iy a — a iu, aha Of yy we ", 4 Hi THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PURCHASED 19 APR 1350 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 4 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 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. 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. 1950 (All rights reserved) VoL4. A J38@Ay rie, | g2ci AAA Of Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim & Son, Lt., at their Press at 8, Princes St., Westminster, London, S.W.1. THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O0. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION — U.N.E.S.C.O. — for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume Vou. 4 A* aanust: (ulate a a 4 CP OES INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (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) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (Ist 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 Hanko (Hungary) (lst January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) Ist January 1947) Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (Honorary Life President) (27th July 1948) 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) 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. 8. 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, N.W.1 Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7. erg Hares a Be ae asia) ) Sopaehagecart Lys : Lp ae Pi ee. at ch mnt are) oe) ky Seales . cu feel 4 yaa) triaitens! : seu Ate raf oieugal bat) pata )) § reerey ee ar: 1 ee ie. i ye FP). ( ee A eatgartl: eS ae spin ws 2 ee Saas ba fi eudo¥ 1h Dlomit: tsi i) ores 4 igi, wasria:) cain Ts, ee 5 (Rp: Sup he slim th} ‘dnote 8 es AS 7 regatiod: WPT RACES ET a “asad tel prints V4} VA aOR) tan thsi Sted lek detSy Geatisig te utite Die at, cia trahuad) rims: ioc Pa ARTES prilasina 2 51 cerdg { ea Grootat Seer 3 + Ge Pe oxiconec pene + Ses a ee ee ek, 2a Peds oA Seteieas luca ‘iin ie Ser y wie Bad Vii DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE “REGLES ” DECIDED UPON BY THE THIRTEENTH INTER- NATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY 1948 Note by the President of the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress At their Final Plenary Session held on Tuesday, 27th July 1948, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology approved the proposals submitted by the Section on Nomenclature regarding the amendment of the Régles, the _ date on which those amendments should come into force and the action which zoologists should be recommended to take pending the entry into force of those amendments. . The decisions so taken by the Congress included a decision that the Remon Trust for Zoological Nomenclature should be requested to publish as soon as possible in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature during its Session of Meetings held in Paris in July 1948 and that the President of the Section on Nomenclature should prefix thereto a short note explaining the arrangements that were being made for the early publication of the Régles as revised by the Paris Congress. 3. In accordance with the foregoing decision of the International Congress of Zoology, notice is hereby given as follows :— (1) The decisions taken by the Congress in relation to the amendment of the Regles are being remitted forthwith to jurists for the preparation of a revised draft to give effect to those decisions. That draft, after being received from the jurists, will be communicated (a) to all Members and Alternate Members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature who attended the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology and (b) to those Members of the Commission who did not attend that Congress, for the purpose of enabling them to satisfy themselves that the draft prepared by the jurists gives full effect in every respect to the decisions taken by the Congress and also that the phraseology employed in the draft in relation to technical matters is of a kind that will the most readily be understood by zoologists. Any comments which Members and Alternate Commissioners may offer on the foregoing matters within a period of three calendar months of the despatch to them of the draft prepared by the jurists will be referred, for determination, to the Editorial Committee of Three established for this purpose by the Congress. Immediately decisions have been taken by the Committee of Three on any matters so raised, the revised text of the Regles, so determined, will be communicated to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for immediate publication. (2) The revised text of the Régles will formally enter into force immediately upon being published in the manner specified above, the existing text of the Regles being simultaneously repealed. viii (3) Zoologists are advised, during the period between the publication by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948 and the formal entry into force of the text of the Reégles, as revised by the Con- gress, to guide themselves in their work by reference to the decisions in regard thereto recorded in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission, and thus to proceed as though the revised Regles were already published and in force. Every decision relating to the Regles adopted by the Congress, on the recommendation of the Section on Nomenclature, had previously been the subject of a recommendation by the Commission, the Official Record. of the Proceedings of which thus contain a full record of every decision taken by the Congress in this matter. BY ORDER OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, JULY, 1948 FRANCIS HEMMING President of the Section on Nomenclature, Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948. Tth January 1950. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners in attendance during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (Acting President) Senor E. Beltran (Mexico) vice Senor Angel Cabrera (Argentina) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) Dr. Edward Hindle (United Kingdom) wice President Karl Jordon (United Kingdom) Professor Arturo Ricardo Jorge (Portugal) vice Senhor A. do Amaral (Brazil) Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) vice Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) vice Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) Professor Kamel Mansour (Egypt) vice Professor Bela Hanko (Hungary) Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.) vice Vice-President James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) vice Dr. W. T. Calman (United Kingdom) Professor P. Rode (France) | Professor R. Spairck (Denmark) vice Dr. Th. Mortensen (Denmark) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) vice Professor R. Richter (Germany) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) vice Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) Secretariat in Paris Secretary to the Commission : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Acting Documents Officer : Miss J. H. Shorey Attendance at Meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Members of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, other than Members and Alternate Members of the Commission M. J. Aubert (Switzerland) M. Belloc (France) M. H. Berthet (France) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) ~ M. André Chavan (France) Professor Ernest N. Cory (U.S.A.) M. Georges Deflandre (France) Mme. Marthe Deflandre-Rigaud (France) Mr. J. Delacour (U.S.A.) Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos (U.S.A.) Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.) Professor E. Fischer-Piette (France) Professor A. Ghigi (Italy) M. H. Gisin (Switzerland) Dr. H. A. F. Gohar (Egypt) Dr. Isabel Gordon (United Kingdom) Professor EK. Raymond Hall (U.S.A.) Professor W. P. Hayes (U.S.A.) M. Denis Jacques (France) Professor R. Jeannel (France) Dr. P. Jespersen (Denmark) Mr. T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom) Dr. H. H. J. Nesbitt (Canada) Dr. §. di Toledo Piza (Brazil) Mr. C. D. Radford (United Kingdom) M. G. Ranson (France) Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.) M. J. Segal (U.S.S.R.) Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (United Kingdom) Signor Antonio Valle (Italy) Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom) CLASS AND ORDINAL NAMES USED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT ITS MEETINGS HELD IN PARIS IN JULY, 1948. Note by the Secretary to the Commission. The Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique do not provide rules for the nomenclature of groups above the family level. In consequence, individual workers are free not only to recognise whatever Classes and Orders appear to them to be appropriate from the taxonomic standpoint but also to apply to those categories whichever names they may choose. 2. The question whether it would be possible to stabilise the nomenclature of groups above the family level was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at a joint meeting with the Section on Nomenclature held in Paris on Monday 26th July 1948. At this meeting, the International Commission adopted (Paris Session 13th Meeting, Conclusion 28) a resolution recommending that the Secretary to the Commission should be invited to study the foregoing question in conjunction with interested specialists, and to submit a comprehensive Report thereon for consideration by the Commission at the next (XIVth) Meeting of the Congress, with a view to the submission by the Commission of proposals for the insertion in the Régles of comprehensive pro- visions dealing with this subject. This recommendation was approved by the Section on Nomenclature (Paris Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 3) and (with the other recommendations, submitted by the Section on Nomenclature) by the Congress at its Plenary Session held on Tuesday, 27th July 1948. 3. While therefore an effort will be made, before the Meeting of the Com- mission and the Congress in Copenhagen in 1953, to prepare, for the considera- tion of zoologists, a scheme for the stabilising of the nomenclature of Classes, Orders and other groups above the family level, the names to be used for such groups remains at present a matter of individual choice. In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the International Commission itself in any given case to express a preference for any particular name. On the other hand, it is necessary for purposes of reference that an indication should be included in the Official Record of the Procedings of the Commission regarding the position in the Animal Kingdom of the various taxonomic mits on the nomenclature of which decisions were taken by the Commission. Accordingly, on this occasion, as on that which arose in connection with the preparation of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission at its Session of Meetings held in Lisbon in 1935, the responsibility for the choice of the names used to denote Classes and Orders rests exclusively with myself as Secretary to the Commission. Thus, the use, in the Official Proceedings of the Commission in Paris, of one name in preference to another does not imply any view by the Commission as a body on the relative merits of that name in relation to some other name also in use by workers to denote the category in question. 