewith suppresses Leucochilus von Martens, 1881, in favor of Leucochila von Martens, 1860, type Pupa fallax Say. Any other course would involve risk of lasting and constant confusion in two rather closely allied genera. STATEMENT OF CASE——Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, has presented the following case for opinion: Leucochila was proposed by von Martens (Die Heliceen, 1860, p. 296, ‘“‘ Typus Pupa fallax Say”) for two series of species (now ranked as two genera): a, which we may call the series of Pupa fallax, and b, that of Pupa armifera. In 1881 (in von Martens’ Conchologische Mittheilungen, p. 64) Dr. O. Boett- ger proposed to relegate the group of Pupa fallax to the prior genus Buliminus, and to retain the name Leucochilus for the relationship of Pupa armifera. At the same time, he cited Leucochila von Martens as equivalent to Leucochilus, as in the appended facsimile : “TI. Sect. Leucochilus m. “= Leucochila Albers-Martens, Heliceen II. Ausg. 1860, S. 296. “TIndem ich die ungezahnten Arten der Gruppe der P. fallax Say aus vor- benannter Section ausscheide und sie als Section zur Gattung Buliminus Ehrenb. verweise, halte ich die Benennung Leucochilus nur fiir die meist bleichgefarbten, stark bezahnten, mit kraftiger, geschwungener, haufig zweitheiliger Parietal- lamelle versehenen Formen der Verwandtschaft der P. armifera Say aufrecht.” OQ—Can Leucochilus stand for the Pupa armifera group? Or is it synonym of Leucochila? Or to be rejected as homonym of the prior Leucochila? Observations—Usage is divided. Several German authors have used Leuco- chilus in the sense of Boettger. All recent American authors who have dealt with the group have apparently thought that name unavailable, having used the later name Bifidaria Sterki for the group containing Pupa armifera. No type species has been designated for Leucochilus except as implied in the above extract. The name Bifidaria, for the same group, was properly defined and supplied with a type. As the group is chiefly American, and does not occur in the European fauna, no name for it can be said to be generally accepted in Europe, nearly all authors mentioning the species using von Martens’ nomenclature of 1860. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 7 428 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS bo SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Discussion.—The foregoing case includes two distinct questions. First, is Leucochilus, 1881, an objective synonym of Leucochila, 1860? And second, is Leucochilus, 1881, a homonym of Leucochila, 1860? First—According to the premises, Leucochila, 1860, has Pupa fallax as type by original designation and this type designation settles for all time the type of Leucochila.’ In 1881 Leucochilus is essentially a new generic name, and as Pupa fallax is expressly excluded by Boettger from membership in Leuco- chilus, it is clear that Leucochilus cannot have fallax as its type, and therefore that it is not an objective synonym of Leucochula. For Leucochilus, 1881, only one species was mentioned in the original publication, namely, Pupa armifera Say, and this is therefore type of Leucochilus by monotypy. If fallax and armifera are united in one genus, Leucochilus, 1881, becomes a subjective synonym of Leucochila, 1860. Accordingly, the first question is to be answered as follows: Leuco- chilus, 1881, is theoretically excluded from being an objective syno- nym of Leucochila, 1860, but theoretically it might be a subjective synonym. Second.—The second question, whether the existence of Leucochila precludes the use of Leucochilus, represents one of a series of cases which the Commission has discussed for more than 25 years, but upon which the Commission has never been able to reach a satisfactory agreement involving an Opinion that can be applied to all cases. The best the Commission has ever been able to do is expressed in the recommendation ef Article 36, which reads as follows: It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from generic names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in spelling which might lead to confusion. But when once introduced, such names are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: Picus, Pica; Polyodus, Polyodon, Polyodonta, Polyodontas, Polyodontus. In this unsatisfactory status of the results, all the Commission can expect to do is to build up a series of Opinions on special cases in the hope that these Opinions can some day be formulated into a principle. On one occasion a special subcommittee studied the question at issue and reported as follows: The Committee is of the opinion that the use of a word as a generic name in one gender does not necessarily preclude its use in a different gender for another genus, but it considers such use eminently undesirable. * Leucochila Albers in Von Martens, 1860, 296, tod. Pupa fallax Say— a—for fallax, modica, chordata, pacifica. b—pfellucida, ritsei, ccrticaria, ripicola, contracta, armifera. OPINION 115 429 NOl 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 (oe) In the case now before the Commission, it would appear from the premises that Leucochila and Leucochilus represent very closely allied groups. So closely allied, in fact, that the possible concurrent use of the two names might lead to serious confusion if both names were to become valid. If these two names belonged in widely different groups, for instance, in mammals and sponges, the chances for confusion would be very much reduced and another point of view might, perhaps, be entirely justified. The case represents, in fact, one very similar to Endamoeba and Entamoeba and on practical grounds it is in the interest of clarity that Leucochilus be definitely suppressed. Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: 1. Leucochilus, 1881, is theoretically excluded from being an objec- tive synonym of Leucochila, 1860, but it might be, theoretically a subjective synonym ; and 2. For the purpose of this Opinion, and on practical grounds (in order to prevent confusion), the Commission herewith considers Leucochilus, 1881, a homonym of Leucochila, 1860, and therefore not entitled to stand. Opinion written by the Secretary. The foregoing draft of Opinion was forwarded to B. B. Wood- ward of London, England, with request that he give the Com- mission the benefit of his views. He replied as follows: Leucochilus and Leucochila are absolute homonyms. They are merely the masculine and feminine forms of one and the same name. It is too generally overlooked that these inflections of gender were universally held by the early systematic zoologists to be such and not to qualify in any way for generic distinction. To alter this now would create an untold amount of dis- turbance in past nomenclature, which is quite unjustifiable and would be mischievous. The framers of the original Rules were all good systematic zoologists as well as good scholars. They took this view so much as a matter of course that they did not think of specifying anything so obvious to them in their Rules. They ‘never dreamt that a later school-of enthusiastic but less well-informed natural- ists (zoologically and classically) would arise to challenge it. The Recommendation attached to Rule 36 does not really touch the present or similar cases, of which there are far too many for a piecemeal consideration of them to be profitably undertaken. In my opinion the Commission would be best advised, taking advantage of the present instance, to lay down the principle that: ‘“ Names of genera differ- ing only in their termination, when that is indicative solely of gender, cannot be employed for distinct genera, but must be considered to be homonyms.” Occasion might be taken to point out that the frequently misquoted case of Picus and Pica does not apply here since these names are two distinct Latin substantives, not modern makeups and not merely variations in gender of one and the same word. 430 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 All papers were then forwarded to Commissioner Chapman for review and opinion. His report reads as follows: Re Leucochila and Leucochilus, after examining the evidence for and against the use of Leucochilus Boettger, I have drawn the following conclusions: 1.—Since Leucochilus was suggested by Boettger as an equivalent term to Leucochila (but with emended spelling), of the section P. armifera, it is clearly a homonym of Leucochila. 2.—Leucochilus only differs in generic ending, and therefore it is inadvisable to retain it in such closely related groups where it would be a source of confusion. 3.—For the above reason that Leucochilus Boettger must be taken as a homonym, I would suggest the use of Bifidaria Sterki, as it has been properly defined -and supplied with a type. The papers were submitted also to Dr. Paul Bartsch, United States National Museum, who writes: I have talked this matter over with Dr. Dall and we both agree with you. With the foregoing data, the Secretary requested an informal ballot from the Commission. As basis for the vote the Secretary proposed the following summary: Upon utilitarian grounds, regardless of all other considerations, the Com- mission hereby declares Leucochilus, 1881, as suppressed in favor of Leucochila, 1860; any other action would involve risk of lasting and constant confusion in two rather closely allied genera. In Circular Letter No. 156, the Secretary reported as follows: Eight (8) Commissioners (Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, and Warren) accept the Opinion as written, without comment. Three (3) Commissioners accept the general result of the Opinion, but com- ment as follows: Hartert: Opinion concurred in “but NoT ON UTILITARIAN GROUNDS which is- absolutely dangerous and objectionable! It is not in the conception of the “Rules.” [But cf. wording of suspension—C. W. S.] Jordan (David Starr): “I vote with the affirmative on the view that the suspension of Leucochilus will avoid confusion. It is now on the basis that new names for new genera should not be formed by change of gender vf old names. Gasterostea Sauvage (not valid) was proposed for a sec- tion of Gasterosteus. But I shall vote that names differently spelled ' (except through carelessness) are different names until we have a defi- nite decision. It is not, as Mr. Woodward writes, a matter of ‘igno- rance.’ I am willing to take either view if properly defined and a majority agrees. In Ichthyology we have some 40 cases and an agreement is very desirable.” Jordan (Karl): “From the facts (1) That Boettger says: ‘ich halte die Benennung Leucochilus fir . aufrecht’ and (2) That Boettger states Leucochilus = Leucochila Albers-Martens, it follows that Boettger did not propose a new name, but retained the old OPINION 115 431 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 5 name in an emended form. Such emendations were quite in vogue until recently. But an emended name is not a new name and is nomenclatorially identical with the name in its original spelling. The question as to whether generic names differing in endings only should be treated as different does not arise here at all.” Commissioner Apstein writes: “ Leucochila v. Martens und Leucochilus Boettger sind 2 verschiedene Namen und konnen deshalb neben einander be- stehen.” In reply to this note the Secretary wrote to Commissioner Apstein, “J interpret your vote as negative in the case of Circular Letter No. 131,” to which Commissioner Apstein replied, ‘Ich stimme zu, Leucochilus, 1860.” The Secretary is not yet clear in regard to Commissioner Apstein’s vote but he inter- prets it again as permitting Leucochilus, 1881, and Leucochila, 1860, to exist together under the conditions mentioned in Circular Letter No. 131. As eight (8) Commissioners agreed without reservation, as one Commissioner objected simply to the expression “upon utilitarian grounds,” and as two other Commissioners agreed as to the end result, the Secretary suggested that the summary be amended as follows: Alternative A—SumMaAry: The Commission herewith suppresses Leuco- chilus, 1881, in favor of Leucochila, 1860; any other action would involve risk of lasting and constant confusion in two rather closely allied genera. The foregoing summary would seem to meet the objection offered by Commissioner Hartert, and would also meet the viewpoint of Commissioner Karl Jordan, while it would at the same time give the result desired by all of the other Commissioners who voted in the affirmative. In case the Secretary has misinterpreted Commissioner Apstein’s position, this summary would appear to meet his views also. An alternative to the foregoing summary might read as follows: Alternative B—Summary: Leucochilus, 1881, can be interpreted as an emendation of Leucochila, 1860; Boettger, 1881, inadvertently fell into error when he eliminated the type species fallax, from Leucochila. The Secretary is prepared to change his vote to conform to this second summary in case a majority of the Commission prefers this to Alternative A. Under these circumstances he would rewrite and resubmit the Opinion. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Alternative A was approved by a vote of 13 to 1 as follows: For Alternative A, thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Chap- man, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Stone, Warren. For Alternative B, one (1) Commissioner: Bather. Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu- Lemaire, Stejneger. 432 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 116 Bulimus Scopoui, 1777, vs. Bulinus MUELLER, 1781, VS. Bulimus BRUGUIERE, 1792 SUMMARY .—The Commission does not interpret Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, as an obvious typographical error; the premises do not show that the genotype (which must be selected from the four originally included species) has been definitely and properly designated. Bulinus Mueller, 1781, has for its type Bulinus senegalensis, and is not invalidated by Bulimus, 1777. Bulimus Bru- guiére, 1792, type haemastomus seu oblonga is a dead homonym of Bulimus, 1777- STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, of Philadelphia, presents the following case for Opinion: The questions the Commission is asked to decide are: 1. Can Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, be retained with its original orthography and restricted to one of the four Linnean species mentioned by Scopoli? 2. Will the use of Bulinus O. F. Mueller, 1781, be considered inadmissible on account of the prior Bulimus?* 3. Can B. senegalensis O. F. Mueller, properly be considered type of Bulinus Mueller, thus preserving the traditional meaning of the term? The name “Le Bulin, Bulinus” was introduced by Adanson in his Histoire nat. du Sénégal, Coquillages, 1757, p. 5, pl. 1. His work was pre-Linnean, but its nomenclature was in the main Linnean. He recognized genera and species, each denoted by single terms, but he did not use them in combination, and in the case of monotypic genera, such as Bulinus, Coretus, Pedipes, he did not name the species further, the generic term serving for both genus and species. The first post-Linnean author to take up the matter was Scopoli, Introductio ad Historiam Naturalium, 1777, who on p. 3092 introduces: “64. Bulimus. Adans. Testa univalvis, non umbilicata; apertura ovali. Mollus- cum tentaculis binis, basi appendiculatis; puncto ophtalmoide distincto aut radi- cali Swammerdam. Tab. IX, Fig. 4. “Helix putris Linn., 1758a, 774, fragilis Linn., 1758a, 774, stagnalis Linn., 1758a, 774, tentaculata Linn., 1758a, 774, nec non aliae non paucae terrestres Cl. Millerii. “ Pedipes Adanson, diversus Testae apertura dentata.” The generic characters given apply well to the species he mentioned, which belong to three modern genera: Helix putris to Succinea. Helix fragilis and stagnalis to Lymnaea. Helix tentaculata to Bithyma. Scopoli did not refer to Adanson’s species except so far as may be implied by adopting a modification of his name. [His differential diagnosis, as respects Pedipes, is in harmony with Adanson, 1757, pp. 6, 12.—C. W. S.] *The names Bulimus and Bulinus have been in common use, without con- fusion, for about a century, for different genera of mollusks. OPINION 116 433 NO. If OPINIONS II5 TO 123 7 Scopoli subsequently used Bulimus for a land snail similar in general shape to the species he had formerly included, but afterward found to be generically distinct. The name Bulimus remained in universal use for this last group until quite recent times. Dall, 1892, Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. vol. 3 (2), pp. 334-335, thought that Bulimus would have to be restricted to Helix tentaculata, though he did not expressly name that as its type. _A similar view was taken by Pilsbry, 1895-96, Manual of Conchology (2nd ser.), vol. 10, p. 3, who wrote: “As Scopoli quotes the name as of Adanson, it has been surmised that “ Bulimus’ was a typographical error for ‘ Bulinus.’ Whether this was the case or not would have absolutely no effect upon our use of the name, for (1) Scopoli’s group does not rest upon Adanson for its elucidation, nor does he refer to Adanson’s page or plate; (2) that it was a typographical error cannot be proven; it may have been an emendation on etymological grounds and Scopoli’s subsequent use of the same orthography would show it to have been a deliberate change; and finally (3) Adanson being pre-Linnean cannot prejudice properly proposed post-Linnean names. “Tt would appear that Bulimus Scopoli, by process of elimination, must re- place the generic name Bithynia.” Kennard and Woodward, Proc. Malacological Society of London, December, 1924, vol. 16, p. 126, have reviewed the several opinions on Bulimus Scopoli, concluding that “ Bulimus was an obvious mistranscription for Bulinus; it must be treated as such, and discarded in future literature.” It may be remarked here that if Bulimus be synonymized with Bulinus Adan- son, its type will become Bulinus senegalensis Mueller, and unless the name be emended, it will displace the genus Bulinus O. F. Mueller, 1781, a name very widely used in zoological and medical literature. Bulinus O. F. Mueller Bulinus “Adanson” O. F. Mueller, 1781, Der Naturforscher, vol. 15, pp. 5 and 6. For four species: Bulinus perla (= Physa fontinalis (Linnaeus)), B. turritus, B. gelatinus, and B. senegalensis (this last based upon Adanson’s “le Bulin, Bulinus”). Type by tautonymy: Bulinus senegalensis O. F. Mueller, “le Bulin” of Adanson. : The name Bulinus was introduced into binomial nomenclature by O. F. Mueller. He states that his intention was to provide genera for the fresh-water snails with two bristle-shaped tentacles with eyes at their inner bases. He sug- gests that the “Tellerschnecken” keep the name Planorbis while Adanson’s name Bulinus could be accepted for the “ Eyformigen.”* Of the latter, four species were known to him. The Bulinus perla was fully described and figured, and is recognized to be Physa fontinalis (Linn.). This species was designated type of Bulinus by Hermannsen (1846, Index Gen. Malac., vol. I, p. 140). 1“ So kann doch bis dahin, den Schneckenliebhabern zu Gefallen, die den Be- griff einer Tellerschnecke bey dem Eyformigen nicht ausstehen konnen, der Name Tellerschnecke denen mit platter Schaale verbleiben, und die mit lan- glichen Schaalen den Adansonischen Namen Bulinus annehmen.” (1781, Der Naturforscher, Halle, vol. 15, p. 6.) 434 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Mueller’s fourth species was Bulinus senegalensis defined by a reference to Adanson, 1757, Hist. Sénégal, Hist. des Coquillages, p. 5, pl. 1. He also states that “Adanson erfand ihr einen neuen Geschlechtsnamen (Bulinus).” Obviously, therefore, Adanson’s Bulinus becomes type of Bulinus by absolute tautonymy * Otherwise the name Bulinus Mueller, 1781, would supersede Physa Draparnaud, 1801, a name very widely used and universally accepted. The status of Bulinus Mueller has been discussed by Von Martens,’ who ac- cepted Physa fontinalis as its type, but refused to substitute Bulinus for Physa. Later, Dall* went over the ground, reaching a conclusion which we accept with- out reserve. Finally Kennard and Woodward* considered the question, con- cluding that Mueller’s “adoption of Adanson’s name (Bulinus) involves the acceptance of his shell as the type of the genus. Since, however, that is inde- terminate, this post-Linnean revival of the name is rendered nugatory. But for that, Bulinus Mueller would have precedence of Physa Draparnaud, 1801.” This conclusion seems to us incorrect in at least two statements. Adanson’s species has been determined. It was defined very well, and with specimens from the type locality, no zoologist should go astray in its identification. Its accep- tance does not displace Physa, but on the contrary, if it were to be thrown out as indeterminate, then Bulinus would take the place of Physa having Physa fontinalis as its type. The International Rules expressly exclude indeterminate species [or, rather, species inquirendae from the standpoint of the author of the generic name at the time of its publication—C. W. S.] from consideration in the selection of genotypes. Bulinus came into general use for the group under consideration and is to be found in the most widely used systematic works on general conchology, such as H. and A. Adams, Genera of Recent Mollusca; Tryon, Structural and Syste- matic Conchology; Fischer, Manuel de Conchyliologie, and others. The new name (or emended spelling) Bullinus originated with Oken, 1815, and in recent years has been taken up by several authors. Oken’s work was a mere compilation from Mueller; only the same species were mentioned. The revival of Oken’s name for the group was apparently due to the fact that Adan- son, being pre-Linnean, could not properly be quoted for the genus, and to ignorance of the prior work of Mueller. Bullinus Oken, according to the Rules of the International Commission, is an absolute synonym of Bulinus Mueller.” Discussion.—The following facts (a, b) may be noted in regard to the derivation of the names: (a) Bulinus Mueller, 1781—Adanson, 1757, p. 5, states: Le Bulin, Bulinus. Pl. 1. Je donne le nom de Bulin a un petit coquillage d’eau douce, qui vit communément sur la lentille de marais, et sur le lemma, dans les marais et les étangs de Podor. Cette dénomination m’a paru lui convenir par- * This conclusion is based upon the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature, Art. 30d, and Opinions 16 and 18. * 1898, in P. and F. Sarasin, Materialien z. Naturg. Insel Celebes, Die Suss- wasser-Moll., p. 83. * 3905, Harriman Alaska Exped., Land and Fresh-Water Moll., p. 105. *1920, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., vol. 14, pp. 86-88. *The combination “ Bullinus Adanson” used by some authors is ruled out because it is erroneous—-Adanson never used “ Bullinus”’—and because a pre- Linnean author is not quotable as authority for generic or specific names. OPINION 116 435 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 9 ceque l’animal pendant sa vie nage presque continuellement 4 fleur d’eau, et qu’aprés sa mort sa coquille flotte comme une petite bulle d’air transparente. Je n’ai observé qu’une espéce de ce genre, et elle n’est figurée ni décrite nulle part. From this it seems clear that ‘ Le Bulin, Bulinus” means a little bubble, namely, the diminutive of the French “la bulle,” Latin, “ bulla,” _ As Adanson uses the correct orthography of the word “ la bulle ” on page 5, and as he consistently uses “ Le Bulin, Bulinus” in at least three different places, and the French word “ bulin ” in a fourth place also, it seems obvious that he intended to coin a new French mas- culine noun “le bulin” as name for this mollusk and that he made his Latin diminutive Bulinus agree with the French in form rather than adopt a Latin feminine noun, bullina based on the Latin feminine bulla. Accordingly, the word Bulinus is a relatively modern, 18th century, Latin name. It is to be noted that Adanson had rather advanced views on nomenclature and sought to use names which were not preoccupied. For instance, he says (p. XVIII): “J’agirai de méme a l’égard des noms adjectifs, tels que la tuilée, la chambreée, la tanée, etc. Je leur substituerai un terme neuf, qui n’aura eu jusqu’ici aucune signification.” Agassiz, 1842-46a, 13, interprets Bulinus as a corrupted derivative of Bulla. (b) Bulimus—According to Agassiz, 1842-46a, 13, Herrmann- sen, 1846, 147, and Leunis, 1883a, 887, Bulimus is derived from the Greek BovAmos, meaning a ravenous hunger. Compare the medical terms bulimia, bulimiasis, bulimy, and bulimic, namely, an excessive or morbid hunger which sometimes occurs in idiots and insane persons and is also a symptom of diabetes mellitus and of certain cerebral lesions. (c) The Secretary has examined the original documents with the following results: (d) Bulinus Adanson, 1757, 5-7, pl. I, is a pre-Linnean monotypic generic name without nomenclatorial status under the Code but avail- able, of course, as bibliographic reference. (e) Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, 392, is cited without philologic deriva- tion and attributed to ‘‘Adans.”’ The original species of Adanson’s “Le Bulin ” is not cited nor is any definite reference given to “Adans.”’ It is entirely possible that Bulimus, 1777, is a mistranscription or a misprint for Bulinus, 1757, and in fact, Kennard and Woodward, 1924, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., p. 127, have made out a very strong case for this interpretation in reproducing on p. 127 the figures of Adanson and calling attention to the printing of Bulinus Adanson 436 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS IO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 and Pedipes Adanson. It would take an almost microscopic eye to read correctly Bulinus instead of Bulimus; this error would however not be so natural in reading the original text of Adanson and it is safe- guarded against in the original illustration by use of the word “Le Bulin.” While it seems very reasonable to conclude that Bulimus, 1777, iS a mistranscription or a misprint for Bulinus, 1757, the fact remains that Scopoli, in 1786, pl. 25, again used the name con- sistently as Bulimus and that in 1777 he did not quote Adanson’s species. The Secretary is inclined to believe that Bulimus, 1777, is either a misprint for or an emendation of Bulinus, 1757, but he is persuaded that the absence of Adanson’s species from the list admitted by Scopoli is to be given serious consideration, thus excluding B. senegalensis as type of Bulimus, 1777. Only four species come into consideration as type of Bulimus, 1777, namely, Helix putris, H. fragilis, H. stagnalis, H. tentaculata, all Linn., 1758, p. 774. The citation of Bulimus haemastomus as type by Beck, 1837, (possibly based upon Bruguiére, 1792a, 294) and the citation of Helix oblonga as type by Herrmannsen, 1846, are both irrelevant, as neither species was included in the original publication of Bulimus. It is to be added that Apstein, I915a, p. 182, cites oblongus Mueller, 1774, as type of Bulimus and that this species is used by at least some authors as identical with haemastomus Scopoli. Dall, 1892, clearly inclines to tentaculata as type, but as the Secre- tary reads his paper, Dall does not definitely designate this species as type under Article 30g of the Code, and he (Dall) thinks that no harm would be done if Bulimus is eventually suppressed. The documents presented to the Secretary do not show that the type of Bulimus, 1777, has been correctly and definitely designated. (f) Bulinus Mueller, 1781, Naturf., 5, is clearly based upon Bulinus Adanson, 1757, p. 5, pl. 1; it contains four species including (1) B. penta Muell., 1781, syn. Planorbis bulla Mueller, 1774, 167, and later considered synonymous with Physa fontinalis (Linn., 1758a, 727), (2) B. turritus, (3) B. gelatinus, and (4) B. senegalensis. The fourth species senegalensis is the original “ Le Bulin” of Adanson. Mueller does not definitely designate a type and on basis of his publi- cation two interpretations might be possible, namely, on page 5, refer- ring to Bulinus perla he says “Adanson 1757, 5, pl. 1, ‘Le Bulin,’ Buli- nus erfand ihr einen neunen Geschlechtsnamen (Bulinus),” and he includes “ Le Bulin,” as one of the species. Accordingly, one might argue that Mueller’s type is B. perla syn. bulla on basis of the sentence just quoted ; or one might argue that B. senegalensis is type by abso- lute tautonymy (cf. Opinion 16). The Secretary inclines distinctly OPINION 116 437 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 1 toward the latter interpretation unless this be contraindicated by data not contained in the statement of the case. The statement of the case does not show that the designation of Physa fontinalis by Von Martens, 1898, as type of Bulinus is admis- sible, as Von Martens’ premises are not submitted. Unless Von Martens recognized perla as objective synonym of fontimalis, this type designation is debatable. (g) In nomenclatorial discussion of Bulimus, the point appears not to have been duly considered that Bruguiére, 1792a [1789], pp. 286-367, proposed as a new molluscan genus “ Bulime——Bulimus; Nob.,” with 113 species, and that as he uses Bulimus and bulime, in numerous places, the question of a typographical error appears to be excluded. On page 367, he cites “‘ Bulin, (voyez) a l’article, Bulime des fontaines,” namely (p. 306) “ Bulimus fontinalis; Nob.,’ where he quotes “ Bulla fontinalis Linn.,”’ “ Planorbis bulla Mueller,” “ Die Wasser-blase; die Perlen-blase ... ., La bulle aquatique’”’ in sy- nonymy ; he also says (p. 307) “ L’espéce que M. Adansson a observée dans les eaux marécageuses du Sénégal, & qu’il a nommée le bulin, est différente du Bulime des fontaines..... [p. 308] Je crois donc que ce sont trois espéces [cf. Bulin of Adanson; ‘ Bulime de la Virginie’ of Lister and Petiver] bien distinctes qu’il faut encore examiner avec soin & comparer, les unes avec les autres, avant de les distinguer par des phrases caractéristiques ; celle de M. Adansson ne me paroit bien douteuse, mais je ne pense pas de méme de celle MeMeIStCh, cc. Accordingly, “le bulin ”’ of Adanson is sub judice from the stand- point of Bruguiére in establishing his genus Bulimus, and he seems definitely to exclude it from Bulimus fontinalis, but he does not appear to classify it definitely as a distinct species of Bulimus; how- ever, he states (p. 307) that it “a tant d’analogie avec le Bulime des fontaines.”’ Thus, under Art. 30e, Adanson’s species appears to be eliminated from consideration as type of Bulimus Brug., 1792. Bruguiére definitely states (p. 294) “le nom de Bulime que j’ai adopté pour ce genre, avoit déja été employé par M. Scopoli pour le Bulime oblong; je Vai conservé, parcequ’il indique son analogie avec celui de la bulle, 4 cause de l’ouverture entiére, sans échancrure, qui est commune a tous les deux.” This comes very close to being a designation of oblongus (cf. haemastomus Scopoli) as type species. Accordingly, if the view advanced by Kennard and Woodward (1924, 126) be adopted (that “ Bulimus [Scopoli, 1777] was an obvious mistranscription for Bulinus [1757 ; 1781] ; it must be treated 9 438 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 as such, and discarded in future literature’’), the generic name Bulimus Bruguiére, 1792, comes up for consideration, since the ques- tion of a typographical error in Bruguieére is obviously excluded. The Secretary frankly admits that there are two sides to this case and that a decision in either direction might not be entirely free from the interpretation that it is in the light of settling a controversy rather than in the light of an argument based on unambiguous premises. Close decisions, more or less arbitrary and not entirely free from utilitarian influence, are sometimes necessary and the following recommendations are not entirely free from this construction. On basis of the foregoing discussion the Secretary recommends that the Commission answer Doctor Pilsbry’s questions as follows: 1. Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, may or may not be a typographical error for or an emendation of Bulinus Adanson, 1757; the question is not entirely free from doubt. If it be interpreted as a typographical error the problem at issue is not solved, for Bulamus Bruguiére, 1792, is obviously not a typographical error. 2. The data submitted do not show that the type of Bulimus, 1777, has ever been properly and definitely designated. 3. Bulimus haemastomus seu B. oblongus is not available as type of Bulimus, 1777, so far as the premises show, but is available as type of Bulimus, 1792, and this designation is in harmony with Bruguiere, 17924, p. 204. 4. Under Opinion 16, Bulinus Mueller, 1781, has for its type B. senegalensis, and the Commission so rules. 5. As either of two rulings is possible in respect to Bulimus, 1777, the Commission here rules that this is not an obvious mistranscription or an obvious typographical error. This ruling is based upon the following premises : a.—In case of difference of opinion, it seems best to give the benefit of doubt to the view which will be more in harmony with current nomenclature, and this interpretation is according to the premises submitted. b.—The preponderance of evidence seems to be in favor of this view. A c.—The original Bulinus, le bulin, 1757, is not cited with Bulimus, 1781, hence this is not available as the type of the latter. d—I{ Bulimus, 1777, be interpreted as a typographical error, Bulimus, 1792, remains to be considered, and no reason has been advanced in the premises which shows the advisability of sacrificing the advantage of 15 years in priority. OPINION 116 439 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 13 e.—Under the premises submitted, not one of the species (putris, fragilis, stagnalis, tentaculata) cited under Bulimus, 1777, is available as type for Bulinus, 1781, and not one of the species (perla, turritus, gelatinus, senegalensis) cited under Bulinus in 1781 is available as type for Bulimus, 1777. Accordingly, it appears (under Art. 30e) that an objective identity of these two generic names is excluded. In connection with the forégoing recommendations the Secretary states very frankly that there are phases of this case of nomenclature which are open to debate. In the recommendations that have been made and where he had the option of adopting either of two interpre- tations he has been influenced by the principle of endeavoring not to overturn existing nomenclature any more than is absolutely neces- sary. The generic name Le Bulin, Bulinus Mueller, 1781, as typified by B. senegalensis, belongs to the Order PULMONATA, subo. BASOMMATOPHORA. Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, if Helix tentaculata be accepted as type, would belong to the Order PROSOBRANCHIATA. Bulimus of Scopoli, 1786, if typified by B. haemastomus (syn. of oblonga Mueller), would belong to Order PULMONATA, subo. SI VLOMMATOPHORA. This species belongs to a modern family distinct from any family represented in the 1777 list of. four species. It was the group repre- sented by Scopoli’s 1786 usage which Bruguiére had mainly in mind, and which came into general use as Bulimus and continued under that name until about thirty years ago. From Scopoli’s standpoint, his Bulimi of 1777 and 1786 were congeneric—he was merely forming a new genus for the elongated species of Linnean Helix—leaving the Linnean term for the depressed and discoidal forms. Dall’s sug- gestion to restrict Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, to Helix tentaculata was to avoid displacing either of the old and universally used names Succinea or Lymnaea; the H. tentaculata group (Bithynia) being later and comprising relatively few species. To interpret Bulimus as a misprint or as an error of transcription, as might easily be done, would call for the use of Bulinus in its place, thus bringing about a very regrettable instance of transfer of name in a genus which is reported to contain more than 1,200 species. When two theoretical interpretations are possible either of which seems justified, a practical point of this kind is surely to be given due consideration. The case has caused such distinct differences of opinion among conchologists, that the Secretary submitted the foregoing data to Dr. Paul Bartsch, Dr. W. H. Dall, and Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (all of the 440 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 United States), and to Dr. B. B. Woodward of London, England, and to Commissioner Frederick Chapman of Melbourne, Australia, with request for comments. The consultants have replied as follows: Letter from Dr. Paul Bartsch of the United States National Museum: 6 Dr, Dall and I have both gone over your “ pink sheets,’ which are herewith returned, and we both feel you have splendidly covered the field and there is nothing else to say. Letters from Dr. H. A. Pilsbry of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia : I have read your opinion on Bulimus and Bulinus with great satisiaction. It appears to me to cover the ground in a wholly logical manner. I am of course the more pleased because the views you adopt disturb our current nomenclature far less than any other course which has been proposed. Since Bulinus has entered medical literature (as a host of Schistosoma in Africa, etc.) it is doubly desirable to retain the name as wholly unconnected with the prior Bulimus, which has been used only in totally different senses. In my report on Congo mollusks (now, I hear, about to be printed) the type, Bulinus senegalensis, is to be figured from the original marsh in Senegal. Kennard and Woodward's failure to identify this species was doubtless due to lack of material from that particular place. Thank you for letting me see the very full discussion of the case Bulimus versus Bulinus. As you say, the discussion by Bruguiére is very important in this connection, though I had not recognized its bearing before. I think that the Opinion will prove generally acceptable to workers in Mollusca, and it seems to me by far the most logical solution of the questions at issue. Letter from Dr. B. B. Woodward, malacologist : The high compliment you pay of asking my opinion of your “ Opinion” ere it goes before the Commissioners although you know how divergent our views are on the enforcement of the “Rules” is fully appreciated by me. I take it that you invite remarks on the whole draft and not merely on the conclusions expressed in the initial “Summary.” It appears to me then that your draft recommendation has been drawn up after the manner of judicial deci- sions solely on the somewhat involved statement laid before you by the appellant without regard to whether that statement is complete or not. Had you seen your way to make yourself really familiar with the complete arguments pub- lished by Kennard and Woodward in the Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., vol. 14, 1920, pp. 86-88, and vol. 16, 1924, pp. 125-128, instead of relying on the fragmentary quotations of the appellant, you would have found all the points fully met, and would, I venture to think, in many respects have modified your recomnmiendation and summary, which, if I may say so, rather suggests to the Commissioners how they should vote instead of giving them the information on which to base their own conclusions as they should be left to do. It is a pity the rival statements could not be given in parallel columns. OPINION 116 44] NO. 7 OPINIONS I15.TO 123 15 ” In the first place, as admitted in the ‘“ Discussion,” Adanson was a pre- Linnean writer and therefore by the “ Rules” his work and names cannot be entertained, The amazing statement on the top of fol. 4 [p. 8] of your draft, that his Bulinus “has been determined” and that “it was defined very well, and with specimens from the type locality no zoologist should go astray in its identification” is far removed from fact. No man from Adanson’s day to this has seen the mollusc, and no specimens from the type locality, which is unknown, .exist! It remains an indeterminate species and the bestowal of a trivial name on it does not alter that. A few details given of it show that both anatomically and conchologically it had nothing in common with forms, like Isidora, that have been placed with it by writers who should have known better. It was by follow- ing Fischer that the medicos were misled into using a wrong name, which does not apply to their molluscs and it is not for the systematic zoologists to pander to the errors of the misinformed. In the next place there is no such thing as “ Bulimus Scopoli, 1777” or that eccentric writer would not have attached Adanson’s name as author. It should be quoted as “ Bulimus Adans., of Scopoli.’ The error of transcription (nol a typographical error) is only too obvious (see Kennard and Woodward, 1924, p. 126). Of course if Scopoli had looked twice or read the text as he manifestly did not do, he would have seen his error and rectified it. The argument that Scopoli did not cite Adanson’s species is beside the mark for he evidently, as the context shows, thought he was doing so but misspelt the name. The suggested definite statement in the opening summary of the draft “Opinion” that “ The Commission rules that Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, is not an obvious typographic error” is hardly consonant with the admissions and more guarded statements on fol. 5, sect. e [p. 9]. If you must suggest the verdict, why not put “do not consider,” instead of “rules”? Scopoli’s record of 1777 cannot be considered apart from his 1786 elaboration and extension of the name to the “nec non paucae terrestres cl. Miillerii,” which puts the crown on his absurd group (see Kennard & Woodward, 1924, p. 128). The restoration of “ Bulimus Adans.” of Scopoli, 1777, would only make confusion worse confounded. Mueller’s adoption of Adanson’s Bulinus, including his bestowal of a trivial name, which, of course, becomes the type of the genus, fails for the reasons carefully pointed out by Kennard and Woodward (1920, p. 87). As to Bulimus of Bruguiére, 1792, whatever may be said or thought of the “ Bulimus Adans.” of Scopoli, there is the name printed in 1777 and renewed in 1786; hence by the “Rules” it cannot be used again so that the argument ad- vanced at the bottom of fol. 6 [p. 11] that the suppression of Bulimus, 1777, would resuscitate that of 1792 appears to me quite fallacious. Bruguiére’s Bulimus, therefore, goes out as a homonym as admitted in the initial “ Sum- mary” of the draft “Opinion” but not made as clear as it might be in the “ Discussion.” Stiles to Woodward: Referring to your letter on Bulimus, I had already examined your publica- tions of 1920 and 1924, but will order them again to see whether I have over- looked any point. I shall also take pleasure in forwarding a copy of your letter to the Commission when a draft of the Opinion is forwarded, You, of course, understand that the statement of case in any Opinion is the statement given by the appellant and that the discussion is the part written by the Commissioner who formulates the Opinion. It is customary to refer each 2 442 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 case to a Commissioner who makes a special study of the data and makes his recommendations to the Commission. As in any court of law the case has to be decided upon the evidence available. Appellants can hardly expect that the Commissioners will work up the literature for them though we have done this in several cases. I am wondering whether confusion has not arisen in regard to your interpre- tation of Bulimus, 1792. If it be maintained that Bulimus, 1777, is a typographic error would you still maintain that it has status in nomenclature to the effect that it invalidates Bulimus, 1792, or would you maintain that as a typographic error it has no status in nomenclature? In the latter premise it could not invali- date Bulimus, 1702. I will go over the data very carefully again in your publications of 1920 and 1924, Woodward to Stiles: You ask for an explicit statement as to my opinion on the status of Bruguiére’s Bulimus, 1792, in the event that Bulimus, 1777, should be decided to be a typo- graphical error. I thought I had made it quite clear in my last letter that I regarded Scopoli’s “ Bulimus Adans.” as an error of transcription and not as a typographical error, and I further wrote: “As to Bulimus of Bruguiére, 1792, whatever may be said or thought of the “ Bulimus Adans.” of Scopoli, there is the name printed in 1777 and renewed in 1786; hence by the Rules it cannot be tigeGl EeRNINL 5 bls é Bruguiére’s Bulimus, therefore goes out as a homonym.” Of course had the “ Bulimus Adans.” of Scopoli been a nom. nud. that would have been a different matter: it was not. By the way, as a matter of fact, which I had forgotten, Bruguiére’s Bulimus was published in the first part of the Ency. méthod., Vers, i, which appeared in 1789 (see Sherborn & Woodward: Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 7, vol. 17, p. 579) and not in 1702. Your statement as to the method of procedure of the Commission is illumi- nating. It seems that unless the appellant, who is naturally biased, happens to have given a complete statement of facts it is nobody’s business to see that a full case is placed before the Commission, who may, therefore, be called upon solemnly to adjudicate on imperfect evidence. Letter from Commissioner Frederick Chapman, A. L. S.: My conclusions on the evidence and discussion regarding the validity or otherwise of Bulinus Adanson are as follows: 1.—Bulinus Adanson is pre-Linnean and therefore has no status. 2.—Bulimus Scopoli may or may not be an error of transcription by that author, for Adanson’s name, but is not to be considered since Adanson is pre- Linnean. But Bulimus Scopoli would also go by the board had he not further defined it in 1786. Bulimus Scopoli therefore stands. 3.—Bulimus of Bruguiére, 1792, goes out as a homonym. 4.—Bulinus having been ruled out by No. 1, cannot be used again for the pul- monate forms related to Jsidora, but Oken’s name, Bullinus, 1815 (though ap- parently suggested by Adanson’s name), is sufficiently different to be retained, and in this sense has been used by Hedley (Rec. Austr. Mus. 1917, vol. 12, no. 1) for the sinistral forms like Physa so common in the Australian region, and which I have shown to belong to the Planorbidae. OPINION 116 443 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 17 Bartsch writes: Your letter and the enclosures from B. B. Woodward are at hand. Dr, Dall and I have both been interested in them. We are in accord with you. The foregoing Opinion with the above comments was submitted to the Commission for informal vote and discussion. In accordance with _the expressed opinion of the Commission, the Secretary has the honor to recommend that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following : SumMMary.—The Commission does not interpret Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, as an obvious typographical error; the premises do not show that the genotype (which must be selected from the four originally included species) has been definitely and properly designated. Bulinus Mueller, 1781, has for its type Bulinus senegalensis, and is not invalidated by Bulimus, 1777. Bulimus Bruguiére, 1792, type haemastomus seu oblonga is a dead homonym of Bulimus, 1777. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, Chapman (with reservation), Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishi- kawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by one (1) Commissioner: Bather. Not voting six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stone. Commissioner Chapman attaches the following reservation to his vote: As regards the re-consideration of vote on Circular Letter No. 130, Bulimus vs. Bulinus, I would concur with the Opinion that both Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, and Bulinus Mueller, 1781, be retained, on the proviso that Bulimus Oken, 1815, be regarded as the type genus for our Australian freshwater Physa-like molluscs (see Hedley, 1917, Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 3). The shell from Senegal cannot be compared with the Australian, since, as Hedley remarks, the type has not been again recognized. 444 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 117 Type or Lithostrotion SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Lithostrotion is hereby stand- ardized, with Lithostrotion striatum as type species, and is placed in the Official List of Generic Names. PRESENTATION OF CASE—By Dr. W. D. Lang and Dr. S. Smith: We wish the species Lithostrotion striatum to be standardized as the genolec- totype of Lithostrotion. The history is as follows: Lithostrotion Fleming, 1828, History of British Animals, p. 508. GENOSYNTYPES : L. striatum, 1828, p. 508. Erasmolithus Madrepontes floriformis; Martin, 1809, Petreficata Der- biensia, pl. 43, figs. 3 and 4; pl. 44, fig. 5. L. obliquum; Fleming, 1828, p. 508. L. marginatum; Fleming, 1828, p. 508. In 1845, Lonsdale (in Murchison, Geology of Russia, vol. 1, p. 602) mentions four species of Lithostrotion, namely L, emarciatum, L. mammiullare, L. astroides, and L. floriforme. Without definitely designating L. floriforme (the only geno- syntype involved) as lectotype, he yet discusses and determines the characters of Lithostrotion upon L. floriforme, clearly implying that he considered L. floriforme as lectotype. But if the author’s intention is considered, it might be argued that Fleming intended L. striatum as genotype of Lithostrotion, since he placed it first, and gave it the trivial name striatum which, with the name Lithostrotion, is an echo of Lhwyd’s description “ Lithostrotion sive Basaltes minus striatum et stellatum,’ to which Fleming refers in his description of L. striatum. Since, however, a genolectotype must be deliberately designated (“the mean- ing of the expression ‘select the type’ must be rigidly construed”), we are bound to leave both Fleming and Lonsdale with their implied intentions, and pass on to Edwards and Haime, who, in 1851 (Mon. British Fossil Corals, p. 72) deliberately designated L. floriforme Fleming, as genotype of Lithostro- tion; and the fact that thereafter both they, and nearly all other authors, aban- doned this ruling, interpreting Lithostrotion as if the genolectotype were L. striatum, and including L. floriforme in McCoy’s genus Lonsdaleia, does not invalidate Edwards and Haime’s prior pronouncement. L. floriforme, then, still stands as the genolectotype of Lithostrotion. Now the generic type of the coral which, since 1851, has been almost univer- sally, though wrongly, ascribed to Lithostrotion, is very abundant in the Car- boniferous Limestone and includes several separable forms. The same is true of the genus Lonsdaleia of which the genolectotype is L. duplicata (Martin) and which includes the species of L. floriformis (Martin), 7.¢., the Lithostrotion floriforme of Fleming and the true genolectotype of Lithostrotion. It is easily seen, therefore, that much of Carboniferous Coral nomenclature is thrown into confusion by giving the correct interpretation to Lithostrotion; and that time, labor, and misunderstanding would be saved, if the species L. striatum, which the author of Lithostrotion clearly intended as genotype, should be standardized as genolectotype of Lithostrotion. _ OPINION 117 445 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 19 Discussion.