Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats

Petia erke is

rect bitad

Pate

aay
TERS
Terbcs

Teltheae

et P Liste

baler ito ct ere

Sishise

ehet.

trae

rer oe
’

se gtseiwye lasers 218 see.
[sere

¢ Nie parade ;
aioe ti

a
sbeebs Steep rashes ys

H
ptiscdlicelpratags on
i

piaeah
+

oi
Mott

epcegeie sé,
tire

sete

‘

seth tos
sUTegatezate

af egeuees
tihelateat
iv

ae ae cy ur PAH CTR

RT NAINA coe IER IN
Pi BREN. a ei Lie

SR aE

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 9

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoologieal
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1952—1956

(AW rights reserved)

—

III

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE
PUBLICATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August
1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most
recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-
lands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July
1948) (pp. 1-286 only)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiscke Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June
1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum wu. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat
zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-
President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August
1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

B. The Members of the Commission (continued)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezdégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August
1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y..,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August
1953) (exclusive of pp. 1-158)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(12th August 1953) (exclusive of pp. 1-158)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,
Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.)
(29th October 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only)

Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia)
(30th October 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna,
Austria) (6th November 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only)

Professor F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th
November 1954) (from p. 287 onwards only)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) (from p. 287 onwards
only)

Professor Enrico Tortenese (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genoa, Italy)
(16th December 1954) (from p. 351 onwards only)

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming
Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A.

Consulting Classical Advisor : Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, M.A., D.D.
“Official Lists *’ Section : Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc.

“* Régles”’ Section: Miss A. F. Kerr, M.A. (from 18th July 1955)

Administrative Officer: Mrs. 8. C. Watkins, M.A. (to 29th April 1955)
Mrs. N. M. A. Guzelian (from 20th June 1955)

Mrs. J. H. Newman
Secretariat: < Mrs. J. Mantell
Mrs. B. M. Weidema, A.L.A.

Indexer : Miss M. Cosh, M.A.
Translator: Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Elliott, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P.
Managing Director and Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner

Addresses of the Commission and the Trust

Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1
Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

FOREWORD

The present is the fourth volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
wholly devoted to the publication of individual nomenclatorial problems
submitted by specialists to the International Commission for decision. The
immediately preceding volume in this series was Volume 6 which, apart from
the concluding (index) part was completed on 29th August 1952. At that time
the Office of the Commission had received a large number of applications
relating to the nomenclature of birds, most of which had been submitted to the
Commission by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature
which had been established by the Tenth International Ornithological Congress
at its meeting at Uppsala in 1950. Already before the completion of Volume 6
of the Bulletin it had been decided to publish these ornithological applications
in a single instalment and the arrangements for this purpose were by that time
well advanced. In consequence it was possible to publish this large first
instalment of the present volume (on 15th October 1952) only seven weeks
after the conclusion of Volume 6. This instalment which contained 31
applications was issued as a Triple-Part (Part 1/3). At that date comments
had been received in the Office of the Commission in regard to a large number
of applications previously published in Volume 6 and it was decided that
special arrangements should be made for the publication of these comments
as soon as possible in order that these might be readily available by the time
that the Commission came to vote on the applications in question. Thus it
was that the next instalment of the present volume, while containing only four
new applications comprised no less than 59 comments on other applica-
tions. This instalment which was issued as Double-Part 4-5 was published
on 30th December 1952. Owing to the need in 1953 for concentrating all the
resources of the Office of the Commission, first, on the preparations for the
Session of the Commission to be held at Copenhagen in July of that year and,
later, on the arrangements for the publication of the decisions on nomenclature
taken by the Copenhagen Congress, it was necessary during that year to suspend
publication of further instalments of the Bulletin dealing with individual
problems of nomenclature submitted to the Commission for decision. This
was the reason why, although two volumes (Volumes 8 and 10) of the Bulletin
dealing with the amendment or clarification of the Régles which figured on the
Copenhagen Agenda were published in 1953, no progress in regard to the
present volume was made in that year. Work on the present volume was
resumed early in 1954 and the next instalment (Part 6) appeared on 11th May
of that year. Further Parts were published as rapidly as possible, the last

Part (Part 11), apart from the index Part, appearing on 30th December 1954.
At that date a number of earlier volumes either of the Bulletin or in the Opinions
and Declarations Series still lacked their concluding index Parts. When these
had been published work was begun on the corresponding Part of the present
volume, which was published on 31st January 1956.

2. Attention must at this point be drawn to an apparent inconsistency in
matters of terminology as between the first five and the later Parts respectively
in which the present volume was published. This arises from the fact that the
earlier Parts were published before the Fourteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which amended the Régles in regard to a matter
of terminology. The change in question was the substitution of the expression
“specific name” for the expression “ specific trivial name” to denote the
second component of the binominal combination which constitutes the scientific
name of a species. Consequential on this change the word “ Trivial ” in the
title of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and in the title of the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology was dropped.

3. In two other respects also applications published in the later portions of
the present volume differ from those included in the Parts published in 1952.
The first of these arises from the decision by the Copenhagen Congress to
establish an Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and an Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology for taxa of cate-
gories of this group. The second of these differences flows from a decision by
the above Congress to establish an Official List of Works Approved as Available
for Zoological Nomenclature and an Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works
in Zoological Nomenclature. It is proposed later to make good by means of
Directions given by the Commission any omissions under either of the above
heads which occur in applications published in the present volume. In so far
as may be possible proposals on these matters will be laid before the Com-
mission in sufficient time to permit of the Commission’s decisions thereon
being incorporated in the Opinions giving the Commission’s decisions on
the applications in the present volume. In other cases proposals will be
laid before the Commission separately with a view to the Commission’s decisions
being embodied in Directions which will be incorporated in each case in the
volume of the Opinions and Declarations Series in which the relevant Opinion
is published.

4, The present volume which comprises 506 pages (T.P.—XXXV, i—xxix,
14—42) contains, in addition to the Accounts of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature for the years 1952 and 1953 with the Reports of the
Committee of Management thereon and to the obituary of the late Dr. James
Lee Peters, at the time of his death the President of the International Com-
mission, 151 papers of which 70 are original applications submitted to the
International Commission for decision and 81 are comments by specialists
on applications submitted by other authors, Of these, 32 relate to applications

Vil

published in the present volume, and 49 to applications published in earlier
volumes.

5. Of the 70 original applications one deals simultaneously with proposals
relating to the status of individual books and with proposals relating to the
status of individual names, and another deals simultaneously with individual
names and with the proposed adoption of a Declaration. For practical
purposes, therefore, the volume contains 72 applications submitted to the
Commission for decision. Similarly 21 of the applications published in the
present volume are applications submitted by two or more joint authors. When
account is taken of this fact the number of applicants is found to be 123.

6. Of the 72 applications published in the present volume three asked for
Declarations from the International Commission (or equivalent rulings) on the
meaning of particular provisions in the Régles. Further, five applications
relate to the status of names published in certain books. Thus the number of
applications concerned exclusively with individual scientific names is 64.

7. The 64 applications relating to individual names published in the present
volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to
which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as follows :-—

TABLE 1

Distribution of applications by Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Name of Class | Number of applications

Ciliophora ~
Crustacea
Insecta
Gastropoda
Cephalopoda
Amphibia
Osteichthyes
Aves
Mammalia

iS)
RON» PW Oe

Total

Vill

8. When the 123 applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in
which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from
specialists in the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) :

TABLE 2

Distribution of applicants by country of residence

Country of Residence | Number of applicant:

Argentina
Australia
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
Japan
Netherlands
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of
America

_—
wonowr ke

o-_

Total

9. Fifty-one (70 per cent.) of the applications published in the present
volume are applications by specialists for the use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of
promoting stability and universality in nomenclature and of preventing the
confusion which, in the opinion of the applicants, would result from the
application of the ordinary provisions of the Régles in these cases. Of these
cases 49 were concerned with individual names and the remaining two with the
status of individual books,

10. The following table (Table 3) gives particulars of the proposals con-
tained in applications published in the present volume for additions of names
to the Official Lists relating to specific names, generic names, family-group
names, and the titles of zoological works, and to the corresponding Official
Indexes of rejected and invalid names and works :

TABLE 3

Proposals for additions to the “ Official Lists’ and “ Official
Indexes ’’ respectively

Official Lists (valid
names and works Official Indexes
Category approved as available (rejected and invalid
for zoological names and works)
/ nomenclature)

Specific names 105 76
Generic names 64 230
Family-Group names 13
Titles of works

Totals

11. Of the 81 comments published in the present volume, including comments
incorporated either in the original application or in summaries later submitted
by the applicant, six relate to more than one application. When account is
taken of this fact, the total number of comments on applications is found to be
87. Of these one was a comment on a proposed Declaration and four were
comments relating to the status of books. The remaining 82 comments relate
to applications concerning individual names,

12. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according
to the Class of the Animal Kingdom to which the taxa concerned belong, the
distribution of the comments is found to be as follows :

TABLE 4

Distribution of comments on applications relating to names, by
Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Name of Class Number of Comments

Ciliophora
Nematoda
Crustacea
Insecta
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Cephalopoda
Echinoidea
Osteichthyes
Amphibia
Reptilia
Aves
Mammalia

WNNONNRFKE NKR AOE

Total

(e2)
bo

13. The 81 comments published in the present volume included four
submitted by two or more joint authors. When we take this into account,
we find the total number of specialists submitting comments amounted to 349.

14. When the authors of comments published in this volume are grouped

by reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as
follows ;

TABLE 5

Distribution of authors of comments by country of residence
of the authors concerned

Country of Residence | Number of authors
of comments

Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Guatemala
Hawaii
India
Italy
Japan
Malaya
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Panama
Philippines
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Trinidad
Uganda
Union of South Africa
United Kingdom
United States of

America
Uruguay
Venezuela

a
Om oO Oh = bo

OD We bob bo

—_

1
2
2
4
4
3
4
0
4
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
7
2

nO
Oo m or

ow
ns
ite)

Total

15. For the preparation of the authors’ and subject indexes of the present
volume the Commission is indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A., who succeeded
Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc., in the post of Indexer of Publications on Ist January
1955.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East,
Regent’s Park,
London, N.W.1.

1lth October 1955.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature :

Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1952 and Income and Expendh-
ture Accounts for the year 1952, with Report of Committee
of Management thereon xt ar #: aif ah

Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1953 and Income and Expendi-
ture Accounts for the year 1953, with Report of Committee of
Management thereon a ue = se ee

Establishment by the Tenth International Ornithological Congress of a
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. Letter
dated 20th October, 1951, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chair-
man of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature
of the International Ornithological Congress . .

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to put an end to the confusion
arising from the discordant use of the generic name Colymbus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves). Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter-
national Ornithological Congress a

Enclosure : Proposals in regard to the generic name Colymbus
Linnaeus, 1758, submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

Report on the problems raised by the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758 (Class Aves). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. . ;

Appendix 1: Application regarding the name Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature, as revised in certain minor respects in agree-
ment with the Chairman of the Standing Committee ..

Appendix 2: Report on the type species of the nominal genus
Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming
in response to an invitation by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 .. the Bes Be

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name caspicus
Hablizl, 1783, as published in the binominal combination Colymbus
caspicus (Class Aves). Application submitted by the Standing
Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International
Ornithological Congress . . < as te a an
Enclosure : The trivial name comprised in the specific name Colym-

bus caspicus Hablizl, 1783. . : er “ Si

Page

iii

XIV

Annexe to application : Extract from a paper entitled “ The earliest
description of the Black-necked Grebe” published in the Ibis
in 1948 ie Si a i ave ie Re

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress four trivial names for
birds published by Anton August Heinrich Lichtenstein in 1793.
Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornitho-
logical Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. .

Enclosure : Three trivial names published for birds by Lichtenstein
(A.) in 1793 proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers

Annexe to publication: Extract from a paper by Meise &
Stresemann published in 1950 (Ibis 92 : 22-26)..

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name nortont-
ensis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binominal combination
Fringilla nortoniensis (Class Aves). Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter-
national Ornithological Congress

Enclosure: The trivial name comprised in the specific name
Fringilla nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 = 3

Annexe to application: Extract from a paper entitled “ Birds
collected in the North Pacific Area during Capt. James Cook’s
last Voyage (1778 and 1779) ” (Stresemann, 1949, Ibis 91 : 244—
255) .. me = Ska a ss e, $3 ms

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress seven trivial names
published by Gmelin in 1788 and 1789 for birds which until 1950
remained unidentified. Application submitted by the Standing
Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International
Ornithological Congress

Enclosure : Seven trivial names published for birds by Gmelin in
1789 proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name elegans
Gould, 1837, as published in the binominal combination Malurus
elegans (Class Aves). By H. M. Whittell, O.B.E. (on behalf of the
Checklist Committee of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’
Union) .. ye ae ze ae ake = ‘i ok

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress for nomenclatorial
purposes a paper by Forster (J.R.) containing new names for certain
Australian birds published in 1794 in volume 5 of the Magazin von
merkwiirdigen neuen Reise Beschreibungen by Ernst Mayr (The
American Museum of Natural History ; New York), Dean Amadon
(Lhe American Museum of Natural History, New York); Jean

Page

32
34

Delacour (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) ;
L. Glavert (Natural History Museum, Perth, Western Australia) ;
Robert Cushman Murphy (The American Museum of Natural History,
New York); D. L. Serventy (Nedlands, Western Australia) ;
H. M. Whittell, O.B.E. (Bridgetown, Western Australia) bd

On the question whether it is necessary that the Plenary Powers should
be used to suppress the trivial name novaehollandiae Latham,
1790, as published in the combination M uscicapa novaehollandiae,
in order to make available the trivial name chrysops Latham, 1801,
as published in the combination Sylvia chrysops (Class Aves). By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological N. omenclature) be Se ne;

Support by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of
the International Ornithological Congress for the proposals sub-
mitted by Dr. Ernst Mayr and others for the use of the Plenary
Powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes a paper containing
new names for certain Australian birds published by Forster in
1794. Communication received from the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological
Congress a a bs

Proposed emendation, under Article 19, of the trivial names of three
species of bird which, when first published, were incorrectly spelt.
Application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. .

Enclosure : Proposed correction of faulty orthography in the case of
the trivial names of three species of bird. . * os ;

Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name
Pyrrhocorax [Tunstall], 1771 (Class Aves) for the Chough. Applica-
tion submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress . . f

Enclosure 1 : Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the
generic name Pyrrhocorax [Tunstall], 1771

Enclosure 2: Note, dated 25th September 1950, by Professor J.
Berlioz (Muséum National d’ Histoire N aturelle, Paris). .

On the application relating to the generic names Pyrrhocorax [Tunstall],
1771, and Coracia Brisson, 1760 (Class Aves), submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter-
national Ornithological Congress. By Francis Hemming, 0.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

Page

oO
bo

XVI

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name philo-
melos Brehm, 1831, as published in the binominal combination T'urdus
philomelos, as the trivial name of the Song Thrush. Application
submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clature of the International Ornithological Congress. . :

Enclosure : T'urdus philomelos versus Turdus ericetorum

On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the trivial
name philomelos Brehm, 1831, as published in the binominal com-
bination T'urdus philomelos, shall be oldest available name for the
Song Thrush. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) .. Pye

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress three completely over-
looked trivial names applied by Linnaeus to North American birds
in 1776, together with an equally overlooked generic name published
on the same occasion. Application submitted by the Standing
Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International
Ornithological Congress

Enclosure 1: Application submitted by nine American ornitho-
logists. E. R. Blake (Chicago Natural History Museum,
Chicago, Ill.); H. G. Deignan (U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C.) ; John J. Emlen, Jr. (Zoological Laboratory,
University of Wisconsin); Alden H. Miller (California) ;
Frank A. Pitelka (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of
California, Berkeley); A. L. Rand (Chicago Natural History
Museum, Chicago, Ill.); Charles H. Rogers (Princeton, New
Jersey) ; M. A. Traylor, Jr. (Chicago Natural History Museum,
Chicago, Ill.); Albert Wolfson rib Western ee
Evanston, Jil.) as

Enclosure 2: Statement prepared i the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature ‘ d

On the proposal by the Nomenclature Committee of the American
Museum of Natural History, New York, for the suppression under
the Plenary Powers of the Linnean names published in 1776 in the
Catalogue of Edwards’s Natural History with special reference to the
new names for birds. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature)

Annexe 1 : One new generic name for a bird by Linnaeus published
in 1776 in the Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History .

Annexe 2: New trivial names for birds by Linnaeus published in
1776 in the Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History

Page

First Report on the species which under the Régles are the type species
of certain genera of birds discussed, but left unsettled, in Opinion 16.
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological N. otnenclature) ume mt

Appendix 1: Seventeen generic names in the Class Aves discussed
but not settled in Opinion 16, now proposed to be added to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. . ee bs

Appendix 2 : Seventeen specific trivial names, being the trivial names
of the type species of the nominal genera enumerated in
Appendix 1, now proposed to be added to the iets List af
Specific Names in Zoology 7

Type species of certain genera of birds, discussed but left unsettled,
in Opinion 16: support for proposals submitted in the Secretary’s
Report. By Richard Meinertzhagen, D.S.O. (London) =e

Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the
trivial names of two Siberian birds. By James L. Peters (Museum
of Comparative aoe at Harvard prin Le Mass.,
CO Baaiye ‘4 ;

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the name Columba
migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, shall be the oldest available name for the
Passenger Pigeon, the type species of the genus Ectopistes Swainson,
1827. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) a

Proposed correction in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of
incorrect dates and bibliographical references given for the generic
name Balaeniceps Gould, 1850, and for the name of its type species
(Class Aves) (correction of an error in Opinion 67). By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature) a, et a a

Suggested review of the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology relating to the names Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, and
Burhinus Illiger, 1811 (Class Aves). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature) ey fe ass : ; a da

XVII

Page

XVII

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress four generic names for
birds published by Brisson in 1760 which have long been over-
looked and which invalidate as homonyms four names placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (correction of errone-
ous entries in Opinion 67). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the name Gallinago
Brisson, 1760 (Class Aves), and proposed substitution of Capella
Frenzel, 1801, for Gallinago Koch, 1816, on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology (proposed correction of an erroneous
entry in Opinion 67). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature)

Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology
of the trivial name syriacus Rothschild, 1910, as published in the
combination Struthio camelus syriacus, the trivial name of the
Syrian Ostrich (Class Aves). By R. Meinertzhagen, D.S.O. (London)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the name T'yrannula
Swainson, 1827, and to designate a type species for Myiobius Darwin,
1839 (Class Aves). By John T. Zimmer eh American Museum i
Natural History, New York) o:

Support for the proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress
the generic name 7'yrannula Swainson, 1827 (Class Aves). By the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter-
national Ornithological Congress

Request for a ruling that the trivial names of two woodpeckers, each
consisting of a slight variant of a previously published name based
upon a word transliterated into the Latin alphabet from a language
using another alphabet, be treated as junior homonyms of the
earlier names so published. vy the isahanaid Hachisuka bei
Shizuoka Ken, Japan) é

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name cyanea
Vieillot, 1818, as published in the combination Muscicapa cyanea,
for the purpose of validating the trivial name cyanea Hume, 1877,
as published in the combination Muscitrea cyanea (Class Aves).
By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum ih Natural Eties
New York) be : hy ‘ m

Page

101

102

104

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name ferru-
ginea Hodgson, 1845, as published in the combination Hemichelidon
ferruginea, by the suppression of the trivial name ferruginea
Merrem, 1784, as published in the combination M uscicapa ferru-
ginea (Class Aves). By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum
of Natural History, New York)

James Lee Peters : Obituary

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to correct an erroneous entry relating
to the name Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 104.
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) oe oe i

On the action which it is desirable should be taken to correct the
erroneous entry relating to the name Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda) made in the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology by Opinion 104. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum
van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The N. etherlands) .. a #

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the name Favus
Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (proposed
correction of an error in Opinion 73). By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature) Ge fe % :

On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the entry on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Favus Lanchester, 1900
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis ( Rijks-
museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The N etherlands). .

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the entry
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Favus
Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By M. F. W.
Tweedie (Raffles Museum and Inbrary, Singapore) Ag of:

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the entry

on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Favus
Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By I.
Gordon, D.Sc., Ph.D. (British Museum (Natural History), London). .

XIX

Page

105

lll

113

118

119

121

12]

Support for the proposed validation of the generic name Favus Lan-
chester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) under the Plenary
Powers. By Heinrich Balss (Hauptkonservator der apne 08
Staatsammlung, Miinchen, a.D., Germany) ;

Proposed addition of the generic names Portunus Weber, 1795, and
Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By L. B. Holthuis
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). .

Support for Dr. L. B. Holthuis’s proposals relating to the generic name
Portunus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By
Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) :

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name flavipes
Olivier, 1795, as published in the combination Dytiscus flavipes (Class
Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Balfour-Browne, M.A. (Depart-
ment of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Acmea
Hartmann, 1821, and to validate the generic names Acmaea Esch-
scholtz, 1833, and T'runcatella Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda). By
A. Myra Keen and Siemon W. Muller vit a net ers
California, U.S.A.) :

Support for the solution of the Acmea/Acmaea problem (Class Gastropoda)
suggested by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature. By Avery R. Test (Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.)..

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the
trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe
by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera). By B. J. Lempke (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

A comment on the proposed solution of the niobe/cydippe/adippe
problem (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) by Jifi Paclt (Head
of the Department of Biology, Forest Products Research Institute,
Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) Pe ‘Ss ie a ne —

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial
name adippe as published in the combination Papilio adippe by
Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).
By Felix Bryk (Naturhistoriska Riksmusewm, Stockholm, Sweden) ..

122

127

128

130

131

132

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers in connection with
the trivial name adippe, as published by Denis & Schiffermiiller in
1775 in the combination Papilio adippe (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera). By B.C. 8. Warren (Folkestone, England) ..

Support for the action proposed in regard to the names involved in the
niobe/adippe complex (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Wm.
T. M. Forbes (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,U.S.A.).. x,

Comment on the action proposed in relation to the trivial names involved
in the niobe/cydippe/adippe complex (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-
doptera). By F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado,
U.S.A.) s * eo Lb ay - ois mF

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers for validating the
trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe
in the Vienna catalogue of 1775 (Class Insecta, Order RR
By Henry Beuret (Neuewelt, Basle, Switzerland) ais

On the authorship to be attributed to the anonymous work published in
Vienna in 1775 under the title Ankiindung eines systematischen
Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Ertan re. Francis
Hemming, C.M.B., C.B.E. (London) “ : : sie

Support for the action proposed in regard to the trivial names involved
in the niobe/cydippe/adippe complex (Class Insecta, Order nee
doptera). By Ernest L. Bell (Flushing, N.Y., U.S.A.) :

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial
name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe, as
from Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-
doptera). By Eugene Munroe (Department a et ik Division
of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) A : ve

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the
trivial name adippe as published in the combination Papilio adippe
by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-
doptera). By Elli Franz (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesell-
schaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) c i Ue we %

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the
trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe
by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).
By Ernst Mayr ti American Museum of Natural see New
York) d a as

XXxI

Page

132

133

134

135

136

137

XXII

“Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the
trivial name adippe, as published in the combination Papilio adippe,
as from Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-
doptera). By Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural eon wee sig
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) bis :

Support for the proposals relating to the trivial names involved in the
niobe|cydippe/adippe complex and to the trivial name plexippus
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus
(Class Insecta, Order roe ae By Bryant Mather (Jackson,
Mississippi, U.S.A.) .. 4% = a - J.

Support for the action proposed in regard to the trivial names involved
in the niobe/cydippe/adippe complex and in regard to the trivial
name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By T. N.
Freeman (Department Agriculture, Division a pega te
Ottawa, Canada) 2 rs ty

Support for the proposal submitted by Mr. C. F. dos Passos in relation
to the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).
By F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) . ~

Comment on Mr. C. F. dos Passos’ proposal relating to the trivial name
plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio
plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Eugene Munroe
(Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada)

Support for Mr. C. F. dos Passos’ proposals relating to the trivial name
plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio
plexippus (Class Insecta, Order inant By L. P. Grey
(Lincoln, Maine, U.S.A.) - Pe as is

Support for the action proposed in regard to the trivial name plexippus
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Karl P. Schmidt a
Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) . si :

Proposed wibetiijar of the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as
published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus (Class Nematoda).
By Allen McIntosh (United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Animal Industry,
Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) ..

Page

137

138

139

140

14]

XXIII

On the problem relating to the name Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (Class
Nematoda) raised by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty. By John M.
Lucker (Zoological Division, eet Research Center, Beltsville,
Maryland, U.S.A.) : = ae e Bi ee

On the trivial name to be used for the kidney worm of swine (Class
Nematoda) : comment on proposal submitted by Dr. Ellsworth C.
Dougherty. By Harold W. Manter Set edi of Nebraska,
Department of Zoology, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) .

Comment on the application submitted by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty
in regard to the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in
the combination Stephanurus dentatus (Class Nematoda). By
Robert Ph. Dollfus (Laboratoire d’Helminthologie Coloniale et de
Parasitologie Comparée, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
Paris)

Support for Professor Harold E. Vokes’s proposal relating to the generic
name Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda). By Joseph
P. E. Morrison (Smithsonian Institution, United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) .. :

Comment on Dr. Jiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name Sphinx
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By John G.
Franclemont (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

Comment on Dr. Jiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name
Diloba Boisduval, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By
John G. Franclement (United States Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of te and Plant econ ge ap iganei DsCx
U.S.A.) ' . d :

Support for Dr. Gilbert Ranson’s proposal relating to the name Gryphaea
Lamarck, 1819 (Class Peleeypoda). By the Members of the Shell-
fish Sub-Committee of the International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea..

Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to
suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and to validate,
as from 1758, the terms employed by Linnaeus for groups of that
genus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): proposed addition of
Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology. By Jiti Paclt (Bratislava, Czechoslovakia) .. ’

Page

143

144

145

147

XXIV

Page

Support for Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposals for the use of the
Plenary Powers to suppress the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and

to validate, as of subgeneric status, the terms then applied to
groups of species of that genus. By Wm. T. M. Forbes (New
York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,

U.S.A.) 149

On the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name
Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) and to
validate, as of subgeneric status, certain terms then used by
Linnaeus for sub-divisions of that genus : reply to certain criticisms
made by Dr. Jiti Paclt. By John G. Franclemont (United States
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration,
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.,

ii eo rat 149

Support for Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposals for the use of the
Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus,
1758, and to validate, as of subgeneric status, the terms then used
to denote groups of that genus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).
By Frederick H. Rindge (The American Museum of Natural History,

New York) 151

Support for Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal relating to the generic
name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and matters connected therewith
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum
van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) .. gh 3) ae

On the consequential action in regard to the generic name Tinaea
Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) which would be
needed in the event of approval being given to Dr. John G. Francle-
mont’s proposal that the name J'inea should be validated under the
Plenary Powers as from Linnaeus, 1758. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature) a as alte te na se: eee

In support of the application to suspend the rules to (a) validate seven
generic names of Linnaeus as of 1758, and designate their type
species (b) suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, give
preference to its typical subgenus Noctua, declare NocTUIDAE the
correct name for the family, and (c) validate one generic name of
Linnaeus as of 1767 and designate its type species (Class Insecta,

Order Lepidoptera). By Cyril F. dos Passos, LL.B. (Research
Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York)... .. 158

Comment of Dr. Jiiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name
Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By
John G. Franclemont (United States Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of ssiidiuaiartt and Plant —inagetl Seyi DG.
U.S.A.) “8 ,

Comment on Dr. Jiti Paclt’s proposal relating to the generic name
Pyralis Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By
John G. Franclemont (United States Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of seghstiaccin and Plant isi sii D.C.,
U.S.A.) , ‘ 5 .

Support for the proposals submitted by Dr. Laurence M. Klauber
regarding the trivial names atrox Baird and Girard, 1853, as
published in the combination Crotalus atrox, and polysticta Cope,
1865, as published in the combination Caudisona polysticta,
respectively (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata), By Howard K.
Gloyd (The Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)..

Support for Dr. Laurence M. Klauber’s proposals for the use of the
Plenary Powers to validate the trivial names atrox Baird and Girard,
1853, as published in the combination Crotalus atrox, and polysticta
Cope, 1965, as published in the combination Caudisona polysticta
(Class Reptilia). By C. B. Perkins (Zoological se of San Pi
Balboa Park, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) .

Support for Dr. Laurence M. Klauber’s proposals for the use of the
Plenary Powers to validate the trivial names atrox Baird and Girard,
1853, as published in the combination Crotalus atrox, and polysticta
Cope, 1865, as published in the combination Caudisona polysticta
(Class Reptilia). By Edward H. Taylor (University of Kansas,
Department of Zoology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) . Ne

Support for the Gans/Loveridge proposal for the use of the Plenary
Powers to validate the generic name Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830 (Class
Reptilia). By Hobart M. Smith (University Oe Illinois, pet aa Are af
Zoology, Urbana, Iliinois, U.S.A.)

Support for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830, and to determine the identity of the species
to which the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the
combination Coluber simus, should be applied (Class Reptilia). By
James A. Oliver (Curator of Reptiles, New York Biren kina
Zoological Park, New York) .. as : : phe

XXV

Page

154

155

156

157

XXVI

Support for Dr. Richard A. Edgren’s proposal for the use of the Plenary
Powers to determine the application of the trivial name simus
Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Coluber simus
(Class Reptilia). By Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois,
Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) .. - Ae

Support for Dr. Richard A. Edgren’s proposal for the use of the Plenary
Powers in connection with the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767, as
published in the combination Coluber simus (Class Reptilia). By
Karl P. Schmidt and Clifford H. Pope oe Natural oh
Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) oe

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine the
species to which the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767, as published
in the combination Coluber simus, should apply (Class Reptilia). By
Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) 5% er

Support for Dr. J. Wyatt Durham’s proposal for the use of the Plenary
Powers to validate the generic name Mellita as from Agassiz, 1841
(Class Echinoidea). By H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands) eA Soa ae te is es ae

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name browni
Hutton, 1901, as published in the combination Drosophila brouni,
for the purpose of preserving the specific name immigrans Sturte-
vant, 1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera). Joint application by : Ernst Mayr
(Curator, Whitney-Rothschild Collection, The American Museum of
Natural History, New York) ; J. T. Patterson (Professor of Zoology,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas) ; Marshall P. Wheeler (Assistant
Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas) ; Warren P.
Spencer (Professor of Biology, College of Wooster, Ohio) ‘

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name pruni
Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni
(Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junc-
tion, Colorado, U.S.A.) ie 2h 5% en i. ae

Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the
specific name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal
combination Aphis pini and as interpreted by De Geer (1773) (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junction,
Colorado, U.S.A.) ae ve vi = Wa * ”

Page

157 |

158

XXVII

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate, as the type species of
Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta,
Order Hemiptera) a species in harmony with accepted nomencla-
torial practice. By F.C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.)

Report on the application submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the generic names Lachnus
Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order
Hemiptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) . . x

Proposed adoption of a Declaration on the question whether the insertion
of a mark of interrogation invalidates a designation of a type species
for a genus made under Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Régles. By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ite :

Report on the status of new names published in Oken, [1815-1816],
Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. By Francis Hemming, O©.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

Appendix 1: Application relating to the status of the names in
Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte submitted to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Dr.
Wilfred H. Osgood in May 1944 (Chicago Natural History
Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) ts ey. Ly a

Appendix 2: On the system of classification used by Oken (L.)
in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte of 1816. By Karl Jordan,
Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring) : xg Ds ays ne ats

Appendix 3 : On the question of the status of names in Oken, 1815-
1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 3 (Zoologie). By Angel
Cabrera (Hua Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) = of

Appendix 4 : On the question of the use of generic names published
in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte (extract from a letter,
dated 18th January 1947, from Mr. T. D. S. Morrison-Scott,
Deputy Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural
History) to the Secretary to the Commission) oe a

On the need for validating the name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora)
for use in its accustomed sense. By Harold Kirby (University of
California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) we sf “%

Page

174

184

188

193

202

204

206

208

XXVIII

Report on the status of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Cilio-
phora, Sub-class Ciliata). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N oimenclatife)

Request for a ruling on the question of the type species of Ancilla
Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda). By Katherine V. W. Palmer
(Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)..

On the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda), a genus
established with no cited nominal species. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature) as ie Ne “

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Malenargia Meigen, 1828, by suppressing the name Agapetes Billberg,
1820 (Class Insecta, Order eR By Jiri Paclt (Bratislava,
Czechoslovakia) A cis - a a

Support for Dr. J. Paclt’s proposal for the suppression of the generic name
Agapetes Billberg, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By
N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) a

Results of the Questionnaire on the proposed suppression, under the
Plenary Powers, of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Class
Insecta) by Meigen published in 1800 in the Nouvelle classification
des Mouches & deux Ailes. By Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of ner and Plant
Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) :

A request for the use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic names
in Geoffroy (1762) in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta). By Alan
Stone, C. W. Sabrosky, W. W. Wirth and R. H. Foote (Division
of Insect Detection and Identification, Bureau of Entomology and
Plant Quarantine, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C., U.S.A.) iF x dhs if ar si oe

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress Palmatotriton Smith,
1945 (Class Amphibia, Order Caudata). By Hobart M. Smith
(Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate (i) a neotype for the
neminal species Ammonites mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813 and (ii)
a type species for the genus Douvilleiceras de Grossouvre, 1893
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By R. Casey (Geological
Survey and Museum, London) .. ‘2 a Ne ard vy

Page

214

219

221

222

225

241

247

250

XXIX

Page
Application for a ruling that works credited to S. A. Renier as of the
dates 1804 and 1807 were not published within the meaning of
Article 25 of the Régles. By A. si Keen wiabininihi sidiciideh
Stanford, California, U.S.A.) .. 257

Question whether it is desirable in the interests of nomenclatorial
stability to validate under the Plenary Powers certain generic names
from Renier, [1804], Prospetto, consequent upon the rejection of that
work for nomenclatorial purposes. By Francis Hemming, O.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature) .. ee a. in as a a anny ote

Question of validating certain generic names under the Plenary Powers,
in the interests of nomenclatorial stability as from Renier, [1807],
Tavola, in the event of the rejection of that work for nomenclatorial
purposes. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological N: siitencaladhdye) of. .. 264

Supplementary application concerning the suppression of works by S. A.
Renier (1804 and 1807). By L. R. Cox, M.A., Sc.D., F.B.S. ait
Museum (Natural History), London) .. d : : 265

Proposed adoption of a Declaration that a generic or specific name based
solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under Article 27 of the
Regles and proposed suppression of certain such names under the
Plenary Powers. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.RB.S. ripening
University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) A . ” 266

Comment on the type species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda).
By Katherine V. W. Palmer sisi gical Research Institution,
Ithaca, N.Y.,U.S.A.).. ‘ hi sd iy Je nme th 200

Support for the proposed validation of the generic name Strationys
Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Maurice T.
; James (State College of Washington, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.).. 269

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
generic name Xantho Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda).
By L. B. Holthuis (Rijomuseum van prsincaiatan Historie, Leiden,
The Netherlands) .. , Ke . ¥uete70

XXX

Request that the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteich-
thyes, Order Cyprinida, Family cyprrympa£) be placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Question of possible use
of the Commission’s Plenary Powers to determine the gender of the
generic name. By Reeve M. Bailey and Robert Rush Miller
(Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

Objection to the Bailey/Miller proposal that the generic name Notropis
Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes) should be treated as being
of the masculine gender and counter-proposal that this name be
accepted as being of the feminine gender. By Carl L. Hubbs
(Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.)
and W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco,
California, U.S.A.) bs nie 3 :s te 4¢ <

On the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name
Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes). By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature) bs rts ; ~e 3

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to vary the type species of the genus
Cheloniceras Hyatt, 1903 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
in order to validate existing nomenclatorial practice. By R. Casey
(Geological Survey and Museum, London) and C. W. Wright, M.A.

Proposed limitation to the purposes of the Law of Priority of the
suppression of the name Argus Bohadsch, 1761 (Class Gastropoda)
effected in Opinion 185, in order to prevent the confusion which
would otherwise arise in the Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera. By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and Cyril F. dos Passos
(Research Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, The American
Museum of Natural History, New York)

Support for the Hemming/dos Passos proposal for the suppression of the
generic name Argus Scopoli, 1763 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).
By N. D. Riley, C.B.E. (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the
specific name minimus Miller (J.S.), 1826, as published in the com-
bination Belemnites minimus (Class Cephalopoda, Order Dibranchia).
By H. H. Swinnerton, D.Sc. (Nottingham, England) . .

Page

272

274

276

278

283

284

de cee

Support for Dr. J. Paclt’s proposal to validate the generic name Melan-
argia Meigen, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich
M. Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) ..

Comment on Professor Hobart M. Smith’s proposal relating to the generic
name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Amphibia, Order Caudata).
By Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch,
Washingion, D.C., U.S.A.) ae xe *.

Support for Professor Hobart M. Smith’s proposal relating to the generic
name Palmatotriton Smith, 1945 (Class Amphibia, Order Caudata).
By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Sencken-
berg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany)

Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :
Retirement of Dr. Joseph Pearson (Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) ..

Election as Commissioners of :—K. H. L. Key (Canberra, Australia) ;
Alden H. Miller (Berkeley, California, U JS.A.); Ferdinand
Prantl (Prague, Czechoslovakia) ; Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Vienna,
Austria) ; F. 8. Bodenheimer (Jerusalem, Israel) ; Ernst Mayr
(Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) 33 xe Se as %

Establishment by the Polish Academy of Science of a Group of Polish
Zoologists to co-operate with the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature. Letter dated 29th January 1954, from
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski, Member of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to Mr. Francis Hemming,
Secretary to the Commission

Report on the question of the generic name to be used for the Virginia
Deer of North America and the Fallow Deer of Europe. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature) shi i t : x

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of stabilising the
name for the Virginia Deer. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, DS.C.,
M.A., D.Se. (British Museum (Natural History), London) oe

Support for Dr. Morrison-Scott’s proposal relating to the name for the
Virginia Deer. By Karl P. Schmidt (Chief Curator of Zoology),
Colin Campbell Sanborn (Curator of Mammals), D. Dwight Davies
(Curator of Anatomy), Bryan Patterson (Curator of Fossil Mammals),
and Rainer Zangerl (Curator of Fossil Reptiles) (all of the Chicago
Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U cw a ee is ™

XXXI

Page

285

289

291

298

299

Xxx

Counter-proposal to certain portions of Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott’s
application regarding the stabilisation of the generic name for the
Virginia Deer of America. By Angel Cabrera (Cuidad Eva Peron,
F.C.N.G.R., Argentina). . ¥ if ibs ty es x0

Support for Dr. Morrison-Scott’s proposal relating to the name for the
Virginia Deer. By Robert K. Enders Mae de Swarth-
more, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) é ; d

Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name
Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda). By Lothar Forcart
(Custos, Zoological Department, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel,
Switzerland) ye ip Fi a ve

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name Helt-
cella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) for use in its accustomed
sense. By A. E. Ellis (Epsom rain vee rete and R.
Winckworth (London, England). . ; ,

Formica Linnaeus, 1758 : Report on proposed action, under the Plenary
Powers, to give valid force to the decision taken by the Com-
mission in Paris : action needed because of circumstances not then
known to the Commission. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature)

Application for the re-examination and re-phrasing of the decision taken
by the International Commission regarding the name of the type
species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymen-
optera). By I. H. H. Yarrow, M.A., Ph.D. (British Museum
(Natural History), London) ee cap ae

Support for Dr. I. H. H. Yarrow’s proposal for the re-phrasing of the
decision taken by the International Commission regarding the name
of the type species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758. By R. B. Benson,
M.A. (British Museum (Natural History), London) ;G. E. J. Nixon,
B.A. (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London); J. F.
Perkins, B.Se. (British Musewm (Natural History), London) and
O. W. Richards, D.Sc. anes pore a Science and tiga
London) tea

Page

299

300

301

304

309

313

318

XXXII

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Carinifex
Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda). By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San
Diego, California, U.S.A.) ats aj 4: - ine

Comment on Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr.’s proposal for the validation of the
generic name Carinifex Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda) and an
alternative proposal. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clatur. )

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the family-group name
XANTHINAE Dana, 1851 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) es ee oe

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Discias
Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B.
Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) “ 23 a: 1; we be ap

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic names
Upogebia Leach, 1814, and Processa Leach, 1815 (Class Crustacea,
Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis i i useum van ot can
Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the family-group
names PROCESSIDAE and UPOGEBIINAE (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Noinenclature)

Comment on the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of
immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination
Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Roy A.
Harrison (Entomologist, Plant Diseases Division, Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand)

Comment on the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of
immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination
Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By E. B.
Basden (Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, Scotland) :

Support for the application to validate the name immigrans Sturtevant,
1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans. By
Erich Martin smyia hectic Museum der Humboldt-Universitat
zu Berlin) { ef nia ai is

Page

321

326

329

334

340

342

343

344

XXXIV

Support for the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the
specific name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the
combination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera).
By F. Van Emden, D.Sc. pase apa Institute af nts
London) “ d “8 ‘ '

Support for the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the
specific name immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the com-
bination Drosophila immigrans (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By
John Smart, Ph.D., D.Sc. map piel University, ae id
Zoology, Cambridge) “9

Objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the
generic name Caenisites Buckman (S.8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By L. F. Spath, D.Sc., F.RS. a
Museum (Natural History), London) /

Comment on the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the
generic name Caenisites Buckman (8.8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By R. V. Melville, M.Sc. (Geological Survey
and Museum, London) " - Re ae Ey a

Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal relating to Caenisites Buckman (S.8.),
1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Helmut Holder
(Institut und Museum fiir Geologie und lip peas der Universitat
Tiibingen, Germany) z : ie i aya

Support for the proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the
generic name Caenisites Buckman (S.S8.), 1925 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By P. C. Sylvester- eee Leieeiais a
Sheffield, Sheffield, England) F

Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal relating to Caenisites Buckman (S.8.),
1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Otto H. Haas
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposal for a Declaration that a generic or
specific name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite be
excluded from availability under the esi By C. W. Wright
(London) . es aia , - a si

Support for Professor Swinnerton’s proposal to validate, under the
Plenary Powers, the specific name minimus Miller (J.S.), 1826, as
published in the combination Belemnites minimus (Class sini
Order Dibranchia). By C. W. Wright (London) ..

Page

345

346

348

349

350

:
|
|

XXXV

Page
Proposed rejection for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the
second edition of Curtis (J.), 1837, A Guide to an Arrangement of
British Insects or alternatively the proposed suppression of the
above work under the Plenary Powers for the foregoing purposes.
By C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.) and Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C.,U.S.A.) .. ae ne es Be lis

Support for the Sabrosky/Blackwelder proposal that the second (1837)
edition of Curtis’s Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects be
rejected for the purposes of Article 30. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature). . ie ng i a iS wey oae

Corrigenda or sis ais ae ty . 3 ve Suey OO

Index to authors of applications and of comments on applications .. 359

Subject Index .. Me ay Pe Se ce as 2. ss 4am

Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the
present volume was published Me ee Ke i .. 441

Instructions to binders ‘i “is 4g Sa _ iS ee rae

INTERNATIONAL TRUST
FOR
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEARS 1952 AND 1953

Gat

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
FOR THE YEAR 1952

(Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting)

The year 1952 by its chequered character illustrates both the achievements
which it is possible for the Trust to secure even without an assured income
and also the embarrassments to which it is liable to be exposed by reason of
being forced to rely for its operations almost entirely upon the income which
it obtains from the sale of its publications. On the positive side the year
was marked by a successful drive to secure the publication in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature of a large instalment of applications awaiting
attention by the Commission. This is an aspect of the work of the Commission
to which great importance is attached by the Trust, for the throwing-open
of an application for discussion in this way constitutes a most important
stage in its consideration and paves the way in most cases for the taking by
the Commission of a decision six months later on the problem submitted to
it for decision. The unsatisfactory feature of the year 1952 is that in it
expenditure exceeded income and it was necessary therefore to draw upon the
Trust’s reserves to meet the deficit so disclosed. Fortunately, as will be seen
later in the present Report, this deficit was accompanied by circumstances
which mitigated part of its seriousness. Nevertheless, the fact that there
should have been any deficit is much to be regretted and demonstrates once
again in an acute form the need for providing adequate funds for the discharge
by the Commission of the duties entrusted to it.

2. Scope of the publications issued in 1952 : In 1952 the Trust continued
the policy inaugurated in the previous year of pressing on with the publication
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of applications on individual nomen-
clatorial problems submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for decision. At the same time the Trust took the first important
step in connection with the preparations for the Session of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to be held at Copenhagen in July
1953 in connection with the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
devoting for this purpose a whole volume of the Bulletin. On the first part
of this programme the Trust published seven Parts (Parts 5 to 11) of volume 6
of the Bulletin, thereby completing that volume, except for the concluding
(Index) Part and in addition published five Parts (Parts 1 to 5) of volume 9.
The Parts so published contained 74 applications. It will be seen therefore
that during the year the Trust advanced a large mass of applications to the
point at which, after the prescribed waiting period of six months the Com-
mission will be in a position to take decisions preparatory to the adoption

of a further large instalment of Opinions. The Trust attaches great importance
to the furtherance of this side of the work of the Commission, since, if the
judicial functions of that body are to command universal respect, it is essential
that its procedure should be such as to enable it to reach decisions without the
long delays which have often occurred in the past. In the year under review
the Trust published also the concluding (Index) Part (Part 12) of volume 1 of
the Bulletin. For the detailed indexes contained in this Part the Trust is
indebted to Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc., who during the year joined the staff of
the Commission in a part-time capacity in charge of the Indexes Branch.
Under the second part of its Publications Programme for 1952 the Trust
devoted a whole volume (volume 7) of the Bulletin to a series of detailed
surveys prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, of
seven major problems relating to the text of the Régles which the Paris (1948)
Congress had decided should be the subject of special study with a view to
the submission of Reports, with recommendations, to the next (Copenhagen,
1953) Congress. The purpose of these surveys was to call attention to the
issues on which decisions would be sought from the Copenhagen Congress
and to elicit the views of interested specialists as to the nature of the decisions
so to be taken. In addition, there were included in this volume notes on
twenty-eight individual nomenclatorial problems which had also been deferred
by the Paris Congress, the purpose of these notes being to seek comments on
the issues involved for the consideration of the Commission when it came to
take decisions on the various questions concerned. Already also during the year
1952 the Trust decided to allocate a further complete volume for the publication
of comments received on the problems discussed in volume 7 and of proposals
on other matters relating to the text of the Régles which would need to be
considered by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. The volume so earmarked
was volume 8 and it was because that volume had been set aside for this
purpose that, as already explained, the new volume containing applications
for decisions on individual cases which was started during 1952 was allotted
the volume number “9”’, instead of the volume number “8”. The total
number of pages published during 1952 amounted to 646 pages (vol. 2, 86 pp.
and 26 pp. of preliminary matter ; vol. 6, 352 pp.; vol. 7, 230 pp. and 4 pp.
of preliminary matter ; vol.9,158 pp.). At this level the output of publications
in 1952 was slightly greater than in 1951, when the number of pages published
amounted to 608. No Opinions or Declarations were published in 1952, but,
as has already been explained, the large number of applications published
in the Bulletin during the year provided the basis for a large number of pub-
lications of this class as soon as the Commission was in a position to resume
this side of its work.

3. Income from the sale of publications : The income obtained from the
sale of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (including the sale of back Parts)
amounted in 1952 to £2,465 15s. 5d. At this level income under this head
exceeded that obtained in any previous year with the exception of 1950, the
year in which were published the three volumes (vols. 3, 4 and 5) of the Bulletin

containing the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its
Paris Session which had been in preparation since 1948 and had for the most
part been printed in 1949. The income obtained under this head in 1952
exceeded that similarly obtained in 1951 (£1,968 13s. 2d.) by £497 2s. 3d.
As already explained, no Opinions or Declarations were published in 1952,
but sales of back Parts of these publications amounted during the year to
£31 14s. 5d., a figure slightly greater than the amount (£30 6s. 10d.) obtained
in 1951. The total income from the sale of publications in 1952 thus amounted
to £2,497 9s. 10d. or £498 9s. 10d. more than the amount secured under this
head in 1951.

4. Donations and Grants Received : During the year under review the
Trust received a grant of £357 from U.N.E.S.C.O. through the International
Union for Biological Sciences, and a donation of £25 from the Royal Entomo-
logical Society of London. To both these institutions the Trust is happy to
offer its grateful thanks. The total sum received under this head in 1952
(£382) exceeded the amount (£167 10s. 10d.) in 1951 by £214 9s. 2d.

5. Total Income in 1952: The total income of the Trust in 1952, made
up of the foregoing items, amounted to £2,879 9s. 10d. or £712 19s. 10d. more
than in 1951.

6. Administrative Expenses: During the year 1952 administrative
expenses amounted to £569 2s. 3d., an increase of £42 13s. 4d. over the expendi-
ture (£526 8s. 1ld.) incurred under this head in 1951. Expenditure on the
salary of the part-time Publications Officer (£206 17s. 7d.) showed an increase
of £29 11s. 5d. over 1951, while payments to part-time typists, which in 1951
amounted to £17 9s. 4d., rose in 1952 to £66 3s. 8d., an increase of £48 14s. 4d.
The former of these increases was due mainly to a small increase made by the
Trust as from Ist April 1952 in the salary paid to the part-time Publications
Officer and, in part also, to a special gratuity paid to that officer at the end
of the year in recognition of the great increase in the volume of work which
she had been called upon to perform in 1952 as the result of the growth of
sales of the Trust’s publications, and of the zealous manner in which she had
performed her duties. The substantial increase in 1952 in the payments
made to part-time typists as compared with 1951 was due to the fact that
already by the autumn of 1952 special arrangements had to be made for the
copying of the large number of documents received on matters connected
with the meeting of the International Commission and of the International
Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in July 1953, for it was evident that, if,
as was proposed, all these documents were to be published in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature in the special volume (vol. 8) which, as already
explained, the Trust had earlier in the year decided to allot to the documents
required for the Copenhagen Agenda, it would be necessary to begin the
publication of that volume early in 1953. Office Expenses in 1952 amounted
to £275 1s. Od., or practically the same figure as in 1951 (£281 13s. 5d.). No

expenditure was incurred on official travelling in 1952. The fee paid by the
Trust to its Auditor (£21) remained unchanged.

7. Depreciation of Office Equipment : During 1952 the sum of £20 9s. 5d.
was devoted to covering depreciation of office equipment. The increase
(£4 7s. 3d.) shown under this head is attributable to the fact that in 1952
it was necessary to buy an extra typewriter for the office of the Commission.

The cost of this purchase is reflected in the increase shown in the Balance
Sheet of the book value at cost of office equipment purchased since July 1948.

8. Expenditure on printing scientific publications : Expenditure on the
printing of scientific publications in the year 1952 amounted to the sum of
£2,828 17s. 3d. The whole of this expenditure was in respect of printing
the Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature. This represents an increase over
that so incurred in 1951 (£1,404 6s. 10d.) of £1,424 10s. 5d. Although this is
an increase of more than 100 per cent. over 1951, it is important that it should
be realised that the expenditure incurred in 1952 represents no more than the
outlay involved in printing the quantity of publications which it was possible
for the part-time Honorary Secretary to see through the press during the course
of the year. It does not in any sense represent, and is indeed much less than,
the annual outlay which would be required if the Commission possessed a staff
adequate to meet the needs of its work and if in consequence it were possible
to publish all applications as soon as they were ready and also to publish
Opinions immediately after decisions had been taken on the questions involved.

9. Total Expenditure in 1952 : Total expenditure in 1952, made up of
the items shown in the preceding paragraphs, amounted to £3,418 8s. ld.
At this level expenditure exceeded that in 1951 by £1,471 1ls. As will be
seen from the particulars already given, almost the whole of this increase is
attributable to the vigorous Publications Policy pursued by the Trust in
the year under review.

10. Balance carried down : Total Expenditure in 1952 (£3,418 8s. 11d.)
exceeded total Income (£2,879 9s. 10d.) by £538 19s. 1d., which was accordingly
carried down. At the beginning of the year the Income and Expenditure
Account Balance stood at £2,767 7s. Sd. At 31st December 1952 this was
reduced by the amount of the adverse balance brought down to £2,228 8s. 7d.

41. Balance Sheet as at 3ist December 1952: At 31st December 1952
Revenue Reserves amounted to £2,748 6s. lld. These Reserves consisted of
the Income and Expenditure Account Balance to which reference has already
been made, of the “ Official List > Suspense Account (£422 1s. 8d.) and of
the Office Equipment Reserve (£97 16s. 8d.). The last two items were the
same as at 31st December 1951, while, as already explained, the first of these
items was less by the amount by which in 1952 expenditure exceeded income
(£538 19s. 1d.) than the level at which this Balance stood at the end of 1951.

ai ati

eee ee -e

vii

Other liabilities consisted of the provision of £1,000 made in previous years
for the publication of the revised edition of the Régles Internationales de la
Nomenclature Zoologique, and the liabilities in respect of sundry creditors
(£1,522 14s. 9d.). Total liabilities at the end of 1952 thus amounted to
£5,271 1s. 8d. On the other side of the Balance Sheet, the fixed assets belonging
to the Trust, valued at cost less depreciation, stood in the books at £184 5s. Od.
This represents an increase of £39 5s. 7d. over the position at 3lst December
1951, and reflects the expenditure incurred during 1952 on the purchase of
a new typewriter, less the amount by which during the year the total fixed
assets were written off on account of depreciation. Current assets at the end
of 1952 amounted to £5,086 16s. 8d. This latter sum consisted of two items.
The first of these was a sum of £675, which represented the estimated value
of the amounts due to the Trust in respect of publications sold, but not already
paid for, by 3lst December 1952. As in previous years, the estimate made
for this item was based upon the book value of the sales in question, from
which an appropriate deduction was made in respect of possible bad debts.
The level at which this item stood in the Balance Sheet at the end of 1952
exceeded that at the end of 1951 (£250) by the large sum of £425. This
increase was attributable not to any relaxation in the efforts made by the
Trust to secure prompt payment of monies due to it but to the fact that two
large Parts of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (vol. 2, Part 12 and
vol. 9, Part 4/5) were published so late in December 1952 that payments by
subscribers could not be expected before the close of the year. The second
item consisted of the sum of £4,411 16s. 8d., being the balances at the bank
and cash in hand at the end of 1952.

12. Situation disclosed by the Accounts for 1952 : The situation disclosed
by the Accounts for the year 1952 is encouraging in the sense that the great
increase in income from the sale of the Trust’s publications, representing, as
it does, not so much an increase in the volume of sales as a great increase in
the total output achieved, affords gratifying evidence of the success of the
efforts made to advance the consideration of a large number of applications
now awaiting attention by the Commission. From the financial point of
view however the situation disclosed by the Accounts affords an unpleasant
reminder of the extremely precarious basis on which through lack of an assured
income the Trust is forced to conduct its operations. In all essential respects
the year 1952 was similar to the year 1951 but in the current year a net loss
was incurred on the Trust’s Income and Expenditure Account, whereas in
1951 a profit was secured. This was entirely due to the different course taken
by the production and sale of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In
1951 the Publications Programme was set at a relatively low level, the last
Part to be published appeared well before the end of the year and at 31st
December the amount of work in progress in the hands of the printer was small.
Tn consequence, virtually the whole of the expenditure incurred on the Bulletin
in that year was immediately remunerative in the sense that income from the
sale of the units published was obtained during the year under account. In

viii

the year 1952, however, the position was quite different. The Publications
Programme was set at a much higher level and sales were correspondingly
higher. Throughout the year there was a steady flow of papers for the
Bulletin passing to the printer and the year ended with a large amount of work —
in progress. This block of work represented a liability incurred by the Trust
to its printer and it was necessary therefore to include the amount involved
in the Income and Expenditure Account as part of the expenditure incurred
on the production of the Bulletin. Such expenditure is recovered at the time
when publication takes place but, when it is incurred in one year and pub-
lication does not take place until the following year, it represents a purely
nugatory expenditure in the year in which it is incurred, for no return is obtained
for in that year. It will be seen therefore that the loss shown in the Income
and Expenditure Account for 1952 is largely formal in character. Never-
theless, the fact that it is necessary to record a loss in the foregoing Account
for 1952 is very unsatisfactory. It brings into striking relief the difficulties
involved in attempting to maintain the output of publications at a high level
without an assured income sufficient to make it unnecessary to rely upon
sales for the day-to-day financing of current work.

13. Prospect for the Year 1953: Looking forward to the year 1953, the
Trust finds itself confronted with a difficult prospect. For the last four years
zoologists and palaeontologists in all parts of the world have been anxiously
awaiting the meeting at Copenhagen in 1953 of the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology at which it is hoped that decisions will be taken on the
questions relating to the reform of the Régles which were left unsettled by the
Paris Congress of 1948. Already the Trust has taken important measures
in preparation for the Copenhagen Congress, notably by publishing a whole
volume (volume 7) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature specially devoted
to the major problems of nomenclature which are to be discussed by that
Congress and by earmarking a further volume (volume 8) for the publication
of other documents which have been submitted for consideration at that
meeting. If, however, these and other documents are to be handled in an
orderly fashion at Copenhagen and generally acceptable solutions are to be
devised, it will be essential that detailed preparations should be taken in
advance to this end. So great is the importance of these considerations that
the Trust has in mind to convene a special Colloquium on Zoological Nomen-
clature to meet at Copenhagen a week or ten days before the opening of the
Congress, in order to provide an opportunity for the dispassionate discussion
of the intricate problems on which the Congress will be called upon to take
decisions. While in 1953 as in previous years it may be hoped that the cost
of publishing the volumes of the Bulletin involved will be met by income
obtained from sales, it is certain that a heavy expenditure will be involved
in organising the proposed Colloquium. The Trust has reason to hope that the
International Union for Biological Sciences and U.N.E.S.C.O. will contribute
towards the cost of the Colloquium within the limits imposed by their respective
budgets, but it is faced nevertheless with the certainty that the expenses in

connection with this meeting which it will be necessary for it to meet from
its own funds will be substantial and cannot possibly be defrayed from current
income. In other words, the arrangements which have been set in train for
the completion of the reform of the Régles by the Copenhagen Congress are
bound to involve an expenditure which it will only be possible for the Trust
to meet by drawing upon its small accumulated reserves. The reform of the
Régles is however a matter of such cardinal importance that the Trust does
not doubt that in incurring this expenditure it will have the support of all
zoologists. At the same time the Trust is of the opinion that it is essential
that the attention of zoologists should be drawn in the most serious manner
to the imperative need for providing an assured income for financing the work
of the Commission. For if such provision is not made it can only be a matter
of time before the whole Commission system will collapse through lack of
funds. Even today it is possible to maintain the work of the Commission
only by reason of the subsidies in the form of unpaid service and of free office
accommodation provided by Mr. Hemming, the Honorary Secretary to the
Commission. It is the intention of the Trust to appoint a strong delegation
to attend the Copenhagen meetings for the purpose of placing before the
zoologists there assembled the need for grappling with the financial and ad-
ministrative problems involved in maintaining the work of the Commission.

14. Presentation of the Accounts for the Year 1952 and Balance Sheet
as at 31st December 1952: With the foregoing explanations and with the
serious warning set out above, the Committee of Management submits herewith
to the Trust and, through the Trust, to the general body of zoologists the
Accounts for the year 1952 and the Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1952.
In doing so, the Committee of Management desires once again to record its
thanks to Mr. Francis Hemming, the Honorary Managing Director of the Trust
and its Honorary Secretary, for the services rendered by him during the year
and also to the Trust’s part-time Publications Officer, Mrs. C. Rosner, who
has continued to show great interest and assiduity in her duties. Finally,
the Committee of Management wishes to thank the Auditors of the Trust,
Messrs. W. B. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants, and their representative,
Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, for the constant assistance rendered during the year
under review.

Offices of the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature,

41 Queen’s Gate,
London, 8.W.7, England.

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR

Incorporated under the Companies

BALANCE SHEET—

1951 -
£ £ a a £ «. d.
Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)—
422 “ Official List ’? Suspense Account ere .. 422 1 8
98 Office Equipment Reserve et Aen aif 9716 8
2,767 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 2,228 8 7
3,287 waa ———— 2,748 6 ll
. Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code—
‘International Code (Publication) ’” Suspense
1,000 Account (per separate account) Ra San 1,000 0 0
Liabilities—
1,815 Sundry Creditors ate he Bie ae 1,522 14 9)
£6,102 £5,271 1 8
SS —————

We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were
from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income —
our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by the —
Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1952, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view of the |

Fryspury Crrcus Houses,
BLoMFIELD STREET,
Lonpon, E.C.2.

9th April 1953

ee ee

DOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Act 1929 (Limited by Guarantee)

Ist DECEMBER 1952

Fixed Assets—
Office Equipment—

Book Value at 31st December, 1947 (being for
the purpose of the Companies Act, 1948 the

112 value at Ist July 1948) ... : PLE LIANG
98 . Additions since at Cost ~~ ue te ISAS iS
210 269 15 9
Less : Depreciation—
49 to 3lst December 1951 RSS Ae ee”
16 for year to date... Ae 20 9 5
65 — — — 85 10 9
_—— ————. 184 5 0
Current Assets—
250 Amounts due for Publications, ete., valuedat ... 675 0 0
5,707 Balance at Bank and Cash in Hand .... ... 4,411 16 8
5,086 16 8
(Note :—Stock of Publications not valued)
FRANCIS HEMMING Members of the Committee
FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN of Management.
£5,271. 1) 8

ssary-for the purposes of our audit. In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears
Bod Expenditure Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of
Companies Act 1948 in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the
Excess of Expenditure over Income for the year ended on that date.

(Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO.,
Chartered Accountants.

Income and Expenditure Account fo

1951 INCOME :
£ £ fc > 8. (a. £. s..d9
To Sales of publications— ;
30 Opinions and Declarations Mad ee 3114 5
1,969 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature woo 2,465 "90 2
1,999 — ——_——- 2,497 9 10
25 », Donation ; 25 0 0
» Grant from U. N. E.S. C. O. per eee Pavel
142 national Union for Biological Sciences as 357 0 0
,. Balance carried down being Excess of Expen-

— diture over Income for the year... oe 538 19 1
£2,166 £3,418 8 11°
ee ET

219 To Balance brought down oe ioe ee —-— —

2,548 », Balance at 3lst asics 1951 brought
forward a an as 2,167 7 8
£2,767 £2,767 7 8
** Official List ’
£422 To Balance at 3lst ee 1951 Sigh
forward “2 . £422 1 8

To Balance at 3lst pian 1951 bia
£98 forward tes : £97 16 8

“International Code (Publ

To Balance at 31st eect a 1951 eee
£1,000 forward se £1,000 0 D

1951
£

£2,767

£422

nent Reserve
£98

Suspense Account

he year ended 3ist December 1952

EXPENDITURE
8. d.
By Administration Expenses—
Salaries—
£177 Publications Officer ... 206 17 7
17 Stenographer Secretary... 66 3 8

Travelling Expenses...
Office Expenses
Audit Fee

, Depreciation of Office Equipment iat
Publications—Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature... tise Bib eta ae Ane
, Balance carried down, being Excess of Income
over Expenditure for the year =

By Balance brought down
,. Balance carried to Balance Sheet

By Balance carried to Balance Sheet

xiii

Ose Ge

273 1 3

275 1 0
21 0 0

569 2 3
20 9 5&

2,828 17 3

£3,418 8 11

638 19 1
2,228 8 7

£2,767 7° 8

——Se

£422 1 8

£97 16 8

£1,000 0 0

FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT
OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1953

(Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting)

The year 1953 witnessed the culmination of the preparations for tne
Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature which in 1951 the Trust had decided
to convene to meet at Copenhagen in July 1953 for the purpose of examining
in detail all proposals submitted for the reform of those portions of the Régles,
the consideration of which had been deferred by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for decision by the next (Fourteenth) Inter-
national Congress at its meeting at Copenhagen in the year under review.
It was always realised that the organisation and holding of a large international
gathering such as the Colloquium and the publication of the decisions to be
taken by the Congress in the light of the recommendations submitted to it by
the International Commission in the light of the conclusions reached by the
Colloquium would involve a heavy expenditure far beyond the capacity of
the Trust to bear from current income and that it would only be possible for
it to meet this expenditure by granting a subsidy towards the cost of the
Colloquium from the Trust’s general reserves. This anticipation proved to
be fully justified. =

2. Form of Account adopted for presenting particulars of the expenditure
incurred on the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, Copenhagen, 19538 :
Special consideration has been given by the Committee of Management as to
the form of account in which particulars of the expenditure incurred by the
Trust on the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature can most conveniently
be presented. Either of two possible courses could have been adopted. First,
it would have been possible to include in the Trust’s Income and Expenditure
Account a single item showing the net expenditure incurred by the Trust on
the Colloquium, the item so entered being supplemented by a separate state-
ment giving detailed particulars showing the elements of which that item
was composed. The second course would have been to distribute the various
items concerned between the sub-heads adopted in the main Income and
Expenditure Account under which the expenditure of the classes concerned
are normally shown. The Committee of Management has adopted the first
of these courses, partly because it provides a better and more detailed picture
of the expenditure incurred on the Colloquium and partly because, by separating
that expenditure from the normal expenditure incurred in the year under
review, it affords a basis for comparing this latter expenditure with corres-
ponding expenditure in previous years which would otherwise have been

lacking.