4. The inclusion of references to the higher taxonomic categories to which a given genus or species is referable is naturally not essential to specialists who xii are familiar with the relationships of the groups which form their special study, though the insertion of such references may often be a matter of convenience for ready reference, especially in the numerous cases where a worker is engaged in the study of a part only of some large group. The main object of inserting such references is of quite a different order, being to facilitate the work of editors of recording journals (such as the Zoological Record) and thus to ensure the inclusion, in such journals, of references to decisions taken by the Inter- national Commission in regard to particular generic and specific names. In selecting the names of higher taxonomic units to be inserted in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission, I have therefore set myself on the one hand to achieve a reasonable degree of uniformity in presentation and on the other hand to make use of names which are well known and will be readily understood. Accordingly, wherever there exists a substantial degree of agree- ment among specialists regarding the higher classification of the groups with which they are concerned (though not necessarily in regard to the names to be applied to the categories so recognised), I have inserted both the name of the Class and that of the Order to which the genus or species in question is referred. Where, however, as in many groups of Invertebrates, the present state of know- ledge is insuflicient to enable specialists to reach any general agreement in regard to Ordinal classification, I have cited only the name of the Class to which the genus or species concerned is considered to belong. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village Kast, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 26th January 1950. xiii CERTIFICATION OF THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT ITS SESSION OF MEETINGS HELD IN PARIS IN JULY, 1948, Note by the Secretary to the Commission, At the Fourteenth of their Meetings held in Paris in July, 1948!, which was held jointly with the Sixth Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature gave special consideration to the arrangements which should be made for the preparation, by the Secretary, of the Minutes of the Meeting held by the Commission during that Session and for the verification, by the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners con- cerned, of the text so prepared. 2. The Commission decided (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 65) to deal with this matter as follows : (1) in view of the inevitably great length of the Minutes of these Meetings, the draft prepared by the Secretary should be printed as soon as it had been prepared : (2) as soon as proofs had been received from the printer, a copy should be sent for comment and approval to each Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner who attended the Paris Session, air-mail being used for all destinations outside the United Kingdom ; (3) a period of one calendar month was to be reserved as the period within which comments or suggestions by the Commissioners or Alternate Commissioners should be returnable to the Secretariat of the Commission ; (4) at the conclusion of the foregoing period, the Secretary was to make any changes or corrections in the draft Minutes which might be found to be necessary in the light of the comments received from the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners and, having done so, should forthwith transmit the text, so amended, to the Inter- national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the corporation responsible for the financial operations required by the Commission) for publication in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ at the earliest possible date. 3. Volume 3 of the “ Bulletin ’’ containing the text of the documents con- sidered by the Commission in Paris is necessary for a proper understanding of the Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission, those Minutes naturally contain- ing frequent references to the documents which had then been under considera- tion. Arrangements were therefore made for the supply by the printer of a sufficient number of proofs of volume 3 to enable a copy to be circulated to each Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner who had attended the Paris Session. These proofs were despatched at the end of November 1949 to all the Commis- sioners and Alternate Commissioners concerned, with the exception of Commis- sioner P. Rode (France) whose death had occurred not long after the close of the Paris Session. Copies addressed to all destinations outside the United Kingdom were despatched by airmail. The proofs of the Minutes of the Paris Meeting were received from the printer on 5th December 1949 and on the following day (6th December 1949) one copy was despatched to each of the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners concerned, with a covering note referring to the 1 See pages 642-644 of the present volume. xiv decisions taken in Paris and asking for a reply not later than 6th January 1950, the last day of the prescribed period that had been agreed upon. Airmail was used for all destinations outside the United Kingdom. 4. Before the end of the prescribed period, replies were received from the majority of the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners concerned. At the end of that period, cables were despatched to those Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners from whom no replies had by that time been received. Within about a fortnight of the end of the prescribed period replies had been received from all the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners concerned with the exception of one Alternate Commissioner whom it must be assumed was either ill or away from home at the time. 5. The communications so received from Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners raised points which called for action of two kinds : (1) the letters received contained a large number of notes on minor drafting matters, printer’s errors and the like ; (2) in addition, some of the letters drew attention to certain obseurities or apparent inconsistencies in the drafting adopted for particular items in the Minutes. On the receipt of the letters concerned, all the corrections: notified under (1) above were incorporated in the Minutes. As regards points arising under (2) above, letters were sent by myself as Secretary to the Commis- sion to each of the Commissioners concerned, explaining the manner in which it was proposed to meet the points which he had raised. All the explanations so offered were accepted as satisfactory by the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners concerned and the changes so agreed upon were thereupon incorporated in the text. 6. Subject to the comments and suggestions referred to above, each of the Commissioners from whom replies were received approved the draft Minutes as representing a true and accurate record of the proceedings of the International Commission during its Session of Meetings held in Paris in July 1948. Thus, the Minutes of the Meetings held by the International Commission in Paris in July 1948, as amended in certain respects in the manner indicated in the previous paragraph, have now been approved by the following fourteen (14) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners out of the total of sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who were present at the Paris Session: H. Boschma (Netherlands) ; J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) ; L. di Caporiacco (Italy); Francis Hemming (United Kingdom); E. Hindle (United Kingdom) ; A. R. Jorge (Portugal) ; Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) ; Henning Lemche (Denmark); K. Mansour (Egypt); Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.); N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) ; R. Sparek (Denmark); V. van Straelen (Belgium) ; Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.). Of the two (2) other Commissioners who were present at the Paris Session, Commissioner Paul Rode died after the Congress and before the circulation of the draft Minutes ; while no reply has been received from Alternate Commissioner E. Beltran (Mexico). 7. I accordingly certify that, in accordance with the procedure agreed upon in Paris, the text of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological’ Nomenclature at its Session of Meetings held in Paris in July 1948 as now published in Volume 4 of the Xv “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature *’ has been unanimously approved and adopted by the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who were present at that Session as constituting a true and accurate record of the decisions taken thereat. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village’ Kast, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. Ist February 1950. 7 > 7A! Made Se = ae i asia eit xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT THEIR SESSION HELD IN PARIS IN JULY 1948 CONCLUSIONS of the First Meeting of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre Loius-Liard on Wednesday, 21st July, 1948 at 1430 hours. Page 1. Absence of the President and Vice-President and assumption of the Acting Presidency by the Secretary. . =e He ig 1 2. Apologies for absence received from Commissioner Paul Rode (France) .. “He ny Aa ii es ee ty 2 3. Commissioners present at the Paris Session a se 2 4. Resignation of Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on account of ill-health. . ” tt i Am oe be ae 2 5. Commissioners absent from Paris and unable to attend Session thereat “ji he Pe Article 25, Proviso (a): meaning of the expression “ indication ’ in relation to generic names Status of names proposed for forms of less than subspecific rank : preliminary consideration Fifth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session: time appointed CONCLUSIONS of the Fifth Meeting of the International Com-~ mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in | Ae aha pan Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July, at ours. la Status of names proposed for forms of less than subspecific rank : further consideration 68 70 76 78 81 83 xxii Fifth Meeting (continued) 2. Article 2: insertion of reference to the category “ subgenus ” 3. Articles 35 and 36 (problem of nope pans ed preliminary consideration 4. Sixth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session: time appointed CONCLUSIONS of the Sixth Meeting of the International Com- 10. LR 12. mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July, 1948 at 1700 hours. Articles 35 and 36 aia of prey ipeaRn further consideration Need for publicity for new names and for the selections of type species of genera Definition of the expressions “‘ specific name ” and “ specific trivial ” name Definition of the expressions “‘ subspecific name ” and “‘ subspecific trivial name ” Specific trivial names always to be published in connection with generic names : ns be Co-ordination of the Laws of Priority and Homonymy Application to generic names of the provisions in third igi of Article 35 relating to specific trivial names . ; : Thanks of the Commission to Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Codification of the interpretations of the Régles given in Opinions rendered by the Commission: future procedure in regard to Interpretations of provisions in the Régles in Opinions rendered by the Commission : proposals for incorporation of, in the Régles to be considered item by item ate Article 4 and Opinion 141 (family names) Article 8 and Opinion 183 aaa names to be versio" in the nominative singular) Page 96 97 97 107 125 127 128 129 129 130 131 132 137 138 139 XNili Sixth Meeting (continued) 13. Article 14, first paragraph, and € eae 64 (single letters not is ca Page as trivial names) .. aba 14. Status of specific trivial names when preceded by serial letters or serial numerals at the time of their original publication pe 140 15. Article 19 and Opinions 26, 27, 29, 36, 41, 60, 61, and 63 (emendation of names) .. " A Ap ee xu a pie 3 16. Article 25 and Opinion 2 (status of a name based on a hypothetical form) by: ae rhe si fe Ae iW SA 17. Article 25 and Opinion 49 (status of a specific name pe con- ditionally) .. oe an sa as 2 she ay ee 18. Article 25 and Opinion 4 (status of a name which, prior to being first validly published with an “ indication,” was in currency as a manuscript name) ys mt 1 Ye Se ie LED 19. Article 25 and Opinions 87, 59, and 191 (various aspects of the problem of publication) .. I ia Fee. etl Set a 20. Articles 30 and 35 and Opinion 148 (status of a generic name published as an invalid emendation of an earlier name and type species of genus so named) ‘a A. Hf Pe! La 21. Article 25, Proviso (a) and Opinion 1 (meaning of the expression “* indication ”’) ef, i - vs ih i sah, 148 22. Article 25, Proviso (a) and Opinion 43 (status of a new specific name published jointly with a new generic name and vice versa) .. 