—By Commissioner Bather: The name Lithostrotion in the sense proposed by the writers is so commonly used in textbooks as well as in scientific papers that stability of nomenclature is more likely to be attained by suspending the rules in this instance than by enforcing them. I therefore commend the proposal that L. striatum be fixed as genotype of Lithostrotion to the favorable consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The papers in this case have been submitted to Dr. T. Wayland Vaughan, and his reply is appended herewith for the information of the Commission and as a part of the Opinion: I have received your letter of January 5 and the papers relative to recognition of Lithostrotion striatum as the genolectotype of Lithostrotion. I am not able to check all of the references given by Mr. Lang but I can check his reference to Edwards and Haime’s British Fossil Corals. I am convinced that the presen- tation of Messrs. Lang and Stanley Smith is in all respects correct. Unless there is some urgent reason not known to me I incline to agree with the recom- mendation of Messrs. Lang, Smith, and Bather. I think that you know the standing of these three men. It is very high and Doctor Bather is one of the most distinguished paleontologists living. If their recommendation is not adopted the name Lithostrotion will have to replace Lonsdaleia McCoy, 1849, which would be unfortunate. I don’t like to express a positive opinion until I am entirely sure that I have considered all of the different angles, but I am not inclined to make any opposition to the recommendation you have referred to me. Notice that this case is under consideration for Suspension has been published as follows: Monitore Zoologico Italiano, Anno 38, 1927, No. 9. Nature, vol. 119, June 4, 1927. Zoologischer Anzeiger, Band 71, Heft 11-12, 28 Mai, 1927. Science (Query). The Secretary moves that in accordance with Commissioner Bather’s Opinion the Commission adopt the following: SumMmary.—Under Suspension of the Rules Lithostrotion is hereby standardized, with Lithostrotion striatum as type species, and is placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan(K.), Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger. Motion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D.S.), Jordan (K.), Stiles, Stone. Motion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Handlirsch, Hartert, Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Warren. 446 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 118 Scalpellum gabbi WabrE, 1926, A NOMEN NUDUM SUMMARY.—The name Scalpellum gabbi Wade, 1926, is a nomen nudum as of 1926, since it is definitely made dependent by its author on hypothetical specimens. See Opinion 2. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—By Mr. T. H. Withers, of the British Museum: In United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 137 (Bruce Wade: The Fauna of the Ripley Formation on Coon Creek, Tennessee), Washington, 1926, p. 191, an author, whose identity is uncertain, describes and figures two cirripede plates under the heading “ Scalpellum sp.” Following the description is the following: “These two plates were not found together, and it is impossible to say if they belong to the same species. Should additional specimens be obtained sufficient for establishing a new species, the species might very properly be called Scalpel- lum gabbi Wade, n. sp..... es A ruling on the nomenclatorial status of the name Scalpellum gabbi is desired. DiscussION BY COMMISSIONER BATHER.—This hypothetical or con- ditional proposal of new names is an action that has frequently received severe and well-merited censure. If it were possible to deny validity to the present name a more effective check might be placed on the practice. There do actually seem to be reasons for such a decision. 1. The identity of the author is uncertain. Though the author of the paper as a whole is Bruce Wade, the section on Arthropoda is ascribed by the table of contents and by its own heading (p. 184) to M. J. Rathbun. It is quite possible for Miss Rathbun to have quoted a MS. name from a label attached by the collector, Wade, in which case she might have written “ Scalpellum gabbt Wade.” On the other hand, Scalpellum is not included by Miss Rathbun in the list of forms that she discusses ; her contribution is headed “ Class Crustacea,” and the description of Scalpellum, is headed “ Class Eucrustacea,’”’ which may indicate a difference; the name “ Wade” may signify the author of the section. In this state of uncertainty one might regard the author as anonymous, but, though this presumably would put the name out of court, I find no rule or opinion dealing with anonymity. 2. The two plates, which are different parts of the test, are de- scribed separately. Neither is taken as holotype; on the contrary, the writer declines to say that both belong to the same species, and there- OPINION 118 447 NO. 7 OPINIONS I15 TO 123 21 fore refrains from naming either. The next sentence implies that no species can be established until further material is collected, whence it follows that the holotype would be taken from that further material. Therefore the name Scalpellum gabbi is hypothetically attached to a specimen not yet known, and, for all one can tell, non-existent. “Names based on hypothetical forms have no status in nomen- clature ” (Opinion 2). 3. Although the separate plates are described and figured, the writer has attempted no diagnosis of a species, it being clear from his own words that he could not and would not formulate any specific concept. He does not even compare his specimens with any others. This leaves the name S. gabbi without definition or description ; and if we seek for an “ indication” in the sense of Article 25a, we find, as already shown, that any possible type-specimen is unknown. The name is therefore a nomen nudum. I conclude, therefore, that as a nomen nudum without status the name Scalpellum gabbi does not come into consideration. It follows that any author can use the name for any new species of Scalpellum (though such action would be most ill-advised), also that any author can give the name S. gabbi to either of the specimens figured in Prof. Paper, 137, and the author so doing will then rank as the author of the name. SumMMary.—lIn general terms: A specific name conditional on specimens unknown to its author has no status in nomenclature. Discussion BY SECRETARY.—The foregoing papers were referred to the United States Geological Survey and to Miss Mary J. Rathbun for comment with the following result: Letter from George O. Smith, Director: The case of nomenclature which involves the standing of the name Scalpellum gabbi Wade has been considered by the paleontologists of the Geological Sur- vey, and they have prepared the two enclosed memoranda which show that they are in essential agreement that Scalpellum gabbi is a nomen nudum without standing. On the incidental question of authorship which has been raised they are agreed that Wade is the author of the name. Memorandum from Miss Mary J. Rathbun: I did not write the description of the Scalpellum and never saw it until it was published. On page 184, the Order Decapoda only is ascribed to me. Apparently Mr. Wade expected that whatever was not definitely assigned to a different author would be attributed to himself. The “Contents” on p. II (which perhaps he did not make up) does not bear that out. 448 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Memorandum from Paleontologists of the Geological Survey : The suggestion made by Commissioner. Bather that this name might be re- garded as anonymous is unwarranted, for it is published as “ Scalpellum gabbi Wade, n. sp.,” and the published record must be accepted. Miss Rathbun’s de- nial of authorship is confirmatory evidence on this point. On the other hand, Commissioner Bather’s opinion that the name can be disposed of as a nomen nudum seems to be justified. Most conditional new names could not be so summarily dealt with, but the author states that “should additional specimens be obtained sufficient for establishing a new species, the species might very properly be called Scalpellum gabbi Wade, n. sp.” (italics ours). [Signed:] “In full agreement,” George H. Girty, W. P. Woodring, P. V. Roundy, W. C. Mansfield, John B. Reeside, Jr. “T concur in the above statement,’ T. W. Stanton. “In my opinion the name ‘ Scalpellum gabbi’ is a nomen nudum and therefore for the present without standing.” E. O. Ulrich. “The reasoning in this matter seems to be conclusive.” Charles Butts. “The name should be considered a ‘nomen nudum’ and without other standing.” Edwin Rich. Memorandum from L. W. Stephanson and C. Wythe Cooke: The name Scalpellum gabbi, as it now stands has, in our opinion, no validity. and can only be given validity by a revisor. A revisor might select one of the specimens as holotype, in which case the name would apply to that specimen only, unless the revisor, or some subsequent author, could show that it exhibits a specific character or characters which would permit of its identification with other specimens. The revisor probably would, through courtesy, credit the name to Wade, but he would be justified in claiming the credit for himself, or he would even be justified in ignoring Wade’s name and applying an entirely new name to the species. The Secretary has verified the original publication and concurs in the statement of premises and in the conclusion, and recommends that the Commission adopt the following: SumMMARY.—The name Scalpellum gabbi Wade, 1926, is a nomen nudum as of 1926, since it is definitely made dependent by its author on hypothetical specimens. See Opinion 2. Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting: Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Silvestri, Stej- neger. OPINION 119 449 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 23 OPINION 119 Srx MoLtituscan GENERIC NAMES PLACED IN THE OFFIcIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY .—The following six generic names of MOLLUSCA are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names, with types as stated: Cerion (uva), Oleacina (voluta), Neritina (pulligera), Clausilia (rugosa), Vitrina (pellucida), Tornaiellina (clausa). PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Drs. H. A. Pilsbry and H. Burrington Baker have made application to the Commission to accept twelve generic names as “nomina conservanda” [should read “in the Official List of Generic Names ”’] : . Ampullaria Lamarck, with Helix ampullacea Linné as type; . Auricula Lamarck, with Voluta auris-midae Linné as type; . Cerion Roding, with Turbo uva Linné as type; . Oleacina Roding, with Bulla voluta Gmelin as type; . Bithynia Leach, with Helix tentaculata Linné as type; . Cyclostoma Draparnaud, with Nerita elegans Miiller as type; . Neritina Lamarck, with Nerita pulligera Linné as type; . Clausilia Draparnaud, with C. rugosa Draparnaud as type; . Vitrina Draparnaud, with Helix pellucida Miller as type; . Artemon Beck, with Solarium candidum Spix as type; . Cochlicopa Férussac, with Helix Iubrica Miller as type; 12. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, with 7. clausa Pfeiffer as type. COON ANA DH DN H + et i Discussion.—The twelve names in question were submitted to thirteen specialists as consultants who are familiar with the cases and with whose work these names are more or less intimately involved. Pronounced differences of opinion as to the best course to pursue exist in regard to six of these names. In regard to the other six names, one specialist supported ‘‘ sus- pension,” one opposed “ suspension ” (without details), one saw no special cause for “ suspension,” while five who opposed suspension maintained that the six names in question are valid under the Rules and therefore do not call for Suspension. The situation is thus presented that six of the names for which suspension is asked, in order to stabilize the nomenclature, can (on basis of expert testimony of five specialists) be adopted in the Official List without valid formal objection by any of the thirteen consultants in question. The data on these six names follow: 3. Cerion Bolten, 1798, tsd. (1894) Turba uva Linn., 1758. Pilsbry and Baker report: “Cerion Roding (Mus. Bolten., II, p. 90), type designated by Dall (1894, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 24, p. 121), Turbo uva L. 3 450 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Pupa Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. vert., p. 88), monotype Turbo uva L. (Not Pupa Roding.) Pupa Draparnaud (1801, Tabl. Moll: France, pp. 32, 56), for European Pupillidae.” Discussion: Cerion is universally employed for the typical genus of the Cerionidae (Gastropoda Pulmonata); the only other name (Stroplia) that has been used is preoccupied. According to Opin- ion 96, Cerion is the correct name for the genus. Its replacement by Pupa would be peculiarly unfortunate, as that name has usually been employed in the sense of Draparnaud (=Pupfilla Leach), although historically both the Pupillidae and the Cerionidae (members of different suborders) were included in the one genus. Except for Pupa Lam., Cerion would be the prior name for the genus, even if dated from what many consider its first valid use, that by Morch (1852). According to special reports by F. A. Bather, B. B. Woodward (both of London), and F. Haas, Rud. Richter, and W. Wenz (all three of the Senckenberg Museum, of Frankfurt a. M.), this case stands under the Rules. H. A. Pilsbry and H. B. Baker (of Phila- delphia), B. Rensch (Berlin), and F. L. Chapman (Melbourne), express themselves in favor of Cerion. Wolfgang Adensamer (Vienna) concurs. Apparently Paul Bartsch (Washington, D. C.) and L. Germain, both support Cerion, the former on basis of the Rules, the latter even if suspension is necessary. T. W. Stanton, speaking as a paleontologist, “‘ would like to have the conchologists agree among themselves.” 4. Oleacina Bolten, 1798, type Bulla voluta Gmelin, 1790. Pilsbry and Baker report: “ Oleacina Roding (Mus. Bolten., II, p. 110), monotype O. volutata R6ding, with Bulla voluta Gmelin in synonymy. Glandina Schumacher (1817, Ess. Nov. Syst. Hab. Vers. Test., pp. 61, 202), monotype G, olivacea Schumacher (= Bulla voluta Gmelin).” Discussion: According to Opinion 96, Oleacina is the correct name for the typical genus of the Oleacinidae (Gastropoda Pul- monata). As Schumacher was almost as unpopular as Bolten among the early conchologists, Oleacina has been in use almost as long as Glandina, and is the one employed by recent writers. It seems best to fix it. The consultants report as in Case 3. Cerion. 7. Neritina Lamarck, 1816, type N. pulligera Linn., 1766. Pilsbry and Baker report : “* Neritine’ Férussac (1807) and Lamarck (1809). ; Theodoxis, Theodoxus Montfort (1810, Conch. System. II, pp. 350, 351), type by original designation, T. lutetianus Montfort = Nerita fluviatilis Linné (1758). OPINION 119 451 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 25 Clithon Montfort (1810, pp. 326, 327), type by original designation Clithon corona (L.)= Nerita corona L. (1758). . Neritina ‘Lamarck’ Rafinesque (1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 144), nude name. Neritina Lamarck (1816, Encycl. Méth. Vers. II, pl. 455), type designated by Children (1822-1823, Gen. Lam., p. 111), Neritina pulligera (L.).” Discussion: Neritina Lamarck (with date quoted as 1809) has been and still is usually employed for a widespread group of fresh and brackish water snails of the family Neritidae (Gastropoda Rhipidoglossa). Probably, the European species, Theodoxus fluvi- atilis (L.) is not congeneric with the East Indian N. pulligera, but the position of the East Indian N. corona (Clithon) is more dubious. Theodoxus has come into quite common use, in recent years, for at least the European species, although some writers still use Neritina in practically the Lamarckian sense. Clithon has almost never been used in a generic sense, although it is possible that the Conchyliologie Systematique came out in parts, and Clithon is on an earlier page than ‘Theodoxus. The fixation of Neritina as a nomen conservandum would permit the “lumpers” to retain the customary name for the entire group, while the “splitters” could still use Theodorus for the European genus. Woodward reports: Neritina. Regrettable as was the necessary substitution, under the Rules, of Theodoxus for the once familiar Neritina there is no valid reason beyond senti- ment for reversion to the Lamarckian name. Theodoxus is now so widely used that its abandonment would only create more confusion. In the suggested course, which has its good points, of dividing the genus and using both Theodorus and Neritina the former by its priority would entail the family name being Theodoxidae. Bather reports: 7. Neritina should stand with genotype N. pulligera if generically distinct from Theodoxus with genotype N. fluviatilis. If that be possible I see no objec- tion to retaining the name Neritinidae—but that is another question. Richter (concurred in by Haas and Wenz) reports: 7. Neritina Lamarck, 1816, mit N. pulligera (L.) als Typus besteht neben Theodoxus Montfort, 1810, mit Nerita fluviatilis L. als Typus, da (wie es auch der Einsender fiir wahrscheinlich halt: eine zoologische Frage) die Arten pulligera und fluviatilis nicht kongenerisch sind. Will man Neritina und Theodoxus als Subgenera in einem Genus vereinigen, so heisst dieses Genus Theodoxus Montfort. Da die Spezies corona L., der Genotypus von Clithon Montfort, ebenfalls einem anderen Genus oder mindestens einem anderen Subgenus angehort (wie der eine der Einsender, Baker, in seinen Radula-Untersuchungen, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 75, 1923, p. 117 s., gezeigt hat) so bleibt auch Clithon Montf. bestehen: als Genus. oder als Subgenus Theodorus (Clithon) Montf. 452 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Der Name der Familie (entgegen B. B. Woodward, der hierin irrt) wird dadurch nicht berthrt. Chapman reports: VII. It appears that Theodoxis is untenable on account of the type being the equivalent of Nerita fluviatilis L. I would support the use of Neritina with type N. pulligera L., 1766. The other reports are as under Cerion. 8. Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805, type C. rugosa Drap., 1805. Pilsbry and Baker report : “ Clausilia Drap. (1805, Hist. nat. Moll. France, pp. 24, 68), type designated by Turton (1831, Man. Land and F. w. Shells Brit., I, p. 6), Turbo bidens Montagu (not Linné), which he includes (p. 75) in the synonymy of Clausilia rugosa Drap. (= Pupa rugosa Drap., 1801).” Discussion: Turbo bidens Montagu is not included in Drapar- naud’s paper under that name, and there seems to be some question as to its identity with C. rugosa Drap. As Turton certainly treated the two as identical, and this type designation is the first that can be considered valid and is the one accepted by the (recent) splitters of the original genus, it seems best to fix it. Later type designations indicate Turbo bidens L. or Clausilia bidens Drap. or give no authority for the species; all three (or four) “ bidens” are identifications of the Linnaean species but are now placed in three separate genera. Clausilia is the earliest generic name in the Clausiliidae (Gastropoda Pulmonata). Other reports as under Cerion. 9. Vitrina Draparnaud, 1801, type Helix pellucida Miiller, 1774. Pilsbry and Baker report: “Vitrina Drap. (1801, Tabl. Moll. France, pp. 33, 98), monotype Vitrina pellucida, with Helix pellucida Miller in the synonymy.” Discussion: Vitrina is the prior name for the typical genus of the Vitrininae and the earliest name in the Zonitidae (Gastropoda Pulmonata). However, Draparnaud’s specimens, as figured in his more detailed work (1805), seem to have been what was later named Helicolimax major Férussac (1807). Montfort (1810, p. 239) chose Vitrinus pellucidus (as the type of his emendation) but seems also to have confused the two species. Children (1822-1823, p. 100) and Gray (1847, p. 169) designated Vitrina pellucida (without authority). Herrmannsen (1849, Index Malac., Vol. II, p. 696) seems to be the first definitely to settle the genotype, and chose “ Helix pellucida M.” As some writers now place the two species in separate genera, it seems best to fix Vitrina exactly on one of them. OPINION 119 453 NO. 7. OPINIONS II5 TO 123 27 Richter (concurred in by Haas and Wenz) reports: 9. Vitrina Draparnaud, 1801, mit Helix pellucida Miller als Typus besteht nach den Regeln ohne Weiteres zu Recht. Ob Draparnaud ausser der eigentlichen pellucida Miller noch eine andere Art hinzurechnete, zumal in einer spateren VerOffentlichung (1805: Helicolimax major Férussac, 1807) und zumal eine damals noch unbeannte Art (major erhielt diesen Artnamen erst 1807 durch Férussac), ist gleichgiiltig. Diese Tiere gehoren eben nicht zur Spezies pellucida Miller. Other reports as under Cerion. 12. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842, type T. clausa Pfeiffer. Pilsbry and Baker report: “ Tornatellina Beck (1837, Ind. Moll., p. 80), nude name, including several nude species, among them T. clausa. Strobilus Anton (1839, Verz. der Conchyl., p. 46), type designated by Gray (1847, P. Z. S., p. 175), for ‘ Strombilus Alton, S. turritus (S. turritus Anton, |. c.). Not Strobila Sars (1835). Tornatellina Pfeiffer (1842, Symb. ad hist. Helic., vol. II, pp. 5, 55, 130), type designated by Gray (1. c..), Tornatellina clausa (= Strobilus bilamel- latus Anton).” Discussion: Beck’s Tornatellina is a nomen nudum but Pfeiffer vested it and some of Beck’s specific names. Since that time, Tornatel- lina has been universally used as the typical genus of the Tornatellini- dae (Gastropoda Pulmonata), because those authors who paid any attention to the prior Strobilus considered it preoccupied by Strobila. Unfortunately, there is also the rather closely related Strobila Morse (1864=Strobilops, Strobilopsidae). Tornatellina turrita and T. bilamellata (+ clausa) are probably congeneric, although they are generally placed in different sections of the genus. Anton’s descrip- tions are very brief and would probably be almost unidentifiable without Pfeiffer’s subsequent elaborations (1848). Richter (concurred in by Haas and Wenz) reports: 12. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842, mit Strobilus bilamellatus Anton= T. clausa als-Typus besteht neben Strobilus Anton, 1839, mit S. turritus Anton als Typus, solange die Sys- tematiker die Arten clausa und turritus nicht als kongenerisch betrachten. Will man beide in Subgenera innerhalb eines Genus vereinigen, so muss dieses Genus Strobilus Anton heissen; die Subgenera wiirden dann heissen Strobilus (Stro- bilus) Anton mit turritus als Typus und Strobilus (Tornatellina) Pfeiffer mit clausa als Typus. Bather reports: ‘ I agree with Woodward, but point out that this solution is “ proper,” 7. e., in accord with the Rules, only if Strobilus Anton be regarded as a homonym of Strobila Sars. Since that, according to the appellants, was the prevailing view, I would leave it undisturbed. If that be not agreed to, I would probably accept Suspension of the Rules on the ground of Confusion. [Secretary concurs.] 454 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Other reports as under Cerion. On behalf of the Commission, the Secretary wishes to express appreciation of the cooperation which the above mentioned con- sultants have given in connection with this case. In respect to the name Neritina, the following recommendation by the Secretary is to be interpreted as applying to its generic status, in case Neritina is accepted as generically distinct from Theodoxus, but to its subgeneric status in case it 1s accepted only as subgenerically distinct. In view of the pronounced differences of opinion which have de- veloped in the cases of Ampullaria, Auricula, Bithynia, Cyclostoma, Artemon, and Cochlicopa, report is postponed until the next meeting of the Commission. In view of the foregoing premises and discussion, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: SumMary.— The following six generic names of MOLLUSCA are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names, with types as stated: Cerion (uva), Oleacina (voluta), Neritina (pulligera), Clausilia (rugosa), Vitrina (pellucida), Tornatellina (clausa). Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Sil- vestri, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, eight(8) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Har- tert, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stone. OPINION 120 455 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 29 OPINION 120 Tue Stratus oF Achatinus, 1810 SUMMARY .—Achatinus, 1810, is emendation of and therefore objective synonym of Achatina, 1799; the designation of zebra as type of Achatinus contravenes Article 30a and c. Achatinus, 1810, invalidates any later use of Achatinus in a different sense. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted for Opinion by Dr. H. A. Pilsbry and Dr. H. Burrington Baker of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences: What is the status of emendations of generic names? (1) Can an emended form be used as a valid name of a genus if ¢a) the original form is preoccupied or (b) if the emendation has a different generic type? (2) Can an emendation preoccupy a new generic name of later date? Case I. Can Achatinus Montfort be used as the name of a genus? The fol- lowing names are included in this problem: Achatina Lamarck, 1799, June or July; Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, p. 75, monotype Bulla achatina L., 1758, Syst. Nat., X, p. 728. Achatinus Montfort, 1810, Conchyl. System., II, pp. 418, 419, emendation of Achatina, but with type by original [definite] designation (p. 419), A, zebra=Bulimus zebra Bruguiére, 1792, Encycl. méth., I, p. 357, no. I00. : Cochlitoma Férussac, 1821, Hist. N. g. et p. Moll., Table Limacons, p. 28, type designated by Pilsbry, 1904, Man. Conch., 2nd ser., 17, p. 78, Bulimus zebra Brug. Achatinus Montfort is undoubtedly an emendation of Achatina Lamarck be- cause (a) Montfort almost always changed generic names so as to give them a masculine ending, and (b) he included “Achatina zebra Roissy ” in the synonymy of his type species. The types of Achatina Lamarck and Achatinus Montfort are now placed in separate genera. Can Achatinus be used for the African genus of pulmonate snails (typified by Bulimus zebra Brug.) or must the name become Cochlitoma Férussac ? DiscussION OF CASE.