Xvi

8. Scope of the Publications issued in 1953 : Throughout the year 1953
the entire resources of the Office of the Commission were devoted, first, to the
completion of the preparations for the Colloquium arranged to be held at
Copenhagen in July of that year and, later, to the editing and publication of
the volume containing the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomen-
clature taken at Copenhagen by the Fourteenth International Congress of
Zoology following the close of the meetings of the Colloquium. In consequence,
no items belonging to the ‘‘ Opinions ” Series and no Parts of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature containing applications on individual cases submitted
for decision were published in 1953. In the seven-month period January
July there was published however a large number of Parts of the Bulletin
devoted to one aspect or another of the Agenda for the Copenhagen Colloquium.
In addition, the last day of the year witnessed the publication of the work
entitled Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature which contained the
Official Record of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress.

4. Publication in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’ of the
Agenda for the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature summoned to meet at
Copenhagen in July 1953 : It was decided in 1952 to devote a whole volume
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to the publication of the documents
to be submitted to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature which the
Trust had decided to convene to meet at Copenhagen in July 1953 immediately
before the opening of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology.
The volume so allotted for this purpose was volume 8. Later, the Trust took
the view that, if the whole of the large documentation was to be printed in
time to be considered before the opening of the Colloquium, it would be desirable
to divide the documents so as to form two volumes of the Bulletin and to
employ different printers for these volumes. Under this decision the documents
for the Copenhagen Agenda were divided between volumes 8 and 10 of the
Bulletin. At various dates in the earlier part of the year 24 Parts of the
Bulletin, comprising a total of 796 pages, were published in connection with
the Copenhagen Meetings. It has been gratifying to the Trust to learn that
the ample documentation so provided was warmly welcomed by the zoologists
attending the Copenhagen discussions and constituted a material factor in
securing the due understanding by the Colloquium, the Commission and the
Congress of the complicated issues involved.

5. Publication in December 1953 of the work ‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions on
Zoological Nomenclature ’’ : Immediately after the close in August 1953
of the meeting of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, work was
started on the editing of the document recording the outcome of the discussions
at Copenhagen. In form that document was a Report by the Colloquium on
Zoological Nomenclature to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. In view however of the fact that all the meetings of the
Colloquium were held jointly with the Commission, the Report adopted
formed a Report by the Commission as well as by the Colloquium.

XVil

This Report was unanimously approved and adopted by the Copenhagen
Congress at its Final Plenary Session held on 12th August 1953. While it
was not possible to recast this document to constitute a direct record of the
decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress it was decided to publish it under
a title which would make it quite clear that the provisions set out in it were
not only the recommendations of the Colloquium but were also the Official
Record of the decisions taken by the Congress. At the same time it was
considered that, as this work would inevitably be widely quoted, it was desirable
that it should be given a convenient short title as well as a longer and more
explanatory sub-title. It was with these considerations in mind that it was
decided to publish this work under the title :—‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions on
Zoological Nomenclature ’’, with the sub-title ‘“‘ Additions to, and modifications
of, the Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique approved and
adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
August 1953”. In view of the importance of placing this work in the hands
of zoologists at the earliest possible moment it was decided by the Trust that
in the second part of the year all other work should be put on one side in order
that the preparations for its publication should be pressed forward with the
utmost despatch. At the same time the Trust engaged the good offices of
its printers, Messrs. Metcalfe & Cooper Ltd., to expedite the actual process of
printing to the full extent practicable. As the result of these efforts this book
was published very rapidly, appearing on 3lst December 1953, i.e. within a
period of four and a half months of the date on which it was approved by the
Copenhagen Congress.

6. The price fixed for the work ‘“‘ Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological
Nomenclature ’’ : In the past it has sometimes been argued that if only the
Trust were to issue its publications at low prices and in large editions the
demand would be so stimulated that a financial loss would be avoided. The
Trust however has always taken the view that the subject matter of its pub-
lications is so specialised that demand is extremely inelastic and therefore that
the adoption of a policy of the kind described above would be bound to lead to
substantial financial loss. The Trust has felt however for some time that this
was a matter which ought to be put to the test at the first convenient oppor-
tunity. When considering the question of the price to be charged for the
Copenhagen Decisions, the Trust took the view that no more favourable oppor-
tunity could be found for testing the elasticity of demand for publications on
zoological nomenclature, for, in view of the fact that this work was concerned
with important developments in the Régles, it was certain to excite much wider
interest than either the Bulletin or an Opinion dealing with some specialised
. problem relating to nomenclature in a particular group in the Animal Kingdom.
The Trust accordingly decided to fix the price of this book at the nominal figure
of five shillings. This figure was deliberately selected in order to determine
the number of copies of an important work on zoological nomenclature which
it would be possible to sell if that work were to be placed on the market at a
very low price. It remains to be seen by how much demand will be stimulated
by the price charged and therefore the amount by which sales will exceed

xviii

the normal level for Parts of the Bulletin and for Opinions. Even if, as the
Trust expects, sales, though noticeably higher than the ordinary level, fail
to reach a total sufficient to recoup the printing costs involved, the publication
of this particular work at this cut price will have served a useful purpose by
bringing the decisions of the Copenhagen Congress before a wider circle of
zoologists than would otherwise have been possible.

7. Income from sales of publications : During the year 1953 income from
the sale of the current volumes (volumes 8 and 10) of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, supplemented to some extent by the sale of back sets, amounted
to £2,754 2s. 3d., an increase of £288 6s. 10d. over the amount secured in 1952.
Income from the sales of “‘ Opinions” amounted only to £8 6s. 8d., a decline
of £23 7s. 9d. as compared with the previous year. It seems evident that
further substantial sales of this series, the last item of which (Opinion 194)
was published as long ago as 1947, are not to be expected until the publication
of a further instalment of Opinions stimulates the demand for items already
published. Sales of the Copenhagen Decisions amounted to £28 8s. 10d.
Total income from the sale of publications during the year thus amounted to
£2,790 17s. 9d.

8. Donation received from the Royal Entomological Society of London :
The Trust desires gratefully to acknowledge the receipt during the year of a
gift of £25 from the Royal Entomological Society of London and at the same
time to express its appreciation of the manner in which over a long period of
years this Society has shown its interest in the work of the International
Commission not only by making annual gifts to the Trust but also by itself
submitting numerous applications to the Commission for stabilising the names
of important genera of insects on the British List.

9. Gift received from Mr. Francis Hemming : During the year Mr. Francis
Hemming made available to the Trust a sum of £1,736 11s. 8d. as a contribution
to its general funds. Mr. Hemming asked that the money so provided should
be used by the Trust for the purpose of clearing-off arrears of work in the
Office of the Commission. The Trust desires to express its warmest thanks
for this benefaction which is by far the largest single gift ever received for the
furtherance of its work.

10. Grant received through the International Union for Biological Sciences
from U.N.E.S.C.0. : No grant was made during the year by the International
Union for Biological Sciences and U.N.E.S.C.O. towards the general expenses
of the Trust but a very valuable contribution amounting to £713 19s. 10d.
was received from this source towards the cost of organising the Colloquium
on Zoological Nomenclature convened by the Trust to meet at Copenhagen
in July 1953 immediately prior to the opening of the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology. As explained in paragraph 2 of the present Report, it
has been considered that it would be more informative if a separate statement

xix

were to be submitted showing the expenditure incurred in connection with the
Colloquium, the same statement showing also the sources of the funds from
which this expenditure was met. Accordingly for the purposes of the main
Income and Expenditure Account for the year under review, the gross expen-
diture incurred on the Colloquium has been shown as a single item of expendi-
ture, the net expenditure incurred by the Trust being obtained by the deduction
from the foregoing figure of the grant received from the International Union
(paragraph 15 below).

11. Total Income in 1953 : Total Income in 1953, made up of the income
obtained from the sale of publications (paragraph 7), the donation received
from the Royal Entomological Society of London (paragraph 8) and the bene-
faction received from Mr. Hemming (paragraph 9), amounted to £4,552 9s. 5d.
At this level income exceeded that in 1952 by £1,672 19s. 7d. As will be
seen from the particulars given above, this difference is due, apart from the
increase in income from sales, to differences between the amounts received
by way of gifts in 1952 and 1953 respectively.

12. Administrative Expenses : Expenditure incurred on salaries and
wages amounted in 1953 to £235 9s. 5d., a reduction of £37 11s. 10d. on the
expenditure similarly incurred in 1952. This was due almost entirely to the
fact that the copying of documents for inclusion in the Agenda for the Copen-
hagen Colloquium was approaching completion by the end of 1952 and in
consequence the expenditure on typing assistance in 1953 was considerably
less than it had been in the previous year. It will be noted also that expendi-
ture on salaries in 1953 included a small sum in respect of salary paid to the
Administrative Officer appointed near the close of the year (paragraph 20 below).
Normal Office Expenses, that is, expenses other than those incurred in con-
nection with the preparations for the Colloquium, amounted in 1953 to
£185 19s. 6d. This represents a reduction of £89 1s. 6d. on the expenditure
incurred in 1952. This difference is however mainly formal in character owing
to the fact that in 1952 office expenses incurred in connection with the prepara-
tions for the Colloquium to be held in 1953 were not shown separately, being
included with normal office expenses. Expenditure on postage was also much
less in 1953 than in 1952 owing to the much smaller number of Voting Papers
issued to Members of the Commission. During the year the Trust approved
an increase of ten guineas in the fee paid to its auditors in recognition of the
increase in the amount of work involved in the audit owing to the growth
in the volume of sales of its publications and, in particular, in the number of
individual transactions to be examined. Expenditure incurred under this
head in 1953 accordingly amounted to £31 10s. Od. Total Administrative
Expenses thus amounted in 1953 to the sum of £452 18s. 1ld. For the reasons
explained above, this was less than the expenditure similarly incurred in 1952
by the sum of £116 3s, 4d.

13. Depreciation of Office Equipment : During the year 1953 the sum of
£18 8s. 6d. was appropriated towards depreciation of office equipment. This
was slightly less than the amount (£20 9s. 5d.) so appropriated in 1952.

14. Expenditure on printing scientific publications : Expenditure on the
printing of scientific publications in 1953 fell under two heads :—(1) expenditure
on printing further instalments in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of
applications submitted to the Commission for decision ; (2) expenditure
incurred in the printing of (a) the volumes of the Bulletin (volumes 8 and 10)
containing the Agenda for the Copenhagen Meetings and (b) the work Copen-
hagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, the volume containing the Official
Record of the decisions taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. The expenditure incurred under this latter
head is included in the general Copenhagen item in the accounts (paragraph
15 below). Thus, the only item in respect of the printing of scientific
publications shown in the main Income and Expenditure Account is one of
£684 10s. 1ld., which was entirely in respect of work in hand in connection
with the printing of normal instalments of the Bulletin. If it had not been
for the decision to include in the Copenhagen Account the expenditure incurred
on the Colloquium volumes of the Bulletin, the total expenditure on the pro-
duction of the Bulletin in 1953 would have appeared as £2,728 16s. 2d. At
this level expenditure on the Bulletin in 1953 fell short of that in 1952 by almost
exactly £100.

15. Net expenditure incurred on the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen-
clature, Copenhagen, 1953 : The total gross expenditure incurred in connection
with the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held at Copenhagen in
July—August 1953 amounted to £3,482 2s. 9d. Towards this expenditure the
Trust received a grant through the International Union for Biological Sciences
from U.N.E.S.C.O. of $2,000 which realised the sum of £713 19s. 10d. The net
expenditure incurred on the Colloquium by the Trust from its own funds thus
amounted to £2,768 2s. 1ld. Full particulars of this expenditure are shown
in the Colloquium Statement annexed to the Accounts. By far the largest
single item of expenditure was that incurred on printing, which amounted to
£2,664 10s. 6d. This consisted (a) of a sum of £2,044 5s. 3d. incurred on the
printing of the two volumes (volumes 8 and 10) of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature containing the Agenda for the Copenhagen Meetings, and (b)
of an item of £620 5s. 3d. incurred on the production of the work Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature. In addition, a sum of £183 16s. 9d. was
expended in the production of mimeographed documents for use by the Collo-

-quium. Some of these documents were prepared in London prior to the opening
of the Colloquium but most of them were prepared in Copenhagen during the
meetings of that body. These latter documents were for the most part both
written and reproduced at night in order that they might be available for the
morning meeting of the Colloquium on the following day. The Trust is much
indebted to the Typing Agencies in Copenhagen for their co-operation in

xxi

securing that the documents concerned were always available for the meeting
at which they were required. The grant received from the International Union
for Biological Sciences provided that in approved cases it might be used for
making grants in respect of locomotion expenses incurred by zoologists attending
the Colloquium. Use of the authority so granted was made only sparingly by
the Trust, the total number of grants made amounting only to five. In four
cases, these took the form of lump sum payments, while in the fifth, which was
made on compassionate grounds, the grant made represented actual locomotion
expenses between the United States and Copenhagen. The total sum expended
on these grants amounted to £277 18s. 4d. The remaining items are all con-
cerned with the establishment and maintenance of a temporary Office for the
Commission and the Trust at Copenhagen during the sittings of the Colloquium.
This group of items include payment of salary to a Staff Officer specially
engaged for the duration of the Colloquium, a fee to a translator for translations
of the correspondence reproduced in Part 2 of the work Copenhagen Decisions,
casual typing assistance, subsistence allowance paid to the staff of the Secre-
tariat while in Copenhagen, locomotion expenses between London and Copen-
hagen, stationery and office requisites purchased in Copenhagen, postage and
minor miscellaneous items.

16. Balance carried down: Total Income in 1954, including the gift
made by Mr. Hemming, amounted to £4,552 9s. 5d. and Total Expenditure
to £3,924 Is. 3d. The accounts accordingly show an Excess of Income over
Expenditure amounting to £628 8s. 2d. which was carried down. For the
purposes of comparison with previous years it would be reasonable to exclude
from account the gift received from Mr. Hemming, both because of its large
size and because of the wish expressed by the donor that this gift should be
used for clearing-off arrears of normal work in the Office of the Commission.
Accordingly, if the sum in question (£1,736 lls. 8d.) is ignored for the present
purposes, normal income in 1953 is seen to have amounted only to £2,815 17s. 9d.
Thus, if it had not been for the gift referred to above, there would have been
an excess of expenditure over income of £1,108 3s. 6d. in 1953 instead of the
excess of income over expenditure of £628 8s. 2d. shown in the accounts. In
other words, the total net contribution made by the Trust to the expenses
of the Colloquium (£2,768 2s. 11d.) could have been met by the Trust to the
extent of £1,660 9s. 5d. out of its income for the year, while for the remainder
(£1,108 3s. 6d.) it would have been necessary for the Trust to draw upon its
Reserves.

17. Balance carried to Balance Sheet : The balance at 3lst December 1953
of the Trust’s Income and Expenditure Account amounted to £2,228 8s. 7d.
At the end of the year this figure was increased by the excess of income over
expenditure (£628 8s. 2d.) to £2,856 16s. 9d. During the year however the
Trust had approved an increase of ten guineas in the fee payable to its Auditors
not only for the current year (paragraph 12 above) but also retrospectively

Xxii

for the year 1952. Accordingly, the Balance of the Trust’s Income and Ex-
penditure Account carried to the Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1953
amounted to £2,846 6s. 9d.

18. Expenditure from the “ International Code (Publication) ’’ Suspense
Account : During the year 1953 a sum of £188 ls. 6d. was paid from the
‘International Code (Publication) *’ Suspense Account to the draftsmen by
whom had been prepared the draft of the Régles as revised by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The balance in this Account
which at the beginning of the year had stood at £1,000 was thus reduced to
£811 18s. 6d.

19. Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1953: At 31st December 1953
the Trust’s total Revenue Reserves amounted to £3,366 5s. ld. This sum
was made up of:—(a) the “ Official List’ Suspense Account, balance,
£422 ls. Sd.; (b) Office Equipment Reserve, £97 16s. 8d.; (c) Income and
Expenditure Account, balance, £2,846 6s. 9d. (paragraph 17 above). At the
same date the provision made for the publication of the revised text of the
Regles amounted to £811 18s. 6d. (paragraph 18 above). In addition, liabilities
to sundry creditors (mostly to the Trust’s printers) amounted to £2,029 17s. 10d.
On the other side of the Balance Sheet, Fixed Assets, less depreciation, were
valued at £165 16s. 6d., while Current Assets amounted to £6,042 4s. 1ld.
This latter item consisted of sums due to the Trust for publications valued at
£193, and of the balance at the bank and cash in hand amounting to
£5,849 4s. 11d.

20. Retrospect and Prospect : The year 1953 was one of great achievement
in the field of zoological nomenclature, for in it the Congress at Copenhagen
completed the revision of the Régles begun by the Paris Congress in 1948.
For the success so achieved the Trust may claim credit both for having made
the preparations and other arrangements which rendered that success possible
and for having published the volume containing the decisions of the Copen-
hagen Congress within a few months of the close of that meeting. The long
period of preparation for the Congress and the consequent preoccupation with
problems relating to the text of the Régles has necessarily led to delays in
dealing with individual applications submitted to the Commission for decision.
In particular, there has been a long period in which no Opinions have been
published, although the Commission has taken a large number of decisions on
individual cases which are awaiting promulgation in Opinions. It is the inten-
tion of the Trust to concentrate upon this side of the work of the Commission
in 1954. The large gift made to the Trust by Mr. Hemming for the purpose
principally of dealing with arrears will enable the Trust to engage salaried
staff to whom it will be possible for Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, to delegate
a considerable part of the work which he has hitherto had to undertake and
thus make it possible for him to concentrate his attention on the portion of the
work which must be performed by him personally. A start in this direction

—

XXiii

was made by the appointment in December 1953 of Mrs. Sheila Watkins to the
newly established post of Administrative Officer. Already Mrs. Watkins has
made her presence felt by relieving Mr. Hemming of various administrative
duties, and this in turn has made it possible for him to complete a first instal-
ment of Opinions embodying hitherto unpromulgated decisions taken by the
Commission. The volume of work so performed may be judged by the fact that
during the last eight months of the year Mr. Hemming, while remaining an
Honorary Officer, has nevertheless been working regularly on a whole-time basis.

21. Presentation of the Accounts for the Year 1953 and Balance Sheet
as at 3ist December 1953 : With the foregoing explanations, the Committee
of Management has pleasure in presenting to the Trust the Accounts for the
Year 1953 and the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1953. Mr. Francis
Hemming has continued to discharge the duties of Managing Director and
Secretary in an honorary capacity and the Trust is much indebted to him for
the services so rendered which have been exceptionally onerous in the year
under review, involving, as they have, the making of all the complex arrange-
ments involved in holding the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature at
Copenhagen and the establishment in that city of a temporary office for the
duration of the Congress. The Trust is much indebted also to Mrs. C. Rosner,
its Publications Officer, who has handled the greatly increased volume of work
in the Publications Office with her accustomed care and enthusiasm. Finally, —
it is desired to express on behalf of the Trust, its sense of obligation to its
Auditors, Messrs. W. B. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants, and to their
representative, Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, for the help and advice which they
have at all times been ready to give during the year under review.

Offices of the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature,

41 Queen’s Gate,

London, S.W.7, England.

Xxiv

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ©

Incorporated under the Companies

Ans Balance Sheet—

1952 ;
aa: £ EU AS one £ —s. d
Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)—
422 ** Official List ’’ Suspense Account Be BMAD 98
98 Office Equipment Reserve ¥E Bet ete D7 LG: 78
2,228 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 2,846 6 9
2,748 ——————— 3, 366 5 1
Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code—
‘International Code (Publication) ’? Suspense
1,000 Account (per separate account) edi i 811 18 6
Liabilities—
1,523 Sundry Creditors 2,029 17 10
£5,271 £6,208 1 5

We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were
from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income
our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by the
Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1953, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view of the
Finspury Circus Hovusr,

BLOMFIELD STREET,
Lonpov, E.C.2.

24th August 1954,

xXXV

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Act 1929 (Limited by Guarantee)

S8ist December 1953

1952
£ £ Sse di 2 ne Bs
Fixed Assets—
Office Equipment—
112 Book Value at Ist July 1948 cz ae 111 17
157 Additions since at cost ae i ‘are 157 18
269 269 15 9
Less Depreciation—
£65 to 3lst December 1952 ww. - £86. 10" 9
20 for year to date ac a8 18 8 6
85 — —————=— 103 19 3
184 — 165 16 6
Current Assets—
675 Amounts due for Publications ete. Valued at ... 193 0 0
4,412 Balance at Bank and Cash in Hand ... ... 5,849 4 11
5,087 — ——_———. 6,042 4 1]
(Note :—Stock of Publications not valued)
FRANCIS HEMMING Members of the Committee
FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN of cea
£5,271 £6,208 1 5

necessary for the purposes of our audit. In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears
and Expenditure Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of
Companies Act 1948 in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the
Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year ended on that date.

(Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO.,
Chartered Accountants,

Income and Expenditure Account for

1952 INCOME :
£ £ £ aide $i) sed:
To Sales of Publications—
31 Opinions and Declarations 56 ots 8 6 8
2,466 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature woe DhOe: 2 18.
Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological
_ Nomenclature oe ae ore ne 28 8 10
2,497 —— —————— 2,790 17 9
25 ;, Donations cae sag 30 ae ae 1,761 11 8
» Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. per the Inter-
357 national Union for Biological Sciences __... —-_——
» Balance carried down being Excess of Expen- ~
539 diture over Income for year ee i —_-——
£3,418 £4,552 9 5

—- To Balance brought down

hades ais Se 628 8 2
» Balance at 3lst December 1952 brought

2,767 * forward 2;228° S87
£2,767 £2,856 16 9

** Official List ”’
To Balance at 31st December 1952 brought

£422 forward £422 1 8
Office Equip
To Balance at 3lst December 1952 brought
£98 forward ie oy as ae ve £97 16 8

“International Code (Public
To Balance at 3lst December 1952 brought

1,000 forward 1,000 0 0

£1,000 £1,000 0 0

i
‘

the Year ended 31st December 1953

1952 EXPENDITURE
£ £ £ 3s.d.
By Administration Expenses—
Salaries—
£207 Publications Officer ... pier) | ORL =< BLES
66 Stenographer Secretary... 19 16 9
— Administrative Officer “F 10 9 0
273° ——
278 Office Expenses
21 Audit Fee
569
20 Depreciation of Office Equipment .. “
Publications—Bulletin of aan No-
2,829 menclature a.
Colloquium on Zoological Nictnica slain
Copenhagen—
Expenditure Conese are ee
and Decisions) .
Less Donations per the Thighaitional
—_— Union for Biological Sciences ...
Balance carried down being Excess of
— Income over Expenditure for year
£3,418
539 By Balance brought down
oo ;, Additional Audit Fee 1952 ...
2,228 ;» Balance carried to Balance Sheet
£2,767

Suspens Account
422 By Balance carried to Balance Sheet

ment Reserve

£98 By Balance carried to Balance Sheet

ation) ’’ Suspense Account

— By Expenditure during year
£1,000 »» Balance carried to Balance Sheet

£1,000

235 9
185 19 6
3110 0

713 19 10

XXvIl

452 18 11
18 8 6

684 10 11

3,482 2 9

2,768 2 11
628 8 2

£4,552 9 5

10 10 0
2,846 6 9

£2,856 16 9

£422 1 8

£97 16 8

188 1 6
811 18 6

£1,000 0 0

XXVIil
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR |
Colloquium on Zoological

INCOME
Stace: £) . sik
Donations—

U.N.E.S.C.O. (per the International Union for Biological Sciences) 357 0 0

The International Union for Biological Sciences... es «oo, 006 19250
—————__ 713 19 10
Contribution by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2,768 2 11
£3,482 2 9

We have examined the foregoing statement with the books and vouchers

Fiyspury Circus Hovuss,
BLoMFIELD STREET,
Lonpon, E.C.2.

24th August 1954.

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Nomenclature—Copenhagen 1953

EXPENDITURE
Sirs Sa
Salaries and Fees—
Staff Officer re site he ea this Sis sis as 28 11
Translator (Fee)... Be ee ae Pe ae as Sigs 2 2
Typing Assistance Bt =e sled aes Sas aoe es 14 10
Subsistence Allowances—
(Staff of Secretariat)
Locomotion Expenses :
Aireraft passages (Staff of Colloquium) ae soe sn oi CLA 0
Excess Baggage (documents for Colloquium) aa wate O56 34 16
Cars to and from air terminal and taxicabs between Secretariat and
Colloquium ... ey Sake aa Bee See on oe 12 18

Grants to Members of the Colloquium (travelling and subsistence) ...
Stationery and Office Requisites...
Reproduction of documents for meetings of Colloquium
Postage
Printing :
Agenda of Colloquium (Bull. zool. Nomencel., vols. 8 and 10) ... 2,044 5

Decisions of Colloquium aes ie aa sis ape Facey JOZO eo

_ Official Hospitality

- Miscellaneous

ON ae >

of the Trust and certify it to be in accordance therewith.

XxXix

d eA
0
45 310
103 17 0
0
6
161 14 10
Pv inel lhe are ©
tears “ee |
183 16 9
6 15 Il
3
3
2,664 10 6
15 14 10
tea 7-2
£3,482 2 9

(Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO.,
Chartered Accountants.

VOLUME 9. Triple Part 1/3 "YESS -15th October 1952
f/ \"
pp. 1-106. \\ ' }j

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
Page
Editorial Note regarding the arrangements made in regard to the
Subjects to be dealt with in volumes 8 and 9 respectively .. 1
Notices prescribed by International Congress of Zoology :

Date of commencement by the International Commission on

is * Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications sine wee

in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature oe : - z

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases ne + ie a if < a es 2

(continued on back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature -
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
i” at the Publications Office of the Trust
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

1952

Price One Pound Thirteen Shillings
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom)

President : (Vacant)
Vice-President & Acting President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil)
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-
election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944)
Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)

Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947)
Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (Ist January 1947)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948)
Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950)

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming
Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A.

D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E.
Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst
Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner

E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust

Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, a
N.W.1. m
Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

PURGEHAL LU
16 OCT 1952

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 9, Triple-Part 1/3 (pp. 1-106) 15th October 1952

EDITORIAL NOTE REGARDING THE ARRANGEMENTS

- MADE IN REGARD TO THE SUBJECTS TO BE DEALT WITH

IN VOLUMES 8 AND 9 OF THE “BULLETIN OF ZOO-
LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE” RESPECTIVELY

In view of the fact that the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology
will meet at Copenhagen in about a year’s time and that during that meeting
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will have under
consideration, and will submit recommendations to the International Congress
regarding, a number of general problems relating to zoological nomenclature,
it is considered that it will be for the convenience of zoologists attending the
foregoing meetings, if papers on general questions of this kind are grouped
together in a single volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature rather
than being distributed over two or more volumes where they would be inter-
mingled with applications relating to individual names.

2. It has accordingly been decided to reserve Volume 8 of the Bulletin
for papers on general nomenclatorial problems, this volume thus forming a
companion volume to Volume 7, which is also concerned with certain of the
general problems to be considered at Copenhagen next year. Within Volume 8
papers relating to the same subject received from various quarters will, so
far as possible, be grouped together, thus further facilitating reference and
discussion. It is hoped that the publication of this volume will start at an
early date.

3. Since Volume 6 (the latest volume devoted to the publication of appli-
cations relating to individual nomenclatorial problems) has now been completed
(except for Part 12 containing the Title-Page and index, which is now in
preparation) and, as explained above, Volumes 7 and 8 are being reserved
for general nomenclatorial problems to be discussed at Copenhagen, the present
volume (Volume 9) will be devoted to applications on individual names. This
volume is therefore in a sense the immediate successor of Volume 6 and will
contain also comments received from specialists on applications published in
that volume.

4. The present Part is issued as a Triple Part, in order to render it possible
to publish as a single unit all the available applications relating to the names
of birds which have been received by the Commission. The majority of these
have been submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clature established in 1950 by the International Ornithological Congress “‘ to
consider, on behalf of the International Ornithological Congress, problems
arising in ornithological nomenclature, to formulate proposals in regard thereto
designed to promote stability and uniformity in nomenclatorial practice, and,
in the name of the International Congress, to present proposals, so formulated,

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for favourable
consideration.” The appointment of this Standing Committee is warmly
to be welcomed, representing, as it does, exactly that type of development
which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had in
mind when at Lisbon in 1935 it adopted a Resolution expressing its earnest
hope that specialists in particular groups of the Animal Kingdom would organise
themselves for the study of nomenclature in their respective groups (see 1943,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 11).

(int’d) F.H.
31st August 1952.

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. § : 5-13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Triple-Part (Vol. 9, Triple-Part 1/3) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do
so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in
any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the
Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred
to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases

Notice is hereby: given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature (Vol. 9, Triple-Part 1/3) in relation to the following names of birds :—
(1) Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, and Gavia (all uses prior to Gavia Forster,
1788), suppression of (Z.N.(S8.)78) ;
(2) caspicus Hablizl, 1783 (Colymbus), suppression of (Z.N.(S.)525) ;
(3) cafra (Otis), cafer (Cuculus), sulphuratus (Cuculus), flavescens (Lanius),
all of Lichtenstein, 1793, suppression of (Z.N.(8.)526) ;
(4) nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (Fringilla), suppression of (Z.N.(S.)527) ;
(5) natka (Lanius) and septentrionalis (Lanius), both of Gmelin, 1788,
and eimeensis (Columba), unalaschkensis (Hirundo), borealis (Mota-
cilla), cirrhatus (Pelecanus), australis (Sterna), all of Gmelin, 1789,
suppression of (Z.N.(8.)454) ;
(6) phaeus (Turdus), elegans (Motacilla), chlorotis (Muscicapa), all of
Forster, 1794, and novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (Muscicapa),
suppression of (Z.N.(S.)494) ;
(7) Pyrrhocorar Tunstall, 1771, validation of, for the Chough (Z.N.(S.)
492) ;
(8) philomelos Brehm, 1831 (T'urdus), validation of, for the Song Thrush
: (Z.N.(S.)493) ;
(9) generic name Vermivora and trivial names lutea (Muscicapa), pen-
| sylvanica [sic] (Passer), americ. [sic] (Vermivora), all of Linnaeus,
| 1776, suppression of (Z.N.(S.)502) ;
(10) Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, validation of, for the Passenger
Pigeon (Z.N.(S.)572) ;
, (11) Bubo Duméril, 1806, Cotwrniz Bonnaterre, 1790, Egretta Forster,
1817, Oriolus Linnaeus, 1766, validation of, by suppression of
senior homonyms published by Brisson in 1760 (Z.N.(S.)701) ;

} (12) Capella Frenzel, 1801, validation of, by suppression of Gallinago
Brisson, 1760 (Z.N.(S.)575) ;

(13) Myiobius Darwin, 1839, validation of, and designation of type
species for, in harmony with current practice (Z.N.(S.)676) ;

(14) cyanea Hume, 1877 (Muscitrea), validation of, by suppression of
cyanea Vieillot, 1818 (Muscicapa) (Z.N.(S8.)686) ;

(15) ferruginea Hodgson, 1845 (Hemichelidon), validation of, by sup-
pression of ferruginea Merrem, 1784 (Muscicapa) (Z.N.(8.)687).

2. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56) corresponding Notices have been issued to
the serial publications ‘‘ Nature ” and “ Science.”

FRANCIS HEMMING,
28 Park Village East, Secretary to the International Commission
Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1. on Zoological. Nomenclature,
15th October 1952, i

0
|
4

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ESTABLISHMENT BY THE TENTH INTERNATIONAL OR-
NITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS OF A STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ORNITHOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Letter dated 20th October, 1951, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen,
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature
of the International Ornithological Congress

(Z.N.(G.) 25)

I write to inform you, as Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, of certain important decisions taken by the Inter-
national Ornithological Congress at its meeting held at Uppsala in June, 1950,
with the object of promoting stability in ornithological nomenclature.

I have to explain that, after a general discussion at one of the plenary
sessions, at which the view was strongly expressed that there was an urgent
need for devising effective means for bringing before the International Com-
mission the collective wishes of the ornithologists represented at the Congress,
it was decided that a further meeting, open to all members of the Congress,
should be held for the purpose of drawing up, on behalf of the Congress, a
definite plan for communication to the International Commission. This further
meeting, which was attended by a large number of members of the Congress
and was thoroughly representative in character, decided that there should
be established forthwith, as a Permanent Committee of the Congress, a Standing
Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, charged with the duty of acting
as the representative of the Congress in submitting proposals relating to
ornithological nomenclature to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

The duties entrusted to the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clature are :—

To consider, on behalf of the International Ornithological Congress,
problems arising in ornithological nomenclature, to formulate proposals
in regard thereto designed to promote stability and uniformity in nomen-
clatorial practice, and, in the name of the International Congress, to transmit
proposals, so formulated, to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for favourable consideration.

The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, of which I was
appointed to act as the Chairman and intermediary between the Committee
and the International Commission, is composed as follows :—

1. Colonel R. Meinertzhagen (Great Britain) (Chairman).
2. Professor E. Stresemann, Zoological Museum, Berlin (Germany).
3. Dr. J. Berlioz, National Museum of Natural History, Paris (France).

4. Dr. J. T. Zimmer, American Museum of Natural History, New York
(U.8.A.).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5

A number of important and urgent problems are already under consideration
by the Standing Committee, which hopes to be in a position to submit a
preliminary group of proposals to the International Commission at a very
early date. I am to express the hope of the Standing Committee and of the
Congress generally that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature will find it possible to deal promptly with applications submitted to
it by the Standing Committee, for the value of the decisions taken will largely
depend upon the speed with which they can be obtained.

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PUT

AN END TO THE CONFUSION ARISING FROM THE DIS-

CORDANT USE OF THE GENERIC NAME “ COLYMBUS ”
LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS AVES)

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)78)

Covering letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October 1950, from Colonel
R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. |

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I beg to forward to you the following recommendation relating to the generic
name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, for favour of decision by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

For many years the name Colymbus Linnaeus has given rise to great con-
fusion in ornithological nomenclature, for, owing to the lack of an authoritative
ruling as to the type species of this genus, the generic name Colymbus, the
family name COLYMBIDAE, and the ordinal name Colymbiformes have been
used by one school of ornithologists for the Divers (Loons) and by another for
the Grebes.

From a preliminary discussion which took place first at one of the Plenary
Sessions of the Ninth International Ornithological Congress at Uppsala in
July 1950 and later at a special meeting, open to all members of the Congress,
held at the suggestion of the Congress at one of its Plenary Sessions, it was
apparent that there was an overwhelming desire, on the part of the ornitho-
logists present, to secure a final settlement of the long-standing Colymbus
controversy.

The Colymbus problem was therefore among the first to which consideration
was given by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature. The
recommendations now submitted represent, in the unanimous opinion of the
Standing Committee, the best solution that is now obtainable and the one
calculated to secure the widest possible measure of support from ornithologists
of all schools of thought. ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

ENCLOSURE

Proposals in regard to the generic name “ Colymbus”
Linnaeus, 1758, submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter-
national Ornithological Congress recommend the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature :—

(1) to use its plenary powers :—
(a) to suppress the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst.
Nat. (ed.10) 1: 135) for the purposes of Article 25 (Law of
Priority) but not for those of Article 34 (Law of Homonymy) ;
(b) to set aside all type selections hitherto made for the under-
mentioned genera and to designate, as their respective type
species, the species specified below :—

Name of Species Species designated as
type species
Gavia Forster, 1788, Colymbus immer Briimnich,
Enchiridion — Hist. 1764, Orn. boreal. 38
nat. 38 ~
Podiceps Latham, 1787, -Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus
Gen. Synopsis Birds, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
Suppl. 1 : 294 1: 135

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
names Gavia Forster, 1788, and Podiceps Latham, 1787, with, as
their respective type species, the species so designated in (1) above ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of
Specific Trural Names mn Zoology ;—

(a) cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Colymbus cristatus)

(b) immer Briimnich, 1764 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Colymbus immer) ;

(4) to place the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
R. MEINERTZHAGEN, Chairman of the Standing Committee.
J. BERLIOZ, Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
K. STRESEMANN, Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin.

JOHN T. ZIMMER, The American Museum of Natural History,
New York.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REPORT ON THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE GENERIC
NAME “COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS AVES)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)78)

At its Session held in Paris in 1948 the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature had under consideration the problems raised by the
generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 185) (Class Aves).
Differences of opinion among ornithologists as to whether Colymbus arcticus
Linnaeus, 1758, a Diver (Loon) or Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, a Grebe,
was, or should be accepted as being, the type species of the genus has divided
ornithologists for three full generations and has led to the most serious confusion
and lack of uniformity not only at the genus-name level but also at the family-
name and Ordinal-name levels. By the time of the Paris Session, the Inter-
national Commission itself had had this matter under consideration for twenty-
two years, an application on this subject having been submitted to it by the
late Dr. (subsequently Commissioner) Witmer Stone (Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) as far back as 1926. No
progress of any kind had however been made towards securing a settlement of
this question.

2. At Paris the Commission came to the conclusion that the views held on
this subject by the two opposing groups of ornithologists were so strongly held
and the practice of each so deeply entrenched that there seemed little prospect
of realising the hope that it had long entertained that ornithologists generally
or at least a representative group of ornithologists would come forward with
agreed proposals designed to restore uniformity and stability in this branch of
ornithological nomenclature. The Commission concluded, therefore, that its
proper course was to reach with as little further delay as possible a decision
on the issue submitted to it by Dr. Witmer Stone in 1926. The Commission
decided, as a first step, to obtain a report on the nomenclatorial issues involved
from “‘ a zoologist who was an authority on nomenclature but was not himself
an ornithologist and who therefore had not had to prejudge the question in the
course of his own work.’ Having reached this decision, the International
Commission invited me to undertake this task in a personal capacity and I
agreed to do so (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 361-362). The procedure so
agreed upon was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature
of the Congress and by the Congress itself in Plenary Session. ©

3. In view of the importance of making progress with this case as rapidly
as possible, I began the investigation entrusted to me not long after the close
of the Paris meeting. When I came to examine in detail the arguments that
had been advanced at different times by various ornithologists, I realised
that I could not complete my Report until the Official Record of the Proceedings
in Paris had been agreed upon in the prescribed manner, for it was evident that,
in order to put into their proper perspective some of the arguments which had
been advanced in regard to the present case, it would be necessary to quote
from the Official Record passages containing decisions taken in Paris in regard

EEE

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9

to aspects of the Regles, the meaning of which had previously been open to
doubt and which had a material bearing on the question referred to me for
report.

4. The Official Record of the Proceedings in Paris was approved in January
1950, and I should thereupon have completed my Report and submitted it
to the International Commission had it not been for the fact that I then
received a letter from Commissioner Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske
Museum, Copenhagen) informing me that his attention had been drawn by the
Danish ornithologist Dr. Finn Salomonsen to certain proposals for an agreed
settlement of the Colymbus problem which had been put forward by Dr. Erwin
Stresemann (Berlin) at the International Ornithological Congress held at
Oxford in 1934; no definite action in this matter had transpired either then

- or subsequently, but an International Ornithological Congress, the first since

the war, was due to be held in Sweden at Uppsala later that year (1950), and
it was possible that this question might be brought before that Congress.
I regarded this suggestion as extremely valuable and one calculated to provide
a solution of the Colymbus problem along the lines long desired by the Com-
mission but so far never secured, namely through the presentation to the
Commission by ornithologists themselves of a proposal for the solution of this
problem. Later, I learnt, through Commissioner Lemche, that Dr. Salomonsen
had himself decided to bring this matter before the Uppsala Congress, and
he kindly furnished me with a copy of the communication which he proposed
to make to that Congress on this subject.

5. Dr. Salomonsen’s decision to lay this matter before the Ornithological
Congress created an entirely new situation, for, if that Congress were to agree
upon proposals for submission to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, the narrow issue on which in 1948 I had been invited to make a
report might become of academic interest only. I accordingly decided to
complete that Report but to withhold its submission to the Commission until
after the meeting of the International Ornithological Congress at Uppsala
later that year.

6. Shortly after the close of the Uppsala Congress I was informed by
Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen that Dr. Salomonsen had duly presented his
paper, that there had been a considerable discussion of a preliminary nature in
regard to this and other individual cases of ornithological nomenclature at a
public meeting specially convened for the purpose, that no decisions had been
taken in regard to the name Colymbus, but that it had been decided to establish
a Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature under his Chairmanship,
that that Committee would as soon as possible take into detailed consideration
the proposal in regard to the name Colymbus submitted to the Uppsala Congress
by Dr. Salomonsen and that he hoped to be able to submit the recommendations
of the Standing Committee on this case to the International Commission at
an early date. On 19th October 1950 Colonel Meinertzhagen informed me
by letter that the Standing Committee was unanimously agreed in asking the
International Commission to use its plenary powers in such a way as to secure
that, through the suppression of the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, the oldest
available generic names for the Grebes and the Divers should be Podiceps
Latham, 1787, and Gavia Forster, 1788, respectively.

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. When the application from the Standing Committee was submitted to
the customary routine examination, I found references to a generic name
Gavia which, if an available name, would have had priority over the name
Gavia Forster, 1788, the name recommended by the Standing Committee for
stabilisation as the generic name for the Divers. The name in question was
Gavia Nozemann & Vosmaer, 1758 (in Moehring, Geslach. Vogel. : 5, 54), a-
name more commonly (though incorrectly) known as Gavia Moehring. Prior
to the Session of the International Commission held in Paris in 1948, there was
some doubt as to whether or not new names published in the Dutch edition of
Moehring’s Aviwm Genera prepared by Nozemann & Vosmaer and published
in 1758 under the title Geslachten der Vogelen were available names. In Paris,
however, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature examined
this question and decided that the names in this post-1757 edition of Moehring’s
pre-1758 work had not been reinforced by adoption or acceptance, as prescribed
originally in Opinion 5 and, since the Paris Congress in the Régles themselves
(1950 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 150), and therefore that those names possessed
no rights in zoological nomenclature (1950, ibid. 4: 566-568). Thus, the
alleged name Gavia Nozemann & Vosmaer, 1758, does not preoccupy the
name Gavia Forster, 1788, for the Divers. In order to dispose of this matter
once and for all, it will, however, be desirable that Gavia Nozemann & Vosmaer,
1758, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology with (as in similar cases) a note as to why this name is
invalid.

8. The routine investigation of this case disclosed also the existence of
three generic names consisting of the word Gavia, each published subsequent
to Gavia Forster, 1788. The names in question are: (1) Gavia Oken, 1816,
Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2): 537; (2) Gavia Boie, 1822, Oken’s Isis
10:563; (3) Gavia Gloger, 1842, Hand-und Hilfsbuch Naturgesch. 1 : 433.
In accordance with the direction given to the International Commission by
the International Congress of Zoology that decisions on individual applications
are in future to cover all aspects of the problems submitted, the foregoing
names should be added to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology at the same time that the name Gavia Forster, 1788, is placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, if the proposal to that end
submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithology is approved by the
International Commission. At the same time there should also be added to
the Official Index the two junior homonyms of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758,
namely: (1) Colymbus Paetel, 1875 (Fam. Gatt. Moll.: 50); (2) Colymbus
Hadding, 1913 (Univ. Arssk. Lund (n.f.) 9(2) (No. 15) : 79).

9. During his last visit to England, Dr. Ernst Mayr (The American Museum
of Natural History, New York) drew my attention to the reference by Hartert
(1915, Die Vogel paliarkt. Fawna (2): 1456) to a generic name consisting of
the word Gavia of older date than Gavia Forster, 1788, and suggested that
this was a matter which should be investigated before the application relating
to the Colymbus problem was considered by the International Commission.
In the work referred to by Dr. Mayr, Hartert applied the name Colymbus
Linnaeus, 1758, to the Divers, treating Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, as
the type species. As in the case of other nominal genera recognised by him

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11

as representing taxonomically valid genera, Hartert cited under the name
Colymbus Linnaeus, the names of nominal genera of later date which he regarded
as junior synonyms. The first such entry reads as follows :— Gavia Forster
1788—non 8. G. Gmelin 1770!” It is unfortunate that Hartert did not cite
a bibliographical reference for the name Gavia Gmelin, 1770, for this name
is not noted either by Sherborn in his Index Animalium or by Neave in

_ Nomenclator Zoologicus, and it has proved a matter of some difficulty to trace

the original reference to it. This reference has however kindly been supplied
by Dr. Mayr (in litt., 8th August 1952). It is as follows: Gavia Gmelin (8.G.),
1770, Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey Natur-Reiche 1 + 152.
This name was there used by Gmelin for a gull. (In furnishing this information,
Dr. Mayr drew attention to the fact that, although the name Gavia is not
now used for any genus of gull, it was frequently so used in the XIXth Century
and that this word or its stem appears in a number of compound words which
have been published for genera of gulls, e.g. Gavina Bonaparte, 1854; Bruchi-

gavia Bonaparte, 1855; Gabianus Bruch, 1853.)

10. At the same time that Dr. Mayr furnished the foregoing information,
he drew attention also to the fact that the first use in the literature of the
word Gavia as a generic name was by Brisson in 1760 (Ornithologie 6 : 196).
Brisson clearly did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature in his
Ornithologie—he was what in past times was called a “ binary author ”—but
that work is of importance in ornithology and it is for this reason that in its
Opinion 37 (1911, Smithson Publ. 2013 : 87-88) the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature ruled in favour of the acceptance, as available,
of new generic names published in the Ornithologie and this ruling was validated
and confirmed in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65). It is evident
therefore that the name Gavia Brisson, 1760, will need to be disposed of, if
the recommendation by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clature is to be accepted. The fact that, as is now established, the word Gavia
was used as a.generic name at least twice (Brisson, 1760 ; Gmelin (S.G.), 1770)
before it was so used by Forster in 1788 suggests the possibility that more
intensive bibliographical investigations might bring to light some other use
of Gavia as a generic name prior to Forster, 1788. In these circumstances,
the only means by which an unchallengeable title could be provided for Gavia
Forster, 1788, would be for the International Commission, when accepting
that name for the divers, to adopt a procedure similar to that employed when
in similar circumstances it was desired to give an impregnable position to the
generic name Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4: 526), that is, that the International Commission should use its
plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing for the purposes both of the
Law of Priority and: of the Law of Homonymy all uses of the word Gavia as a
generic name prior to Gavia Forster, 1788. At the same time it would be
necessary to add to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology the two names (consisting of the word Gavia (i.e. Gavia Brisson,
1760; Gavia Gmelin (8.G.), 1770) which are known to have been published
before Gavia Forster, 1788.

11. Finally, it is necessary to note that under a decision taken by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 it is necessary,

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

when any name is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, to
note against that name the gender of the word of which that name is composed
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341). Such entries will therefore be needed,
if, as proposed by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
the names Podiceps Lathem, 1787, and Gavia Forster, 1788, are now to be added
to the Official List. The gender of the first of these names is masculine, that of
the second, feminine,

12. I have consulted Colonel Meinertzhagen on the problem raised by the
discovery of the generic names Gavia Brisson, 1760, Gavia Gmelin, 1770,
and on the minor matters raised in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Report, having
communicated to him for this purpose a copy of this Report in draft. In reply,
Colonel Meinertzhagen has since informed me that he is in full agreement
with the action suggested in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, and 11 above which, as
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, he
considers necessary and desirable for the purpose of giving effect to the proposal
submitted to the International Commission by the Standing Committee under
cover of his letter of 19th October 1950. In agreement with Colonel Meinertz-
hagen I have therefore prepared the revised form of request annexed to the
present Report as Appendix 1. This form of request Colonel Meinertzhagen
asks should be treated as constituting a textual revision of the application
already submitted by the Standing Committee of which he is the Chairman.
The Report on the narrow issue of the present position of Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758, under the Régles, which, as explained in paragraph 2 of the present
Report, was prepared in response to the request addressed to me in 1948,
is submitted as Appendix 2. It is submitted only for information, having
been superseded, as the basis of possible action by the International Com-
mission, by the proposal received later from the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature appointed by the International Ornithological
~ Congress.

(signed) FRANCIS HEMMING.

28 Park Village East,
Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1.
16th August 1952.

t= GR > Rey, ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13

APPENDIX 1

APPLICATION REGARDING THE NAME “COLYMBUS”

LINNAEUS, 1758, SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNITHOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE, AS REVISED IN CERTAIN MINOR

RESPECTS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE STANDING COMMITTEE

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :—

(1) to use its plenary powers :—

(a) to suppress the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy ;

(b) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and
of the Law of Homonymy any uses of the generic name
Gavia prior to Gavia Forster, 1788 ;

(c) to set aside all type selections hitherto made for the under-
mentioned nominal genera and to designate, as their
respective type species the nominal species specified below :—

Species proposed to be
Name of genus designated as type species
of genus specified in Col. (1)
1) (2)
Gavia Forster, 1788, Colymbus immer, Briinnich,
Enchiridion Hist. nat. 1764, Orn. boreal. : 38

38 (gender of generic
name: feminine)
Podiceps Latham, 1787, Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus,

Suppl. gen. Synopsis 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
Birds [1]: 294 (gender 1: 135

of generic name : mas-

culine)

(3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(a) cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com-

bination Colymbus cristatus) (trivial name of type species
of Podiceps Latham, 1787) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) immer Briinnich, 1764 (as published in the binominal com-

bination Colymbus immer) (trivial name of type species of
Gavia Forster, 1788) :

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— ;

(a) Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 135), as pro-

posed in (1)(a) above to be suppressed under the plenary
powers) ;

(b) Colymbus Paetel, 1875, Fam. Gatt. Moll. : 50) (junior homonym

of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758) ;
Colymbus Hadding, 1913 (Univ. Arssk. Lund (n.f.) 9(2) (No. 15) :
79) (junior homonym of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758) ;

Gavia Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 6 : 196) (as proposed, under
(1)(b) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ;
Gavia Gmelin (S. G.), 1770 (Reise Russl. 1 : 152) (as proposed,
under (1)(b) above, to be suppressed under the plenary

powers) ;

Gavia, all other uses as a generic name prior to Gavia Forster,
1788 (as proposed under (1)(b) above to be suppressed under
the plenary powers) ;

Gavia Oken, 1816 (Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 537) (a
junior homonym of Gavia Forster, 1788) ;

Gavia Boie, 1822 (Oken’s Isis 10 : 563) (a junior honomym of
Gavia Forster, 1788) ;

Gavia Gloger, 1842 (Hand-und Hilfsbuch Naturgesch. 1 : 433)
(a junior homonym of Gavia Forster, 1788).

.
:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15

APPENDIX 2

REPORT ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL

GENUS “ COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758, PREPARED BY

MR. FRANCIS HEMMING IN RESPONSE TO AN INVITATION

BY THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, 1948

To :—
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East,
Regent’s Park,
London, N.W.1.

9th February 1950.

In compliance with the request addressed to me as “a zoologist who was
an authority on nomenclature but was not himself an ornithologist and who
therefore had not had to prejudge the question in the course of his own work ”
by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 153) on the recommendation
of the International Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 361-362), a
request later confirmed, with other recommendations submitted by the Section
on Nomenclature and by the International Commission, by the International

Congress in Plenary Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5: 131), I have the

honour to submit the following Report on “ the question of the nominal species
which, under the Reégles, is the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758 (Class Aves).”

2. When the foregoing invitation was extended to me, the urgency of the
problem remitted to me for examination was strongly stressed by the Inter-
national Commission. I accordingly began this investigation as soon as possible
after the close of the Paris Congress. In consequence, the first draft of the
present Report was completed some time ago. It has not however been possible
for me until now to complete and sign this Report, for it was necessary to
wait until the Official Record of Proceedings at Paris both of the International
Commission and of the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress had been
approved in the prescribed manner, since it was essential in the present Report
at certain points to be able to quote from the Official Record passages containing
decisions which had a direct bearing upon the problem remitted to me for
report. Now, however, that the Official Record in question has been finally
approved and is in page proof and I am in consequence in a position to quote
the passages in question, I have completed my Report which I now submit
for consideration.

_ 3. Arrangement of the present Report; In the present Report I first
examine Article 30 of the Régles, the Article which governs the fixing of type
species of nominal genera. Having thus established under which of the Rules in
Article 30 the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758,
falls to be determined, I examine in turn the claims which at different times
have been advanced on behalf of various authors for recognition as the author

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

by whom the type species of this nominal genus was determined. I have not
thought it either necessary or desirable to quote from the numerous papers
which at different times have been published on this subject, in view especially
of the fact that much of the argument adduced in the earlier of these papers is
beside the point, those arguments being based upon the assumed existence of a
‘“‘ Law of Elimination,” a method for determining the type species of genera
which, as is well known, had a considerable vogue prior to the adoption in
1901 of the present Régles, in which, however, such a provision found no place
(see paragraph 16 below).

I. QUESTION OF THE RULE IN ARTICLE 30 UNDER WHICH
THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS
“ COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758, WAS DETERMINED

4. The nature of the provisions in Article 30 relating to the deter-
mination of the type species of nominal genera: Article 30, the Article
in the Régles which governs the determination of the type species of nominal
genera, contains a series of Rules for the foregoing purpose and prescribes
that these Rules are to be applied successively. Thus, in order to make a start
in determining the type species of any given nominal genus, it is necessary to
examine the position of that nominal genus in relation to each Rule in turn,
for it is not until it has been established that the type species of such a genus
was not determined under any of the preceding Rules that the position of that
genus in relation to any of the later Rules has any relevance whatever. Accord-
ingly, in the present part of this Report, I examine the position of the nominal
genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, in relation to each successive Rule in Article 30
for the purpose of ascertaining which of those Rules is applicable to that generic
name.

5. Rule (a) (type species by original designation): Rule (a) provides
that, where the original author of a generic name himself designates a nominal
species as the type species of the nominal genus so named, that action is final.
When in 1758 Linnaeus published the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae,
he did not designate type species for any of the nominal genera which he then
established, for at that time the need for nomenclatorial purposes of such a
concept as that of a “ type species ” for a nominal genus had not been recognised.
Accordingly, Linnaeus did not in 1758 himself designate a type species for the
nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus. Rule (a) in Article 30 has therefore no
bearing on the present case.

6. Rule (5) (type species by indication through the use of the words
“typicus” or “typus” as the trivial name of one of the included
species): None of the nominal species referred by Linnaeus to his
genus Colymbus bore as its trivial name either the word “typicus” or the word
‘* typus.’’ Rule (b) has therefore no bearing on this case.

7. Rule (c) (type species by monotypy): Linnaeus placed more than
one nominal species in the genus Celymbus. This genus is therefore not mono-
typical, and Rule (c) has, in consequence, no relevance to this case.

8. Rule (d) (type species by absolute tautonymy): None of the
nominal species referred by Linnaeus to the genus bore as its trivial name the

alae ANA

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17

word “‘ colymbus.”. In its simplest form Rule (d) therefore does not apply to
the present case. Nor does this Rule so apply under either of the two extensions
made by Opinions 16 and 18 respectively (for the current application of the
former of which see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 154, and for the latter, bid.
4:153). For none of the nominal species cited by Linnaeus as belonging to
the genus Colymbus either (1) was then cited with a synonym consisting of
a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the word ‘ Colymbus”’
(Opinion 16) or (2) possesses a synonym having, as its trivial name, the word
* colymbus ” (Opinion 18).

9.. Rule (ec): The application of the term ‘“‘ Rule”’ to this provision is a
misnomer, for it does not provide a test for determining the type species to be
applied after Rule (d) and before Rule (f). All that this provision does is to
deny eligibility for consideration as candidates for the status of type species
to three classes of nominal species, namely (a) nominal species not included in
the nominal genus concerned at the time when its name was first published ;
(6) nominal species which were species inquirendae from the standpoint of the
author of the generic name concerned ; (c) nominal species which were only
doubtfully referred to the genus concerned by the author of the name of that
genus. None of the species referred by Linnaeus in 1758 to the genus Colymbus
was a species inquirenda from his standpoint, nor was any of those species only
doubtfully referred by him to that genus. Accordingly, neither the second
nor the third of the provisions contained in the so-called Rule (e) has any bearing
on the question of the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758.
The first of these provisions (that which excludes from eligibility as type
species any species not placed in a given genus by the original author of the
generic name concerned), especially as clarified by the International Congress
of Zoology in 1948 (as to which see paragraph 22° below), does, as will be seen
in later parts of this Report, have an important bearing upon the validity of
the arguments that have been advanced by some of those who have taken part
in the discussion regarding the species to be accepted as the type species of
Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758.

10. Rule (f) (type species (i) of a nominal genus established to

_ provide a name for an older nominal genus possessing an invalid name

and (ii) of a nominal genus the name of which has been replaced for the
foregoing reason): The generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, was not
published as a substitute for the name of an older nominal genus, nor has this
name ever been replaced on the ground that it was invalid. Thus, Rule (f)
has no bearing upon the present case.

11. Rule (g) (type species by subsequent selection): Having now
examined in turn each of the Rules in Article 30 lettered (a) to (f) (both inclusive)
and found that none of them is applicable to the name Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758, we are left only with Rule (gq), the last of the mandatory provisions in
the foregoing Article. We see therefore that, in order to ascertain what is the
type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, it is necessary to
ascertain by reference to the literature which of the species included in this
genus by Linnaeus in 1758 was first selected to be the type species in a manner
which satisfies the requirements of Article 30 of the Régles.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Il. EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS ADVANCED ON
BEHALF OF CERTAIN AUTHORS FOR RECOGNITION
AS HAVING, AT SPECIFIED DATES, BEEN THE FIRST
AUTHOR VALIDLY TO SELECT A TYPE SPECIES FOR
THE NOMINAL GENUS “ COLYMBUS” LINNAEUS, 1758

12. In the present Section I examine first the conditions which under
Rule (g) in Article 30 must be satisfied in order to qualify the action of any
given author to rank as constituting a valid selection of a type species for a
nominal genus, the type species of which has not been determined under any
of the earlier Rules in the foregoing Article. In the light of the survey so made,
I then examine, in turn, the claims which have at different times been advanced
for the recognition of particular authors as having, on specified dates, been the
first author validly to select a type species for the nominal genus Colymbus
Linnaeus, 1758.

(a) Provisions relating to the selection by an author of a type
species for a given nominal genus prescribed in Rule (g) in Article -
30 of the “ Regles ” and associated provisions

13. In order both to shorten and to simplify the later consideration of the
claims which have been advanced infavour of the recognition of particular
authors as having at specified dates been the first author validly to select a
type species for the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, I examine in the
following paragraphs the conditions which must be satisfied in order to qualify
the action of any given author for recognition as constituting a valid type
selection under the Régles. This review appears to me essential, not only
because in some of the arguments which have been advanced in regard to the
type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, those provisions have been
misunderstood or even disregarded, but also because prior to 1948 some of the
provisions concerned contained serious ambiguities which have now been
removed as the result of decisions taken by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in that year. The provisions
of which it is necessary to take note are seven in number. Of these provisions
the first consists of a qualification directly inserted into Rule (g) in Article 30
at the time (Boston, 1907) when that Article in its present form was inserted
in the Régles : the second and third follow from interpretations of Rule (g)
given by the Commission in Opinions rendered by the International Com-
mission prior to 1939, each of which either in its original, or in some clarified,
form was incorporated into the Régles by the International Congress of Zoology
in 1948; the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of these provisions all relate to
matters on which prior to 1948 the meaning of the Régles was in doubt and on
which authoritative clarifications were in that year provided by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology.

(i) Provisions relating to the selection of the type species of a
nominal genus contained in Rule (g) in Article 30 in the form
in which that Article existed prior to July 1948

14. The expression “select the type species”: Rule (g) in Article 30,
as that Article stood prior to July 1948, provided that, where the type species

i
i
f
2

SS a Sa ee a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19
of a given nominal genus had not been determined under any of the preceding
Rules in that Article, its type species should be the first of the originally
included species to be so selected by a subsequent author. This provision was
accompanied by the following interpretation of the meaning to be attached to
the expression “ select the type ” (an expression amended to “ select the type
species’ by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology—see 1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 300): ‘The meaning of the expression ‘ select the
type’ is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or
example does not constitute a selection of a type.”

(ii) Provisions relating to the selection of the type species of a
nominal genus originally promulgated in “ Opinions”
rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and in 1948 incorporated into the “ Régles ”
either in their original or in a modified form

15. The Opinions relating to the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30
rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature prior
to the meeting held in Paris in 1948 which have a bearing upon the present case
are Opinions 6 and 62. The rulings given in these Opinions are discussed in
the two immediately following paragraphs.

16. The so-called “Law of Elimination” not recognised in the
“ Regles ” as a mandatory provision : Prior to the international regulation
of zoological nomenclature (through the adoption of the present Régles: by the
Fifth International Congress of Zoology at Berlin in 1901) zoologists possessed
no authoritative guide as to how they should proceed when they desired to
split up a previously established genus, save in those cases where the original
author of the generic name concerned had himself specified a type species for
the genus so named. For, although the concept of a “‘ type species ” in relation
to genera was generally accepted, there was no agreement how to apply that
concept in relation to nominal genera established without designated type
species, for example, nominal genera, other than monotypical genera, established
by Linnaeus and other authors of later date. Authors were forced therefore to
make a choice for themselves as to how they should proceed in this matter. The
result, as was inevitable, was that there was the greatest diversity of practice :
some authors applied rules similar to those later embodied in the present Rule (g)
in Article 30, under which the species first selected to be the type species of a
given species was accepted as such; others accepted as the type species the
first of any series of species placed in a given nominal genus by its author (the
so-called “chef de file” system) ; others adopted a system under which it
was assumed that, whenever an author on taxonomic grounds removed a species
from a given previously established nominal genus by placing it in some other
nominal genus, the species so removed ceased to be eligible to become the type

species of the genus from which it had been removed ; in this way, it was

argued, the field from which a type species could be selected was gradually
narrowed until finally either only one of the original species was left in the
genus and that species automatically became the type species or until some

author selected as the type species of the genus one of the originally included

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

species which had not yet been removed from that genus on taxonomic grounds.
This method of determining the type species of a genus was known as the
“ Law of Elimination.’ Theoretically, this system possessed advantages over
any other system, for, if it could have been applied in a uniform manner, it
would have avoided the confusing transfers of generic names from one genus
to another which have often resulted from the acceptance as the type species
of a genus of the first originally included species to be so selected. Unfortunately,
however, insuperable difficulties were often encountered in applying this
superficially simple rule owing to differences of opinion among specialists as to
what action did or did not constitute the removal of a species from a given
genus. The result was that, far from providing the stability which had been
hoped for, this so-called ‘‘ Law ”’ often resulted in the adoption by specialists
of totally different views as to the type species of any given genus. This
method of determining the type species of a genus had the further weakness that
its application was extemely laborious involving the examination of the entire
literature of any group before a type-determination could even be attempted
and thus placed a premium upon bibliographical investigations as contrasted
with zoological investigations. It was for these reasons that, when the present
Régles were adopted, the ‘‘ Law of Elimination ” was given no place in the
mandatory provisions embodied in Article 30.. The only concession then granted
to this former unofficial ‘‘ Law” was the insertion in the non-mandatory
‘Recommendations ” at the end of Article 30 of the advice to specialists when
selecting the type species of a genus to bear in mind the importance of pro-
moting stability by not selecting as the type species of genera species which
on taxonomic grounds are currently treated as having been removed there-
from. Even this “ Recommendation” occupies only the fourth place in the
list of ‘“ Recommendations ” there given. Normally, practices in vogue before
the adoption of the Régles which however failed to secure admittance to the
Reégles are of historical interest only, but in the particular case of the nominal
genus Colymbus Linnaeus the application of the so-called ‘‘ Law of Elimina-
tion ” bulked so largely in the early days—and, indeed, still forms the basis of
the argument advanced by one large and important group of workers—that
it seems essential in the present Report to make it perfectly clear that in its
original form the “ Law of Elimination ” finds no place in the Regles. It should
be noted at this point that in one extremely limited application official approval
has been given to the principle of “ elimination”? in a mandatory provision
enacted since the adoption of the Régles in 1901. This was in 1910, the year in
which the Commission’s Opinion 6 was published (Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6),
for in that Opinion the Commission ruled that, where a nominal genus was
established with two nominal species but without a designated type species and
later one of those nominal species was made the type species of a newly estab-
lished monotypical genus, it was to be deemed for nomenclatorial purposes
to have been removed by elimination from the earlier genus, which was thus.
left with only one species which accordingly became the type species. In the
years following the publication of this Opinion it was sometimes argued that the
ruling there given need not be regarded as being confined to cases where a
species was removed from a genus to a monotypical genus and further that
the principle embodied in this Opinion was properly applicable also to cases
where more than two species were placed in a genus and later authors removed —

7, —_ ~~"
’

~~ ———

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21

some of those species, either singly or in groups. This latter argument, if well
founded, would have amounted to a full-scale recognition of the Law of Elimina-
tion and would greatly have reduced the scope within which Rule (g) in Article 30
would operate and in some cases would have completely superceded that Rule.
This matter was considered by the Commission and the Congress at Paris in
1948, and it was then decided to incorporate in the Regles the decision originally
given in Opinion 6, clarified, however, in such a way as to make it absolutely
clear that it applied only to the limited class of case originally specified in that
Opinion (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 157).