149 23. Article 25, Proviso (a) and Opinion 52 (significance to be attached to the citation of a type locality in an original description) .. 150 24. Article 25, Proviso (b) and Opinion 5 (status of a name originally published before 1758, when republished after 1757) .. the 160 25. Article 26 and Opinion 3 (relative status of works published in the year 1758) .. #t vy tye is e ok oojae Oe 26. Articles 25 and 31 and Opinion 88 (status of a specific name pub- lished for a composite nominal species). . ay Re ao de 27. Article 30, Rule (a) and Opinion 7 (type species of a genus the name of which was published with the formula “‘ n.g., n.sp.”’) aD | XXiv Sixth Meeting (continued) Article 30, Rule (c) and Opinion 47 (type species of a genus for which Page 28. 29. 30, 31. 32. 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. only one nominal species is cited by the original author) Article 30, Rule (d) and Opinion 18 (type species of a genus an included nominal species of which has a synonym possessing a tautonymous trivial name not cited in original publication) . . Article 30, Rule (d) and Opinion 16 (type species of a genus of which an included species had a pre-1758 tautonymous univerbal specific name cited as a synonym) Article 30, Rule (f) and Opinion 35 (type species of a substitute genus where one or more of the originally included species not cited under a binominal name) . Article 30, Rule (g) and Opinion 35 (type species of a genus where one or more of the originally included species not cited under a binominal name) Article 30, Rule (g) and Opinion 10 (type species of genera having identical limits) ee ( a a ay i Article 30, Rule (g) and Opinion 62 (a nominal species eligible for selection as the type species of more than one nominal genus) Article 30 and Opinion 164 (type species of a genus not affected by the subjective union of that genus with another genus) Article 30, Rule (g) and Opinion 6 (special method of selecting the type species of a genus established before 1931 and with sad two included nominal species) ; ts ; Article 30, Rule (g) and Opinion 14 (selection of a nominal species to be the type species of a genus not invalidated where the author making the selection himself misidentifies the species which he so selects) Article 30 (all Rules) and Opinions 65 and 168 (the original author of a generic name to be assumed to have identified correctly the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named) .. Article 30 and Opinion 46 (selection of a type species for a genus to which no nominal species was distinctly referred-—by the original author) Article 30 and Opinion 172 (selection of the type ee of a genus in a literature-recording serial) ah 153 153 154 155 155 156 156 157 157 157 158 159 161 Sixth Meeting (continued) 41. 42. 43, 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 52. 53. 5D. Article 34 and Opinion 147 (application to generic names of provisions in third paragraph of Article 35) Article 34 and Opinion 25 (clarification of provisions determining whether one generic name is identical with another) .. Article 35 (definition of conditions in which one trivial name is to be regarded as identical with another) .. Article 34 and Opinions 125 and 148 (status of emendations in relation to generic homonymy) 20. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. New Article relating to the plenary powers of the Commission : drafting amendment in ors : Neotypes (erroneous statements regarding, deletion of, from Opinion 128) Article 8: addition to be made to Section (b) of the second of the existing Recommandations prior to its incorporation in the Regles as a mandatory provision All Articles : addition of paragraph numbers in the case of composite Articles sie 42 - All Articles : addition of serial numbers where there is more than one Recommandation in any given Article All Articles: each paragraph of an Article or Recommandation to consist of a single sentence Hf Hf oy re Article 30, Rule (e) : clarification of Article 30: expression to be used to denote the concept of a type species of a genus .. : ie ite BS 0) Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda), an invalid name inadvertently placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” (in Opinion 66) : validation of, under the plenary powers. . ; Tethys and Aplysia (Class Gastropoda): validation, under the plenary powers, of long-established use of, and matters incidental thereto .. Venus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda) : designation of type species of, under the plenary powers Fi ae he Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda): designation of type species of, under the plenary powers a x33 8 Twelfth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session : time appointed XXXV 297 300 301 304 305 VoL. 4 G2 XXXVI CONCLUSIONS of the Twelfth Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 1445 hours. (Meeting held concurrently with the Fourth Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature) 1. Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda), problem of type Page species of : communication by M. Gilbert Ranson Ji 306 bo Generic names published in books dealing with classification of taxonomic units down to the genus level but no further (case of Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta): status of, defined 207 3. TLonna Briinnich, 1771 (Class Gastropoda): addition of, to the * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” .. #4 eee 4. Cercopithecus validated as a generic name as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia, Order Primates), and type species designated, under the plenary powers £ - + Me ee) Timulus Miller, 1785 (Class Arachnida, Order Xiphosura) (placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” by Opinion 104), a synonym of Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771: Secretary asked to Report on situation so disclosed os ne oe: ae OU 6. Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 : decision on, postponed, pending further consultation with palaeontologists ce ve bes oa) Ome 7. Manatus Briinnich, 1771, Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771, and Ammonia Briinnich, 1771 : Secretary asked to report on ox oie Salis oe Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale (status of generic names published in): consideration of, postponed. . e oie = it alg 9. Hyaena Brisson, 1762, Lutra Brisson, 1762, and Meles Brisson, 1762 : postponement of proposal for addition to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” pending decision on status of Brisson’s Regnum Animale under Proviso (6) to Article 25 314 10. Clerck, 1757, Aranei svecici (status for nomenclatorial purposes of names published in): discussion on, concluded and names validated by addition of a proviso to Article 26 of the Regles 315 1B Bilharzaa Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, suppressed, and Schistosoma Weinland, 1858 (Class Trematoda) validated, under the plenary powers... Ri os s2 es be s<. “oho XXXVil Twelfth Meeting (continued) 12. a: 14. 15. 16. Liye 18. 19. 20. Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Regles : fifth instalment to be considered item by item New Article on the plenary powers of the Commission : insertion in, of provision regarding use of, in relation to particular purposes New Article on the plenary powers of the Commission : insertion in, of provisions regarding application of, to cases of doubt arising from impossibility of determining the species to which a given trivial name should apply New Article, insertion of, relating to composition of the Com- mission. New Article, insertion of, relating to the By-Laws of the Com- mission = Pa rae a4 3 Article 28 (relative merits of the “first reviser”’ and “ page precedence ”’ principles) : Report by Secretary considered and amendment of Article 28 agreed New Article on the plenary powers: supplementary provisions relating to procedure New Schedule, insertion of, in the Régles, to record decisions in regard to individual books or names taken by the Commission otherwise than under their plenary powers New Schedule or Schedules, insertion of, in the Regles, containing the ‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” and “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” and corresponding ‘‘ Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names ” a Cancellation and amendment of certain Opinions already published prior to incorporation in Schedules to the Regles Opinions 31, 68, 69, 78, 99, 129: supplementary decisions in regard to : "A ms ap at New Article on the plenary powers, insertion in, of a drafting amendment regarding procedure to be followed when names are suppressed Schedules to the Regles : procedure to be followed in the transfer thereto of decisions recorded in Opinions rendered by the Commission 338 339 XXXVill Twelfth Meeting (continued) 25. 26. 27. 30. 31. 33. 34, 35. 36. New Schedule containing the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” ; gender of generic names in, to be specified Revision of the Régles by the Paris Congress; arrangements to be made for early promulgation and entry into force Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the Régles : sixth instalment to be considered item by item Article 35: status of the later published of two identical trivial names where two species having that name are placed in different genera which, through the accident of undetected homonymy, bear the same generic name ; previous decision relating to, reversed : Article 25, Proviso (a): the expression “ indication ” in relation to generic and trivial names; amplification of previous decision relating to Article 30: species eligible for selection as the type species of a genus where no nominal species was distinctly referred to the genus by its original author, amplification of previous decision relating to Article 30: clarification of certain ambiguities in Article 25 : subspecific trivial names where, on being first published, preceded by a serial letter or by a serial numeral, position of, defined Revision of the Régles by the Paris Congress: date of entry into force .. A = oS Li a Sy: ie Article 34 and Opinion 116: generic names differing from one another only by the terminations “ -nus ”’ and “ -mus ”’, position as regards homonymy defined Article 25: status of a name first published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, amplification of previous decision regarding .. ay se a Article 25: status of a generic name when first published in a specific synonymy, clarification of position of .. Article 30: question of the type species of a genus, the name of which was first published in a generic synonymy, comprehensive Report by Secretary asked for : . Page 341 341 342 343 345 346 346 348 348 349 350 350 351 XXXIX Twelfth Meeting (continued) Page 38. Thirteenth Meeting of the Caeiees during its Paris Session : time appointed... ath Bs uit “id ats de oe CONCLUSIONS of the Thirteenth Meeting of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 1730 hours, (Meeting held concurrently with the Fifth Meeting) of the Section on Nomenclature) 1. Eight individual problems of nomenclature raised in Commission Paper I.C.