—The Secretary has verified the following references : Achatina Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris, p. 75, mt. (Article 30c) and tat. (Article 30d) Bulla achatina Linn. Montfort, 1810, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, pp. 418-420, referring to the vernacular name ‘“‘ L’Agathine”’ quotes a generic name, Achatinus, gives a generic diagnosis and adds “ Espéce servant de type au genre, Agathine zébre, Achatinus zebra,” with bibliographic references and technical and vernacular names. 456 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 He states that: Les Agathines forment un genre entiérement composé de mollusques terrestres, et c’est parmi eux que l’on rencontre les plus grands de ces mollusques; celui que nous décrivons tient dans cette classe la second rang.... Thus it is clear that Achatinus was not a monotypical genus for Montfort, 1810. On page 420 Montfort adds: Cest a de Lamarck que l’on doit l’établissement du genre agathine; il donna pour type l’agathine variée, bulla achatina, de Linné, dans son Systéme des animaux sans vertebres. It is obvious that Achatinus, 1810, is an emendation of and there- fore an absolute synonym of Achatina, 1799. This case was submitted to Commissioner Bather for independent opinion which he formulated as follows: Achatinus being merely an emendation must have the same genotype as Achatina which, fortunately, was monotypic. Montfort had no power to desig- nate any other type. Therefore, Achatinus cannot be used for Bulimus zebra Brug. if it belongs, as now alleged, to a different genus from Bulla achatina Linn. Therefore, on the evidence submitted, the name for a genus with B. zebra as genotype must be Cochlitoma Férussac. The Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: SumMARY.—Achatinus, 1810, is emendation of and therefore ob- jective synonym of Achatina, 1799; the designation of zebra as type of Achatinus contravenes Article 30a and c. Achatinus, 1810, invali- dates any later use of Achatinus in a different sense. Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, eight (8) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Warren. OPINION 121 457 NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 31 OPINION 121 NECESSITY FOR SUSPENSION OF RULES IN CASE OF Agasoma Gaps, 1869, TYPE sinuatum, Not PRovep ‘SUMMARY.—As the arguments submitted for Suspension of the Rules in the case of Agasoma have not been convincing to the seven consulting con- chologists and paleontologists who have studied this case, the Commission does not see its way clear to approve Suspension. Agasoma Gabb, 1869, type sinuatum, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Hoyt Rodney Gale, of Leland Stan- ford Jr. University, has submitted the following case: In the “ Paleontology of California,’ Volume 2, page 46, 1869, W. M. Gabb described a new genus which he called Agasoma. After describing the genus he lists two species, Agasoma gravida and Agasoma sinuata, both of which he had described as Clavella in an earlier part of the same volume, which had been published separately in 1866. In both places Agasoma gravida is placed before the other species, and it is mentioned as being “ abundant,’ whereas simuata is mentioned as “a rare shell.’ There can be little question but that Gabb had the common shell more in mind when describing the genus. The common shell has since then been well-known to all West Coast paleontologists and has be- come the type of the “Agasoma gravidum zone” of the Oligocene. It has been considered the type of the genus by West Coast workers, and other species simi- lar to it have been described; whereas Gabb’s two rather poor specimens of sinuatum have stood practically alone. However, it being such a generally recognized fact that Agasoma gravidum was the type, no one on the West Coast took the pains to state it definitely until English revised the group in 1914 (Univ. Calif. Publ., Bull. Dept. Geol. Sci., vol. 8, p. 245, 1914). In 1922, Trask, thinking sinuatum generically distinct, proposed the name Koilopleura for it (Univ. Calif. Publ., Bull. Dept. Geol. Sci., vol. 13, p. 157, 1922). In the mean- time, however, and many years before English’s paper was published, Cossman wrote the type of the genus as sinuata (Essais Paleo, Comp., vol. 4, p. 148, 1901). This fact was first brought to the attention of West Coast paleontologists by Stewart who proposed the name Bruclarkia for what had been considered typical Agasoma (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 78, p. 399, 1926). Cossman knew nothing at all about the situation, not realizing that one of the groups is little more than a curiosity, not realizing that the other group is so important that a change in name would be a source of annoyance and incon- venience to geologists as well as paleontologists, who even at that time knew the species of Agasoma as important horizon markers, not having heard of the important new species of Agasoma previously described by Cooper (Bull. No. 4, Calif. State Mining Bureau, p. 53, pl. 5, fig. 63, 1894), probably never having seen a specimen of gravidum, and surely never having seen a specimen of sinuatum. Thus Cossman’s work is not a revision of the genus, and although the old rule requiring a man to “revise” the group in order to make the citation of the type valid does not hold, there is at least a strong feeling against his method. Cossman clearly should not have taken it upon himself to arrange a 458 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL, 73 matter about which he must have known so little. It is not surprising that the West Coast paleontologists overlooked a French citation of the type of a genus which is not known outside of the Oligocene and Miocene of California, Oregon, and Washington. Since the original author must have intended Agasoma gravidum to be the type, since it has been so considered by West Coast paleontologists, since the first real reviser of the genus named it as the type, and since it would be a pity to make incorrect so much of our geologic and paleontologic literature merely because of an unwitting blunder, I ask if it is not possible, under the Suspension of the Rules, to cite Agasoma gravidum again as the type of the genus? DISCUSSION OF CASE.—This case has been submitted to the follow- ing persons for study and expert opinion: (1) Dr. Paul Bartsch, United States National Museum, Washington, D. C. .(2) Dr. F. A, Bather, British Museum, London, England. (3) Commissioner F. Chapman, A. L. S., Museum, Melbourne, Australia. (4) Dr. L. R. Cox, British Museum, London, England. (5) Dr. Rudolph Richter, Senkenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., Germany. (6) Dr. T. W. Stanton, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. (7) Dr. B. B. Woodward, London, England. The reports from all seven consultants agree on the point that Agasoma does not represent a case for which Suspension of the Rules is advisable. On basis of the advice submitted by these seven consultants, the Secretary is not persuaded that “the strict application of the Rules will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity,” and he therefore recommends that the Commission adopt, as its Opinion, the following: SumMary.—As the arguments submitted for Suspension of the Rules in the case of Agasoma have not been convincing to the seven consulting conchologists and paleontologists who have studied this case, the Commission does not see its way clear to approve Suspension. Agasoma Gabb, 1869, type sinuatum, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stone. OPINION 122 459 NO. 7 OPINIONS I15 TO 123 33 OPINION 122 SEVEN GENERIC NAMES IN PRIMATES ApboprteD IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES - SUMMARY.—The following generic names in Primates are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names, with type species as cited: Colobus (poly- comos), Galago (galago), Gorilla (gorilla), Hylobates (lar), Lemur (catta), Pithecia (pithecia), Tarsius (spectrum). STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner Apstein has proposed the following seven generic names of Primates as nomina conservanda : 1. Colobus Illiger, 1811, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 60, tsd. poly- comos Schreber, type locality West Africa. Galago Geofir., 1796, Mag. Encycl., vol. 2, no. I, p. 49, 1 pl., tat. senegalensis Geoffr. = galago Schreber, type locality Senegal. 3. Gorilla Geoffr., 1852, C. r. Acad. Sci., Paris, vol. 34, p. 84, tat. gorilla Savage, 1847, type locality Gaboon River, West Africa. 4. Hylobates Illiger, 1811, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 67, mt. Homo lar Linn., 1771, type locality Malay Peninsula. 5. Lemur Linn., 1758a, Syst. Nat., vol. I, p. 20, type catta Linn., 1758a, 30, type locality Madagascar. : 6. Pithecia Desm., 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. V, p. 24, Tab. méth. Mamm., 8, tat. Simia pithecia Linn., 1766, type locality Guiana. 7. Tarsius Storr, 1780, Prodromus Meth, Mamm., pp. 33, 34, Tab. A, mt. spectrum Pallas, 1778, so. tat. tarsier Erxl., 1777, = tarsius, type locality East Indies. iS) Discussion.—These names have been compared with the various nomenclators, with a considerable portion of the special literature on Primates, and with the original place of publication. In addition, they have been submitted to Dr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., of the United States National Museum, who considers them valid under the Rules. The Secretary has studied them and concurs in Doctor Miller’s opinion. In view of the foregoing premises, the Secretary recommends the adoption of these names in'the Official List of Generic Names. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Hartert, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger. 460 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 123 P. F. GmMeELIN’s ONomaToLocia Histor1AE NATURALIS COMPLETA SUPPRESSED SUMMARY.—Because of room for difference of opinion in interpreting many of the names in Gmelin’s (1758-77) Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis Com- pleta, their adoption in nomenclature would produce greater confusion than uniformity. Accordingly under Suspension of the Rules (if need be) this entire work (vols. 1-7) is hereby excluded from use under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—In connection with a well-known generic name in Insecta, J. C. Budwell of the United States National Museum, Washington, D. C., has requested an opinion on the nomen- clatorial status of P. F. Gmelin’s Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis Completa. Discussion.—Through the courtesy of the Surgeon General’s Library, United States Army, the Secretary has been able to examine a complete set of this very rare and in some respects very remarkable publication, which is variously attributed to Gmelin, and to Gmelin (volumes 1-4) and Christman (volumes 5-7). The complete title as given in volume I reads: Onomatologia Medica Completa seu Onomatclogia Historiae Naturalis oder vollstandiges Lexicon das alle Benennungen der Kunstwoerter der Naturge- schichte nach ihren ganzen Umfang erklaert und den reichen Schatz der ganzen Natur durch deutliche und richtige Beschreibungen des nuetzlichen und sonder- baren von allen Thieren, Pflanzen und Mineralien, sowohl vor Aerzte als andere Liebhaber in sich fasst zu allgemeinem Gebrauch von einer Gesellschaft natur- forschender Aerzte nach den richtigsten Urkunden zusammengetragen. Ulm Frankfurt und Leipzig auf Kosten der Gaumischen Handlung. 1758. With volume 2 the chief title is dropped and the subtitle of volume I is adopted to read as follows: Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis Completa oder Vollstandiges Lexicon [etc.]. The seven volumes represent a dictionary, lexicon, or encyclopedic arrangement of names (chiefly Latin) in alphabetic order. [Ono- matologia, 7. e., Nomenclator.] Under generic names the specific names are given alphabetically. The last work of Linnaeus cited in the bibliography given in volume I is his Systema Naturae, 1748. Thus it is clear that the Onomatologia starts out on the pre-Linnean system of nomenclature without reference to the Linnean system of 1751; furthermore, in the earlier volumes the entries lack date and page references. In a supplementary bibliography given in volume 3, the tenth edition of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae is cited, and to this the date “1760” instead of 1758 is given. Accordingly it is not strange that with this OPINION 123 461 NO. v4 OPINIONS I15 TO 123 35 number Linnean names (on a binary and binomial basis) with page references are cited. In volume 4, 1773, according to the Introduction, p. 5, the twelfth edition of Linné’s Systema Naturae is definitely adopted. The introduction to volume 5, 1775, pp. 2-3, definitely states that Linnean method and terminology are adopted. Accordingly the seven volumes represent two different plans of nomenclature—one, the pre-Linnean (polynomial) and the other the Linnean plan (binary and binomial). This point in itself might tend to make confusion for many in case this series of books is admitted under the International Rules, as it would add numerous new cases to a group of names which; though settled in principle by the Rules and Opinions, is still made a subject of controversial discussion. A second point of confusion would arise from an element which the Secretary interprets as a cross-reference to the species, but which some authors, not without justification, might argue represents entries of new generic names. Under this latter interpretation confusion will result and the extent of this confusion cannot at present be foreseen. As examples, the following may be cited: Vol. 2, 1761, p. 267, “Bombyx .... Papilio Bombyx ....der Seiden- wurm ”; Vol. 3, 1766, p. 469, Crocodilus (referred to Linn.) is cross-referenced to (s. [= siehe]) Lacerta crocodilus Linn., tenth edition; 566, “ Cypraea Lynx. s. Lynx Cypraea,” cf. vol. 4, 1773, p. 918, “ Lynx. Cypraea Lynx.” Thus Lynx might become the name of a mollusk, and Lynx Kerr, 1792, mammal, would then become a homonym; 585, Dama is quoted as if it might be a generic name, and refers to Cervus dama Linn., tenth edition, p. 67, no. 5; Vol. 6, 1775, p. 2, “ Paca. s. Cavia Paca.” This might be interpreted by some authors as a new generic name based on Cavia paca; p. 610, “ Polcat. s. Viverra Putorius.” Probably for the English polecat, but might easily be interpreted as a generic name; p. 815, “ Rattus s. Mus Rattus” ; p. 815, “ Rattus moschatus” quoted from 1725. Two interpretations might be made by different authors: (1) that the genus Rattus, type Mus Rattus is proposed and that this genus includes also Ratius moschatus; or (2) that Rattus is a specific cross-reference to Mus Rattus and that Rattus moschatus is simply a quotation from 1725. ? A third type of confusion would result because of the entries of pre-Linnean names in connection with which it is sometimes difficult to conclude whether they are blind dictionary (or bibliographic) citations or whether they should be interpreted as adopted by the author. Examples: Wolts2 an: 114, “ Bacillus. s. astacus petrificatus vulgo,” cf. “Astacus petrifica- tus vulgo ... . versteinerte Krebse,” vol. 2, p. 21. Bacillus would stand in danger of being transferred from the insects to crustacea; 462 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 36 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 p. 214 ff., Blatta is used both for roaches and (as Blatia bizantia Ron- deletti) for the operculum of an African mollusk. Vol. 3, p. 503, Cuniculus, the rabbit, with species, quoted from Gesner. Vol. 5, 1775, p. 52, Mandril refers to large man-like apes on the Gold Coast of Africa, bipeds, not quadrupeds. The word might be interpreted as a generic name by some authors or might be interpreted as a ver- nacular name. If interpreted as a generic name some authors would probably look upon this as the correct name for the chimpanzee. Vol. 2, p. 278, “ Bos, der Ochs”; p. 286, “ Bos pisces” (referring to Bos Plin., a fish). Sherborn (1902@) cites the Onomatologia in the bibliography to his Index Animalium, part I, but he rejects its names on the ground that they are not binominal “[n. b.].” As a source of historical information on the early ideas and con- cepts in zoology this Onomatologia is undoubtedly a wonderful and valuable piece of work which will be found useful by any zoologist dealing with species published prior to 1777. The publication in question is exceedingly rare and difficult to obtain. Its acceptance in nomenclature would place numerous sys- tematists working on Linnean genera and species at a very distinct disadvantage and at this late date in the progress of nomenclature it would be difficult to justify the imposition of this inconvenience to specialists in the Linnean genera, especially since this might involve financial outlays which science can ill afford in the present state of world economics. The one and only argument in favor of the acceptance of this work on a nomenclatorial basis, as far as the Secretary can see, is repre- sented by the principle of the blind adherence to the Law of Priority no matter what the consequences may be. Under the circumstances the Secretary recommends the adoption of the following as the Opinion of the Commission: SummMmary.—Because of room for difference of opinion in inter- preting many of the names in Gmelin’s (1758-77) Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis Completa, their adoption in nomenclature would produce greater confusion than uniformity. Accordingly under Sus- pension of the Rules (if need be) this entire work (vols. 1-7) is hereby excluded from use under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 73, NUMBER 8 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 124 TO 133 (PUBLICATION 3395) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION OCTOBER 28, 1936 ; 7 Che Lord Baltimore Press BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. OPINION 124 465 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 124 TO 133 OPINION 124 LINNAEUS, 1758, SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA SUMMARY.—The various Subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of this date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the International Rules. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Several zoologists have requested the Com- mission to make a definite ruling in regard to the status of the sub- division of genera found in Linnaeus, 1758a. One case is before the Commission at present (Bulla) which makes a ruling on this point very desirable and at least one other case is likely to be submitted to the Commission in the very near future. Discussion.—Considerable difference of opinion exists among zool- ogists as to the status of the subdivisions of genera used by Linnaeus, 1758a. On account of the situation presented, the Commission has made a page by page study of the tenth edition of the “ Systema Naturae ” and has tabulated the subdivisions into various categories. A result of this tabulation shows conclusively that it is impossible to look upon all these subdivisions as definitely named subgenera, and if one at- tempts to grant subgeneric nomenclatorial value to certain of these categories and to deny it to others it is found to be exceedingly diffi- cult, in fact impossible, to present a plan which is free from objection. The subject was laid before the Commission in Circular Letter No. 137, series 1928, and this Circular Letter with the text of the tenth edition was studied by the Commission during its meeting in Padua in August and September 1930. As a result of this study the Commission adopted the following paragraph in its Minutes for August 30, 1930: After a discussion of the so-called subgenera in Linnaeus, 1758a, the Secre- tary was instructed to prepare an Opinion to the effect that these are not sub- SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL.73, No. 8 466 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS @ SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. Hie genera, but if any group of specialists finds that because of the literature on said group this Opinion will produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commis- sion is prepared to take up individual cases under arguments which may be submitted. Pursuant to these instructions, the Secretary presented the draft of this Opinion for formal vote. The adoption of this Opinion automatically settles the case of Bulla now before the Commission, i. e., the alleged subgenus Bulla Linn., 1758, insect, is not a subgenus under this Opinion and therefore does not affect in any way the standing of Bulla Linn., 1758a, mollusk. Even in absence of this Opinion the case of Bulla would be settled under the following amendment to Article 36 (on homonyms) adopted at Padua, 1930: When homonyms are of the same date, whether by the same or by different authors, then any name proposed for a genus takes precedence over a name [its homonym] proposed for a subgenus. The same principle is applicable to homonyms of species and subspecies of identical date. The Secretary has the honor to recommend that the Summary as given above be accepted as the Opinion of the Commission. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Cabrera, Pellegrin, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Stephenson, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, five (5) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Jordan (D. S.), Richter, Warren. OPINION 125 467 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 3 OPINION 125 Boros HERBST, 1797, AND Borus Acassiz, 1846, vs. Borus ALBERS, 1850 SUMMARY.—Borus Agassiz, 1846, is an emendation of, and therefore an absolute synonym of, Boros Herbst, 1797; Borus Albers, 1850, is a dead homonym. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, of the Academy of Natu- ral Sciences of Philadelphia, submits the following case for Opinion: In Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, Jahrg. 92 (for 1926), Abth. A, 8 Heft, July 1928, p. 66, E. Strand proposes to reject the name “ Borus Albers, 1850”, on account of Borus L. Agassiz, Nomencl. Zool., r846, in Coleoptera, and to replace it by Corus Jousseaume, 1877. Borus was suggested by Agassiz (Nom. Zool. Index Univ., p. 49) as an emendation of Boros Herbst, 1797. Under present conditions the names Boros and Borus would be considered sufficiently different (Opinion 25 of the Inter- national Commission). In my opinion the original spelling of each name is all that need be considered; subsequent variants or emendations having no status in nomenclature. According to this view Borus Albers will stand. “Corus (Bulimus) valenciennensi” (sic) was mentioned with other snails by Jousseaume (Bull. Soc. Zool. France, vol. 2, p. 311, 1877), but without any intimation that the name was new. In the same paragraph and elsewhere in the same communication, new names proposed are so designated, and moreover are printed in heavy face type. It is clear, therefore, that “ Corus” was a pen error or printer’s error for Boruws. Such an error seems the more likely as there are two mistakes in the name “ valenciennesi” (a well-known species of Borus) in the same line. I do not think that such an evident error is available as basis for a new name. Megalobulimus K. Miller, Malak. Blatter, vol. 25, p. 172, 1878, for Borus garcia-moreni Miller (=B. popelairianus var. thammianus vy. Martens) is available for the Borus group in case Borus is rejected. Discussion.—This case was studied independently by Commis- sioner Bather, by the Secretary, and by Dr. Paul Bartsch of the United States National Museum. The opinions prepared by all three are in agreement. The Opinion as worded by Commissioner Bather reads as follows: By Art. 19, the name Boros Herbst should be preserved unless an error of transcription, a Japsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. Since the name is obviously the Greek Bopés none of these is evident. But by Art. 8, Recommendation a and Appendix f, Herbst “should” have written Borus. Since this recommendation is based on the previous usage of both classical scholars and the early systematists (who were for the most part scholars), Agassiz was within his rights in emending to Borus. 468 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 If his right be disputed, then, since there is no possible question of an error of transcription, etc., Borus Agassiz is a synonym of Boros Herbst. Borus Albers, it can hardly be doubted, is also a transliteration of Boros. If a correct name, it is a homonym of Borus Ag. If incorrect, it should be written Boros and so becomes a homonym of Boros Herbst. Art. 36, Recom- mendation, does not apply to this case. Therefore according to strict application of Art. 34, and Opinion 83, Borus Albers is to be rejected. The Secretary recommends that the Summary, as given above, be adopted as the Opinion of the Commission. Opinion prepared by Bather, Stiles, and Bartsch. Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Cabrera, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Pelle- grin, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stephenson, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Jordan (D.S.), Warren. Comunissioner Richter adds: Ich stimme der Opinion zu. Zur Discussion, Absatz 3, habe ich aber grundsatzlich zu bemerken: Nicht- befolgung eines Ratschlags bei der Aufstellung eines Namens gibt kein Recht, den Namen nachtraglich im Sinne dieses Ratschlags zu Gndern. Herbst, 1797, “should have written Borus”; wenn er aber Boros geschrieben hat, so hat Agassiz, 1846, nicht das Recht, Boros in Borus zu andern. OPINION 126 469 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 5 OPINION 126 d New NAMEs IN D’OrBIGNY’s, 1850, “ PRODROME”’ ARE NOMENCLA- TORIALLY AVAILABLE SUMMARY.—On basis of evidence and expert advice of outstanding special- ists, the Commission does not see its way clear to declare the new names in d’Orbigny’s, 1850, “ Prodrome’”’ as unavailable or as nomina nuda under the Rules. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by ek. Cox and W. J. Arkell: That the new specific names published by A. d’Orbigny in his “ Prodrome de Paléontologie Stratigraphique Universelle”’ (3 vols., Paris, 1850) shall be con- sidered as nomina nuda and shall have no status in nomenclature, unless they are accompanied by a reference to a figure or description published by some previous author. As specialists in the Mesozoic Mollusca, we are of the opinion that the sup- pression of these names is desirable in order to avoid numerous changes in current nomenclature, while few, if any, changes would result from such suppression. The “ Prodrome” purported to be a complete synopsis of the fossil Invertebrata known to the author at the time of its compilation (1847). Besides listing all species which had been described prior to that date, and providing new specific names in cases of preoccupation, etc., it includes a great number of new names given to previously undescribed species; most of these came from French localities and were represented in the author’s own collection. In each case the horizon and localities are given, and a brief comment is made on the species, but this rarely occupies more than two lines and is quite inadequate as a specific diagnosis. Examples: “ Teredo antiquatus d’Orb., 1847. Espéce a tubes trés-longs. France, Thouars (Deux-Sévres)” (vol. 1, p. 251); “Lucina sarthacensis dOrb., 1847. Espéce trés-comprimée, presque circulaire. France, Pizieux, Chaumont’’ (vol. I, p. 339). If these names are discarded as nomina nuda, as here suggested, d’Orbigny’s species will only be valid as from the date of their earliest description by a later author. Example: Astarte socialis d’Orbigny (vol. 2, p. 60) will date from its description by De Loriol in 1867 (Mém. Soc. Phys. Genéve, vol. 19, p. 69), and will be referred to as “ Astarte socialis de Loriol ex d’Orbigny.”” In most cases the first descriptions of d’Orbigny’s species are in a work by M. Boule and others now appearing in installments in the “ Annales de Paléontologie”, and figuring the supposed types. In a few cases d’Orbigny’s species have been guessed at and misinterpreted by later authors; such misinterpretations, if accompanied by proper descriptions, will be accepted as having the status of original descrip- tions. In most cases later workers have necessarily ignored d’Orbigny’s species, and many of them have been described under other names, which are now familiar in the literature. Names proposed by d’Orbigny as substitute-names, etc., will of course remain valid, since they are accompanied by references to descrip- tions in previous literature. D’Orbigny’s new genera will not be valid if the only 470 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. Hho species referred to them are those suppressed as nomina nuda (e. g., Sowerbya d’Orbigny, vol. 1, p. 362, will be rejected in favor of Jsodonta Buvignier, 1851, in accordance with current practice); in most cases the new genera include previously described species, and genotypes will be available. Discussion.—The decision on this case is obviously one of far- reaching importance, and is likely to be cited more or less frequently by various authors in reaching decisions on similar cases. It seemed wise, therefore, to obtain expressions of opinion from a number of specialists in different parts of the world before preparing a formal opinion to be submitted to the Commission for vote. In response to invitations to specialists to discuss the case, the following replies have been received. L. R. Cox states : In submitting the question of d’Orbigny’s ‘“ Prodrome” names to the Inter- national Commission, our primary object was to obtain a definite ruling upon a matter in which uncertainty has always existed, the majority of authors having deliberately rejected these names as being accompanied by absolutely inadequate descriptions. It seemed to us that it would be unreasonable to revive his names, with the resulting disappearance of familiar ones, without obtaining some opinion on the matter, and our recommendation was made in the hope that it might be possible to avoid such changes. The main objections to our recommendation are: 1. It would be a dangerous precedent to create, since the validity of several early authors might similarly be questioned. Also, a description which now appears inadequate may have been quite sufficient at a time when fewer species were known.—D’Orbigny, however, writing so late as 1847, cannot be classed with authors half a century and more before him. Descriptive terminology was very well advanced by his time, and in his other works he gives good descriptions and figures, showing that his “ Prodrome” descriptions were not intended very seriously. 2. The “ Prodrome” is a work of great merit, and Professor Boule protests against a proposal to set it aside so lightly—The value of this work for the purpose for which it was compiled is not questioned, but in the Introduction (p. lvi) d’Orbigny says: “En publiant notre “ Prodrome de Paléontologie Stratigraphique”’ nous n’avons pas eu en vue de décrire des espéces.”” The new names were probably merely introduced in the same way as nomina nuda often get published in lists prior to description of the species, and it is quite certain that d’Orbigny intended to publish proper descriptions in the “ Paléontologie Frangaise ”’, later on. 3. Even if his descriptions are valueless, his types have always been accessible in Paris—The idea that the publication of a description is an unimportant formality, the preservation of a type specimen being the chief thing, seems to be current in some quarters, but fortunately not among paleontologists in general. We might just as well accept nomina nuda, where a type specimen is extant. I realize that this is an important test case and it may prove discreet for the Commission to rule once and for all that no specific name published, even with only a single word of comment is to be rejected on the grounds of inadequate description. OPINION 126 47] no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 7 In a letter to Dr. Bather, W. J. Arkell discusses the case as follows: Cox’s letter to you on the subject of d’Orbigny seems to me to be rather too unconcerned. To say “that our primary object was to obtain a definite ruling”, as if it did not matter much one way or the other, is too mild a statement for my view of the case, so may I give my reasons more fully? Dr. Stiles, in the last paragraph of his letter (herewith), says “but in this particular instance it is not clear to me how many names are involved or how much of an upset would occur.” At the outset, therefore, I should like to make it clear that I am in favor of the suppression of d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome” names, not because of any prejudice against d’Orbigny or his work, but solely to prevent just such an “upset” of a very large number of familiar species. I am fresh from trying to compile a monograph of the Bathonian Lamel- libranchs, and it has been vividly brought home to me in the course of this work what a revolution in nomenclature the recognition of the “ Prodrome” names would bring about. For the “ Prodrome” was published in 1850, and Morris and Lycett’s “ Monograph on the Mollusca: from the Great Oolite”, from which nearly all our familiar names are drawn, was published in 1853-4. Morris and Lycett, who described and figured the species so well, very rightly gave up the attempt to interpret the “ Prodrome” species, which they regarded as virtual nomina nuda. In the few instances where they thought they recognised one of d’Orbigny’s species they were always wrong. For instance, Trigonia cassiope [of] Lycett is not T. cassiope d’Orb., which has since turned out to be a synonym of T. pullus Sow. The original diagnosis was as follows: ‘“ Espéce voisine du T. Costata, mais*plus longue et pourvue sur l’area anale de trois grosse cOotes saillantes crenelées indépendamment des cotes intermédiaires: Luc, Vézelay, etc.” On this Boule comments in the “ Types du Prodrome”, 1913, p. 145: “Cette diagnose a donné lieu a des interprétations diverses. Lycett a decrit et figuré sous ce nom des échantillons qui doivent étre pris comme types (Suppl. Mon. Moll. Gt. Ool., pl. 37, fig. 10, et Mon. Brit. Foss. Trig., pl. 32, figs. 1 and 5). La collection d’Orbigny renferme sous ce nom des échantillons variés; les uns sont indéterminables, tels que celui de Vézelay, la plupart des autres sont des T. pullus Sow., ainsi que 1’a reconnu M. Bigot.” Again, with regard to Myoconcha actaeon d’Orb., Boule writes: “ L’échan- tillon de la collection d’Orbigny est trés mauvais; il faut prendre comme type la figure de M. actaeon donnée par Morris et Lycett..... de You will notice that in both these quotations there is a tacit assumption that it is only d’Orbigny’s type specimen which could give the name validity, but when this has to be rejected Morris and Lycett’s species should be regarded as the types. There is no suggestion that d’Orbigny’s descriptions should give the species validity. If we reject some of d’Orbigny’s names on the ground that the type specimens are unsatisfactory, it seems to be introducing an arbitrary factor in the form of personal opinion, and I do not see how anyone is to pronounce finally whether the type specimen of any species is satisfactory or not. Anyone’s work is liable to be overturned at any moment by the expression of a different Opinion about the d’Orbigny collection in Paris. I have referred to this collection in a few cases myself, and know there is plenty of scope for different interpretations. The species in many of the boxes are composite. 472 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. WE, How little thought d’Orbigny bestowed on the assigning of his names is shown by the system on which he worked. He gave all the species of one genus fantastic names with the same initial letter, after the manner of naming a class of warships or liners, e. g.: Lima harpax, L. hellica, L. hippia, L. hille; Avicula jason, A. janassia, A. janira, A. jarbas, A. janthe, etc. Many of the names so lightly assigned are scarcely worthy of varietal distinction. For instance five trivial varieties of forms in our familiar Great Oolite “ Cyprina” loweana Morris and Lycett appear in the “ Prodrome” as C. antiope, C. alcyon, C. amphitryton, C. arion and C. arethusa. All these names have priority over Morris and Lycett’s loweana. As far as my work has taken me, the recognition of d’Orbigny’s names would involve the following changes in the Great Oolite alone: Arca eudesu Morris and Lyc. would become Arca eudora dOrb. Arca tenuitexta M. and L. would become Arca electra d’Orb. Cucullaea clathrata Leckenby would become C. euryta d’Orb. Mytilus subreniformis M. and L. would become M. galanthus d@ Orb. Trigonia cassiope Lycett would require a new name. Pecten hemicostatus M. and L.- would become P. rhetus d’Orb. Astarte rustica Lyc. would become A. vesta d’Orb. Cyprina loweana M. and L. would become C. antiope d’Orb. Protocardia stricklandi M. and L. sp. would become P. cybele d’Orb. Protocardia buckmanit M. and L. would become P. luctense d@Orb. (?) Unicardium parvulum M. and L. would become U. ovoidewm d’Orb. Corbula agatha Lycett would require a new name. In the Corallian: Nucula oxfordiana Roeder would become Nucula hellica d’Orb. Myoconcha texta Buy. would become M. radiata @Orb. Astarte subdéepressa Blake and HudIn. would become A. pasiphae d’Orb. Astarte nummus Sauvage would become A. pelops dOrb. Astarte contejeam de Loriol would become A. phillis dOrb. Jsocyprina cyreniformis Buv. sp., would become J. dimorpha d’Orb. Unicardium excentricum (d’Orb.) Dollfuss would become U. aceste d’Orb. Further research will probably bring many other changes to light, and where. it will end can only be determined by prolonged study of the d’Orbigny collection in Paris. The names in the “Prodrome” being for all practical purposes nomina nuda, it seems only fair that they should be officially recognised as such in theory. B. B. Woodward (London) writes: I am entirely in accord with Mr. L. R. Cox and W. J. Arkell in considering that the new specific names published by d’Orbigny in his “ Prodrome de Paléontologie Stratigraphique Univ.” should be regarded as nomina nuda unless accompanied by a reference to a figure or description published by some previous author. M. Boule, Professor of Paleontology at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, and Curator of the d’Orbigny Collection, presents the following considerations: Il est de mon devoir de protester contre la proposition de MM. Cox et Arkell de traiter aussi légérement l’oeuvre considérable et si utile d’Alcide d Orbigny et de considérer, d’ores et déja, commie inexistantes (nomina nuda) les espéces du “ Prodrome”, en arguant du fait qu’elles n’ont pas été figurées. OPINION 126 473 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133: 2 Il faut remarquer tout d’abord que beaucoup de ces espéces ont été réétudiées sur place, d’aprés les échantillons euxmémes par divers paléontologistes qui en ont figuré un certain nombre dans leurs propres travaux. De plus, la figuration trés soignée des échantillons types ayant servi aux courtes descriptions de d’Orbigny dans son “ Prodrome” a été précisément entreprise par mes soins, dés 1906 dans les “ Annales de Paléontologie”, pour _ satisfaire aux desiderata exprimés de tous cotés et pour remédier dans une certaine mesure a la complication croissante et déplorable de la nomenclature. En 1923, l’ensemble de cette publication formait un premier volume illustré de 34 planches en phototypie et de dessins dans le texte ott se trouvent citées ou décrites prés d’un millier d’espéces (Silurien-Bathonien), avec rappel des publica- tions antérieures relatives a ces espeéces. Depuis 1923, ce travail se continue réguliérement dans les ‘“ Annales de Paléontologie.” Les espéces des étages Callovien et Oxfordien ont été figurées, celles de l’étage Corallien sont en cours et la publication se poursuivra avec le plus de célérité possible. Je proteste également contre l’affirmation de MM. Cox et Arkell que les échantillons figurés par nos soins sont des types supposés. D’abord beaucoup de ces espéces sont représentées par un exemplaire unique. Dans les autres cas, le type est celui qui figure en téte de l’énumération du Catalogue manuscript de d’Orbigny. Ce-n’est que dans des cas trés rares qu'il peut subsister quelque doute. MM. Cox et Arkell parlent de la collection d’Orbigny sans la connaitre. Le jour ot ils voudront la consulter au Muséum, ot elle est a leur disposition, leur opinion deviendra certainment plus favorable. La proposition de nos confréres anglais et américains s’explique par une application du principe du moindre effort. Il est en effet plus facile de donner a des fossiles des noms nouveaux que de se livrer 4 de longues recherches pour les rapporter a des espéces déja connues. Non seulement une telle maniére de procéder n’est pas conforme a |’équité, mais encore elle a pour effet d’augmenter précisément les complications de nomenclature qu’on voudrait éviter. J. F. Pompeckj, Geologisch-Palaontologisches Institut und Museum der Universitat, Berlin, reports: besteht die Gefahr, dass auch andere alte Autoren, wie z. B. Baron v. Schlotheim ahnlichen Ausnahme Bedingungen unterworfen werden. Meiner Meinung nach mtissen die d’Orbigny’schen strittigen Namen nach den Internationalen Regeln der Zoologischen Nomenklatur behandelt werden (Art. 25, a and b). Ich kann daher dem Vorschlage der genannten Herren nicht zustimmen. Dr. Rudolph Richter, of the Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., expresses the following opinion: 1. Hinsichtlich der Beschreibung, durch die ein Artname giiltig wird, verlangt der Codex (Artikel 25) nur das Vorhandensein in der urspritinglichen VerOffent- lichung. Uber die Qualitat oder Quantitat der Beschreibung werden keine Vor- schriften gemacht. In demselben Sinn hat sich Opinion 52 ausgesprochen. Nach der lex lata besteht also kein Zwetfel iiber die Giiltigkeit auch solcher Namen in d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome”’, deren Beschreibung so kurz ist wie in dem angeftihrten Beispiel yon Lucina sarthacensis. 2. Aber auch wenn man von der lex lata absieht und nur priift, ob eine lex ferenda zweckmassig ware, kommt man zu demselben Schluss: 474 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ie) SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Schon heute geniigen die meisten Diagnosen der Alteren Literatur nicht, um zu erkennen, welche Species der Autor gemeint hat. Zu ihrer Zeit hat eine Diagnose vielleicht vollig dazu ausgereicht, auch wenn sie nur aus zwei Worten bestand. Heute aber sind nicht nur viele Arten hinzugetreten, gegentiber denen damals noch nicht unterschieden zu werden brauchte, sondern vor allen Dingen, es sind neue Gesichtspunkte fur die Systematik massgebend geworden. In dieser Richtung wird die Entwicklung weitergehen. Nehmen wir an, dass die Zoologie die Artbegriffe nach Serum oder Blutgruppen abgrenzen witirde oder die Palaontologie die Abtrennung ihrer Arten nur nach rontgenographisch erkenn- baren Strukturen vollziehen wiirde, so wiirden samtliche friitheren Diagnosen ungeniigend werden. Wenn dann ein Chaos der Nomenklatur vermieden werden soll, so geht es nur auf den vom Codex verfolgten Wegen: Der Typus jeder Art ist nach dem neuen Gesichtspunkt zu untersuchen und neu zu beschreiben; aber an jedem Typus hangt der Artname unabanderlich. Wenn er auch heute so schlimm noch nicht ist, so muss man doch oft genug den Typus untersuchen, um die urspriingliche Beschreibung richtig zu verstehen. Die Unbequemlichkeit, die die persOnliche Untersuchung der Typen notig macht, und die gelegentliche Anderung von Namen in Fallen, wo die Vorganger diese Pflicht versaumt haben, rechtfertigen aber nicht, das segensreiche Prinzip des Codex aufzugeben. Denn wenn man einem spateren Autor das Recht gabe, den Namen eines fritheren Autors dadurch ungiiltig zu machen, indem er die urspriingliche Beschreibung als “ nicht ausreichend ” anerkennt, so wiirde das die Subjektivitat quo ante codex wieder einfiihren und jede Stabilisierung der Nomenklatur unmoglich machen. Scuituss: Es wiirde unheilvolle Folgen haben, wenn man fiir d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome ” Ausnahmebestimmungen zulassen sollte. Dr. Wolfgang Adensamer, of the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vi- enna, reports: Es scheint mir sehr wiinschenswert die zahlreichen unzureichend beschriebenen Artnamen in d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome de Paléontologie Stratigraphique Uni- verselle” (3 Bde. Paris; 1850) zu eliminieren! Ich schliesse mich ganz der Ansicht der Herrn Kollegen Dr. L. R. Cox und Dr. W. J. Arkell an, dass die nicht oder unzureichend erlauterten Artnamen des d’Orbigny’schen “ Pro- drome” in der Nomenklatur nicht beriicksichtigt werden sollen. Am Schluss der Ausftthrungen von Cox und Arkell heist es: ‘“ D’Orbigny’s new genera will not be valid if the only species referred to them are those suppressed as nomina nuda; ....”. Falls derartige Genera hinreichend beschrieben sind, halte ich es aber nicht fiir zweckmassig sie auszuschalten! Hier mtisste die Ansicht der jeweiligen Specialisten eingeholt werden. Auf alle Falle ergiebt sich nicht durch das Ausscheiden aller d’Orbigny’schen Artnamen eines d’Or- bigny’schen Genus das unberticksichtigt lassen dieses Genusnamens! Hier miisste eine eigene Bestimmung solche Genusnamen eliminieren. W. C. Mendenhall, Acting Director of the United States Geologi- cal Survey, submits the following: The proposal of Messrs. L. R. Cox and W. J. Arkell that the new specific names published by A. d’Orbigny in his “ Prodrome de Paléontologie Strati- al OPINION 126 475 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 Il graphique Universelle” (3 vols., Paris, 1850) shall be considered as nomina nuda and shall have no status in nomenclature unless they are accompanied by a reference to a description or figure published by some previous author has been considered by the paleozoologists of the Geological Survey who are now in Washington. A review of the individual opinions submitted indicates, with one exception, general agreement in the view that each of d’Orbigny’s new species published in his “ Prodrome” should stand on its own merits and that those that have been or can be identified should be accepted as valid. The Survey paleontologists who subscribe to this view are Charles Butts, C. Wythe Cooke, George H. Girty, W. C. Mansfield, John B. Reeside, Jr., P. V. Roundy, T. W. Stanton, and L. W. Stephenson. A dissenting view is expressed by Edwin Kirk, who states that he thinks that the proposition submitted by Messrs. Cox and Arkell is sound and he concurs in the stand they take. R. S. Bassler and Charles E. Resser, paleontologists of the United States National Museum, wish to be recorded as in favor of the majority opinion given above. Dr. Paul Bartsch, United States National Museum, submits the fol- lowing opinion : I cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination these names could be considered nomina nuda if they are accompanied by short descriptions. Further- more, these descriptions, it would appear to me, will be found probably in almost all instances recognizable when one has ample collections from the locality in question which, as the two authors state, is always cited. I have read, at times, through pages of descriptions, and have found it quite difficult to pull out the few things that differentiated the species or subspecies in question from another form closely allied to it, and I have frequently longed that the author would give just a few brief diagnostic characters. lf specialists, working with the fauna in question, are unable from the short description and the name to fix upon a proper candidate for the name, then it seems to me that the species in question will have to be relegated to the unre- cognizable group and left there until some wise man is capable of rescuing it from that limbo. Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, reports: The new names in d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome” are not all so curtly defined as the examples given by Messrs. Cox and Arkell. Some are sufficiently defined by comparative characters for recognition and have been generally recognized. To reject all these names as nomina nuda would be inexact. Moreover, such an Opinion might open the question of adequacy of definition in enough other cases to swamp the Commission. I believe it the wiser course to leave new names in d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome” to be dealt with individually by the paleontologists interested. . These documents were submitted to Commissioner Bather, who has prepared the following discussion of the case: The application by Messrs. Cox and Arkell raises many difficult questions. This must be my excuse for a somewhat long discussion before proceeding to submit an Opinion. 476 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 The expression nomen nudum does not occur in the Rules or Rec- ommendations. It may occur somewhere in the Opinions, but repeated search has failed to find it. In the absence of a definition by the Inter- national Commission, it seems necessary to take the literal meaning of the words, which corresponds with general usage, viz., a generic or specific name unaccompanied by any word of definition, diagnosis, or description, by any figure, or by any reference to previous definition, etc. or figure. A statement of locality and geological horizon does not of itself prevent a name from being a nomen nudum (Opinion 52). Reference to a type specimen or type specimens by the register or cata- logue number of a museum or collector does not of itself prevent a name from being a nomen nudum; a fortiori the mere existence of a type specimen has no bearing on the question (Opinion one). It is plain that the new names introduced by d’Orbigny in the “Prodrome ” are not nomina nuda in the sense here defined, and no ruling of the International Commission can make them so. This conclusion has the support of Dr. Bartsch, but the other col- leagues do not seem to have dealt with the precise point. The application of Messrs. Cox and Arkell is not, however, to be dismissed because of a loose use of terms. They proceed to request that the “ Prodrome” names “ shall have no status in nomenclature.” The meaning of this phrase, as used by the applicants, is ambiguous. There are two kinds of status: 1. availability ; 2. validity. 1. A specific name may be unavailable for various reasons, e. g., because it is pre-Linnean, unpublished in the sense of the Code, non- binominal, as well as the reasons already discussed. 