17. A nominal species which is the type species of one genus eligible
for selection as the type species of another genus: In the preceding para-
graph we have considered the position of the so-called “ Law of Elimination ”
in relation to the provisions of the Régles as adopted at Berlin in 1901, and have
specially noted the one instance in which, through Opinion 6, mandatory force
was given to the principle embodied in that so-called “ Law ,” which, as
explained, had in its main form been rejected by the authors of the present
Reégles. We have here to note a decision taken by the Commission in Opinion 62
(published in 1914) (Smithson Publ. 2256 : 147-149) rejecting an attempt to
secure a further partial acceptance of the principle of elimination. Up to that
time it had sometimes been argued that, where a nominal genus had been
established with a number of included nominal species but without a designated
type species, the species which were eligible for selection by a later author
acting under Rule (g) in Article 30 were not all the originally included nominal
species but only those species which had not in the meantime become the type
species of other genera. This argument, which, it will be observed, relates to
one of the situations which (as explained in paragraph 16) some authors had
sought to argue could be brought. within the scope of the decision taken in
Opinion 6, was rejected by the Commission which ruled that a species which
was the type species of one genus was still eligible for selection as the type
species of another genus. This decision was endorsed both by the Commission
and the Congress in 1948 and was embodied by the latter in the Régles (see
1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 156).

(iii) Provisions relating to the selection of the type species of a
nominal genus adopted by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948

18. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature obtained the approval of the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology for the insertion in the Régles of provisions clarifying the meaning of
Rule (g) in Article 30 in four respects. Hach of these clarifications has, as
will be seen, a bearing on the question of the species to be accepted as the type
species-of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758. These clarifications
are accordingly described briefly in the following paragraphs.

19. Meaning to be attached to the word “ select” as used in the
expression “select a type species” as used in Rule (sg) in Article 30:
Reference has already been made (paragraph 14 above) to the supplementary
provision in Rule (g) in Article 30 which makes it clear that that Rule is not
satisfied if an author merely cites one of the species originally included in a

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

nominal genus established by some earlier author as being an “ illustration ”
or “‘ example ” of that genus and prescribes that the expression “ select a type ”
is to be “ rigidly construed.’ This provision removed what otherwise would
have been a serious ambiguity in that Rule, but it left obscure another matter
which, as every worker in systematic zoology has occasion to know, constantly
arose, whenever it was necessary to determine whether a type species had been
validly selected for a given nominal genus. The problem involved was whether
an author was to be deemed to have selected the type species of a given nominal
genus when, while stating categorically that a given species was the type species,
he made it clear also that he regarded himself, not as selecting that species to
be the type species, but as doing no more than place on record that that species
was the type species as the result of action taken by an earlier author or by
earlier authors. The most frequent situation of this kind arises in the case
of papers published before the adoption of the Régles where an author guiding
himself by the so-called “ Law of Elimination” (see paragraph 16 above)
came to the conclusion that, as the result of the removal of species to other
genera, only one species remained eligible for the position of type species
of the genus under examination and therefore that species had automatically
become the type species ‘“‘ by elimination.” The same problem arises also
where an author states that a given species is the type species of a genus
because it had been so selected by a previous author, when on further examina-
tion it is found that no such earlier selection had been made. In view of the
very large number of currently accepted type selections which rest upon
statements made in papers published before 1901 by authors working under the
“Law of Elimination,” it was obvious that any ruling which deprived state-
ments of the kind described above of the status of type selections would cause
the utmost havoc and confusion. It was obvious also, however, that a definite
ruling on this subject was required in order to make it impossible validly to
question the acceptability of such type selections. Accordingly, in Paris in
1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, on the recommendation
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, agreed to insert
in the Régles words making it clear that, “‘ for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article
30, an author is to be treated as having selected a given originally included
nominal species to be the type species of a given nominal genus not only when
he . . . states that he is so selecting that species but also when he does no more
than state that a specified such species is the type species of the nominal genus
concerned, irrespective, in the latter case, of whether he states or implies,
either correctly or otherwise, that that nominal species had been selected by
some previous author to be the type species of that nominal genus, or that the
nominal species had become the type species of that genus through the operation
of some rule (for example, the so-called “‘ Law of Elimination ”’) not recognised
in the Régles as a mandatory provision, provided in such a case that the author
concerned makes it clear that he himself accepts, for whatever reason, the
species in question as the type species of the genus concerned ” (see 1950, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 181-182).

20. Action taken in regard to a given generic name prior to its first
valid publication subsequent to 1757 irrelevant for the purposes of
Article 30: Prior to 1948 it occasionally happened that, notwithstanding

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23

the provision in Article 26 and the associated Opinion 3 (1910, Smithson. Publ.
1938 : 6) that for the purposes of the Régles zoological nomenclature has, as
its starting point, the publication in 1758 of the Tenth Edition of the Systema
Naturae of Linnaeus, an author would seek to support an argument in relation
to some particular name by claiming that some action in regard to that name
taken prior to 1758 had some bearing either upon the species to be regarded as
the originally included species of the nominal genus so named or as regards the
eligibility of such species for selection after 1757 as the type species of the
genus in question. In order to dispose of fallacious arguments of this sort,
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, on the advice
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, decided to insert
in the Regles words to make it clear that ‘Article 30 relates only to the designa-
tion, indication, or selection of the type species of a nominal genus published
subsequent to 3lst December 1757, that is to say to the name of a genus
originally published subsequent to the above date by a given author in a given
work and that the action then taken by that author is alone relevant to the
question, (1) of what species are to be regarded as having been originally
included in the genus concerned . . . or (ii) of whether the type species of the
genus in question is to be treated as having been designated .. . at the time of
the original publication of the generic name concerned ” (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 347-348).

21. A type selection related to any place of publication other than.
the original place of publication of a generic name invalid under the
“ Régles” : Another argument occasionally advanced before 1948 in relation
to particular cases (of which the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, was one)
was that, where a given word had been used as a generic name prior to the
starting point of zoological nomenclature (as defined in Article 26) as well as
at or after that starting point and some later author purported to select a
type species for the genus as published before 1758, that action should be re-
garded as constituting also aselection of a type species for the genus as established
after the starting point of zoological nomenclature, i.e. after the close of the
year 1757. This argument was considered and rejected in Paris, in 1948, when
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, on the advice of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, agreed to insert in the
Regles words making it clear that “no selection of the type species of a given
nominal genus, which is related to any publication of the name of that genus
other than its first valid publication by its author . . . is to be accepted as a
selection of the type species of that genus for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article
30” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 348).

22. Nominal species eligible for selection as the type species of any
given nominal genus: We have now examined the decisions taken by
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology for the purpose of clarifying
the provisions regarding the method to be followed in selecting the type species
of a nominal genus under Rule (g) in Article 30. But the obscurities which
formerly marred that Rule and made its application uncertain and open to
question in many cases were not the only difficulties which up to 1948 had
confronted systematists in attempting either to determine what nominal
' species was the type species of a given nominal genus or what nominal species

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

were eligible for selection as such. For, although Article 30 contained (in the
provision misnamed “ Rule (e) ’’) a provision excluding certain nominal species
from consideration as possible type species for any given nominal genus, it
unfortunately contained no positive provision specifying what nominal species
were to be regarded as eligible for selection as type species. In particular,
there was nothing in Article 30 to show whether the field of choice for an
author selecting a type species was limited to those nominal species recognised
as taxonomically valid by the original author of the generic name or whether
in addition a nominal species cited by the original author of a generic name in
the synonymy of any one of the nominal species placed by him in the genus
as representing taxonomically valid species was also eligible for selection as the
type genus. Moreover, there was no express provision in Article 30 on the
question whether the selection as the type species of a genus of a nominal
species not cited by the original author of a generic name should be accepted
or rejected in those cases where later authors subjectively identified the nominal
species so selected with one of the nominal species actually cited by the original
author at the time when the generic name was first validly published. In 1948,
however, these obscurities were removed when the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, on the advice of the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature, decided to insert in the Régles words making it clear that
“the nominal species to be regarded as having been included in a given nominal
genus when the name of that genus was first published are (i) the nominal
species cited by the original author as valid taxonomic species belonging to that
nominal genus and (ii) any nominal species cited on that occasion as synonyms
of nominal species falling in (i) above and that for such a nominal genus the
foregoing nominal species were alone eligible for selection as the type species ”
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179-180).

(b) The field within which alone a valid type-selection for
“ Colymbus ” Linnaeus, 1758, can be made under the “ Régles ”

23. The content of the nominal genus “ Colymbus” Linnaeus, 1758,
for nomenclatorial purposes: The name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 135) was published for a nominal genus to which at that time
Linnaeus referred four nominal species, namely :—(1) Colymbus arcticus
Linnaeus (: 135); (2) Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus (: 135); (3) Colymbus
auritus Linnaeus (: 135); (4) Colymbus podiceps Linnaeus (: 136). Under the
clarification of the meaning to be attached to the expression “ originally
included species” prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology in 1948 (see paragraph 22 above), the four nominal species bearing
the foregoing specific trivial names are the only nominal species eligible to
become the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758.

(c) The authors who, it has been claimed, either selected a type
species for the nominal genus “ Colymbus ” Linnaeus, 1758, or
took action having an equivalent effect

24. Latham, 1707: The first author who, it has been claimed, took action
having the effect of determining the type species of the nominal genus Colymbus

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25

Linnaeus, 1758, was Latham (1787, Suppl. gen. Synopsis Birds [1]: 294). The
argument adduced runs as follows :—(1) The genus Colymbus as established by
Linnaeus in 1758 was heterogeneous from the taxonomic standpoint, containing
(a) one palmate-footed species (pedibus palmatis), the Northern Diver, Colymbus
arcticus, and (b) three pinnate-footed species (pedibus lobatis), the Grebes
Colymbus cristatus, auritus and podiceps. (2) Latham (1787) recognised the
impropriety, from the systematic point of view, of including these disparate
elements in a single genus and accordingly, as a first reviser, rectified the
position (in the tabular statement at the end of his first supplementary volume)
by erecting a new genus which he named Podiceps (: 294) and to which he
assigned the three Grebes which Linnaeus had placed in Colymbus(i.e.,
C. cristatus, auritus and podiceps), together with other Grebes, and which he
placed in his ‘‘ Order VIII. With pinnated feet’; at the same time Latham
retained (: 295) the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, placing in it the only remaining
species (Colymbus arcticus) that Linnaeus had placed in his genus Colymbus,
together with other Divers. This genus Latham placed in his “ Order IX
Webfooted.” (3) The removal by Latham from the genus Colymbus Linnaeus
of the three Grebes placed in it by Linnaeus in 1758, by the transfer of those
species to his new genus Podiceps, left, so it was argued, only one species in the
genus Colymbus Linnaeus as constituted in 1758, namely the nominal species
Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, and in consequence that species, by virtue of
Latham’s action, automatically became the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758, under the “‘ Law of Elimination.” This argument, which was originally
advanced before the introduction of the present Reégles, is invalid, since those
Régles do not recognise a “‘ Law of Elimination ” as a mandatory provision for
the determination of the type species of genera (paragraphs 16 and 17 above).

25. Gray (G. R.), 1840: In 1840 (List Genera Birds: 76) Gray (G. R.)
selected Colymbus glacialis Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(1) : 221) as
the type species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, to which name Gray did not
attribute a date. This nominal species was not one of the four such species
placed by Linnaeus in the genus Colymbus in 1758 (see paragraph 23 above)—
and, indeed, could not have been so included, for its name was not published
until eight years later. Thus, this nominal species is ineligible to become the
type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, and Gray’s action
in so selecting it is therefore invalid.

26. Gray (G. R.), 1841: In 1841 (List Genera Birds (ed. 2): 96) Gray again
treated Colymbus glacialis Linnaeus, 1766, as the type species of Colymbus
Linnaeus, to which, as in the first edition he attributed no date. This type
selection is invalid for the same reasons as is the same selection made by Gray
in 1840 (see paragraph 25 above).

27. Gray (G.R.), 1842: In 1842 (Appendix List Genera Birds : 15) Gray
published a sixteen-page pamphlet in which he added supplementary notes in
regard to certain of the generic names included in the second edition of his
Iist. Many of these notes consisted in the attribution of dates to generic names
previously published without information on this point. In the case of the
name Colymbus Linnaeus, the entry in the Appendix of 1842 was :—“ Colymbus,
after L, add 1735,” From the point of view of nomenclature, this entry would

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

have been of great importance, if in other respects the type selection for the
genus Colymbus Linnaeus made in the Second Kdition of Gray’s List had
complied with the Régles (which, as we have seen—paragraph 26 above—it did
not), for the insertion of the date “1735” after the name Colymbus L. shows
that Gray was dealing not with the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae of
1758 (the starting point of zoological nomenclature) but with the use of that
name by Linnaeus in 1735 in the First Edition of the Systema Naturae. Under
the Régles action taken in respect of a name as published prior to 1758 is totally
irrelevant from the point of view of determining the type species of a nominal
genus established after the starting point of zoological nomenclature (i.e. a
name published in, or after, 1758) (see paragraph 20 above) and the selection
of a type species of a genus, if related to any place of publication other than the
first place in which that name was validly published, is invalid, having no
force under Article 30 (see paragraph 21 above).

28. Gray (G. R.), 1855 In 1855 there appeared what was, in effect, a third
edition of the List of Genera of Birds, of which, as we have seen (paragraphs 25
and 26 above) the First and Second Editions were published respectively in
1840 and 1841 ; it was however published under a slightly different title and it
accordingly ranks for bibliographical purposes as a separate work. In this
latest work Gray (1) adhered to the dating of the name Colymbus Linnaeus
adopted in his Appendix of 1842, that is, he attributed it to the First Edition
of the Systema Naturae of 1735 and not to the Tenth Edition of 1758, and (2)
made a fresh type selection for the genus Colymbus abandoning his earlier
selection of Colymbus glacialis Linnaeus, 1766, adopting in its place Colymbus
arcticus Linnaeus, 1758. If Gray’s action on this occasion had otherwise been
in conformity with the Régles, the selection of C. arcticus Linnaeus would have
been valid, since that nominal species is one of those referred to the genus
Colymbus by Linnaeus in 1758. But the fact that Gray attributed the name
Colymbus to a place of publication other than the place where that name was
first validly published after the starting point of zoological nomenclature
(i.e. other than the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae) renders his action
in 1855 invalid for the reasons explained in paragraphs 20 and 21 above.

29. Fitzinger, 1865: In 1926 (Ibis (12)4: 819) Sclater advanced the view
that in 1865 (SitzBer. Akad. wiss. Wien (Math-Naturw. K1.) 51 : 320) Fitzinger
had selected Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the
nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus. As however was pointed out by Hellmayr
& Conover in 1948 (Field Mus. Publ. Chicago (Zool.) 13 (Pt. 1) (No. 2): 18,
footnote), Fitzinger expressly stated in the preface to his paper that what he
intended to do was to cite for each of the genera and subgenera concerned
one of the typical species. The supplementary provision annexed to Rule (9)
in Article 30 lays it down that the citation of a species as an example of a genus
does not, constitute the selection of that species as the type species of the genus
concerned (see paragraph 14 above). Accordingly, Fitzinger’s action in 1865
does not constitute a valid selection of Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus as the type
species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758.

30. Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, 1884: In 1884 (Water Birds N. Amer.
2: 425) Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, when dealing with the genus Colymbus

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27

Linnaeus, 1758, stated that Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, was the “ Type,
by elimination.” This species is, as we have seen (paragraph 23) one of these
originally included by Linnaeus in the genus Colymbus in 1758, and, as in
1884 that genus was still without a validly determined type species, it was
eligible for selection as such. The only argument which could at any time have
been advanced against the acceptance of the action by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway
as constituting a type-selection for the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, was
that those authors did not look upon themselves as selecting Colymbus cristatus
Linnaeus as the type species of this genus—indeed, they made it clear that they
deplored the necessity of accepting it as such—but on the contrary considered
that that species had already become the type species “‘ by elimination.” As
explained in paragraph 19 above, consideration was given in 1948 both by the
Commission and by the International Congress of Zoology to the question
whether a definite statement that a given nominal species was the type species
of a particular genus constituted a selection of that species as the type species
when the author making the statement made it clear that he did not regard
himself as so selecting the species in question, considering rather that for one
reason or another that species had already become the type species as the result
of action taken by earlier authors ; it was then decided that such a statement
should be accepted as constituting a selection under Rule (g) in Article 30,
provided that the author making the statement made it clear that he himself
recognised the species in question as the type species of the genus concerned.
Baird, Brewer & Ridgway made it perfectly clear that they regarded Colymbus
cristatus Linnaeus as the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, and accord-
ingly the possible objection to the acceptance of their action is now seen to be
without foundation.

_ 31. Action by authors subsequent to Baird, Brewer & Ridgway,
1884: Once a nominal genus has validly acquired a type species under the
provisions of Article 30, no action by any later author can change the type
species of that genus. In the present case, we have seen (paragraph 30 above)
that in 1884 the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, which up to that
time was without a type species under the Régles, acquired a type species
through the selection as such of Colymbus cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, by Baird,
Brewer & Ridgway. I have therefore considered unnecessary in the present
Report to recapitulate the later history of the generic name Colymbus Lin-
naeus, 1758. I have however examined later papers on this subject for the
purpose of ascertaining whether any of them contain new evidence relevant
to the present subject. I find that they do not. Those authors (e.g. Stejneger)
who applied the name Colymbus Linnaeus to the Grebes have based themselves
on the selection, as the type species of this genus, of Colymbus cristatus Lin-
naeus, 1758, by Baird, Brewer & Ridgway (1884) or upon the later similar
selection by the A.O.U. in 1886 (Check-List N.Amer. Birds : 73), while those
authors who have applied this name to the Divers (Loons) have either (as did
Witmer Stone in 1926) accepted Gray’s (1855) selection of Colymbus arcticus
Linnaeus, 1758, or (as did Lonnberg in 1927) have argued in favour of the view
that the same species should be accepted as the type species as the result of the
action taken in 1787 by Latham, when establishing the nominal genus Podiceps.

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Ill. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDING

32. Principal Conclusions: Having thus completed the survey of the
problem involved in determining what species is, under the Régles, the type
species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, which in Paris in 1948 I was
invited to undertake, I now submit as follows the principal conclusions which
I have reached :—

(1) The type species of the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758,
was neither designated under Rule (a) in Article 30 nor indicated
under any of the Rules lettered (5), (c), (d) or (f) in that Article
(paragraphs 5-10).

(2) In view of (1) above, the type species of the foregoing nominal genus
falls to be determined under Rule (g) in Article 30 (type species by
subsequent selection) (paragraph 11).

(3) Latham (1787), when establishing the nominal genus Podiceps and
transferring thereto the three Grebes referred to the genus Colymbus
by Linnaeus in 1758, thus leaving in the genus Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758, only one of the species referred thereto by Linnaeus in 1758,
namely the Diver, Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, did not thereby
make that species the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus. For
Article 30 of the Régles does not recognise the so-called ‘‘ Law of
Elimination ” and under the Reégles it was legitimate for any later
author to select any of the originally included species to be the
type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, notwithstanding the
action taken by Latham in 1787 (paragraph 24).

(4) The selection by Gray in 1840 and again in 1841 of Colymbus glacialis
Linnaeus, 1766, as the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758,
is invalid, because that nominal species was not one of the nominal
species referred to the genus Colymbus by Linnaeus in 1758 and,
indeed, could not have been so referred, as it was not named until
eight years later (paragraphs 25 and 26).

(5) The selection by Gray in 1855 of Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758,
as the type species of the genus Colymbus is invalid, since that
selection related not to the nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus,
1758, but to the pre-1758 nominal genus Colymbus Linnaeus,
1735 (paragraph 28).

(6) Fitzinger (1865) cited Colymbus arcticus Linnaeus, 1758, as one of

\ the typical species of the genus Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, but he

did not select that species to be the unique type species of that

genus. Accordingly, under the provision in Rule (9) in Article 30

that the expression “select the type” is to be “rigidly con-

strued,” Fitzinger did not select a type species for Oolyrate
Linnaeus, 1758 (paragraph 29).

(7) Baird, Brewer & Ridgway in 1884 stated that Colymbus cristatus

Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758.

That nominal species is one of those originally included in the genus
Colymbus by Linnaeus in 1758, and was therefore eligible for

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29

selection as the type species of that genus. Under Rule (g) in
Article 30, as clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology in 1948, the validity of the action taken by the fore-
going authors is not impaired by the fact that they regarded them-
selves not as selecting the above species to be the type species of
Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, but as merely recording (incorrectly)
that it was already the type species “by elimination”
(paragraph 30).

33. FINDING. In discharge of the duty entrusted to me in 1948, jointly
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology and the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I have to report that, in the light of
the conclusions summarised in the preceding paragraph, my Finding on the

question referred to me is as follows :— .

Under the “ Régles” the type species of the nominal genus
“Colymbus” Linnaeus, 1758, is the nominal species
“ Colymbus cristatus ” Linnaeus, 1758, that nominal species
being one of those included by Linnaeus in the nominal genus
“ Colymbus ” in 1758 and being the first such species to be
validly selected under Rule (g) in Article 30 to be the type species
of this nominal genus, having been so selected by Baird, Brewer
& Ridgway in 1884

(signed) FRANCIS HEMMING.
9th February 1950.

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

SUPPRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “ CASPICUS” HABLIZL,

1783 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION
“COLYMBUS CASPICUS”) (CLASS AVES)

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)525)

Covermg letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October, 1950, from
Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature. .

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I beg to forward to you the annexed recommendation relating to the name
Colymbus caspicus Hablizl, 1783, for favour of decision by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The circumstances of the present case were described in a note published
by Dr. E. Stresemann, a Member of the Standing Committee, in 1948 (Strese-
mann, 1948, Jbis 90 : 473-474), extracts from which are given in the Annexe
to the application now submitted.

The specific action which the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is asked to take is that it should: (1) use its plenary powers
to suppress the trivial name caspicus Hablizl, 1783 (as published in the com-
bination Colymbus caspicus) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the trivial name nigricollis
Brehm, 1831 (as published in the combination Podiceps nigricollis) on the
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology: and (3) place the trivial
name caspicus Hablizl, 1783 (as published’in the combination Colymbus caspicus)
as proposed, under (1) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers,
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

ENCLOSURE

The trivial name comprised in the specific name “ Colymbus
caspicus”” Hablizl, 1783, ‘“‘ Neue nordische Beytrage” 4:9

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum
and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this
species, namely Podiceps nigricollis Brehm (C.L.), 1831, Handb. Naturg. V 6g.
Deutschl. : 963 ( Deutschland ”’), be made a nomen conservandum.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31

The name Podiceps mgricollis has been used for the Black-necked Grebe
from 1831 to 1948. The circumstances of the present case have been discussed
by Stresemann in a note entitled “The earliest description of the Black-
necked Grebe” published in 1948 (Jbis 90 : 473-474), from which extracts
have been made for the information of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature and are submitted in the Annexe to the present
application. .

R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee.
E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin.
JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

ANNEXE TO APPLICATION

Extract from a paper entitled “ The earliest description of the
Black-necked Grebe ” (1948, “ Ibis,” 90 : 473-474)

Changes in scientific nomenclature are becoming increasingly unpopular
among ornithologists, and rightly so. It is especially awkward if a name of
long standing and of very frequent use has to be discarded under present rules
in favour of a quite unknown one. I see, however, no way for avoiding super-
session of Podiceps nigricollis Brehm, 1831, by Podiceps caspicus (Hablizl,
1783).

In his article ““ Bemerkungen in der persischen Landschaft Gilan und auf
den Gilanischen Gebirgen in den Jahren 1773 und 1774,” published in vol. 4
(1783) of Pallas’s magazine “ Neue Nordische Beytrage,”’ Carl Hablizl on
page 9 gave the following detailed description of a grebe which he had met by
the end of November 1773 in the Bay of Enzeli, Caspian Sea, and which he
proposed to call Colymbus caspicus: “‘ Magnitudo Columbae domesticae,
Rostrum plumbeum pollicare, Caput et reiquum corpus supra fusco nigricat.
Gula et genae, lateraque colli superioris alba ; collum inferius gryseum. Pectus,
abdomen et venter albo-argentea. Alae complicatae ad uropygium protensae.
Uropygium infimum albo-nigroque vatiegatum. Remiges a prima ad sectum
immaculatae, fuscae, a sexta ad decimum candidae, uno latere fusco maculatae,
a decima vero ad vigesimam primam usque immaculatae, candidae. Tectrices
alarum fuscae. Pedes et digiti interius cinereo-virescentes, exterius fusco-
nigricantes. Oculorum irides, ut et palpebrae, rubrae.”

That this bird was undoubtedly a Black-necked, and not a Slavonian,
Grebe (in the synonymy of which the name Colymbus caspicus had been sunk
by all previous authors, Ogilvie-Grant and Hartert), is proved by the colour
of the inner primaries, which are always entirely dark in P. awritus, not partially
white (candidae, uno latere fusco-maculatae).

32 . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

SUPPRESS FOUR TRIVIAL NAMES FOR BIRDS PUB-

LISHED BY ANTON AUGUST HEINRICH LICHTENSTEIN
IN 1793

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)526)

Covering letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October, 1950, from

Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on

Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological
Congress.

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I beg to forward to you the annexed application relating to four trivial names
for birds published by A. Lichenstein in 1793, for favour of decision by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The Standing Committee is unanimous in its view as regards the first and
second of the names dealt with in the present application. In the case of the
third name (Cuculus sulphuratus Lichtenstein (A.), 1793), one member of the
Standing Committee (Dr. John T. Zimmer) does not support the proposal
submitted.

The problem dealt with in. the present application has been discussed by
Meise & Stresemann in a paper entitled “‘ Notes on South African birds des-
cribed in A. Lichtenstein’s ‘ Catalogus,’ 1793,” published earlier this year in
the Ibis (Meise & Stresemann, 1950, Ibis 92 : 22-26), extracts from which are
quoted in the application now submitted.

I have to add that a slight amplification is necessary in the case of the third
of the proposals now submitted to the International Commission by the Standing
Committee. The object of that proposal is to provide a secure legal foundation
for the trivial name flava Vieillot, 1817 (as published in the binominal combina-
tion Campephaga flava), and for this purpose the Standing Committee propose
in the annexed application that the International Commission should use its
plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the earlier trivial name sulphuratus
Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the binominal combination Cuculus
sulphuratus). It must be noted however that, as shown by Meise and Strese-
mann in their paper published in the Ibis in 1950 (extracts from which are
incorporated in the application now submitted), Lichtenstein was in doubt as
to whether the bird which he was describing was a cuckoo or a shrike. In
addition to giving this bird the name Cuculus sulphuratus, he therefore gave
it also the name Lanius flavescens. The application now submitted by the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33

Standing Committee is therefore to be taken as constituting a request for the
suppression, under the plenary powers, of the trivial name flavescens Lichten-
stein, 1793, as well as of sulphuratus Lichtenstein, 1793.

The specific action which the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is now asked to take is thus that it should :—

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned trivial names
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy :—

a) cafra Lichtenstem, 1793 (as published in the combination Otis
cafra) ;

(b) cafer Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the combination
Cuculus cafer) ;

| (c) sulphuratus Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the combination
; Cuculus sulphuratus) ;

; (d) flavescens Lichtenstein, 1793 (as published in the combination
Lanius flavescens) ;

(2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology ;—

(a) barrowt Gray (J.E.), 1829 (as published in the combination
Otis barrow?) ;
(b) clamosus Latham, 1801 (as published in the combination Cuculus
clamosus) ;
c) flava Vieillot, 1817 (as published in the combination Campephaga
flava) ;
_ (3) place the four trivial names specified in (1) above, as there proposed

to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

34 . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ENCLOSURE

Three trivial names published for birds by Lichenstein (A.) in
1793 proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers

(1) The trivial name comprised in the specific name Otis cafra Lichten-
stein (A.), 1793, Cat. Rer. nat. rarissim. : 36.

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently
accepted for this species, namely, Otis barrowi Gray (J. E.), 1829,
in Griffith’s Cuvier’s Animal Kingdom 8 Aves 3 : 304 (“Cape of
Good Hope ”’), be made a nomen conservandum.

(2) The trivial name comprised in the specific name Cuculus cafer Lichten-
stein (A.), 1793, Cat. Reh. nat. rarissim. : 14.

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently
accepted for this species, namely Cuculus clamosus Latham, 1801,
Index Orn., Suppl. 1 : XXX (“ Cape of Good Hope ”’), be made a

nomen conservandum.

(3) The trivial name comprised in the specific name Cuculus sulphuratus
Lichtenstein (A.), 1793, Cat. Rer. nat. rarissim. : 15.

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently
accepted for this species, namely Campephaga flava Vieillot, 1817,
Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 10 : 49 (“ South Africa ’’), be made a nomen
conservandum.

The circumstances of the present case have been discussed by Meise and
Stresemann in a paper published in 1950 (Ibis 92 : 22-26), from which extracts
have been made for the information of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature and are submitted in the Annexe to the present
application.

R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee.
E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin.

JOHN T. ZIMMER* : The American Museum of Natural History, New York.
(items 1 and 2 only).

*Note by Dr. John T. Zimmer on Case No. 3 (extract from a letter dated 3rd April, 1951) :
The case on which I differed from other members of the Standing Committee may be covered
by a single statement. I did not feel that any serious confusion would result from the adoption
of the newly discovered name. The change is perhaps unfortunate, as all such changes are, but
is likely to cause no more than temporary inconvenience.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — . 35

ANNEXE TO APPLICATION

Extract from a paper by Meise & Stresemann published in 1950
(“Ibis ” 92 : 22-26)

During the last days of October 1793 a large collection of mounted birds. . .
was dispersed by auction at Eimbeck’s sale house at Hamburg. The contents
were made known to the public by a sale catalogue prepared by Dr. Anton
August Heinrich Lichtenstein (1753-1816) . . . At the time of this sale, A. A. H.
Lichtenstein was headmaster of a famous classical college at Hamburg. . . and
his little pamphlet “‘ Catalogus Rerum naturalium rarissimarum,” containing
the description of several new species, was commented upon in contemporary
reviews.

It has long been supposed that many of the specimens listed in the ‘ Cata-
logus ” were collected in South Africa by Francois Levaillant during his stay
from 1781-1784, yet Godman had to confess that he was quite at a loss regarding
the former owner of this remarkable Cabinet. It is only now that the mystery
of more than 150 years can be unveiled. All these valuable mammals, birds,
shells, and insects had formed the Cabinet of L. F. Holthuizen, a wealthy
Dutchman living at Amsterdam, whose collection had been praised by Levaillant
(“* Oiseaux d’ Afrique, 1,” 1796, 4to, p. 56) in the following terms: “ & Amster-
dam, on voit encore le cabinet trés-nombreux d’oiseaux, du citoyen Holthuyzen,
qui posséde aussi une grande et belle suite de papillons et d’insectes.”

A remark of the younger Lichtenstein, contained in the biography of his
father . . . where it is expressly stated that the latter catalogued the Holthuizen
collection, led to the final solution of the riddle . . . It has been this accidental
discovery that induced us to study the catalogue with critical eyes, whereby
it soon became apparent that this had only very seldom been done by others.

Holthuizen seems to have bought his specimens from many sources; .. .
A good many (47 species) came from Cayenne, but no other part of the world
had contributed to it as much as South Africa: 60 species. It can hardly be
doubted that most, if not all, of them had been collected there by Levaillant . . .
Levaillant must have sold these birds to Holthuizen during the years 1785 to
1790—at the same time that another part of his collection went to Jacob
Temminck and Joan Raye van Breukelerwaard, both equally of Amsterdam.

A. Lichtenstein had but very little practice in determining birds, yet the
number of new species he dared to describe . . . amounted to 38, 17 of which
are stated to have come from South Africa. They are the following :—

5. Otis cafra nobis (p. 36), “ Caffernland.’’ Owing to the misinterpretation
of A. Lichtenstein’s original description (1793) by H. Lichtenstein in
1823, the name Otis cafra has been accepted to designate the large “ Veld
Paauw ”’ of the Boers. However from examination of the 1793 “ Cata-
logus ’ it becomes apparent that a small species of Bustard was meant,
and that the description exactly fits the species named Otis barrowi by
Gray (though most inappropriately, since John Barrow’s “ Wild

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Peacock *’ was the large species hitherto called Otis cafra). Unless A.
Lichtenstein’s Otis cafra is voted an obligatory synonym of the later
Otis . . . , our discovery is going to have deplorable consequences. . . .

8. Cuculus cafer nobis (p. 14), “ terra Cafrirum.” This name was forgotten

up to 1870, when Sharpe (“ Ibis,” 1870: 58) applied it to the species
up to then incorrectly named Coccystes afer (Leach). Sharpe apparently
never gave the reasons for his change in nomenclature, which soon was
adopted by all ornithologists, although the original description at a
glance reveals the error. In reality Lichtenstein had before him a bird
which was not crested and “ corpore supra splendide atro, infra fusco
undulato. Remiges et retrices splendide nigrae maculatis exalbidis .
Kopf, Nacken und Riicken sind glinzend schwarz; Brust und Unterleib
sind braun gewellet. . . .” Such barred specimens of Cuculus clamosus
occur in South Africa (Stark & Sclater, ‘‘ Birds South Africa,” 3 (1903) :
192). Therefore the synonymy will be :—

Cuculus cafer A. Lichtenstein

Cuculus cafer A. Lichtenstein, “ Cat. Rer. nat.” 1793 : 14

Cuculus clamosus Latham, “‘ Ind. Orn.” Suppl. 1 (1801) : xxx
Clamator levaillanti (Swainson)

Cuculus afer Leach, “ Zool. Mise.” 1 (1814) : 72, tab. 31 nec Cuculus
afer Gmelin, “ Syst. Nat.” 1 : 418, 1788 (which is Leptosomus discolor
(Hermann 1783))

Coccyzus levaillanti Swainson, “ ‘Zool. Ill.” (2) 1:3, 1829, tab. 13

Cuculus cafer Sharpe 1870 et auct. seq., but not of A. Lichtenstein.

% Cuculus sulphuratus nobis; vel potius Lanius flavescens?” (p. 15).
“ Hab. in terra Caffrorum.” 'A. Lichtenstein had been in doubt whether
this Cuckoo-shrike was really a cuckoo or rather a yellowish shrike.
His description is clearly that of the female of Campephaga flava Vieillot.
This implies the following change (unless the current name is ranked
among the nomina conservanda by some international body).

Campephaga sulphurata (A. Lichtenstein)

Cuculus sulphuratus A. Lichtenstein 1793 (“terra Cafrorum,”’ descr.
9),

Campephaga flava Vieillot 1817 (South Africa, ex Levaillant, descr. *).
Campephaga nigra Vieillot 1817 (South Africa, ex Levaillant, descr. ¢).

. . . .

q Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37
Suggestions

In accordance with their postulate that changes in current nomenclature
ought to be avoided as far as possible, the authors suggest :—

1. Discarding altogether those names which had been misinterpreted

{ for a century, instead of connecting them in future with their original,

and therefore proper, species. If one applies this to the names Otis cafra

(A. Lichtenstein) and Cuculus cafer (A. Lichtenstein), changes in the
nomenclature of the genera Hupodotis and Cuculus will be prevented.

2. Ranking Campephaga flava Vieillot among the nomina conservanda,
with Cuculus sulphuratus (A. Lichtenstein) an obligatory synonym of it.

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-

PRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “ NORTONIENSIS ” GMELIN,

1789 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION
“ FRINGILLA NORTONIENSIS ” (CLASS AVES))

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)527)

Covering letter, with enclosure, dated 19th October, 1950, from
Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I beg to forward to you the annexed recommendation relating to the name
Fringilla nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789, for favour of decision by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The circumstances of the present case were described by Dr. E. Stresemann,
a Member of the Standing Committee, in a paper entitled “‘ Birds collected in
the North Pacific Area during Capt. James ‘Cook’s last Voyage (1778 and
1779),” published in 1949 (Stresemann, 1949, Jbis 91 : 252), an extract from
which is given in the Annexe to the application now submitted.

The specific action which the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is asked to take in this case is: (1) that it should use its plenary
powers to suppress the trivial name nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published
in the combination Fringilla nortoniensis) for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the trivial
name pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876 (as published in the combination Emberiza
pyrrhulinus) on the Official Inst of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (3)
place the trivial name nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the com- _
bination Fringilla nortoniensis), as proposed, in (1) above, to be suppressed
under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology.

ENCLOSURE

The trivial name comprised in the specific name “ Fringilla
nortoniensis ” Gmelin, 1789

It is recommended that the trivial name (nortoniensis) comprised in the
specific name Fringilla nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat.
(ed. 13) 1(2) : 922) be made a nomen rejectum and that the trivial name
(pyrrhulina) comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39

Emberiza pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876, Ibis (3) 5-: 333, pl. VIII, fig. 2
(‘‘ Hakodati’”’) be made a nomen conservandum.

The trivial name pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876, has been in continuous use
for three quarters of a century, while the name nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789,
has been completely overlooked. The introduction of Gmelin’s long-forgotten
name nortoniensis would give rise to confusion and would be open to strong
objection.

Attached to the present application is an extract from a paper by Dr.
E. Stresemann published in 1949 (Ibis 91 : 252) in which the trivial name
nortoniensis Gmelin was first synonymised with pyrrhulinus Swinhoe.

R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee.
E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitét, Berlin.
JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

ANNEXE TO APPLICATION

Extract from a paper entitled “ Birds collected in the North
Pacific Area during Capt. James Cook’s last Voyage (1778 and
1779) ” (Stresemann, 1949, “ Ibis ” 91 : 244-255)

[The birds discussed in the above paper are grouped by reference to

the localities in which they were observed, and the dates on which

these localities were visited on Captain Cook’s voyage. The bird dealt

with in the present application is discussed in the tenth of these _

groups which is lettered “J.” and is concerned with birds observed
in Kamschatka.]

J. KamtscuatKa: 28th April to 4th June, 1779 and 24th August to 9th
October, 1779.

(1) [Emberiza schoeniclus pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876] Fringilla norton-
iensis Gmelin, 1(2) : 922 (1789), ex “ Norton Finch,” Pennant,
2: 376. “ Discovered in Norton Sound.” Locality wrong. The
specimen described by Pennant is a male in fresh autumn plumage
(lacking the outermost pair of tail feathers) of the Kamschatka
race of the Reed Bunting.

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-

PRESS SEVEN TRIVIAL NAMES PUBLISHED BY GMELIN

IN 1788 AND 1789 FOR BIRDS WHICH UNTIL 1950 RE-
MAINED UNIDENTIFIED

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 454)

Covering letter, dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosure, from

Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on

Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological
Congress

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I beg to forward to you the following recommendations for favour of decision
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

._The recommendations now submitted relate to seven trivial names published
by Gmelin in 1789 for birds taken on Captain Cook’s Last Expedition. None
of these names has been used by ornithologists, for the species so named have
always been considered unrecognizable until in 1950 Dr. Erwin Stresemann,
a member of the Standing Committee, established the identity of the species
in question (Stresemann, 1950, Awk 67 : 66-88). In the opinion of the majority
of the members of the Committee it is desirable that all the seven names listed
in the enclosure to the present letter should be suppressed by the International
Commission, the corresponding names now in use for the species concerned
being at the same time placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology. One member of the Standing Committee (Dr. John T. Zimmer),
while concurring with the other members of the Committee as regards five
of the seven names concerned, does not support the recommendation submitted
in the two other names, namely the trivial name ezmeensis Gmelin, 1789 (as
published in the binominal combination Columba eimeensis) and the trivial
name australis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination
Sterna australis).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41

The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
is asked to take is that it should :—

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned trivial names

for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy :—

(a) eimeensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Columba
evmeensis) ;

(b) unalaschkensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination
Hirundo unalaschkensis) ;

(d) septentrionalis Gmelin, 1788 (as published in the combination
Lanius septentrionalis) ;

(e) borealis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Motacilla
borealis) ;

(f) cirrhatus Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Pele-
canus cirrhatus) ;

(g) australis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Sterna
australis) ;

(2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific

Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(a) stairi Gray (G.R.), 1856 (as published in the combination
Caloenas (Phlegoenas) stair) ;

(b) townsendi Oberholser, 1906 (as published in the combination
Collocalla francica townsend) ;

(d) heinet Finsch & Hartlaub, 1870 (as published in the combination
Myolestes heinet) ;

(e) sepium Horsfield, 1821 (as published in the combination Ortho-
tomus seprum) ;

(f) albiventer Lesson, 1831 (as published in the combination Carbo
albiventer) ;

(g) cerulea Bennett (F.D.), 1840 (as published in the combination
Sterna cerulea) ;

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial

Names in Zoology the seven trivial names specified in (1), as there
proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ENCLOSURE

Seven trivial names published for birds by Gmelin in 1789

proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers

The trivial name comprised in the specific name Columba eimeensis
Gmelin, 1789, 7m Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (2) : 784.

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently
accepted for this species, namely Caloenas (Phlegoenas) stairi Gray
(G. R.), [1856], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 24 (301) : 7 (“‘ Samoa ”’) be made
a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Auk 67: 75.

The trivial name comprised in the specific name Hirundo unalaschkensis
Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (2) : 1025.

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the subspecific trivial name comprised in the name
currently accepted for this subspecies, namely Collocalla francica
townsendi Oberholser, 1906, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 58 : 181
(“ Tonga Islands ’’) be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann,
1950, Auk 67 : 74.

. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Lanius natka Gmelin,

1788, in Linnaeus, abid. 1 (1) : 309.

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently
accepted for this species, namely Turdus pacificus Gmelin, 1789, in
Linnaeus, ibid. 1 (2): 813, be made a nomen conservandum. See
Stresemann, 1950, Auk 67: 73.

The trivial name comprised in the specific name Lanius septentrionalis
Gmelin, 1788, 7x Linnaeus, tbid. 1 (1) : 306.

It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently
accepted for this species, namely Myolestes heinei Finsch & Hartlaub,
1870, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1869 : 546 (‘‘ Tonga Islands”’), be made a
nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Awk 67 : 73-74.

The trivial names comprised in the specific names Motacilla borealis
Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, ibid. 1 (2) : 986, and Motacilla camtschat-
kensis Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, 2bid. 1 (2) : 986.

It is recommended that the above names (which apply to the same
species) should be made nomina rejecta and that the trivial name
comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely
Orthotomus sepium Horsfield, 1821, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 13 (1) : 166
(“ Java’’) be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950,

Auk 67 : 81-82.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43

6. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Pelecanus cirrhatus
Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, tbid. 1 (2) : 576.
It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the trivial name
comprised in the name currently accepted for this species, namely
Carbo albiventer Lesson, 1831, Traité Orn. (8): 604 (‘‘ Falkland
Islands’), be made a nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950,
Auk 67 : 83.

7. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Sterna australis
Gmelin, 1789, on Linnaeus, abid. 1 (2) : 608.
It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen
rejectum and that the trivial name comprised in the name currently
accepted for this species, namely Sterna cerulea Bennett (F. D.),
1840, Narr. Whaling Voy. 2: 248 (‘‘ Christmas Island’) be made a
nomen conservandum. See Stresemann, 1950, Awk 67 : 78.

R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee.

0 E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitdt, Berlin.

JOHN T. ZIMMER* : The American Museum of Natural History, New York.
i (except items | and 7)

*Note by Dr. John T. Zimmer on Cases Nos. 1 and 7 (extract from a letter dated 3rd April, 1951):

i The cases on which I differed from other members of the Standing Committee may be covered
Fe by a single statement. I did not feel that any serious confusion would result from the adoption
“| _ of the newly discovered name. The change is perhaps unfortunate, as all such ee are, but
i is likely to cause no more than temporary inconvenience.

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI-

DATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ELEGANS” GOULD, 1837

(AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION
“ MALURUS ELEGANS”) (CLASS AVES)

By H. M. WHITTELL, 0O.B.E.

(On behalf of the Checklist Committee of the
Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)341)

The Checklist Committee of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union
petitions the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use
its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name elegans Forster (J.R.), 1794,
Mag. merkwurd. neuen Reise Beschr. § : 128 (as published in the bominal
combination Motacilla elegans) and thereby to validate the trivial name elegans
Gould (J.), 1837, Birds Australia and adj. Islands (1): pl. 2 (as published in
the binominal combination Malurus elegans), on the ground that the strict
application of the Régles in this case would lead to confusion rather than
stability.

2. In 1837, John Gould introduced the name Malurus elegans for a Western
Australian bird, for which this name has been in use ever since—for a period
of over 110 years.

3. In 1937, however, Mr. T. Iredale pointed out (The Emu 37 : 95-99) that
in 1794 J. R. Forster, in his Magazin von merkwurdigen neuen Reise Beschrei-
bungen applied the name Motacilla elegans to a different bird, namely that
to which in 1783 (Gen. syn. Birds 2(2) : 581) Latham had applied the name
Motacilla cyanea.

4. The two birds discussed above are currently regarded as belonging to the
same genus, and in consequence the name elegans Gould, 1837, is invalid,
being a junior secondary homonym of the name elegans Forster, 1794. The
strict applications of the Régles in the present case would cause great con-
fusion, for it would not only mean that the Western Australian bird would be
deprived of the name by which it has been universally known since 1837 but
would also involve the transfer of the name elegans to another species in the
same genus. This would be a very high price to pay for the sake of bringing
into use the name elegans Forster, 1794, which has never had any currency,
virtually the only reference to it in the literature being in the account given
in Iredale in 1937.

5. It is for the foregoing reasons that the International Commission is asked
to take the action specified in the first paragraph of the present Commission.
The Commission is asked at the same time (1) to place the trivial name elegans
Gould, 1837 (as published in the binominal combination Malurus elegans) on
the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (2) to place the trivial
name elegans Forster, 1794 (as published in the binominal combination M otacilla
elegans) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS
FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES A PAPER BY FOR-
STER (J. R.) CONTAINING NEW NAMES FOR CERTAIN
AUSTRALIAN BIRDS PUBLISHED IN 1794 IN VOLUME 5
OF THE “ MAGAZIN VON MERKWURDIGEN NEUEN REISE
BESCHREIBUNGEN ”

By ERNST MAYR (The American Museum of Natural History, New York),
DEAN AMADON (The American Museum of Natural History, New York),
JEAN DELACOUR (The American Mriseum of Natural History, New York),
L. GLAVERT (Natural History Museum, Perth, Western Australia),
ROBERT CUSHMAN MURPHY (The American Museum of Natural History,
New York),

D. L. SERVENTY (Nedlands, Western Australia),

H. M. WHITTELL, O.B.E. (Bridgetown, Western Australia)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)494)

(Communicated on 19th October, 1950, by Colonel R. Meinertzhagen,
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature
of the International Ornithological Congress)

The occasional discovery of long-forgotten scientific names has been
exceedingly unsettling for scientific nomenclature. To correct this evil, the
International Zoological Congress at Monaco adopted in 1913 the so-called
Monaco Resolution which permits the setting aside of the Rule of Priority
whenever its application results clearly in greater confusion than uniformity.
Even though this opportunity to save well-established names has been available
since 1913, ornithologists have only rarely taken advantage of it. The Inter-
national Ornithological Congress at Uppsala, 1950, appointed a committee of
bird taxonomists to collaborate with the International Commission of Zoological
Nomenclature and, in particular, to call attention to names which are In need
of preservation in accordance with the Monaco Resolution.

2. The names of some Australian birds seem to require action under the
‘Monaco Resolution. In 1937 (Emu 37 : 95-99) Tom Iredale called attention to
an overlooked paper by J. R. Forster published in 1794 in German as an
appendix to a description of the new British colonies in Australia (Magazin
von merkwiirdigen neuen Reise Beschreibungen 5:128). This publication
contains fifteen new scientific names which were analysed by Iredale who
found that only four have priority over names now in use. Furthermore,
one of them, namely Alcedo collaris Forster, 1794, is a homonym of Alcedo
collaris Scopoli, 1786 (Deliciae Florae Faunae insubricae 2:90) and was
therefore stillborn at the time of its publication.

Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. Iredale analysed in detail the status of the other three names with the
following results :—

(1) Turdus phaeus Forster, 1794, has seven years’ priority over Turdus
harmonicus Latham, 1801 (Index Orn., Suppl. : xi), the well-known name of
the Grey Shrikethrush called Colluricincla harmonica for over 130 years. To
replace this well-established name at the present time would clearly be most
unfortunate, and we request therefore the International Commission to make
use of its plenary powers to place the name Turdus harmonicus Latham, 1801,
on the list of nomina conservanda and the name Turdus phacus Forster, 1794,
on the list of nomina rejecta.

(2) Action in the second case is even more important. Forster gives the
name Motacilla elegans to the bird now called Malurus cyaneus australis North,
1904. If Forster’s name is accepted this bird would receive the name Malurus
cyaneus elegans Forster. However, Gould proposed the name Malurus elegans
in 1837 for a Western Australian bird for which it has been in use for more
than 100 years. A transfer of the name elegans from the Western Australian
species to the eastern one would cause severe confusion. We request therefore
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make use of
its plenary powers and place Malurus elegans Gould, 1837 (Birds Austr. (1) :
pl. 2) on the list of nomina conservanda and Motacilla elegans Forster, 1794,
on the list of nomina rejecta.

(3). The third name is Muscicapa chlorotis Forster, 1794, for a bird generally
called Muscicapa [=Meliphaga] chrysops (Latham, 1801) (=Sylvia chrysops
Latham, 1801, Index Ornith., Suppl. : liv), but which Iredale states to be
antedated by Muscicapa novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (Index Orn. : 478).

4. Recommendation ; The publication in which Forster proposes these
names is apparently exceedingly rare. It does not appear to be in the library of
the British Museum (Natural History), and these scientific names are not
included in Sherborn’s Index Animalium. The simplest way to deal with this
publication would be to classify all the names published in this volume as
nomina rejecta. The ornithologists whose names appear at the head of this —
application suggest this action to the International Commission.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47

ON THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY THAT
THE PLENARY POWERS SHOULD BE USED TO SUPPRESS
THE TRIVIAL NAME “ NOVAEHOLLANDIAE” LATHAM,
1790 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ MUSCI-
CAPA NOVAEHOLLANDIAE”) IN ORDER TO MAKE
AVAILABLE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ CHRYSOPS ” LATHAM,
1801 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “SYLVIA
CHRYSOPS”) (CLASS AVES)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)494)

1. When I received the application submitted to the International Com-
mission for the use of the plenary powers to suppress three trivial names published
for Australian birds by Forster (J. R.) in 1794, it seemed to me that further
clarification was needed as regards the third of the cases submitted, for it
was not clear that the action recommended would be sufficient to secure the
purpose of the applicants, namely to ensure that the trivial name chrysops
Latham, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Sylvia chrysops)
should be the oldest trivial name available (both objectively and subjectively)
for the bird to which it is currently applied. For the applicants pointed out
that the nominal species Sylvia chrysops Latham, 1801, had been subjectively
identified by Iredale not only with the nominal species Muscicapa chlorotis
Forster, 1794, but also with the older nominal species Muscicapa novaehollandiae
Latham, 1790. The suppression (as proposed) of the trivial name chlorotis
Forster, 1794, would, therefore, not suffice to provide availability for the
trivial name chrysops Latham, 1801.

2. With the approval of Colonel R. Meinertzhagen (through whom this
application had been submitted to the Commission), I accordingly decided.
to raise this question with Dr. Ernst Mayr (American Museum of Natural
History, New York), the first of the signatories to the application submitted
to the International Commission. When my letter reached New York, Dr. |
Mayr had left on a visit to Europe. On receiving my letter, he answered
direct from Europe and at the same time sent my letter back to Dr. Dean
Amadon at the American Museum. A little later Dr. Amadon wrote me a
letter quoting the views expressed on this subject by Dr. D. L. Serventy
(Nedlands, Western Australia) in a letter to Dr. Mayr and at the same time
adding a note of his own views on the question at issue. The views of these
specialists are set out in the following paragraphs.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. View of Dr. Ernst Mayr (letter dated 7th April, 1951): Dr. Mayr wrote :—

What a pity your letter did not reach me before I left New York. .. .
Most authors considered novahollandiae Latham, 1790, up to now as un-
identifiable (a nomen dubium) and there are indeed somé outright con-
tradictions in the description, if the name really applies to chrysops. However
Serventy wrote me recently that the name was based on some paintings
and that these paintings represent chrysops undoubtedly. You are therefore
entirely correct that it would be wiser to outlaw also the name novae-
hollandiae. This is indeed what Serventy proposed to me by letter. You
have my full authority to act along the line of your suggestion.

4. View of Dr. D. L. Serventy, expressed in a letter to Dr. Ernst Mayr

(communicated by Dr. Dean Amadon in a letter dated 11th April, 1951): Ina
letter, dated 11th April, 1951, Dr. Dean Amadon quoted the following passage
from a letter previously received by Dr. Ernst Mayr from Dr. D. L. Serventy :—

Your paragraph on the name Muscicapa novaehollandiae is strictly
logical if one can confine oneself to the written word. Unfortunately, the
name is based also on the coloured plate and a textual description in a
work by John White ‘“‘ Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales,” an
extract from which I enclose.

You will see that certain portions of White’s original description are
omitted by Latham. The plate, which is in colour, is not a very good
one but I think it can be accepted to represent the bird we now know as
Meliphaga chrysops. In the plate the bill is shown as being down-curved
and is black at the base and tip. The most striking discrepancy between
the plate and the actual bird is the absence of the black lines at the side
of the head but this may have been due to the fact that the head on the
plate is very dark except for the yellow ear coverts.

My copy of White was bought some years ago from Tom Iredale who
told me that it was one of the original copies owned by Mathews. There
are several annotations in pencil by Mathews in it and the plate of the
Yellow-eared Flycatcher is labelled in Mathews’s hand-writing as M. ornata.
This is the view which Mathews also held in his “ Birds of Australia,”
vol. 2, but in the 1931 list he used novaehollandiae as the prior name for
M. chrysops.

It is quite impossible that the bird figured by White might have been
M. ornata which is an inland bird in New South Wales. The only two
possibilities are M. fusca or M. chrysops, and the bird represented to me
appears to be the latter.

I think that the only thing to do now is to endeavour to place the name
Muscicapa novaehollandiae on the list of nomina rejecta.

5. Comment by Dr. Dean Amadon (letter dated 11th April, 1951): In the

letter containing the foregoing extract from the letter from Dr. Serventy
quoted in the preceding paragraph, Dr. Amadon added the following comment :

You will see from this that Serventy believes that this name Muscicapa

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49

novaehollandiae Latham, 1790, applies to the bird now known as Meliphaga
chrysops and thinks that the name novachollandiae, as well as chlorotis,
should be declared nomina rejecta. It may be emphasised that there is
some doubt still as to whether the name novaehollandiae actually does
refer to the species in question.

6. Conclusion: It is evident from the foregoing statements that, although
there is still room for difference of opinion regarding the identity of the species
represented by the name Muscicapa novaehollandiae Latham, 1790, the likeli-
hood of the species in question being the same as that represented by the
nominal species Sylvia chrysops Latham, 1801, is so great that, so long as
the first of these names remains available nomenclatorially, it will never be
possible to secure the object sought by the applicants, namely that the trivial
name chrysops Latham shall be unquestionably the oldest available trivial
name for the bird now known as Meliphaga chrysops (Latham, 1801).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952) .

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNI-
THOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS FOR THE PROPOSALS
SUBMITTED BY DR. ERNST MAYR AND OTHERS FOR THE
USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS FOR
NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES A PAPER CONTAINING
NEW NAMES FOR CERTAIN AUSTRALIAN BIRDS PUB-
LISHED BY FORSTER IN 1794

Communication received from the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)494)

Letter dated 4th April 1952 from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen,
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature
of the International Ornithological Congress

On 19th October 1950 I forwarded to you, for favour of decision by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, an application which
had been sent to me, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature, by Dr. Ernst Mayr and others, asking the International Com-
mission to use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing, for nomen-
clatorial purposes, a paper containing new names by J. R. Forster for certain
Australian birds published in 1794 in volume 5 of the Magazin von merkwiirdigen
neuen Reise Beschreibungen.

I have now to inform you that the proposals drawn up by Dr. Mayr have
since been examined by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clature, each member of which has signed the attached copy of Dr. Mayr’s
application. In the name of the Standing Committee (Professor Berlioz,
Dr. Stresemann, Dr. Zimmer and myself) I accordingly beg to ask you to
inform the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that the
foregoing application has the full support of the Standing Committee.

In the case of the third of the names dealt with in the foregoing application,
the International Commission is asked to treat the application as one for the
suppression not only of the trivial name chlorotis Forster, 1794 (as published
in the binominal combination Muscicapa chlorotis) but also of the trivial name
novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (as published in the binominal combination
Muscicapa novaehollandiae), since, as explained in the application, the identi-
fication by Iredale of Latham’s novaehollandiae constitutes just as much a
threat to the name (chrysops) commonly applied to this species as does Forster’s
name chlorotis.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51

The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
is asked to take is that it should :-—
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress :—
(a) the trivial name elegans Forster, 1794 (as published in the
combination Motacilla elegans) for the purposes both of the
Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ;
(>) the under-mentioned trivial names for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :—

(i) phaeus Forster, 1794 (as published in the combination
Turdus phaeus);

(ii) chlorotis Forster, 1794 (as published in the combination
Muscicapa chlorotis) ;

(iit) novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (as published in the
combination Muscicapa novaehollandiae) ;
(2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific

Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(2) harmonicus Latham, 1801 (as published in the combination
Turdus harmonicus) ;

(2) elegans Gould, 1837 (as published in the combination Malurus
elegans) ;

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology the four trivial names specified in (1) above, as
there proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers.

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED EMENDATION, UNDER ARTICLE 19, OF THE
TRIVIAL NAMES OF THREE SPECIES OF BIRD WHICH,
WHEN FIRST PUBLISHED, WERE INCORRECTLY SPELT

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)491)

Covering letter dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosure, from

Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on

Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological
Congress

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I beg to forward to you the following recommendation relating to the acceptance
of emendations of the trivial names of three bird species for favour of decision
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Each of the trivial names concerned is the oldest available for the species
concerned, and it is accordingly recommended that these three names, when
emended, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in
Zoology.

ENCLOSURE

Proposed correction of faulty orthography in the case of the
trivial names of three species of bird

Alauda brachydactila Leisler, 1814, Annalen der Wetterautschen Gesellschaft fiir die Gesammte
Naturkunde 3(2) : 357.

Vultur perenopterus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 87.
Tringa ocrophus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 149.

These names, as originally spelled, are faulty Latin, they offend the cultured
mind and are meaningless.

Under Article 19, these names should be regarded as cases of “ fautes
d’orthographe”’ or “fautes d’impression ” and should be emended to read :—

Alauda brachydactyla Leisler. Bpaxts__ short. daxtudos toe.
Vultur percnopterus Linnaeus. “epxvos dusky. TTepov = Wing.
Tringa ochropus Linnaeus.* —®xpos_ pale yellow. ovs foot.

R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Commitiec.

J. BERLIOZ: Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin.

JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

*See also in this connection pp, 75-76.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53

PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
OF THE GENERIC NAME “ PYRRHOCORAX” TUNSTALL,
1771 (CLASS AVES) FOR THE CHOUGH

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)492)

Covering letter, dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosures, from

Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on

Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological
Congress

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I beg to forward to you the following recommendation for favour of decision
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

ENCLOSURE 1

Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the generic
name “ Pyrrhocorax ” Tunstall, 1771

Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771, Orn. Brit. : 2. Type species of genus by monotypy : Upupa pyrrho-
corax Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 188.

Coracia Brisson, 1760, Orn. 2 : 3 (with same type species).
The name Pyrrhocorax has been used for over one hundred years.

Sharpe (1877, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 3: 146) rejects Coracia owing to its
similarity with Coracias Linnaeus. It has since been rejected by many authors
as being a faulty transliteration of Coracias.

The B.0.U. List Committee (1947 Ibis 1947: 354) adopted the name
Coracia Brisson as the correct name of the genus Pyrrhocorax Tunstall. This
change can only lead to confusion.

It is hoped that Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771 (type species: Upupa pyrr-
hocoraz Linnaeus, 1758) be made a nomen conservandum and that Coracia
Brisson be suppressed.

R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee.
E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitit, Berlin.
JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ENCLOSURE 2

Note, dated 25th September, 1950, by Professor J. Berlioz
(Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris)

As concerning Coracia, the question seems to me much more difficult
[than the questions relating to the trivial name of the Song Thrush and the
proposed emendation of certain other trivial names dealt with respectively
in Applications Z.N.(S.)493 and Z.N.(S.)491, submitted by the Standing
Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature]. Of course, I myself hate the
unnecessary changes in nomenclature. But I believe that the use of the name
Coracias for the Rollers was adopted at the time when all Brisson’s names
were rejected. Since the generic names given by Brisson were considered
as valid by a Zoological Congress, it seems that they must antedate Linné’s
names given in 1766. So (most unfortunately, I agree) Coracia would have
priority for the Choughs and Galgulus for the Rollers. Even Coracias cannot
be accepted for the latter, as it is clearly stated by Brisson that the Latin
Coracia is the same as the French “ Coracias,” and Galgulus is perfectly valid
for the Rollers.

ON THE APPLICATION RELATING TO THE GENERIC
NAMES ‘“PYRRHOCORAX” TUNSTALL, 1771, AND
“ CORACIA ” BRISSON, 1760 (CLASS AVES), SUBMITTED
BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNITHOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORNITHO-
LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9 (,*4r°%

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)492)

1. The purpose of the present note is twofold: (1) to clear away certain
misapprehensions which it appears from the second of the two enclosures
submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature appear
to exist regarding the action taken by the International Congress of Zoology
and by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard
to the status of generic names published in Brisson (M.J.), 1760, Ornithologie ;
(2) to indicate the action which under the established procedure would be
necessary in the event of the approval by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of the recommendations in regard to the generic
names Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771, and Coracia Brisson, 1760, submitted to it
by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55

(a) Action taken by the International Congress of Zoology and

by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

in regard to the status of generic names in Brisson, 1760,
“ Ornithologie ”

2. The question of the availability of the generic names published in 1760
in Brisson’s Ornithologie was first brought before the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature by the late Dr, Ernst Hartert. The exact date
of this application is not known but it was presumably a year or more prior
to 1911, the year in which the decision of the International Commission on
this subject was published in Opinion 37. At that time the International
Commission (in common with all other zoologists) was much preoccupied
with the problem whether under the Régles any status attached to generic
names published by authors who applied a so-called “ binary ” system of
nomenclature but who did not apply a binominal system of nomenclature.
Shortly before the publication of Opinion 37 (in regard to Brisson’s names),
the International Commission adopted an Opinion—Opinion 20, published in
July 1910 (Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 48-51)—in regard to the status of generic
names published in 1763, by the “ binary ” but not binominal author Gronovius
in his work entitled the Zoophylacium Gronovianum. In this Opinion the
International Commission ruled in favour of the availability under the Régles
of generic names published by “ binary ” but not binominal authors. Accord-
ingly, when shortly afterwards, the International Commission come to consider
Dr. Hartert’s application relating to the status of generic names published
in 1760 by the “ binary ” but admittedly not binominal author M. J. Brisson,
it ruled that those names were available under the Regles. This ruling, embodied
(as already noted) in Opinion 37 (1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 87-88), was pub-
lished exactly one year after Opinion 20, the Opinion on which, as the Opinion
dealing with the question of principle involved, the validity of the ruling
in Opinion 37 depended.

3. It is not necessary here to recapitulate in detail the long drawn-out
controversy which followed the ruling (given in Opinion 20) in favour of the
availability of generic names published after 1757 by authors who applied a
so-called “ binary ” but not binominal system of nomenclature. It is sufficient
to recall that, in the light of the proceedings at the Eleventh International
Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930, the Twelfth Congress at Lisbon in
1935 invited the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
prepare a comprehensive Report on the issues involved for consideration by
the Thirteenth Congress and that the Report, so prepared by the International
Commission, secured unanimous approval when it was submitted to the
Thirteenth Congress at its meeting in Paris in July, 1948. It is in the light
of that Report (for the text of which see, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 152-167)
and of the decisions thereon taken by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature and by the International Congress of Zoology that
the present status of Brisson’s generic names must be judged.

4. As will be seen from the Report referred to above, the International
Commission (1) reported that the apparently ambiguous phrase “‘ nomenclature
binaire”’ as used in the substantive French text of the Regles was (for the
reasons there explained) identical in meaning with the expression “ nomen-

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

clature binominale’”’ and recommended that the latter expression, being
absolutely clear in meaning, should be substituted for the expression ‘“‘ nomen-
clature binaire,”’ (2) cancelled those of its earlier Opinions (including Opinion
37, relating to the status of the generic names published by Brisson in 1760
in Ornithologia), which were dependent upon Opinion 20 and were therefore
now seen to be incorrect, but (3) recognising that many of Brisson’s generic
names were in general use by ornithologists and being anxious to avoid any
action which would lead to unnecessary name-changing, recommended the
Congress to make an exception in favour of Brisson’s generic names and to
accord to them availability under the Reégles, notwithstanding the fact that
Brisson had not (as required by the amended text of Proviso (a) to Article 25)
in the Ornithologia applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. Readers
who are interested in the detailed terms of the decision taken by the Inter-
national Commission in this matter are referred to the Official Record of
Proceedings of the International Commission at the Fourth of its Meetings
held during its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63-66).