(48)19 : pues paaHnE to, to be discussed item by item % : oe 7h -. 354 2. Opinions rendered without including an answer to all the points raised : arrangements for completion of = ie fa. 1885 3. Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to be added to the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (decision completing Opinion 82) a ie $6 Be) BS 4. Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia), amendment in the ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of entry relating to (correction of error in Opinion 92)... - re me 5. Porina Walker, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) : proposed validation of, under the Commission’s plenary powers, rejected - .. ay a mu Se za es 356 6. Flebotomus Rondani, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) : emenda- tion to Phlebotomus under the plenary powers. . Le eo oe 7. Papilio plerippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera): determination of identity of, under the plenary pewers eg “4 sh si ae AY sis say“ 8. Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), type species of : Secretary to furnish Report on, and decision to be taken thereon with minimum of further delay -_.. ap ie e “3. 361 9. Individual nomenclatorial problems involving controversial, though not necessarily difficult, issues: need for avoidance of unnecessary delays in reaching decisions regarding “ 863 10. Linnaean binominal system of nomenclature not available for nomenclature of monsters : names published for such purposes to have no status in zoological nomenclature ., m e800 XL Thirteenth Meeting (continued) Page 11. Applications relating to individual problems of nomenclature : cases published in the ‘‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” to have priority of consideration Hi Be: a .. 9364 12. Part 5 of Volume I of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” applications published in, to be considered in turn .. .. 364 13. Oken, 1815-1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, status of new names published in, consideration postponed for additional information to be obtained ab bie x ~ oye: | 14. Geoffroy (E. L.), 1762, Hist. Ins. Env. Paris : new names published in, declared not available under the Régles oo .. 366 15. Coriza Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) : validation of, and designation of type species of, under the plenary powers 369 16. Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) : question of validation of, under the plenary powers postponed for additional information to be obtained .. fi a . eee 17. “ Buprestidae,” a pamphlet believed to have been written by F. W. Hope and distributed in 1836: declared not sper within the meaning of Article 25. . = ue 5; | renee 18. Part 8 of Volume I of the “* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ : applications published in, to be considered in turn... cba 19. Koch (C.L.), 1835-1842, Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden : definition of species eligible for selection as type species of genera first named in .. .e of a eee 20. Diaptomus vulgaris Schmeil, 1897 (Class Crustacea, Order Cope- poda): validation, under the plenary powers, of the trivial name vulgaris ‘3 - ee ‘. = -~— oo 4th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 69 (Law of Priority) and which had the unintended but unfortunate effect of invalidating names which, though otherwise properly published, were defective on some highly technical ground, should be replaced by others of a more liberal, i.e. less rigorous, character but that Recom- mandations should be added at appropriate points in Article 25 indicating the ideal procedure to be aimed at. The problem now to be considered was the position created by the insertion in Article 25 (by the Budapest Congress of 1927) of the provision that, in order to satisfy the require- ments of that Article, a name published after 31st December, 1930, as a substitute for a previously published name must be accompanied by a “ definite bibliographic reference a EG the name to be replaced. At their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935 the Commission had considered a request for an elucidation of the meaning of this expression, and in answer to that question had ruled (Opinion 138) that this expression required that a new name published as a sub- stitute name should be accompanied by a bibliographical reference consisting of the name to be replaced, its author, the date of its publication, the work or serial in which it was published, the number of the volume, if the work was published in more than one volume, and the number of the page on which the name appeared. In view of the use of the expression “definite bibliographic reference ” in Article 25, no other interpretation could logically have been given by the Commission, This decision had had, however, an unfortunate effect, for it had invalidated names which were otherwise perfectly satisfactory, as had been pointed out in a communication submitted to the Commission by Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Washington) acting on behalf of the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America (Commission File Z.N.(S)352). THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend :— (a) the deletion of Section (2) of Proviso (c) to Article 25 and the insertion in its place of a new Section (2) as follows :— “in the case of a name proposed as a substitute for a name which is invalid by reason of being a homonym, with a reference to the name which is. thereby replaced ” insertion of a Recommandation to Proviso (c )(2), urging authors, when pub- lishing substitute names, to give a full bibliographical reference to the name so replaced, that is, to cite the name itself, its 70 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 25, Proviso (c)(1) : the expression “ which differentiate...” author, the date on which it was published, the title of the book or serial in which it was published, the volume number where ' the book or serial consists of more than one volume, and the page number or, where the pages are not numbered, the number or letter or other mark distinguishing the portion of the text in which the name concerned was published ; (2) to cancel Opinion 138, as from the date on which Article 25 is amended in the sense recommended in (1) above, when that Opinion, by reason of referring to the existing text of Article 25, will have ceased to be applicable. 7. THE COMMISSION considered next the expression “with a summary of characters which differentiate or distinguish the genus or species from other genera or species, ” as used in Section (1) to Proviso (c) to Article 25. Professor H. B. Hungerford (U.S.A.) (Commission File Z.N.($)61) had asked whether, under these words, it was necessary that a description of a new species, in order to make the new name available, must contain an express reference to, and a comparison with, some previously published species (see Hungerford, 1945, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 1 : 102-103). In the discussion which ensued, it was generally agreed that, though well-intentioned, this provision in Article 25 was open to the objection that it invalidated otherwise properly published names on a purely technical nomen- clatorial ground. It was a ritualistic provision which should be modified in conformity with the principle adopted in dealing with the expression “definite bibliographic reference.’ What was needed was that this provision should require a higher standard for names published after 31st December, 1930, than for names published before that date (when all that was required was that the new name should be published with an “indication, definition or description ’’). The provision in question should, however, be less rigorous than that contained in the existing Section (1) to Proviso (c). It was pointed out that, if the require- ment that the description should be comparative were to be deleted, the only distinction which could be drawn in this matter between names published on or after 1st January, 1931, and names published before Ist January, 1931, was between names which, when first published, had been accompanied by words giving particulars of characters and those which depended for their availability, in the case of (For a later decision on the status of generic names published before 1st January 1931 without a type species, see Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 13) (For a decision to extend this provision consequent upon the admission of the names of forms of less than subspecific rank to rights under the Law of Priority, see Paris Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 1) Article 25, Proviso (c)(3) : the expression “ definite unambiguous designation of the type species ” ; Article 29 and 30 Consequential amendments 4th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 71 generic names, solely upon the designation or citation of a type species, and, in the case of the trivial names of species or subspecies, solely upon an accompanying figure or illustration. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-— (1) the deletion of Section (1) of Proviso (c) to Article 25 and the insertion in its place of a new Section (1) as follows :— “with a statement in words indicating the characters of the genus, species or subspecies concerned.” (2) to insert a Recommandation to Proviso (c)(1), urging authors, when drawing up descriptions of new genera, subgenera, species or subspecies to give not only an absolute, but also a comparative, description thereof, by indicating :— (a) om the case of a generic or subgeneric name, the characters which separate the genus or subgenus concerned from the previously described genus or subgenus to which it is considered that the new genus or subgenus is most closely allied ; im the case of a specific name, the characters which separate the new species from the previously described species to which it is considered to be most closely allied, and, if that is a little-known species, the characters which separate the new species from a well-known or common species included in the genus ; mm the case of a subspecific name, the characters which distinguish the new sub-. species from the subspecies to which it is considered to be most closely allied, and, if that is a little-known subspecies, the characters which distinguish the new sub- species from a well-known or common subspecies of the species concerned. 8. THE COMMISSION turned to the consideration of of the expression “ definite unambiguous designation of the type species ” as used in Section (3) to Proviso (c) to Article 25. This question, which was referred to in paragraphs 13 and 15 of Commission Paper I.C.