2. A specific name may be invalid for various reasons, and these reasons are of two kinds—a, nomenclatural ; b, zoological. a. Invalid because a preoccupied homonym, or because established on the same type specimen or other indication as a pre-existing species, i. e., a nomenclatural synonym. b. Invalid because held by the reviser(s) to belong to a species previously named, i. e., a zoological synonym. Invalid because the definition, figure, etc., are held by the reviser(s) to be incapable of interpretation, or, in so far as capable, then palpably incorrect and misleading. Now the International Commission is competent to pass an Opinion on all questions raised under 1 and 2a, because these are questions of pure nomenclature. It is not competent definitely to decide questions under 2b, because these involve zoological points, and these points are not so much of zoological fact as of subjective interpretation. The Commission is, however, competent to pass an Opinion on the nomen- OPINION 126 477 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 13 clatural consequences of zoological assumptions. It is, for example, entitled to say to a zoologist; “If you honestly believe that Cidaris wissmanmt Desor, 1846, is the same species as Cidaris spinosa Agas- siz, 1841, you must, other things being equal, adopt the name Cidaris spinosa.” Now it is on zoological grounds that Messrs. Cox and Arkell base their application. They say of the new names for previously unde- scribed species in the “ Prodrome” “. . . . ineachcase . . . . a brief comment is made on the species, but this . . . . is quite inadequate as a specific diagnosis.” This apparently means that the applicants, whose expert knowledge must be admitted, are unable to recognise the species from d’Orbigny’s sentences. They are entitled to their opinion, and justified in applying the Rules accordingly. The names will, so far as Messrs. Cox and Arkell are concerned, be invalid. But, as they point out, this will not stabilise the nomenclature, for other experts may hold a contrary opinion. Further, they say, the application of the Rules will result in upsetting a considerable number of names in cur- rent use. This must, it appears, be the result whatever view be held as to the validity of the names, and they claim that the only way to avoid both instability and confusion is to make the names nonavail- able. This can be effected only by suspension of the Rules. A specific instance of the difficulties may be given: Trigomia cas- siope dOrb. (“ Prodrome”’, vol. 1, p. 308). Lycett (1863) took over this name without comment and described British specimens as T. cassiope d’Orb. Others, however, have inter- preted d’Orbigny’s diagnosis differently. Reference to the original specimens shows that, in the words of M. Boule, “ La collection d’Orbigny renferme sous ce nom des échan- tillons variés ; les uns sont indéterminables .... la plupart des autres sont des T. pullus Sow.” (1913, “ Types du Prodrome”’, p. 145.) It is open to Professor Boule to say that T. cassiope d’Orb. cannot be recognised from the description, and so to regard the name as invalid ; or it is open to him to say that T. cassiope d’Orb. is a synonym of T. pullus Sow. But he continues; ‘“‘ Lycett a décrit et figuré sous ce nom des échantillons qui doivent étre pris comme types.” Clearly they cannot be the types of T. cassiope d’Orb., for they were not part of d’Orbigny’s material. Is then the name T. cassiope Lycett available? Certainly not if T. cassiope d’Orb. is recognisable as a synonym of T. pullus for then T. cassiope Lycett is a homonym of later date and is to be rejected under Article 35. But if we admit Professor Boule’s other conclusion that T. cassiope d’Orb. is unrecognisable, then it cannot be said definitely to represent 478 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 any species, whether the same as T. cassiope Lycett or not the same. Therefore Article 35, if taken strictly and literally, does not apply, and T. cassiope Lycett can be used. | Article 35.—A specific name is to be rejected as a homonym when it has previously been used for some other species or subspecies of the same genus. | This interpretation of Article 35 has never been discussed, but a cas- ual phrase in the discussion of Opinion 54 indicates that the opposite view would have been taken by the Commission in 1913. It is there said, “If Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820, is unidentifiable it becomes a genus dubium, but the name preoccupies Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835.” That was not the question before the commission, so that the remark is an obiter dictum. Nevertheless, such an interpretation would have its value in extending the principle of Article 35 and so promoting stability. Thus, in the example chosen from the “ Prodrome”, T. cas- siope d’Orb. may stand as a valid species or as a synonym of T. pullus, in which cases T. cassiope Lycett, if different, must have a new name. Or T. cassiope d’Orb. may be a species dubia, and still T. cassiope Lycett must have a new name. If, as claimed by the applicants, many other names of the “ Pro- drome ” have been similarly misinterpreted by subsequent writers and have come into general use for species that are not those intended by d’Orbigny, then there is a prima facie case for considering suspension of the Rules. It becomes necessary to discuss this proposal in more detail, and to consider the arguments adduced by the applicants and by the colleagues whose opinion has been asked. Let us take first the opinions unfavorable to the application : Professor Boule, as Keeper of the d’Orbigny Collection, claims foremost attention. He assumes that Messrs. Cox and Arkell are unacquainted with the d’Orbigny Collection. This is not the case: Mr. Arkell has examined some of the originals for himself and finds that in some instances more than one species is included under a single name. This observation probably explains the phrase “ supposed types’, to which M. Boule naturally objects. If, as M. Boule im- plies, the holotype is fixed by d’Orbigny’s MS. Catalogue, then the phrase is certainly unwarranted. It may, however, be recalled that De Loriol occasionally doubted whether the alleged type really was the type. The valuable work being done on the collection by M. Boule or under his direction does not seem to bear on the point at issue. The absence of figures from the ‘“‘ Prodrome” was not specially given by Cox and Arkell as a reason for rejecting d’Orbigny’s definitions ; OPINION 126 479 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 15 and it was known to them, and so stated, that several of d’Orbigny’s specimens had been described and figured by later authors, notably by M. Boule. The opinion expressed by Mr. W. C. Mendenhall and many paleon- tologists of the United States Geological Survey and the United States National Museum is not perfectly clear. It says that those of d’Or- bigny’s species “ that have been or can be identified should be accepted as valid.” —This may mean either identified on the basis of d’Orbigny’s diagnosis or identified by reference to the type material. The distinc- tion is important, as will appear further in the discussion of Dr. Richter’s letter. Dr. Richter is the only colleague who defends his position by rele- vant argument. 1. He maintains that, according to Article 25, a species name is validated by a description. Now Article 25 does not say this. It says that a name cannot be valid unless “ accompanied by an indication, or a definition, or a description.” “ Ueber die Qualitat oder Quantitat der Beschreibung werden keine Vorschriften gemacht”’ (Richter). Opinion 52, cited by Richter, says “ It is not feasible for the Commis- sion to issue an opinion upon the question: What constitutes an ade- quate description? ” All that follows from this is that a name accompanied by a descrip- tion should be considered, but whether the description is sufficient to validate the name is a question to be decided by the reviser. “ It is’, to quote the discussion of Opinion 52, “entirely a zoological not a nomenclatorial question.” Opinion 52 has, however, a direct bearing on d’Orbigny’s “ Pro- drome ”’, because it states that the type locality “is to be considered as an important element in determining the identity of species.”’ If in this we intercalate the words “ and/or type horizon ” we have a restate- ment of the principles on which d’Orbigny worked, as fully ex- plained in the introduction to the “‘ Prodrome.”’ 2. Richter says very truly that a diagnosis which would be inade- quate to-day may have been adequate when it was drawn up. This is a view that I have urged repeatedly. But it does not follow that the diagnosis was adequate. On the assumption that a diagnosis even today may be inadequate, Richter concludes that examination of the holotype is essential. I should not like to say anything that would seem to suggest the con- trary. “An jeden Typus hangt der Artname unabanderlich”, is a principle that cannot be urged too strongly; but it must not be taken to relieve authors from the necessity for drawing up adequate diagno- 2 480 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 ses. Some diagnoses have been unintelligible to the author’s contem- poraries, and have been proved by subsequent reference to the type specimens to be misleading and even incorrect. The object of a definition or diagnosis is to furnish contemporary fellow-workers with the characters by which they can distinguish the species from others already known or diagnosed at the same time. It is not (as is a description) intended to furnish evidence by which the species may possibly be distinguished from all others hereafter to be discovered. It is when extension and precision of the original diagno- sis are necessitated by further discoveries that recourse to the holo- type is incumbent on the reviser. If contemporaries could not under- stand a definition apart from the holotype, it is surely plain that the definition was inadequate from the outset. Since there always was and must be type material of some kind, the logical consequence of inclusion of the holotype itself within the definition would be to de- prive the rest of the definition of any significance. One need say no more than: “A charming species, rather large, Holotype: Nat. Mus. Ruritaniae, No. Xgg9.”’ Dr. Richter supports his thesis by an appeal to the “ subjectivity ” involved in any interpretation of the diagnosis. A bad diagnosis undoubtedly opens the door to subjectivity ; but a diagnosis is good in so far as it eliminates subjectivity. After all there may be as much subjectivity in the interpretation of a holotype (especially if it be an obscure fossil) as in the reading of a diagnosis. (See next Section, argument No. 6.) The arguments in favor of the proposal are contained to some ex- tent in the original application (C. and A.), but still more in letters subsequently received from Mr. Cox (C.) and Mr. Arkell (A.). They are: 1. The comments of d’Orbigny are inadequate as specific diagnoses (C. and A.). 2. D’Orbigny’s species have been misinterpreted by later authors, or have been ignored and described under other names (C. and A.). 3. The names, whether d’Orbigny’s or new, used by later authors are familiar and current, and it would breed confusion to disturb them (C. and A. and A., who gives many examples). 4. D’Orbigny was a competent describer, not to be compared with writers 50 years before him, and he himself says that it is not his intention to describe the new species in the “‘ Prodrome ”’; he would have described them later in the “ Paléontologie Frangaise ” (C.). 5. Reference to a type specimen should not be a permissible substi- tute for an intelligible definition (C.). OPINION 126 481 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 17 6. To retain or reject a species according as the type specimen is considered satisfactory or not is to introduce personal opinion (A.). 7. In some cases, as admitted by Boule, and as testified by Arkell, d’Orbigny’s type specimens are not satisfactory. 8. D’Orbigny’s names were often fantastic and given without thought. On the preceding arguments, the following comments may be made: I, 2, and 4. Undoubtedly d’Orbigny did not intend his remarks as “descriptions,” but it is not so sure that he did not intend them as provisional diagnoses, sufficiently clear to enable the species to be identified. Whatever his intentions may have been, the fact is that he fulfilled the requirements of the Code. The question of confusion does not necessarily depend on the inade- quacy of the “ Prodrome”’ diagnoses; still the applicants make that so large a part of their argument that the justice of the charge must be considered. It has been pointed out that the adequacy of a definition must be decided with regard to the knowledge of the time, and the applicants attempt to show that contemporaries could not understand the “ Prodrome ” diagnoses. Their examples are all drawn from the Oolitic Mollusca and from Morris and Lycett. Even were they justi- fied in this regard, it does not follow that other groups and other specialists were in similar case. I have therefore looked into some of the echinoderm species, as well as into the molluscan. First, it does not appear what steps Morris and Lycett took to understand the “ Prodrome.”’ D’Orbigny lays great stress in his intro- duction on horizon and locality, and it has already been decided by the Commission that such details when given are to be taken into account. Did Morris and Lycett attempt this? In nearly every case where they adopt one of d’Orbigny’s new names, they do so without comment ; only under Opis pulchella d’Orb. do they indicate that they have made the necessary comparison, and they say: “The experience derived from a multitude of examples leaves no room to doubt that . . d’Orbigny has correctly indicated its distinctive characters in the brief sentence above quoted.” Morris and Lycett took over d’Orbigny’s names in enough instances to show that they did not regard his diagnoses as inadequate; they did not, so far as I can see, express any opinion on the matter. There is no evidence, except that just quoted, that they ever troubled to examine specimens from the type locality. The evidence bearing on the new echinoderm species of the “ Pro- drome ” is far more satisfactory. 482 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 For the echinoids we have Desor’s “ Synopsis”, which appeared within a few years and obviously considered d’Orbigny’s names. Some were accepted without comment, some were accepted on evidence of specimens, some were adversely criticised, and some were passed over in silence presumably as inadequately defined. Thus: Diadema subcomplanatum d’Orb., p. 319, *416, is accepted. Wright also ac- cepts this and mentions specimens. Hemicidaris luciensis dOtrb., p. 320, *422 is accepted after examination of specimens from Luc. Wright also accepted this. Diadema calloviensis d’Orb., p. 346, is ac- cepted, but apparently on the evidence of a paratype. Diadema Jobae d’Orb., p. 290, *513. “ Espéce voisine du D. subangulare, mais avec les tubercules intermédiaires tout autrement disposés”’. Desor (“ Sy- nopsis”’, p. 17) says with justice “la diagnose ci-dessus ne suffit pas pour identifier une espéce.” Finally Cidaris jarbus, C. jasius, and C. itys d’Orb., p. 222, are not mentioned in the “ Synopsis ”, perhaps because they were based only on radioles; the definitions seem to me adequate. Holectypus corallinus d’Otrb, vol. 2, p. 26, was accepted by Desor and by Cotteau (1854). Cotteau also (1854) found no diffi- culty in identifying d’Orbigny’s Dysaster suprajurensis in the field, although he did not regard it as distinct. Turning to the Crinoidea we find De Loriol in “ Paléontologie Francaise ”’ exercising a similar discrimination, accepting or rejecting. His approach to the “ Prodrome ” differs from that of the echinoid specialists mentioned because he had the type material before him. He refrains none-the-less from accepting a name merely because he can identify the holotype. He accepts Cyclocrinus precatorius (vol. 1, p. 320) and Millericrinus rotiformis (vol 1, p. 346) without criti- cising d’Orbigny’s definitions. Of Muillericrinus bacheweri (vol. 1, p. 346) he says: “la diagnose n’est pas compréhensible ”, and the material in the d’Orbigny Collection does not enable him to interpret the species. There are seven specimens in the collection labelled Mil- lericrinus pulchellus from the type locality “ dont quatre seulement correspondent a la description du Prodrome”’ (vol: 1, p. 346), from which statement one infers that the holotype is not always so easily ascertained as Professor Boule implies. Several species are described by De Loriol from the type material and he adopts d’Orbigny’s names, although he either asserts or implies that the “ Prodrome ” definition was inadequate or misleading. See for instance his remarks on Pentacrinus oceani, P. marcousanus, Mil- lericrinus convexus, and Pentacrinus buvigniert, which last he makes a synonym of P. nicoleti Desor, solely on the evidence of types of both OPINION 126 483 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 19 authors. In such cases it seems to me that the names should be quoted as “‘ de Loriol ex d’Orb.”, for there is nothing in Article 35 to prevent a name being used for the same species. In the following instances De Loriol’s remarks may be quoted more fully because they bear directly on the point at issue. “Prodrome”, vol. 1, p. 241, *248 Pentacrinus liasinus d’Orb., 1847. Espéce voisine du pentangularis, mais plus gréle encore et plus uniformément lisse [3 locc. are given]. There is no such name as P. pentangularis in d’Orbigny ; perhaps P. pentagonalis is meant. If so, d’Orbigny is comparing Liassic and Oxfordian, a procedure which he criticises in the Introduction. De Loriol, on examining the syntypes of P. liasinus, rejects the name, as well as P. cylindricus Desor nom. nud., in favor of the later P. sub- teroides Quenstedt, because the latter is “le seul réellement connu dans la science, puisque le premier ne l’est que par une simple men- tion, et le second par une phrase du ‘ Prodrome,’ qui n’est pas méme exact.” “Prodrome”, vol. 1, p. 321, *?433 Pentacrinus nodotianus d’Orb., 1847. Espéece voisine du P. briareus, mais ayant ses verticilles moins comprimés. De Loriol, (“ Paléontologie Francaise”, 420 sqq.) explains how he was quite at a loss to interpret this until he discovered the type, which belonged to P. dargniesi Terquem and Jourdy, 1869. . His con- cluding remarks put the case clearly: Maintenant quel nom lui donner? Celui de d’Orbigny a la priorité d’années, mais, en vérité, il est impossible de prétendre que la simple mention du “ Prodrome”, que j’ai citée, et qui, encore, n’est pas exacte, soit suffisante pour dire que l’espéce a été publiée par d’Orbigny antérieurement 4 MM. Terquem et Jourdy. Ce sont ces derniers qui, par une description et de bonnes figures, ont réellement fait connaitre l’espéce, dont personne, d’apres la phrase de d’Orbigny, ne pouvait avoir la moindre idée, sauf que c’était un Extracrinus. Je crois donc que le nom de P. nodotianus doit étre définitivement abandonné, parce qu’il était impossible de savoir quelle espéce il représentait, et que, in réalité, avant MM. Terquem et Jourdy, l’espéce n’avait pas été publiée. With these remarks of De Loriol I entirely agree. To sum up these enquiries into the adequacy of the “ Prodrome” diagnoses.—It appears that, while some are clearly inadequate, others have been found adequate by specialists who took all the facts into consideration. In this respect the “ Prodrome” does not seem to me worse than many works which have always been accepted. Among relevant facts I do not include the existence of a type specimen ; at the same time it may be pointed out that, although d’Orbigny indicates by an asterisk the existence of specimens in his collection, he nowhere 484 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 fixes on any specimen or specimens as holotype or syntypes. In fixing the holotype it is no doubt advisable to regard the locality and, if the specimens therefrom are individually listed, to select the first on the list as holotype. The holotype as thus fixed may confirm the inter- pretation of the diagnosis, or, as Professor Boule and others have shown, it may be equally unintelligible ; or again, the diagnosis may be quite clear and may correspond with specimens from the type locality although the lectotype happens to be obscure. The adequacy of the “ Prodrome ” diagnoses is not to be judged by their length, for a single epithet may be sufficient. Nor can the names employed have any bearing on the question, especially as d’Orbigny (Introduction, § 66) insists that names which have no meaning are often the best. Thus examination of the “ Prodrome ” leads to the conclusion that it is possible to consider each of the new species on its own merits and to accept as valid those that have been or can be identified. The plea of the applicants is that such a course would lead to con- fusion, and Mr. Arkell in his letter gives a respectable number of instances in which familiar names would have to go. It does not appear that there is or would be any particular difficulty in echino- derms. My colleagues in the Geological Department of the British Museum take essentially the same view in regard to corals, Polyzoa, and brachiopods. In these circumstances it seems out of the question for the Commis- sion to sweep away all the names proposed for new species in the “Prodrome.” It is by no means certain that such action would not pro- duce a converse state of confusion in some groups. The chief difficulty, or at any rate the most annoying change in- volved by following the Rules, seems to be that exemplified by Trigonia cassiope and Myoconcha actaeon. Here it is generally ad- mitted that d’Orbigny’s diagnoses are inadequate (even the type speci- mens do not elucidate them). Yet it seems to be thought necessary to reject the T. cassiope and M. actaeon of Morris and Lycett as homo- nyms of d’Orbigny’s species. This conclusion does not appear to be necessitated by the rules. I have already maintained that a name can- not be a homonym when given to the same species. But can it be said (in the words of Article 35) that T. cassiope d’Orb. was used for some other species than T. cassiope M. and L.? Ex hypothest it can- not. If it were proved that T. cassiope d’Orb. did represent a distinct species, then that name would stand, but it has not been proved, and, one gathers, cannot be proved. Morris and Lycett were not founding OPINION 126 485 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 21 a new species; they believed that their specimens belonged to d’Or- bigny’s species. If the contrary cannot be proved, surely the name may be left. Many of the difficulties arising out of the “ Prodrome” and simi- lar works would be largely smoothed away if the Commission could agree to the following: A name that rests on a diagnosis unintelligible in itself and not explained by the type material, shall not prevent the use of the same name for a species from the same locality and horizon, when subse- quently diagnosed in proper form. To meet the undoubted difficulties I have endeavored to frame an Opinion that would be of general application, but without success. I therefore submit the following for the approval of the Commission. Opinion—There are no grounds for treating d’Orbigny’s “ Pro- drome” differently from other works containing preliminary diag- noses. In all such cases the decision whether a diagnosis is adequate or no must be made by the systematist and not by the Commission. If the diagnosis is held to be adequate, the ordinary rules regarding priority and homonyms apply. If the diagnosis is held to be inadequate, the publication of the name will not prevent any author from subsequent description and estab- lishment under the same name of the same species (as recognised from the holotype, if any) ; further, if the holotype be wanting or unde- cipherable, subsequent description and establishment under the same name of a species from the same locality and horizon is permissible. In both these cases the date for purposes of priority shall be the later date, and if the later author (say Brown) is not the same as the earlier author (say Green) then the name shall be quoted as “ Brown ex Green”. If, however, the holotype attached from the beginning to the earlier use of the name with inadequate diagnosis be clearly of a different species from the holotype attached to the later use, then the later use is a homonym as defined by Article 35 and is to be rejected. On the question of generic names, also raised by the applicants, Dr. Adensamer considers that a genus if properly diagnosed will be valid although the species referred to it may be suppressed as nomtina nuda. This seems rather a contradiction in terms. If there is only one species, the diagnostic features of the genus, which ex hypothesi are adequate, will also distinguish the species. If neither they nor the characters of the species are adequate, then both genus and species must fall. (Cf. Opinion 43.) 486 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 If there be more than one species, one of them either was, or must now be, selected as genholotype. That will then be distinguished from all species previously known by the diagnostic characters of the genus. The names of the remaining species may be treated as synonyms of the genholotype, or as nomina nuda. Opinion prepared by Bather. | Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Bather, Cabrera, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Pel- legrin, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stephenson, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, five (5) Commissioners: Apstein, Bolivar, Chapman, Jordan (D.S.), Warren. Stone adds: I agree with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Opinion but paragraph 3 is so far reaching that it should be definitely embodied in the Rules rather than be considered in an Opinion on a single case. I agree that a genus based upon nomina nuda has no standing. Richter adds: Ich stimme der Opinion zu, jedoch mit Ausnahme des Absatzes 3, dem ich nachdrticklich widerspreche. “If the diagnosis is held to be inadequate”’, ist eine Frage, die mehr als andere der Subjektivitat unterworfen ist. Es ist daher nicht nur eine unnotige Neuerung, sondern sogar ein gefahrlicher Anreiz, einem Autor zu erlauben, seine Autorschaft mit einem alteren Namen zu verbinden, weil dessen urspriingliche Diagnose “nicht ausreichend” sei. Der bisher in Zoologie und Palaozoologie tbliche Gebrauch, Autorschaft und Prioritatsdatum bei der urspriinglichen Veroffentlichung zu belassen und den Autor der spateren Diagnose nur in zweiter Linie zu nennen, hat seine guten Grinde und sollte nich geandert werden. Beispiel: X-us albus Green, 1900; emend. Brown 1920. Denn: lasst Green’s Diagnose die Moglichkeit zu, dass albus Brown damit identisch ist, so besteht kein Grund, diese Identitat zu bezweifeln. Solange diese Identitat aber nicht bezweifelt wird, ist albus Brown sowohl als Homonym wie als Synonym von albus Green zu betrachten. Ich bin mit einem Absatz der Opinion gar nicht einverstanden, namlich mit der Erlaubnis, zu zitieren “ Brown ex Green”, wobei das Datum der Prioritat dem spateren Autor zugesprochen werden soll. Ich witirde es sehr begrtissen, wenn dieser Absatz aus der Opinion entfernt werden konnte. Im tibrigen ist Bather’s Discussion von wundervoller Klarheit. Aber in jenem Satz scheint mir die Commission nicht nach der Konsequenz ihrer eigenen Grundsatze zu handeln. Stiles adds: It would be well to consider whether the difference of opinion as expressed by Bather and by Richter is not settled by Art. 24 concerning division and restriction of a species. OPINION 127 487 No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 23 OPINION 127 SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Lepidocyclina GUMBEL, 1868, TYPE Nummulites mantelli SUMMARY.