5. We see therefore that it was solely for the purpose of promoting stability
in ornithological nomenclature and of avoiding unnecessary name-changing
that in 1948 the International Commission took the special action described
above to provide a legal basis of availability for the generic names published -
in Brisson’s Ornithologie of 1760. Neither in this, nor in any other, case,
where the International Commission gives a general ruling on the availability
of a given book for the purposes of the Régles, does the Commission thereby
commit itself on the question whether each and every name published in it
is free from all objection from the standpoint of stability in zoological nomen-
clature. For clearly decisions on such questions can only be taken on the
basis of detailed information submitted in each individual case concerned.
Thus, a decision by the International Commission on the general status of a
given book for nomenclatorial purposes in no way fetters the liberty of action
of the International Commission in dealing with applications for the use of
the plenary powers in relation to individual names first published in the book
in question or prejudices the action which at a later date the Commission,
on being presented with a statement of the facts, may think it desirable to
take for the purpose of furthering stability in nomenclature and preventing
confusion. -

6. It will be seen therefore that the International Commission is perfectly _
free to take a decision such as that asked for by the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature in relation to the name Coracia Brisson, 1760,
if it considers such action desirable. It may be added indeed that, at the
time when the Commission recommended the Congress to enter Brisson’s
Ornithologia in the Schedule of available zoological works then agreed to be
added to the Regles, it was aware that applications for the suppression of
certain of the generic names published in the Ornithologie might later be
received, for already the late Dr. James L. Peters (then Vice-President, later
President, of the International Commission) had notified the Secretary that
it might be necessary for the Commission to consider such action in individual
cases.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature | 57

(b) Need for the decision on the application received from the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature in regard
to the names “ Pyrrhocorax” Tunstall, 1771, and “ Coracia”
Brisson, 1760, to cover all aspects of the problem involved

7. Two decisions taken in Paris in 1948 on questions of procedure affect
the form and scope of the decision to be taken by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature on the application received from the Standing
Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature in regard to the names Pyrrhocorax
Tunstall, 1771, and Coracia Brisson, 1760. The first of these decisions, a
decision taken by the International Commission itself, is that, contrary to
the practice adopted in the case of certain of its earlier Opinions, the decision
to be taken in any given case is in future to cover all the points involved in
the problem in question and not be confined to certain aspects of that problem
of special interest to the applicant from whom the case had been received
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 355). The second of the decisions referred
to above was that by which the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology
laid upon the International Commission the duty of placing upon the Official
Inst of Generic Names in Zoology (or, as the case may be, the corresponding
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names) the name of any genus,
on which a ruling is given by the Commission, and upon the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology (or, as the case may be, the corresponding
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names) any trivial name
in respect of which a decision may be given by the Commission (including
the trivial names of the type species of genera, the names of which are placed
on the Official List of Generic Names, except where any such trivial name is
not the oldest available such name for the species in question) (see 1950, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267-271, 334).

8. Under the decisions referred to above, the decision to be taken on the
present application will need to deal with the following matters :—

(1) Since the application involves the question of the status of the name
Coracias Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 107) as the generic
name for the Rollers in relation to the name of the objectively identical
nominal genus Galgulus Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie : 1 : 30; 2 : 64) (see
Enclosure 2 to application submitted), it will be necessary for this
subject to be dealt with in the Opinion rendered on this application.
Since Galgulus Brisson, 1760, is an objective junior synonym of
Coracias Linnaeus, 1758 (type species, by subsequent selection by
Sélby, [1825], ZU. brit. Orn. 1 (Landbirds) : xxvii): Coracias garrulus
Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 107), no difficulty of any kind
arises, all that is necessary being (a) that the generic name Coracias
Linnaeus, 1758 (type species as above) should be placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (b) that the name Galgulus
Brisson, 1760, should be placed on the corresponding Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names, and (c) that the trivial name
garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination
Coracias garrulus) should be placed on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) If the International Commission decides to grant the principal part
of the request addressed to it and therefore to suppress the name
- Coracia Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 1:30; 2:3) under its plenary
powers, thereby validating the name Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771 (Orn.
Brit. : 2) (type species, by monotypy: Upupa pyrrhocorax Linnaeus,
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 118), the first of these names will need to be
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names,
the second, on the Official List of Generic Names. If, however, the
Commission were to reject the present application, the name Pyrr-
hocorax Tunstall, 1771, would need to be placed on the Official Index
and Coracia Brisson, 1760, on the Official List. In either case, the
trivial name pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Upupa pyrrhocoraz) will need to be placed on the Official
List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

(3) Next, it must be noted that in (for example) Neave’s Nomenclator
zoologicus there is noted a generic name Pyrrhocorax Moehring, 1758
(Geslach. Vogel. (Nozem. & Vosm. ed.): 1, 15), which, if an available
name, would invalidate the name Pyrrhocoraz Tunstall, 1771, which
would then become a junior homonym. Fortunately, however, in
this case also, no difficulty arises, since at its Session held in Paris
in 1948 the Commission gave a ruling (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
4: 566-568) that the Geslachten der Vogelen (the translation into
Dutch of the pre-1758 work published by Moehring in 1752 under
the title Aviwm Genera) is not available under the Régles, Nozeman
and Vosmaer not having (as required by Opinion 5) reinforced the
names in this book by adoption or acceptance. Accordingly, all
that will be necessary in this connection will be that the invalid name
Pyrrhocoraz Moehring, 1758, should be placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names.

(4) It must be noted also that, in addition to the name Pyrrhocorax
Nozeman: & Vosmaer, 1758, discussed above, there is also a name
Pyrrhocoraz Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 2: 30-31), of which due
account must be taken. In considering this name two points must
be noted: (a) that within any given assemblage of species treated
by him as constituting a “ genus,” Brisson did not regard himself
as in any way bound to cite all the included species under the name
of the genus so accepted and indeed very frequently cited the included
species under two or more generic (or subgeneric) names, (b) where a
species had by previous (pre-1758) authors been known by a univerbal
specific name and where Brisson adopted for the genus (or the sub-
genus) concerned the same word as that by which the species in
question had previously been known, Brisson, though a “ binary ”
(but not binominal) author, himself cited the species under a scientific
name consisting of the single word which thus denoted both the
group (? subgenus) to which Brisson considered the species to belong
and also the species itself. In the case with which we are here
concerned, namely Brisson’s “Genus XIV,” the genus Corvus,
Brisson included ten species but of these he cited only one under the

ge ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59

name “Corvus” (here used to denote tautonymy in the manner
explained above), the other nine species being cited under the names
Cornix (4 species), Pyrrhocorax (1 species), Monedula (4 species).
The species to which Brisson applied the generic (or subgeneric)
name Pyrrhocorax is, according to the synonymy given by Brisson,
the “ Pyrrhocorax” of Gesner and of Aldrovandus. This species,
called by Brisson in French “ Le Choucas des Alpes,”” was stated by
him to be somewhat larger than the “Choucas ordinaire ” (the
jackdaw) and was figured by him as fig. 2 on plate 1 of volume 2
of the Ornithologie. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, who, at my
request, has kindly examined Brisson’s description and figure, has
informed me (in litt., 13th September 1952) that this bird of Brisson’s
is the Alpine Chough. If no action were now taken in connection
with the name Pyrrhocorax Brisson, the suppression (as proposed
by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature) of
the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, would not (as is the purpose of
the proposed suppression of this name) validate Pyrrhocorax Tunstall,
1771, for the Chough, for that name, though no longer a junior
objective synonym of Coracia Brisson, would still be an invalid
name, as it would remain a junior homonym of Pyrrhocorax Brisson,
1760. Accordingly, in order to secure the object sought by the
Standing Committee, it would be necessary for the Commission to
use its plenary powers not only to suppress Coracia Brisson, 1760,
but also to suppress the name Pyrrhocorax Brisson.

(5) The rule that junior homonyms or junior objective synonyms, when
encountered, should be placed on the appropriate Official Index will
mean that the following names should now be placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names ; (1) Coracias Herr-
mannsen, 1847, Ind. Gen. Malac. 1 : 303; (2) Galgulus Latreille,
[1802-1803], (in Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins.
3: 252; (3) Galgulus Wagler, 1827, Syst. Avium 1 :sign. 21 (15);
(4) Galgulus Kittlitz, 1832, Kupjfertaf. Nat. Végel (1):7; (5) Pyrr-
hocorax Vieillot, 1816, Analyse : 36.

(6) Finally, it must be recalled that the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology inserted in the provisions relating to the use by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the plenary
powers conferred upon it (now to be incorporated into the Régles)
an instruction that, where those powers were used to suppress a
name for the purpose of validating a name of later date, the sup-
pression so made should be limited to the status of the name in
question in relation to the Law of Priority and should not affect its
status in relation to the Law of Homonymy (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4: 339). Under this decision (the purpose of which was
to prevent the suppression of a name for the foregoing limited purpose
from having the unintended effect of validating some homonym of
later date that had previously been rejected or of making it possible
to publish for some other taxonomic unit, as a valid name, a name
consisting of the same word as that of the name suppressed), the

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

suppression of the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, if decided upon by
the International Commission, will necessarily be confined to its
status in relation to the Law of Priority, its position in relation to
the Law of Homonymy remaining unaffected. Thus, the name
Coracia Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (11) : 168) will remain
an invalid junior homonym of Coracia Brisson, 1760, and should
accordingly be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names, together with the later (inadvertently published)
name Coracia Moerch, 1865 (J. Conchyliol. 13 : 385).

8. Having now examined the various subsidiary matters on which action will,
under the rules of procedure, be required as part of the decision to be taken
on the application regarding the names Pyrrhocorax and Coracia submitted
by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International
Ornithological Congress, I summarise as. follows, in agreement with Colonel
Meinertzhagen, the form and scope of the decision required in the event of
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature deciding to approve
the application so submitted. In that event, it would be necessary for the
International Commission :—

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress :—

(a) the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(b) the name Pyrrhocorax Brisson, 1760, for the purposes of both
the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—
(a) Coracias Linnaeus, 1758 {type species, by selection by Sélby,
[1825]: Coracias garrulus Linnaeus, 1758) ;
(b) Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771 (type species, by monotypy : Upupa
pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(a) garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Coracias garrulus) (trivial name of type species of
Coracias Linnaeus, 1758)

(b) pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Upupa pyrrhocorax) (trivial name of type species
of Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Coracia Brisson, 1760 (as proposed, under (1) (a) above,-to be

suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the

Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61

(b) Coracia Hiibner, [1819] (a junior homonym of Coracia Brisson,
1760)

(d) Coracias Herrmannsen, 1847 (a junior homonym of Coracias
Linnaeus 1758)

(e) Galgulus Brisson, 1760 (a junior objective synonym of Coracias
Linnaeus, 1758)

(f) Galgulus Latreille, [1802-1803] (a junior homonym of Galgulus
Brisson, 1760)

(9g) Galgulus Wagler, 1827 (a junior homonym of Galgulus Brisson,
1760

(h) Galgulus Kitthtz, 1832 (a junior homonym of Galgulus Brisson,
1760)

(«) Pyrrhocorax Nozeman & Vosmaer, (in Moehring), 1758 (a name
published in a book declared by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to possess no status in zoological
nomenclature)

(7) Pyrrhocoraz Brisson, 1760 (as proposed, under (1) (b) above,
to be suppressed under the plenary powers ;

fi (k) Pyrrhocorax Vieillot, 1816 (a junior homonym of Pyrrhocorax

: Tunstall, 1771).

z 9. Having thus summarised the action required in the event of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature deciding to grant the
application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clature, it is necessary to consider also the action which would be required
if the Commission were to take a decision in the opposite sense. This may be
summarised as follows by reference to the four main Points enumerated in
the immediately preceding paragraph :—

(i) Point (1) in paragraph 8 would need to be replaced by a new sentence
placing on record the refusal of the International Commission to 1760.
use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Coracia Brisson,

(u) Under Point (2) the name Coracia Brisson, 1760, would be placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in place of Pyrrhocorax
Tunstall, 1771. The name Coracias Linnaeus, 1758, would still need
to be placed on the Official Last, for it is not a homonym of Coracia
Brisson, 1760 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 161-162, where are
set out the criteria adopted by the International Congress of Zoology
for determining whether any given pair of generic names are
homonyms of one another).

(ui) No change would need to be made in Point (3), except that it would
be necessary to amend the note to the entry relating to the trivial
name pyrrhocorax Linnaeus, 1758, by substituting therein the name
Coracia Brisson, 1760, for the name Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, 1771.

(iv) In Point (4) the only changes needed would be the deletion of the
name Coracia Brisson, 1760 (sub-point (a)) and the insertion between
the existing subpoints (h) and (i) of a new point reading: “ Pyrr-
hocoraz Tunstall, 1771 (a junior objective synonym of Coracia
Brisson, 1760).”’

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI-

DATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “PHILOMELOS” BREHM,

1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION

“TURDUS PHILOMELOS”) AS THE TRIVIAL NAME OF
. THE SONG THRUSH

Application submitted by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)493)

Covering letter dated 19th October, 1950, with enclosure, from

Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee on

Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological
Congress

ENCLOSURE
“ Turdus philomelos ” versus “ Turdus ericetorum ”

Turdus philomelos Brehm, 1831 (Handb. Naturg. Vog. Deutschl. : 322)
(“ Germany ”’) is the name which has been used for about forty-five years
for the Song Thrush.

Turdus ericetorum Turton, 1807 (Brit. Faun. 1: 35) (“ England ’’), founded
on plate 63 of Lewin’s British Birds (2:68) published in 1796, was adopted
without explanation in 1934 (bis 76 : 635) for the Song Thrush by the Nomen-
clature Committee of the British Ornithologists’ Union, as it antedates T'urdus
philomelos Brehm, 1831.

In 1924 (Ibis 66 : 158) the British Committee had rejected Turton’s name,
as Lewin’s figure is not definitely assignable to the Song Thrush and possibly
represents an American Thrush. This doubt still remains, especially as Lewin
states that his bird is perfectly distinguishable from the Song Thrush, with
which he was well acquainted. Lewin also states that his bird “ has a short
black mark passing through the eye,’ which is not a character of the Song
Thrush.

It is therefore hoped that Turdus ericetorum Turton be rejected, in favour
of an old-established name Turdus philomelos Brehm, as indeterminable.

R. MEINERTZHAGEN : Chairman of the Standing Committee.

J. BERLIOZ: Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

E. STRESEMANN : Zoologisches Museum der Universitét, Berlin.

JOHN T. ZIMMER: The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Sad

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63

ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO
SECURE THAT THE TRIVIAL NAME “PHILOMELOS ”
BREHM, 1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COM-
BINATION “ TURDUS PHILOMELOS ”) SHALL BE OLDEST
AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE SONG THRUSH

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 493)

1. The application submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress is concerned to
secure that the trivial name philomelos Brehm, 1831 (as published in the
binominal combination T'urdus philomelos) shall become the undisputed oldest
available trivial name for the Song Thrush. For this purpose it will be necessary
to remove the competition of the older trivial name ericetorum Turton, 1807
(as published in the binominal combination Turdus ericetorum), a name which
by some specialists has been identified as a senior subjective synonym of the
trivial name philomelos Brehm, but by others is regarded as a nomen dubium.

2. Prior to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held in Paris
in 1948, the provisions in the Régles relating to the method to be followed
in determining the identity of the taxonomic species with which any given
nominal species should be identified. were of the most primitive and inadequate
kind, consisting only of Article 31 which laid down the following rule: ‘“ La
subdivision d’une espéce en deux ou plusieurs autres est soumise aux mémes
régles que la subsdivision d’un genre.” Thus, by the objectionable device of
legislation by reference the Rules in Article 30, relating to the determination
of the type species of a given nominal genus were applied (so far as applicable)
to the determination of the type specimen of a nominal species. But the
question of the trivial name to be applied to a given taxonomic species may
sometimes depend (as in the case now submitted by the Standing Committee
on Ornithological Nomenclature) upon an entirely different question, namely
the procedure to be followed when there is a trivial name which all are agreed
is applicable to the species in question but there is also an older trivial name
which by some authors is regarded as being applicable to that species but
by others as referring to some other known species or as being indeterminable.
On this subject Article 31 was entirely silent.

3. During the revision of the Regles in Paris in 1948 particular attention
was given to the need for substituting a clear and comprehensive set of rules
in place of the totally inadequate provisions of the existing Article 31. This
subject was discussed at length at the Fourth Public Meeting held by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature during its Paris Session,
when detailed proposals (subsequently approved by the Congress) were drawn
up for an Article to replace the previous Article 31 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
4: 73-76). These new rules deal specifically with both aspects of the question
involved : first the new rules, provide expressly for the procedure to be followed
in determining the lectotype of any given nominal species (or, in default of
an actual lectotype, the single figure, illustration or previously published

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

description cited in the original description of the nominal species concerned,
to represent the lectotype of that species) ; second, the new rules lay it down
that “where some but not all specialists claim to be able to recognise the
taxonomic species represented by the nominal species in question or where
there is disagreement among specialists as to the taxonomic species so to be
recognised, the question at issue is to be referred to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision.”

4. The present application falls to be dealt with under the provision quoted
above. Under that provision, it is possible for the International Commission,
according to the circumstances of the case, to put a stop to confusion, either
(1) by prescribing the taxonomic species to which the disputed trivial name
is to be held to be applicable, or (2) by using its plenary powers to suppress
the trivial name in question. The second of these courses is that which the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature has asked the Inter-
national Commission to adopt in the present instance. Accordingly, if the
Commission approve the application submitted to it, it will be necessary for
the Commission :—

(1) to declare the specific name Turdus ericetorwm Turton, 1807, to be a
nomen dubium, and to use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial
name ericetorum Turton, 1807 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Turdus ericetorum) for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the trivial name philomelos Brehm, 1831 (as published in
the binominal combination Turdus philomelos) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :

(3) to place the trivial name ericetorum Turton, 1807 (as published in
the binominal combination Turdus ericetorum), as proposed, under
(1) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy,
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-

PRESS THREE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED TRIVIAL

NAMES APPLIED BY LINNAEUS TO NORTH AMERICAN

BIRDS IN 1776, TOGETHER WITH AN EQUALLY OVER-

LOOKED GENERIC NAME PUBLISHED ON THE SAME
OCCASION

Application submitted by
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)502)
Covering letter dated 19th October 1950, from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen,
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature.

As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature,
I have received an application signed by nine American ornithologists asking
that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should
permanently suppress three trivial names proposed by Linnaeus for North
American birds, the publication of which in 1776 has been brought to light
through papers by Mr. W. L. McAtee published in 1949 and 1950 respectively,
The three names which form the subject of the foregoing application were
published in a hitherto entirely overlooked list entitled “A Catalogue of the
Birds, Beasts, Fishes, Insects, Plants, etc., contained in Edwards’ Natural
History.”

The application received in regard to these names is submitted herewith
for consideration by the International Commission (Enclosure 1). That
application has been considered by the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature, the statement prepared by which is now submitted as
Enclosure 2.

The three trivial names covered by the present application namely lutea
Linnaeus, 1776 (as published in the combination M uscicapa lutea), pensylvanica
Linnaeus, 1776 (as published in the combination Passer pensylvanica), and
americ. [sic] Linnaeus, 1776 (as published in the combination Vermivora americ.
[sic]) have never been used for the species concerned, apart from the occasion
on which they were first published. The same is true of the generic name
Vermivora Linnaeus, 1776, the name used as the generic name for the third
of the foregoing species. The introduction at this date of the foregoing names
_ Would cause much unnecessary confusion and would serve no useful purpose
whatever. It is for this reason that the International Commission is accordingly
asked (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes, both of the
Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy (a) the generic name Vermivora
Linnaeus, 1776, and (b) the three specific trivial names specified above, (2) to
place the foregoing names on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Names, (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in

Zoology the trivial names currently used for the species concerned, namely :
(i) the name magnolia Wilson, 1811 (as published in the combination Sylvia
magnolia), (ii) the name albicollis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination
Fringilla albicollis), (iii) the name vermivora Gmelin, 1789 (as published in

the combination Motacilla vermivora) ; (4) to place the name Helmitheros
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Rafinesque, 1815 (gender of generic name : neuter) (type species, by monotypy ;
Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789) on the Official Inst of Generre Names in

Zoology.
. ENCLOSURE 1
Application submitted by nine American ornithologists

The International Zoological Congress at Monaco (1913) adopted a special
article appended to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which
gives the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature authority to
suspend the rules if their application would result in greater confusion than
uniformity. This rule is to be applied specifically in cases where long-forgotten
names are unearthed that have priority over well-established names. At the
International Ornithological Congress at Uppsala a committee was established
at the suggestion of the Secretary of the International Commission, Mr.
Francis Hemming, to collaborate with the International Commission with
particular reference to the Monaco Resolution. The undersigned submit
to this committee the following request for a suspension of the rule of priority
in order to preserve three well-known names of North American birds. We
ask the committee to endorse our application and to forward it to the Inter-
national Commission.

2. The work in which the overlooked names occur is a publication by
Linnaeus, consisting of a catalogue of the birds and other animals contained
in Edwards’ Natural History, published in 1776. All the details about this
publication are presented by Mr. James L. Peters, 1950 (Auk. 67 : 375-377).
Eighteen new names are proposed in this publication, but many of them are
actually only misspellings of established names. In only three cases is the
nomenclature of accepted bird names threatened. They are as follows :—

(1) Magnolia Warbler. The species name fragnolia Wilson, 1811 (Sylvia
magnolia Wilson, 1811, Amer. Ornith. 3 : 63) has been applied to this species for
many generations. The name is antedated by Muscicapa lutea Linnaeus,
1776 (: 11) in the recently discovered publication.

(2) White-throated Sparrow. This species has been known for more than
150 years under the name albicollis Gmelin (Fringillo albicollis Gmelin, 1789,
in Linneaus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2): 96). This name is antedated by Passer
pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1776 (: 13).

(3) Worm-eating Warbler. This species has been known under the name
vermivora Gmelin, 1789 (Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat.
(ed. 13) 1(2): 951). for more than 150 years. It is antedated by Vermivora
americ. Linnaeus, 1776 (: 13).

3. So far as known, none of the three Linnaean names has been cited in
the literature between 1776 and 1949 when Mr. McAtee first called attention
to this publication. The names had thus been forgotten for-a period of 173
years. On the other hand, the names which they would replace are the well-
established names of some of our most familiar birds. They have been listed
literally in many thousands of publications.

4, This is clearly a case in which strict adherence to priority would result
in greater confusion than uniformity. The International Commission is there-
fore requested to place the Linnaean names Muscicapa lutea, Passer pensylvanica
and Vermivora americ. on the list of nomina rejecta, and in turn to place the

2 AO epee

3 ey:. ¥

Pee

-S
26.45

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67

names Sylvia magnolia Wilson, 1811, Fringilla albicollis Gmelin, 1789, and
Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 17 89, on the list of nomina conservanda.

5. Failure of speedy action on this re
to the prestige of taxonomy.

KE. R. BLAKE (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Ill.)

H. G. DEIGNAN (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.)

JOHN J. EMLEN, Jr. (Zoological Laboratory, University of Wisconsin)

ALDEN H. MILLER (California)

FRANK A. PITELKA (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California,
Berkeley)

A. L. RAND (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Ill.)

CHARLES H. ROGERS (Princeton, New Jersey)

M. A. TRAYLOR, Jr. (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, II.)

ALBERT WOLFSON (North Western University, Evanston, Il.)

ENCLOSURE 2

Statement prepared by the Standing Committee on Ornithological

a Nomenclature

bi 1. The generic name Vermivora Linnaeus, 1776, Cat. Birds, Beasts, Fishes,
Insects . . . in Edwards’ Natural History : 13.
It is recommended that the above name should be made a nomen rejectum
and that the following name by which the genus concerned is now known
should be made a nomen conservandum 3—Helmitheros Rafinesque, 1819,
J. Physique 88 : 418 (type species, by monotypy: Motacilla vermivora
Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2)951).

2. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Muscicapa lutea Linnaeus,
1776, ibid. : 11.
It is recommended that the above name be made a nomen rejectum and
that the trivial name comprised in the name currently accepted for this
species, namely Sylvia magnolia Wilson, 1811, Amer. Ornith. 3: 63, be
made a nomen conservandum.

3. The trivial name comprised in the specific name Passer pensylvanica
Linnaeus, 1776, ibid.: 13.
It is recommended that the above name be made a nomen rejectum and
that the trivial name comprised in the specific name currently accepted
for this species, namely Fringilla albicollis Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus,

Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 96 (“ Pennsylvania”), be made a nomen
conservandum.

4. The trivial name comprised in the
Linnaeus, 1776, ibid. : 13.
£ It is recommended that the above

quest would result in grave damage

A ape TY

on &, Viner «One ie

a a ee a ee

Sh oo a

on
y=
oe

Oi ak) a,

specific name Vermivora americ. [sic]

name be made a nomen rejectum and
that the trivial name comprised in the specific name currently accepted

4 for this species, namely Motacilla vermivora Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus,
: Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2): 951 (“ Pennsylvania”), be made a nomen
‘y conservandum.

R. MEINERTZHAGEN, Chairman of the Standing Committee.
K. STRESEMANN, Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin.

JOHN T. ZIMMER, The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE PROPOSAL BY THE NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK, FOR THE
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY pels a OF THE LINNEAN
NAMES PUBLISHED IN 1776 IN THE “CATALOGUE OF EDWARDS’
NATURAL HISTORY” WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE NEW
NAMES FOR BIRDS
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)502 and 649)

When the International Commission comes to consider the application submitted
by the Nomenclature Committee of the American Museum of Natural History,
New York, that the plenary powers should be used to suppress all the new names
by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 6 : 163), it will be necessary to consider two questions which would
call for decision if it were proposed to take action in the sense recommended.

2. The points to be considered are :—

(1) If this work were to be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes, should
that suppression be absolute (i.e. should that suppression apply for the
purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) |
or should it be limited, either for all names in the book or for some of
them, to the Law of Priority ?

(2) If the whole work were to be suppressed for either or both of the foregoing
purposes, what steps ought to be taken to give effect in this case to the
general direction of the International Congress of Zoology that adequate
measures should be taken to ensure that the decision so taken is clearly
related to the individual names involved (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:
334).

8. On Point (1) the position is, so far as I know, that in one group only has a
detailed survey been made of the new names in this Catalogue. The group concerned
is the birds, as regards which Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) has published (1950, Auk 67: 375-377) a complete
list of the names involved. In view of the fact that the names concerned have
thus acquired considerable prominence, I suggest that, if the Commission were
to use its plenary powers to suppress this work, the logical course, as regards the
bird names, would be to suppress them for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. The effect of such a decision would
be to prevent these names or any of them from taking priority over names in current
use but at the same time, by maintaining the status of these names for purposes
of homonymy, to prevent the confusion which might arise if the same trivial names
were later to be applied to other species in the genera concerned. In the case
of the groups, other than birds, no publicity in modern times has, so far as I am
aware, been given to the names in question ; it would seem appropriate, therefore,
that, if the names in this Catalogue are to be rejected, the names of taxonomic
units belonging to groups other than birds should be suppressed absolutely, that
is, both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and also for those of the Law of
Homonymy.

4. On Point (2), it would be necessary, if the Catalogue were to be suppressed,
to ask specialists in the various groups concerned to examine that work and to
report which names in it were new and would therefore be affected by the general
decision taken. The names so reported would then be placed on the Official Indexes
of Rejected and Invalid Names. In the case of the bird names in the Catalogue
the required information is already available through the paper by Dr. Peters
referred to in paragraph 3 above, where it is shown that in the Catalogue there
are one generic name and eighteen trivial names which are either new or have been
so changed in spelling as, in Dr. Peters’ opinion, to rank as new names. Particulars
regarding these names have been extracted from Dr. Peters’ paper and are given
in the annexes attached hereto.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69

ANNEXE 1

One new generic name for a bird by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the
“ Catalogue of Edwards’ Natural History ”

Vermivora Linnaeus, 1776 (: 13); a name based upon plate 305. This name
antedates the name Vermivora Swainson, 1827.

ANNEXE 2

New trivial names for birds by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the “ Catalogue of
Edwards’ Natural History ”

: Plate in
‘ rte ii » | Edwards’ Modern equivalent
New Name where name | ° Nat. Hist.” (as worked out by
given on which Dr. James L. Peters)
name based
americ, Vermivora 13 305 Motacilla vermivora
Gmelin, 1789
araracina, Psittacus 9 159 Psittacus ararauna
Linnaeus, 1758
bicator, Coracias 13 320 considered to be
unidentifiable
calidris, Motacitta 8 121 species figured not
[sic] recognisable
cinereus, Todos [sic] 12 262 Todus cinereus
Linnaeus, 1766
dominica, Loxia 8 127 Loxia dominicana
: Linnaeus, 1758
falcolinus, Tetrao sh 246 Tetrao francolinus
Linnaeus, 1766
globifera, Crax 13 295 Crax globicera
Linnaeus, 1766
hybrida, Meleagris 14 337 Lyrurus tetrix x
Phasianus colchicus
lutea, Muscicapa ll 255 Sylvia magnolia
Wilson, 1811
nyctelea, Strix 6 61 Strix nyctea Linnaeus,
1758 (Strix
scandiaca Linnaeus,
pensylvanica [sic], 1758)
Passer 13 304 Fringilla albicollis
Gmelin, 1789
senegallensis, Picus 9 182 Picus benghalenis
Linnaeus, 1758
spectrum, Psittacus 13 315 Psittacus fuscus
Miiller (P.L.S.),
- 1776
spectrum, Psittacus 13 316 Psittacus aterrimus
Gmelin, 1788
umbellatus, Tetrao 11 248 Tetrao umbellus
Linnaeus, 1766
voarula, Motacilla 12 259 Motacilla boarula
Linnaeus, 1771
zeylonicus, Turdus 13 321 Turdua zeylonus

Linnaeus, 1766

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

FIRST REPORT ON THE SPECIES WHICH UNDER THE

“REGLES” ARE THE TYPE SPECIES OF CERTAIN

GENERA OF BIRDS DISCUSSED, BUT LEFT UNSETTLED,
IN “OPINION ” 16

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)274

During its Session of Meetings held in Paris in 1948, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided, in accordance with its
earlier decision that names ought not to be discussed in its Opinions without
decisions being given in regard to the questions at issue (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 355), that steps should be taken as soon as possible to determine,
and to render Opinions regarding, the species to be accepted as the type species
of a long list of nominal genera enumerated in Opinion 16 (1910, Smithson.
Publ. 1938 : 31-39) as possibly having had their type species determined under
Linnean tautonymy (i.e. by the citation of a tautonymous pre-1758 univerbal
specific name for one, but not more than one, of the included nominal species),
on which however no decision was given in that Opinion. The Commission
decided (1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 580-583) to invite the Secretary to make
inquiries in regard to each of the generic names concerned for ‘the purpose of
ascertaining the views currently held by specialists on the question whether, as
regards each of the genera so named, the generic name was available nomen-
clatorially, the genus was a taxonomically valid genus, and the species accepted
as its type species was the species which, as shown in the second paragraph of
Opinion 16 (1947, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 259-261), would be the type species
if Rule (d) in Article 30, as interpreted by Opinion 16, were in fact applicable to
the name of the genus in question. The Commission agreed further that,
where (1) the foregoing inquiry showed that the type species of any one of the
nominal genera discussed in Opinion 16 was the species there provisionally
indicated as such, (2) that the nominal genus in question was currently treated
by specialists as being taxonomically valid and as having, as its type species,
the species referred to above, the name of that genus should forthwith be
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and that in any case
where any of the foregoing conditions were not satisfied, the status of the name
concerned should be determined separately as soon as possible after the receipt
of the Secretary’s Report.

2. The present Report is concerned with the names of the. twenty-two
nominal genera of birds covered by the foregoing decision. In each case I have
investigated the position, as disclosed by the current literature, and, in doing
so, I have conferred with a number of interested specialists. In order to secure
the widest possible publicity for this investigation, I have in addition published
a note on the issues to be determined, at the same time appealing to specialists
for comments and assistance in regard to the names in question (1952, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 7 : 201-202).

;
j
i
i
f

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71

3. As a first step in the present investigation I examined the manner in
which each of the nominal genera concerned was treated by Linnaeus in the
Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae, for the purpose of determining whether
there was a prima facie case for considering that the type species of the genus
concerned had there been “ indicated ” by Linnean tautonymy as defined in
Opinion 16, as further clarified in 1948 by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology on the recommendation of the International Commission (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 155). This investigation showed :—

(1) that there were prima facie grounds for considering that the type
species of the following eighteen nominal genera had been indicated
in 1758 by Linnean tautonymy :—Caprimulgus ; Certhia ; Corvus ;
Cuculus ; Fringilla; Fulica ; © Lowia ; Meleagris ; Merops ;
Motacilla ; Pavo ; Pelecanus ; Phasianus ; Scolopax ; Sterna ;
Strix ; Tringa ; Upupa :

(2) that in the following cases it was a matter for consideration whether
a single cautonymous univerbal specific name had been clearly
cited in the synonymy of any of the included species: Otis ;
Tetrao ; Vultur :

(3) that in the case of the genus Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758, the tautony-
mous univerbal pre-1758 specific name “Charadrius” had been
cited in the synonymy of more than one of the included species
(being so cited both for Charadrius hiaticula and for Charadrius
oedicnemus) and therefore that the type species of the genus
Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758, was not “ indicated” by Linnean
tautonymy.

4. The names cited in paragraph 3(2) and (3) above (i.e. Otis Linnaeus,
1758 ; Tetrao Linnaeus, 1758; Vultur Linnaeus, 1758; Charadrius Linnaeus,
1758) are not dealt with in the present Report, being reserved for later con-
sideration in the light of comments and advice received from specialists.

5. The second step in the inquiry remitted to me was to ascertain whether
in each of the eighteen cases specified in paragraph 3(1) above the nominal
species which there were prima facie grounds for considering as having been
“indicated ” by Linnaeus in 1758 by Linnean tautonymy as the type species
of the genus concerned was currently accepted by specialists as being the type
species of the genus in question. This investigation showed that in every case
except that of Strix Linnaeus, 1758, the nominal species indicated as the type
species by Linnean tautonymy was currently accepted as such. The case of
Strix Linnaeus is accordingly reserved, like that of the names referred to in
paragraph 4 above, for further consideration in the light of comments and
advice from specialists. In the remaining seventeen cases the generic name
concerned is currently accepted by specialists as the name of a taxonomically
valid genus. Further, the trivial name of the type species of each of these
nominal genera is an available name and is currently accepted by specialists
as the name of a taxonomically valid species.

6. Having now completed the first stage of the investigation remitted to

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

me, I submit the following conclusions for consideration :—

(1) The seventeen generic names enumerated in Appendix 1 to the
present Report are nomenclatorially available and are currently
accepted by specialists as the names of taxonomically valid genera,
and the species currently accepted as the type species of each of
the nominal genera concerned is the nominal species indicated as
such by Linnaeus in 1758 by Linnean tautonymy. Accordingly
under the decision taken in 1948 by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool: Nomencl. 4 : 583,
Point (3)(a)), these names are due now to be placed upon the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(2) The seventeen specific trivial names enumerated in Appendix 2 to
the present Report, being respectively the trivial names of the
type species of the nominal genera referred to in (1) above, should,
under the regulations governing the admission of names to the
Official Lists (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4; 270), be placed on the
Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology at the same time
that, under (1) above, the names of the nominal genera, of which
the species bearing these trivial names are the respective type
species, are placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :

(3) The five remaining generic names remitted to me for investigation
(Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758 ; Otis Linnaeus, 1758 ; Striz Linnaeus,
1758; Tetrao Linnaeus, 1758; Vultur Linnaeus, 1758) will be
dealt with in later Reports on the conclusion of consultations with
interested specialists.

FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.
28 Park Village East,
Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

17th Auqust 1952.

by Dae A ae Sedan

MS tie EBA ite

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73
APPENDIX 1

Seventeen generic names in the Class Aves discussed but not
settled in “ Opinion” 16, now proposed to be added to the
“ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”

Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 193 (gender of generic
name: masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Caprimulgus
europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1: 193).

Certhia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 118 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Certhia familiaris
Linneaus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 118).

Corvus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 105 (gender of generic name :
masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Corvus corax Linnaeus,
1758, bid. 1 : 105).

Cuculus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 110 (gender of generic name :
maculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Cuculus canorus Linnaeus,
1758, ibid. 1: 110).

Fringilla Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 179 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus,
1758, ibid. 1 : 179).

Fulica Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 152 (gender of generic name:
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Fulica atra Linnaeus,
1758, aid. 1 : 152).

Loxia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 171 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Lozia curvirostra Linnaeus,
1758, abd. 1 : 171).

Meleagris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Meleagris gallopavo
Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 156).

Merops Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 117 (gender of generic name :
masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Merops apiaster Linnaeus,
1758, abid. 1 : 117).

Motacilla Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 184 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species by Linnean tautonymy: Motacilla alba Linnaeus,
1758, ibid. 1 : 185).

Pavo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (gender of generic name :
masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Pavo cristatus Linnaeus,
1758, ibid. 1 : 156).

Pelecanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 132 (gender of generic name :
masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Pelecanus onocrotalus
Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 132).

Phasianus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 158 (gender of generic name :

masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Phasianus colchicus
Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1 : 158).

74 Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature

Scolopax Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 145 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Scolopax rusticola Linnaeus,
1758, ibid. 1 : 146).

Sterna Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 187 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Sterna hirundo Linnaeus,
1758, ibid. 1 : 137).

Tringa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 148 (gender of generic name :

feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Tringa ochropus (emend.
of ocrophus) Linnaeus, 1758, ibid. 1: 149)*.

Upupa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 117 (gender of generic name :
feminine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy : Upupa epops Linnaeus,
1758, ibid. 1 : 117).

APPENDIX 2

Seventeen specific trivial names, being the trivial names of the

type species of the nominal genera enumerated in Appendix A,

now proposed to be added to the “ Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology ”

alba Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 185 (as published in the combination
Motacilla alba) (trivial name of type species of Motacilla Linnaeus, 1758).

apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 117 (as published in the combina-
tion Merops apiaster) (trivial name of type species of Merops Linnaeus,
1758).

atra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 152 (as published in the combination
Fulica atra) (trivial name of type species of Fulica Linnaeus, 1758).

canorus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 110 (as published in the combina-
tion Cuculus canorus) (trivial name of type species of Cuculus Linnaeus,

1758).

coelebs Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 179 (as published in the
combination Fringilla coelebs) (trivial name of type species of Fringilla
Linnaeus, 1758).

colchicus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 158 (as published in the
combination Phasianus colchicus) (trivial name of type species of Phasianus
Linnaeus, 1758). .

corax Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 105 (as published in the combina-

tion Corvus coraz) (trivial name of type species of Corvus Linnaeus, 1758).

*For the reason why it is here suggested that the emended form of the trivial name
of the type species of this genus should be accepted, see Note to Appendix 2.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75

cristatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (as published in the
combination Pavo cristatus) (trivial name of type species of Pavo Linnaeus,
1758).

curvirostra Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 171 (as published in the
combination Loxia curvirostra) (trivial name of type species of Loma
Linnaeus, 1758). —

epops Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 117 (as published in the combina-
tion Upupa epops) (trivial name of type species of Upwpa Linnaeus, 1758).

europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1:193 (as published in the
combination Caprimulgus europaeus) (trivial name of type species of
Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758).

familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 118 (as published in the
combination Certhia familiaris) (trivial name of type species of Certhia
Linnaeus, 1758).

gallopavo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156 (as published in the
combination Meleagris gallopavo) (trivial name of type species of Meleagris
Linnaeus, 1758).

hirundo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 137 (as published in the combina-
tion Sterna hirundo) (trivial name of type species of Sterna Linnaeus, 1758).

ochropus (emend. of ocrophus) Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 149 (as
published in the combination T'ringa ocrophus) (trivial name of type species
of Tringa Linnaeus, 1758). ‘

onocrotalus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1+ 132 (as published in the
combination Pelecanus onocrotalus) (trivial name of type species of Pelecanus
Linnaeus, 1758).

rusticola Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 146 (as published in the
combination Scolopax rusticola) (trivial name of type species of Scolopax
Linnaeus, 1758).

NOTE.—Attention is drawn to the fact that in the foregoing list the form
in which it is suggested that the trivial name of the type species of Tringa
Linnaeus, 1758, should be added to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology is “ ochropus” and not “ ocrophus,”’ the spelling employed by
Linnaeus in 1758. Linnaeus evidently had no fixed ideas as to how this word
should be spelt, for (as pointed out by Witherby, 1940, Handbook Brit. Birds
4: 310) Linnaeus used the spelling “ ocropus’’ in the Twelfth Edition of the
Syst. Nat. In 1758 Linnaeus made it clear that, in applying this name to the
Green Sandpiper, he was doing no more than copying it from Gesner (510, 511),
reference to whose work shows that Linnaeus made an error in copying from
Gesner (or the printer misread Linnaeus’ manuscript), for the spelling used by
Gesner was “ochropus,” the currently accepted emendation of the incorrect
version “‘ ocrophus”’ of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae. Since the
foregoing conclusion was reached, the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress has submitted to
the International Commission an application (Z.N.(S.)491) for the emendation
under Article 19 of the trivial names of three species of bird, one of which is
the name discussed above. (See page 52 of the present volume.)

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

TYPE SPECIES OF CERTAIN GENERA OF BIRDS, DIS-

CUSSED, BUT LEFT UNSETTLED, IN “OPINION” 16:

SUPPORT FOR PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN THE
SECRETARY’S REPORT

By RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S.O.
(London)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)274)
(Letter dated 20th August, 1952)

Thank you for your letter of 18th August enclosing a copy of your Report
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the question
of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genera of birds which
were discussed in the Commission’s Opinion 16 but on which no decision was
then taken.

I am very much in favour of decisions being taken by the Commission in
regard to these generic names, for the present position is very unsatisfactory,
there being at present no method by which to ascertain with certainty whether
the type species of these genera were determined by Linnean tautonymy
under the ruling given in Opinion 16. I therefore welcome the proposal that
the seventeen generic names set out in your Report, where it is clear that the
type species of the genera concerned were settled in this way and where the
species so indicated are those which are currently as being the type species
of the genera in question, should now be placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology. The position as regards the five other generic names will,
as you say, need to be considered further in greater detail.

I see that in the case of the genus 7’ringa Linnaeus, 1758, you propose
that the trivial name of the type species should be placed on the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology in the form of the long-established emen-
dation ‘“ ochropus” in place of the incorrect spelling ‘“ ocrophus ” used by
Linnaeus in 1758. This proposal is certainly right, for any other course would
lead to pointless name-changing and would serve no useful purpose. Moreover,
as is clear, Linnaeus himself would have used the emended spelling if it had
not been for the fact that he made an error of copying when he took this word
over from Gesner. As you know, this trivial name is one of the three such
names, recognition of the emendations made for which has been asked for
in the application Z.N.(S.)491, which the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature has submitted to the International Commission.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF
SPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE
TRIVIAL NAMES OF TWO SIBERIAN BIRDS

By the late JAMES L. PETERS
(Musewm of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 496)

The present application to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is concerned with the question of the trivial names properly
applicable to two species of lark, each of which was originally described from
Siberian material. The names and relevant synonyms of these species are as
follows :—

Species “A”
Alauda yeltonensis Forster, 1767, Phil. Trans. 57 (2) : 350.

Tanagra siberica Sparrman, 1786, Mus. carlson. (1): No. xix (et fig.).

Species “B”
Alauda sibirica Gmelin, 1789, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (2) : 799.
Alauda leucoptera Pallas, 1811, Zoogr. rosso-asiat. 1 : 518, pl. 33.

2. The two species are considered to be congeneric, both being referred
to the genus Melanocorypha Boie, 1828 (Isis (Oken) 1828 : 322). For many
years the first of these species was known as Melanocorypha yeltonensis (Forster)
and the second as Melanocorypha sibirica (Gmelin). About twenty years ago,
however, Hartert & Steinbacher (1932, Vég. pal. Fauna, Erganzungsband
(1): 103) discarded the trivial name sibirica Gmelin for species “ B,” on the
ground that it was a secondary homonym of the trivial name siberica Sparrman,

_ 1786, which, as shown above, is a junior synonym of yeltonensis Forster, 1767,

the oldest available name for species ‘‘ A.” These authors thereupon applied
the trivial name lewcoptera Pallas, 1811, to species “ B.” Most recent authors
have followed Hartert & Steinbacher in this matter and have used the trivial
name leucoptera Pallas for species “ B.”’

3. Doubts have been expressed as to the correctness of the action of these
authors in rejecting the name sibirica Gmelin, having regard to the fact that
the spelling of this name is not identical with that of the name (siberica
Sparrman) for which it was rejected on the ground of secondary homonymy.
In this connection it was pointed out, in particular, that the differences in

_ spelling between these two names are not among the differences which the

third paragraph of Article 35 prescribes are to be ignored in determining
whether any given pair of trivial names are to be treated as being homonyms
of one another.

4. If the considerations set forth above alone were relevant to this matter,
the argument advanced above would be unanswerable, and there could be
no doubt that, under the Rules, the practice of the last twenty years should
be reversed and that species “ B”’ should in future be known by the trivial

~ name sthirica (Gmelin).

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. The foregomg argument does not however cover the whole of the field
in a case of this kind, for it ignores the fact that, where we are concerned
with two trivial names, each based upon the name of the same locality and
differing from one another only in some small respect of spelling, the difference
may be due to an error of orthography or of transcription or to a printers’
error and therefore that Article 19 may apply to one of the names in question.
In such a case the effect of applying Article 19 may be to make the two names
identical with one another and thus to make them homonyms of one another.
This clearly was a possibility which it was necessary to examine, for although
I should not consider the present case of sufficient importance to justify the
use by the Commission of its plenary powers for the sake of preserving the
practice which has grown up since the publication of the volume by Hartert &
Steinbacher (1932), it is equally important to avoid any action which would
disturb that practice unless it was clear that this was necessary under a strict
application of the Rules.

6. At this stage therefore 1 consulted my colleague, Mr. Francis Hemming, |
Secretary to the Commission, who has furnished to me the following Report
(in litt, 6th May 1951) :—

In approaching the question whether trivial names such as sibirica and
siberica should, or should not, be treated as homonyms of one another, one
cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that the late Charles D. Sherborn, the
most learned bibliographer of his time, treated names spelt “ stberica”’ as
misspellings for ‘ sibirica,” listing both together under the latter spelling
(1902, Index Anim., Pars prima: 900). Although in the present case there
was a strong presumption from the type localities of the two larks in question
that the trivial names applied to these species by Sparrman (1786) and Gmelin
(1789) respectively were each intended to indicate the same locality and therefore
that the difference in spelling between the two names did not indicate a difference
in meaning, being a matter of orthography only, it seemed to me, on receiving
your inquiry, that the first step to be taken should be to investigate the question
of the meaning attaching to these words. I accordingly applied for advice
to Professor Charles Singer, Professor Emeritus of the History of Science in
the University of London, than whom, in my opinion, no more authoritative
adviser could be found on a question of this kind. Professor Singer kindly
undertook to consider this question and in due course furnished the following
report : ‘‘ The correct form of the adjective is undoubtedly ‘ sibir- ’ not ‘ siber-.’
Sibir was the name of a Tabar fort on the Irtish which was captured by Cossacks
in 1581. The name ‘ Sibiria ’ was extended in the seventeenth century to the
Muscovite dominions in the North-East. Thus, ‘sibirica’ is the proper |
adjective.”

In view of Professor Singer’s Report, it is clear that there was at no time
any place named “ Siber,” as contrasted with the Tabar fort named “ Sibir ”
and that, in view of the extension during the seventeenth century of the meaning
attaching to the word “ Sibiria”’ (and thus, to the adjective “ sibirica’’), it
must certainly be concluded that. where (as here) two species occurring in
the portion of the Muscovite dominions known, in English, as “ Siberia” are
named respectively “ sibirica’’ and “ siberica,’’ that difference in spelling is
not due to any difference in the origin or meaning of the two trivial names in
question but is attributable solely to difference in orthography. In the present
case, Professor Singer has shown conclusively that the correct way of spelling
the adjective in question is “ sibirica”’ and not “ siberica,”” thus endorsing the
conclusion reached in this matter by Sherborn nearly fifty years ago, a conclusion
which, it may be noted, no one in the intervening period has ever tried to dispute.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79

The problem with which we are confronted here has therefore nothing to
do with the question whether these two larks have the same word as their
trivial name: it is quite clear that they have. The question to be considered
is whether the difference in spelling adopted for these two names is a legitimate
difference (in which case the two names would not be homonyms of one another)
or, being due to error of spelling in the case of one of the names, is an illegitimate
difference and one which calls for action under Article 19. In my view, the
information furnished by Professor Singer, taken in conjunction with the
considerations advanced above, would make it quite impossible to sustain an
argument that there is a legitimate difference between the correctly spelt
adjective “ sibirica ” and the incorrectly spelt adjective * siberica.”’ I conclude,
therefore that, under the Rules, it is necessary to emend the defectively spelt
trivial name “ siberica ” under Article 19, to “ sibirica ” before any consideration
is given to the question of the relative status, for the purposes of the Law of
Homonymy, of the trivial names published respectively by Sparrman and
Gmelin. Once the necessary emendation of Sparrman’s faultily spelt trivial
name is made, we find that the name so emended is identical with the name
later published by Gmelin.

It is evident therefore that Hartert & Steinbacker were perfectly correct
when in 1932 they rejected the trivial name sibirica Gmelin, 1789, as being,
within the genus Melanocorypha Boie,-a junior secondary homonym of the
trivial name sibirica (emend. of siberica) Sparrman, 1787. A name once validly
rejected in this way as a junior secondary homonym cannot, as we know, ever
again be used for the species to which it was originally given. Accordingly,
ever since the publication in 1932 of Hartert’s and Steinbacher’s volume, the
trivial name sibirica Gmelin has been a dead homonym, incapable in any
circumstances of being brought back to life again. Since, as those authors
pointed out—and as you confirm—the next name to be given to the species
to which in 1789 Gmelin gave the invalid name Alauda sibirica was the name
Alauda leucoptera Pallas, 1811, it follows that the oldest available trivial name,
and therefore the valid trivial name for the species in question is leucoptera
Pallas, the name by which that species is currently known.

7. In the circumstances it is clear that it would not be in accordance with
the Rules to resuscitate the trivial name sibirica Gmelin for the species which
for the last twenty years has been known by the trivial name lewcoptera Pallas.
Now that the position in this matter is clearly established, it is desirable that,
in order to prevent any subsequent argument on the subject, the oldest available
trivial names for each of these larks should be placed on the Official List, the
invalid trivial name sibirica Gmelin being at the same time placed on the
Official Index. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature :—

(1) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;—
(a) yeltonensis Forster, 1767 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Alauda yeltonensis) ;
(6)-leucoptera Pallas, 1811 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Alauda leucoptera) ;

(2) to place the trivial name sibirica Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the
binominal combination Alauda sibirica) (the trivial name of a rejected
junior secondary homonym in the genus Melanocorypha Boie, 1828)
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in

4 Zoology.

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SECURE
THAT THE NAME “COLUMBA MIGRATORIA” LIN-
NAEUS, 1766, SHALL BE THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME
FOR THE PASSENGER PIGEON, THE TYPE SPECIES OF
THE GENUS “ECTOPISTES” SWAINSON, 1827

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)574)

The subject matter of the present application came to notice in the course
of the routine checking of the entries on the Official Lsit of Generic Names in
Zoology in connection with the projected publication of the Official List in book
form. It is concerned with the question of the name to be used for the Passenger
Pigeon. This species, which is currently known by the name Columba migratoria
Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (1) : 285) is the type species of the genus
Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 (Zool. J. 3 (11) : 362), by subsequent selection by
Swainson in 1837 (a Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclop. 6 : 348—sometimes known
by its sub-title Nat. Hist. Classif. Birds 2 : 348). The generic name Ectopistes
Swainson, 1837, was placed on the Official Inst as Name No. 51 in the Com-
mission’s Opinion 67 (published in 1916, Smathson Publ. 2409 : 180).

2. When I checked this entry on the Official List against. Peters’ Check-List
of the Birds of the World, I found the following footnote on page 83 of volume 3
published in 1937 :—

There can be no real doubt that Bangs (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash, 19, 1906, 43-44)
was entirely correct in disposing of the Linnean names, Columba macrours,
Columba migratoria and Columba marginata, as he did. On the other hand, his
proposed changes have never been accepted, and since there is also room for
argument contrary to Bangs’ reasoning, | feel that to depart from current usage
would only cause needless confusion.

3. It was immediately apparent that, as the name Hctopistes Swainson, of
which Columba migratoria is the type species had been placed on the Official
Jist, this matter would need to be resubmitted to the Commission, for it would
clearly be improper for the Commission to connive at the ignoring of the
problem which had been raised by Bangs (1906, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 :
43-44). As a first step, I consulted Bangs’ short paper to ascertain exactly
what it was that he had said. His presentation of the issue is very succinct.
It reads as follows :—

THE NAMES OF THE PASSENGER PIGEON AND MOURNING DOVE

To those naturalists who . .. use the twelfth edition of Linnaeus (1766) as
the starting point of binomial nomenclature, the names of the Passenger
Pigeon and the Mourning Dove are clear and offer no complications. Not so,
however, to the Americans and others who start with the tenth edition (1758),
for here Linneaus unquestionably included both birds in the references under his
Columba macroura.

The A.O.U. committee on nomenclature and American ornithologists generally
have of late years used this name for the Mourning Dove, and have called the
Passenger Pigeon by the name that first appeared in the twelfth edition—
Columba migratoria Linn. In my opinion, however, this is hardly correct.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81

Linnaeus’ Columba macroura was based on Edwards p. 15, t. 15, and Catesby
p. 23, t. 23. Edwards’ bird, carefully described and well figured, was, of course,
a Mourning Dove, but it came from the West Indies, and Edwards tells us, ‘“‘ The
Figure of this bird shows it of its natural Bigness.”” Measuring the various parts
and comparing the results with specimens, I find it altogether too small for the
continental form of the Mourning Dove, and to agree very well with the small
form of Cuba (and other islands of the Greater Antilles ?), which has been lately
named Zenaidura macroura bella by Palmer and Riley. The reference to Catesby
applies wholly to the Passenger Pigeon and the plate shows a fine adult male.

Now as all Linnaeus’ references were given chronologically it matters not which
came first, and the important question is from which of these two distinct species,
confused under one name, did Linnaeus take his brief diagnosis and his
‘Habitat ’. In this instance it is plain. Linnaeus’ diagnosis reads “ pectore
purpurascente ’’, and he also says ‘‘ Habitat, in Canada: hybernat in Carolina ”’,
both directly from Catesby and neither having anything whatever to do with
Edwards.

In the twelfth edition Linnaeus dropped Columba macroura, called the Pas-
senger Pigeon Columba migratoria, the Carolina Mourning Dove Columba
carolinensis, and named the bird of Edwards’ plate No. 15 Columba marginata.

It is therefore my opinion that we who stand by the tenth edition must arrange
the names of these Columbae as follows :—

Ectopistes macrourus (Linn.)
Passenger Pigeon
Columba macroura Linn., S.N. ed. 10, p. 164, 1758.

Zenaidura carolinensis carolinensis (Linn.)
Carolina Mourning Dove
Columba carolinensis Linn., S.N. ed. 12, p. 286, 1766.

Zenaidura carolinensis marginata (Linn.)*
West Indian Mourning Dove
Columba marginata Linn., 8.N. ed. 12, p. 286, 1766.

4. My next step was to write as follows (on 14th October 1945) to my col-
league, Dr. James L. Peters :—

Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 : The type species of this genus is Columba migratoria

Linnaeus, 1766, that species having been so selected by Swainson in 1837.

Inspired by your footnote on page 83 of volume 3 of your Check-List, I have read

Bangs’ note in volume 19 of the Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. Naturally, I cannot express

4 any opinion on the validity of his contentions but, as you state that: ‘*‘ There
can be no real doubt ”’ that he ‘‘ was entirely correct in disposing of the Linnean
names, Columba macroura, Columba migratoria and Columba marginata, as he

did ’’, I feel that the Commission can no longer leave things as they are, since to

do so would be to cite in the Official [ist an incorrectly named species as the type

species of the genus Ectopistes Swainson, 1827. It seems to me that the only

way of avoiding the “‘ needless confusion ”’ referred to in your footnote, while

at the same time avoiding an ostrich-like attitude of pretending not to see what

*As to this latter name’s supplanting Zenaidura carolinensis bella (Palmer &

Riley) I cannot help feeling regret that a good modern name founded on a bird

from a definite region should give way to an old one without definite type locality.

But I can see no help for it. Edwards distinctly says his bird was from the West

“ Indies, and figures a very small example, and as the small size of the Cuban

Mourning Dove is about its only distinctive character, I am afraid the Columba
marginata Linn. must be the name by which it shall be known.

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is the matter would be for the Commission to use its plenary powers (1) to declare
that Columba migratoria Linnaeus, 1766, is the name to be used for the Passenger
Pigeon, and (ii) to declare that the name Columba macroura Linnaeus, 1758,
is the name to be used for the race of the Carolina Mourning Dove from the
Greater Antilles. Such action would be in strict accord with Article 3 of the
Plenary Powers Resolution (Declaration 5), which states that the prevention of
the transference from one unit to another of generic and specific names is one of
the particular objects of the Congress in granting the Commission these excep-
tional powers. I shall be grateful for your views on this question, since some
action will certainly have to be taken in view of the fact that Hctopistes Swainson
is on the Official List.

5. In his reply (dated 6th December 1945) Dr. Peters wrote as follows :-—

Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 : As long as Bangs’ suggestion has not been generally
accepted, there is no confusion at present concerning the names of the Passenger
Pigeon and the Mourning Dove. The suggestion was made 39 years ago and in
the passage of time Bangs’ proposal has more or less receded into the background
and the commonly accepted identity of the two Linnean species involved has
become more firmly fixed. There is, however, always the danger that the case
will be resurrected and I feel, as you do, that the Commission would de well
definitely to use its Plenary Powers and settle the matter for all time.

6. Ever since the correspondence quoted above, I have intended to take the
first convenient opportunity for laying the present case before the Commission.
Such an opportunity has now arisen through the presentation to the Commission
by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of a large number
of applications relating to the names of birds. Before doing so, I have laid the
draft of the present paper before Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, the Chairman
of the Standing Committee. Colonel Meinertzhagen has informed me (in litt,
29th August 1952) that he considers that it is important that the Commission
should now settle without further delay this long-outstanding question and
that he is in agreement with the solution recommended in the present application.

7. Before I set out the action recommended, it will, I think, be repaying
briefly to examine what Linnaeus wrote about his nominal species Columba
macroura when in 1758 (: 164) he first published that name. It is extremely
brief and reads as follows :—

Columba
macoura 16. C. cauda cuneiformi longa, pectore purpurascente
Columba macroura. Edw. av. 15 t. 15.
Palumbus migratorius. Catesb. car. 1 p. 23t. 23.
Habitat in Canada ; hybernat in Carolina.

8. As in many Linnean descriptions there is nothing in the description given
by Linnaeus for Columba macroura to show, or even to suggest, that he had
ever had before him a specimen of the species to which he applied this name or
was doing more than giving a name to the birds figured by Edwards and Catesby
respectively, which he erroneously supposed were conspecific with one another.
Thus, it is quite possible that there never was a type specimen of this nominal
species. Whether there was or not, no such specimen is now extant and the
only means of identifying the taxonomic species represented by this nominal
species is through the two figures which Linnaeus cited. Of these figures, it is
agreed by ornithologists that the figure given by Edwards represents the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83

Mourning Dove and that by Catesby the Passenger Pigeon. Thus, the nominal
species Columba macroura Linnaeus may be looked upon as having been initially
a composite species. According to this view, the trivial name macrouwra Linnaeus
would adhere to whichever of the two included species was first definitely so
selected under the provisions of Article 31. Until 1948 this Article was so lacking
in precision that it is often a matter of opinion whether action by a particular
author on a particular date.can properly be regarded as a selection made under
this Article. In the present instance Bangs quite definitely made such a selection
by specifying Catesby’s plate 23 as the figure by which the nominal species
Columba macroura should be identified, thus making Catesby’s plate the
representative of a lectotype for this species (see 1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 :
74-76). This is not to say, however, that no ornithologist at an earlier date had
not made a valid selection of Edwards’ plate 15 to represent the lectotype,
though the fact that no evidence of any such prior selection has, so far as I am
aware, been brought forward for the purpose of rebutting Bangs’ contention
suggests at least that it is unlikely that any such selection is known to have been
made. The present case is complicated, however, by the existence of another
consideration which does not seem to have been advanced in express terms.
This consideration arises from the fact that both the authors (Edwards and
Catesby) cited by Linnaeus, though pre-1758 authors, nevertheless by accident
applied binominal names to the birds which they figured and that the name
used by Edwards was Columba macroura and was thus an absolute tautonym
of the name selected by Linnaeus for his nominal species. It might therefore
be argued that on this account Linnaeus should be treated as having himself
“indicated ” by absolute tautonymy that he regarded Edwards’ bird as being
(or his figure as representing) the type specimen of this nominal species, to the
exclusion of Catesby’s bird, notwithstanding the fact that he took part of his
description and the whole of his “ Habitat” from Catesby and not from Edwards.

9. It therefore seems legitimate to conclude that in this case (as in the case
of the names of many other composite nominal species established long before
the introduction of the Régles) it is a matter of real difficulty to determine under
Article 31 to which of the included taxonomic species the trivial name macroura
Linnaeus is properly applicable under the Régles. Nothing therefore but a
ruling by the Commission could provide a definite settlement of the present
case. In a case such as the present where on balance it seems likely that the
result desired is the reverse of that which would result from a strict application
of the ordinary provisions of the Régles, the only certain method of securing that
solution is by the use by the Commission of its plenary powers. This is the
procedure recommended by the late Dr. Peters and is also recommended by
Colonel Meineitzhagen. This therefore is the recommendation which I now
put forward for consideration.

10. The specific proposals now submitted are that the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) use its plenary powers to designate the description given on page 15,
and the figure given on plate 15 by Edwards (G.), Nat. Hist. Birds,
for the species which that author called Columba macroura to
represent the lectotype of the nominal species Columba macroura

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Linnaeus, 1758, the type locality thus to become that cited by
Edwards, namely the “West Indies ” ;

(2) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific

Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(a2) macroura Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination
Columba macroura), as proposed, under (1) above, to be
defined under the plenary powers ;

(b) migratoria Linnaeus, 1766 (as published in the combination
Columba migratoria) (trivial name of type species of
Ectopistes Swainson, 1827) ;

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology the trivial name marginata Linnaeus, 1766 (as
published in the combination Columba marginata) (a name which,
being based upon Edwards’ plate 15, is an objective junior synonym
of the trivial name macroura Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
combination Columba macroura), as proposed, under (1) above, to
be defined under the plenary powers).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85

PROPOSED CORRECTION IN THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF INCORRECT DATES
AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES GIVEN F OR THE
GENERIC NAME “ BALAENICEPS ” GOULD, 1850, AND
FOR THE NAME OF ITS TYPE SPECIES (CLASS AVES)
(CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN “ OPINION ” 67)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)590)

1. The purpose of the present application is to draw attention to, and to
propose the correction of, an erroneous entry in the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology in regard to the dates of publication of, and bibliographical
references for, the generic name Balaeniceps Gould, 1850, and its type species
(Class Aves), made in Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 179). The error in
question was detected in the course of routine checking in connection with
the preparation of the Official List for publication in book form.

2. The generic name Balaeniceps and the name of its type species (by
monotypy), Balaeniceps rez, is commonly treated as having been first published
in the volume of the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for the
year 1852. It was on this basis that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature was asked to place—and did place—the generic name Balaeniceps
Gould on the Official List. The entry in Opinion 67 under which this name
was placed on the Official List reads as follows: “ Balaeniceps Gould, Proc.
Zool. Soc. Lond. 1852, i. Mt., B. rex Gould.”

3. Before passing to the principal error involved, it must be noted (1)—
that the volume of the Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. referred to above is numbered
“19” and should be so cited, (2) that the page on which the name Balaeniceps
first appeared was numbered “1” (as an Arabic numeral) not “i” (small
Roman numeral), (3) that volume 19 was published in Parts over a period
extending from October, 1852, to June, 1854, and therefore that the date
of publication should be cited in square brackets. The correct citation of
the foregoing publication of the name with which we are here concerned is
therefore: Balaeniceps Gould, [1852], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 19 (iper

4. But the above is not the first occasion on which the names Balaeniceps
Gould and Balaeniceps rex Gould were published, for as pointed out by Neave
(1939, Nomencl. zool. 1 : 386) the generic name Balaeniceps Gould was first
published in 1850 on page 1315 of the volume for that year of the serial
publication Athenaeum. Reference to the page in the Athenaeum quoted shows
that on it there is a brief description of Gould’s genus Balaeniceps and his
species Balaeniceps rex. Accordingly both these names must in future be
treated as having been first published in 1850 and not in 1852 and in the volume

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of the Athenaeum for 1850 and not in volume 19 of the Proc. zool. Soe. Lond.
The genus Balaeniceps Rex, 1850, was monotypical with the above species
as type species, just as was also the genus Balaeniceps Gould, [1852].