(48)6, had been brought to the attention of the Commission by Professor E.. Gorton Linsley, on behalf of the American Committee on Entomo- wogical Nomenclature (Commission File Z.N .(S)342). (b) -I bo (For a decision to amend the phraseology used in this part of Article 30, see Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 5) (For a decision amplifying this decision, see Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 68) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In the discussion of this problem, it was noted that this was another example of a well-intentioned provision which had the unintended effect of invalidating names on highly technical nomenclatorial grounds. For example, under this provision, a name published after 3lst December, 1930 for a new monobasic genus was invalid, if the author of that genus failed to give a “ definite unambiguous citation ” of the type species. It was a ritualistic provision which should be modified in accordance with the principle adopted in the similar cases in Sections (1) and (2) of the same Proviso (Proviso (c) ) to Article 25. There was general agreement that the reasonable course to adopt would be to provide that for the purposes of Section (3) of Proviso (c) a generic name published after 31st December, 1930, must have its type species clearly designated or, as the case may be, indicated in accordance with one or other of the Rules laid down in the first group of Rules (i.e. the group headed “ Cases in which the generic type is accepted solely upon the basis of the original publication”) given in the Article (Article 30) which lays down the way in which the type species of genera are to be determined. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) to delete Section (3) to Proviso (c) to Article 25 and insert in its place a new Section (3) in the following sense :— “in the case of a generic or subgeneric name, with a type species designated or, as the case may be, indicated in accordance with one or other of the rules prescribed for determining the type species of a genus or subgenus solely upon the basis of the original publication (i.e. Rules (a) to (d) in Article 30) ” (2) to add to Article 25 a Recommandation strongly urging every author, when publishing a name for a new genus or subgenus :— (a) expressly to designate by name the type species of the genus or subgenus as the case may be; when designating as the type species a species the name of which has already been published, to cite that species, first under the binominal combination under which the species was originally published, giving at the same time a bibliographical reference to the place where that name was published, and second’ under its new binominal com- bination consisting of the new generic name and the trivial name of the species or, in the case of a new subgeneric name, of the generic (b) Status of the Provisions in the ' 4th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 73 name of the species, the new subgeneric name and the trivial name of the species (an example of each type of case being added) ; (3) that a similar Recommandation in relation to the selection of the type species of a genus by an author under Rule (g) in Article 30 be added to that Article and that the existing Recommandation to Article 29 be deleted. 9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the former “Appendice” Proposals in regard to the status of the provisions in what now a Schedule to the “ Regles ” (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3(3)(a)(ii)) (For a later decision regarding the numbering of the Schedules to the “ Régles”” see Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 31) Grammatical inconsistencies in the “ Regles ” Article 31: need for the removal of confusion between taxonomy and nomenclature and for the substitution of direct provisions for the existing provisions by reference was at present called the Appendice to the Réegles but which it had been agreed to recommend should in future be styled the Second Schedule, submitted in paragraph 18(1) of Commission Paper I.C.(48)6. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that an Article should be inserted in the Regles referring to the Second Schedule (i.e. the present Appendice) and making it clear that the provisions included therein were not mandatory but were in the nature of recommendations as to good nomenclatorial practice. 10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the recommendations submitted in paragraph 18(2) of Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)6, for the removal of grammatical inconsistencies from the Régles, particularly the random and haphazard use of the tenses of the verb “ étre ” (to be). THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that, in the forthcoming revision of the Reégles, care should be taken to remove the grammatical inconsis- tencies which mar the existing text and in particular to ensure the use of the correct tenses of the verb “ étre” (to be) to indicate the mandatory character of the Articles included in the Regles and the non- mandatory character of the provisions of the Second Schedule. 11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the difficulties arising from the confusion in the Regles between taxonomy and nomenclature referred to in paragraph 18(3) of Commission Paper I.C.(48)6, with special reference to Article 31, which, as at present drafted, appeared to prescribe a procedure for the “ subdivision d’une espéce ’’ and the “ subdivision d’un genre,” both of which were taxonomic matters, with which a code of nomenclature was not directly concerned. What this Article was intended to provide for were the nomenclatorial implications of the 74 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Later reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 26) taxonomic operations in question and not the operations themselves. It was important that this defect should be eliminated from this Article. It was important also that specific instructions should be included in the Reégles regarding the method to be followed in determining to which of two or more species originally included in a composite nominal species, the name given to that species should adhere. The aim should be to secure that Article 31 should apply as closely as possible to the type specimen of a nominal species the rules laid down in Article 30 for deter- mining the type species of a genus, the name of which had been published prior to lst January, 1931. Naturally, there should be included in Article 31 also provisions parallel to any provisions supplementing or clarifying the corres- ponding Rules in Article 30 which might be agreed upon during the present Congress. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that in its present form Article 31 was defective, both because the phraseology involved implied a confusion between taxonomy and nomenclature, and because in so important a matter as that dealt with in this Article it was essential that the required provisions should be expressly stated and not left to be inferred by reference to another Article (Article 30) dealing with an only partially comparable question ; (2) in view of (1) above, to recommend that Article 31 in its present form should be deleted from the Regles and that in place of the present text of that Article there should be inserted provisions laying down for the determination of the identity of a nominal species rules parallel to those pre- scribed for determining the identity (i.e. the type species) of a genus in Article 29 and in Rules (a), (b), (c) and (g) in Article 30, that is to say pro- visions prescribing :— ~— (a) that, where a nominal! species is found to be a com- posite species, the name given to that nominal species is to be applied to one or other of the com- ponent species, and that where the original author of a nominal species designated a given specimen to be the type specimen of that nominal species or an illustration, figure, or previously published des- cription exclusively to represent the type specimen, the name in question shall in all circumstances adhere to the taxonomic species represented by that specimen or, as the case may be, by the iJustration, figure or previously published description so designated to represent that specimen (provision parallel to Article 29) ; 4th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 75 (b) that, where an author publishes the name of a nominal species, based either (i) upon two or more specimens or (ii) partly upon one or more specimens and partly upon one or more illustrations or figures (whether then published for the first time or pre- viously published) or upon one or more previously published descriptions or upon any combination of (For a later decision the above, the type specimen of the nominal species prescribing the term- or, as the case may be, the illustration, figure or inology to be applied to previously published description which shall there- type specimens, see after exclusively represent the type specimen shall Paris Seasion, be determined in accordance with the following 6th Meeting, Rules applied successively (provision parallel to Conclusion 75) introductory portion of Article 30) :— (i) where at the time of the publication of the name of a nominal species the original author thereof designates either (1) one specimen to be the type specimen or (2) one illustration or one figure or one previously published description exclusively to represent the type " specimen, the specimen, illustration, figure or previously published description so designated shal] be the type specimen of the nominal species or, as the case may be, shall thereafter exclusively represent the type specimen (Rule parallel to Rule (a) in Article 30) ; (ii) where, in default ot a type designation under (i) above, the original author of the name of a nominal species indicates that one but not more than one specimen is the type specimen by affixing thereto a label bearing the legend “type” or its equivalent, the specimen so labelled shall be the type specimen of that nominal species (Rule parallel to Rule (b) in Article 30) ; (iii) where neither Rule (i) nor Rule (ii) above is applicable (1) any one specimen included in the original author’s type material, not being a specimen excluded from consideration under (d) below, or (2) any one of the illustrations, figures or published descriptions cited in the original description of the nominal species which is the first subsequently to be selected by the same or another author to be the type specimen or, as the case may be, exclusively to represent the type specimen, shall be the type specimen of that nominal species or shall exclusively represent that specimen. the expressions “‘ select the type specimen”? and “select to represent the type specimen ” to be rigidly construed and to exclude the application of the trivial name of the nominal species concerned to a single originally in- cluded specimen, illustration, figure or pre- viously published description, unaccompanied by a clear indication that a selection is being made (Rule parallel to Rule (g) in Article 30) ; (c) that, where an author publishes the name of a nominal species based exclusively (i) upon a single specimen, or (ii) upon a single illustration or figure (whether then published for the first time or pre- viously published) or (iii) upon a single previously published description, the single specimeg or the- single illustration or figure or the single previously published description in question shall be, or, as the case may be, shall exclusively represent, the type specimen of that nominal species (Rule parallel to Rule (c) in Article 30) ; . 