—Complying with expert advice from specialists in the group involved, the Commission herewith Suspends the Rules and places Lepidocyclina Giimbel, 1868, type Nummulites mantelli, in the Official List of Generic Names, with Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 1856, type Nummulites mantelli, as objective synonym. The consultants agree, almost unanimously, that to apply the Rules in this case would produce greater confusion than uniformity. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner Chapman of Melbourne, Aus- tralia, recommefids that the Rules be suspended in the case of Lepi- docyclina, 1868, vs. Cyclosiphon, 1856. Discussion.—According to the evidence verified by the Secretary the nomenclatorial premises in the case of Cyclosiphon, 1856, versus Lepidocyclina, 1868, are very clear. Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 1856, Ueber den Grtindsand, K. Akad. Wiss., Berlin Abhandl., fiir 1855, p. 145, is monotypic, being based solely upon Nummulites mantelh. Lepidocyclina Gimbel, 1868, Beitrage zur Foraminiferenfauna der nordalpinen Eocangebilde, K. bay. Akad. Wiss., m.-p., Cl. Bd. 10, no. 2, pp. 689 and 717, was originally published as a subgenus of Orbitoides and contained three species, i. e., L. mantelli Morton, L. dilatata Michelotti, and L. burdigalensis Giimbel. No type species was designated, indicated or intimated, directly or indirectly. Douvillé, 1898, Bull. Soc. Géol. France, ser. 3, vol. 26, p. 594, defi- nitely designated Nummulites mantelli as genotype, as correctly stated by Galloway, 1928, Journ. Paleontol., vol. 2, p. 65, and as accepted by Vaughan, 1929, p. 29. As both generic names are based upon the same type species they are objective synonyms regardless of any subjective interpretation in respect to their structure (we name objects, not our conception of those objects). On this account Galloway, 1928, pp. 46-64, logically accepted Cyclosiphon in preference to Lepidocyclina. The Commission is now requested to suspend the rules and to vali- date Lepidocyclina in place of Cyclosiphon. On account of the general adoption of Lepidocyclina and its im- portance in paleontology the Secretary has referred this case to various 488 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS ‘COLLECTIONS VOL specialists for expression of opinion, and in reply has received the following : J. A. Cushman reports: I have little to add to the debate on these two names [Lepidocyclina and Cyclosiphon]. I should try to be consistent and use Cyclosiphon, but as noted in Vaughan’s paper here appended, it is a very great doubt as to what was meant by Ehrenberg, and his types are certainly not at all helpful. On account of the very great uncertainty, I would advocate the retention of the name Lepidocyclina in this case. When in Berlin in 1927 I examined the material of Cyclosiphon in the Ehren- berg collection there and found it to consist of various things, mostly glauconitic casts, a considerable portion of which did not even belong to the family Orbitoididae. Of the material which could be referred to an orbitoid none was of sufficient completeness even to be specificaliy identifiable. Evidently Ehrenberg from his description of Cyclosiphan had not seen the Nummulites mantelli which he referred to as his generic description would exclude that species from the genus Cyclosiphon. It seems to me very clear from the evidence that no good purpose would result from trying to revive the name Cyclosiphon with all the attendent confusion that — would necessarily arise. I, therefore, urge most strongly the retention of the name Lepidocyclina with Nummulites mantellt as the type species of both the genus and the typical subgenus. T. W. Vaughan, “A Note on the Names Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 1856, and Lepidocyclina Gumbel, 1868”, Journ. Paleontol., vol. 3, no. I, March 1929, pp. 28-29, reviews the case of Lepidocyclina and concludes that : Because of confusion surrounding Cyclosiphon, it appears to me undesirable, even unfortunate, to revive that mame, and it seems that the use of the name Lepidocyclina, with Nummulhtes mantelli as the type-species of both the genus and the typical subgenus, should be continued. Letter from Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the U. S. Geo- logical Survey, Washington, D. C.: The proposition for suspension of the Rules in zoological nomenclature for the purpose of retaining the two generic names Lepidocyclina and Nummulites has been considered by all of the Geological Survey paleontologists now in Wash- ington whose work involves the use of zoological names. While the workers of this group subscribe to the rule of priority for general use they are unanimous in their recommendation that the rule should be suspended in its application to the two names above mentioned so that they may be continued in use. The signed statements of the several paleontologists are attached. Letters from Survey paleontologists : In the case of a generic name which has been in long and general usage there seems nothing to be lost and much to be gained by retaining it, even though some one may discover that an older, practically unknown name has priority over it. OPINION 127 489 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 25 I therefore recommend that Nummulites and Lepidocyclina be given validity by the International Commission. I feel, however, that exceptions should be made only in extreme cases such as the ones here presented. Signed: L. W. Stephenson. “T concur in the above statement.” T. W. Stanton. “Concur.” Edwin Kirk, C. Wythe Cooke, W. C. Mansfield, Chas. Butts. “ Agreed, both as to making exceptions only in extreme cases and as applied here to Nummulites and Lepidocyclina.” George H. Girty. I believe that the substitution of Camerina, almost entirely unused and unknown, for Nummulites, extensively used for over a century, is a useless bit of hair-splitting legal procedure. It will lead to more confusion than clarity. Much the same is true with respect to Cyclosiphon and Lepidocyclina. I can see no profit whatever in going back into the literature of the dim past to dig up names that have only the legal show of validity and using them to replace widely used and well understood terms [irrelevant personal opinion-C. W. S.]. Let us keep Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. Signed: John B. Reeside, Jr., Jan. 25, 1929. “T agree with the above statement.” P. V. Roundy, Feb. 5, 1920. “ Amen and again Amen.” Chas. Butts. In cases in which the confusion arising from the resurrection of an older name is obviously to the disadvantage of the science [relevant testimony-C. W. S.], especially as in the cases under consideration in which no good save the restora- tion of questionably earned rights to Ehrenberg and Bruguiére appear to offset the ill it would do the science, I am opposed to replacing a well known and generally used name by an older one that never attained common usage. There- fore I am in favor of retaining Lepidocyciina and Nummulites. Signed: E. O. Ulrich, Jan. 29, 1920. Letter from Edward Willard Berry, of the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, Baltimore, U.S. A.: I understand that there is pending before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the decision whether to retain the generic use of Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. I wish to go on record as being in favor of retaining these two genera in the Classification. The following are expressions of opinion from Australian specialists : Prof. Walter Howchin, F. G. S.: I am heartily in accord with you for the retention of the generic names Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. These names have become so thoroughly in- corporated in the literature of the Foraminifera that their substitution would involve serious inconvenience and confusion, priority notwithstanding. I hope that the exceptions you suggest will be agreed to. Wei bars, PR. M.S: I think that the genera Nummulites Lamarck and Lepidocyclina Giimbel should be retained as nomina conservanda in place of the earlier Camerina Bruguiére and Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg. 490 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 I am generally opposed to the Suspension of the Rules, but unlike the other foraminifera genera which have been superseded recently, Lepidocyclina and Nummulites have been much used in general geological literature and a change to the older genera would certainly lead to much confusion which it is desirable to avoid. Robert A. Keble, F. G. S. Paleontologist : I am in thorough agreement with the retention of Nummulites and Lepi- docyclina. By doing so the literdture becomes intelligible at a glance and un- confused by the rules of nomenclature. Expressed in terms of time saved, such [word omitted] has a true economic value; confusion and uncertainty must obviously accompany a reversion to the strict order of priority. There remains, then, the question of sentiment. Bruguiere and Ehrenberg, the aggrieved authorities, have long passed away, but there is no question of depriving them of their priority. These unselfish pioneers would not have con- doned for a moment the waste of time and confusion that would ensue in establishing their presumed right of priority. Miss Irene Crespin, Paleontologist : As far as the two genera, Nummulites and Lepidocyclina, are concerned, I would emphatically support the retention of these names by a suspension of the Rules. A. C. Collins, student of the Victorian Tertiary Foraminifera: I should like to express my personal opinion that the generic names Lepidocyclina Giimbel and Nummulites Lamarck should be retained in preference to earlier names. As these names are so widely used in stratigraphic references, their alteration would, I think, create confusion amongst nonspecialists in the group, and I see no useful purpose to be served [in these cases] by the rigid application of the rules of nomenclature. Frederick A. Singleton, M. Sc.: My formal opinion concerning Nummulites and Lepidocyclina is that both should be placed on the official list of nomina conservanda, and it is impossible to reject one and not the other, Cyclosiphon having stronger claims than Camerina. The case was submitted to the Commission for informal ballot. The resulting vote stood six (6) for Suspension, four (4) for enforce- ment of the Rules. With his informal [affirmative] vote Commissioner Bather trans- mits the note: Professor A. Morley Davies, Mr. Heron-Allen, Dr. H. Dighton Thomas, and Mr. A. Wrigley advocate the suspension of the Rules in favor of Lepidocyclina. Mr. C. P. Chatwin, on the contrary side, writes: ‘‘ The question is: do we know what Ehrenberg meant by ‘= Nummulites mantelli’? In my opinion we do.” In my opinion, from the evidence of Vaughan and Cushman, we do not. That is just the point in dispute. I may remark that C. D. Sherborn, 18093, “Index Re te OPINION 127 491 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 27 to Foraminifera”, quotes “ Cyclosiphon? Ehrenberg., Abhandl. K. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1855, p. 168”, and adds “ Orbitoides fragment, referred elsewhere by Ehrenberg to O. mantelli.’ Obviously this high authority on foraminifera, bibli- ography, and nomenclature hesitated to accept Cyclosiphon. From a strictly nomenclatural standpoint I agree with the Secretary that this uncertainty has no bearing on the incidence of the Rules; but this only shows how ridiculous adherence to the letter of the law may sometimes be. It is not clear to me what confusion would be caused by substituting Cyclo- siphon for Lepidocyclina, but I gather that the latter name has long been in general use, whereas no one seems to have used Cyclosiphon between Ehrenberg (1856) and Galloway (1928). It is not in the Nomenclators of Bronn, Scudder, or Waterhouse. With his informal [negative] vote Commissioner Stone sends the statement : The privilege of asking for a Suspension of the Rules is in danger of being abused. I should advocate it only in cases (1) that are so involved that various interpretations are possible or (2) that seriously affect fields and activities outside of pure zoological nomenclature. With too much leniency our whole system will become utterly inconsistent. The Secretary has corresponded with the following persons, also, who are interested in this case and who approve of a Suspension of the Rules. Most of these workers have read the Summary of this Opinion and have subscribed to it: R. Wright Barker, Tampico, Mexico; W. S. Cole, Columbus, O.; J. A. Cushman, Sharon, Mass.; A. M. Davies, London; S. Hanzawa, Sendai, Japan; L. G. Heubest, Washington, D. C.; H. K. Hodson, Caripito, Mexico; W. L. F. Nuttall, Cambridge, England; D. K. Palmer, Matanzas, Cuba; H. J. Plummer, Austin, Tex.; G. M. Ponton, Tallahassee, Fla.; L. Ritter, Utrecht, Holland; A. Silvestri, Milan, Italy; G. Stefanini, Pisa, Italy; J. H. F. Umbgrove, Delft, Holland; I. M. van der Vlerk, Leiden, Holland; G. L. Whipple, Puerto Mexico, Mexico; H.Yabe, Sendai, Japan. The Secretary invites attention to the facts: (1) that the specialists consulted are agreed upon the advisability of Suspension in this case ; (2) the case involves geological record, i. e., a coordinate branch of science, and zoologists should be doubly conservative in arriving at conclusions on cases of this type which may have important economic bearings and which have become thoroughly established in paleonto- logical and geological literature. In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends that the Summary given above be adopted as the Opinion of the Commission. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Cabrera, Chapman, Fantham, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan, Pellegrin, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Peters. 492 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Richter. Note: In the case of Nummulites eight (8) Commissioners (Ap- stein, Bather, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, Pellegrin, Silvestri, and Stiles) voted for suspension ; four (4) Commissioners (Cabrera, Jor- dan, Stephenson, and Stone) voted against suspension; not voting, five (5) Commissioners (Bolivar, Handlirsch, Richter, Stejneger, and Warren). Accordingly this case is tabled until the next meeting of the Commission. OPINION 128 493 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 29 OPINION 128 Nycteribia, 1796, PUpPIpARA, AND Spinturnix, 1826, ACARINE SUMMARY .—Under Suspension of the Rules Nycteribia Latreille, 1796, with pedicularia Latreille, 1805, as type, and Spinturnix von Heyden, 1826, with myott Kolenati, 1856, as type, are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. The specific name vespertilionis of all authors is hereby invalidated for the following generic names: Acarus, Acrocholidia, Celeripes, Dermanyssus, Dip- lostaspis, Gamasus, Hippobosca, Ichoronyssus, Liponyssus, Listropoda, Megis- topoda, Nycteribia, Pediculus, Penicillidia, Periglischrus, Phthiridium, Pteroptus, Sarcoptes, Spinturnix, Strebla, on the ground that the application of the Rules would produce greater confusion than uniformity. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Prof. J. M. Aldrich, United States Na- tional Museum, has submitted the following case for consideration : Latreille proposed the genus Nycteribia in “ Précis des caractéres génériques des Insectes”, 1796, p. 176, mentioning only Pediculus vespertilioms Linn. In his “ Histoire naturelle des Crustacés et des Insectes”’, vol. 14, p. 403, 1805, he again briefly describes the genus, and gives a partial description of Nycteribia pedicularia, new species, which he figures on pl. 112, fig. 14. He places Pediculus vespertilionis L. under pedicularia, apparently as a synonym. : Now it is a fact mentioned by Speiser, “‘ Ueber die Nycteribiiden”’, Konigsberg, IQOI, p. 2, that Pediculus vespertilionis L., 1758, is an acarid, and not a nycteribiid in the usual sense of the term. Latreille in 1796 evidently did not know what vespertilionis L. was, since his reference to long tarsi indicates a nycteribiid in the usual sense. His second reference, however, is accompanied by a figure which makes the intention clear. Up to the present time Nycteribia has universally been accepted as a genus of Diptera, suborder Pupipara, and there has been no attempt within a hundred years, as far as I know, to “correct” the nomenclature by transferring the genus to the Acarini. Hence no confusion will arise if the Commission of Nomencla- ture shall decide upon a Suspension of the Rules in this case, and shall designate vespertilionis Latr. 1796 (non Linn.; pedicularia Latr. 1805) as type of Nycteribia. I request that this be done. Discussion.—This is probably the most confused case of nomen- clature which has ever been submitted to the Commission for study and Opinion, and as such it calls for radical action in order to prevent further confusion. At the request of the Secretary and under his personal supervision this case has been very carefully studied by one of his assistants, Ben- jamin J. Collins, M.S., who has summarized the results of his study in Bulletin 155, National Institute of Hea!th, United States Public 494 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. Te Health Service, pp. 743-765, figs. I-11, 1931. This printed article, a copy of which is mailed to each Commissioner, is hereby included as a portion of the Discussion. The chief points at issue are the following: 1. Pediculus vespertiionis Linn., 1758a, 611, was described as a hexapod, namely, genus Pediculus, but the most definite part of the original is the inclusion of a bibliographic citation of an illustration or figure of the “ Fledermauss-Lauss ” of Frisch, 1728; this illustra- tion is clearly that of an octopod. It seems highly probable that Lin- naeus actually had in mind a hexapod in addition to this octopod of Frisch, and for purposes of nomenclatorial argument this is adopted as premise. 2. Scopoli, 1763, interpreted Pediculus vespertilioms as an octopod and transferred the species to Acarus. This view was adopted by Linnaeus, 1767. 3. Latreille, 1796, proposed a hexapod genus N ycteribia, with mono- type “ Acarus vespertiionms Linn. Fab. Pediculus Linn.” In 1805 Latreille proposed for Nycteribia vespertilioms a new specific name, Nyctertbia pedicularia, thus accepting the premise that Latreille’s 1796 specimens of Nycteribia belonged to the Insecta, sensu restricto. The species pedicularia is objective synonym of the hexapod vespertilionis as of Latreille, 1796. In 1826 von Heyden proposed Spinturnix as a new genus in the Acarines, with type by original designation “ Acarus vespertilionis Scop. (non Lin.)”, i. e., vespertilionis Linn. of Scopoli as restricted to the acarines in 1763, not the hexapod vespertilionis Linn. as of Latr., 1796a, which under Art. 31, International Rules, isa dead name. Nycteribia vespertilionis remained with the insects for more than a century, but in 1902 Oudemans transferred Pediculus vespertilionis (namely the type species of Nycteribia) to Spinturnix (an acarine). 4. Under a strict interpretation of the Rules as applied to the fore- going premises the insect genus Nycteribia is based on an erroneously determined species, since vespertilionis, a compound species of 1758, was definitely assigned to the Acarines in 1763. The question now arises whether Nycteribia should not be trans- ferred to the Acarines, since its type species (vespertilionis) is an Acarine, or whether Nycteribia should be left in the insects on the ground that Latreille’s specimens were insects. This brings up a con- troversial point which has produced great confusion in zoology and which is open to different interpretations. The most practical method of settling these cases is by Suspension of the Rules, the decision in each case being made upon the merits of the individual case. a a OPINION 128 495 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 31 From 1796 down to date the specific name vespertilionis combined with Spinturnix, Nycteribia, and allied generic names presents such extreme confusion in synonymy that tables of subjective synonyms are difficult to understand. 5. We have before us a practical problem to settle. If attempts be made to work this case out on theoretical grounds an agreement is hopeless. The only practical solution the Secretary sees is to settle the case under Suspension of the Rules, holding in mind the preservation of that portion of the nomenclature which is practically universally accepted and eliminating from all further consideration that portion which is hopelessly confused in subjective interpretations. The proof sheets of Mr. Collins’ study were laid before the Inter- national Commission in its meeting in Padua, and the Commission adopted the following in the minutes of its meeting for August 30, 1930: The case of Nycteribia vs. Spinturnix was discussed on basis of galley proof by Collins (Washington) and the Secretary was instructed to prepare an Opinion in favor of Suspension of the Rules. In harmony with the foregoing instructions from the Commission the Secretary submits this Opinion and recommends the adoption of the Summary given above as the Opinion of the Commission. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Cabrera, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, K. Jordan, Silvestri, Stephenson, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, D. S. Jordan, Pellegrin, Richter, Stejneger, Warren. 496 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 129 Bipinnaria 1835 vs. Luidia 1839 SUMMARY.—The rules are herewith suspended in the case of Bipinnaria 1835 vs. Luidia 1839, on the ground that “the strict application of the Régles will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.” Lwuidia Forbes, 1839, with monotype fragilissima 1839 (subjective synonym of Luidia ciliaris 1837), is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. The names Auricularia, Bipinnaria, Brachiolaria, and Pluteus are hereby excluded from availability as generic names and are reserved as designations of developmental stages. STATEMENT OF CASE.—Mortensen submits his argument in “An- nals and Magazine of Natural History ”’, vol. 10, pp. 350-351, Oct. 1932, and his presentation is herewith made a part of this Opinion. Discusston.—Article 37b, quoted by Dr. Mortensen, has an in- teresting history. The original draft of the International Rules provided an excep- tion to the Law of Priority for certain animals undergoing metamor- phoses and change of host, and this exception was included in the rules as adopted by the Moscow Congress in 1892. This same provi- sion was retained in the draft prepared for the Cambridge Congress in 1897. In the 1901 Meeting in Berlin, Commissioners Blanchard and Stiles argued for the retention of this exception, but were overwhelm- ingly defeated in the final vote and they conceded the point for the sake of harmony. The parasitic worms, particularly Trematoda and Cestoda, were the first groups to accommodate themselves to the Berlin decision in so far as generic names are concerned; although many specific names are involved, fortunately few generic names come into consideration. The case of Bipinnaria vs. Luidia is the first one to come before the Commission for Opinion. The essential data, as made out by the Secretary on basis of Mortensen, 1932, and Sherborn’s Index are as follows: Bipinnaria Sars, 1835, Beskr. Bergenske, Kyst Dry, p. 37 monotype asterigera Sars, 1835, ibid., p. 37. Luidia Forbes, 1839, Mem. Wernerian Soc., no. 8, p. 123, monotype fragilissima Forbes, 1839, idem, p. 123. Bipinnaria asterigera has been identified as the larval stage of, and there- fore a subjective synonym of, Luidia sarsi. Luidia fragilissima has been identified as a subjective synonym of Luidia ciliaris (Philippi, 1837, [Asterias]) Gray, 1840. p. 183. 7) 6" ie OPINION 129 497 no. 8 | OPINIONS 124 TO 133 33 Accordingly, Luidia 1839 becomes a subjective synonym of Bipin- naria 1835 and the name of the larval stage becomes the name of the genus. Further, Luidia sarsi is an adult stage. Furthermore, Bipinnaria asterigera 1835, the name of a larval stage, becomes the name of the species now known as Luidia sarsi, since the latter is a subjective synonym of the former. The effect is that a larval form (asterigera), in which various or- gans important for classification are not yet developed, becomes the type of a genus, in connection with which it is essential to know these undeveloped organs in order to determine the genus and to classify the species, and we have not even the benefit in this case of objective synonyms but only subjective synonyms. Accordingly, the case is much stronger than one would first assume from Dr. Mortensen’s presentation. Furthermore also, in the echinoderms are recognized various larval stages, Auricularia, Bipinnaria, Brachiolaria, Pluteus, the names of which have become current in general zoology and embryology. To grant to these names the availability as generic names is to assume the risk of confusion (to an extent which cannot possibly be foreseen) in the nomenclature of the echinoderms in systematic zoology and in geology as influenced by paleontology. Here again the case is much stronger than one might assume from a casual study of Dr. Morten- sen’s presentation. The Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opin- ion the Summary given above. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Fantham, Horvath, Ishikawa, Peters, K. Jordan, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, five (5) Commissioners: Bolivar, Cabrera, Handlirsch, Pellegrin, Stephenson. 498 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 OPINION 130 Lytoceras SuEss, 1865, PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List OF GENERIC NAMES SUMMARY .—Under Suspension of the Rules Lytoceras Suess, 1865 (genotype, Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby) is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following cases have been submitted by Dr. L. F. Spath: Ophiceras was proposed by E. Suess in June, 1865, (Anzeiger K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, p. 112) for the “ fimbriati” (i. e., group of Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby) but was afterwards thought to clash with Ophioceras Barrande (May 1865, in explanation to plates, = Ophidioceras Barr., in text, 1867) and was replaced later in 1865 by Lytoceras Suess (Sitz. B. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 52, p. 78). . This last has ever since been in universal use. A second Ophicer was proposed in 1880 (Griesbach, Rec. Geol. Surv. India, vol. 13, p. 109) for a Triassic group of ammonites, and ( Suess’ original Ophiceras being forgotten) it has now also become universally accepted. The resuscitation of the original Ophiceras according to the Rules of Nomen- clature would cause great paleontological confusion. Lyteceras and the family Lytoceratidae are now given in every textbook, Lytoceras being one of the two fundamental ammonite genera, persisting from the base of the Lias to the Upper Cretaceous. Ophiceras, also recorded in most textbooks, is Lower Triassic in age, so that from stratigraphical considerations, also, it would be advisable to secure stabilization of the present use of these two genera by the International Commission as follows: Genus Lytoceras Suess, 1865 (genotype: Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby ; Min. Conchol., vol. 2, pl. 164, 1817). Genus Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (genotype: O. tibeticim Griesbach, 1880, p. 109, pl. 3, fig. 4). Discussion.—These cases were referred to Commissioner Bather for special study. He reported upon them as follows: I have gone into this case carefully and consider it to be eminently one where adherence to the rules would produce nothing but confusion. I therefore recommend as tiie Opinion of the Commission: That, to prevent confusion, the law of priority be suspended as regards Lytoceras Suess, 1865 (genotype, Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby) and Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (genotype, O. tibeticum Griesbach) and that these two names be added to the Official List of Generic Names. The documents in question were then submitted to Dr. B. B. Wood- ward, and to the following Museums: United States National Mu- seum, Washington, D. C.; Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesell- OPINION 130 499 No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 35 schaft, Frankfurt a.M.; Zoological Museum, Berlin, Germany ; Natu- ral History Museum, Vienna; Musée nationale d’Histoire naturelle, Paris; Zoological Museum, Copenhagen; Field Museum, Chicago, U. S. A.; American Museum of Natural History, New York City, U.S. A.; and to the United States Geological Survey. The experts consulted have reported as follows: - Paul Bartsch of the United States National Museum: While I do not favor exceptions to the Law of Priority, this case appears to be one in which abiding by the rules would produce greater confusion than the suspending thereof. I therefore favor Doctor Bather’s opinion. W. C. Mendenhall, Geological Survey, Washington: The proposition now before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suspend the Law of Priority in the case of two generic names of ammonites, Lytoceras and Ophiceras, has been considered by the paleontolo- gists of the Geological Survey now in Washington who are concerned with zoological names— C. Wythe Cooke, George H. Girty, W. C. Mansfield, J. B. Ree- side, Jr., P. V. Roundy, T. W. Stanton, and L. W. Stephenson state: That they concur in the recommendation of Dr. F. A. Bather that the two names Lytoceras Suess and Ophiceras Griesbach should be added to the list of “‘ nomina conservanda” under suspension of the Law of Priority. Edwin Kirk joins in this recommendation so far as Lytoceras is concerned but thinks that the retention of Griesbach’s Ophiceras would be unfortunate because Suess’ prior use of that name has been noted by Marshall in 1873 and by subsequent bibliographers. R. Sparck of the Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen : I absolutely recommend the proposition to suspend the Law of Priority in the case of the two above mentioned generic names. Dr. Ravn, Head of the Depart- ment of Paleontology, joins the recommendation so far as Lytoceras is concerned, but is of the opinion that the retention of Griesbach’s Ophiceras would be unfortunate. Rudolf Richter, Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M.: Suspension der Regeln soll eine sehr seltene Ausnahme bleiben, weil die haufigere Anwendung dieses Rechtes zu schlimmen Folgen fiir die Nomenklatur fiihren wiirde. Im Falle von Lytoceras Suess und Ophiceras Griesbach ist aber Suspension das allein Richtige. B. B. Woodward, London: I am of opinion that Lytoceras should be placed with “ nomina conservanda”, but that Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880, should not be accepted, Suess’ earlier name having passed into literature. 500 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 There is unanimity of opinion regarding Lytoceras among the ex- perts consulted, and an overwhelming affirmative majority in regard to Ophiceras. In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends the adoption of the Summary given above as the Opinion of the Commission. Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. Vote on Lytoceras: Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Cabrera, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, K. Jordan, Pellegrin, Richter, Silvestri, Stiles, Stone, Stephenson. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Fantham, Handlirsch, Peters, Stejneger, Warren. Vote on Ophiceras: Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, K. Jordan, Pellegrin, Richter, Stiles, Stephenson. Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: Cabrera, Silvestri, Stone. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Fantham, Hand- lirsch, Peters, Stejneger, Warren. Accordingly, Lytoceras is placed in the Official List of Generic Names and the case of Ophiceras 1 is tabled until the next meeting of the Commission. OPINION 131 501 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 37 OPINION 131 Tue Type Species oF Tromikosoma MorTENSEN, 1903 SUMMARY.—The type species of Tromikosoma is T. koehleri. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Dr. Mortensen, of Copenhagen, has pre- sented the following case for Opinion: . Pomel, in his paper “ Classification méthodique et Genera des Echinides vivants et fossiles”, 1883, p. 108, established a genus Echinosoma, citing the species Phormosoma uranus A. Agassiz and Phormosoma tenuis A. Agassiz as belonging to that genus without designating any of them as the genotype. In my work “ Echinoidea I. The Danish Ingolf Expedition ’”’, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 62, 1903, I adopted the said genus of Pomel, referring to it the same two species as did Pomel, but no genotype was designated. In this same work I established the genus Tromikosoma, with the single species Tromikosoma koehleri n. sp., which is accordingly the genotype of that genus. A. Agassiz and H. L. Clark, in their work “ Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini. The Echinothuridae” (Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 34, no. 3, p. 160, 1909) designate Phormosoma tenue A. Agassiz as the genotype of Echinosoma, which is made to include also my genus Tromikosoma—which I agree to be correct. The name Echinosoma, however, was preoccupied, no less than three times: by Audinet-Serville, 1839, for an earwig; by Wollaston, 1854, for a beetle; and by Semper, 1868, for a Holothurian. Accordingly, it cannot be used for the echinoids, and the name Tromikosoma must take its place. Which species is now to be the genotype of Tromikosoma, Phormosoma tenue A. Agassiz or Tromikosoma koehleri Mrtsn.? I would think the latter ought to remain the genotype of Tromikosoma also in its extended sense. But the matter does not seem to me quite clear, so it would seem better to have the Commission give its Opinion about the case, and to give it a more general form. I may then put the question thus: When an older genus proves to be a synonym of a later genus, which species is then to be regarded as the genotype, that of the older or that of the later genus? Discussion.—This case was submitted to the Commission in Circular Letter No. 252 for informal expression of Opinion and in- formal vote. As a result the following ten Commissioners registered their view that the species koehleri is the correct type: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Fantham, K. Jordan, Peters, Richter, Silvestri, Stiles and Stone. The following two Commissioners view the species tenue as the type: Ishikawa and Pellegrin. The informal votes were accompanied by the. following views: Chapman remarks: “Tromikosoma koehleri is monotypic and founded by Mortensen in 1903. Therefore that species has priority [as genotype-C. W. S.] over tenue (Phormosoma) selected by Agassiz and Clark in 1909.” 502 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 38 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Ishikawa remarks: “I consider the specific name tenue is to be used fur the species, even when the generic name was changed. The reason is the older name has the right of priority in the present case when the koehleri and tenue are used for one and the same species.” K. Jordan remarks: “ Tromikosoma has absorbed an older generic concept which has no valid generic name. The genotype of Tromikosoma thus extended remains the same as before, 7. koehlert. Tromikosoma was not proposed as a substitute for the preoccupied name Echinosoma.” Peters remarks: “koehleri is the type of Tromikosoma by monotypy; it was not one of the originally included species of Echinosoma and is of course excluded from consideration in determining the type of the latter genus.” Richter remarks, “ koehleri ist der Typus von Tromikosoma Mortensen, 1903; tenue ist nicht der Typus von Tromikosoma Mort., 1903, sondern von Echino- soma Pomel, 1833 ;—gleichgiltig, welches das Verhaltnis der Genus-Namen Tromikosoma und Echinosoma zu einander ist. Da die Gattung Tromikosoma Mortensen, 1903, bei ihrer Aufstellung monotypisch war, ist kéehleri ihr Typus. Daran andert sich nichts durch die Frage, ob der Name Tromikosoma (unaban- derlich mit dem Genitypus koehleri verbunden) an die Stelle eines anderen Gattung-Namens zu treten hat (z. B. an die Stelle von Echinosoma mit dem Genotypus tenue) oder nicht. In Ubereinstimmung mit meinem Kollegen Dr. R. Mertens.” Silvestri remarks: “because the genus author designated that newer and not another.” Stiles remarks: “koehleri is the type species of Tromikosoma, and this point is not influenced by any restriction or by any broadening of the generic concept.” Stone remarks: ‘When two genera are united, such action in no way affects the type of either. The broader genus thus formed will take the oldest available name based on any included species, as its name; and such name retains the type previously established as its type.” On basis of the foregoing informal vote and the arguments pre- sented, the Commission adopts as its Opinion the following: The type species of Tromikosoma is T. koehlert. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, Cabrera, Chapman, Esaki, Fantham, K. Jordan, Peters, Richter, Silvestri, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by two (2) Commissioners: Ishikawa, Pellegrin. Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Boliver, Handlirsch, Horvath, Stejneger, Stephenson (successor Calman). Cabrera adds: This case is clear. Tromikosoma being a monotypic genus, its single species, koehleri, is the type without any shadow of doubt. The question if koehleri is Or is not the same species as ftenue, is quite a different point, and one to be discussed, not by the Nomenclature Commission, but by echinodermatologists. OPINION 132 503 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 39 OPINION 132 STATUS OF THE “ GATTUNGSBEZEICHNUNGEN ” OF SOBOLEW, I914 SUMMARY.—The “Gattungsbezeichnungen” published by Sobolew, 1914, are of the same nature as the designations published by Herrera; namely, formulae, not generic names, and have no status in Nomenclature. See Opinion 72. PRESENTATION OF THE CASE.—Prof. O. H. Schindewolf of the Preuss. Geolog. Landesanstalt, Berlin, Germany, presents the follow- ing case for Opinion: Die Nomenklaturkommission bitte ich ergebenst um einen Beschluss, der die 19ot4 von D. Sobolew in seiner Publikation “ Skiszen sur Phylogenie der Gomniatiten” (Mitt. d. Warschauer polytechn. Inst., Warschau, 1914) eingefiihrten zahlreichen neuen “ Gattungsbezeichnungen” fiir nomenklatorisch wungiiltig erklart. Sobolew ist zwar Anhanger der binaren Nomenklatur, steht aber insofern nicht auf dem Boden der Nomenklaturregeln, als er alle friher gegebenen Gattungsnamen verwirft und durch “rationelle’””» Namen, d. h. Formeln fur Merkmalskombinationen, ersetzt. Zur Kennzeichnung seiner eee pode zitiere ich aus seiner Schrift die folgenden Satze (pp. 136-137) : “Statt der ‘Gattungs’-Namen werden Benennungen eingefithrt, welche das Entwicklungsstadium der Sutur und die Gruppe und Reihe, zu denen die Kombination gehort, angeben. Das wird auf folgende Weise gemacht. Auf dem Simplicissimi-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden Protomeroceras genannt Auf dem Simplices-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden Monomeroceras genannt Auf dem Duplices-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden Dimeroceras genannt Auf dem Multiplices-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden Pliomeroceras genannt. Eine entsprechende Vorsilbe am Anfang jedes Namens wird die Gruppe anzeigen, zu der die Kombination gehort. Gomi-monomeroceras (= Tornoceras p. p. auct.) ; Goma-monomeroceras (= Tornoceras p. p. auct.) ; Oma-mono- meroceras (= Cheiloceras Frech+Prionoceras Hyatt+? Aganides P. Fischer). Auf dieselbe Weise kann am Duplices- (und Multiplices-) Stadium die isomere Reihe bezeichnet werden: a-Oma-dimeroceras (= Praeglyphioceras Wedek. + Glyphioceras p. p. Hyatt + Gastrioceras p. p. Hyatt); $-Oma-dimeroceras (= Sporadoceras Hyatt); y-Oma-dimeroceras (= Dimeroceras Hyatt) ; Goma-dimeroceras (= Maeneceras Hyatt) ; a-Omi-dimeroceras (= Manticoceras p. p. auct., Crickites Wedek.) ; a-Gomi-dimeroceras (= Gephyroceras Hyatt. em. Holzapf.) ; y-Gomi-dimeroceras (= Tornoceras p. p. auct. + Posttornoceras Wedek.).” 504 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 40 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 Fs ist klar, dass alle die oben genannten neuen Namen ungiiltig sind und in die Synonymik der in Klammern aufgeftihrten alten Gattungen fallen. Ich halte es indessen fiir empfehlenswert, die sdém#tlichen von Sobolew eingefithrten Namen als nomenklatorisch nicht existierend zu erklaren, da der Autor den Boden des Prioritatsprinzips verlassen hat und seine Bezeichnungen keine Gattungsnamen im Sinne der Nomenklaturregeln sind. Ein solcher Beschluss bringt den Vorteil, dass in Zukunft die Listen der Synonyma von den wertlosen Namen Sobolews entlastet werden und dass ferner langwierige Untersuchungen fortfallen, ob fur eine spater als neu erkannte Gattung etwa einer von Sobolews Namen verfiugbar ist. Discuss1on.—This case was submitted to the Commission in Circu- lar Letter No. 249. Reports from Commissioners were submitted in Circular Letter No. 292, No. 312, and No. 320. Jordan reports: Die von Sobolew veroffentlichten “Namen” ftir Goniatiten sind durch Opinion 72 (Herrera) erledigt. Rhumbler legte ein ahnliches Verfahren der Sektion fir Nomenklatur in Graz vor. Peters reports: 6 It seems to .me that Sobolew’s “names” are not generic names in the sense of the spirit of the Rules. In my opinion they are practically formulae and as such have no standing or availability. I think they can be declared invalid on the basis of Opinion No. 72. Richter reports: Die von Sobolew eingefihrten Bezeichnungen sind keine Gattungsnamen, sondern Definitionen einer wissenschaitlichen Auffassung. Da sie somit dem Wechsel der Auffassung unterworfen sind, kommen sie fur die Nomenklatur nicht in Betracht. Vgl. auch Opinion 72. In Ubereinstimming mit Dr. Rob. Mertens. Stiles reports: On basis of the premises presented, I interpret these designations under Opinion 72. On basis of the premises presented by Professor Schindewolf, the Commission adopts the following Opinion: The Gattungsbezeich- nungen published by Sobolew, 1914, are of the same nature as the designations published by Herrera; namely, formulae, not generic names, and have no status in Nomenclature. See Opinion 72. Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Cabrera, Esaki, Fantham, K. Jordan, Peters, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not yet voting, six (6) Commissioners: Apstein, Bolivar, Cal- man, Hemming, Horvath, Pellegrin. OPINION 133 505 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 4I OPINION 133 Urothoe DANA AND PHOXOCEPHALIDAE SARS SUMMARY .—Under the Rules, the type of Urothoe is U. rostratus. The original author of a family name is free to select any contained genus as the nomenclatorial type of that family. It is not necessary to select the oldest included genus as type genus for the family. Under the present premises it is unnecessary to substitute the newer name Urothoidae 1932 for the earlier Phoxocephalidae. PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Dr. Jean M. Pirlot of the University of Liéges requests an Opinion on certain points of nomenclature which he has raised on pages 61-62 in an article’ published in February 1932, involving the generic name Urothoe Dana, 1852 and 1853, vs. Pontharpinia Stebbing, 1897, and the family name Phoxocephalidae vs. Urothoidae. Discussion.—1. Type of Urothoe. Dana (1852, p. 311°) in an extensive key summary, down to and including genera, describes Urothoe Dana, with generic diagnosis but without mention of any species. This appears to be the original publication of the generic naine. : The following year, Dana (1853, p. 921°) discusses Urothoe and cites two species (U. rostratus [which is given unconditionally] and U. irrostratus [which is clearly given sub judice *]). This is apparently the first allocation of any species to this genus. Under Article 30e8° of the Rules, U. irrostratus is excluded as type, and U. rostratus automatically becomes type regardless of the fact whether one dates the genus from 1852 or 1853. Compare Opin- *Les Amphipodes de l’Expedition du Siboga, deuxiéme partie. Les Amphipodes Gammarides: I. Les Amphipodes fouisseurs, Phoxocephalidae, Oedicerotidae. Leide. * On the classification of the Crustacea Choristopoda, Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. 2, vol. 14, no. 41, Sept. °U. S. Expl. Exped., vol. 13, pp. 920-923. *“ The occurrence of the individuals of this species with the preceding leads us to suspect that the two may be male and female. Yet the great difference in the front is not like any sexual difference noticed; moreover, the superior antennae differ much.” *e. The foliowing species are excluded from consideration in determining the types of genera. B. Species which were species inquirendae from the standpoint of the author at the time of its publication. 506 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 42 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 ions 35 and 46. For determination of this point it is not necessary to follow the literature further and the fact that U. irrostratus has been used as type by some authors is irrelevant as the case now stands. 2. Family name. A complication has arisen because of the fact that U. irrostratus has been used as type * of Urothoe. Stebbing (1906, Das Tierreich, vol. 21, p. 131) retains U. wrostra- tus in Urothoe, family Haustoriidae, and classifies (idem., p. 146) U. rostratus in Pontharpima Stebbing, 1897, mt. pinquis, family Phoxocephalidae. Thus a typical “transfer case’ is presented. Pirlot raises an important question in regard to Phoxocephalidae, namely : 1. Must the oldest included generic name be taken as type for the family name? To this, the answer is in the negative. Article 4 of the Rules reads: “ The name of a family is formed by adding the ending idae, the name of a subfamily by adding inae, to the stem of the name of its type genus.” This rule does not prescribe how the type genus of a family is to be selected ; and in the absence of restrictions covering this point it is to be assumed that, in accordance with custom, the original author is free to select as type genus any generic unit which he prefers. This is in harmony with the spirit of Article 30 which obviously leaves an original author of a genus entirely free to select as type species any species he wishes thus to designate. If the original author of a family (or of a genus) were compelled to select as type the oldest genus (or the oldest species) in the proposed family (or genus), this might confine his choice to a little known and very rare taxonomic unit— a restriction which would obviously be contrary to the interest both of taxonomy and of nomenclature. In this connection it is to be recalled that the “type” selected is the nomenclatorial type as dis- tinguished from the assumed anatomical norm. Since (with the exception of isolated instances by early authors) family names are based upon the name of the respective type genus, such family name constitutes, ipso facto, a definite designation of the type genus. For instance, Musca is definitely and unambiguously des- ignated generic type by the use of the family Muscidae, Homo of Hominidae, Ascaris of Ascaridae, etc. It would be a nomenclatorial reductio ad absurdum to consider any other genus as type of any of these families. The concepts of a given family are not identical as adopted by different authors and if the rule obtained that the oldest *Stebbing, 1891, on the genus Urothoe [etc.], Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 13, no. I, p. 10: “ This, which has become the type species of this genus.” OPINION 133 507 no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 43 genus must be the type genus of the family, the family name would be constantly subject to possible change according to the subjective ideas of authors from year to year; accordingly, even relatively stable nomenclature for family names would be hopeless, and synonymy in family names would be potentially indefinite and chaotic. Accordingly, if Urothoe, type rostratus, is classified in Phoxo- cephalidae Sars it is not necessary to change this earlier family name to the later Urothoidae 1932. In formulating this Opinion, the Commission has considered only — the question of the formal application of the Rules and has not con- sidered the question whether it would be wise to “ Suspend the Rules ” in this case. The data on which this latter question should be judged have not yet been placed before the Commission in sufficient detail. In view of the foregoing premises the Secretary recommends the adoption of the following as the Opinion of the Commission : Under the Rules, the type of Urothoe is U. rostratus. The original author of a family name is free to select any contained genus as the nomenclatorial type of that family. It is not necessary to select the oldest included genus as type genus for the family. Under the present premises it is unnecessary to substitute the newer name Urothoidae 1932 for the earlier Phoxocephalidae. One of the points involved in this Opinion was voted upon by the Commission in the meeting at Lisbon, when thé following interpreta- tion was adopted: Article 4 of the Code, which relates to the naming of families and subfamilies, does not require that the oldest generic name in the family or subfamily concerned must be taken as the type genus of the family or subfamily. This point was concurred in by Commissioners Calman, Hemming, Jordan, Pellegrin, Peters, and Stejneger, and by the following alter- nates: Amaral vice Cabrera, Oshima vice, Esaki, Chester Bradley vice Stone, Beier vice Handlirsch, Arndt vice Richter, Mortensen vice Apstein. Opinion prepared by Stiles. Opinion concurred in by seventeen (17) Commissioners (or alter- nates): Apstein (in part), Beier (in part), Cabrera, Calman, Chap- man, Esaki, Fantham, Hemming (in part), Jordan, Oshima (in part), Pellegrin (in part), Peters, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Bolivar and Horvath. 508 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 44 é SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL W75 Apstein agrees in so far as concerns Urothoe but not in so far as it affects Phoxocephalidae. Stone adds: I concur in the Opinion that the first author to fix a type genus for a family is free to select any contained genus as the type, but in case the name then used for that genus is found to be untenable the family name changes in accordance with the change in the generic name. For example, the American Wood Warblers were named Sylvicolidae by Gray, based on the genus Sylvicola (type Parus americanus Linn.), but Sylvicola was found to be preoccupied in mollusks and as a substitute Compsothlypis was proposed, and the family name changes to Compsothlypidae. If this were not done we might have Sy/vicola for mollusks and Sylvicolidae for Birds! Sylvestri states: I agree perfectly with the opinion of Commissioner Stone as expressed in the Circular Letter No. 333 (Series 1036). cn ee vy ih Vid y . 088 01571 0254 a wi i