5. It is proposed to incorporate the foregoing correction in the Official List.

SUGGESTED REVIEW OF THE ENTRIES ON THE

“ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”

OF THE ENTRIES. RELATING TO THE NAMES “ OEDIC-

NEMUS ” TEMMINCK, 1815, AND “ BURHINUS ” ILLIGER,
1811 (CLASS AVES)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

eae ee bok Z.N.(S.)591)

In the course of the routine checking of the entries made in the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology undertaken as part of the preparations for
the publication of the first instalment of the Official [ist in book-form, I
encountered an anomaly in regard to the names of two genera in the Class
Aves, which calls for further consideration by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature. The facts of this case are accordingly now laid
before the Commission for decision.

2. The names with which the present application is concerned were
both placed on the Official List in Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ.
2409 : 175-182). The names in question are :—

(1) Burhinus Illiger, 1811, Prodr. Syst. Mamm. Avium : 250 (type species,
by monotypy: Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1801, Index ornith.
Suppl. : xvi) (Name No. 30)

(2) Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, Manuel Ornith. : 321 (type species, by
monotypy : Oedicnemus crepitans Temminck, 1815, Manuel Ornith. :
322 (stated in Opinion 67 to be the same species as Charadrius
oedicnemus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst, Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 151) (Name No. 76).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87

3. Both the above names are available names in the sense that neither
(1) is a junior homonym of an older generic name consisting of the same word
nor (2) has, as its type species, a species which is also the type species of another
nominal genus of older date.

4. The difficulty which arises in the present case is of a taxonomic character,
for, according to Peters (J. L.) (1934, Check-List Birds World 2 : 293-297)
the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Oedicnemus crepitans
Temminck, 1815 (Charadrius oedienemus Linnaeus, 1758), the type species
of Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, is congeneric with the taxonomic species
represented by the nominal species Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1801,
the type species of the genus Burhinus Illiger, 1811. According to this
taxonomic view, the nominal genera Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, and Burhinus
Illiger, 1811, are subjectively identical with one another, and the name
Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, is a junior subjective synonym of the name
Burhinus Mlliger, 1811.

5. The purpose of the Official List is to give formal official recognition
to generic names which are not only nomenclatorially available names but
are also, in the opinion of specialists in the group concerned, the names of
taxonomically valid genera. It is quite inappropriate that a name that is
universally regarded by specialists as a subjective junior synonym of another
name should find a place on the Official List. Clearly, therefore, any such
name which by an oversight has been placed on the Official List should be
removed therefrom. Accordingly, the name Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815,
should now be removed from the Official List, if ornithologists generally are
agreed that the nominal genera Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, and Burhinus
Illiger, 1811, as defined by their respective type species, are taxonomically
identical with one another. If, however, specialists were not agreed on this
subject, some recognising the genus Oedicnemus Temminck as the name of a
taxonomically valid genus in addition to so recognising the name Burhinus
Illiger, the most suitable solution would be to leave the name Oedicnemus
Temminck on the Official Inst, but to add to the entry relating to that name
a note stating that this name has been placed on the Official List for use by
specialists who may consider that the type species of this genus is generically
distinct from the type species of the genus Burhinus Illiger. It will be recalled
that a procedure of this kind was deliberately adopted by the International
Commission in Opinion 104, when dealing with the names of the genera published
for the human malaria parasites (the generic name Laverania being then
placed on the Official List with a note of the kind indicated above, in addition
to the older name Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885), and that the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology expressly enjoined the Inter-
national Commission to follow this course when considering the addition to
the Official List of names which were available and well known but not accepted
by all specialists as being taxonomically required (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4: 237). It will be appreciated that this procedure serves the twofold purpose
of stabilising well-known names, without, in cases where specialists are divided
on the question of the taxonomic status of allied nominal genera, involving
the International Commission in expressing or implying (through the Official
I’st) any view on the taxonomic issue involved, .

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. The International Ornithological Congress at its meeting held at Uppsala
in 1950 appointed a Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature

to co-operate. with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, -

on questions affecting the names of birds; it appeared to me, therefore, that
it would be helpful to seek the views of the Standing Committee on the question
whether the name Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, should be removed from
the Official List or alternatively whether it should be retained thereon, subject
to the addition of a note that this name had been placed on the List for use
only by authors who considered that the taxonomic species represented by
the nominal species Oedienemus crepitans Temminck, 1815, was generically
distinct from that represented by Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1801,
the type species of Burhinus Illiger, 1811. I accordingly asked Colonel Richard
Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the Standing Committee, if he would be so good
as to obtain the views of his Committee on the relative merits of the alternative
courses set out above. Colonel Meinertzhagen kindly consented to put this
matter to the Standing Committee and on 2nd September, 1951, wrote me the
following letter: ‘“‘ I have consulted the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature on the names Oedicnemus and Burhinus with reference to the
Official List. M. Berlioz has not replied, but I am taking a majority vote
by which we are agreed that Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, should be sunk
to Burhinus Illiger, 1811, the respective type species being congeneric.”’

7. In view of the consensus of opinion regarding the relative status of
the two nominal genera concerned and of the recommendation received from
the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, I submit, for
consideration, the proposal that the name Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815, should
now be removed from the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-
PRESS FOUR GENERIC NAMES FOR BIRDS PUBLISHED
BY BRISSON IN 1760 WHICH HAVE LONG BEEN OVER-
LOOKED AND WHICH INVALIDATE AS HOMONYMS
FOUR NAMES PLACED ON THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” (CORRECTION OF
ERRONEOUS ENTRIES IN “ OPINION ” 67)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)701)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to validate
four generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
by the Commission’s Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 177-182), each
of which it is now seen is an invalid junior homonym of a generic name consisting
of the same word published by M. J. Brisson in 1760 in his Ornithologie but
since then completely overlooked.

2. The position in regard to this matter is as follows: (1) Brisson was a
non-binominal author of what was formerly called the “ binary ” school, that
is, he recognised that the scientific name of an animal must be designed to
denote two concepts, namely that represented by the species to which the
name was applied and that represented by the next higher group (i.e. the
genus) in which that species was placed, and that the generic concept must
be denoted by a noun substantive in the nominative singular placed at the
beginning of the name, but who did not consider it necessary that the species
concept should also be denoted by a single word, regarding it as equally
appropriate that this concept should be denoted by a phrase consisting of
two or more Latin words. (2) In 1911, at a time when the International
Commission considered that generic names published by authors who applied
a “binary,” though non-binominal system of nomenclature satisfied the
requirements of Article 25 of the Régles, the Commission published an Opinion,
Opinion 37 (1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 87-88), in which it ruled that the
generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologie satisfied the requirements of the Rules.
(3) In 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65) the International Congress of
Zoology substituted the word “ binominal ” for the word “ binary ” in Article
25, thereby making it clear that names published by non-binominal “ binary ”
authors possessed no availability in nomenclature. (4) The foregoing decision
would have destroyed the availability of all the generic names in Brisson’s
Ornithologie, if it had not been decided to accompany it with a further provision
expressly preserving the status previously accorded to those names under its
Opinion 37 of 1911 (1950, ibid. 4 : 65, Point (3) (a) (iv)). It will be seen from
the foregoing particulars that, other things being equal, every new generic
- name in Brisson’s Ornithologie of 1760 is an available name.

3. The recent discovery that Brisson had published a generic name Gavia
in the Ornithologie (see application Z.N.(S.)78, relating to the name Colymbus

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Linnaeus, 1758*) which had been completely overlooked in all zoological
Nomenclators led me to think that it was desirable to make a thorough
examination of Brisson’s Ornithologie, in order to make sure that none of
the generic names for birds which had been placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology was preoccupied by generic names consisting of identical
words published in 1760 in Brisson’s Ornithologie but since overlooked. I
have accordingly examined the Ornithologie from this point of view, as the
result of which it now appears that six generic names now on the Official List
are invalid (because junior) homonyms of names published by Brisson in 1760.
Of the names so found to be invalid, the following five were placed on the
Official Last in Opinion 67 : (1) Bubo Duméril, 1806 ; (2) Coturniz Bonnaterre,
1790; (3) Egretta Forster, 1817; (4) Gallinago Koch, 1816; (5) Oriolus
Linnaeus, 1766. The sixth name on the Official List now found to be preoccupied
by an identical Brisson name is Grus Pallas, 1767, which was placed on the
Official List by Opinion 103 (Smithson. mise. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 21-24). Special
problems arise in connection with two of these names, namely Gallinago Koch
and Grus Pallas. The first of these cases is dealt with in Application Z.N.(S.)
575 (see pp. 93-95 of the present volume) ; the second in Application Z.N.(8.)
558, which is at present still under discussion with specialists but which will
be published as soon as possible. The present application is accordingly
concerned only with the position of the names Bubo Duméril, Coturnix Bonna-
terre, Egretta Forster, and Oriolus Linnaeus.

4. The decision to validate the names in Brisson’s Ornithologie was taken
with the sole purpose of promoting stability in ornithological nomenclature
and it would certainly not have been taken in the form then adopted if it
had been made clear to the Commission by ornithologists that certain only
of the new generic names published by Brisson in 1760 were in general use
and required protection, while others had long been ignored and, if validated,
would cause disturbance and confusion rather than contribute to uniformity
and stability. Now that the actual position has been brought to light, it
seems to me that the most reasonable course would be for the Commission
so to use its plenary powers as to secure its original intention. In other words,
the most appropriate course seems to be to suppress those of the Brisson names
which were—as it were, inadvertently—validated when the ruling of 1911 (in
Opinion 37) was confirmed by the Commission in 1948 in those cases where
the names, so validated, would, it is now seen, merely lead to confusion and
objectionable name-changing. The number of new names which will need to
be examined for this purpose is large, and in view of the consultations with
specialists which will need to be undertaken, the investigation involved will
necessarily occupy a considerable time. It is for this reason that the four names
dealt with in the present application have been picked out for advance con-
sideration, since, until decisions have been taken in regard to these names,
the publication of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in book form
will inevitably be held up.

5. I have consulted Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, Chairman of the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature appointed in 1950 by
the International Ornithological Congress (see pp. 4-5 of the present volume),

*See page 11 of the present volume.

PRLPTILERA OIE LOE A OO

vail
“i

<A Sk eM

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91

and he has sent me the following reply (in litt., dated 10th September 1952) :
“Many of the generic names published by Brisson in 1760 in his Ornithologie
are household words and it was therefore of the utmost importance that the
Commission should provide a valid basis for these names. The action taken
by the Commission in this sense in 1948 was therefore of the greatest value.
In addition, however, to these names, there are many other new generic names
in the Ornithologie which have been completely overlooked and which, if now
resurrected, would lead to confusion and name-changing, without providing
any compensating advantage. This risk will remain until all the new names
in the Ornithologie have been carefully examined and those names which are
in general use finally stabilised by being put on the Official List, all the other
names concerned being at the same time suppressed. This task, which will
be a big piece of work and will involve extensive consultations, will inevitably
take a considerable time even in the most favourable circumstances. Pending
the completion of this survey, all that the Commission can do is to take such
action in individual cases as may be found to be necessary, for example, to
suppress the name Gavia Brisson, as proposed in the application regarding
the name Colymbus Linnaeus submitted by the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature. In the case of the four names (Bubo, Coturniz,
Egretta and Oriolus) placed on the Official List by Opinion 67 but now found
to be invalid, I consider that is important that the position should be cleared
up as quickly as possible by the suppression by the Commission of the four
corresponding Brisson names which, though not in current use, technically
invalidate these well-known generic names.”

6. In the circumstances and in view of the advice received from Colonel
Meinertzhagen, I now recommend that the Commission should validate the
existing entries in the Official List by suppressing the Brisson names which
invalidate the four names in question. It would be convenient if at the same
time the Commission were to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names one still earlier name consisting of the same word published
in 1758 in Nozeman and Vosmaer’s Geslachten der Vogelen (a Dutch translation
of the work by Moehring entitled Aviwm Genera published—hefore the starting
point of zoological nomenclature—in 1752), a work which the Commission has

already ruled is unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 566-568).

7. The specific action which the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is now asked to take is therefore that it should :—

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned generic names
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of

Homonymy :—
(a) Bubo Brisson, 1760, Ornithologie 1 : 477-486 ;
(b) Coturnix Brisson, 1760, ibid. 1 : 247-261 ;
(c) Egretta Brisson, 1760, ibid. 5 : 431-433 ;
(d) Oriolus Brisson, 1760, zbid. 2 : 320-333 ;

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) confirm in their position on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology the following names placed thereon by Opinion 67 :— a5
(a) Bubo Duméril, 1806 ;
(b) Coturnia Bonnaterre, 1790; |
(c) Egretta Forster, 1817 ;
(d) Oriolus Linnaeus, 1766 ;
(3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—
(a) the four generic names specified in (1) above, as there proposed
to be suppressed under the plenary powers ;
(b) Bubo Rambur, 1842 (Roret’s Suite a Buffon), Nevropteres : 353 ;

(c) Coturniz Nozeman & Vosmaer, 1858, Geslacht. Vogel. (Dutch
trans. of Moehring, 1758, Avium Genera) 3 : 39 (a work which
has already been ruled unavailable for nomenclatorial

purposes).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-

PRESS THE NAME “ GALLINAGO ” BRISSON, 1760 (CLASS

AVES), AND PROPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF “ CAPELLA ”

FRENZEL, 1801, FOR “ GALLINAGO” KOCH, 1816, ON THE

“ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”

(PROPOSED CORRECTION OF AN ERRONEOUS ENTRY
IN “OPINION” 67)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)575)

The subject matter of the present application came to notice in the course
of the checking of the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
in connection with the projected publication of the Official List in book form
and is concerned with the generic name Gallinago Koch, 1816 (Syst. baier.
Zool. 1:312) which was placed on the Official List in Opinion 67 published in 1916
(Smithson Publ. 2409 : 180).

2. The generic name Gallinago Koch, 1816, was stated in Opinion 67 to
have as its type species, Scolopax gallinoga Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1:
147) by absolute tautonymy, through the “ media of Koch” (i.e. Gallinago
media Koch, 1816, loc. cit. 1 : 314). This name was therefore a generic name
applied to the Common Snipe.

3. When checking this part of Opinion 67, I observed that Hartert, after
using the generic name Gallinago Koch for the Snipe in the main portion of his
work relating to the genus concerned (Hartert, 1916, Végel paléarkt. Fauna
(2) : 1655), had later in the same work (1921, ibid. (3): 2213) published a
correction, pointing out that Gallinago Koch was a junior synonym of Capella
Frenzel, 1801 (Beschr. Vogel Wittenberg : 58), the type species of which was the
nominal species Capella coelestis Frenzel, 1801 (ibid. : 58), a nominal species
which represented the same taxonomic species as did the nominal species
Scolopax gallinago Linnaeus. I noted also that my colleague Commissioner
James L. Peters (1934, Check List Birds World 2 : 274) accepted the name
Capella Frenzel, sinking Gallinago Koch as a synonym.

_ 4, As it was clearly not possible in these circumstances to leave the name
Gallinago Koch on the Official Inst without prior resubmission to the Inter-
national Commission, I wrote a letter (on 14th October 1945) to Dr. Peters
asking for his views as to the action which it was desirable should be taken.
Dr. Peters in his reply (of 6th December 1945) wrote :—‘‘ After Capella Frenzel
was shown to be an earlier name than Gallinago Koch and of equal applicability,
it was immediately adopted and is now in current use for the different species
of Snipe. For this reason I believe the Gallinago should be expunged from the
Official List and Capella substituted in its place. No useful purpose would be
served by reinstating Gallinago Koch under suspension of the rules and sup-
pressing Capella.”

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. Quite recently I was led, for the reasons which I have explained in
Application Z.N.(S.)701 (relating to the generic names Bubo, Coturma, Egretta,
and Oriolus)* to examine carefully M. J. Brisson’s Ornithologie published in
1760, for I had already discovered that one name (Egretta Forster, 1817) that
was already on the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology was an invalid
junior homonym of a totally overlooked name published in Brisson’s Orni-
thologie. This search brought to light the existence of the name Gallinago
Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 5 : 298-310), which thus greatly antedates the name
Capella Frenzel, 1801. The name Gallinago was used by Brisson as the name
for a subdivision of the genus Scolopaz ; he placed in it all except the first of
the five species which he referred to Scolopax. All the species described in the
Ornithologie are described initially under a French name, followed by a Latin
diagnosis, at the end of which is given, in different type, the Latin name
accepted by Brisson for the species in question, this in turn being followed, in
the case of previously described species, by a detailed synonymy. The first of
the species placed by Brisson in his Gallinago was cited under the French name
‘La Beccassine,” the scientific name at the end of the Latin diagnosis being
given simply as “ Gallinago ” (not because Brisson was a mononominalist, but
because he customarily cited in this way the names of species when the “ species”
portion of the name consisted of the same word (i.e. was a single word) tautony-
mous with the generic name). In the synonymy of this species Brisson quoted
the diagnosis given by Linnaeus in 1758 for his Scolopax gallinago, finishing this
quotation as follows :—‘‘ Gallinago. Linn. Syst. Nat. ed. 10 Gen. 77 sp. 11”
(Scolopax being the 77th genus of birds in the 10th edition of the Syst. Nat. and
Scolopax gallinago being the eleventh of the species referred by Linnaeus to
this genus). Thus, we see clearly that this species is Scolopax gallinago Linnaeus,
1758 ( : 147) and that, as its trivial name is tautonymous with the generic name
selected by Brisson, it is the type species of Gallinago Brisson by absolute
tautonymy. Accordingly, the name Gallinago Brisson, 1760, is not only a
senior homonym of Gallinago Koch, 1816, but in addition is a senior synonym
of Koch’s generic name, Brisson’s and Koch’s nominal genera each having the
same nominal species as its type species. The position so established created
a new situation and one under which the entry on the Official List relating to
Gallinago Koch was not only (as previously) subjectively defective (because of
the subjective identification of the nominal species which are respectively the
type species of Capella Frenzel, 1801, and of Gallinago Koch, 1816), but also
objectively incorrect (through Gallinago Koch, being both an objective junior
homonym, and an objective junior synonym, of Gallinago Brisson, 1760).
Faced with this situation, it seemed to me that, since (as Dr. Peters had
explained) the name Capella Frenzel had by now completely replaced the
name Gallinago Koch, it would be confusing if now that transition had to be
reversed, the name Capella Frenzel being displaced by Gallinago Brisson. .

6. At this stage I consulted Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, Chairman of
the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature who in his reply
(dated 12th September 1952) wrote as follows: “If, as at first appeared, the
question to be considered in the case of the name (rallinago had been whether
the name Gallinago Koch, 1816, should be replaced on the Official List by its

*See pp. 82-92 of the present volume.

= "i ead hee | we Aa on
{APO a a a eT eee ene ey

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95

senior subjective synonym Capella Frenzel, 1801, I should have been strongly
in favour of that course, for now that Gallinago Koch has been completely
replaced by the name Capella Frenzel, I should have thought it most un-
fortunate if, through Gallinago Koch being already on the Official List, it had
been necessary to abandon current practice by reverting to the use of the name
Gallinago Koch. Now that it appears that the oldest generic name for the
Common Snipe is Gallinago Brisson, 1760, I hold the same view for the same
treason. I accordingly consider that the best course will be for the International
Commission to suppress Brisson’s Gallinago, to remove Koch’s Gallinago from
the Official List and to insert in its place the name Capella Frenzel. The trivial
name gallinago Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Scolopax
gallinago) should, I agree, now be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names. Naturally, however, the trivial name coelestis Frenzel, 1801 (the trivial
name of the type species of Capella Frenzel) ought not to be placed on that
Official List, for, although nomenclatorially it is an available name, it is onl
a Junior synonym of gallinago Linnaeus and therefore can never be needed.”

7. A settlement of this case is urgently required, for at present the problem
presented by the name Gallinago Koch represents one of the obstacles which is
holding up the publication of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in
book form. In view of the advice received in this case—as set out in paragraphs 4

and 6 above—I recommend that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature should :—

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Gallinago Brisson,

1760, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) delete the name Gallinago Koch, 1816, from the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology, at the same time correcting Opinion 67 to the
extent necessary ;

(3) substitute on the foregoing Official List the name Capella Frenzel,
1801 (type species, by monotypy : Capella coelestis Frenzel, 1801)
for the name proposed, under (2) above, to be removed therefrom ;

(4) place the trivial name gallinago Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
combination Scolopax gallinago) on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology ;

(5) place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(2) Gallinago Brisson, 1760, as proposed, under (1) above, to be
suppressed under the plenary powers ;

(6) Gallinago Koch, 1816 (junior homonym, of Gallinago Brisson,
1760);

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF

SPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE

TRIVIAL NAME “SYRIACUS” ROTHSCHILD, 1910 (AS

PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “STRUTHIO

CAMELUS SYRIACUS”), THE TRIVIAL NAME OF THE
SYRIAN OSTRICH (CLASS AVES)

By R. MEINERTZHAGEN, D.8.0. (London)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)633)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to place on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name syriacus Rothschild, 1910 (as pub-
lished in the combination Struthio camelus syriacus), the trivial name of the
Syrian Ostrich.

2. The relevant facts in regard to this case are as follows :—

(1) The Ostrich was named Struthio camelus by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst.

Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 587). Linnaeus gave “Syria, Arabia, Libya and

Africa ’’ as the localities for this bird. In addition, he gave biblio-

graphical references to Aldrovandus, Dodart, Seba, Willughby

and Albin. The localities given for the Ostrich by the authorities

cited by Linnaeus were : (1) Syria, Sind, Arabia, Libya and Arguin

Island, Mauretania (Aldrovandus, through older authors cited) ;

(2) Cape of Good Hope (Seba) ; (3) Africa and Arabia (Willughby) ;

; (4) Deserts of Arabia and Africa (Albin). No locality was specified
by Dodart.

(2) It is clear from the particulars given above that, from the point of
view of the particulars given in 1758, the nominal species Struthio
camelus comprised what are now regarded as several distinct
subspecies of the Ostrich.

(3) In 1910 the late Lord Rothschild (Bull. brit. ornth. Club 39 : 83)
gave “North Africa” as the type locality for nominotypical
Struthio camelus camelus and published the name Struthio camelus
syriacus for the Syrian Ostrich, which has accordingly been known
by that name for the last thirty-two years.

(4) Quite recently (1951, Bull. brit. ornith. Club 71 : 45-46) Grant and
Mackworth-Praed have advanced the view that ‘“‘ Syria,” as being
the first of the localities cited by Linnaeus must be regarded as
the type locality of nominotypical Struthio camelus Linnaeus,
1758; they accordingly sink the trivial name syriacus Rothschild,
1910, as an objective synonym of nominotypical camelus Linnaeus,
and, having thus left the North African Ostrich without an avail-
able name, give it the name Struthio camelus rothschildi “new
race.” The type locality is given as “ Marandet, south Air or
Azibine, Niger district, French West Africa.” The holotype is an
adult male in the collection of the British Museum (Natural
History).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97

3. Captain Grant and Mr. Mackworth-Praed kindly showed me their note
before it was published. I then took strong exception to the action proposed,
for, in my view, if an author, when naming a new species, cites several localities,
subsequent authors are free to select any of those localities as the type locality
of the nominotypical subspecies, provided that the original author did not
specify a type specimen. Moreover, I consider it the duty of systematists to
retain names (such as syriacus Rothschild) which have been in use for a genera-
tion or more, if this can possibly be done. In this particular case it could not
even be urged that the abandonment of the name syriacus Rothschild and the
renaming of the North African Ostrich was required under a strict application
of the Régles, for there is no provision in the Régles regulating the selection of
a type locality from among a series of localities cited in the original description
of a species. The action described above is therefore peculiarly unjustified
and, if not quashed, will inevitably lead to confusion. At the same time that
Grant and Praed’s paper was published, I published a short note (eid. 71 : 46),
protesting against their action in rejecting the name syriacus Rothschild for
the Syrian Ostrich. I was very glad to see that in a paper published this
year (Awk. 69 : 343) the late Dr. James L, Peters supported my protest, writing:
Meinertzhagen ‘‘ objects (and quite rightly) to the action of Grant and
Mackworth-Praed in rejecting S. c. syriacus.”

4. It is a serious weakness in the Régles that they contain no provision for
regulating the selection of type localities and thus for preventing confusion of
the kind described above from arising. It is very much to be hoped that this
omission will be repaired by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 when it resumes
the discussions begun in Paris in 1948 for securing greater stability in zoological
nomenclature. In the meantime effective action can be taken only by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and it is for this reason’
that I am submitting the present application.

5. My general purpose is to secure a ruling in favour of the maintenance of
the name syriacus Rothschild for the Syrian Ostrich and of the name camelus
Linnaeus for the North African Ostrich. It would be desirable that the same
opportunity should be taken for granting formal recognition of the selection
of “ Sennar ” as the type locality of nominotypical camelus made by Stresemann
in 1926 (Orn. Monatsber..1926 : 139).

6. The proposal which I accordingly submit to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature is that it should :—

place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(i) syrtacus Rothschild, 1910 (as published in the combination
Struthio camelus syriacus), with type locality “‘ Syrian desert ”
as designated by Rothschild ;

(ii) camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Struthio
camelus), with type locality ‘‘Sennar”’, as selected by Strese-
mann in 1926).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

98 Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-

PRESS THE NAME “ TYRANNULA ” SWAINSON, 1827, AND

TO DESIGNATE A TYPE SPECIES FOR “ MYIOBIUS”
DARWIN, 1839 (CLASS AVES)

By JOHN T. ZIMMER
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)676)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to vary the
normal operation of the Rules for the purpose of preventing the confusion and
disturbance in long established nomenclatural practice if those rules were to be
applied strictly to the names Tyrannula Swainson, 1827, and Myiobius Darwin,
1839 (Class Aves).

2. The relevant facts concerning the foregoing names are as follows. Darwin
published the name Myiobius (July 1839, Zool. Voy. “‘ Beagle” 3(9) : 46) to
replace the name T'yrannula Swainson, 1827, which he regarded as an invalid
junior homonym of Tyrannulus Vieillot, 1816 (Analyse : 31). Darwin did not
designate a type species for Myiohius, but in 1840 Gray (G. R.) (List Gen.
Birds : 30) selected Muscicapa ‘‘ barbatus’’ Gmelin (i.e. Muscicapa barbata
Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1: 933) as the type species of
this genus. At the same time Gray, following Darwin, placed Tyrannula
Swainson in the synonymy both of Myiobius Darwin and of Pyrocephalus
Gould, [1839].

3. The foregoing arrangement has been followed by subsequent workers
with little disagreement, and Myiobius has been current for over a century.
One of the decisions taken by the International Congress of Zoology (on the
recommendation of the Commission) at Paris in 1948, though, in itself, quite
acceptable, has, however, introduced a complication in the present case, which,
if not remedied in the manner now suggested, would have objectionable results.
The decision in question was that under which a generic name published before
lst January, 1931, is to be accepted as having been published with an indication,
if the names of previously established species are cited under the new generic
name, even if no description of any kind was given for the new genus (see 1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 80).

4. The generic name Tyrannula was first published by Swainson with a
formal description in a paper published in December 1827 (Zool. J. 3 : 358).
Among the species referred to Tyrannula in this paper was Muscicapa barbata
Gmelin, which (as already noted) Gray later selected as the type species of the
substitute genus Myiobius Darwin, thereby establishing it also as the type
species of Tyrannula Swainson, if the paper of December 1827 had been the
first valid publication of that name. Unfortunately, however, the December
paper was preceded by another published in May 1827 (Phil. Mag. (n.s.) 1(5)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

ed Pi

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99

367-368). (One aspect of the problem raised by the May paper was dealt with
by the Commission in its Opinion 30, published in 1911 (Smithson. Publ. 2013 :
69-72).) In this-paper Swainson used the name Tyrannula for eight species
but did not provide a generic description. Of the eight species then referred
to Tyrannula, five were then described for the first time, two were cited from
Gmelin, and one was described but tentatively identified with one of Vieillot’s
earlier described species. Under the new ruling referred to above, the name
Tyrannula Swainson of May 1827 is an available name, since its components
were specified by the original author. The species Muscicapa barbata Gmelin
was not among the species placed by Swainson in the genus Tyrannula in
May 1827 and it cannot therefore be accepted as the type species of this genus.
No other species has however been suggested to fill that role.

5. Contrary to the view held by Darwin and later by Gray, the name
Tyrannula Swainson is not a homonym of Tyrannulus Vieillot and is, in fact,
an available name. Under normal procedures, its type species must be one or
other of the eight species cited by Swainson in his paper of May 1827. This
would however involve three highly undesirable elements. First, although
the exact specific identity of two of these species is uncertain, it seems probable ©
that they, like the other six, belong to one or other of the genera now known
as Myiarchus, Contopus, Empidonax, Myiozetetes, and Pyrocephalus. All these
genera were established after 1827, and the selection as the type species of
Tyrannula of any of the eight species referred to that genus by Swainson in
May 1827 would therefore necessitate the replacement of one of these long-
established names. Second, the selection of any of these species as the type
species of Tyrannula would involve the proposal of a new name for the century-
old genus Myiobius Darwin. Third, confusion would be bound to arise if the
names T'yrannula Swainson and Tyrannulus Vieillot were both valid names for
genera in the same family.

6. The name Myiobius Darwin was unquestionably proposed as a substitute
name for Tyrannula Swainson (though of what date is uncertain) and it would
be undesirable to disregard the method by which it was proposed, more
especially in view of the fact that Darwin did not cite Muscicapa barbata
Gmelin under his Myiobius, and, in consequence, Gray’s selection of that species
as the type species of this genus would in that event be unacceptable. More-
over, none of the species which were cited by Darwin under Myiobius is now
considered to belong to this genus. The six species in question are now dis-
tributed among five genera, of which only one (Elaenza Sundevall [1836]) is
older than Myiobius but more recent than Tyrannula. There is moreover
nothing in Darwin’s account to suggest that he and Gould considered the
proposed Myiobius as having special application to barbata Gmelin, except
through Tyrannula Swainson.

7. Since the strict application of the normal rules in the Code would involve
several changes in old, established generic names and would leave in the same
family two generic names differing only in endings of gender, I believe that this
is a case where the International Commission should use its plenary powers
to set aside the ordinary rules and maintain the existing accepted nomen-
clature in this group.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. I accordingly recommend the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature :—

(1) to use its plenary powers :—

(a) to suppress the generic name Tyrannula Swainson, May
1827, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(b) to set aside all selections of type species made prior to the
decision now proposed to be taken for the genus Myiobius
Darwin, 1839, and, having done so, to designate Muscicapa
barbata Gmelin, 1788, to be the type species of the foregoing
genus ;

(2) to place the name Myiobius Darwin, 1839 (type species, by designa-
tion under the plenary powers, as proposed in (1)(b) above:
Muscicapa barbata Gmelin, 1788) on the Official Inst of Generic
Names in Zoology ;

(3) to place the name T'yrannula Swainson, May 1827, as proposed, under
(1)(a2) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

(4) to place the trivial name barbata Gmelin, 1788 (as published in the
binominal combination Muscicapa barbata) on the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO SUPPRESS THE See Saar vey SWAINSON, 1827

By the

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ORNITHOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL CONGRESS

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)676)

(Letter, dated 22nd July 1952, from Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, Chairman of
the Standing Committee)

The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature appointed by the
International Ornithological Congress has had under consideration an application
submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr.
John T. Zimmer in which the Commission is asked to use its plenary powers for
the purpose of securing the continued availability of the generic name Myiobius
Darwin, 1839.

The Standing Committee are of the opinion that it would be highly undesirable
that the well-known name Myiobius Darwin should be replaced by the name
Tyrannula, 1827, and desire to support the proposal that, in order to prevent the
confusion which would follow from the application of the normal rules in this case,
the Commission should use its plenary powers in the manner proposed, that is,
for the purpose of suppressing the name T'yrannula Swainson and for designating
Muscicapa barbata Gmelin, 1788, to be the type species of Myiobius Darwin, 1839,
_ thereby preserving that name for use in its accustomed sense.

The foregoing recommendation has the unanimous support of all the members
of the Standing Committee, namely, J. Berlioz (Museum National d Histoire
Naturelle, Paris) ; Erwin Stresemann (Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin) ;
John T. Zimmer (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) (the
applicant in the present case) and myself.

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST FOR A RULING THAT THE TRIVIAL NAMES
OF TWO WOODPECKERS, EACH CONSISTING OF A
SLIGHT VARIANT OF A PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NAME
BASED UPON A WORD TRANSLITERATED INTO THE
LATIN ALPHABET FROM A LANGUAGE USING ANOTHER
ALPHABET, BE TREATED AS JUNIOR HOMONYMS OF
THE EARLIER NAMES SO PUBLISHED

By the Marquess HACHISUKA |
(Atami, Shizuoka Ken, Japan)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)678)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to give a ruling that the trivial names of two wood-
peckers, each consisting of a slight variant of a previously published name
based upon a word transliterated into the Latin alphabet from a language using
another alphabet, are to be treated as junior homonyms of the earlier names
so published. From the point of view of Japanese ornithologists the first of
these cases is a matter of some urgency for the decennial revision of the Handlist
of the Japanese Birds is now in preparation and it is particularly desired that
the correct names for these birds should be used in it.

2. The birds concerned are now regarded as belonging to the genus Picoides
Lacépéde, 1799. The birds involved in the first case were originally described
from material from the island of Sakhalin, the second from the Tianschan area.
The names in question are the following :—

(1) Dryobates leucotos saghalinensis Yamashina, 1931 (Tort 7: 1) becomes
congeneric with Picoides tridactylus sakhalinensis Buterlin, 1907
(Orn. Monatsber. 15:10) on the union of Dendrocopos Koch, 1816
with Picoides Lacépéde, 1799.

(2) Dendrocopus [sic] major tianshanicus Buterlin, 1910 (Orn. Muitt.,
Moskau 1910 (3) : 200) becomes congeneric with Picoides tri
dactylus tianschanicus Buterlin, 1907 (Orn. Monatsber. 15 : 9) on
the union of the genus Dendrocopos Koch, 1816, with the genus
Picoides Lacépéde, 1799.

3. There is no authoritative approved spelling either for the word used to
denote the Island of Sakhalin or Saghalien, or for the word used as the name of
the Tianschan or Tianshan Mountains. Both these names are based upon place ~
names used in languages using alphabets other than the Latin alphabet and in
existing circumstances it is not possible to establish that a Latinised version of
these place names spelt in one way is more correct than that spelt in another way.
Slight variations in spelling due to differences in transliteration are not open to
any serious objection in the case of trivial names, where the species concerned
are referred to different genera. The question does however become one of
consequence when two species or subspecies in the same genus bear names that
are essentially identical with one another, differing, in form, only through slight
difference in transliteration. In the present instance, it would clearly be most

Bull. zool, Nomencel., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103

confusing if in the same genus there were birds, whose valid names were
respectively saghalinensis and sakhalinensis or tianshanicus and tvanschanicus.
Moreover, it would impose a quite unreasonable strain upon Article 34 of the
Regles (as amended in Paris in 1948) to argue that the foregoing do not represent
pairs of homonyms, merely because of the difficulty arising from the fact that
we are concerned here not with true Latin words but with Latinised versions of
words transcribed from other alphabets. I accordingly ask the International
Commission to rule that, under Articles 19 and 34, read together, the words
of which the foregoing pairs of names are composed are to be treated as
homonyms of one another.

4. The request now actually submitted is that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) rule that the following pairs of variant spellings are to be treated as
homonyms of one another :—

(a) saghalinensis and sakhalinensis :
(b) ttanshanicus and tianschanicus :

(2) place the following trivial names on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;—

(a) saghalinensis Yamashima, 1931 (as published in the com-
bination Dryobates leucotos saghalinensis) (invalid as a
junior secondary homonym consequent upon the reference
to the genus Picoides Lacépéde, 1799, both of Dryobates
leucotos saghalinensis Yamashima, 1931, and of Picoides
tridactylus sakhalinensis Buterlin, 1907) ;

(b) transhanicus Buterlin, 1910 (as published in the combination
Dendrocopus [sic] major ttanshanicus) (invalid as a junior
secondary homonym consequent upon the reference to the
genus Prcoides Lacépéde, 1799, both of Dendrocopus major
tianshanicus Buterlin, 1910, and of Picoides tridactylus
tianschanicus Buterlin, 1907).

Note by the Secretary to the Commission: It will be convenient in
connection with the application submitted by the Marquess Hachisuka to recall
that Dr. Helen Muir-Wood has already submitted an application (Z.N.(S.)530)
which, though primarily concerned with the relative status of the names
Jakowlefia Puton, 1875, and Yakovlevia Fredericks, 1925 (1951, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 6 : 90-92), raises a general question of principle essentially identical
with that raised in the present application by the Marquess Hachisuka. For
the only difference is that Dr. Muir-Wood’s application is concerned with
scientific names based upon the names of persons, while that of the Marquess
Hachisuka is concerned with scientific names based upon the names of places
or geographical features. It will, no doubt, be to the general convenience if
both these aspects of this general problem are dealt with simultaneously by the
Commission rather than that they should be treated as constituting separate
problems. (signed) Francis Hemming. 24th September 1952.

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-

PRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “ CYANEA” VIEILLOT, 1818

(AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ MUSCICAPA

CYANEA”) FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE

TRIVIAL NAME “ CYANEA” HUME, 1877 (AS PUBLISHED

IN THE COMBINATION “ MUSCITREA CYANEA ”) (CLASS
AVES)

; By CHARLES VAURIE
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)686)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers for the purpose of sup-
pressing the trivial name cyanea Vieillot, 1818 (as published in the binominal
combination Muscicapa cyanea), thus validating in the genus Nutava Hodgson,
1837 (India Rev. 1 : 650) the trivial name cyanea Hume, 1877 (as published in
the binominal combination Muscitrea cyanea) (Class Aves). The details of this
case are set out below.

2. The species represented by the nominal species Muscicapa cyanea
Vieillot, 1818 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 21 : 447) is said to come from Timor and
appears from Vieillot’s description to be the same species as that which later
was given the name Muscicapa hyacinthina Temminck, 1820 (in Temminck &
Laugier, Nouv. Rec. Planches color. Os. (5) : pl. 30, figs. 1, 2). The name given
to it by Vieillot, which has never been used for it or cited in connection with it in
the literature since the time of its original publication, is invalid, being a
junior primary homonym of Muscicapa cyanea Miiller, [1776] (in Linnaeus,
Syst. Nat. Suppl. : 170).

3. The bird to which Hume in 1877 (Stray Feathers § : 101) gave the name
Muscitrea cyanea is now treated as belonging to the genus Niltava Hodgson.
Accordingly, there are now in that genus two species, each possessing the
trivial name cyanea, namely (1) Temminck’s hyacinthina, which, as explained
above, has cyanea Vieillot in its synonymy, and (2) Hume’s cyanea. Under the
normal operation of the Rules, the latter name, as a junior secondary homonym,
must be rejected as invalid. This name has however been in unchallenged use
for about 75 years for the well-known Indian bird concerned and is the name
that has been used for that bird in every standard work published during that
period. The rejection of this name at this stage would lead to confusion and
disturbance, unaccompanied by any corresponding benefit.

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked :—

(1) to use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the trivial

name cyanea Vieillot, 1818 (as published in the bmominal combina-

tion Muscicapa cyanea) for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy ;

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (October 1952)

44 —"

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105

(2) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :—

(a) cyanea Hume, 1877 (as published in the binominal combina-
tion Muscitrea cyanea) ;

(b) cyanea Miller, 1776 (as published in the binominal combina-
tion Muscicapa cyanea) ;

(3) to place the trivia] name cyanea Vieillot, 1818 (as published in the
binominal combination Muscicapa cyanea), as proposed, under (1)
above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI-
DATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ FERRUGINEA ” HODGSON,
1845 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ HEMICHE-
LIDON FERRUGINEA ”) BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
TRIVIAL NAME “FERRUGINEA” MERREM, 1784 (AS
PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “MUSCICAPA
FERRUGINEA”) (CLASS AVES)

By CHARLES VAURIE
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

({Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)687)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to preserve the trivial
name ferruginea Hodgson, 1845 (as published in the binominal combination
Hemichelidon ferruginea) (Class Aves). The details of this case are set out below.

2. The species, which was treated as belonging to the genus Hemichelidon
when it was first described and named Hemichelidon ferruginea Hodgson, 1845
(Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 13(146) : 32) is now placed in the genus Muscicapa
Linnaeus, 1766. There is however a much older nominal species originally
described as belonging to the genus Muscicapa, namely Muscicapa ferruginea
Merrem, 1784 (Avium rar. Icones 1 : 19). Thus, the trivial name ferruginea
Hodgson, 1845, is invalid, as a junior secondary homonym in the genus Mus-
cicapa.

3. Merrem’s work is not available to me, but according to a personal
communication which I have received from Mr. H. G. Deignan (U.S. National
Museum, Washington), both the species represented by Muscicapa ferruginea
Merrem and its country of origin is uncertain. On the other hand, the bird to
which Hodgson gave the name Hemichelidon ferruginea has been known by the

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

trivial name ferruginea for 107 years and has been cited under that name by the
authors of all standard works (Hartert 1910, Die Vég. Paldéarkt. Fauna 1 : 479 ;
Stuart Baker, Faun. Brit. Ind.; R. B. Sharpe, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 4 : 122;
F. N. Chasen, 1935, Handlist of Malaysian Birds : 163).

4. Great and quite unnecessary confusion and disturbance would be created
by the rejection of the trivial name ferruginea Hodgson by reason of its being a
junior secondary homonym in the genus Muscicapa of the trivial name fer-
ruginea Merrem. This would be all the less justified in view of the fact that the
name published by Merrem is a nomen dubium. It is to prevent this disturbance
that this case is now submitted to the International Commission under the
procedure prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology for dealing with
problems presented by nomina dubia (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 76).

5. The application now submitted is that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the trivial name ferruginea
Merrem, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Muscicapa
ferruginea) for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the
Law of Homonymy, and (b) to validate the trivial name ferruginea
Hodgson, 1845 (as published in the binominal combination Hem-
chelidon ferruginea) ;

(2) place the trivial name ferruginea Hodgson, 1845 (as published in the
foregoing combination), as validated, under (1)(b) above, under the
plenary powers, on the Official List of Specific Trial Names im
Zoology ;

(3) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ;—

(a) ferruginea Merrem, 1784 (as published in the binominal
combination Muscicapa ferruginea), as proposed, under
(1)(a) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers ;

(b) ferrugineas Hodgson, June 1844 (as published in the bino-
minal combination Hemichelidon ferruginea Hodgson,
1844, Gray’s Zool. Miscell. (6) : 84) (a nomen nudum).

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

New Applications

(1) Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758: (a) application for suppression of, and for validation
of Gavia Forster, 1788, under the plenary powers, by the Standing Com-
mittee on Ornithological Nomenclature ; (6) Report of position of, under
Régles, the by Francis Hemming, By antes to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature ‘fe a5 Br. Ae as

(2) Trivial name caspicus Hablizl, 1783 (as published in the combination Colymbus
caspicus), proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers. By the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature Me is

(3) Four trivial names published for birds by Lichtenstein in 1793, proposed sup-
. pression of, under the plenary pee: By the Standing Committee on
Ornithological Nomenclature .. ‘ ye i oi a5 ne

(4) Trivial name nortoniensis Gmelin, 1789 (as published in the combination Frin-
gilla nortoniensis), proposed suppression of, under the plenary pets iy
the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature

(5) Seven trivial names published by Gmelin in 1788 and 1789 for birds which
remained unidentified until 1950, proposed suppression of, under the
plenary powers. Application by the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature my: Ae oe sia ae ae at &

(6) Three trivial names for birds published by Forster (J.R.) in 1794, proposed
suppression of, under the plenary powers; also proposed suppression
under those powers of the trivial name novaehollandiae Latham, 1790 (as
published in the combination Muscicapa novaehollandiae). (a) application
by H. M. Whittle (for Checklist Committee, Royal Australasian Ornitho-
ie Union) ; (6) application by four United States ornithologists (Ernst
Mayr et al.) and three Australian ornithologists (L. Clavert et al.) ; (c) note
by Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature ; (d) support aly the pee Committee on Ornitho-
logical Nomenclature EN = i

Ciy Three trivial names of birds, proposed acceptance, under Article 19, of emenda-
tions made for. By the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clatare ie. a He “te ae rie Be BS cif aie

Ba (8) Pibriacoas Tunstall, 1771, proposed validation of, under the plenary powers :
j (a) application by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature;
(6) note by Francis Hemming, sta to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature... . rn ee <3 ic ae

AY) Trivial name of the Song Thrush, proposed validation of philomelos Brehm,
1831 (as published in the combination Turdus philomelos) as the trivial name
\* for. By the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature

(10) Names for American birds published by Linnaeus in 1776 and completely over-
a looked until 1949, proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers.
(a) application by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen-
clature, covering an application by nine United States ornithologists (E. R.
Blake et al.) ; (6) note by Francis aon es ia ded to the mR Oar
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature na

(11) Report by Francis Hemming (Secretary to the International Commission on
’ Zoological Nomenclature) on the type species of certain genera of birds
discussed but left unsettled, in Opinion 16: support for action proposed
received from Colonel R. Meinertzhagen ae Ae ae Ap wd

Page

CONTENTS

(continued from overleaf)
Page
(12) Two Siberian birds, proposed addition of trivial names of, to the Official List
of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. By the late James L. Peters (Museum
of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass, U.S.A.) a = ee

(13 to 17) Proposals for the correction of errors relating to the names of birds placed
on the Officia! List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 67. By Francis
see Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature :

(a) Ectopistes Swainson, 1827 : validation of Columba migratoria Linnaeus,
1766, as name of type species of a a4 ae e Be

(d) ea Gould : correction of date of publication of, and reference 4H
or 5% oe ie ais Le ae oe “A ~'s ee

(d) Bubo Duméril, 1806; Coturnix Bonnaterre, 1790; Egretta Forster,

1817 ; Oriolus Linnaeus, 1766 F 89
(e) Gallinago Koch, 1816, proposed substitution of Capella Frenzel, mals
1801, for i at Se “K i a Ms! af (OR: q

(18) Trivial name syriacus Rothschild, 1910 (as published in the combination Struthio
camelus syriacus), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology as the trivial name of the Syrian Ostrich. By Richard =
Meinertzhagen (London) : ie ae ee Le Hs an 96

(19) Myiobius Darwin, 1839, proposed validation of, by suppression of Tyrannula
Swainson, 1827, and designation of type species for, under the plenary
powers. (a) application by John T. Zimmer (The American Museum of
Natural History, New York); (b) support by the Standing Committee on ;
Ornithological Nomenclature 4 on Sat Sook Paes oe a 98

(20) Request for a ruling that the trivial names of two woodpeckers, each consisting
of a slight variant of a previously published name based upon a word trans-
literated into the Latin alphabet from a language using another alphabet, —
be treated as junior homonyms of the earlier names so published. By the
' Marquess Hachisuka (Atami, Shizuoka, Japan) =e Baa de > De

(21) Trivial name cyanea Hume, 1877 (as published in the combination Muscitrea
cyanea), proposed validation of, by suppression of cyanea Vieillot, 1818 (a5: “Slag
published in the combination Muscicapa cyanea) under the plenary powers. 1

- By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) a8

(22) Trivial name ferruginea Hodgson, 1845 (as published in the combination Hemi-
chelidon ferruginea), proposed validation of, by suppression of ferruginea
Merrem, 1784 (as published in the combination Muscicapa ferruginea)
under the plenary powers. By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum Of cea
Natural History, New York) .. = AR ahs hie ae = 105 ia

eee Ey YS ee Se eee eee es eee re es
4 _Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim anp Son Lrtp., Westminster, London Ls

VOLUME 9. Double Part 4/5 Sask riecede 1050
- pp. 107-158, 1 pl. :

-THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ee a “oe NOMENCLATURE ~

paine’.

Edited by “a, 5B

_ FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

_ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :

Page

_ The Presidency of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature : Election of Professor J. Chester Bradley .. 107
Obituary: Dr. William Thomas Calman Me . we, GOS

. iv. : Retirement of Mr. A. S. Pankhurst from the Office of alta
be $ ef Registrar to the International Trust for Zoological Nomen-
5 clature .. oe 1s as bol Me ae 3s AOS

(continued on back wrapper)

LONDON :
csimmags by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
at the Publications Office of the Trust
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1952
Price Seventeen Shillings
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom)

President: Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)
Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-
election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944)
Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (lst January 1944)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (President) (28th March 1944)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)

Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (lst January 1947)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947)

Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948)
Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950)

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

Honorary Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming
Honorary Archivist: Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A.

D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Honorary Secretary and Managing Director: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., .
C.B.E.

Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner

E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust

W.1
_ Offices of the Trust: 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 9, Double Part 4/5 (pp. 107-158, 1 pl.) 30th December 1952
V4 ' ;
\ ¥ }
» P /
ee 7 B
es

THE PRESIDENCY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has pleasure

_ in announcing the election of Professor James Chester Bradley, Professor
J _ Emeritus of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A., one of the
United States Representatives on the International Commission since 1944,

3 to be President of the International Commission, with effect from 27th

, November 1952, in succession to the late Dr. James Lee Peters, Museum of

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

WILLIAM THOMAS CALMAN
1871-1952

It is announced with the greatest regret that the death occurred

on 29th September 1952 of Dr. William Thomas Calman, C.B., D.Sc.,
F.R.S., one of the United Kingdom Representatives on the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature since 1935.

An Obituary Notice will be published as soon as possible.

Retirement of Mr. Albert Stanley Pankhurst from the Office of
Honorary Registrar to the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature

It is with great regret that the International Trust for Zoological Nomen-
clature announce that it has accepted the resignation of Mr. Albert Stanley
Pankhurst, C.B.E., from the Office of Honorary Registrar to the Trust.

Mr. Pankhurst was one of the original subscribers to the Memorandum
and Articles of Association of the Trust at the time when it was incorporated
in 1947, and ever since has held the office of Honorary Registrar, in which
capacity he has rendered valuable service to the Trust. Mr. Pankhurst’s
resignation is occasioned by his acceptance of a post under the United Nations
in the Middle East, which will necessitate his living outside the United Kingdom
for at least a year. At the request of the Committee of Management, Mr.
Pankhurst has consented to remain a member of the Trust, whose hope it
is that on the completion of the term of service in his new appointment, Mr.
Pankhurst will be able to resume his active association with the work of the
Trust.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (vol. 9, Double Part 4/5) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in
be writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any
Pa case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the
Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred
to above.

| (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain
cases

mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in
applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature (Vol. 9, Double Part 4/5) in relation to the following names :—

(a) Astacus Fabricius, 1775 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation
of (correction of an error in Opinion 104) (Z.N.(S.)544) ;

(6) Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation
of (correction of an error in Opinion 73) (Z.N.(S.)557) ;

(c) flavipes Olivier, 1795 (Dytiscus) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera),
validation of, by suppression of flavipes Fabricius, 1792 (Dytiscus)
(Z.N.(S.)667).

| Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
|

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2. The present Part contains also an application that the normal provisions
of the Régles should be strictly applied to the generic names Portunus Weber,
1795, and Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
and that those names should therefore be placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology with Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758, and Portunus macro-
pipus Prestandrea, 1833, as their respective type species, it not being desirable,
in the opinion of the applicant, that the plenary powers should be used in
this case (Z.N.(S.)642).

3. Comments on the foregoing applications should be addressed to the
Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (address :
28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England). If received
in sufficient time, comments so received will be published in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature ; other comments, provided that they are received
' within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication
of the present Part, will be laid before the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the
application concerned.

4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the journals “ Nature” and “‘ Science.”

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

30th December 1952.

ap lgedte ee

Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 9 ; Plate |

JAMES LEE PETERS
1889-1952

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111

JAMES LEE PETERS
1889-1952

James Lee Peters, President of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and author of seven volumes of the “ Check-List of Birds of the
World,” died on Saturday, April 19, 1952, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
On April 10th he had suffered a severe coronary thrombosis, and this, compli-
cated by pneumonia, rapidly brought death.

Even in childhood his interest had been in birds, and much of his boyhood
was spent with the great collections at the Museum of Comparative Zoology
at Harvard College. These were not far from Jamaica Plan, a suburb of Boston,
his first home and where he was born on August 13, 1889. He was the son of
Austin Peters, and Frances Lee, both of whom encouraged him in his interest
in birds. During school and college years he was making a collection of his
own and shortly after graduation from Harvard he was collecting in Mexico for
the Harvard University Museum. In later years he worked also in the West
Indies, and in Central and South America. Except for a short time, during
which he was employed by the Biological Survey of the United States Govern-
ment, and service in the army in France during World War I, his connection
with Harvard was never severed. In 1921 he was appointed Assistant in
Ornithology, in 1927 Assistant Curator of Birds, and Curator ir. 1933. In that
year he was married to Miss Eleanor K. Sweet, who had been Librarian there.
They lived together on a quiet farm in the village of Harvard, Massachusetts.

Little was allowed to distract him from his work. Occasionally he was
tired after fighting a fire in the village. Editing “ Bird-Banding,” a magazine
devoted to the ringing of birds, occupied some time during the years 1939
through 1950. He was secretary of the board of the local hospital, and although
his apple orchard was of great interest to him for many years, he gave this up
latterly.

Just a year before his marriage and appointment as Curator, the first
volume of the “‘ Check-List ’”’ appeared ; the succeeding books were published
in 1934, 1937, 1940, 1945, 1948 and 1951. These are lists of the birds of the
world, together with their geographical ranges and references to previous
workers. Increasing demand for them indicates their value to zoologists.
They are indeed a memorial to the meticulous habits of his working life.
Although the biological implication of any list of animals may be severely
criticised by future zoologists—and no doubt will be—such, in this case, can
only be based on the limitations that nomenclature imposes upon biology.
Peters’s mechanical accuracy within this framework can only be applauded.
It illuminates a sense of compromise and an abnegation that were quite charac-
teristic of its author. Less in his conversation, which contained little hint of
the pedagogue, but often in his correspondence, appear the words “ caution ”
and “ deliberation.”’ Accurate solution of the problem at hand was always
important to him, never personal advancement.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952)

112 Bulletin of Zoological- Nomenclature

And so, little by little and day by day, he was recognised by his peers.
He was President of the American Ornithologists’ Union from 1943 through _
1945, and a member of the Cooper Club of California, the Biological Society of
Washington, the Washington Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of
Sciences, the American Society of Mammalogists, Sigma Xi, the Society of
Systematic Zoologists, and the Nuttall Ornithological Club of Cambridge, of
which he was President from 1942 until his death. In Europe and South
America the Deutsche Ornithologische Gesellschaft of Berlin, Germany; the
Ornithologische Gesellschaft Bayern of Munich, Germany; and the Sociedad
Ornithologica del Plata of Buenos Aires elected him to membership.

He was elected a member of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature in September 1933, succeeding Dr. David Starr Jordan. In
March 1945 he became Vice-President and President in July 1948, succeeding
Dr. Karl Jordan. His interest here were in the solution of specific problems of _
nomenclature rather than the multitude of distracting details of administration.

Meticulous, selfless work and its result have brought him the respect and

admiration of zoologists. eid
J.C. G.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO CORRECT
AN ERRONEOUS ENTRY RELATING TO THE NAME
“ ASTACUS ” PALLAS, 1772 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER
DECAPODA), MADE IN THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” IN “OPINION” 104

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)544)
The subject matter of the present application came to notice in connection

with the routine checking of the entries on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology in connection with the projected publication of the Official List

in book form, and is concerned with the erroneous entry of the name Astacus

Pallas, 1772 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) on that List made in the
Commission’s Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 27).

2. Entry relating to the generic name “ Astacus” Pallas, 1772, made on
the “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” in Opinion 104:
In Opinion 104 (: 27) the reference given for the name Astacus was
“ Pallas, 1772, p. 81.’ The reference so given is clearly to page 81 of Volume 9
of Pallas’s Spicilogia Zoologiae, where the name Astacus was in fact used by
Pallas. The particulars given for the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, in Opinion
104 were as follows :—“tat. [type species by absolute tautonymy] Cancer
astacus Linn. 1758a, 631, syn. fluviatilis Fab. 1775a, 413.”

3. Incorrect type species given for “ Astacus” Pallas, 1772, in
* Opinion ” 104: On referring to Volume 9 of Pallas’s Spicil. Zool., I found
that in the paper concerned Pallas confined himself to the description of a
new Siberian species of crayfish, to which he gave the name Astacus dauuricus.
No other species was mentioned by Pallas and the above nominal species is
therefore unquestionably the type species of Astacus Pallas by monotypy, for,
as will be recalled, the Commission had ruled in Opinion 47 as far back as
1912 (Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 108-109) that a genus is to be treated as mono-
typical if one species only was cited by name by its original author, even if
that author made it clear that he considered that other species which he did
not cite by name belonged to the genus also, a decision which, in substance,
was written into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology
at Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 153). Accordingly, the
statement in Opinion 104 that Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed.
10) 1 : 631) is the type species of the genus Astacus Pallas, 1772, is incorrect.
In his description of his new species Astacus dauuricus, Pallas said (in the
first sentence): ‘‘ Forma atque proportione astaco nostrati minori persimilis
est,” and it is possible that the applicant in the case which was decided upon
in Opinion 104 may have interpreted Pallas’ reference to (translated into
English) “our crayfish’ as constituting obliquely the inclusion of Cancer
astacus Linnaeus, 1758, in the genus Astacus Pallas, 1772. Whether or not
this is the explanation of the statement in Opinion 104 regarding the type
species of Astacus Pallas, that statement is, as we have seen, incorrect. It
is necessary therefore to consider what action should now be taken to correct
or validate the entry on the Official List relating to this name.

Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952)

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. Two possible courses of action: When I first considered this matter,
it seemed to me that, other things being equal, there were two courses of
action open to the Commission, each of which involved the admission that
the entry on the Official List relating to the name Astacus Pallas was defective.
(1) The Commission might confine itself to correcting the mistake in Opinion
104, that is, to giving an emended ruling stating that the type species of Astacus
Pallas, 1772, was Astacus dawuricus Pallas, 1772, by monotypy, and not (as
incorrectly stated in the foregoing Opinion) Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758,
by absolute tautonymy. Clearly, the practicability of this course would
depend upon whether, in the opinion of specialists, Astacus dauuricus Pallas,
1772, and Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, were not only congeneric with one
another but were also so closely allied that there was no reasonable risk that
at some later date they would be placed in different genera with the result
that Cancer astacus Linnaeus would cease to be subjectively referable to the
genus Astacus Pallas. (2) It would be possible for the Commission to decide
that it was so important to ensure that Cancer astacus Linnaeus should be
permanently retained in the genus Astacus that the proper course for it to
adopt would be to use its plenary powers to designate that species to be the
type species of Astacus Pallas, thereby giving valid force to the until then
invalid entry in regard to this generic name made in the Official Inst in Opinion
104.

5. Advice received from Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands): At this point I put
this question (in a letter dated 6th June 1951) to Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijks-
museum van Natuurlyke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). In his reply,
dated 8th June 1951, which is being published simultaneously with the present
paper, Dr. Holthuis informed me that the species Astacus dawuricus Pallas,
1772, was no longer considered to be congeneric with Cancer astacus Linnaeus,
being currently referred to the genus Cambaroides Faxon, 1884 (Proc. Amer.
Acad Arts Sci., Boston 20 : 149), of which the type species was Astacus japonicus
De Haan, 1841 (Faun. japon., Crust. (5): 164, pl. 35, fig. 9), by subsequent
selection by Faxon (1898, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 20 : 665). Dr. Holthuis accord-
ingly considered that it was “ highly desirable that the Commission should take
steps to prevent the confusion, which undoubtedly will arise if Astacus dauuricus
Pallas is accepted as the type species of Astacus.” Of the two alternative
courses outlined in my letter (i.e. the two alternatives set out in paragraph 4
above), Dr. Holthuis was altogether opposed to the first, and, if no other course
were open, would favour the second. Dr. Holthuis went on, however, to outline
a third course (which, like my alternative (2), would involve the use by the
Commission of its plenary powers) which, in his opinion, offered the best
solution obtainable. Dr. Holthuis pointed out that, notwithstanding the entry
on the Official List of Astacus Pallas, 1772, under Opinion 104, most authors
treated the name Astacus as having been first published by Fabricius in 1775
(Syst. Ent. : 413); if that practice could be validated, no difficulty would arise
in regard to the type species of this genus, since the type species of Astacus
Fabricius, 1775, was, by selection by Latreille (1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Arach.
Ins. : 422) the nominal species Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.: 413), —
a nominal species which was objectively identical with the nominal species

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115

Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758 (the name Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius being
only a nom. nov. for Cancer astacus Linnaeus). Dr. Holthuis accordingly sug-
gested that the difficulty created by the mistake in Opinion 104 should be over-
come by the Commission using its plenary powers to validate Astacus Fabricius,
1775 (Astacus Pallas, 1772, being at the same time removed from the Official
List), rather than for the purpose of designating Cancer astacus Linnaeus to be
the type species of Astacus Pallas, 1772.

6. Solution recommended : It is clearly essential that such steps as may
be necessary should be taken to provide a legal foundation for the current use
of such an important name as Astacus ; the only question therefore is how best
this object can be secured. In view of the fact that (as Dr. Holthuis has ex-
plained) the majority of specialists still attribute this name to Fabricius, there
would be an obvious advantage in stabilising the name Astacus as from that
author. The force of this consideration is greatly strengthened by the fact
that, if this course were to be adopted, there would no longer be any problem
to solve as regards the type species of this genus. Qn general principles, it will
also, I think, be felt that it is better to use the plenary powers for the purpose of
giving valid force to action taken by an early author (in this case, by Fabricius
in 1775) rather than to use those powers for the purpose of securing the same end
by designating as the type species of a genus a species not included in it by its
original author (in this case, by Pallas in 17 72). My recommendation to the
Commission is therefore that it should adopt Dr. Holthuis’ suggestion and, by
suppressing the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, under the plenary powers, so provide
a firm foundation for the name Astacus Fabricius, 1775.

7. Uses of the generic name “ Astacus ” prior to Fabricius, 1775 : In
the case of generic names published in the immediate sub-Linnean age, it is
essential to take special steps to secure that the usage which it is proposed to
accept for any given generic name has not been anticipated by some earlier
author, for, owing to the imperfect state of knowledge regarding many of these
rare XVIIIth century works, it is still extremely easy to overlook an early
usage of a generic name, especially one which was taken over from the pre-
1758 zoologists. In the present case I investigated this problem in conjunction
with Dr. Karl Jordan, then President of the Commission, during the war (in
1944). From this investigation, it appeared that the name Astacus had been
used as a generic name on three occasions prior to its use as such by Pallas in
1772. These uses were :—(1) Astacus Borlase, 1758, Nat. Hist. Cornwall : 274;
(2) Astacus Gronovius, 1762, Acta Helv. 5 - 365 (not Vol. 4, published in 1760,
as frequently stated in lists); (3) Gronovius, 1764, Zoophylac. gronov. : 227.
At that time nothing was known as to the nature of Borlase’s book, while
Gronovius was a non-binominal “ binary” author and, pending a decision
(which was, in fact, taken in 1948) on the general problem of the meaning of the
expression “ binary nomenclature ”, the status of generic names published in
his books was a matter of doubt. Quite recently I examined the position as
regards the status of names in Borlase’s Natural History of Cornwall, primarily
as a general problem but partly also with special reference to the name Astacus.
In the application which I have submitted to the Commission on this subject
(Application Z.N.(S.)543), which was published in September 1951 (Hemming,
1951, Bull. zool, Nomencl. 6 : 115-118), I showed that Borlase could in no sense

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

be regarded as a binominal author, and I recommended that.the name Astacus
Borlase, 1758, and also the name Astacus as used by the non-binominal “ binary.”’
author Gronovius in 1762 and 1764 should be placed on the Official List of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. For the present purposes these
three old uses of the name Astacus may therefore be set on one side, no further
action being necessary in regard to them. Needless to say, however, it will be
necessary to suppress under the plenary powers. the undoubtedly available
name Astacus Pallas, 1772, if the name Astacus Fabricius, 1775, is to be rendered
available. For the reasons explained above, the possibility cannot be excluded
that the investigation carried out by Dr. Jordan and myself in 1944 may have
failed to detect every use of the name Astacus between 1758 and 1772, while it
is possible also that this name may have been used by some author in the period
1772-1775, which was not covered by the survey which we then carried out.
In these circumstances, it would, I think, be prudent to follow the precedent
set in similar cases, e.g. the case of the Echinoid name Spatangus (see 1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 526), that is, to use the plenary powers to suppress not
only the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, but also any other use of that name prior
to Fabricius, 1775, which would otherwise be available and would therefore
invalidate Astacus Fabricius, 1775, as a junior homonym.