76 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Substantive French text of the “ Regles ” : (d) that no specimen, illustration, figure or previously (e) (f) (g) published description is eligible to be selected to be the type specimen, or, as the case may be, to represent the type specimen, of a nominal species, if that specimen, illustration, figure or description was only doubtfully referred to the nominal species by the original author in his description of that species or was, or represented, a specimen inquirendum from the standpoint of that author (provision parallel to Rule (e) in Article 30) ; that the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 in relation to the type species of genera given in the Commission’s Opinion 6, shall apply to the type specimen of a nominal species, only where the name of such a species was published prior to lst January, 1931 and where that species was based upon two, but not more than two, specimens and one of those specimens was later designated as the type specimen of another nominal species by the same or another author : that, where, prior to Ist January, 1931, two or more nominal species were founded, in whole or in part, upon the same type material, any one specimen which formed part of the type material of both nominal] species may be selected as the type specimen of either or both of the nominal species concerned (provision parallel to that applied to Article 30 by Opinion 62) ; ; that, where an author, when publishing the name of a nominal species, either (i) omits to specify the materia] on which that nominal species is based and it is later found impossible to trace that material, or (ii) specifies his type material, but that material either (a) is so imperfect or in such bad condition as to render it impossible to recognise the taxonomic species of which it consists, or (b) was lost or des- troyed before the identity of the taxonomic species in question was established, the following rules are to be applied :— (1) where, in spite of the lack of a holotype or lectotype or, as the case may be, of a recognis- able holotype or lectotype, specialists are able to recognise the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species in question the name of that nominal species shall apply to the taxonomic species so recognised ; - (2) where specialists are agreed that the available evidence is insufficient to permit of the identification of the taxonomic species repre- sented by the nominal species in question, the name of that nominal] species is to be treated as a nomen dubium and therefore not available for use for taxonomic purposes ; (3) 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 special- ists as to the taxonomic species so to be recognised, the question at issue is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision; (h) that the provisions now to be inserted in the Régles should include also the provisions embodied in the second sentence (“Un nom .. . dans les genres separés ’’) of the existing text of Article 31. 12. THE COMMISSION turned next to the proposals arrangements to be relating to the drafting of passages for incorporation in the made for completion and promulgation substantive French text of the Régles for which at present — only English texts existed, submitted in paragraph 19 of 4th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 77 Commission Paper I.C.(48)6, and to the preparation of corresponding drafts to give effect to additions and other changes agreed upon at the present (Paris) meeting, sub- mitted in Part 2 (paragraphs 22-27) of the same Paper. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend :— (a) that the present Congress should not itself — ~~ draft passages to be inserted in the sub- stantive French text of the Régles either for the purpose of completing those portions for which at present only English. texts existed or for the purpose of giving effect to decisions to make additions to, or changes in, the Régles taken by the present Congress, but, in view of the highly technical nature of the task involved in drafting such passages, should instruct the Commission as soon as possible after the close of the Congress to refer all the relevant documents to jurists, with instructions that they should prepare the draft of a revised substantive French text of the Régles, together with a literal translation thereof in the English language ; that, when the draft texts prepared by the jurists in accordance with (a) above were received by the Secretary to the Commission, he should forthwith communicate one copy to each Member of the Commission and to each zoologist who served as an Alternate Member thereof during the Paris Session, with a request that the Member or Alternate Member of the Commission concerned should compare the drafts with the decisions recorded in the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session, as approved by the Congress, and should notify to the Secretary, as soon as possible and in any case within a period of three calendar months calculated from the date of despatch of the draft texts from the Secretariat of the Commission, any dis- crepancy or apparent discrepancy which he may have noted ; that, on the expiry of the period of three months referred to in (b) above or such earlier date by which all members of the 78 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (For a later decision substituting an ad hoe Committee for the Executive Committee, see Paris Session, 11th Meeting, Conclusion 5) (Later reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 26) Article 25, Proviso (a) : meaning of expression “ indication” in relation to generic names Commission may have furnished their comments to the Secretary to the Com- mission, that Officer, after such further consultations with the jurists as he may consider necessary, shall refer the comments received under (b) above to the Executive Committee of the Commission for final decision ; (d) that, as soon as decisions have been taken by the Executive Committee on the matters referred to them under (c) above, the Secretary to the Commission should prepare for publication at the earliest possible moment an edition of the Régles consisting of the revised substantive French text on left-hand pages and of the corresponding literal translation into English on right-hand pages, the two texts to be printed so as to secure line for line correspondence ; (e — that, as soon as might be practicable after the publication of the foregoing edition of the Régles, arrangements should be made by the Commission for the publication of editions consisting in each case of the revised substantive French text accom- panied in the first case by an authoritative translation into the German language, in the second case of a translation into the Italian language and in the third case of a corresponding translation into the Spanish language ; (2) to take note with satisfaction that, thanks partly to the financial assistance anticipated from UNESCO and partly to a special grant made by the Royal Society of London, it was intended to place the revised edition of the Régles on sale at a very low price. 13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a memorandum submitted by the Secretary to the Com- mission on the subject of the meaning, in relation to generic names, of the expression ‘‘ indication”’ as used in Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles (Commission Paper 1.C.(48)7). Up till 1944 the general but not universal practice of zoologists had been. to assume that a generic name was published with an “ indication ” (and therefore complied with the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25) if on the first publication of the generic name, previously VOL. 4 F 4th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 79 published nominal species were cited thereunder, irres- pective of whether any descriptive words characterising the genus were published at the same time. In 1944 the Secretary published a note drawing attention to the inter- pretation of the expression “ indication” given by the Commission in their Opinion 1 (first published in 1907) which made it clear that this interpretation of the expression “ indication ” was wider than was justified by the existing law and that it was only when a genus was monotypical or was established with a designated type that a generic name given to it without any descriptive matter possessed any availability under Article 25. In order to clarify the position as regards existing practice, the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America had thereupon drawn up a questionnaire which they had distributed to a large body of representative taxonomists in the United States and the United Kingdom. This investiga- tion had elicited 87 significant replies, of which 76 stated that the more liberal interpretation of the expression “indication ” was employed in the field of the specialist consulted or was employed by that specialist in his owr work or should, in his view, be employed in preference tc the narrower interpretation given in Opinion 1. This latter interpretation was supported by only 11 of the specialists consulted. The replies showed also that in no single branch of the Animal Kingdom did a majority of the specialists consulted favour the interpretation given in Opinion 1, and that in this matter American and British zoologists had an identical outlook (the figures being for United States zoologists, 52 to 6 in favour of the more liberal interpretation, and for British zoologists, 24 to 5). In submitting to the Commission the replies received in answer to the questionnaire, together with a summary, of which the foregoing is an abstract, the Joint Committee had invited the Commission to amend Opinion 1 in such a way as to secure that a generic name published with “ one or more validly named species’ but without descriptive matter should be regarded as having been published with an “indication” within the meaning of Proviso (a) to Article 25. In placing this problem before the Commission, THE ACTING PRESIDENT said that zoologists generally were under a debt of gratitude to the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America for the careful preparatory work which they had undertaken before submitting their recommendations to the Com- mission. That preparatory work had greatly simplified the issues-involved and would correspondingly ease the task of the Commission in reaching a decision. Proceeding, 80 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the Acting President recalled that the Commission itself possessed no legislative functions; its functions were judicial and concerned therefore with the interpretation of the Régles ; once, therefore, the Commission had given a judicial interpretation of the meaning of a given provision in the Regles, it was powerless, as a body, to vary that interpretation, unless it could be established that that interpretation itself was in conflict with the express provisions of the Regles, as, for example, it had now been agreed had been the case in the interpretation of Article 14 (Previous reference: given in Opinion 8. Apart from an exceptional case of Paris Session, this kind, the only way to secure that a given provision of Mh Meena, the Regles should bear a meaning different from the inter- Conclusion 5(2)) he Lege : 8 om the inter pretation given by the Commission in an Opinion was to obtain from the Congress a decision to amend the provision concerned. Immediately upon the adoption of such an amendment, the earlier interpretation given by the Com- mission would lapse, the Opinion in which that interpreta- tion had been given ceasing to have any further relevance. On receiving the application in the present matter from the Joint Committee, he, as Secretary to the Commission, had re-examined Opinion 1 and had come to the conclusion that no technical flaw could be detected in it. In preparing the paper now submitted, he had accordingly recommended the Commission to invite the Congress to secure the desired end by means of an express amendment of the provisions of Article 25. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend that Proviso (a) to Article 25 should be so amended as to secure that a generic or subgeneric name published before Ist January, 1931, shall be available under that Article as from the date of its original publication not only when (as at present) it was then accompanied by a definition or description or when the genus was monotypical or when a type species was designated or indicated by the original author when publishing the name 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 or subgeneric name concerned of the names of one or more previously published nominal species ; — bo ~~ simultaneously with the adoption of the recom- mendation submitted in (1) above, to cancel as being no longer applicable the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 given in Section (B)(3) of Omnion 1. Status of names proposed for forms of less than subspecific rank : preliminary consideration (Previous reference : Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 17) vou, 4 F2 4th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 81 14, THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the next item to be considered by the Commission was the question of the status of names proposed for forms of infra-subspecific rank. Preliminary consideration had been given to this subject by the Com- mission at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935, when they had had before them a resolution on this subject adopted by the Fifth International Congress of Entomology at its meeting held in Paris in 1932. The Commission had decided at Lisbon that the time then at their disposal would not suffice to enable them to deal adequately with the problems involved in the resolution submitted by the Congress of Entomology. They had accordingly decided to invite the Secretary to the Commission to confer with specialists in representative branches of the Animal King- dom regarding the status to be accorded to names proposed for forms of less than subspecific rank, with a view to the formulation of an Opinion appropriate to each of the various circumstances in which this problem arises. In accordance with these instructions, he had held extensive discussions on this subject with leading specialists in various parts of the world. Very helpful suggestions had been received from two specialist groups, namely the American Commit- tee on Entomological Nomenclature and the Joint Com- mittee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, while among individual specialists he was particularly indebted to Dr. Charles L. Remington (U.S.A.). Valuable help had been rendered also by Professor Carlos G, Aguayo (Cuba), Professor J. C. Faure (Union of South Africa), Professor E. Gorton Linsley (U.S.A.), Dr. H. K. Munro (Union of South Africa), Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom), Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S.A.), Dr. G. van Son (Union of South Africa) and Dr. Roger Verity (Italy), either through papers published by these authors or through correspondence. It was in the light of these and other consultations that, in collaboration with his wife, he had prepared the Report called for by the Commission at its Lisbon meeting, which he now submitted as Commission Paper I.C.(48)9. For the reasons explained in that Report, he did not consider that it would be practicable to deal with this complicated subject by way of an Opinion, nor would it, in his view, be correct to attempt to do so. If the matter was to be dealt with at all—and he considered it important that it should be dealt with, in view of the wide diversity of practice which existed at the present time—the proper (and the only proper) way to proceed would, in his view, be to invite the Congress to make express provision in the Reégles. Recommendations to this end were included in the Report which he had submitted. 82 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Fifth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session: time appointed Continumg, THE ACTING PRESIDENT said that there was clearly not time for the Commission to examine the Report at the present meeting. It would be helpful, however, if, before the Commission adjourned, they could indicate their general attitude on the question of the procedure to be followed in dealing with the questions raised in the Report. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that in view of the importance of the question of the status to be accorded to names proposed for infra-subspecific forms, the long period during which this matter had been under consideration and the need for securing uniformity in this field of zoological nomenclature, every effort should be made to secure the approval of the present Congress for the insertion in the Reégles of provisions dealing with this subject ; that the Report submitted by the Secretary (Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)9) should be placed on the Agenda of their next meeting for consideration as the first item. 15. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to adjourn until 1430 hours on the afternoon of the same day. (The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1220 hours.) ~ ae | (83) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948 CONCLUSIONS of the Fifth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd July 1948, at 1430 hours. PRESENT : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor R. Spiirck (Denmark) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following were also present : Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.) Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.) Professor E. R. Hall (U S.A.) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer Status of aay a 1. THE COMMISSION resumed their consideration of +} aap we howmis jhe Report on the status of names proposed for forms of less subspecific rank: than subspecific rank submitted by the Secretary to the peers consideration (‘omission (Commission Paper 1.C.(48)9), to which lous reference: ae : : ; ‘ ° Paris Session, preliminary consideration had been given at their previous 4th Meeting, meeting. In this Report Commissioner Francis Hemming Capoesian 4) pointed out that the lowest taxonomic category recognised in the Régles was the “ subspecies.” There was considerable diversity of view regarding the way in which this expression should be interpreted in this context, some zoologists holding that this expression should be understood to have in the Regles the meaning commonly attached to it by taxonomists, while others argued that in the Regles this expression covers: or should cover, every infra-specific category and not merely populations which differ constantly from one another within a given species. The lack of guidance in the Régles on this question had led to much confusion and diversity of 84 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. practice ; it was essential therefore that the Congress'should agree to insert words in the Régles to make it clear which of the two opposing interpretations was correct. For those zoologists who were primarily concerned with the species problem and the variation of populations within a species, there was no need for names to be given to seasonal forms and other minority elements. Indeed, from the standpoint of this group of zoologists, the giving of names to minority elements was open to strong objection, if those names possessed, or were to possess, a status co- ordinate with that of the names of subspecies and species, for in that event these zoologists would need to keep records of the thousands of names involved, in case it might be found that a name so given was the oldest available name for some subspecies or species which had not hitherto been named or which had no valid name and to ensure that names given to subspecies and species were not homonyms of names given to forms of infra-subspecific rank. On the other hand, there was a considerable body of zoologists, especially in certain groups (e.g. in some of the Orders of the Class Insecta), who were particularly interested in the study of infra-subspecific forms (seasonal, sexual, dimorphic) and individual aberrations. For this group of workers it was essential that protection should be given in the Reégles to names proposed for infra-subspecific forms, since otherwise there would be nothing to ensure that the same form was always denoted by the same name (Law of Priority) or that the same name was always used to denote the same form (Law of Homonymy). In such circumstances, inter- communication and mutual understanding in this branch of zoology would be seriously handicapped. It was clear therefore that no solution of the present problem would be acceptable which denied to the names of infra-subspecific units the rights conferred by the Law of Priority or excluded such names from the scope of the Law of Homonymy. It was equally clear that no solution would be*acceptable which granted an absolute parity to names bestowed upon infra-subspecific forms with names bestowed upon subspecies and species. The scheme embodied in the Report was designed to meet the practical needs both of those zoologists whose requirements were such that they should have at their disposal names for taxonomic units of infra-subspecific rank and also of those zoologists for whom there was no such need. The first essential of any scheme designed to meet this twofold need was that the Régles should recognise two cate- gories of name below the category ‘‘ specific name,” namely “ subspecific name” and “ infra-subspecific name,” and 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 85 should give a clear definition of the meaning to be applied to each of these categories. It was suggested that for this purpose the eégles should define the expressions “ sub- species ”’ and “ infra-subspecific form ”’ and should provide means for determining to which of the above categories a given name should be regarded as belonging. The criterion to be adopted in applying those definitions must be objective, and it was suggested that it should depend upon the terms in which a given name was origin- ally published. It was not possible to devise a scheme which would apply satisfactorily both to names published before the introduction of the scheme and to names published after that date, for any such scheme would be either too rigorous for names published in the earlier of these periods or insufficiently rigorous for those published in the later period. It was therefore suggested that the Congress should adopt the procedure followed for the amendment of Article 25 at Budapest and that two standards should be established, the first to apply to names published before the introduction of the scheme, the second to names published after that date. The first of these standards would be less rigorous than the second, and would admit to subspecific status a larger number of names than would the second. It was suggested also