8. Name to be used for the type species of “ Astacus” Fabricius,
1775: As has already been noted (paragraph 5 above), (1) the nominal species
which is the type species of Astacus Fabricius, 1775, is Astacus fluviatilis
Fabricius, 1775, but (2) that nominal species is objectively identical with the
nominal species Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, the name Astacus fluviatilis
Fabricius being only a nom. nov. for the name Cancer astacus Linnaeus, coined
by Fabricius when he introduced for it the generic name Astacus, this action
being due, no doubt, to the dislike entertained by Fabricius, in common with
most of his contemporaries, for tautonymy between generic names and specific
trivial names. The Commission has in recent times made it a practice, when
using the plenary powers in relation to a given generic name, to use those
powers also to secure that the nominal species which is the type species of
that genus shall be whatever nominal species has the oldest available name
for the taxonomic species which is, or which it is desired to make, the type
species of that genus. In view of the fact that it will be necessary to use the
plenary powers to suppress the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, if the name Astacus
Fabricius, 1775, is to be validated, it is suggested that at the same time those
powers should be used to designate Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, as the
type species of this genus in ‘lieu of the objectively identical, but later estab-
lished, nominal species Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775.

9. Urgency of the present case: In view of the fact that the present
application is designed to secure a correction of an erroneous entry on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made in an earlier Opinion rendered
by the Commission, the need for a decision is very pressing, for, until decisions
have been taken by the Commission in this, and certain similar, cases, the
publication of the Official List in book form will.inevitably be delayed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 -

- 10. Action recommended: In the light of the foregoing considerations,
the following recommendations are submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, namely that it should :—

(1) delete the name Astacus Pallas, 1772, from the Oficial List of Generic
Names in Zoology, Opinion 104 being at the same time amended
to the extent necessary for this purpose ;

One he ee

(2) use its plenary powers :—

(a) to suppress for the purposes, both of the Law of Priority and

‘ of the Law of Homonymy :—

7 (i) Astacus Pallas, 1772 ;

& (ii) Astacus, any other otherwise available use of, as a generic

| name prior to Astacus Fabricius, 1775 ;

(6) to designate Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758, in lieu of the
objectively identical, but later established nominal species
Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of
Astacus Fabricius, 1775 ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology ;—
(a) Astacus Fabricius, 1775 (gender of generic name: masculine)
(type species, by designation, as proposed in (2) (b) above,
under the plenary powers: Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758)
(to be inserted on the Qffcial List in the place rendered
vacant by the removal therefrom, under (1) above, of the
name Astacus Pallas, 1772) ;
(6) Cambaroides Faxon, 1884 (gender of generic name: masculine)
(type species, by selection by Faxon (1898) : Astacus japonicus

™ de Haan, 1841) ;
z (4) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Trivial
ES Names in Zoology ;—

| (a) astacus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Cancer
| astacus) (trivial name of species proposed, under (2) (b) above,
to be designated under the plenary powers to be the type
species of Astacus Fabricius, 1775) ;

| (6) japonicus de Haan, 1841 (as published in the combination

* Astacus japonicus) (trivial name of type species of Cambaroides
3 ; Faxon, 1884) ;

| Es (5) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
> Generic Names in Zoology ;—

= (a) the names specified in (2) (a) above, as there proposed to be
_ suppressed under the plenary Powers ;
s (6) Astacus Erichson, 1847, Arch. Naturgesch. 13 (1) : 101 (a junior
£ homonym of Astacus Fabricius, 1775) ;

(6) place the trivial name fluviatilis Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the
combination Astacus fluviatilis) (trivial name of an objective junior
synonym of Cancer astacus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official Index

| of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

118 Bulletin of Zoological-Nomenclature .

ON THE ACTION WHICH IT IS DESIRABLE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO
CORRECT THE ERRONEOUS ENTRY RELATING TO THE NAME
““ ASTACUS” PALLAS, 1772 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)
MADE IN THE “ CET toon on er NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”

By L. B. HOLTHUIS

(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)544)

(Extract from a letter dated 8th June 1961)

Thank you so much for your letter Z.N.(S.)544 of 6th June concerning Astacus
Pallas, 1772 (Spicil. Zool. 9:81) type species: Astacus dauuricus Pallas, 1772
(Spicil. Zool. 9 : 81) monotypic.

As to your questions concerning Pallas’s species I can give you the following
information. .Astacus dauuricus Pallas is a well recognisable species and the
trivial name dauuricus, being the oldest name available for the species, at present
still is in common usage. The species, however, is no longer retained in the genus
Astacus, but is placed in a separate genus Cambaroides Faxon (1884, Proc. Amer.
Acad. Arts Sci. 20: 149) type: <Astacus japonicus De Haan (1841, Fauna japon.
Crust. (5): 164, pl. 35 fig. 9) by subsequent designation Faxon (1898, Proc. U.S.
nat. Mus. 20: 665). Faxon (1884) described Cambaroides as a subgenus of Astacus,
but Stebbing (1893, Hist. Crust. : 208) raised it to the rank of a genus, in which
he is followed by all modern authors.

To me it seems highly desirable that the Commission should undertake steps
to prevent the confusion, which undoubtedly will be the result if Astacus dauuricus
Pallas is chosen to be the type species of the genus Astacus. From the two alter-
natives mentioned in your letter therefore I certainly would choose the second,
and let the Commission use its plenary powers to make Cancer astacus Linnaeus
(1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 631) the type species of the genus Astacus.

I would suggest therefore that the Commission should not place Astacus Pallas,
1772, on the Official List, but Astacus Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 413) type species :
Astacus fluviatilis Fabricius (1775, Syst. Ent.: 413) (=Cancer astacus Linnaeus,
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 631) type by subsequent selection (Latreille, 1810,
Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 422). Nearly all authors using the generic name
Astacus attribute it to Fabricius, 1775.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI-

DATE THE NAME “FAVUS” LANCHESTER, 1900 (CLASS

CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) (PROPOSED COR-
RECTION OF AN ERROR IN “OPINION” 73)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)557)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers for the purpose of
validating the name Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
an invalid name inadvertently placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology in the Commission’s Opinion 73 (1922, Smithson. misc. Coll.
73 (No. 1): 27). The error involved was detected in the course of preparations
for the publication of the first instalment of the Official List in book form.
In view of the widespread demand for the early publication of the foregoing
volume and the fact that publication cannot take place until a decision has
been taken on this and certain other cases where errors have been detected,
it is hoped that the International Commission will give all practicable priority
to the consideration of the present application.

2. The name Favus Lanchester, 1900 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900 : 767)
was published for a genus of which Favus granulatus Lanchester, 1900 (Proc.
zool. Soc. Lond. 1900 : 768) is the type species by monotypy. This name was
included in a long list of the names of genera of Decapoda recommended to
the International Commission in 1915 for inclusion in the Official List as names
that were nomenclatorially available and taxonomically required. It was on
this basis that it was placed on the Official List in the Commission’s Opinion 73.

3. The routine checking of names placed on the Official List involves,
inter alia, looking up each name in the latest Nomenclator (Neave’s Nomencl.
zool.) for the purpose of making as sure as possible that investigations carried
out since the name in question was placed on the Official List have not brought
to light the existence of an older homonym, thus rendering invalid the name
placed on the Official List. In the present case this check brought to light
the existence of the previously overlooked name Favus Schafheutel, 1850
(Geogn. Unters. siidbay. Alpengeb. : 44), established for a genus of fossils.

4, The name Favus Lanchester, 1900, is consequently an invalid name, and
it is necessary therefore to consider what action should be taken in view of the
fact that (as explained above) this name is on the Offcial List. The first point
that has to be examined is whether the name Favus Schafheutel, 1850 (the
name which is responsible for invalidating Favus Lanchester, 1900) is a name
in use in the group of fossils concerned, for, if this were found to be the case,
the position would clearly be quite different from that which would arise if
it were found that the name Favus Schafheutel was some old synonym that
was not in use and the disappearance of which would cause no inconvenience
whatever in the group concerned. It appears from inquiries made that not
only is the name Favus Schafheutel not in use by palaeonotologists but also

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952)

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

that the indication given by Schafheutel for this genus is so scanty that it
cannot be stated with certainty to which of the major groups of the Animal
Kingdom this genus should be referred. Neave (in his Nomenclator 2 : 401)
gave only the indication “?Protozoa.”

5. It is quite clear therefore that, if the Commission were to decide to
use its plenary powers to suppress the name Favus Schafheute!, 1850, for the
purpose of validating the name Favus Lanchester, 1900, that action would
not cause the slightest inconvenience to any palaeonotologist, consisting (as
it would) merely in the removal of an unwanted nomen dubium. On the other
hand, it is through the action of the Commission itself that the name Favus
Lanchester has for nearly thirty years been on the Official Inst, and for the
whole of that period systematists have therefore been led to believe that it
was an available name and the correct name to use for the genus concerned.
The fact that a name has been on the Official List for so long a period would
afford no ground for retaining it on the List, if it were to be found that to
do so would involve the suppression of a name as commonly used, or more
commonly used, in some other group. But this is not the position in the
present instance, for the fact that the name Favus Lanchester is now seen
to be invalid is due solely to the excavation from the literature of a name
published a hundred years ago which is not only not in use but in addition
applies to a nominal genus that was so badly characterised by its original
author that it is not possible definitely to establish the position of the genus
in the Animal Kingdom and in consequence the name is a nomen dubium.
In the present case, therefore, no inconvenience of any kind would result
from the suppression of the name Favus Schafheutel, 1850, while the interests
of stability would certainly be promoted by this course, enabling, as it would,
the name Favus Lanchester, 1900, to retain the position which it has for so
long occupied on the Official Inst. The Congress has clearly indicated that
names, once placed on the Official List, are not lightly to be removed therefrom
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 268, point (c)), and it appears that the present
is a case where it would be in accordance with the spirit of the foregoing decision
that the unwanted and unused name Favus Schafheutel, 1850, should be
suppressed under the plenary powers, in order to permit the name Favus
Lanchester, 1900, to retain the position which it has for so long occupied on
the Official List.

6. It is accordingly recommended that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes both of the Law
of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Favus
Schafheutel, 1850 ;

(2) confirm the name Favus Lanchester, 1900 (gender: masculine) in
its position on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the name Favus Schafheutel, 1850, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;

(4) place the trivial name granulatus Lanchester, 1900 (as published in
the binominal combination Favus granulatus) (trivial name of
type species of Favus Lanchester, 1900) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121

ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE
ENTRY ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF
“ FAVUS ” LANCHESTER, 1900 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)557)
(Extract from a letter dated 6th June 1951)

Your proposal to validate the generic name Favus Lanchester, 1900, by
suppressing the name Favus Schafheutel, 1850, seems to me to be the best solution
in the present case.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

VALIDATE THE ENTRY ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE NAME “FAVUS” LANCHESTER, 1900 (CLASS
CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By M. F. W. TWEEDIE i
(Raffles Museum and Library, Singapore)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)557)
(Letter dated 20th September 1952)
I have your letter of 13th September regarding the name Favus under reference
Z.N.(S.)557.

I entirely support your proposal to establish the Leucosiid genus Favus Lan-
chester as a valid genus.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

VALIDATE THE ENTRY ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE NAME “FAVUS” LANCHESTER, 1900 (CLASS
CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By I. GORDON, D.Sce., Ph.D.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)557)
(Letter dated 25th September 1952)
I support the action proposed in the case of the name Favus Lanchester, 1900.

It seems the sensible thing to do, since the fossil genus Favus Schafheutel, 1850,
is not in current use in palaeontology.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME
“FAVUS ” LANCHESTER, 1900 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)
: UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
By HEINRICH BALSS
(Hauptkonservator der Zoologischen Staatsammlung, Miinchen, a.D.., Germany)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)557)
(Letter dated 9th October 1952)

In. Erwiderung Ihrer freundlichen Zeilen, die hierher nachgesandt wurden ;
meine Meinung deckt sich ganz mit der Thrigen_und ich stimme dafiir, dass 1. der
Name Favus Lanchester auf der offiziellen Liste der generischon Namen bestehen
bleibt, und dass 2. der Name Favus Schafheutel, 1850, auf den offiziellen Index
der rejected and invalid generischen Namen gesetzt wird.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAMES

“PORTUNUS” WEBER, 1795, AND “ MACROPIPUS” PREST-

ANDREA, 1833 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN
ZOOLOGY”

By L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)642)

The problem concerning the generic name Portunus Weber, 1795, one of
the most annoying questions in the nomenclature of the Decapoda Brachyura,
is similar in many respects to the problems offered by the names-of the Crus-
tacean genera Alpheus Fabricius, Crangon Fabricius, and Carcinus Leach
(see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 69, 99). In the present case too, a commonly
used-generic name was discovered around 1900 to be incorrectly employed for
the genus to which it was currently applied. As in the above-mentioned cases,
it was Miss Mary J. Rathbun who made this discovery and who accordingly
changed the name of the genus in question by using the name that she thought
to be nomenclatorially correct. As at the time when Miss Rathbun published
her discoveries, no official suspension of the International Rules was possible,
her action was the only proper way to deal with this problem. Practically all
American carcinologists subsequently adopted Miss Rathbun’s solution, while
most European authors resented her action and did not accept the proposed:
changes. This difference in attitude between the American and European
authors towards the present problem continues to this day, and the confusion
caused thereby in carcinological literature has attained a stage that is intoler-
able and that should be ended at all costs. This is the reason why the present
proposal is submitted to the International Commission for consideration and
decision.

2. The original references to the generic names dealt with in the present
proposal are the following :

Portunus Weber, 1795, Nomencl. entomol.: 93 (type species, by selection
by Rathbun, 1926 (Bull. U. S. nat. Mus. 188 : 75): Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus,
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 626). Gender: masculine.

Portunus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 325, 363 (type species, by
selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. 422): Cancer
pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 626). Gender: masculine.

Iupa Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7: 390 (type species, by
monotypy: Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 626).
Gender : feminine.

Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833, Effem. sci. lett. Sicilia 6:5 (type species,
by monotypy: Portunus macropipus Prestandrea, 1833, Effem. sci. lett. Sicilia
6:4 (=Portunus tuberculatus P. Roux, 1828, Crust. Médit.: pl. 32 figs. 1-65).
Gender: masculine.

Neptunus De Haan, 1838, Siebold’s Fauna japon., Crust. (1): 3, 7 (type
species, by selection by Miers, 1886 (Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 17: 172):
Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 4: 626). Gender: masculine.

Liocarcinus Stimpson, 1870, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 2: 146 (type species,
by monotypy: Portunus holeatus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 366).
Gender: masculine,

i i ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 128

3. Before starting the discussion of the question to which genus the generic
name Portunus should be applied, it seems desirable to ascertain whether
Weber, 1795, or Fabricius, 1798, should be cited as its author. Generally, the
generic name is given as Portwnus Fabricius, 1798, and under the unrevised
Regles this practice was entirely correct. The generic name Portunus Weber,
1795, under the unrevised Régles was invalid, since Weber in his 1795 publica-
tion under the name Portunus only mentioned the trivial names of a number of
species, without giving a definition or a description of the genus and without
designating or indicating a type species. During the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology held in Paris in 1948, however, it was decided that a generic
name published before Ist January, 1931, should be available as from the date of
its original publication not only when it was then accompanied by a definition
or description or when a type species was designated or indicated, but also when
the name, on being first published, was accompanied by no verbal definition
or description, the only indication given being that provided by the citation
under the generic name concerned of the names of one or more previously
published nominal species (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 80). On account of this
decision Portunus Weber, 1795, became a valid generic name, while the name
Portunus Fabricius, 1798, became invalid, being a junior homonym of Weber’s
Portunus. Since both Portunus Weber and Portunus Fabricius have the same
type species, they are not only homonyms, but also objective synonyms
of one another. For the present purposes, it is relatively immaterial which of
these two names should be accepted in preference to the other.

4. The crucial point of the question dealt with in the present proposal is
the fact that most American authors adopt a different species as the type species
of the genus Portunus from that accepted by most European authors. For
convenience’s sake these two viewpoints, the American and the European
respectively, are tabulated below, the two genera in question being indicated

as =o le and Lae Oke

l
. American viewpoint European viewpoint

Genus “A” ..| Portunus Weber, 1795 type | Neptunus De Haan, 1833
species: Cancer pelagicus | type species: Cancer pela-
Linnaeus, 1758 gicus Linnaeus, 1758

Genus “B” ..| Ixocarcinus Stimpson, 1870 | Portunus Fabricius, 1798
type species: Portwnus | type species: Cancer puber
holsatus Fabricius, 1798 | Linnaeus, 1758

5. Both under the revised and under the unrevised Régles the European
view point is definitely incorrect. The only species ever selected as the type
species of the genus Portunus Weber, is Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus. For
Portunus Fabricius more than one species has been cited as the type species,
but here too the first validly selected type species is Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus,
which was so selected by Latreille (1810). As far as I can ascertain, the first
type selection for Portwnus Fabricius in the sense adopted by European authors

Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952)

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is that by H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Cuvier’s Regne anim. (Ed. 4) (Disciple’s
Ed.) 18: pl. 10, fig. 2), who cited Cancer puber Linnaeus, 1758 as type species
of Portunus Fabricius. Several European authors have tried to prove that
Latreille’s (1810) type selections are invalid, but this question has now been
definitely settled by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
who in its Opinion 11 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 17-18, and 1945, Opin.
Decl. Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. 1 : 179-190) and in the amplification of that
Opinion, published as Opinion 136 in 1939 (ibid. 2 : 13-20) expressly stated that
Latreille’s (1810) type selections should be accepted. The European viewpoint
thus is definitely contrary to the Régles and it can be accepted only under
suspension of the Régles.

6. The next question is whether or not a suspension of the Reégles is justified
in the present case, or in other words whether or not the strict application of the
Régles will cause such serious great confusion that it should be prevented by a
suspension of those Régles. This question is here first considered for the genera
A and B (see above table) separately.

7. Genus “A.” This genus consists of a considerable number of species
of, often large, swimming crabs, which inhabit the tropical and sub-tropical
seas of the world and in various regions serve for food (East Africa, India,
’ Indonesia, Australia, Japan, Hawaii). In American literature at present the
name Portunus has been universally adopted for this genus, e.g. in M. J.
Rathbun’s (1930, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 152) important monograph of the Can-
croid crabs of America. In West Africa the genus is rather rare and the references
in West African literature are consequently few. Rathbun (1900, Proc. U.S.
nat. Mus. 22 : 289) in her list of the Decapoda of West Africa used the generic
name Portunus for it, but European authors like Balss (1921, Mechaelsen’s
Beitr. Kenntn. Meeresf. Westafr. 3 (2)), who later revised the West African
Decapods, employed the name Neptunus De Haan. The latter name has been
given to the genus by the majority of the authors writing on indo-westpacific
crabs ; the Australian and Hawaiian authors, however, use the name Portunus,
just as does the Siamese author Suvatti in his check list of the fauna of Thailand,
and Miss Rathbun in her papers on indo-westpacific crabs. The Chinese
author Shen (1932, Zool. sin. (A) 9 (1)) in his monograph of the crabs of North
China used the generic name Portunus for the present genus, but in later papers
he employed the name Neptunus. The name Neptunus also is generally employed
for the species of this genus living in the Mediterranean. Barnard (1950,
Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 38 : 152) in his monograph of the South African Decapoda
employs the name Lupa Leach for the present genus.

8. Summarizing, we see that for the genus “A’’ the name Portwnus has
been practically universally adopted in the literature concerning American,
Hawaiian and Australian crabs, while in the carcinological literature concerning
the rest of the indo-westpacific region it is the name Neptunus that is generally
employed. Also in the scanty literature concerning the European and West
African species of the genus, the name Neptunus is usually. adopted.

9. A suspension of the Régles which would make it possible to use. the
generic name Portunus for genus “‘ B,” as is advocated by most European
authors. would result in an enormous confusion as regards the name for genus

Oj ban Nantel

i... ) on

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125

“A.” The valid name for genus “A” in that case would be Lupa Leach,

1814, since this name is an older objective synonym of Neptunus De Haan,
1833. If the Régles were to be suspended in the foregoing sense, the name
for genus “A” would have to be changed not only in the American literature,
but also in the indo-westpacific literature. A strict application of the Regles,
however, would leave unchanged the name at present used for the present
genus in American (and Australian and Hawaiian) literature. In my opinion
a strict application of the Régles is greatly to be preferred to a suspension
in the case of genus “ A.”

10. Genus “ B.” About ten species of this genus are known, all of them
inhabiting European seas; the genus is known from Scandinavia to the
Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and from West Africa. One of the species
has been reported several times from the indo-westpacific area (Red Sea,
Australia, New Zealand, Japan). The animals are rather small compared to
those of genus “A” and are of very little economic importance, though some
are eaten.

11. When discussing the present question Miss Rathbun (1897, Proc. biol.
Soc. Wash. 11:155) assumed that the correct name for genus “B” was
Tnocarcinus Stimpson, 1870, and not Portunus Fabricius. At that time the
latter name was generally used for it, and at present it still is commonly adopted
by most authors. The name Locarcinus has almost exclusively been used by
American authors, but since the genus does not occur in American waters,
Stimpson’s generic name is seldom found in the literature. Though the species
of this genus are rather few in number and are of very little economic impor-
tance, while furthermore they are practically never used as laboratory animals,
they are very abundant along the larger part of the European coasts and
therefore are dealt with in numerous popular books and textbooks. Con-
sequently a strict application of the Régles in the case of genus “ B” would
cause a great confusion, which may be prevented by suspension of these Regles.

12. It is clear that whatever decision is taken in the present question,
the change of several well known names is necessary before final uniformity
is attained. A suspension of the Régles to retain the name Portunus for the
genus ‘‘B” would cause the change of the generally adopted name for genus
“A” in American literature, while it would not prevent the change of the
currently employed name for that genus in the larger part of the indo-west-
pacific literature. Even a double suspension of the Régles (one to make Portunus
the valid name for genus “B” and one to let Neptunus be the valid name
for genus “A’’) would still necessitate the change of name for genus “A” in
American, Australian and Hawaiian literature.

13. As a Dutch carcinologist, I should be opposed to the name Portunus,
which has always been employed for the common swimming crabs of the
shores of my country, being changed to a name which is quite unfamiliar to
me, and I am certain that most other European carcinologists would feel the
same way. But when we look at the question as a whole, the reasons for
retaining the name Portunus for genus “ B” become much less evident. First,
because it is not only genus “‘ B” which is involved in this question, but also
genus “‘ A,” the nomenclature of which would be more greatly upset by the

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

suspension of the Régles than by the strict application of them. Second, the
number of species of genus “A” is much larger than that of genus “ B” (the
latter contains about 10 species in all, while of the former not less than 24
species have been reported from American waters alone). Third, the nomen-
clature of the American crabs has been more or less stabilized by the careful
work of Miss Rathbun, and a change in it is the more undesirable, in that
this nomenclature (which strictly adheres to the Régles) is employed in Miss
Rathbun’s splendid monographs of the American crabs, which are the standard
works consulted by anyone interested in these animals. The nomenclature
of the European crabs on the contrary, is still very unsettled, probably because
of lack of interest in nomenclatorial problems by European carcinologists.
Furthermore, there exists for the European crabs at the present time no
monograph comparable to Miss Rathbun’s works.

14. Considering all sides of the present question, I can see no sufficient
reason to ask for a suspension of the Régles. The consistent application of
the Régles in this case seems to be the safest way out of the muddle in which
we find ourselves at the present time. I realize that there will be considerable
opposition to this solution, especially from European carcinologists, but they
should remember that the intolerable situation which exists at present is
mainly due to us, European carcinologists, ourselves. Had the European
workers immediately adopted Miss Rathbun’s solution, no trouble and confusion
would have existed at this moment. Had they tried to get a suspension of
the Régles in the early times, when the American point of view had not yet
become so deeply rooted, their viewpoint might have been legalized. But
no action whatever was undertaken and the incorrect nomenclature was
stubbornly used. Palmer, 1927 (J. mar. biol. Ass. U. K. (n. ser.) 14 : 881), it is
true, pointed out the desirability of having the Reégles suspended for the generic
name Portunus, but no proposal to that end was, I am informed, ever received
by the International Commission.

15. The last point which I want to discuss here is, what generic name
should be given to genus “ B,” when the name Portunus is not available for
it. Miss Rathbun (1897, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash.11 : 155) suggested the generic
name Lzocarcinus Stimpson, 1870. This name was given by Stimpson to a
certain group of crabs that at present are considered to belong in genus “ B.”
A recent examination of a paper by Prestandrea (1833, Effem. sci. lett. Sicilia
6 : 3-14) showed me that this author proposed a new generic name Macropipus
for a species of swimming crab to which in the same paper he gave the names
Portunus macropipus and Macropipus citrinus. This species without any doubt
is identical with Portunus tuberculatus P. Roux, a crab belonging in genus “‘ B.”
Since Prestandrea’s generic name Macropipus is much older than the name
Tnocarcinus Stimpson, it has priority. The-name Liocarcinus, as pointed out
above, has seldom been used for the genus concerned, and therefore its replace-
ment by the name Macropipus will cause no difficulties. Topi ttkeen mete

(Eh Rate a

~ ed ay

ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127

16. The concrete proposal which I accordingly submit is that the Inter-
national Commission should :—

(1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the under-
mentioned generic names :—
(a) the name Portunus Weber, 1795 (gender of generic name:
masculine) (type species, by selection by Rathbun (1926) :
Cancer pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758) ;
(b) the name Macropipus Prestandrea, 1833 (gender of generic

name: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Portunus
macropipus Prestandrea, 1833) ;

(2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generve Names in
Zoology the undermentioned generic names :—

(a) the name Portunus Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym, and
objective synonym, of Portunus Weber, 1795) ;

(b) the name Lupa Leach, 1814 (an objective junior synonym of
Portunus Weber, 1795) ;

(3) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology thie
undermentioned valid trivial names :—

(a) the name pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal
combination Cancer pelagicus (trivial name of type species
of Portunus Weber, 1795) ;

(b) the name tuberculatus P. Roux, 1828 (as published in the
binominal combination Portunus tuberculatus).

SUPPORT FOR DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS’ PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE
GENERIC NAME “PORTUNUS” WEBER, 1795 (CLASS CRUSTACEA,
ORDER DECAPODA)

By FENNER A. CHACE, Jr.

(Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)642)

(Letter dated 19th September 1952)

Dr. Holthuis has informed me that you would like to have my comments on
his proposal to the International Commission on the use of the generic name Portunus
Weber, 1795. I am in complete agreement with this proposal as phrased by Dr.
Holthuis, and I am fairly certain that all other American crab specialists would
react similarly. The decision recommended in this proposal is the one which has
been accepted by all American workers in recent years as far as I am aware.

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI-
DATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “FLAVIPES” OLIVIER, 1795
(AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ DYTISCUS
FLAVIPES”) (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA)

By J. BALFOUR-BROWNE, M.A.
(Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)667)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to validate the
trivial name flavipes Olivier, 1795 (as published in the combination Dytiscus
flavipes) by suppressing the trivial name flavipes Fabricius, 1792 (as published
in the same combination). The name /lavipes Olivier is habitually used for
the species variously known as Hydroporus (Graptodytes) flavipes or as Grap-
todytes flavipes (according to the view taken as to whether Graptodytes Seidlitz,
1887, should be regarded as a full genus or as a subgenus only). The older
homonym flavipes Fabricius has, on the other hand, never been used by any
author since its identity was determined in 1808 by Gyllenhal, who showed
that it was an unneeded synonym of a different species (see paragraph 7 below).

2. The species with which the present application is concerned, Hydroporus
(Graptodytes) flavipes (Olivier, 1795), has been known by this name, and has
been attributed to Olivier, by all authors, except Zaitzev (1907) and Guignot
(1947). Six trivial names, three of Stephens and three of Schaufuss, are listed
by Zimmermann (1932, Best.-Tab. ewr. Col. 103 : 8) in the synonymy of this
species.

.3. Stephens did not mention flavipes Olivier, but in 1828 (Jl. Brit. Ent.,
Mand. 2 : 58) he described a species to which he applied the name Hydroporus
minimus (Scopoli) i.e. Dytiscus minimus Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carn: 98); the
description so given applies well to Dytiscus flavipes Olivier. It is accepted
that the minimus of Stephens is not that of Scopoli, which latter is accepted
as being identical with Dytiscus granularis Linnaeus, 1767. The trivial name
minimus Stephens, 1828, is not available for flavipes Olivier, since it is based
upon a misidentification (Article 36).

4. The next name to be considered is Hydroporus concinnus Stephens,
1835 (ll. Brit. Ent., Mand. 5: 392). This name is treated by most authors
as a synonym of Dytiscus flavipes Olivier, but the description given by Stephens
cannot, in my opinion, apply to that species. Moreover, the size given by
Stephens for concinnus is too large for flavipes Olivier. The Stephens Collection
does not contain either the holotype for this species, if there was one, nor
does it contain any syntypes, if this species was based upon syntypes only.
This species is unrecognisable from the description and the name Hydroporus
concinnus Stephens must be regarded as a nomen dubium.

5. Later in the same volume (5: 438) Stephens established another new
nominal species, Hydroporus marmoratus, which is also normally identified
with Dytiscus flavipes Olivier. Stephens’ description of marmoratus could
apply to flavipes, but the locality given by Stephens for his marmoratus lies

Sc mabye < -%

TP Ea Ry ge ie

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129

outside the known area of distribution of flavipes. There is today no specimen
of marmoratus in the Stephens Collection. The name Hydroporus marmoratus
Stephens, like Hydroporus concinnus Stephens, must therefore be regarded as
a nomen dubium.

6. Zaitzev (1907, Rev. russ. Ent. 7: 118) was the first to point out that
the name Dytiscus flavipes Olivier 1795 (Entomologie 3 (No. 40) : 38, pl. 5,
fig. 52a, b) was an invalid junior homonym of Dytiscus flavipes Fabricius,
1792 (Ent. syst.1: 201). He proposed that the trivial name concinnus Stephens,
1835, should be brought into use for the species till then known by the name
flavipes Olivier. This proposal was ignored. In 1947 (Faun. France 48 : 122 and
footnote) the same proposal was again brought forward by Guignot.

7. The nominal species Dytiscus flavipes Fabricius was described as
“ Habitat in India orientali D. Lund.” In 1801 (Syst. Eleuth. 1 : 273) Fabricius
again mentioned his flavipes, giving a reference to his description of this species
in the Ent. syst. but on this occasion stating that this species occurred “in
Daniae paludibus D. Lund.” It is now accepted that the locality given by
Fabricius in 1792 was a mistake due to a lapsus calami. It is agreed also
that this species is the same as Dytiscus planus Fabricius, 1781 (Spec. Ins. 2:
501) (a species which is currently regarded as belonging to the genus Hydroporus
Schellenberg, 1806 (s. str.)). The name flavipes Fabricius, 1792, is therefore
a subjective junior synonym of planus Fabricius, 1781. Gyllenhal examined
the type specimen of flavipes Fabricius, which he considered to be a colour
variety of planus Fabricius (Gyllenhal, 1808, Ins. suec. 1:531). The name
flavipes Fabricius has never appeared in the literature since the publication
of Gyllenhal’s paper.

8. The trivial name flavipes Olivier has been continuously in use for the
species concerned ever since its first publication in 1795—a period of over
150 years and is still so used ; the only authors who have rejected this name
are Zaitzev (1907) and Guignot (1947), but this action has won no support.
On the other hand, the older trivial name flavipes Fabricius, through which

_ flavipes Olivier is invalidated by homonymy, has not appeared in the literature

for over 140 years and, being a junior synonym of planus Fabricius, can never
be needed. Accordingly, its suppression by the International Commission under
its plenary powers could not possibly cause the slightest inconvenience or
disturbance, but would on the contrary, be of great value, since, by validating
flavipes Olivier, it would both promote stability and uniformity and, in addition,
prevent the situation of extreme confusion and uncertainty which would
otherwise arise owing to the fact that each of the next two possible names
(concinnus Stephens, 1835, and marmoratus Stephens, 1835) is a nomen dubvum
and could never provide a stable name for the present species.

9. The concrete proposals which are accordingly now laid before the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :—

(1) use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing, for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy, the
trivial name flavipes Fabricius, 1792 (as published in the combin-
ation Dytiscus flavipes) ;

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952)

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) place the trivial name flavipes Olivier, 1795 (as published in the
combination Dytiscus flavipes) on the Official List of Specifie Trivial
Names in Zoology :

(3) place the trivial name flavipes Fabricius, 1792 (as published in the
combination Dytiscus flavipes), as proposed, in (1) above, to be
suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE

GENERIC NAME “ ACMEA” HARTMANN, 1821, AND TO VALIDATE THE

GENERIC NAMES “ ACMAEA” ESCHSCHOLTZ, 1833, AND “ TRUNCA-
TELLA” RISSO, 1826 (CLASS GASTROPODA)

By A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON W. MULLER
(Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)27)
(Enclosure to a letter dated lst July 1952)
(For the proposal submitted in this case, see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 210-211)

We favor the suppression of Acmea Hartmann, 1821, and the retention of Trun-
catella Risso, 1826, and Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, in conformity with accepted

usage.

SUPPORT FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE “ ACMEA/ACMAEA” PROBLEM
(CLASS GASTROPODA) SUGGESTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COM-
MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

By AVERY R. TEST
(Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)27)
(Letter dated 28th August 1952)

In reply to your communication, reference number Z.N.(S.)27, re the Acmaea/
Acmea/Acme problem, I first want to thank you for the opportunity to express my
feelings upon it, and then to say that I am very pleased with the recommendation
as outlined in the discussion 1950 (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4: 389-392), and the later
one (1952 Bull. zool. Nomencel., 7: 210-211).

I had not realized two well established genera would be benefited by the sup-
pression of Hartmann’s name, so am doubly pleased that the recommendation is to
suppress the latter, thereby establishing unequivocally Eschscholtz’s name Acmaea
and also another generic name of long usage.

T am sorry my original information concerning Hartmann’s names and dates of
pubucation were incorrect, but I was never able to obtain a copy of the publications
or even a photostat or photograph of the pages concerned, so had to rely upon
secondhand information concerning them.

I would like to congratulate the Commission upon what seems a very sensible
recommendation, and hope it soon becomes an Opinion.

t* a Ae ts

Rages

ba iW

$ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ADIPPE” AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “PAPILIO ADIPPE” BY DENIS & SCHIFFERMULLER
IN 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By B. J. LEMPKE
(Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Letter dated 28th September 1952)

Thank you very much for the separates that you sent of the papers on the
question of the adippe-nomenclature mecenily, published in the Bulletin (1952,
Bull. zool. Nomenel. 6 : 323-336).

I have carefully read the propositions put forward by you and the other authors,
and my conclusion is that it would be a very wise deed of the International Com-
mission if it were to accept the steps recommended. It would save a universally
known name and make an end to much trouble.

A COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SOLUTION OF THE “NIOBE/
CYDIPPE/ADIPPE ” PROBLEM (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By JIRI PACLT

(Head of the Department of Biology, Forest Products Research Institute, Bratislava,
Czechoslovakia)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Enclosure to letter dated 29th September 1952)

In accordance with a demand received from the Secretary of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I refer to the two proposals relating to
the niobe/cydippe/adippe problem published in August 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
6 : 323-336).

The authors of the proposals above mentioned recommend that the trivial
name adippe [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775 (as published in the binominal com-
bination Papilio adippe) be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names
in Zoology. This specific trivial name is thus proposed to be validated for the
“ High Brown Fritillary,” a species figured by Esper in 1777, Die Schmetterlinge
in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, 1 (3): pl. 18, fig. 1.

Recently the problem of the valid name for the ‘‘ High Brown Fritillary ”
has been’ discussed by several authors. Personally, I came to the conclusion that
the only valid name for that species is Brenthis (subg. Fabriciana) phryxa (Berg-
straesser, [1783]) ; this opinion (published in 1947 in Miscel. ent. 44:98) has been
followed by G. Bernardi, C. Herbulot and J. Picard in their ‘‘ Liste des Grypocéres
et Rhopalocéres de la Faune francaise conforme aux Régles internationales de la
Nomenclature ’’ (1950, Rev. franc. Lépid. 12 : 332) as well as by R. Schwarz in his
standard work on the Lepidoptera of Czechoslovakia (for further details see F. Bryk,
1950, Ent. Tidskr. 71 : 60-62). Now, at the time of writing this comment:I see no
reason to change my original opinion.

|
|
)
|
Owing to the absolutely confused use of the names adippe and cydippe both
| in the past and modern literature I think it would be appropriate to abandon

every attempt to save at any price a name which never had been used universally,
i.e. adippe.

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ADIPPE” AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “ PAPILIO ADIPPE” BY DENIS& SCHIFFERMULLER IN
1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By FELIX BRYK
(Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm, Sweden)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Enclosure to letter dated 30th September 1952)
(For application, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 323-336)

Es gereicht mir zur besonderen Ehre Ihrem Wunsche entgegenzukommen,
indem ich zur von A. B. Klots und Cyril dos Passos vorgeschlagenen Beibehaltung
des Tagfalternamens Argynnis adippe (L.) Stellung nehme.

Obwohl ich mir dessen bewusst bin, dass eine Durchschneidung von gordischem
Knoten zur Lésung einer strittigen Frage in der Wissenschaft absolut zu verwerfen
ist, dass sohin jener Vorschlag bei eventueller Annahme zu einen Machtspruche
fiirhen wiirde da Linne’s Papilio adippe (1767) ein ganz anderes Tier ist, wie das,
welches es heute vorstellen soll, so kann ich trotzdem nicht umhin, mich restlos
dem Vorschlage der beiden Herren Klots und dos Passos anzuschliessen.

Begriindung : Der Synonymenkomplex ftir cydippe-adippe stellt eimen
derartigen komplizierten Rattenschwanz von Verworrenem, Labilem, Zweifelhaftem
und Unsicherem dar, dass bei eventueller Wahl eines anderen existierenden Namens
letzten Endes nur rechthaberische Dialektik den nomenklatorischen Zwist ent-
scheiden kénnte. Ich selbst. habe in einem Artikel ‘“‘ Warum muss der Linnesche
Name fiir die schwedische ‘ Cydippe’ fallen?” (1950, Ent. Tidskr. 71 : 60-62)
skeptisch gefragt, ‘‘ob nicht wieder ein anderer Revisionist einen anderen und
noch alteren’’ (Namen als phryxa (Bergstr.)) aus dem Kehrichthaufen abgelegter
Synonyme ausgraben wird.

Zum Schlusse méchte ich noch auf die unrichtige Bildung des Namens “‘ Adippe ”’
hinweisen. John L. Heller hat in 1945, Trans. of the American Philol. Association.
86 : 354 (Fussnote 54) iiber diesen Namen geschrieben: ‘‘ No such mythological
name is known to me. It is probably an arbitrary variant for Cydippe.”’

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS IN

CONNECTION WITH THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ADIPPE,” AS PUBLISHED

BY DENIS & SCHIFFERMULLER IN 1775 IN THE COMBINATION
“PAPILIO ADIPPE” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By B. C. 8S. WARREN
(Folkestone, England)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Letter dated 3rd October 1952)

Many thanks for your separate on the adippe question (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
6 : 323-336). I need scarcely say that I am very pleased both that the matter
has been taken so far, and at the way in which you suggest dealing with it. The
request, as set out in paragraph 9 of your paper in the Bulletin, seems to me not
only satisfactory but also the only possible way of dealing with the matter,

Watt ae

—_——
———————

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

SUPPORT FOR THE ACTION PROPOSED IN REGARD TO THE NAMES
INVOLVED IN THE “NIOBE/ADIPPE” COMPLEX (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By WM. T. M. FORBES
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Letter dated 7th October 1952)

I have received from Mr. C. F. dos Passos the double paper on niobe/adippe
ete., which you wrote me about, a short time ago (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
vol. 6, pp. 323-336).

It is really needless for me to remind you that my opinion is based not on the
Code as such, but on what I consider the proper and useful result ; rather than,
the machinery by which it is arrived at.

I think the proposed ruling would have completely the proper result.

I notice this is one of the rare cases where the “ W.V.”’ has really at least a
rudimentary description of the species concerned, even though it comes in the
form of a footnote on another species.

I question the advisability of establishing the species from one author, but
citing a figure by another. At least I think there should be a clear indication in
the Opinion that these two citations actually were by persons in close touch with
each other, and may be presumed based on the same material.

I feel that in the presentation the genus name should be the sound and familiar
genus, rather than a rather obscure splinter-genus, really representing only a fairly
tangible species group.

I note that in the 1758 Systema Linnaeus undoubtedly included both forms,
not merely the unsilvered one, for he writes not “ pallido maculatis”’ as later,
but “‘ argenteis obsoletis,’”’ and again “‘ maculis argenteis ’’ even though it is only
“posticarum 7 marginalibus,” indicating much more silver than his later
description.

In item (7) I view the word ‘“‘ unfortunately’ as unfortunate. One must
remember that at that time the Code was followed by very few zoologists, that
there was no efficient means of establishing a ““ nomen conservandum,” and that
-practically all good zoologists considered that where the use of the rules would
have an unfortunate result on a well established name it should be ignored pending
revision of the machinery, if not the rules themselves. The action of Verity was
not “unfortunate? but would have been almost unanimously viewed as highly
proper ; as I notice it would be even now by a recent writer in “‘ Nature.”

I consider two types of double-naming should be sharply separated ; and the
word “confusion ’’ used only of a shift (one name for two species), not for plain
cases of two names for one species; so I cannot accept the word “ confusion ”’
as applying to Poda’s berecynthia, which after all has never been used effectively
for but one species.

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON THE ACTION PROPOSED IN RELATION TO THE TRIVIAL
NAMES INVOLVED IN THE “NIOBE/CYDIPPE/ADIPPE” COMPLEX
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By F. MARTIN BROWN
(Colorado Springs, Colarodo, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)

(Letter dated 11th October 1952)

Mr. C. F. dos Passos recently sent to me copies of the papers devoted to
Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79 (Bull. zool. Nomencel., vol. 6, pp. 323-336). I
am not familiar enough with the insects in question to voice a valid opinion in
this case. A careful reading of the arguments impresses upon me the complexity
of the problem. As I understand it this is the problem :

1758, Linnaeus called the ‘“‘ Swedish Fritillary *’ niobe ;
1761, Linnaeus called the silvered form of the ‘‘ Swedish Fritillary ’’ cydippe ;

1767, Linnaeus renamed the silvered form of the ‘‘ Swedish Fritillary ’’ adippe ;
and re-applied cydippe to an Oriental Cethosiid.
adippe has generally been applied to the *“* High Brown Fritillary

Verity’s stand that adippe Linnaeus, 1767, does not invalidate adippe Denis
& Schiffermueller, 1775, is invalid because Linnaeus did not recognise adippe

as an infra-subspecific variant.

2h]

in error.

So far as alternate names for the “‘ High Brown Fritillary ’’ are concerned,
berecynthia Poda, 1791, cannot be recognised with certainty ; syrinx Borkhausen,
1788, is an abnormal form figured by Esper; esperi Verity, 1913, was applied
to the normal form figured by Esper; phryxa Bergstrasser, 1783, may in part
represent niobe and in part the “ High Brown Fritillary.”

As I see it there are two possibilities that there is a valid name for the “ High
Brown Fritillary °’—phryxa Bergstrasser, 1783, and syrinx Borkhausen, 1788.
My personal reaction would be to concentrate upon the identity of these. I should
think that the opinions of recognised authorities might settle the question of what
species is intended by Bergstrasser on Pl. 82, figs. 1, 2, 3. If these gentlemen
consider that none of the three figures represents the “‘ High Brown Fritillary ’
then the name should be rejected for that species, but only then.

If phryxa is rejected then it must be decided that syrinx Borkhausen applies
to the ‘‘ High Brown Fritillary ” since it is the earliest name that can be recognised
as applying to the species—even though the type figure is of an aberrant specimen.
The name syrinx was published as a binomial. It thus has the status, for nomen-

clatorial purposes, of a specific name.

While I am in agreement with the idea behind the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology I am not in agreement with the use of the plenary powers
for this valuable implement except as a last resource. That the use of syrinx
Borkhausen may cause some to be disgruntled should not be considered. We are
trying to establish a nomenclatorial system for all time and to do so must be dis-
turbing to some one at each change toward stability. Certainly many of us in
America regretted to see some of our “‘old names” disappear—in Boloria for
instance—but we are managing to survive. Unless the thesis of priority is eliminated
entirely from the Régles I believe every effort must be made to support it.

aS ee ee

Vihear.

i +e

VP hee fats.

Nae

se etn E LS 2

(+.

*p) aoe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR
VALIDATING THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ADIPPE,” AS PUBLISHED IN THE
COMBINATION “ PAPILIO ADIPPE” IN THE VIENNA CATALOGUE OF
1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
By HENRY BEURET
(Neuewelt, Basle, Switzerland)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Letter dated 12th October 1952)

Je vous remercie cordialement de votre lettre du 20 écoulé accompagnée des
pages 323-336 du Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Vol. 6 (August, 1952).

Entre-temps, j’ai examiné ce cas en consultant les description orginales et les
figures citées dans le dit Bulletin.

Réflexions faites, je crois que l’on doit accepter les propositions que vous avez
exposées aux pages 334-336. Si l'on veut conserver le nom “‘.adippe,”’ ce qui me
semble désirable, il n’est pas possible de trouver une autre solution. D autre
part, celle que vous proposez a lavantage de régler aussi une fois pour toutes le
cas de Cethosia cydippe L., 1767.

J’ai examiné surtout aussi phryxa Bergstrasser. Contrairement a lopinion de
Mr. Verity je ne crois pas que l’on puisse dire avec certitude que les figs. 1 et 2,
pl. 82 de Bergstrasser représentent le High Brown Fritillary ! C’est une raison
de plus qui m’engage & recommander Vacceptation de votre solution soit adippe
Schiffermiiller et Denis.

Je vois que vous dites adippe ‘* Schiffermiiller et Denis ” puis adippe ‘‘ Denis
et Schiffermiiller.”” Cela arrive aussi chez d’autre auteurs. Personellement j/avais
jusqu’ici cité seulement “ Schiffermiiller.”’

N’y aurait-il pas lieu de reeommander que l’on cite dorénavant “ Schiffermiiller
et Denis ” soit Schiffermiiller en premier lieu et Denis ensuite? Je crois qu'il n’y
a pas de doute que Schiffermiiller était le plus important des deux auteurs viennois :
on n’a qu’é consulter certains auteurs de la fin du 18 éme siécle et du début du
19 éme siécle pour s’en rendre compte. I] me parait done logique que Schiffermiiller
ait la premiére place. Qu’en dites vous ?

ON THE AUTHORSHIP TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ANONYMOUS

WORK PUBLISHED IN VIENNA IN 1775 UNDER THE TITLE “ ANKUNDUNG

EINES SYSTEMATISCHEN WERKES VON DEN SCHMETTERLINGEN DER
WIENER GEGEND”

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(London)

adippe in the anonymous work published in Vienna in 1775 under the title
Ankiindung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend
M. Henry Beuret raised the question why, in the application in regard to the fore-
going case submitted jointly by Mr. N. D. Riley, Dr. Roger Verity and myself,
new names published in the foregoing work were attributed to “ Denis & Schiffer-
miiller *’ and not, as is more commonly done, to ‘‘ Schiffermiiller & Denis.”

We considered this question when we were preparing our application to the

result that it gives the first place to the less important of the authors concerned.
It has however the advantage that it provides a standard method for the citation
of the names of authors of anonymous books that would otherwise be unattainable.

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE ACTION PROPOSED IN REGARD TO THE TRIVIAL
NAMES INVOLVED IN THE “NIOBE/CYDIPPE/ADIPPE” COMPLEX
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By ERNEST L. BELL
(Flushing, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)

(Letter dated 14th October 1952)

I have just received from Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos, separates of his joint paper
(with Klots and Grey) and your joint paper (with Riley and Verity) on the niobe-
cydippe-adippe problem and the suggested solution of it (Bull. zool. Nomenel.,
vol. 6, pp. 323-336, 1952).

Mr. dos Passos has suggested to me that you would like to have my reaction
to the proposed solution of this problem ; thus I am writing to say that I am in
full agreement with and heartily endorse the procedure proposed to the International
Commission as expressed in the papers referred to above.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ADIPPE” (AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “PAPILIO ADIPPE”) AS FROM DENIS & SCHIFFER-
MULLER, 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By EUGENE MUNROE
(Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)

(Letter dated 15th October 1952)

I have recently received from Mr. C. F. dos Passos of Mendham, N.J., a reprint
of pp. 323-336 of Bull. zool. Nomenclature, vol. 6, in which are set forth parallel
proposals by Grey, Klots and dos Passos, and by Hemming, Riley and Verity
with respect to the trivial name of the “‘ High Beas Fritillary.”’

Mr. dos Passos has asked me to express my opinion to the Commission as to
the merits of the proposals outlined in these two submissions. I am happy to say
that I am in complete accord with them.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ADIPPE” AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “ PAPILIO ADIPPE” BY DENIS & SCHIFFERMULLER IN
1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By ELLI FRANZ
(Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Letter dated 22nd October 1952)
(For application, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 323-336)

In Beantwortung Ihres Briefes von 20.9.52 teile ich Ihnen mit, dass auch ich
Argynnis adippe als giiltigen Namen vorschlage.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO
VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ADIPPE,” AS PUBLISHED IN THE
COMBINATION “ PAPILIO ADIPPE” BY DENIS & SCHIFFERMULLER IN
1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
By ERNST MAYR
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)

(Letter dated 22nd October 1952)

I have been requested by Mr. C. F. dos Passos to “ express my reaction to
the application” relating to the adippe problem submitted under the reference
number Z.N.(S.)79.

After a careful study of Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 6, pp. 323-336 I conclude
that the petition will permit the best possible solution of this nomenclatorial tangle.
The proposed solution will cause the least disturbance of the existing nomenclature,

and this is clearly a case where the International Commission should use its Plenary
Powers.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO
VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ADIPPE” (AS PUBLISHED IN THE
COMBINATION “PAPILIO ADIPPE”) AS FROM DENIS & SCHIFFER-
MULLER, 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
By KARL P. SCHMIDT
(Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79)
(Letter dated 5th November 1952)
(For application, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 323-336)

With reference to the two applications to the Commission regarding the trivial
names niobe, cydippe, and adippe, I wish to support the solution of Messrs. Grey,
Klots, and Dos Passos (Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)79).

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE TRIVIAL NAMES
INVOLVED IN THE “NIOBE/CYDIPPE/ADIPPE” COMPLEX AND TO THE
TRIVIAL NAME “ PLEXIPPUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE
COMBINATION “PAPILIO PLEXIPPUS” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)
By BRYANT MATHER
(Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79 (“ adippe ”) and Z.N.(S.)323 (“ plexippus ”)
(Letter dated 13th October 1952)

Through the kindness of Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos I have received copies of reprints
of three papers from vol. 6 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl. relating to the niobe/cydippe/
adippe problem (pp. 323-356) and to Papilio plexippus (pp. 278-283) (Commission’s
references Z.N.(S.)79 and 323).

It is my view that the recommendations contained in these papers are reasonable
and, in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary of which I have no
knowledge, merit acceptance. I have no personal prior information on the niobe/
cydippe/adippe problem, hence my opinion is based entirely on the statements
contained in the two papers dealing with it. In the case of the use of the name
plexippus for the North American ‘“ Monarch ” my views are based on my personal
familiarity with the insect itself, my desire to see the nomenclature stabilised,
study of the papers that appeared in Science in 1951, and the statements in the
reprint of the paper by Mr. dos Passos. I have before me three of the six figures
offered for the Commission’s choice by Mr. dos Passos. Those included in the
works by Klots and Clark have the advantage of giving the locality from which
the figured specimen came (Scranton, Pa., and Kendall, N.Y., respectively) while
that in the work by Lutz has the advantage of being in color. It is therefore
my feeling, as it apparently is that of Mr. dos Passos, that, if it is deemed advisable
to refer to a figure, it is relatively immaterial which one of those suggested is cited
—with the possible exception of that in the work by Catesby—for the reason stated
by Mr. dos Passos.

SUPPORT FOR THE ACTION PROPOSED IN REGARD TO THE TRIVIAL
NAMES INVOLVED IN THE “ NIOBE/CYDIPPE/ADIPPE ” COMPLEX AND
IN REGARD TO THE TRIVIAL NAME “ PLEXIPPUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS
PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ PAPILIO PLEXIPPUS”) (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
By T. N. FREEMAN
(Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada)
(Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)79 (“ adippe ”) and Z.N.(S.)323 (“ plexippus ”)
(Letter dated 16th October 1952)

(For the applications concerned, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 323-336 and
278-283 respectively)

I am in receipt of two letters from Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos of Mendham, N.J.,
who asked me if I would comment on his article in the Bull. Zool. Nomenclature
which deals with the reconsideration of the case of Papilio plexippus Linn. (Z.N.
(S.)323), and also one with the Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)79, which deals
with two papers, one by Grey, Klots and dos Passos on the niobe-cydippe-adippe
problem.

With regard to the adippe problem, I must say that I am in complete accord
with the views and facts as outlined by Grey, Klots and dos Passos. I am also
in accord with his views as outlined in his article on the plexippus problem with
the exception that the suggestions would only solve the problem temporarily as
outlined by Dr. Munroe of this Unit in his recent letter dated 15th October, 1952.

—

inn

ovya fut

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY MR. C. F. DOS PASSOS

IN RELATION TO THE TRIVIAL NAME “ PLEXIPPUS” LINNAEUS, 1758,

AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ PAPILIO PLEXIPPUS ” (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
By F. MARTIN BROWN
(Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)323)
(Letter dated 11th October 1952)

In connection with a brief study of the ‘“‘ Monarch ” butterfly as it appears
in Australia I am still in a quandary as to its trivial name. The Commission’s
agreement at Paris allows two interpretations :

(a) The trivial name plexippus Linnaeus is to be applied to the species repre-

sented by Holland on plate 7, figure 1 of the Butterfly Book, 1931 edition.

(b) The trivial name plexippus Linnaeus is to be applied to the subspecies

represented by the above quoted figure.

My personal reaction to the agreement was the broad interpretation suggested
in (a) above. Since then numbers of taxonomists have shown that they choose
to apply the restricted interpretation in (b) above.

I believe that the intention of the Commission was to consider plexippus
Linnaeus reserved for the northern migratory race of the species, not the non-
migratory tropic race usually called menippe Huebner. If my interpretation of
the Commission’s actions is correct I wish to add my plea to that of Mr. Cyril F,
dos Passos (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 278-283, 1952) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)
323).

Mr. dos Passos’ recommendation will make the situation clear that plexippus
Linnaeus is to be used for the migratory Monarch butterfly of North America.

I have always read Linnaeus, 1758, with this in mind : that the material printed
in italics is supplementary and often added notes; that the true description is
that printed in Roman type. The original description (p. 471, No. 80) then applies
to the American species. The problem of whether or not Linnaeus had seen the
American species before writing his 1758 description might be solved if it can be
determined when he received Peter Kalm’s collection. This was made in 1747
in ample time to have been seen by Linnaeus before writing description No. 80.
I am inclined to believe that he had seen Kalm’s material before he saw Osbeck’s
collected in 1750 in China. The 1758 description is likely made from Kalms’
specimen later added to (in italics) from Osbeck’s.

COMMENT ON MR. C. F. DOS PASSOS’ PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE
TRIVIAL NAME “ PLEXIPPUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED IN THE
COMBINATION “PAPILIO PLEXIPPUS” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)
By EUGENE MUNROE
(Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)323)
(Letter dated 15th October 1952)

I have recently received from Mr. C. F. dos Passos of Mendham, N.J +, & reprint
of pp. 278-283 of Bull. zool. Nomenclature, vol. 6, in which he proposes that the
Commission modify its 1948 decision as to the application of the name Papilio
plexippus Linnaeus so as to delete reference to “ the American species figured
as Danais plexippus by Holland (W. J.), 1931, Butterfly Book as figure 1 on plate 7,”
substituting the words ‘‘ the North American ‘ Monarch ’ butterfly.”

Although I am in agreement with the proposed action as a palliative measure,
I do not think it strikes at the root of the problem.

Since I believe that the practice of designating the application of scientific
names by reference either to vernacular names or to figures of specimens that
have no status or ambiguous status as types is fundamentally wrong and is at
variance with the whole type concept, I can give only qualified approval to Mr.
dos Passos’ proposal, which I could support only as a temporary measure to remove
an existing positive evil.

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1 wish further to draw attention to the extremely sweeping nature of the
principle expressed in Paragraph 20 of Mr. dos Passos’ submission. In that
paragraph Mr. dos Passos appears to claim that, because the decision to approve
lectotypes was not taken until 1948, lectotype designations made prior to that
time have no standing.

I do not believe that this principle is implicit in the decision of the Commission
recognising lectotypes. Indeed, two considerations argue the reverse :

(a) The fact that parallel provisions for the selection of types of genera (Article
30) in the absence of an original designation have always been taken to be retro-
active.

(b) The wording of the definition of lectotype (Bull. zool. Nomenclature, 4 : 186)
is such as to include any published selection of a single type specimen from a series
of syntypes subsequent to the original validation of the respective name.

If, however, I am wrong and Mr. dos Passos’ contention is correct, it will

automatically mean that almost all of the large number of “ lectotypes ”’ at present
designated in literature and collections are from the standpoint of the rules spurious,
and that a very large source of taxonomic confusion would be created.

It is with regret that I find myself unable to stand fully behind Mr. dos Passos’
proposed solution to the Papilio plexippus problem, as there are already more
than enough disagreements in the field of nomenclature.

SUPPORT FOR MR. C. F. DOS PASSOS’ PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE

TRIVIAL NAME “ PLEXIPPUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “PAPILIO PLEXIPPUS” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)

By L. P. GREY ;
(Lincoln, Maine, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)323)
(Letter dated 31st October 1952)

I have read the application which Mr. Dos Passos has filed with the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 278-283)
to correct an error made at the Congress in Paris, 1948, in its decision regarding
Papilio plexippus Linn., the object of Mr. Dos Passos’ application being for the
Commission to use their plenary powers to fix the name plexippus as applying to
the North American Monarch butterfly.

Inasmuch as the 1948 decision seems to apply inadvertently to a South American
butterfly, contrary to most popular usage, and since this decision if left unmodified
threatens to perpetuate a nomenclatorial situation which is opposed by many
workers, I am pleased to learn that the petition mentioned has been filed and wish
to state that it has my full support. I hope that the Commission will designate a
reference figure from some book readily available to students ; this figure, I should
think, ought also to be of a specimen now preserved in some well-known museum.

SUPPORT FOR THE ACTION PROPOSED IN REGARD TO THE TRIVIAL
NAME “ PLEXIPPUS” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COM-
BINATION “PAPILIO PLEXIPPUS” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)
By KARL P. SCHMIDT
(Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)323)
(Letter dated 5th November 1952)
(For application, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 278-283)
In the matter of the name of our common “ Monarch’ butterfly, I heartily
approve the decision of the International Commission to suspend the rules, apply
the trivial name plexippus to the American species, and place it on the Offcial

List of Specific Trivial Names.
I wish to support the further suggestion of Mr. Cyril F’ Dos Passos (Commission’s

Reference Z.N.(S.)323) as to amending the Commission’s decision with reference
to figures to be cited to identify the species properly as the typical Danaus ea

plexippus.

eae

PE hla nm bey pewt

a >

Ce ind he eee

‘

3
0
bs
¥
%
;
a

Leh TRL

‘cere

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141

PROPOSED RETENTION OF THE TRIVIAL NAME

“DENTATUS” DIESING, 1839 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “STEPHANURUS DENTATUS”) (CLASS
NEMATODA)

By ALLEN McINTOSH

(United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration,
Bureau of Animal Industry,Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)188)

(Letter dated 30th January, 1962)
(For original application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 2: 282-291.)

With reference to the name of the swine kidney worm (Commission’s Reference
Z.N.(8.)188) I wish to go on record as advocating the preservation of the name
Stephanurus dentatus Deising, 1839. To suppress the trivial name dentatus would,
I believe, create a condition of endless confusion. The parasite is not only of
considerable economic importance but has seldom been referred to by any other
specific name. There are over 300 references to the parasite by this name and less
than 25 references for the combined list of synonyms. It is of interest to note that
the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, had never appeared in print in combination
with the generic name Stephanurus until placed there by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty

(1951, Bull. zool. Nomencel., 2 : 286) in his discussion of the correct name for the
swine kidney worm.

Notwithstanding the excellont discussion by Dougherty (l.c., 2 : 282-291), I
believe there is some question as to whether there has ever been a condition of
homonymy with reference to Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. To have a
condition of homonymy it is necessary that two species with the same trivial name
must be brought together under the same genus ; that is, the two species must be
congeneric or so regarded.

In point (8) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 4: 121) dealing with the rejection of
secondary homonyms previous to Ist January, 1951, an author is excused from the
requirement of regarding the two species as being congeneric. Although not so
stated in point (8), one must presume that the Code requires that before an author
can reject a trivial name of a species, the species in question must have been placed
in a genus containing another species with the identical trivial name. I contend
that the case of Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, does not meet this requirement ;
and I will endeavour to show that there has never been a time when the two species
of swine parasites, each with the trivial name dentatus, have been brought together

under the same genus either by their common trivial name or by any other trivial
name.

Here are, arranged chronologically, certain pertinent facts about the two swine
nematodes with the trivial name dentatus that should not be overlooked :—

1803. Rudolphi named and described Strongylus dentatus, a nodular worm of
swine,

1809. Rudolphi listed dentatus Rud., 1803, under the genus Sclerostoma.
Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809, is a synonym of Strongylus Mueller, 1780,
both genera having the same type species.

1839. Diesing named and described Stephanurus dentatus, the kidney worm
of swine, as a new genus and a new species.

1861. Molin proposed the genus Oesophagostomum with subulatum Molin,
1861 as type species, and placed dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, in the genus
as a synonym of subulatum Molin, 1861. This action of Molin not only
made the trivial name dentatus Rud., 1803, the valid type species of
Oesophagostomum, but removed dentatus Rudolphi from future con-
sideration under the genus Strongylus and its synonym Sclerostoma.

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1870. Verrill named and described Sclerostoma pinguicola, a synonym of Stephan-
urus dentatus, Diesing, 1839. This date (1870) appears to be the earliest
at which the kidney worm of swine was referred to the genus Sclerostoma
(= Strongylus) nine years after dentatus Rud., 1803, had been removed
from the genus Sclerostoma. At this date (1870) the name dentatus
Diesing, 1839, was not mentioned in combination with the genus Sclero-
stoma.

1874. Dean, in discussing the pathology of the kidney worm of swine, referred
to the parasite as Strongylus dentatus, apparently a faulty determination,
having confused the name of the parasite with the old name of the nodular
worm of swine.

1894. de Magalhaées was apparently the first author to raise the question of
homonymy. He regarded Stephanurus as a synonym of Strongylus
and believed that as at one time Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, had
been the name of a nodular worm of swine, the kidney worm of swine
should take the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870. At this date (1894)
the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, was not mentioned in combina-
tion with the genus Strongylus. Since de Magalhées did not indicate
that he regarded Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, (with dentatus Rudolphi
as type species) as a synonym of Strongylus Mueller, 1780, he did not
set up a condition of homonymy, as dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, had been
removed from the genus Strongylus 33 years previously.

1896. Railliet’s brief reference to Stephanurus_as a synonym of Sclerostomum
has been interpreted by Dougherty (l.c. : 285 (iii)) to mean that Railliet
regarded the two species of swine parasites with the identical trivial
name as being congeneric. This is contrary to the facts for Railliet
not only in the paper of this date (1896 : 160), but in previous papers,
as well as in later publications, recognised the genus Oesophagostomum
which has dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as type species.

1900. Tayler also regarded Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, as a synonym of Sclero-
stoma, but, contrary to the statement of Dougherty (l.c.), she did not
regard the two parasites of swine with the same trivial name as being
eongeneric. In her publication of this date (1900 : 624) she referred to
the nodular worm of swine as “ (Oesophagostoma dentatum).” She did
not use the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, in combination with
Sclerostoma.

At no time has any author placed the nodular worm of swine in the genus
Stephanurus and at no time has any author placed the kidney worm of swine in
the genus Oesophagostomum. In view of the above chronological facts it is difficult
to comprehend how there can be a condition of homonymy envolving the species
Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. ;

Even should the views of the esteemed and learned members of the Commission,
in this case, not agree with the interpretation outlined above, the writer desires to
go on record as in favour of retaining the specific name Stephanurus dentatus Diesing.
1839, for the swine kidney worm.

em b Bs

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143

ON THE PROBLEM RELATING TO THE NAME “ STEPHAN-
URUS” DIESING, 1839 (CLASS NEMATODA) RAISED BY
DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY

By JOHN M. LUCKER
(Zoological Division, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)188)
(Letter dated 6th February, 1952)
(For original application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 2: 283-291.)

In response to your “ appeal to parasitologists ’ (Comm. ref. Z.N.(S.)188) in
connection with the scientific name of the kidney worm of swine, I recommend
that the International Commission preserve the name, Stephanurus dentatus Diesing,
1839, for this worm, not by exercising its plenary powers, but by doing all in its
power to see to it that the next International Congress shall revoke all provisions
of the Rules which presently do apply, or in the past have applied, to so-called
secondary homonymy and shall substitute therefor provisions which will ensure
for the past and future, that the priority of a trivial name, which was, or is, originally
perfectly valid and available when proposed in a genus which also was, or is, perfectly
valid and available when proposed, cannot be permanently impaired by any action
of any subsequent author and that any author who recognises the genus so pro-
posed, but who recognises as congeneric with the animal bearing this originally
valid and available trivial name, no other animal for which the same trivial name
was earlier validly proposed, shall have the right and obligation to use this trivial
name for the animal in that genus.

ON THE TRIVIAL NAME TO BE USED FOR THE KIDNEY WORM OF SWINE
(CLASS NEMATODA): COMMENT ON PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY
DR. ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY

By HAROLD W. MANTER
(University of Nebraska, Department of Zoology, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 188)

It is probably too late to count, but, as a taxonomic helminthologist, I wish to
object to the proposal of Dougherty (1950) to replace the trivial name dentatus of
Diesing, 1839 (kidney worm of swine) with pinguicola of Verrill, 1870. The name

veterinary medicine that it surely should be validated.
Dougherty made his proposal in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 282-291 in August 1951,

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DR. ELLSWORTH
C. DOUGHERTY IN REGARD TO THE TRIVIAL NAME “ DENTATUS”
DIESING, 1839, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “STEPHANURUS
DENTATUS ” (CLASS NEMATODA)
By ROBERT PH. DOLLFUS
(Laboratoire d’Helminthologie Coloniale et de Parasitologie Comparée, Museum
National d@’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)188)
(Letter dated 16th October 1952)
(For application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 2 : 282-291)

Je viens de recevoir un separatum de E. C. Dougherty concernant la question
de la possibilité de rejeter appellation Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, parce
qu’il existe un Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803.

Comme Diesing d’une part, et Rudolphi d’autre part, n’ont pas employé le
nom specifiqué dans le méme genre, il n’a eu aucune raison valable pour changer
le nom spécifique employé par Diesing et toute controverse & ce sujet est, a mon
avis, inutile; c’est du temps perdu de discuter la-dessus. En outre, comme il
est impossible de confondre des Nematodes aussi differents que Stephanurus dentatus
Diesing et Oesophagostomum dentatum (Rudolphi), tout changement de ces appella-
tions pourrait étre nuisible.

Si quelques auteurs ont confondu ces deux espéces, cela montre & quel point
ils sont incompetents en matiére de Nematodes parasites et il n’y a pas & s’occuper
de leur erreur.

SUPPORT FOR PROFESSOR HAROLD E. VOKES’ PROPOSAL RELATING
TO THE GENERIC NAME“ MYTILUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS PELECYPODA)
By JOSEPH P. E. MORRISON
(Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)193)
(Letter dated 4th October 1951) —
(For application, see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 2 : 31-32)

Both as a specialist on the Mollusks, and as a former teacher of Zoology in
High School, College, and University, may I go on record as wholeheartedly in
support of Dr. Vokes’ petition to the International Commission to use its plenary
powers in the case of Mytilus Linnaeus, to fix the species edulis Linnaeus as the
type species.

In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of case for which the International
Commission has been granted such plenary powers. Without such a nomen
conservandum action as requested in this case, two Family or Subfamily names
would have to be changed, as well as every High School Zoology text-book I have
ever seen in the United States !

COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO _ THE
GENERIC NAME “ SPHINX” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)

By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT

(United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)280)
(Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952.)

In Part 10 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature just received,
I note a number of requests for use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission by
Dr. Paclt. I am submitting the following comments on them.

Paragraph 2 of Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.)280 (p. 291)

Stephens, 1828 (June) (Illustrations of British Entomology, Haustellata, vol. 1,
p. 121) does not select a type species for Sphinx Linnaeus, 1758 ; however Curtis
does select Sphinx ligustri Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Sphina Linnaeus,
1758, in 1828 (January) (British Entomology, vol. 5, p. 195). If Stephens had
designated a type species, Curtis’ action would have antedated it.

>, $

Pete etert ia

eho ?
ate Ke was
ie hs

7=
fe

P P PR te

ae ost

A fabs

ST MN? ae SS Nie DRT CN Nes wd 9 A

Rotel ad

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145

COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE
GENERIC NAME “ DILOBA ” BOISDUVAL, 1840 (CLASS INSEC A, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)

By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT
(United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C., U S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)332)
_ (Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952)

In Part 10 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature just received,
[ note a number of requests for use of the Plenary Powers of the Commission by
Dr. Paclt. I am submitting the following comments on them.

Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.)332 (pp. 315-317)

This proposal ignores Heteromorpha Hiibner (1806) (Zentamen, p- [1]), for
which see Opinion 97, and Heteromorpha Hiibner, 1822 (Systematisch-alphabetische
Verzeichniss, etc., pp. 15 and 18). In the Tentamen the name included only caeruleo-
cephala Linnaeus, 1758; while in the Systematisch-alphabetische Verzeichniss it
included that species plus pantherina Hiibner [1800-1803]. Kirby in 1892 (Synoptic
Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Heterocera, vol. 1, p. 585) selected Phalaena Bombyx
cacruleocephala Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Heteromorpha Hiibner. Thus
Heteromorpha Hiibner, 1822, antedates Diloba Boisduval, 1840, and takes pre-
cedence over it, the genera being isogenotypic. Heteromorpha has been used for
caeruleocephala by some authors.

Stephens, 1828 (Illustrations of British Entomology, vol. 2, p. 14) did not select
Phalaena Bombyx caeruleocephala Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Episema,
but Duponchel, 1829 (March) (in Godart, Histoire naturelle des Lépidoptéres de
France, vol. 7, Part 2, p. 71) did select this species as the type species of Episema
Ochsemheimer, 1816.

The present British Lists are using Episema for caeruleocephala, and this follows
Hampson, 1913 (Catalogue of the Lepidoptera. Phalaenae in the British Museum,
vol. 13, p. 593). In 1906 Hampson (Catalogue of the Lepidotera Phalaenae in the
British Museum, vol. 6, p. 229) used Derthisa Walker, 1857, in the sense that Dr.
Paclt calls, ‘“ quite unknown name ” ; it is also used in Seitz’s Macrolepidoptera
of the World (vol. 3, p. 119, 1910).

The zoological position assigned to caeruleocephala, while really outside the
consideration of the problem at hand, is open to question. The THYATIRIDAE
(TETHEIDAE) possess an abdominal tympanum, caeruleocephala possesses a thoracic
tympanum like the Noctuoidea (Phalaenoidea), the venation of t

SUPPORT FOR DR. GILBERT RANSON’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE
NAME “ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1819 (CLASS PELECY PODA)
By the Members of the Shellfish Sub-Committee of the International
the Exploration of the Sea
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)365)
(Letter dated 2nd April 1952, with enclosures, addressed by Dr. B. Havinga,
Chairman of the Shellfish Sub-Committee of the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea, to Dr. P. Korringa (Rijksinstituut voor Visscherijonderzoek,
Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands))
(Communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated
3rd April 1952)

Enclosed I am sending to you the answera which I have received in reply to the
circular letter, which has been distributed among the members of the Shellfish

Sub-committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

I should like to express my opinion on this subject as Chairman of the Com-

ouncil for

mnittee.

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

I wish to support strongly Dr. Korringa in his request for the retention of the
generic name Gryphaca. This name is generally known and used, and the sup-
pression of this name in favour of Crassostrea would load to confusion and great
difficulties.

Enclosure 1
Letter dated 16th January 1952 from Sven Segerstrale (Museum Zoologicum
Universitatis, Helsinki, Finland)

Thank you very much for your letter of 11th January about the nomenclature
problem concerning the generic name of Gryphaea.

Like you I agree with Dr. Korringa’s view that we should try to conserve the
name Gryphaea for the Portuguese oyster and its closest allies. I have only too
often regretted the perpetual changes in zoological nomenclature and am glad to
contribute to conserving the status quo in this case.

Enclosure 2
Letter dated 16th January 1952 from H. A. Cole (Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries, Fisheries Experiment Station, Castle Bank, Conway, Caernarvonshire)

Thank you for your letter of 11th January regarding the retention of the generic
name Gryphaea for the Portuguese oyster and its nearest allies. I am, of course,
aware of the controversy over its name and I have had some correspondence on the
subject with American workers.

I am pleased to support Dr. Korringa in his request for the retention of this
well-established name. I believe that to suppress it in favour of Crassostrea would
lead to additional confusion.

Enclosure 3
Letter dated 17th January 1952 from M. Desbrosses (Office Scientifique et Technique
des Péches Maritimes, 59, Avenue Raymond Poincaré, Paris (X VIe))

Je suis d’accord pour que le Sous-Comité du “Shellfish ** recommande de
conserver le nom de Gryphaea pour l’Huitre Portugaise et les espéces voisines, &
la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique.

Enclosure 4
Letter dated 18th January 1952 from E. Leloup (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles
de Belgique, Bruxelles 4, le Rue Vautier, 31)

J’ai ’honneur de vous accuser réception de votre lettre du 11 janvier 1952 et
de ses annexes.

Comme je l’ai dit a la séance du Shellfish cotnoominitiee & Amsterdam, je ne
suis pas partisan d’appliquer a la lettre les régles de nomenclature zoologique pour
le cas Gryphaea. Je propose de maintenir le nom Gryphaea, consacré par lusage.

A ce propos, j’ai consulté mes collégues malacologistes de l'Institut Royal des
Sciences naturelles, MM. M. Glibert, Conservateur et W. Adam, conservateur
adjoint. Ils sont du méme avis.

Enclosure 5
Letter dated 22nd January 1952 from A. M. Ramalho (Instituto de Biologia Maritima,
Caise do Sodré, Lisboa)

In reply to your letter of the 11th January, I beg to inform you that I quite
agree that the Shellfish Sub-committee should recommend the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to conserve the name Gryphaea for the
Portuguese Oyster and its allied species. This means, if I understand correctly,
that the Sub-committee will be in favour of the issue described as under (2) of S4
of the note by M. F. Hemming you so kindly sent with your letter.

Enclosure 6
Letter dated 4th February 1952 from C. E. Lucas (Scottish Home Department,
Marine Laboratory, Wood Street, Torry, Aberdeen)

Turning now to the problem about the naming of the Portuguese oyster, in
principle it seems that the name ought to be Crassostrea, but in practice there
seems to be no doubt that we should favour the retention of the name Gryphaea.
I hope, therefore, that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
will be able to conserve the name Gryphaea.

SAI HY Shane aS ea oe

a AOR

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147

DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE
PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “ PHALAENA”
LINNAEUS, 1758, AND TO VALIDATE, AS FROM 1758, THE TERMS EM-
PLOYED BY LINNAEUS FOR GROUPS OF THAT GENUS (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED ADDITION OF “PHALAENA”
LINNAEUS, 1758 TO THE “ pg Fe OF GENERIC NAMES IN

By JIR{ PACLT
(Bratislava, Czechoslovakia)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462)
(Letter dated 14th July 1952)

i ee disagree with Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal (1952, Bull. zool.
Yomencl. 6 : 304-312) for the validation, as of subgeneric status, of the terms used
by Linnaeus in 1758, to denote the groups into which he divided the genus Phalaena
Linnaeus, 1758. My view in this matter is not confined to the particular terms
discussed by Dr. Franclemont, but apply equally to all similar terms used by
Linnaeus for subdivisions of genera established by him in 1758. See my paper
on this subject published in 1947 (Acta Soc. ent. Cechosl. 44: 37). For if we accept
any of these terms as being the names of subgenera, we should be bound logically

to adopt the same course by analogy in the case of the terms used by Linnaeus
for subdivisions of the genus Papilio.

2. In the case of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, there are six of these terms, namely :—
(1) Barbarus ; (2) Eques ; (3) Heliconius ; (4) Danaus; (5) Nymphalis ; (6)
Plebejus. Of these the first two have been disregarded for many years, but as

regards each of the remainder we now have a generally accepted nomenclatorial
usage, namely :—

Heliconius Kluk, 1802 Type species: Papilio charithonia Linnaeus, 1758

Danaus Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758
Nymphalis Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio polychloros Linnaeus, 1758
Plebejus Kluk, 1802 do. Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758.

3. In these circumstances it will be evident that no useful purpose whatever
would be served by validating as from 1758, the terms used by Linnaeus for sub-
divisions of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, and, indeed, that nothing but
confusion would result from such action.

4. When we turn to consider the parallel problem presented by the terms
used by Linnaeus in 1758 for subdivisions of the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, we
find that, with a few exceptions these terms are generally accepted as generic
names either as from Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.) or from Denis & Schiffermiiller,

1775 (Ankiind. syst. Werkes Schmett. Wienergegend). The usages so accepted are
as follows :—

Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 Type species : Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758
Geometra Denis & Schiff.,

1775 do. Phalaena papilionaria Linnaeus, 1758
Tortrix Denis & Schiff.,

1775 do. Phalaena viridana Linnaeus, 1758
Pyralis Fabricius, 1775 Lotda: Phalaena farinalis Linnaeus, 1758
Tinea Fabricius, 1775 do. Phalaena pellionella Linnaeus, 1758
Alucita Fabricius, 1775 do.

Phalaena pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758.

5. In the case of the names Bombyx and Pyralis, the foregoing usage is not
in strict accord with the requirements of the Régles. In these cases proposals
have been submitted to the International Commission for the use of the plenary
powers to validate existing usage.. See my application Z.N.(S.)288 on Bombyx

Fabricius (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 313-314) and Z.N.(8.)331 on Pyralis
Fabricius (1952, ibid. 6 : 314-315).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952)

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. We have to note also that in the case of the term Noctua as used by Linnaeus
to denote a group of the genus Phalaena there is (as in the case of Papilio Eques)
a further problem which would require consideration, for it is clear that, if there
were such a subgeneric name as Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, its type species would
not be the same species as that of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, for the type species
of Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, would be Phalaena pronuba Linnaeus, 1758, while that
of Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, is Phalaena typica Linnaeus, 1758.

7. In these circumstances I must ask why Dr. Franclemont wishes to disturb
the well-established practice of ignoring all the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758
for subdivisions of genera then established. In this connection I must point out
that Dr. Franclemont’s proposals would involve the cancellation, or at least the
modification, of the Commission’s Opinion 124, which states: ‘‘ The various
subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as
of this date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the International Rules.”

8. If in despite of Opinion 124 we were to accept the terms used by Linnaeus
to denote groups of species within his genera as being names of subgeneric status
as from 1758, we should be confronted with serious and quite unnecessary difficulties.
For example, we should probably have to take special steps to preserve the name
Eques Bloch, 1793, the name of a well-known genus of fishes, which, in the absence
of such action, would fall as a junior homonym of Eques Linnaeus, 1758. Again,
we should be confronted with such-problems as those presented by the name
‘* Barbarus”’ (properly Papilio Barbarus), the position as regards which was
discussed by Tutt in 1905 (Ent. Rec. 17: 211). No doubt also similar problems
would arise in the case of groups of animals other than the Order Lepidoptera,
with which alone we are here concerned. Unless serious reasons could be brought
forward in favour of such a course, it would, indeed, in my opinion, be ridiculous
to disturb the ruling given in Opinion 124, an Opinion which, though of relatively
recent date, has made a substantial contribution to the central aim of the Régles,
namely the stabilisation of zoological nomenclature.

9. Finally, I must make it clear that I am strongly opposed to Dr. Franclemont’s
proposal for the suppression of the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758. Dr. Franclemont
suggests that the family name (NocTUIDAE) derived from the generic name Noctua
is ‘long-established and familiar.” In my view, however, there are two rivals |
of that family name: for many decades the family name AGROTIDAE has been
used in Europe for the family in question, while in America the name PHALAENIDAE
prevails.

10. Like the name Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, the name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758,
is a well-known name, even though it has often been used in an ambiguous way.
1 think it desirable that this name should now be officially recognised and I
accordingly ask the International Commission to do this by placing this name
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The request now submitted is
therefore that the International Commission should :—

(1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name
Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type
species, under Rule (b) in Article 30 (use of the word typica as the trivial
name of an included species): Phalaena typica Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 512) ;

(2) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial
name typica Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Phalaena
typica) (trivial name of type species of Phalaena Linnacus, 1758). —

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149

SUPPORT FOR DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSALS FOR THE
USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE NAME “ PHALAENA”
LINNAEUS, 1758, AND TO VALIDATE, AS OF SUBGENERIC STATUS, THE
TERMS THEN APPLIED TO GROUPS OF SPECIES OF THAT GENUS

By WM. T. M. FORBES
(New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462)
(Extract from a letter dated 18th August 1952)
(For the original application in this case, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304-312)

I am writing you, at Dr. Franclemont’s suggestion, in connection with his
paper on the Linnean subgenera and their type species.

I feel that his solution, both as to names and as to type species, is highly
advisable, with the possible exception of the name Aducita, which has been: used
as nearly equally in two different families, that I think it might be thrown overboard,
by whichever formal suspension of rules is practicable.

ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE
GENERIC NAME “PHALAENA” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) AND TO VALIDATE, AS OF SUBGENERIC
STATUS, CERTAIN TERMS THEN USED BY LINNAEUS FOR SUB-
DIVISIONS OF THAT GENUS: REPLY TO CERTAIN CRITICISMS MADE
BY DR. JIRI PACLT
By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT
(United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration,
Bureau of Entomology & Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 21st August 1952)

I have seen Dr. Paclt’s objections (Paclt, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9: 147-148)
to my proposal (Franclemont, 1952, ibid. 6 : 304-312) for a use of the Plenary
Powers to validate the names used for the subgenera of Phalaena by Linnaeus
in 1758. I feel that he has misunderstood the intent of my proposal. I do not
wish to cancel or modify Opinion 124; I am merely acting within the intent of
the published meaning of the Opinion, wherein it is stated: “..., but if any
group of specialists finds that because of the literature on said group this Opinion
will produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission is prepared to
take up individual cases under the arguments which may be submitted.” If the
Commission were to act favourably on these names, it would not impair Opinion
124 or its subsequent revision at Paris in 1948; it would not involve any names
but those used as subgeneric categories by Linnaeus under Phalaena ; all other
names, no matter what their status in Linnaeus, 1758, lie outside the boundaries
of the question under consideration.

I cannot agree with the statement that “ ... ., with few exceptions these
terms are generally accepted as generic names either as from Fabricius, 1775 (Syst.
Ent.) or from Denis and Schiffermiiller, 1775 (Ankiind. syst. Werkes Schmett.
Wienergegend).’’ I think the reverse is true, for they are and were generally credited
to Linnaeus with few exceptions. Fabricius does not credit the names to Linnaeus,
but this can be readily understood because he has modified the application of the
names in some cases, and he rather fancied himself as the originator of a new system.
Denis and Schiffermiiller credit the names to Linnaeus. The Dictionnaire @’ Histoire
Naturelle edited by d’Orbigny breaks with Latreille, who credited almost everything

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

to Fabricius, by crediting the names to Linnaeus. Sherborn (Index Animalium,
Pars prima (1758- 1800) : 740) credits the names to Linnaeus and says: ‘“
apparently used in a subgeneric sense.’”’ The workers in the United States have
always thought of the names as originating with Linnaeus. Staudinger, 1901,
credits them to Linnaeus, but cites them from the 12th edition instead of the
10th Edition of the Systema Naturae. As we all know, there was considerable
discussion about whether to start with the Tenth or the Twelfth Edition, and
it was the present Code that established the tenth edition as the starting point.

With regard to Alucita Fabricius, 1775; as I have pointed out, this was used
for twenty species, part of which were included by Linnaeus under T?nea in 1758
and 1767, but none that he included under Alucita. The type species suggested
by Dr. Paclt is not included by Fabricius; it is under Pterophorus Fabricius,
and this name must now date from Fabricius, 1775, because Geoffroy’s work in
which this name is first proposed is not binominal. Walsingham in the Biologia
centrali-americana, Insecta, Lepidoptera-Heterocera 4:89, 1911, pointed out the
two different uses of Aluctta and selected as the type of Alucita Fabricius (nec
Alucita Linnaeus) Phalaena Tinea DeGeerella— Alucita degeerella (Linnaeus).

With regard to Phalaena and Noctua ; see Article 9, which states that if a
genus is divided into subgenera the name of the typical subgenus must be the
same as the name of the genus. One of the subgeneric names used by Linnaeus
in 1758 must be the typical subgenus of Phalaena. Barnes and Benjamin in the
1923, Contributions to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America 5
(Part 2):55 have demonstrated that Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and Noctua
Linnaeus, 1758, both proposed as new and with Noctua as a subgeneric category,
are isogenotypic with Phalaena Noctua typica Linnaeus, 1758, as type (see Article
30, Rule (6)).

It comes as something of a surprise to learn that it was a well established practice
to ignore the subgeneric names of Phalaena proposed by Linnaeus in 1758 and
1761, see my comments above on crediting of these names. The names were
anything but ignored, they were used all or in part by all workers and credited to
Linnaeus either directly or indirectly. Likewise to place the usage of Phalaena
in the same class as that of Papilio is, to me, a misrepresentation of the facts,
because Phalaéna was all but abandoned in the early 1800’s and the subgeneric
terms, quite unlike those of Papilio, came to have more use than the generic term.

I would take issue with ‘‘ (as published in the combination Phalaena typica),”
the original combination as published is ‘“‘ P. Noctua typica,”’ Phalaena being
abbreviated. I think we should be absolutely accurate in citing original combina-
tions, even if parts are suppressed by the action of the Commission, in such cases
we should refer to the Opinion in which the suppression is made.

Finally with regard to the names NOCTUIDAE, AGROTIDAE and PHALAENIDAE ;
in my original paper I made some mention of the usage of these names. I have
tried to find some basis for Dr. Paclt’s statement that AGROTIDAE has been used
in Europe for decades. The name seems to have had no vogue after Grote suggested
the change in 1895; the present usage dates from Tams, 1935. Boursin was
apparently the first worker on the Continent to change from NOCTUIDAE to
AGROTIDAE, and this was in 1936. Kozhantshikov in 1937 (Faune de TUSSR,
Insectes, Lépidoptéres 18 (No. 3)) used NoctuipaE. Warren and Draudt in Volume
3 and supplement of Seitz’s Grosschmetterlinge der Erde published from 1909-1914
and 1931-1938 use NocTUIDAE. Eckstein in 1920 in Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands
Band 3, uses NOCTUIDAE, so does Gaede in Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 14, Schmetter-
linge, oder Lepidoptera part 2 Nachtfalter (Heterocera). Macrolepidoptera.”
Bourgogne in the Traité de Zoologie, Vol. 10, fascicule 1 published in 1951 uses
NOCTUIDAE, so does Viette, also of the Paris Museum, use NOCTUIDAE in his recent

apers. Bang-Haas used noctuIpAE in his Novitates Macrolepidopterologicae,
Vol. 1-5 published from 1926-1930. The Zoological Record did not change from
NOCTUIDAE to AGROTIDAE until Vol. 81 for 1944 published in 1947, the separate
Insecta part appeared a year early, 1946. Perhaps Dr. Paclt can cite works I
have overlooked, not that the above list is complete; it merely represents the
titles of works which are on my desk.

ees.

— NE am SaaS a ee

SEN he @ Nag

oh PSE ay

ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151

SUPPORT FOR DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSALS FOR THE
USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME
“ PHALAENA ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND TO VALIDATE, AS OF SUBGENERIC
STATUS, THE TERMS THEN USED TO DENOTE GROUPS OF THAT
GENUS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
By FREDERICK H. RINDGE
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462)
(Letter dated 4th September 1952)
(For Dr. Franclemont’s application, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 304-312)

Recently I received a letter from Mr. Franclemont of the United States National
Museum informing me that you are interested in obtaining the opinions of qualified
workers on his paper entitled “‘The Linnaean Subgeneric Names of Phalaena
(Lepidoptera, Heterocera).” As I have charge of the Lepidoptera collection here
at the American Museum of Natural History, and as I work primarily with the
moths, I believe I would qualify.

I agree with the conclusions expressed in the above-mentioned paper, and
unless additional information is brought forth, I certainly hope that the Commission
will take action on this question as indicated in this paper. Such action would
certainly lead to a uniformity in the application of names in the Lepidoptera, and
it would definitely lead to stability.

SUPPORT FOR DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSAL RELATING
TO THE GENERIC NAME “ PHALAENA ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AND MATTERS
CONNECTED THEREWITH (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
By A. DIAKONOFF
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462)
(Letter dated 26th September 1952)

Upon an invitation of Mr. Franclemont (addressed to Mr. Lempke) I am glad
to comment upon his paper on the Linnean “ Subgeneric Names,” recently re-
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6 : 304-312).

As you perhaps remember, I had the pleasure of discussing this paper with you
during your visit to our Museum in August 1951; at that time I expressed myself
entirely in agreement with Mr. Franclemont’s views, and thought that a proposal
to the International Commission on the lines recommended by Dr. Franclemont
would be most useful, and would contribute to uniformity and stability of the
nomenclature of Lepidoptera.

In the meantime I discovered that the validity of the well-known and familiar
generic name Tortrix, and with it of the family name ToRTRICIDAE (with which
group I am especially concerned !) is seriously endangered. Dr. Obraztsov of Sea
Cliffe, N.Y., draws my attention to the fact that under the present Rules the first
valid author of Tortrix appears to be not Thunberg, but Scopoli, 1777; conse-
quently Tortrix might fall as a synonym of some horrible old name such as, e.g.,
Heterognomon Lederer, 1859 (Wien. ent. Monatsch. 3 : 242). To prevent this disaster
I even more warmly advocate accepting Mr. Franclemont’s proposals.

As to the familiar generic name Tinea, I may draw your attention to the paper
by A. Steven Corbet and W. H. T. Tams published in the 1943 (Entomologist 76
(961) : 113-114), where those authors replace the name Tinea Linnaeus by that of
Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762. Their view (and the changed spelling Tinaea and TINAEIDAE)
has been accepted by several authors (among whom by myself), but it unavoidably
leads to more confusion. The acceptance of Mr. Franclemont’s proposals would

put an end to this instability as well.

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC
NAME “TINAEA” GEOFFROY, 1762 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPI-
DOPTERA) WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED IN THE EVENT OF APPROVAL
BEING GIVEN TO DR. JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT’S PROPOSAL THAT THE
NAME “ TINEA” SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462)

In a letter supporting Dr. John G. Franclemont’s proposal (1952, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 6 : 304-312) that the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote groups of
species of the genus Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, Dr. A. Diakonoff has drawn attention
(1952, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 9 : 151) to.a paper by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet
and Mr. W. H. T. Tams (1943, Entomologist 76 + 113-114), in which those authors,
in an attempt to secure a stable foundation, if not for the name Tinea, at least for
a name closely resembling it, brought forward the proposal that this genus should
in future be known by the name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist, abrég. Ins. Env.
Paris 2 : 25, 173), for which they then selected Phalaena Tinea pellionella Linnaeus,
1758, to be the type species.

2. Geoffroy in his Histoire abrégée did not apply the principles of bimominal
nomenclature, using instead the system formerly known as ‘“ binary nomenclature.”
At the time when Corbet & Tams wrote their paper, the question whether a generic
name published by a “ binary,’ but not, binominal author should be accepted as
possessing any status of availability in virtue of having been so published was
sub judice. The Corbet/Tams proposal relating to the name Tinaea Geoffroy was
therefore necessarily provisional from the standpoint of the Régles until the under-
lying question of principle had been settled. In 1948 the International Congress of
‘Zoology ruled against the acceptance of generic names published by non-binominal
authors (1950, Bull..zool. Nomencl. 4: 63-66), and the Commission, which already
had before it an application for a ruling on the availability of generic names first
published in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée, thereupon ruled that those names were
not available ; the Commission added at the same time that it would be prepared
to entertain proposals for the validation of individual generic names in this book,
where it could be shown that confusion would otherwise arise and asked the Secretary
to confer with interested specialists on this subject (1950, ibid. 4 : 366-369).

3. It will be seen that the use of the plenary powers would be needed to secure
the validation of the name Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762, just as it would to provide a
valid foundation for the name Tinea as from Linnaeus, 1758. From this point of
view there is therefore nothing to choose between a proposal to validate T’inaea
Geoffroy and one to validate Tinea Linnaeus. From the practical point of view
the latter course has however important advantages, (1) because it would retain
for this genus a name spelt in the traditional way (Tinea), avoiding the awkward
and unaccustomed variant Jinaea and TINAEIDAE, and (2) because under it
Linnaeus would become officially what he has long been unofficially regarded as
being, namely, the author of this generic name.

4. Accordingly, my conclusion as between the two alternatives discussed above
is that, if the plenary powers are to be used to regularise the position of this and
the other important names covered by the application submitted to the Inter-
national Commission by Dr. John G. Franclemont, the validation of Tinea as from
Linnaeus, 1758, is greatly to be preferred to the validation, in its place, of Tinaea
Geoffroy, 1762. I therefore recommend that, so far as this genus is concerned, the
question on which consideration should be concentrated is whether in the interests
of nomenclatorial stability the plenary powers should be used to validate the name
Tinea, as of subgeneric status, as from Linnaeus, 1758, with Phalaena Tinea
pellionella Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. In the event of that proposal being
approved the only action that would be called for, as regards the name T'inaea
Geoffroy, 1762, would be to place it upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology, where, being an invalid name, it properly belongs.

Dee ne ay ies es gaalae P

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153

IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO. SUSPEND THE RULES TO (a)
VALIDATE SEVEN GENERIC NAMES OF LINNAEUS AS OF 17958, AND
DESIGNATE THEIR TYPE SPECIES (b) SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME
“ PHALAENA” LINNAEUS, 1758, GIVE PREFERENCE TO ITS TYPICAL
SUBGENUS “ NOCTUA,” DECLARE “ NOCTUIDAE ” THE CORRECT NAME
FOR THE FAMILY, AND (c) VALIDATE ONE GENERIC NAME OF LIN-
NAEUS AS OF 1767 AND DESIGNATEITS TYPE SPECIES (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)
: By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B.
(Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)462)

(Enclosure to letter dated 14th October 1952)

I desire to support the application made to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. John G. Franclemont (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
6 : 304-312) to suspend the rules, to validate the following generic names of Lin-
naeus as of 1758: Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Pyralis, Tortrix, Tinea and Alucita,
to designate their type species, to suppress the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus,
1758, to give preference to its typical subgenus Noctua Linnaeus, 1758, to declare
NOCTUIDAE the correct name for the family, to validate one generic name of Lin-
naeus as of 1767, i.e., Attacws, and designate its type species, as set forth in detail
in the said application, and in a paper published by Dr. Franclemont in 1950.

2. While Opinion 124 declares that the various subdivisions of genera published
by Linnaeus in 1758, Systema Naturae, Tenth Edition, are not to be accepted as of
that date as of subgeneric value under the rules, it was recognized that, if this
Opinion would produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission would
be prepared to consider individual cases submitted to them by the specialists
concerned.

3. McDunnough’s Check List (1938, 1939), which is in current use in North
America and probably elsewhere, uses all the generic names involved in this applica-
tion, as set forth by Dr. Franclemont, with the exception of Noctua, for which
Phalaena is used. The generic names in question, with the exception of Phalaena,
have been in constant use for a very long time. To upset their usage now would
cause greater confusion than uniformity. While it is unfortunate to suppress one
of the three original generic names (Phalaena) of Linnaeus, not to do so will only
result in suppressing an almost equally well-known name (Noctua). There is,
therefore, good reason for not adhering strictly to the rules in this case.

4. Dr. Jiri Paclt in the same number of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(6 : 313-315) under Commission’s references Z.N.(8.)288 and Z.N.(S.)331 has made
partial parallel applications for the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate
Phalaena mori Linnaeus, 1758 to be the typé species of Bombyx Fabricius, 1775 and
to designate Phalaena Pyralis farinalis Linnaeus, 1758 to be the type species of
Pyralis Fabricius, 1775, the only difference between Dr. Franclemont’s application
and that of Dr. Paclt in these two cases being that in the former application these
generic names are credited to Linnaeus, 1758, rather than Fabricius, 1775, as in the
latter application. While the work of Fabricius was the first in which these names
were used in a strictly generic sense, Dr. Franclemont (1952, tom. cit. : 306) has
pointed out that, if these names were to be accepted from this work, considerable
confusion would arise when all the generic names involved in his application are
considered. Consequently, it is believed advisable to make a clean sweep of all
later uses of these names and settle them all as of 1758. Commission’s references
Z.N.(S8.)462, Z.N.(S.)288 and Z.N.(S8.)331 could well be consolidated and considered
as one.

5. In Opinion 158 the Commission considered such a case, as are involved in the
three above-mentioned applications, recognized that an exception should be made
for Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, and designated the type species. Opinion 124 gives
ample authority for granting this application and the case considered in Opinion 158
is a perfect precedent for a similar ruling in the instant case.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9 (December 1952)

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Rk ae xh Literature Cited

Fabricius, Johann Christian

1775. Systema Entomologiae, sistens Insectorum Classes, Ordines, Genera,
Species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. Flensburg
and Leipzig, Kortii, [32] + 832 pp.

Franclemont, John George
1950. The Linnaean subgeneric names of Phalaena (Lepidoptera, Heterocera).
J. New York ent. Soc, 58 : 41-53.

Linnaeus, Carolus [Carl von Linné]

1758. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines,
Genera, Species, cwm Characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio
decima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvii, 1: [4] + 824 pp.

1767. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines,
Genera, Species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio
duodecima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvii, 1: [2] + 533-535,
356-357 [sic], 538, 359-360 [sic], 541-605, 506 [sic], 607-891, 902 [szc],
893-1328 + [36] pp.

MecDunnough, James Halliday
1938. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America.
Part I. Macrolepidoptera. Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci., 1: 1-272, 1-3
(corrigenda).
1939. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America.
Part II. Microlepidoptera. Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 2: 1-171.

COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE
GENERIC NAME “ BOMBYX” FABRICIUS, 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)
By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT
(United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)288)
(Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952)

Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N.(S.)288 (pp. 313-314)

Dr. Paclt’s remarks about Sericaria are, I think, incorrect. The name was first
used in the vernacular Sericaire [sic !], by Latreille in 1825 (Famulles naturelles du
Régne Animal, p. 474) in a descriptive key, but the name is coupled with Notodonte
[sie !] without any means given for separating them. The Berthold 1827 work
(Latreille’s Naturlich Familien des Thierrichs) is merely a translation into German
of the Latreille 1825 work. On page 480 we find the same key, the same coupling
of the two names, but now in the Latin form as Notodonta and Sericaria [sic !]
There are no included species in either case. Since no way is provided to distin-
guish Notodonta from Sericaria, I do not regard the Berthold “‘ proposal ”’ of the
name as falling within the meaning and intent of the Régles and Opinions. Sericaria
is defined by Latreille in Guvier, 1829 (Le Régne Animal, ed. 2, vol. 5, p. 404), and
there he includes a single species, ‘‘ Bombyx dispar Fabricius,” the Gypsy Moth.

s
R
.

.
»

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155

COMMENT ON DR. JIRI PACLT’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE
GENERIC NAME “ PYRALIS ” FABRICIUS, 1775 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA)

By JOHN G. FRANCLEMONT

(United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)331)
(Extract from a letter dated 18th September 1952)

Dr. Paclt’s application Z.N (S.)331 (pp. 314-315)

I have commented elsewhere (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 310) that Pyralis
Fabricius, 1775, is equal to Tortrix Linnaeus, 1758, and that it does not contain
farinalis, the species that Dr. Paclt would have the Commission declare as type
species.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. LAURENCE M.

KLAUBER REGARDING THE TRIVIAL NAMES “ ATROX” BAIRD AND

GIRARD, 1853 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “CROTALUS

ATROX”) AND “POLYSTICTA” COPE, 1865 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “ CAUDISONA POLYSTICTA”) RESPECTIVELY (CLASS
REPTILIA, ORDER SQUAMATA)

By HOWARD K. GLOYD
(The Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, U wS.A.)

(Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)523 and 524)
(Letter dated 29th May 1952)

I am writing to express my opinion on the following two cases of nomenclature
of rattlesnakes submitted to the Commission by Dr. L. M. Klauber :—

(1) Crotalus cinereous Le Conte in Hallowell, 1852, versus Crotalus atrox
Baird & Girard, 1853; and

(2) Crotalus multimaculatus Jan, 1863, versus Crotalus polystictus (Cope, 1865).

In regard to the first, I still hold the opinion expressed in my paper of 1940
on the rattlesnakes (Chicago Acad. Sci., Special Publ. 4: 205, footnote). I do
not think the first publication of the ‘‘ name ” cinereous was intended as a specific
name, but rather as a descriptive adjective. In addition to this, the dropping

of atrox Baird & Girard after nearly a hundred years of unquestioned application
should be avoided, if possible.

I have not personally studied the question of multimaculatus versus polystictus,
but I have read Dr. Klauber’s discussion of the case with care and am quite content
to accept his recommendations.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR DR. LAURENCE M. KLAUBER’S PROPOSALS FOR THE
USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAMES
“ ATROX” BAIRD & GIRARD, 1853, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINA-
TION “ CROTALUS ATROX,” AND “ POLYSTICTA” COPE, 1865, AS PUB-
LISHED IN THE aasacmaiiinge oy Cpanel POLYSTICTA” (CLASS

By C. B. PERKINS
(Zoological Society of San Diego, Balboa Park, San Diego, California, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)523 (“ atrox ”) and Z.N.(S.)524 (“ polysticta ”))
(Letter dated 9th April 1952)

- (For the applications concerned, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 234-236 and
236-238 respectively)

I think L. M. Klauber is correct in his contention that Crotalus cinereous antedates
Crotalus atrox and also that Crotalus multimaculatus is the correct name for the
snake now known as Crotalus polystictus.

However, Crotalus atrox and Crotalus polystictus have been used for many-years.
Changing the names would cause confusion. Therefore, I believe the Commission
should place Crotalus atrox and Crotalus polystictus on the Official. List and place
Crotalus cinereous and Crotalus multimaculatus on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Names.

SUPPORT FOR DR. LAURENCE M. KLAUBER’S PROPOSALS FOR THE

USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE TRIVIAL NAMES

“ATROX” BAIRD & GIRARD, 1853, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COM-

BINATION “ CROTALUS ATROX,” AND “ POLYSTICTA” COPE, 1865, AS

PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “CAUDISONA POLYSTICTA”
(CLASS REPTILIA)

By EDWARD H. TAYLOR
(University of Kansas, Department of Zoology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)523 (“ atrox”) and Z.N.(S.)524
. i (“ polysticta ”)) )
(Letter dated 16th April 1952)

(For the applications concerned, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 234-236 and
a 236-238 respectively) :
I have recently received from Dr. L, M. Klauber two propositions :—
(1) The Case Z.N.(8.)523 of
Crotalus cinereous Le Conte in Hallowell, 1852, versus
Crotalus atrox Baird and Girard, 1853, and
(2) The Case Z.N.(8.)524 of
Crotalus multimaculatus Jan, 1863, versus
Crotalus polystictus (Cope), 1865.

I heartily concur in Dr. Klauber’s proposals. These are the names that Dr,
Hobart M. Smith and Taylor used in their work “ An Annotated Checklist and
Key to the Snakes of Mexico.”

I heartily trust that the Commission will accept the proposals.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157

SUPPORT FOR THE GANS/LOVERIDGE PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF
THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ DASY-
PELTIS ” WAGLER, 1830 (CLASS REPTILIA)

By HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana. Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)660)
(Letter dated 22nd September 1952)

Inasmuch as Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830, is a name rather widely referred to in
zoological literature, as applying to an odd genus of peculiarly adapted egg-eating
snakes, I am of the opinion that the proposal by Gans and Loveridge (1952, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 6 : 347-348) for the validation by the Commission of this name in
this sense should be upheld.

SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE
THE GENERIC NAME “ DASYPELTIS ” WAGLER, 1830, AND TO DETER-
MINE THE IDENTITY OF THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL NAME
“SIMUS” LINNAEUS, 1767 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION
* COLUBER SIMUS”) SHOULD BE APPLIED (CLASS REPTILIA)
By JAMES A. OLIVER
(Curator of Reptiles, New York Zoological Society, Zoological Park, New Yorl:)

(Commission references Z.N.(S.)660 (“ Dasypeltis ”) and Z.N.(S.)662 (“ simus ”)

(Letter dated 22nd October 1952)
(For the applications concerned, see 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 347-348 and
354-355 respectively)

I am writing to support two recent requests for use of the plenary powers of the
International Commission in regard to the nomenclature of Reptiles. I believe that
both of these proposals are desirable from the standpoint of nomenclatorial stability.
Both proposals apply to well-known forms and involve names that have been long
in use. The proposals in question are :—

(1) Validation of the generic name Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830, for the African
Egg-eating Snake, by Carl Gans and Arthur Loveridge (Commission’s
_ Yveference Z.N.(S.)660).
(2) Determination of the species to which the trivial name si#mus Linnaeus,
1767, as published in the combination Coluber simus, is to be applied, by
Richard A. Edgren (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662).

I am in complete agreement with all of the requests made under each of these
proposals.

SUPPORT FOR DR. RICHARD A. EDGREN’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE
OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATION OF THE
TRIVIAL NAME “SIMUS” LINNAEUS, 1767 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE
COMBINATION “ COLUBER SIMUS”) (CLASS REPTILIA)
By HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662) .
(Letter dated 22nd September 1952)

In view of the stability which the trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1867 (as pub-
lished in the binominal combination Coluber simus) has enjoyed for such a long
period and likewise in view of the acknowledged power of the Commission to associate
any name with any species under justifiable circumstances, in my opinion the
recommendation by Edgren (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 354-355) that the Com-
mission perpetuate this name in the present application should be upheld.

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR MR. RICHARD EDGREN’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE

OF THE PLENARY POWERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRIVIAL NAME

“SIMUS” LINNAEUS, 1767, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION 3
“ COLUBER SIMUS” (CLASS REPTILIA)

By KARL P. SCHMIDT and CLIFFORD H. POPE
(Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662)

(Letter dated 9th October 1952)

We are entirely in favour of Mr. Richard Edgren’s proposal for action to con-
firm the current usage of the names Heterodon simus and Heterodon platyrhinos and
to place the trivial names simus and platyrhinos on the Official List of Specific
Trivial Names in Zoology. This refers to your Z.N.(S.)662 (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
6 : 354-355).

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

DETERMINE THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL NAME “ SIMUS”

LINNAEUS, Ay (AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ COLUBER
SIMUS” SHOULD APPLY (CLASS REPTILIA))

By LAURENCE M. KLAUBER
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)662)
(Letter dated 15th October 1952)

I have reviewed the proposal set forth by Richard A. Edgren (Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 6, p. 354) with regard to the allocation of certain trivial names in the genus
Heterodon. I am fully in agreement with his proposal, believing that it will eliminate
future confusion that would otherwise be inevitable.

SUPPORT FOR DR. J. WYATT DURHAM’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE
OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME
“ MELLITA” AS FROM AGASSIZ, 1841 (CLASS ECHINOIDEA)

By H. ENGEL
(Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)677)

(Letter dated Ist September 1952)

I fully agree with the proposal (Z.N.(S.)677) of J. Wyatt Durham (1952, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 6 : 359-360) to validate the generic name Mellita (Class Echinoidea)
as from Agassiz, 1841, under the plenary powers.

GOROT Sag:

Prt io}
ar"

Contents

(continued from front wrapper)

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology

Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature es ia ore As Pt: Ay Be 44

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature of its plenary powers in certain cases ; &. oh ie

Obituary
James Lee Peters, 1889-1952

New Applications

(1) Proposed use of the plenary powers to correct an erroneous entry relating to
the name Astacus Pallas, 1772 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) made in
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 104. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature : +s ie ye Ar be M3

(2) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Favus Lanchester,
1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (proposed correction of an error
in Opinion 73). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ae nts ne

(3) Proposed addition of the generic names Portunus Weber, 1795, and Macropipus
Prestandrea, 1833 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) to the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 3 A aa Se

(4) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the trivial name flavipes Olivier,
1795 (as published in the combination Dytiscus flavipes) (Class Insecta,
Order Coleoptera). By J. Balfour-Browne (Department of Entomology,
British Museum (Natural History), London) .. ie 3 a a

Comments on applications already received
(5) Astacus Fabricius, 1775 : comment by L. B. Holthuis (Leiden, The Netherlands)

(6) Favus Lanchester, 1900: comments by: (1) L. B. Holthuis (Leiden, The
Netherlands); (2) M. F. W. Tweedie (Singapore); (3) I. Gordon
(London) ; (4) Heinrich Balss (Miinchen, Germany) .. 4h sh aid

(7) Portunus Weber, 1795: comment by Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Washington,
Dy Gog OSA.) 5 Pe Ric xf s. Bh. afs ae Ei

(8) Acmea|Acmaea problem: comments by (1) A. Myra Keen & Siemon Muller
(Stanford, California, U.S.A.) ; (2) Avery R. Test (Ann. Arbor, Michigan,
U.S.A.) oh oe es < A. a an 40 Ae

(9) Problem of trivial names of the adippe/cydippe/niobe complex : comments by :
(1) B. J. Lempke (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) ; (2) Jiri Paclt (Bratislava,
Czechoslovakia); (3) Felix Bryk (Stockholm, Sweden) ; (4) B. C. S.
Warren (Folkestone, England); (5) Wm. T. M. Forbes (Ithaca, N. vee
U.S.A.) ; (6) F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) 3
(7) Henry Beuret (Neuewelt, Basle, Switzerland); (8) Francis Hemming
(London) ; (9) Ernest L. Bell (Flushing, N.Y., U.S.A.) ; (10) Eugene
Munroe (Oztawa, Canada) ; (11) Elli Franz (Frankfurt a. M -» Germany) ;
(12) Ernest Mayr (New York); (13) Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago, Illinois,
U.S.A.); (14) Bryant Mather (¥ackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.)3 (15)
T. N. Freeman (Ottawa, Canada) .. ee Wye he as ee

Page

109

111

113

119

122

128

118

121

127

130

131

Contents

(continued from overleaf)

(10) Trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Papilio); comments by: (1) Bryant
Mather (Fackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.); (2) T. N. Freeman (Oztawa,
Canada) ; (3) F. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) ; (4)
Eugene Munroe (Ottawa, Canada); (5) L. P. Grey (Lincoln, Maine,
U.S.A.) ; (6) Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) .. ot We

(11) Trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839 (Stephanurus) :_ comments by: (1) Allen
McIntosh (Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) ; (2) John M. Lucker (Beltsville,
Maryland, U.S.A.) ; (3) Harold W. Manter (Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) 5
(4) Robert Ph.Dollfus (Paris) rs eG is a % ne

(12) Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758: comment by Joseph P. E. Morrison (Washington,
D.C., U.S.A.) ies ie os is of aS ie She

(13) Sphinx Linnaeus, 1758: comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington,
D.C., U.S.A.) ae he be ae ae ws = ap

(14) ae teas 1840 : comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C.,

(15) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801: comments furnished by P. Korringa (Bergen op
Zoom, The Netherlands) on behalf of the Shellfish Sub-Committee, Inter-
national Council for the Exploration of the Sea z¢ 3 se

(16) Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and the terms used by Linnaeus to denote groups of
cies of that genus: comments by: (1) Jiri Paclt (Bratislava, C.

slovakia) ; (2) Wm. T. M. Forbes (Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) ; (3) John G.

Franclemont (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; (4) Frederick H. Rindge (New

York); (5) A. Diakonoff (Leiden, The Netherlands); (6) Francis

Hemming (London) ; (7) Cyril F. dos Passos (Mendham, N.7., U.S.A.) ..

(17) Bombyx Fabricius, 1775: comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington,
DiG Ups.) << Es a a Pr a ss

(18) abd os as 1775 : comment by John G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C.,

- *

(19) Trivial name atrox Baird & Girard, 1853 (Crotalus): comments by: (1)
Howard K. Gloyd (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.); (2) C. B. Perkins (San Diego,
California, U.S.A.) ; (3) Edward H. Taylor (Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)

(20) Trivial name polysticta Cope, 1865 (Caudisona) : comments by : (1) Howard K.
Gloyd (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (2) C. B. Perkins (San Diego, California,
U.S.A.) ; (3) Edward H. Taylor (Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) .. a

(21) Dasypeltis Wagler, 1830: comments by: (1) Hobart M. Smith (Urbana,
Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (2) James A. Oliver (New York) ft ay te

(22) Trivial name simus Linnaeus, 1767 (Coluber) ; comments by : (1) James A.
Oliver (New York) ; (2), Hobart M. Smith (Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (3) _
Karl P. Schmidt & Clifford H. Pope (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.); (4) ©
Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) .. Sa Bie

(23) Mellita, as from Agassiz, 1841: comment by H. Engel (Amsterdam, The)
Netherlands) .. as ah Ae é we 7 sf ee

RPE ee Re
Printed in Great Britein by Metcuim AND Son Lrp., Westminster, London

VOLUME 9. Part 6 1 Zayas llth May 1954
pp. 159-190 PURGHASED

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
iS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology :

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications nee
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 159

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Sly Powers in certain

Page

cases 159

(continued on back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
a by the International Trust
as at its Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1954

a
ee +
=

eee eke Pe)
ng wh (ee Se OS et PD! a ’
a a 7 . n
ty ae eee t Rae a
Pon re eee ee
: oe Ma “5

Price Twelve Shillings and Sixpence
(All rights reserved)

; A = 4 e + ity, - < oH : :
Rs AE gh: : iQ.‘ =~

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent —
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th —
July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, fapan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th
June 1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat
zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- “ge

President)
Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August
1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th

August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (fohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, ie —-

U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla Hanké (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, — |

N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th —

August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-

lands) (12th August 1953) oo

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 9, po 6 (PP 159- 190) “ith May 1954

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The followmg notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 5 : 5-13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applic ations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (Vol. 9, Part 6) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

Norice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) immigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the combination Droso-
phila immigrans (Cl. Insecta, Order Diptera), validation of
(Z.N.(8.)711) ;

(2) prunt Geoftroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis prune
(Cl. Insecta, Order Hemiptera), validation of (Z.N.(8.)428) ;

(3) Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Westwood, 1835, designation
of type species for, in harmony with accustomed usage (Cl.
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S8.)174).

2. Comments received in sufticient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part, will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

3. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications ** Nature ” and “‘ Science.”

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commassion on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village Kast, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

llth May 1954.

——

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP-
PRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME “ BROUNI” HUTTON, 1901,
AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ DROSOPHILA
BROUNI,” FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING THE
SPECIFIC NAME “IMMIGRANS ” STURTEVANT, 1921, AS
PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ DROSOPHILA IMMI-
GRANS” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA)

Joint Application by :—

ERNST MAYR
(Curator, Whitney-Rothschild Collection, The American Museum of Natural
History, New York)

J. T. PATTERSON
(Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas)

MARSHALL P. WHEELER
(Assistant Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas)

WARREN P. SPENCER
(Professor of Biology, College of Wooster, Ohio)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)711)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the
name brouni Hutton, 1901, as published in the combination Drosophila brount,
for the purpose of preserving the well-known name wnmigrans Sturtevant,
1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans. The facts of
this case are set out below.

2. In a recent study of New Zealand pRosoPHILIDAE (1952, Z'rans. Proc.
Roy. Soc. New Zealand 79 : 514-515), Roy A. Harrison proposes to place the
name Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant, 1921 (Carnegie Inst. Washington,
Publ. No. 301 : 83) in the synonymy of Drosophila brount Hutton, 1901 (Trans.
New Zealand Inst. 33:91). The present applicants believe that to accept this
proposal would greatly disturb uniformity and stability of zoological nomen-
clature, particularly since the zoological identity of the species on which these
names are based is by no means unequivocally established. Any action on
these names must take the following facts into consideration.

3. The original description of Drosophila brount Hutton is taxonomically
worthless. It does not contain a single statement that would permit identi-
fication of the nominal species Drosophila brouni as a member of the D.
immagrans group, or even of the genus Drosophila.

4. The type specimen of D. browni is still in existence (Harrison, 1952),
but it is a female. Females in several species in the Drosophila immagrans
group cannot be distinguished on the basis of a study of external characters,
even when they are alive, much less on the basis of a single, old, dried, pinned
specimen.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 6. May, 1954.

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. There are fifteen to twenty names available for presumed wnmigrans-like
species in the Pacific area. The group has not yet been monographed, nor
genetically or cytologically analysed. No one knows how many species there
really are or what their proper names are. The Pacific appears to be the
centre of diversity of this group.

6. The type specimen of Drosophila browni was collected more than fifty
years ago. Although flies have recently been caught in New Zealand which
produce fertile offspring with U.S. Drosophila immigrans and presumably
belong to this species, this does not prove that they belong to the same species-
population as the type specimen of Drosophila brount Hutton. It is not known
how many members of the Pacific wmmigrans-group may occasionally reach
New Zealand, and, in view of the rapid changes in the New Zealand biota,
it is possible that different species of Drosophila were predominant fifty years
ago than are now.

7. The name immigrans is not only the name of a well-known species,
but it is also the “type species”’ of an important subdivision of the genus
Drosophila, “‘ The immagrans group of species.” A revision of this group is
now in progress and it is possible that the nominal species Drosophila immagrans
Sturtevant will be found to be a composite of several sibling species. Never-
theless, the name immigrans ought to be preserved for a species of this important
group, regardless of the ultimate taxonomic definition of the species Drosophila
immigrans Sturtevant. If necessary, an explanatory note should be added
to the entry on the Official List of the name immigrans Sturtevant, as soon
as the species so named has been fully defined.

8. The name Drosophila immagrans is universally known in the biological
literature and has been used in literally hundreds of papers. For the entire
period since 1921 during which the species has been studied in genetics no
name other than immigrans has been used for it. The name immigrans is
thus so firmly in the biological literature that it would be confusing in the
extreme to replace it by the name browni, aside from the many above-mentioned
uncertainties regarding the species to which the latter name applies.

9. The present applicants accordingly petition the International. Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to prevent the
discard of the universally known name immigrans Sturtevant by suppressing
the name brownt Hutton. The action which the International Commission
is now asked to take is that it should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name brouwnt Hutton, 1901,
as published in the combination Drosophila brouni, for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy ;

(2) place the foregoing name on the Official Lndea of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology :

(3) place the name wmmigrans Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the
combination Drosophila immigrans, on the Official Inst of ore
Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI-

DATE THE SPECIFIC NAME “PRUNI” GEOFFROY, 1762,

AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ APHIS PRUNI”
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA)

By F. C. HOTTES
(Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)428)

The present application arises out of the decision taken by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in July 1948 that Geoffroy in his
Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, published
in 1762, did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature
and therefore that no name published in the foregoing work acquires availability
under the Law of Priority in virtue of having been so published (1950, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366-369) and in particular from Point (2) of that decision
where the International Commission agreed to consider separately, Order by
Order, any cases where, as the result of the foregoing decision, names in common
use were found not to be available and where therefore it was desirable that
the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to validate the names in question
and so to avoid the confusion and name-changing which would otherwise be
unavoidable.

2. Aphid taxonomists are not affected by the foregoing decisions, so far
as they relate to generic names. They are, however, very much affected as
regards one specific name which was published by Geoffroy in binominal form,
although in the work in question he did not apply generally the principles of
binominal nomenclature. This name is Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist.
abrég. Ins. Paris 2: 497). This name is of importance, because it is the oldest
name which unquestionably applies to the Mealy Plum Aphid.

3. Geoffroy did not actually describe the species to which he applied the
name Aphis pruni, but he gave a reference to Réaumur (1737, Mém. Hist.
Ins. 9 (3) : 317) who gave an excellent description of the Mealy Plum Aphid.
The name Aphis pruni Geoffroy is thus firmly based upon an unquestionable
identification.

4. The Mealy Plum Aphid is the type species of the genus Hyalopterus
Koch, [1854] (Die Pflanzenliuse-Aphiden 1: 16), Aphis pruni Fabricius (an
erroneous citation for Aphis pruni Geoffroy, since Fabricius did not publish
this as a new name, merely using Geoffroy’s name) having been selected as
the type species of this genus by Passerini (1860, Gli Afidi (ed. 2) : [27]). (The
name Hyalopterus is commonly treated as having been published in 1857,
but this is incorrect. Koch’s book was published in four Hefte, of which the
last was published in 1857 and the first in 1854. The name Hyalopterus occurs
in the first Heft and should therefore be dated 1854.)

5. The Mealy Plum Aphid has been known under a large number of different
specific names, its nomenclature having been exceptionally unstable. Smith
(L.M.) (1936, Hilgardia 10 (7) : 167-209), who applied the name Hyalopterus
pruni (Geoffroy) to this species, made a careful review of the literature relating

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 9, Pt. 6. May, 1954.

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

to this species, in the introduction to which he wrote: “ The scientific name
of this species has been changed repeatedly ; in fact, if each of the following
authors is recognised, the status of the name has been changed twenty-one
times, in the course of which the species has been described eight times as
new. This review of the taxonomy does not include many of the lesser notes
of an economic nature, which give Hyalopterus arundinis (Fabr.) priority over
H. pruni (Fabr.) and vice versa.’ It will be immediately evident, therefore,
how urgent it is that the name to be applied to this important economic insect
should be stabilised without further delay.

6. If the name Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762, were not now to be validated
by the International Commission under the procedure foreshadowed at its
Paris Session, it would be necessary to consider the question of the name
Aphis arundinis Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent.: 734). After giving this species
the foregoing binominal name in the manner adopted throughout this work
(i.e. with the generic name at the head of the page and the specific name in
the margin opposite the description), Fabricius referred to this species as
Aphis arundinis epigeios, giving its habitat as ‘“ Habitat in arundins epigeros
foliis” and completing the description of this species with a short Latin
diagnosis. Although in the past this nominal species has frequently been
identified with the Mealy Plum Aphid, it is by no means established that this
identification is correct. In particular, it must be noted that Fabricius gave
Arundo epigeios as the host species of Aphis arundinis and that this plant.
as Borner (1932, Anz. Schéidlingsk. 8 (8): 8-11) has shown, is a hard-leaved
sandgrass belonging to the group Agrostideae, which is not at all closely related
to the group Festuceae, to which belong the only known alternate host plants
of the Mealy Plum Aphid. In spite of repeated search on plants of Calama-
grostis epigeios (the currently accepted scientific name of the host species cited
by Fabricius), Borner was unable to find the Mealy Plum Aphid on this species.
For this reason and because of the nature of the plant, Borner concluded
that it was not a host plant for this species. Smith (L.M.) (1936, Hilgardia
10 (7) : 196-203), after a most careful study of the host plants of this species,
concluded (: 201) that Calamagrostis epigeios must be rejected as a host plant
of the Mealy Plum Aphid.

7. For so long as any doubt remains regarding the identity of the species
represented by the nominal species Aphis arundinis Fabricius, 1775, it would
be undesirable in the highest degree to allow a situation to arise in which
it could be claimed that the specific name arundinis Fabricius, 1775, is the
oldest available specific name for the Mealy Plum Aphid, for there would always
be the danger that later work might show that this name was not applicable
to that species and, in consequence, that still another change would need
to be made in the name to be used for this species. The extreme importance
of providing a stable nomenclature for this species arises not only from the
economic problems involved, wherever this species occurs, but also from its
wide distribution. The importance of this latter factor is well brought out
in the following passage in which Smith (L.M.) (1936, loc. cit. 10 (7) : 170-171) has
shown how extremely widespread is this species: ‘‘ Hyalopterus prunt (Geoff.)
has been frequently reported in many sections of the world, and particularly
in the north temperate zone. It has been reported in Africa (Union of South
Africa), Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, England, France,

So ee I i ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165

Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Java, Latvia, Morocco, New Zealand,
Norway, Palestine, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Scotland, Slavonia, Sweden and
Switzerland ... In the United States this species was first reported from
the vicinity of Carmel, California, in 1881. It was reported in Minnesota in
1885. At present it is known to occur in California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, South Dakota and Utah.”

8. In view of the economic importance of the Mealy Plum Aphid, it is
essential that there should be no room for doubt regarding its correct specific
name. The specific name now accepted for this species is pruni Geoffroy,
1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, but, as is now clear, that
is not an available name, unless the International Commission steps in to
make it so, by validating it under its Plenary Powers under the procedure
envisaged in Paris in 1948. It is very important that the International Com-
mission should intervene in this way, for confusion extending far outside the
limits of systematic zoology would inevitably follow if it were necessary now
to discard the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762. The risk of confusion and
instability is always great when the name of an important economic species
is changed for purely technical nomenclatorial reasons (such as those involved
in the present instance) but the risk of such confusion and instability is greatly
enhanced in the present instance by reason of the fact that, as explained in
paragraph 6 above, the next oldest name after pruni Geoffroy, 1762, that
has to be considered is a name (arundinis Fabricius, 1775, published in the
binominal combination Aphis arundinis) applied to a species which cannot
be identified with certainty with the Mealy Plum Aphid. Thus, if no action
were to be taken by the International Commission, finality could not be obtained
regarding the correct name to be applied to this species.

9. It is for the purpose of eliminating these dangers and avoiding these
uncertainties that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
is now asked :—

(1) under the procedure agreed upon by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for adoption in the case of
names in common use that might be found to be invalid, con-
sequent upon the substitution of the expression ‘nomenclature
binominal” for the expression “nomenclature binaire” in
Article 25, to use its Plenary Powers to validate the specific name
prunt Geoffroy, 1762 (as published in the combination Aphis
pruni and as interpreted by the reference given by Geoffroy
to the description published by Réaumur in 1737 (Mém. Hist.
Ins. 9 (3) : 317)) ;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific
name prunt Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination
Aphis prunt and as interpreted by the reference to Réaumur
(1737) specified by Geoffroy, as proposed, under (1) above, to
be validated under the Plenary Powers ;

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic

name Hyalopterus Koch, 1854 (type species, by selection by
Passerini (1860): Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762).

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF

SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE SPECIFIC

NAME “ PINI” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED IN THE

. BINOMINAL COMBINATION “APHIS PINI” AND AS

INTERPRETED BY DE GEER (1773) (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER HEMIPTERA)

By F. C. HOTTES
(Grand Junction, Colorado. U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)547)

I. Introductory

In the present application I examine the various discordant ways in which
the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, has been interpreted by sub-
sequent authors and draw attention to the first occasion subsequent to Linnaeus
(1758) on which a reviser definitely established the identity of the taxonomic
species represented by the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and
ask that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should
now place the specific name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal
combination Aphis pint, as applied to the species referred to above, on the
Official Last of Specific Names in Zoology. That an authoritative decision
should be given on the foregoing question is of importance not only for the
purpose of stabilising the manner in which the nominal species Aphis pind
Linnaeus should be interpreted, but also from the wider point of view of
determining the identity of the species commonly regarded as the type species
of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835, a subject on which also I have submitted
an application to the International Commission (Z.N.(8.)174).

2. Before approaching the main subject of the present application, it is
necessary to dispose of a preliminary matter relating to the status of the name
Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 453). Linnaeus there gave
no verbal description of this species, beyond saying “A. Pini sylvestris”
and adding “ Habitat in Pino sylvestri.”” As will be seen a large part of the
discussion which has since taken place regarding the identity of the Linnean
species has turned on the impossibility of determining which of the several
species which live on Pinus sylvestris Linnaeus had before him when he
published the name Aphis pint. It must however be observed at this point
that, if in fact Linnaeus had done nothing more than cite the host species
of his Aphis pini, the name Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, would have to be
regarded as a nomen nudum, for the International Congress of Zoology have
ruled (and, indeed have decided to insert provisions in the Régles to make
it clear) that “the citation of the name of a host species . . . unaccompanied
by any other particulars does not constitute an ‘ indication’ for the purposes
of Article 25” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 256). Fortunately, however,
closer inspection of the entry in the Systema Naturae under the name Aphis
pint shows that Linnaeus did give some additional particulars, for he there
gave a bibliographical reference, as follows, to the first edition of his own

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167

Fauna svecica ; “ Fn. svec. 718.” Reference to the passage quoted shows
that, after repeating that this species lives in “ our Pinus 788,” added the
following words descriptive of the species itself: “‘ Appendiculi brevissimi.”
The citation in 1758 of a reference to his earlier Fawna svecica incorporates
into the 10th edition of the Syst. Nat. the brief description given in the Fauna
svecica of the species named Aphis pint in 1758. Thus, contrary to what has
commonly been stated, the name Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, is not a nomen
nudum, but is an available name, having been published with a brief “ indi-
cation.”

3. It is necessary next to consider the status of a name (such as Aphis
pim Linnaeus, 1758), which is an available name in the sense that it was
published with an “ indication ” but which presents difficulties of interpretation,
in view of the fact that the “indication” given is not sufficient, taken by
itself, to make it possible to determine to which of several allied species the
name should adhere. A means for determining a question of this kind has
always existed in the form of Article 31 of the Régles, which applies to the
subdivision of a composite nominal species the rules laid down in Article 30
for determining the type species of a genus, originally established without a
designated or indicated type species. The interpretation of Article 31 has
always been a matter of difficulty and it is fortunate, therefore, that this
Article was re-written by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology
at Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 73-76) and that the revision
so adopted was completed by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology
at Copenhagen in 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 72-78).
It is in the light of these provisions that the position of the name Aphis pint
Linnaeus is examined in the present application.

II. Historical account of the way in which the nominal species
** Aphis pini”’ Linnaeus, 1758, has been interpreted

4. The first author to examine the complex of species centred around
Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, was the non-binominal author De Geer (1778,
Meém. Hist. Ins. 3 (2) (Des Pucerons): 27-39). De Geer recognised and clearly
described two species, to which he gave respectively the non-binominal names
Aphis nudi pint and Aphis tomentosa pint. He devoted considerable space to
the description of these species and their life histories. In the case of the
species which he called Aphis nudi pint, he described the male as being apterous.
As has been pointed out to me (7 litt.) by Dr. Ris Lambers, this is an extremely
important observation, for it appears that there is only one European species
of the genus Cinara Curtis which feeds on pine and in which the male is apterous.
This is a character of critical importance, for it furnishes an indisputable criterion
for identifying the species which De Geer called Aphis nudi pint and thus for
disentangling the synonymy of this species in the later literature.

168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. Goeze in 1778 (Hnt. Beytr. Linn. 2 : 304-305) placed the name Aphis
nudi pini De Geer, 1773, as a synonym of Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and was
thus the first author definitely to select one particular species from among those
covered by the Linnean diagnosis to be the species to which the name Aphis
pint Linnaeus should be applied.

6. Fabricius in 1781 (Spec. Ins. 2 : 389) adopted the same line as that of
Goeze and in addition gave the binominal name Aphis pineti to the species
which De Geer had called Aphis tomentosa pini in 1773. Fabricius adopted the
same treatment for these species in 1794 (Ent. syst. 4 : 219) and in 1803 (Syst.
Rhyng : 300).

7. Villiers (1789, Zinn. Ent. 1: 549), like Fabricius in 1781, realised that
a binominal name was needed for the species which De Geer (1773) had called
Aphis tomentosa pint, and, being presumably unaware of the fact that Fabricius
had already given it the name Aphis pineti. himself gave it the new name
Aphis tomentosa.

8. Kaltenbach in 1843 (Mon. Fam. Pflanzenliiuse (Phytophythires) : 155-160)
described a species of Lachnus Burmeister which he identified with Aphis pini
Linnaeus. He also quoted at some length some of the observations made by
De Geer in regard to his Aphis nudi pini. Kaltenbach incorrectly identified
De Geer’s species with that which he himself was considering and attributed
it to Linnaeus.

9. Walker in 1848 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 2 : 102) also described a species
to which he applied the name Aphis pint Linnaeus. The identity of the species
so described by Walker was later examined by Swain (1921). See paragraph 18
below.

10. In 1855 (Die Pflanzenliiuse Aphiden: 234-236) Koch described a
species under the name Lachnus pini, which he attributed to Linnaeus and thus
considered to be the same species as Aphis pint Linnaeus. The species so
identified by Koch was later discussed both by Cholodkovsky (1898) and by
del Guercio (1909). See paragraphs 14 and 15 below. In addition, Koch
described a second species under the name Lachnus pineti Fabricius. Koch,
however, misidentified the Fabrician species. The species which he so identified
with the pineti of Fabricius has for the most part been incorrectly treated as
having been so named by Koch. It is the species which Mordvilko, 1895
(Zool. Anz. 18 : 100) named Lachnus pineus.

11. Buckton in 1881 (Mon. brit. Aphid. 3 : 50) was the next author to
describe a species under the specific name pint Linnaeus. The species so iden-
tified by Buckton was later discussed by Swain (1921). See paragraph 18 below.

12. Weed in 1890 (Agric. Sci. 4 (No. 6) : 157, pl. 2) described the Scotch
Pine Plant-Louse under the name Lachnus pini (Linnaeus). His action in this
matter was later commented upon by Patch (1912). See paragraph 16 below.

13. In 1895 (Zool. Anz. 18 : 73-85, 93-104) Mordvilko rejected the name
Aphis pini Linnaeus and gave a new name, Lachnus nudus (: 99) (which however
he attributed to De Geer) to the species which De Geer (1773) had called Aphis
nudi pini. Although De Geer was not a binominal author and had never used
the term nudus as a specific name, Mordvilko attributed that name to De Geer ;
Mordvilko himself must however be regarded as the author of this name, which

Bulletin of Zoolegical Nomenclature 169

accordingly takes priority only from 1895. The following are the reasons given
by Mordvilko for his rejection of the name Aphis pint Linnaeus: “ Einige
frither beschriebene Lachnus Arten konnten in der Tabelle nicht aufgenommen
werden. Hauptsichlich weil ihre Beschreibungen nicht ausfiirhlich sind.
Diese sind folgende: L. hyalinus Koch, confinis Koch, laricis Koch 26, cupressi
Buckt., macrocephalus Buckt. (ist hochst wahrscheinlich L. hyalinus Koch),
pinicola Buckton 27, piniphila Ratz., 28, und L. pint nach Linné 29 und
Fabricius 30.°’ As the nominal species Lachnus nudus Mordvilko was expressly
based upon the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer, Mordvilko was the first modern
author to recognise the species Aphis pini Linnaeus, as defined by Goeze and
Fabricius. Mordvilko, it may be noted, was aware that the males of his Lachnus
nudus were apterous. In the same paper Mordvilko treated, as Lachnus pint
Kaltenbach, the species which in 1843 Kaltenbach had described under that
name but which that author had identified with Aphis pint Linnaeus (para-
graph 8 above).

14, Cholodkovsky in 1898 (Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 31: 7,32, 40-41) also considered
the question of the species identified by Kaltenbach (paragraph 8 above) as
Aphis pini Linnaeus. The conclusion that he reached was that it was a species
very near to Lachnus taenvatus Koch, 1857. Cholodkovsky added that the
observations by De Geer which Kaltenbach had cited as relating to the species
which he was then describing did not in fact relate to that species, but to
Lachnus nudus De Geer [sic] [recte Lachnus nudus Mordvilko]. Commenting on
the species which Koch (paragraph 10 above) had called Lachnus pint (and which
he had identified with Aphis pint Linnaeus), Cholodkovsky expressed the
opinion that the species in question was the same as that which De Geer had
called Aphis nudi pini. Cholodkovsky did not make use of the name Aphis
pimti Linnaeus, holding, in regard to it, much the same view as that expressed
by Mordvilko (1895) (see paragraph 13 above).

15. The identity of the species which Koch had described under the name
Lachnus pini (Linnaeus) (i.e. as Aphis pint Linnaeus) was further discussed
in 1909 (Redia 5 (2) 294-296) by del Guercio, who reached the same conclusion
as that expressed by Cholodkovsky in 1898 (paragraph 14 above), namely that
Koch’s species was the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer.

16. In 1912 (Maine agric. exper. Stat. Bull. 202 : 168-169) Patch described a
species, to which she applied the name Lachnus pint. She attributed this name
to Weed, who (as we have seen in paragraph 12 above) had described the Scotch
Pine Plant-Louse under this name, which however he had attributed to
Linnaeus. Patch said :—‘‘ This species seems to agree with Lachnus pineti
Koch as discussed and figured by Cholodkovsky (1898) and may prove to be
that species.”

17. Van den Goot in 1915 (Beitr. Kenntn. holléndisch. Blattliuse : 405-408)
did not mention Aphis pint Linnaeus at all. From his remarks on Lachnus
pineti Koch, it seems likely that he included under that name the species which
later Theobald identified as pint Linnaeus, except that he described the alate
viviparous female as having only one sensorium on the third antennal segment,
instead of from seven to nine.

18. Swain in 1921 (Hnt. News. 32 : 228-229) reviewed both the Aphis pint
Linnaeus of Walker (1848) (see paragraph 9 above) and the species, also identified
with Aphis pini Linnaeus, described by Buckton in 1881 (see paragraph 11

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

above). His conclusion was that both the specimens described by Walker and
those described by Buckton were referable to Lachnus taeneatus Koch, a species
which he regarded as close to Lachnus nudus Mordvilko, 1895 (paragraph 13
above).

19. In 1923 (Guide Ins. Connecticut 4 (Hemipt. Fam. Aphididae) : 261-262)
Wilson described the apterous and alate viviparous females of Lachnus pineus
Mordvilko, 1895, under the name Dilachnus pini (Linnaeus). In this he was
widely followed by later workers.

20. Davidson in 1925 (Last brit. Aphides : 63), when discussing what he
called Lachniella pini (L.), added the following note: “ Aphis pini (L.) of
Walker and L. pini of Buckton do not appear to be the same species.” Swain
(1921), it will be recalled (paragraph 18 above), had already expressed the
view that Walker and Buckton had misidentified another species (Swain
suggested Lachnus taeniatus Koch) with Aphis pint Linnaeus. From Davidson’s
remarks it may be concluded that the species with which he was dealing was
the same as that which later Theobald (1929) was to identify with Aphis pini
Linnaeus (paragraph 21 below), although it must be admitted that the fact
that Davidson placed this species in the genus Lachniella (in which the media
of the forewing is only once-branched) suggests otherwise.

21. In 1929 (Plant Lice Gt. Brit. 3: 145-147) Theobald treated Aphis pini
Linnaeus as a member of the genus Panimerus Laing, 1926 (Entomologist
59 : 322), a name which in a footnote Laing changed to Neochmosis (1929,
ibid. 3: 129). Of the species with which we are here concerned Theobald
listed the following as synonyms: Aphis nudi pint De Geer, Aphis pint
Linnaeus, Lachnus pini Kaltenbach, Lachnus nudus Mordvilko, together with
others. Theobald described his species as having alate males, thus showing
conclusively that the species before him was not the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer.
the males of which are apterous (see paragraph 4 above) and consequently
was not Aphis pini Linnaeus, as interpreted by Goeze. His description
indicates that the species which he had before him was pineus Mordvilko.
Thus, Theobald was in error not only when he cited Aphis nudi pint De Geer
and Lachnus nudus Mordvilko in the synonymy of his species, but also when
he so cited the Lachnus pini Linnaeus of Kaltenbach, 1843 (see paragraph 8
above).* The conclusion reached by Wilson (1923) (paragraph 19 above)
and by Theobald (1929) exercised a considerable influence and was followed
by a number of subsequent Aphid workers.

22. In a paper published in 1930 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 43 : 185-188) I
expressed the view that Cinara nudus (Mordvilko, 1895) was not a synonym
of Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and that the latter species was the species to
which Koch (in 1855) had given the name Lachnus pineti.

* The species which Kaltenbach (1843) erroneously identified with Aphis pini Linnaeus
(see paragraph 8 of the present paper) cannot bear the name pini Kaltenbach, for the Régles
expressly provide (Article 31) that a specific name based upon a misidentification cannot be
accepted as an available name. Even if this were otherwise, the species of Kaltenbach could
not bear the name pini in the genus Cinara Curtis, for in that combination the name would be
a junior secondary homonym of Cinara pini (Linnaeus). I accordingly hereby give the name
Cinara kaltenbachi nom. nov. to the species which Kaltenbach misidentified with Aphis pini
Linnaeus, 1758...

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17]

23. In 1930 I received two interesting letters from Mordvilko bearing on
the present problem. In the first of these letters (which was dated 3rd June
1930), Mordvilko wrote: “At present it is not possible to establish what
Linné meant by his Aphis pint. There are four to six species of Lachnus at
least that live on the branches and shoots of Pinus in Europe. Under the
name of L. pini, J. Kaltenbach, 1841-1843, described already a certain Lachnus
species of the group pint (L.) Kalt., to which the following species belonged :
L. pint K., L. pineus Mordy. (=pineti Koch nec Fab.), L. hyperophilus Koch,
ete. Lachnus nudus Deg. is certainly quite a peculiar Lachnus, to which
group L. nudus Deg., L. taeniatus Koch, L. pinihabitans Mordvilko also belong.
(See Mordvilko, 1894-1895; Zool. Anz., 1895; N. Cholodkovsky, Hor. Soc.
Ent. Ross. 31, 1898.) In the second of the two letters (letter dated 18th
July 1930) Mordvilko wrote: “‘ Today I am sending you two glass tubes
with plant lice, Lachnus nudus Deg. and L. pineus Mordv. (=pineti Koch)
(? =L. pint L.). In my opinion, under the name of A. pint, Linné meant one
of the species of the group Mordv. pineus, curtiplosus, hyperophilus Koch,
pim Kalt., because L. pineus f.e. is the most common species. If they proved
to be one and the same species, this would be called L. pint 1.” From these
quotations, we see that, while Mordvilko was still inclined to question whether
the Aphis pint of Linnaeus could be recognised, he was willing to hazard a
guess that this was possible. (I may mention here that in a letter dated 4th
August 1948, Dr. Ris Lambers questioned whether Mordvilko was right in
thinking that Z. pineus is the commonest species of the group. Perhaps
Mordvilko thought of Z. pineus as being the most widely spread geographically
of the species concerned, as Cholodkovsky (1898) had suggested was the case.)
Looking at Mordvilko’s conclusion generally, we have to note that, in order
to identify Aphis pini Linnaeus in the way that he did, he had to put out
of his mind the fact that the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer has apterous males,
while in his pint, which is the pint of Wilson and Theobald, the males are alate.

24. In 1932 (in Sorauer, Handb. Pflanzen. Krankh. (ed. 4) 5 : 568) Borner
and Schilder placed the Aphis nudi pini of De Geer as a synonym of Ciara
pint (Linnaeus), thus accepting Goeze’s interpretation of that species.

25. In 1939 (Arbeit. physiol. angewandt. Ent. 6 (1): 76), however, Borner
erected a new genus to which he gave the name Cinaria, designating, as its
type species, Cinuria kochiana nom. nov. for Aphis laricis Walker, 1848 (Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 2: 102). It appears that the chief characteristic of this
genus is the presence of a well developed mesosternal tubercle. Lambers
(1948 : 275), however, has since stated that such a tubercle is present in Cinara
nudus (Mordvilko), that is, in the true Aphis pint of Linnaeus. Lambers
has stated also in the same place that in 1939 Borner accepted the opinion
of Theobald and others who described the aphid known as Lachnus pineus
Mordvilko under the specific name pint Linnaeus.

26. Oestlund in 1942 (Syst. Aphid.:24) accepted the species Lachnus
pineti Koch, as interpreted by Van den Goot (1915) (see paragraph 17 above)
as being the same species as Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758. However, he described
the male of this species as being alate, and it is evident, therefore, that he
did not have before him the true Aphis pint of Linnaeus, as interpreted by
Goeze (see paragraph 5 above).

-. 27..The problem with which we are concerned was posed as follows very

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

clearly by Lambers in 1948 (Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 99 : 274-275): ** The
description of pint by Linné is such that it may apply to at least five species
living on Pinus silvestris. Therefore, the name is available for any of these
species. It has alternately been used for two species, one also known as pineli
Koch or pinea Mordvilko, the other as nuda De Geer or nuda Mordvilko. It
is clear that De Geer believed that his Aphis nudi pini was pini L. Therefore
Goeze and Gmelin were in all respects correct in placing Aphis nudi pini,
an invalid name, as a synonym of pini L. As De Geer describes his species
so clearly that a misunderstanding has never occurred as to what he meant,
we have one very clear and distinct conception of Aphis pint L., which has
the advantage of being the oldest interpretation.”

III. Conclusions and Recommendations

28. Having now examined the principal occasions on which the specific
name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Aphis pini, has
been used, we may summarise our principal conclusions as follows: (1) The
nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, may or may not have been a
composite species but in any case its description is so scanty that it cannot
be interpreted with certainty until some later author, acting under Article 31
of the Regles, definitely links the specific name pint Linnaeus to a clearly
recognisable species which conforms with the description given by Linnaeus.
De Geer (1773) clearly distinguished two species belonging to the pini-complex
and it might easily be claimed that of these he definitely identified with Aphis
pint Linnaeus the one to which he applied the non-binominal name Aphis
nudi pint. Even if the view is taken that De Geer’s action was not sufficiently
precise to bring it within the scope of Article 31, there can be no question
but that five years later Goeze (1778) definitely identified Aphis nudi pini
De Geer as the species described by Linnaeus as Aphis pint. It can certainly
be concluded therefore that, under Article 31, the above is the manner in
which the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus is to be interpreted. (2) It
cannot be said that over the period as a whole there has been any consistently
general use of the specific name pint Linnaeus. In the XVIIIth Century, it
may be said that Aphis pint Linnaeus was consistently interpreted in the
correct manner ; in the XI Xth Century the name pini Linnaeus was interpreted
in a variety of inconsistent, and, in almost every case, incorrect ways, and
in the last decade of the century a fresh impetus was given to the tendency
to use this name in an incorrect manner through the influence exerted by
Mordvilko (1895), the first modern author to recognise the species described
by De Geer as Aphis nudi pint (=Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758), who unfortunately
abandoned the use of the specific name pini Linnaeus, giving to that species
the specific name nudus : the XXth Century also has witnessed considerable
divergence of practice; Mordvilko’s influence persisted for a considerable
time until it was replaced by that of Wilson (1923) and Theobald (1929), who
restored the specific name pini Linnaeus but unfortunately associated that
name not with Aphis nudi pini but with the species to which Mordvilko had
given the name pineus. In the most recent period, however, there has been
a move to restore the specific name pint Linnaeus to its correct usage. This
course was followed by Bérner and Schilder (1932), by Oestlund (1942) (so

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173

far as the bibliographical references, but not the description, are concerned)
and by Lambers in 1948.

29. If it had been found that there had been a preponderating use of the
specific name pini Linnaeus for some species, other than that to which, in conse-
quence of the action of Goeze (1778) it applies under the Régles, there might
well have been a case for asking the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to set aside the selection made, under
Article 31, by Goeze in 1778, and to select in its place whatever other species
had commonly been accepted as being the species represented by the nominal
species Aphis pini Linnaeus. I have carefully considered whether such a
course is called for in the present case, but, in view of the history of this name,
as summarised in the preceding paragraph, and having regard also to the fact
that the most recent authors who have treated of these species have applied the
name pint Linnaeus in the manner required by the selection made by Goeze in
1778, I have reached the conclusion that the use of the Plenary Powers for the
purpose of setting Goeze’s (1778) selection on one side would not be justified
and that the course which would lead to the least confusion and inconvenience—
for some is probably unavoidable—would be for the International Commission
to register a definitive acceptance of Goeze’s interpretation of the nominal
species Aphis pint Linnaeus.

30. L accordingly now ask the International Conimission on Zoological
Nomenclature :—

(1) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specitic
name pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bmominal com-
bination Aphis pint, the species so named to be interpreted
by reference to the description given by De Geer (1773) for
Aphis nudi pini, as so selected by Goeze (1778) ;

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names wn
Zoology the specific name nudus Mordvilko, 1895, as published in
the binominal combination Lachnus nudus (the specific name of a
nominal species which, being based on Aphis nudi pin De Geer,
1773, is objectively identical with Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758,
under the selection made by Goeze (1778) under Article 31),

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIG-
NATE, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF “LACHNUS” BUR-
MEISTER, 1835, AND “ CINARA” CURTIS, 1835 (CLASS
INSECTA,ORDER HEMIPTERA) A SPECIES IN HARMONY
WITH ACCEPTED NOMENCLATORIAL PRACTICE

By F. C. HOTTES
(Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)174)

Much confusion has arisen among Aphid taxonomists in connection with
the generic names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835. Both
these names were first published in the same year and it has not been found
possible to establish with certainty the relative priority to be assigned to
them. These two nominal genera have been treated as representing the same
taxonomic genus, and Cinara has been treated as a junior synonym of Lachnus,
notwithstanding the fact that the priority of these names in relation to one
another was not definitely established. Both genera have been treated as
having the same species as their respective type species, though incorrectly so.
Moreover, the name Lachnus has until recently been associated with a group
of aphids generically different from that to which is referable the species which
under the Rules is the valid type species of that genus. Furthermore, the
species which was designated as the type species of Cinara was distinguished
by the addition of a question mark inserted after the author’s name, a procedure
on the part of Curtis which naturally casts a cloud on the identity of the species
so designated.

2. In the belief that this state of confusion should be brought to an end
with as little further delay as possible, the present application has been prepared
for the purpose of presenting the available facts to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature and thereby of securing an authoritative ruling for
the guidance of present and future taxonomists.

(a) The generic name “ Lachnus ” Burmeister, 1835

3. In 1835 (on a date which is not precisely known) Burmeister published
his generic name Lachnus (Handbuch der Entomologie 2: 91), which he attributed
to Illiger. In this connection it is interesting to note the following statement
entered in long hand at the bottom of page 91 in a copy of the second volume
of Burmeister’s Handbuch which I have examined: “‘ Illiger never described
the genus Lachnus, which he had put in manuscript. Burmeister adopted
the name, credited it to Illiger, and described the genus.” (Theo. Pergande.)
This statement is similar to one sent to me in 1930 by the late Dr. Walther
Horn. Both authorities agree with the generally held opinion that Ilhger
did not describe the genus, so that the name Lachnus should be credited to
Burmeister. (It should be recalled at this point that in 1948 the International
Congress of Zoology decided to insert in the Code a provision that, where a
name has gained an irregular currency through having been in use in manuscript,
that name is to be attributed to the first author by whom it is validly published
with an indication and it is to rank for the purposes of priority from the date
on which it is first so published—see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 259.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175

4. Westwood in 1840 (2: 118) selected A phis roboris Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 452) as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, no species
having been so designated or indicated at the time of the original publication
of this generic name. This selection was, however, invalid, because Aphis
roboris Linnaeus was not one of the nominal species included in the genus
Lachnus by Burmeister when he first published the name Lachnus.

5. Schumacher in 1921 (Zool. Anz. 53: 185-186) attempted to establish the
proposition that Aphis roboris Linnaeus was the type species of Lachnus
Burmeister, by citing from the second edition of Burmeister’s Handbuch der
Entomologie (2: 1006), where Burmeister stated that his Lachnus fasciatus
of 1835 (Handb. Ent. 2 (1): 93) was a synonym of Cinara roboris (Linnaeus)
and therefore became a synonym of Aplus roboris Linnaeus, as identified by
Fabricius. It is significant that Burmeister here made use of the generic
name Cimara and it should be noted also that he did not treat it as a synonym
of Lachnus. This was in the year before that in which Westwood selected
Aphis roboris Linnaeus as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister. However,
Aphas roboris Linnaeus was not eligible for selection as the type species of
Lachnus Burmeister, since it is not one of the nominal species cited by Bur-
meister when he first published that generic name. The fact that at a later
date Burmeister treated the name Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister as a junior
synonym of Aphis roboris Linnaeus is totally irrelevant for the purposes of
Article 30. It does not alter in any way the fact that (as explained in paragraph
4 above) Westwood’s action in 1840 in selecting Aphis roboris Linnaeus as the
type species of Lachnus Burmeister was invalid.

6. In 1860 Passerini (Gli Afidi con un Prospetti dei Generi ed alcune Specie
nuova italiana : 29) indicated that he considered that Lachnus pinicola Kalten-
bach, 1843 (Mon. Fam. Pflanzenliiuse : 154, 155) was typical of Lachnus
Burmeister. It might be argued that his action on this occasion constituted
a clear selection of that species as the type species (under Rule (g) in Article 30),
but it is not necessary to consider this question in detail, for in 1863 Passerini
(Arch. Zool. Anat. Fisiol. 2 (2) : 185) unequivocally selected the above species
as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister. Passerini’s action was however
invalid, for the species (Lachnus pinicola Kaltenbach) was not one of the
nominal species included by Burmeister in the genus Lachnus at the time
when he first published that generic name. Kaltenbach’s pinicola had, indeed,
not even been described at that time.

7. In 1909 Mordvilko (Annu. Mus. zool. Acad. Sci. St. Petersh, 13 : 374)
selected Lachnus nudus De Geer as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister.
This selection, like those discussed above, was invalid, since the species selected
Was not one of those included by Burmeister at the time when he first published
the generic name Lachnus.

8. In 1910 Wilson (Ent. News 21: 151) selected Lachnus punctatus Bur-
meister, 1835, as the type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister. This is
one of the nominal species originally included in the genus Lachnus at the
time when that generic name was first published and it is the first such species
to have been selected as the type species of this genus. Wilson’s action was
therefore perfectly valid (under Rule (g) in Article 30) and the nominal species

Laechnus punctatus Burmeister is therefore, under the Regles the type species of

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the genus Lachnus Burmeister, 1835. It must be noted however that, at the
time when Wilson made the foregomg type selection, the identity of the
taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Lachnus punctatus
Burmeister was unknown.

9. Wilson reverted to this subject in 1911 (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 4: 51-54)
in a paper in which he pointed out that there was a possibility that the species
represented by the nominal species Lachnus punctatus Burmeister might be
the same as that represented by the nominal species Aphis viminalis Boyer
de Fanscolombe, 1841 (Ann. Soc. ent. France 10 (3): 184), which Mordvilko
had designated as the type species of the genus Tuberolachnus Mordvilko,
[1909] (Annu. Mus. zool. Acad. St. Petersb. 13 : 374). In the light of these con-
siderations, Wilson sought to select Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835 (Handb.
Ent. 2 (1): 93) as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister. Wilson’s action
in this matter was naturally invalid, since he himself had in 1910 validly
selected Lachnus punctatus Burmeister as the type species of this genus. At
the time when he attempted to change the type species of Lachnus in this
way Wilson was unaware that the true identity of the species represented by
the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister was still unknown and he
could not guess that that species would turn out to be Aphis roboris Linnaeus.
There is little doubt that at that time Wilson interpreted the nominal species
Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister in the same manner as del Guercio who in 1909
(Redia 5 (2) : 294-296) had described in considerable detail a species which
he had identified with Burmeister’s nominal species Lachnus fasciatus. Sub-
sequent events have shown, however, that the species so identified by del
Guercio with Burmeister’s fasciatus was an entirely different species. There
is therefore no doubt that, when citing the name Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister,
as the name of the type species of the genus Lachnus, Wilson had in mind
not the true fasciatus of Burmeister but a different species misidentified by
him therewith. Nevertheless, under the Régles as clarified by the Paris Congress
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4158), his action would have constituted a
valid selection of the true Lachnus fasciatus of Burmeister, if a valid type
selection had not already been made for the genus Lachnus, for under the
decision noted above an author is to be assumed, for the purposes of Article 30,
to have correctly identified a species selected by him to be the type species
of a previously established genus. This question does not however arise in
the present case, since (as shown in paragraph 8 above) a different nominal
species, Lachnus punctatus Burmeister, had already been validly selected to
be the type species of the genus Lachnus. Most Aphid workers today identify
the nominal species Lachnus viminalis Boyer with Lachnus punctatus Burmeister
and accordingly treat the trivial name viminalis Boyer as a junior synonym
of the name punctatus Burmeister. Further, it is now generally considered
that the species represented by the nominal species Lachnus punctatus Bur-
meister is the same as that represented by the nominal species Aphis saligna
Gmelin, 1790 (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (4) : 2209), the specific name
punctatus Burmeister being sunk therefore as a junior synonym of the name
saligna Gmelin. It should be noted also that some Aphid workers consider
the genus Tuberolachnus Mordvilko, [1909], as identical with the genus
Pterochlorus (emend. of Pteroclorus) Rondani, 1848 (N. Ann. Sci. nat. Bologna
[2] 9: 35), the type species of which is Aphis roboris Linnaeus (the first species

7
i
J
}
7

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177

to have been selected, though invalidly, as the type species of Lachnus Bur-
meister).

10. In 1913 (Lidschr. Ent. 56 : 153) Van der Goot selected Aphis juncperi
De Geer, 1773 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 3:2, 156) as the type species of Lachnus
Burmeister, but that selection was of course invalid for, quite apart from
the fact that a valid type-selection (of Lachnus punctatus Burmeister) had
already been made by Wilson in 1910. De Geer’s nominal species junipert
was not one of Burmeister’s original species. Very inconsistently, Van der
Goot in the same paper (loc. cit. 56 : 74) cited also Aphis nudus De Geer, 1773,
as the type species of this genus. This selection also is invalid, and for the
same reasons. (It may be noted incidentally that De Geer never described a
species under the above name, the name which he used being Aphis nudi pint.)

11. Baker in 1920 (U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 826 : 15-16), after reviewing the
various type selections for the genus Lachnus Burmeister that had been made
up to that time, came to the conclusion that the generic name Lachnus would
be lost to Aphid workers, unless the identity of the nominal species Lachnus
punctatus Burmeister could be established or the Rules were suspended in this
case. In order to save the name Lachnus, Baker thereupon, in deliberate
disregard of the Rules, adopted Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister as the type
species of the genus Lachnus. At the same time he stated that an application
would be submitted to the International Commission asking it to use its Plenary
Powers to preserve the long-established use of the generic name Lachnus. 1
am informed, however, by the Secretary to the Commission that there is no
trace in the archives of the Commission of any such application having been
submitted. It is clear from Baker’s paper that he followed del Guercio in
his interpretation of the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister (see
paragraph 9 above) and therefore did not have in mind the true Lachnus
fasciatus Burmeister, which (as already explained) is identical with Aphis
roboris Linnaeus ; for he spoke of the media of the fore-wings of this species
as being once-branched, whereas all known species of Lachnus, as universally
understood, have the media of the fore-wings twice-branched. It is clear,
therefore, that Baker’s concept of the genus Lachnus Burmeister was not that
of Burmeister himself or that of subsequent workers. Having accepted Lachnus
fasciatus Burmeister, as interpreted by del Guercio, as the type species of
the genus Lachnus Burmeister, Baker sank the generic name Lachniella del
Guercio, [1909] (Redia 5 : 286) as a junior synonym of Lachnus Burmeister.

12. In 1931 in a paper entitled ** El genotypo de Lachnus Burm. (Hemip.
Aphid.) ” Orfila (R.N.) selected Lachnus lapidarius (Fabricius) (=Chermes
lapidarius Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 306) as the type species of Lachnus
(Orfila, 1931, Rev. Soc. ent. argent., B. Aires 3: 249-250). This is one of the
species originally included in Lachnus by Burmeister. Schumacher in 1921
(Zool Anz. 53 : 182-183) gave a synonymy for Lachnus lapidarius (Fabricius).
and came to the conclusion that the species so named was the same as Proct-
philus xylostei De Geer, 1773. If Orfila’s selection of Chermes lapidarius
Fabricius, as identified by Schumacher with Aphis zylostei De Geer, as the type
species of Lachnus were to be accepted, a new concept would be created for the
nominal genus Lachinus Burmeister, and the name Lachnus would replace the
name Prociphilus Koch, 1857 (Die Pflanzenliuse Aphiden 9:279). The
objections to such a solution are obvious.

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

13. Borner & Schilder in 1932 (i Sorauer’s Handbuch der Pflanzenkrank-
heiten (ed. 4) 5 : 568) considered that the species which del Guercio had identified
with Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister was the same as Cinara costata (Zetterstedt).

14. It should be noted that Kaltenbach in 1843 (Mon. Fam. Pflanzenléuse :
148) listed both Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister and Cinara roboris (Curtis) as
synonyms of Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, which he assigned to the genus
Lachnus Burmeister. Kaltenbach seems to have been the first author to have
identified the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835, with Aphis
roboris Linnaeus, 1758, apart from Burmeister himself who in 1839 (Handb.
Ent. 2 (2) (2): 1006) had sunk his own specific name fasciatus as a synonym
of roboris Linnaeus. For some reason which it is impossible to explain,
Kaltenbach went on to describe a different species under the name Lachnus
fasciatus and credited that name, as used in this way, to Burmeister. Kalten-
bach suggested that the species which he named in this way might turn out
to be the same as Aphis costata Zetterstedt, 1828 (Fauna Ins. lapp. (1) : 559).

15. In Heft 7 of his Die Pflanzenliuse Aphiden, published in 1855, Koch,
on page 226, treated both Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister and the Cinara roboris
of Curtis as synonyms of Dryobius roboris (Linnaeus). Having done this, he
then in Heft 8, published in 1857, proceeded, on page 237, to describe a species
to which he applied the name Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister. Under this name
he gave references both to the Handbuch of Burmeister and to Kaltenbach, and,
like Kaltenbach, he suggested that this species might be identical with Aphis
costata Zetterstedt, 1828. Koch illustrated this species by figures of alate
and apterous viviparous females. The figure of the alate female shows the
media of the forewings twice-branched ; moreover, the pigmented areas charac-
teristic of costata Zetterstedt are lacking. However, in his description of the
alate viviparous female Koch stated that the media were only once-branched ;
he referred also to the presence of pigmented areas. We may, therefore, conclude
that the species which he had before him was the costata of Zetterstedt and not
the species to which Burmeister had given the name fasciatus.

16. Mordvilko (1895, Zool. Anz. 18: 80-102) and Cholodkovsky (1898,
Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 31 : 48-52) took different views as to the species identified by
Kaltenbach and Koch with the nominal species Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister.
Mordvilko held that Kaltenbach’s species was the same as that to which Cholod-
kovsky had given the name Lachnus farinosus (1891. Rev. Sci. nat. 1891 (No. 8) :
294-306) and spoke of that species as Lachnus fasciatus Kalt. He identified in
the same way the species which Koch had identified as Lachnus fasciatus
Burmeister. Cholodkovsky. on the other hand, held that the species which
he had named Lachnus farinosus was not the same species as that which Kalten-
bach had identified with Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister. Cholodkovsky then
proceeded as follows :—‘* Wenn also alle auf Nadelhélzern lebenden und mit
dunkel gezeichneten Vorderfliigeln versehenen Lachnus-Arten identisch sein
sollen, so miissen sie alle Lachnus costatus Zett. heissen.”

17. Borner (1930, Arch. klassif. phylogenet. Ent. 1 (2) : 125) did not select a
type species for the genus Lachnus ; he identified Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister
with Aphis roboris Linnaeus and recognised that Hyecies as the type pyecies of
the genus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature \79

18. In my paper on this subject published in 1930 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash.
43: 185-188) I followed the same course, identifying Lachnus fasciatus Bur-
meister with Aphis roboris Linnaeus and accepting that species as the type
species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister.

19. Oestlund (1942, Syst. Aphididae (1): 15-16) has also discussed this
question. He followed Westwood in treating the generic name Cinara Curtis
as a synonym of Lachnus Burmeister. His views on the type species of Lachnus
are given in the following passage: ‘‘ The genus Canara, published during the
last month of the same year as Lachnus, has been shown to be a synonym of
Lachnus, but this does not invalidate Curtis setting Aphis pini as type and the
setting of the type to Cinara does not invalidate its application to Lachnus
as having priority.” The ‘* Aphis pint” which Oestlund had in mind is the
species Aphis pini of Linnaeus, as interpreted by Goeze (1778), as is clearly
indicated on the previous page of his paper.

20. We have now completed our review of the literature relating to the
type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister. Before discussing the action
which it is desirable that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature should take in this matter, it will be convenient to consider the associated
problem relating to the generic name Cinara Curtis. 1835.

(b) The generic name “ Cinara” Curtis, 1835

21. Curtis published his description of the genus Cinara in Section 576 of
Volume 12 of his British Entomology. The pages in this Section are not numbered.
The date of publication of this Section was December 1835 and the plate
accompanying it is dated Ist December. Curtis described and figured Aphis
roboris Linnaeus as belonging to his genus Cinara. In addition, he designated a
type species for this genus. Unfortunately, however, in making this designation,
Curtis cited his type species as follows: “ Aphis pint Linn. ?”

22. The fact that Curtis figured and described Aphis roboris Linnaeus as
belonging to the genus Cinara has led some specialists to consider that species
to be the actual type species of Cinara. Theobald (1929, Plant Lice Gt. Brit.
3: 352), for example, expressed the following view, quoting from Laing:
“ The point is simply this, Curtis defines the genus Cinara and describes and
figures roboris. Unfortunately, he says: ‘Typical species: Aphis pina?
Linnaeus’. It was obvious, therefore, he knew nothing about pini and that he
had in mind for his genotype what he was figuring and describing, namely
roboris. It is my contention that you cannot base genera on species you do not
know and that in nomenclature you must interpret what a man obviously
meant.” It is not possible, however, to sustain the argument that Curtis did
not have a clear idea of what Aphis pint Linnaeus was, for on the page following
that on which the generic name Cinara first appeared he wrote: ‘‘ Nos. 20
to 30 enumerated in the Guide with the exception of No. 29 belong to this
genus.” Reference to the Guide shows that Aphis pint Linnaeus was No, 22.
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that Curtis considered the species Aphis pini
Linnaeus (whatever he may have thought that species to be), belonged to his
new genus Cinara.. Thus, the nominal species A phis pint Linnaeus is unquestion-
ably the type species by original designation, if a satisfactory explanation can be
found for the use by Curtis of a question mark, when he designated that species
as the type species. Oestlund in 1942 (: 15-16) offered the following explana-

180 Bulletin of Zoological: Nomenclature

tion of Curtis’ action: “The mark is not an expression of doubt that Aphis
pini is the type, but refers to the fact that Aphis pint is a composite that includes
the two species found in Sweden that were named Aphis nudi pina and tomentosa
pini by De Geer, 1773. Curtis questions which of these two should be the type
according to the binomial method, recognising that De Geer persisted in
following the vernacular method of naming species.” One has to admit however
that in a matter of this kind one guess is almost as good as another as to what
Curtis meant by the question mark which he placed after the name of Linnaeus.
In any case, Curtis’ action in this matter must be considered as a flaw in his
designation of Aphis pint Linnaeus to be the type species of Cinara Curtis, and
action is needed to remove this defect.

23. In 1840 (Introd. Class Ins. 2 (Syn.): 118) Westwood, who may be
expected to have been familiar with the respective dates of publication of the
works in which Burmeister and Curtis published the generic names discussed
above, placed the name Cinara Curtis as a synonym of the name Lachnus
Burmeister. In doing so, he probably acted on the basis of his knowledge
of the priority of the name Lachnus. This action by Westwood has also con-
tributed to the confusion which has occurred in regard to these two generic
names. I can find no exact date for the appearance of Volume 2 of Burmeister’s
Handbuch der Entomologis, other than given on the title page, where the date
is given as 1835, and a reference in the Annales de la Societe entomologique de
France (4 : exiv), published in 1835, where it appears that the foregoing volume
of Burmeister’s Handbuch was published on some date between October Ist
and December 31st, 1835. Burmeister himself (1836, Archiv. fiir Naturges-
chichte 2 : 325) cited his Handbuch as having appeared in 1835.

24. Thus, on the meagre data available, it is possible that the name Lachnus
Burmeister was published a few weeks before the name Ciara Curtis, for
the Part containing the name Cinara is dated 1st December 1835, whereas,
although it is possible that the name Lachnus was not published until the
end of December 1835 (i.e. some four weeks after the publication of the name
Cinara), it is possible also that it may have been published in 1835 as early
as the beginning of October, i.e. two months before the publication of the
name Cinara. As already observed (paragraph 22) it would be reasonable
to expect that such an authority as Westwood, writing (in 1840) only five
years after the publication of these names, would know which of the two
names was the first to have been published, and the fact that he sank the
name Cinara Curtis as a synonym of the name Lachnus Burmeister lends
color to the view that the name Lachnus was published before the name
Cinara. Up to 1948 the International Rules contained no provisions for
determining the relative dates to be assigned, for the purposes of the Law of
Priority, to names in cases where there was no definite evidence to show which
of any given pair was the first to be published. In 1948 this defect in the
Rules was remedied by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology
when it was decided to incorporate in the Régles a series of provisions dealing
with this subject, the general principle adopted being that in such a case each
of the names concerned is to rank for the purposes of priority as from the
earliest date as from which it is known with certainty to have been published,
i.e. where a name is known to have been published between say Ist January

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181

and 15th February of a given year, it is to rank for the purposes of priority
as from 15th February of the year in question, that being the earliest date as
from which it is definitely known to have been published (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 223-225). Applying these rules to the case here under considera-
tion, we find (1) that 31st December 1835 is the earliest date by which it is
known with certainty that the name Lachnus Burmeister was published and
(2) that the name Crnara Curtis is to be treated as having been published on
Ist December 1835, that date having been affixed to the portion of Curtis’
book in which this name first appeared. We see therefore that under the
Reégles the name Cinara Curtis has several weeks priority over the name Lachnus
Burmeister.

25. In 1910 (Ent. News 21: 149) Wilson selected what he called * pini
Curtis to be the type species of Cinara Curtis. This action was invalid, for,
quite apart from the fact that Curtis had (though defectively) designated
Aphis pini Linnaeus as the type species of this genus, Curtis never described
a species under the specific name pint and there is therefore no such specific
name as pind Curtis.

26. In 1911] (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 4: 52-53) Wilson again discussed this
subject, though without making any reference to his action in the previous
year in selecting “ pint Curtis” as the type species of this genus. He now
rejected Curtis’ selection of Aphis pini Linnaeus on account of the use by
Curtis of a question mark, when so doing. Wilson thereupon suggested that
Aphis roboris Linnaeus might be the species which should be regarded as
being the type species, since this was the one species which Curtis described
in full. In a footnote Wilson went on to make the following observation :
“The question of the validity of this genus rests upon the fact that Curtis
did not give roboris as the type and the other species is questioned. The author
then concludes that the genus is in question and cannot be placed as a valid
genus.”

27. Baker, in 1920 (U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 826: 15-18), without giving
any discussion, gave the generic name Cinara Curtis (which he misspelt Cinaria
and to which he attributed the erroneous date “‘ 1853”) as a questionable
synonym of Hulachnus del Guercio, 1911. In the same paper, when discussing
the genus Pterochlorus Rondani, Baker rejected Aphis roboris Linnaeus as
the type species of Cinara Curtis, following Wilson (1911) in believing that
Curtis placed only two species in that genus when he first published its name,
overlooking the reference by Curtis to the species enumerated in the “ Guide.”
In this paper Baker recognised his nominal genus Dilachnus Baker, 1919
(Canad. Ent. 51 : 253) as a good genus and characterised it as having the media
of the forewings twice-branched. Thus, he took care of the two species which
he had excluded from the genus Lachnus when he selected as the type species
of that genus a species in which the media were only once-branched.

28. Borner in 1930 (Arch. Klassif. phylogenet. Ent. 1 (2) : 125) recognised
Aphis pini Linnaeus as the type species of Cinara Curtis. I adopted the
same course in my paper published in the same year (Hottes, 1930, Proc.
biol. Soc. Wash, 43 : 185-186). While a student of Oestlund’s, 1 was assigned
by him the task of studying the synonymy of the generic names Lachnus
and Cinara and the question of the type species of those genera. Oecestlund

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

could never bring himself to recognise the generic name Cinara, because he
wished to retain the name Lachnus for species congeneric with Aphis pina
Linnaeus, as witnessed by his last contribution, published in 1942 (: 15-16),
in which he treated the name Cinara as a synonym of Lachnus.

29. Having now brought to a close the story of the generic names Lachnus
and Cinara, I turn to the question of the action which it is desired that the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should take in the
present case. As the application now submitted will have shown, the generic
names Lachnus Burmeister 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835, are both very
well-known names, but unfortunately the current use of the first of these
names is entirely at variance with the provisions of the Régles, while, without
a ruling from the International Commission, it is impossible to determine
with certainty what species should, under the Reégles, be regarded as the type
species of the second of the nominal genera in question.

30. In the case of Lachnus Burmeister, the type species, under the Reégles,
is undoubtedly Lachnus punctatus Burmeister, 1835, that having been the
first of the nominal species cited under the generic name Lachnus on the occasion
when that name was first published to have been selected (by Wilson, 1910)
as the type species of this genus. The nominal species Lachnus punctatus
Burmeister, 1835, is now subjectively identified with Aphis seligna Gmelin,
1789. On the other hand, the universally accepted type species for this genus
is Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, a nominal species not placed by Burmeister
in the genus Lachnus, in which however he did include the nominal species
Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister, 1835, which is now generally regarded as being
subjectively identical with Aphis roboris Linnaeus. The substitution of Lachnus
punctatus Burmeister for Aphis roboris Linnaeus as the type species of this
genus would lead to great confusion, and is a change which it is essential should
be prevented from occurring.

31. The generic name Cinara Curtis, 1835, has been widely used for the
species identified as Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, and its allies, but, as already
explained, the use by Curtis of a question mark, when designating that species
as the type species of this genus has led some workers to reject that type
designation. Workers who have taken this view have regarded Aphis roboris
Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Cinara, and, as those workers have
also regarded that species as the type species Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, their
action has had the effect of rendering (in their view) the nominal genera Lachnus
and Cinara as objectively identical with one another and thus of making
the names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835, objective
synonyms of one another. Owing to the fact that these names were published
at very nearly the same time, different views have been taken by workers
as to which of these names should be treated as having priority over the other,
there being until 1948 no provisions in the International Rules for determining
the relative priority to be assigned in such circumstances to the names comprised
in any given pair of names. Under the provisions inserted in the Régles by
the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948 it is now seen
(paragraph 24 above) that the name Cinara Curtis possesses priority over the
name Lachnus Burmeister.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183

32. The greatest confusion would ensue if the names Cinara Curtis and
Lachnus Burmeister were to become synonyms of one another and it is one
of the principal purposes of the present application to secure a settlement
which will eliminate this risk. The basis of the settlement now asked for is
the acceptance, under the Plenary Powers, (1) of Aphis roboris Linnaeus. 1758.
as the type species of Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and (2) of Aphis pint Linnaeus.
1758, as the type species of Cinara Curtis, 1835, for it is believed that it is
only by this action that the long-standing discussion of this subject can he
brought to a satisfactory close. It is certain that, if no action were to be taken
under the Plenary Powers and the Régles were to be strictly applied, the most
serious confusion would be inevitable. In connection with the foregoing
proposal, there is, it must be noted. a technical defect in the trivial name
pimt Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination A phis pini)
which will need to be remedied before the foregoing request can be granted.
A recommendation on this subject is submitted to the International Com-
mission in the immediately preceding application (Z.N.(S.)547).

33. The specific proposals which are submitted to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature are that the Commission should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the
genera Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis. 1835.
made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken :

(6) to designate the under-mentioned species to be the type species
of the genera referred to in (a) above :—

Name of genus Species recommended to be
designated as the type species
of the genera specified in

Col. (1)
(1) (2)
(i) Lachnus Burmeister, 1835 Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758
(1) Cinara Curtis. 1835 Aphis pini Linnaeus, 1758

(defined, as recommended
in application Z.N.(S.)547)

(2) place the generic names Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara
Curtis, 1835, with the type species severally specified in (1) (b)
above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :

(3) place the specific name roboris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the
binominal combination Aphis roboris) on the Official List of
Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :

(4) place the name Cinaria Baker, 1920 (an Invalid Subsequent Spelling
of Cinara Curtis, 1835), on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REPORT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE IN RELATION TO THE GENERIC NAMES
“LACHNUS” BURMEISTER, 1835, AND ‘“CINARA”
CURTIS, 1835 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)174)

The purpose of the present Report is to lay before the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature particulars of the comments so far received
in regard to the application now before it in regard to the generic names
Lachnus Burmeister. 1835. and Cinara Curtis. 1835 (Class Insecta, Order
Hemiptera).

2. This question was first raised informally in a letter dated 24th February
1930 addressed by Professor F. C. Hottes (then of the James Millikin University,
Decatur, Illmois, U.S.A.) to the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, my predecessor in the
Office of Secretary to the International Commission. In this letter Professor
Hottes drew attention to the difficulties arising from the fact that the first
valid type selection for Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, was that by Wilson (1910)
who had then selected Lachnus punctatus Burmeister, 1835, whereas the species
commonly accepted as the type species of this genus was Lachnus fasciatus
Burmeister, 1835, selected a year later (1911), also by Wilson. At the same time
Professor Hottes drew attention to the difficulties which existed also in deter-
mining the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835, in view of the fact
that, when Curtis designated ‘‘ pint Linnaeus ”’ as the type species of this genus,
he added a question mark after the word ‘“‘ Linnaeus ’’, thereby throwing into
doubt the action which he conceived himself to be taking. The correspondence,
which then ensued, did not lead to the submission of an application to the
Commission.

3. Among the papers transferred to my charge on my becoming Secretary to
the International Commission, I found references to a possible application to
the International Commission on this subject but the actual documents handed
over to me did not include any of the earlier correspondence relating to this
case. When in 1944 I was able to turn my attention to this case, I wrote to
Professor Hottes, referring to the correspondence which he had had on this
subject with Dr. Stiles and asking whether he proposed to submit an application
to the International Commission. At the same time I wrote to Dr. 8. A. Rohwer
(Assistant Chief, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.), to whom it appeared (from other papers
which had been transferred to me) that perhaps the earlier correspondence had
been sent by Dr. Stiles; I asked that, if this was so, these papers should be
returned for incorporation in the records of the International Commission.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185

4. In October 1944 I received a letter from Professor Hottes, with which he
enclosed a copy of a paper entitled “The name Cinara versus the name
Lachnus”’, which he had written shortly after the correspondence with Dr.
Stiles referred to in paragraph 2 above and which had been published
November 1930 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 43 : 185-188). In that paper Professor
Hottes had set out the grounds which, as he then believed, justified the
conclusion that Westwood. (1840) had effectively selected Aphis roboris Lin-
naeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Lachnus Burmeister. 1835.
and that Curtis (1835) had validly designated Aphis pina Linnaeus, 1758, to be
the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835. Professor Hottes went on to
say that he recognised that in a matter of this kind the opinion of an individual
specialist possessed no official status ; he suggested, therefore. that the Inter-
national Commission should review the findings which he had reached and.
having done so, should render an Opinion on the questions at issue. Professor
Hottes added that he would be happy to present to the Commission a biblio-
graphy of the literature involved and to submit recommendations for the
consideration of the Commission.

5. In December 1944 I received a letter from Dr. Rohwer enclosing the
earlier correspondence relating to this case (which, as I had anticipated. had
been filed in the records of the U.S. Department of Agriculture), together with a
memorandum, dated 20th November 1944, on two cases, of which the present
was one, which had been prepared by Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck, Officer in Charge,
Division of Insect Identification, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The following is the text of the portion of that
memorandum which relates to the present case :

The case involving Lachnus and Cinara is not so easily settled. Following
the exchange of correspondence between Hottes and Stiles, which is included
among the papers I am returning, Hottes (Proceedings Biological Society of
Washington, Vol. 43, p. 185, 1930) published a statement which indicated that he
considered the question to have been entirely cleared up. ‘The significant
passage in his note reads as follows: ‘‘ Schumacher (1921) clearly established
the fact that Aphis roboris Linné was the correct type of the genus Lachnus by
quoting from the second edition of Burmeister’s Handbuch der Entomologie,
page 1006, wherein Burmeister states that his Lachnus fasciatus is a synonym of
Aphis roboris Linné, the type set for Lachnus by Westwood in 1840. Unfor-
tunately, he overlooked the requirement that for roboris to be eligible for type
designation, it must have been included among the species originally cited by
Burmeister when he proposed the generic name Lachnus. ‘The fact that Bur-
meister himself later suppressed his fasciatus, an originally included species, as a
synonym of roboris, does not alter the case, and Westwood’s 1840 designation is
invalid. The first valid type designation seems to be that by Wilson, 1910, who
cited punctatus Burmeister, a species which was unrecognisable at that time but
which has subsequently been made a synonym of saligna Gmelin, the type of
Tuberolachnus Mordvilko, 1908. This generic name has been considered by
most recent authors as a synonym of Pterochlorus Rondani, 1848, the type of
which is Aphis roboris. If the zoological conclusions involving the specific names
here are correct, Pterochlorus and Tuberolachnus are synonyms of Lachnus.

Cinara Curtis, 1835, was proposed with two included species, Aphis pini
Linnaeus ? and Aphis roboris. Curtis himself definitely stated that “‘ pini ?”’
was the type of his genus. It has been contended, however, that he did not
know pini and that his description and illustrations applied to roboris. This is
apparently correct. Theobald (Aphididae of Great Britain, Vol. 3, p. 352, 1929)
quotes Laing on this point, whose concluding statement is : ‘* It is my contention

186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

that you cannot base genera on species you do not know and that in nomenclature
you must interpret what a man obviously meant,” and he supports Laing’s view.
Accordingly, we have once more a troublesome problem resulting from the
misidentification of a genotype. If the view held by Theobald and Laing is
sustained by the Commission, the names Lachnus and Cinara are synonymous,
but there still seems to be uncertainty as to which has priority, both having
been published in 1835. If the Commission should agree with Theobald and
Laing and then should find that Lachnus is the earlier name, some confusion
would result from the necessity of treating, under Lachnus, the considerable
number of Aphids now referred to the genus Cinara. It appears that greater
stability would follow from the strict application of the Rules and the recognition
of pini Linnaeus as type of Cynara,

6. At the time when the foregoing correspondence took place the world war
was still in progress and it was impossible for the International Commission, either
then or for some years thereafter, to take decisions on individual nomenclatorial
cases. By 1947, however, the situation had sufficiently improved to make it
possible to make a start in this direction and in November of that year advertise-
ments in the prescribed form were issued in respect of a number of applications
then awaiting attention, each of which involved a possible use by the Commission
of its Plenary Powers. Among the applications so advertised was that relating
to the generic names Lachnus and Cinara, the advertisement issued making it
clear that the application received involved the possible use by the Commission
of its Plenary Powers to designate (1) Aphis roboris Linnaeus, 1758, to be the
type species of Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and (2) Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758,
to be the type species of Cinara Curtis, 1835.

7. The foregoing advertisement elicited comments from two quarters :—

(1) Professor Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado A. & M. College, Entomology

Department, Fort Colorado, Colorado, U.S.A.) stated (in a letter

dated 13th January 1948):—‘I am in full accord with both
proposals under this file number.”

(2) Mr. F. H. Jacob, M.Sc. (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, National
Agricultural Advisory Service, Welsh Sub-Centre, Bangor, United
Kingdom) reported (in a letter dated 10th November 1948) that,
after the publication of the foregoing advertisement in Nature,
he had had correspondence on this subject with Dr. Hille Ris
Lambers, who had expressed the opinion (1) that the type
species of Lachnus Burmeister was Lachnus fasciatus Burmeister
(=Aphis roboris Linnaeus), by selection by Westwood (1840) and
therefore that there was no need for the Plenary Powers to be
used to secure this end; (2) that “ Cinara Curtis 1835 type
‘ pint L. 2’ is all right” and that he could not therefore under-
stand why it should be considered that a suspension of the Rules
was necessary in this case. As regards the application advertised
in Nature, Mr. Jacob said: ‘‘ From the point of view of one
interested in Aphids, I consider that it is highly desirable that
this proposal should be carried out.’’ Mr. Jacob added: “ From
the point of view of an economic entomologist it is always a good
thing to have these nomenclatorial problems straightened out
and fixed once and for all, because it helps to avoid needless
confusion of the literature.’

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187

8. In 1948 Professor Hottes decided to recast somewhat his application in
regard to this case and to resubmit it, together with an application asking the
International Commission to issue directions as to the manner in which the
nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus, 1758, should be interpreted. This latter
question, though in itself entirely distinct from that which forms the subject of
Professor Hottes’ earlier application, is nevertheless closely bound up with it,
owing to the designation (or attempted designation) of the above species by
Curtis as the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835. The application
in regard to the interpretation of the nominal species Aphis pint Linnaeus
was received in November 1948. It has been assigned the Registered Number
Z.N.(S8.)547 (see pp. 166-173 of the present volume).

9. In the period 1948-1950 it was not possible for the International Com-
mission to make any progress with the consideration of applications submitted
to it for decision, partly because the Secretariat was fully engaged in the pre-
paration and publication of the volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature (Volumes 3, 4 and 5) containing the Official Records of the discussions
held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the
International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held concurrently in Paris
in July 1948, and partly because in one way or another the decisions (procedura |
and other) taken by the former body necessarily affected every application then
awaiting consideration by the Commission. The Official Records of Proceedings
in Paris were published in 1950. and, as soon as possible thereafter, Professor
Hottes made such consequential changes in, and additions to, his two applica-
tions as were then seen to be required. These applications, so revised. are
accordingly now submitted to the Commission for concurrent consideration.

10. Professor Hottes’ application in regard to the names Lachnus and
Ciara has, as its object, only the determination of the species to be accepted as
the type species of the nominal genera so named. Incidentally, however, that
application raises also a general question of principle in regard to the inter-
pretation of Rule (a) in Article 30 in the Reégles. In accordance with the decision
by the Thirteenth International Congress that, in future, decisions on such
matters are not to be given in Opinions relating to individual names (in the
present case, the names Lachnus and Cinara) but are to be recorded separately
in the Series entitled ‘‘ Declarations * (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 132-137),
the question of principle referred to above has been treated as constituting a
separate problem and has been allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(8.)715.*
A note examining the problem involved and putting forward a suggestion for
dealing with it is submitted simultaneously with the present Report for
consideration by the International Commission.

* See pp. 188 to 190 in the present volume,

L188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “DECLARATION” ON THE

QUESTION WHETHER THE INSERTION OF A MARK OF

INTERROGATION INVALIDATES A DESIGNATION OF A

TYPE SPECIES FOR A GENUS MADE UNDER RULE (a) IN
ARTICLE 30 OF THE ‘“ REGLES”

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary lo the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)715)

The application (File Z.N.(S.)174) submitted to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the generic name Cinara
Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), submitted by Professor F. C.
Hottes, raises a small question of principle relating to the interpretation of
Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Regles, which, in order to prevent the occurrence
of similar problems, it would be convenient if the International Commission
were to settle by the issue of a Declaration.

2. In the particular case in question Curtis established a new nominal
genus to which he gave the name Cinara and of which he said that the type
species was ~ pint Linnaeus ? ”

3. For over half a century the meaning of the action so taken by Curtis
has been the subject of discussion among Aphid taxonomists. Some have
argued that the insertion by Curtis of a mark of interrogation after the word
‘* Linnaeus ”* was intended to denote that Curtis only doubtfully designated
Aphis pini Linnaeus as the type species of this genus; others have held this
indicated that Curtis was not personally acquainted with the Linnean species,
which was, therefore, from his point of view, a species inquirenda. One author
put forward the explanation that the insertion of this question mark was
designed by Curtis to show that, in his view, the original Aphis pint of Linnaeus
Was a composite species and that, while he certainly intended that the type
species of Cinara should be the species named Aphis pint by Linnaeus, whatever
that species might turn out to be, he was not certain to which of two species
confused together by Linnaeus the name Aphis pini was properly applicable.

4. As was inevitable, these discussions led to no finality and it was for
the purpose of putting a term to these fruitless arguments that this case was
submitted to the Commission for settlement. For purposes unconnected with
the issue immediately under consideration, Professor Hottes has asked the
International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to settle the question of
the type species of the genus Cinara Curtis: he has not therefore asked, as
he might have done, for a ruling from the Commission on the question whether
the qualification added by Curtis, through the insertion of a question mark
in the manner indicated above, invalidated the designation which he then
made of a type species for that genus. It is for the purpose of obtaining a
ruling on this general question that the present supplementary application i is
submitted to the International Commission.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature L89

5. In the present case we are concerned with a type designation made
under Rule («) in Article 30 and not with a type selection made under Rule (9)
in the same Article. Nevertheless, it will be instructive to pause for a moment
to examine what are the requirements laid down by Rule (g) and to compare
those requirements with those prescribed in Rule (a). Rule (g) which provides
a method of determining the type species of a genus, where the type species
has not been determined by any of the preceding Rules (a) to (d) or Rule (f)
by the selection of a type species by a later author. Attached to this Rule
there is a supplementary provision that the expression * select a type species
is to be “ rigidly construed.” If therefore, in the present case, Curtis had
been a later author selecting a type species of a previously established genus
(instead of an original author designating a type species for a genus then being
established by himself for the first time), there is no doubt that the insertion
by him of a question mark, such as that which he inserted when designating
the type species of his own genus Cinara would have invalidated the selection
so made. For it would clearly be impossible to sustain an argument that on a
“rigid” construction of the expression ‘select a type species’ he had un-
equivocally selected Aphis pini Linnaeus to be the type species of the genus
Cinara Curtis. When, however, we turn to the Rule (Rule (a)) governing the
designation of the type species of a genus by the original author of that genus
at the time when the generic name in question is first published, we find that
there is no supplementary provision analogous to that contained in Rule (g),
prescribing that the expression “ designate a type species ” is to be “ rigidly
construed.”

6. The foregoing ditference between Rule (g) and Rule (a) is due mainly
to the fact that the supplementary provision now incorporated in Rule (g)
did not form part of the original draft of the present Article 30 (which was
substituted for the earlier text of this Article by the Seventh International
Congress of Zoology at Boston in 1907) but was added at a later stage during
the discussion of that draft in order to meet a point raised by the late Com-
missioner David Starr Jordan of Stanford University that it was essential
that this Rule should be so drafted as to exclude from acceptance as type
selections the numerous cases where authors had cited under a given previously
published generic name a single species, either because that species alone
was relevant to the purposes of the book or paper concerned (e.g. where a
single species was so cited in a book or paper dealing only with a limited
faunistic area) or because the author concerned wished to cite an example
of the genus in question without reference to the purely nomenclatorial question
of the species to be regarded as the type species of that genus. There is no
evidence at all to suggest that, when this addition was made to Rule (g), any
consideration was given to the question whether a corresponding addition
should be made to Rule (a). Most probably no consideration was given to
this question, for, whereas risk of doubtful cases arising under Rule (g), and
consequently the need for special safeguards in that Rule was very great, the
risk of similar cases arising under Rule (a) was very remote, for in the nature
of the case the author of a new genus who wishes himself to designate a type
species for that genus will almost invariably do so in a clear and unambiguous
manner, cases where an author designates the type species of a genus established
by himself in an obscure or qualified manner necessarily being extremely rare.

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. ‘There is certainly nothing in Article 30 to suggest that a lower standard
of precision is permissible under Rule (a) than that which is required under
Rule (g). Accordingly. it may fairly be concluded even without any further
clarification that Rule (a) should exclude from validity an original type desig-
nation made in an ambiguous or qualified manner, just as Rule (g) clearly
excludes from validity a subsequent type selection made in such a manner.

8. Nevertheless, the fact, as we have seen, that discussion on this subject
las been proceeding among specialists for over fifty years in the case of the
generic name Cinara Curtis pots strongly to the conclusion that, in order
to avoid further waste of time of this sort, it is desirable that an express ruling
should be given by the International Commission on this subject.

9. It is accordingly suggested, for the consideration of the International
Commission, that it would be helpful if a Declaration were now to be rendered
containing a ruling to the following effect: ‘‘ For the purposes of Rule (a)
in Article 30, the expression * designate a type species ’ is to be rigidly construed
and is not to be held cover a designation made in an ambiguous or qualified
manner.”

"7a
1 ZMAY 10654

PURCHASE

CONTENTS OF THE PRESENT PART
(continued from front wrapper)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name brount
Hutton, 1901, as published in the combination Drosophila brount,
for the purpose of preserving the specific name immigrans Sturtevant,
1921, as published in the combination Drosophila immigrans (Class
Insecta, Order Diptera). By Ernst Mayr (Cambridge, Mass.), J. T.
Patterson (Austin, Texas), Marshall P. Wheeler (Austin, Texas),
Warren P. Spencer (College of Wooster, Ohio) i i ry

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name pruni
Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni (Class ae
Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By F. C. Hottes (Grand function, ae
Colorado, U.S.A.) =A 83 ee ae oF oi bs ae

Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the
specific name pini Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Aphis pini and as interpreted by De Geer (1773) (Class Insecta,
Order pau By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado,

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate, as the type species
of Lachnus Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta,
Order Hemiptera) a species in harmony with accepted nomen- eae
clatorial practice. By F. C. Hottes (Grand function, Colorado, U.S.A.) 174 |

Report on the application submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the generic names Lachnus
Burmeister, 1835, and Cinara Curtis, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order
Hemiptera). By Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International
Commission 2 a Ks Pe ee = Ai

Proposed adoption of a Declaration on the question whether the insertion

of a mark of interrogation invalidates a designation of a type species
for a genus made under Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Regles. By “

Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission o> oo

Sy
IMPORTANT NOTICE

All applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — ree
should be addressed to Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Com- —

Zoologists are particularly requested to assist the work of the Commission — >;
by complying with the following requirements: (1) Applications should be
submitted in duplicate ; (2) applications should be typed, double-spaced, on
one side of the paper only and with wide margins. a

OT
Printed in Great Britain by Metcumm anp Son L1p., Westmin-ter, London

& a At
Se
ong .

chs

VOLUME 9. Part 7 ieog A

hey, 11th May 1954
pp. 191-222

PURCHASED

_ THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
« NOMENCLATURE

eas. The Official Organ of
me: THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
Be ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

____ FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

_ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

ae CONTENTs :
aN Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology :

____ Date of commencement by the International Commission on
‘a Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
ay in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... re bs 191

Notice of the Possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain
cases of SH iS a Rs os

Page

192
(continued on back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
a and
___ Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
ie by the International Trust
at its Publications Office,
41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1954

Price Twelve Shillings and Sixpence
(All righ reserved)

4: f ‘ee i, ~ Are 3 5 Jae ‘ ;
ead fee eX ox 3 . +) oe t
- a eer ie ™* ay ; \z f SERS. “> 7

. ae > . \ 4
Ate. Got ek ee 7 > ‘

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurliyke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948)