that, as in the case of the amendment of Article 25, a period of grace should be allowed before the more rigorous standard became operative. The Laws of Priority and Homonymy would apply both to names originally published as the names of subspecies and species and also to names originally published as the names of infra-subspecific forms, but these Laws would apply separately within each category, the two categories being separated from each other by a provision that, while within each category every name would be co-ordinate with every other name, a name in one category would not be co- ordinate with a name in the other. The scheme provided means for the elevation of a name published for an infra- subspecific form to be the name of a subspecies or species and for the relegation of a name published for a subspecies or species to be the name of a form of infra-subspecific rank; in the first of these cases the name would take priority only as from the date of being elevated and would be attributed to the author by whom it was so elevated, while in the second of these cases the name would retain its original priority and would be attributed to its original author. Proposals were also submitted for regulating the way in which names of either category should be designated on being first published as such and the way in which, after publication, names belonging to either category should be cited. Finally, the scheme proposed that special powers 86 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. should be conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to establish, at the request of specialists, technical designations to be used to the exclusion of all other terms to denote parallel forms occurring in allied species or their subspecies. A general discussion took place, in the course of which the following points were raised :— (a) It was an essential feature of any scheme under which the nomenclature of subspecies and that of infra- subspecific forms was subjected to different sets of rules that a clear definition should be given to each of these expressions. The Report proposed that, for nomenclatorial purposes, the expression “ sub- species’ should be defined as ‘“‘ a geographical, ecological or other population within a species which differs constantly from another such popula- tion within the same species.”’ Was this definition sufficiently embracing or should it be expanded to make it clear that the expession “or other ” covered populations consisting largely, though not wholly, of a form arising from a mutation ? It was generally thought that considerable difficulties would arise if express mention were to be made of populations arising from mutations in the definition of ‘“‘ subspecies *”’ owing to the fact that in many cases a subjective judgment was involved in determining whether a given population had arisen in this way. It was felt therefore that it would be preferable to make no express mention of populations arising from mutations, but by leaving in the definition the words “ or other,” to make it possible in clear cases to bring a name given to such a population within the definition of the name of a “ subspecies.’ Examples of the kind of case here contemplated were provided by insular faunas where it was sometimes found that a mutant form had become the sole, or virtually the sole, representative of a given species. The definition would be improved if it were reworded so as to stress the fact that its central feature was that a subspecies was a population which differed from other populations within the species, the words “* geographical, ecological or other *’ being inserted in the definition in such a way as not to obscure this central feature. (b) In the course of the foregoing discussion, the view was generally expressed that, if (as was ultimately agreed) no express reference to mutants were to be made in the definition of “ subspecies,” the reference to such forms in the definition of “ infra-subspecific form” suggested in the Report should be deleted, 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 87 2 (e ~— It would then be possible for the names given to mutant forms to be treated on their merits. If such a form constituted a population, the name given to it would rank as the name given to a sub- species, but, where such a form did not constitute a population, a name given to it would rank as a name given to a form of infra-subspecific rank. There were many populations which fully deserved to be regarded as constituting subspecies, in which, however, a minority of the individuals constituting the population concerned did not exhibit the charac- ters which differentiated the remainder of the population from other populations within the species. It would be a mistake, therefore, to make it a condition that, in order that a name given to a population should qualify for treatment for nomen- clatorial purposes as a name given to a subspecies, the population named should differ “‘ constantly ” from other populations within the species.. It was generally agreed that the word “ constantly ” should be deleted from the proposed definition of “ sub- species.” It was suggested in discussion that words should be inserted in the definition of “ subspecies ’” which would exclude from the status of names of sub- species names given to populations which were unknown in a state of nature and had only been brought into existence in laboratory conditions. Would it not be possible to insert some such qualifying phrase as “ natural” or “in nature” ? Against this view it was argued that it would be unscientific, because illogical, to stigmatise as “ ynnatural” a population created in laboratory conditions. The laboratory worker could to some extent control the forces of nature but he was not a magician and he was powerless to produce any effect that was contrary to nature. It was agreed that the suggestion referred to above should not be pursued. Some discussion took place regarding the rules to be adopted governing the elevation of a name from the category of “‘ names of infra-subspecific forms ”’ to the category of “names of subspecies.” The question was asked whether it would not be possible to permit a name so elevated to retain its original priority and to be referred to its original author. Was it essential that on being so elevated a name should be treated asa new name in the realm into which it had been translated? It was pointed out that this particular provision was a vital feature 88 (Later reference: Paris Session, ith Meeting, Conclusion 2) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. of the scheme, for it was this provision alone which made it possible for the students of species and sub- species to ignore the thousands of names given to forms of infra-subspecific rank. If this provision ewere to be abandoned, the scheme would be deprived of a great part of its value, for every author who described a new species or subspecies would have to take account of every name given to a form of infra-subspecific rank in the genus concerned, if he were to make sure that the name selected by himself for his new species or subspecies should not be liable to be rejected as a junior homonym if ever some name consisting of the same word which had already been given to a form of infra-subspecific rank of some species or subspecies in that genus were to be elevated to be the name of a subspecies or species. The scheme, as submitted in the Report, provided for the application within their own sphere to the names of forms of infra-subspecific rank of the Articles in the Regles relating to the names of species and sub- species. This was clearly an essential feature of the scheme but care would need to be taken by the jurists to ensure that this provision was not acci- dentally applied to Articles which by their nature were inapplicable to the names of forms of infra- subspecific rank, for example, Article 17 (which relates to the manner in which subspecific names are to be cited). Another example would be provided by the new Article, if approved, which it had been suggested should be added to the Reégles, prescribing that the trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies _. of a species having two or more subspecies should consist of the same word as the trivial name of the species itself. The recognition of a new category (“ infra-subspecific name’) in the hierarchy of names would involve a consequential addition to Article 2. The scheme submitted in the Report contemplated the express grant to forms of infra-subspecific rank of rights under the Laws of Priority and Homonymy as between one another, though not as between the name of such a form and the name of a species or subspecies. Appropriate words would need to be added to Article 25 to cover this point. A corres- ponding provision would have to be inserted in Article 35 (Law of Homonymy). (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 7) 5th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 89 (i) At an earlier meeting it had been agreed to recommend to the Congress that a Recommandation should be added to Proviso (c)(1) to Article 25 laying down an ideal standard of procedure to be followed by authors when giving names to new taxonomic units. The introduction into the Reégles of a new category (the category “ infra-subspecific name’’) would necessitate a corresponding addition to the Recommandation referred to above. This should be to the effect that a description of a new form of infra-subspecifie rank should include not only an absolute, but also a comparative, description of the form in question, that is, it should contain also particulars of the characters which distinguish that form from some previously described form of infra-subspecific rank in the same species or, if there was no known form with which such a comparison could be made, the characters which _ distingusih the new form from the general popula- tion of the species or subspecies concerned. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that the Régles should be modified and extended in accordence with the principles, and in the manner specified in (2) to (15) below, to give effect, subject to certain minor amendments agreed upon during the preceding discussion, to the proposals for dealing with the problem of names proposed for taxonomic units of less than specific rank set forth in the Report submitted by the Secretary to the Commission as Commission Paper I.C.(48)9 ; that, as a first step to the regulation of names given to taxonomic units of less than specific rank, words should be inserted in the Regles defining the expression ‘‘ subspecific name” and recognising and defining the expression “ infra-subspecific pame.”? >= - — bo eater (3) that, as used in connection with the foregoing categories of name, the expressions “ subspecies ”” and “infra-subspecific form” shall have the meanings specified below :— Expression Definition of expression “Subspecies” 1... A population (e.g., geographical, ecolo- gical) within a species which differs from any other such population within the same species. 90 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (4) (6) * Infra-subspecifie Any form of a species other than a form ” subspecies as defined above (e.g. seasonal forms and minority ele- ments of al] kinds within a species, such as sexual forms, transition forms, aberrations, etc.) ; that, having regard to the fact that it was not possible to devise provisions for determining whether a trivial name published for a taxonomic unit of less than specific rank was to be regarded as the trivial name of a subspecies or of an infra- subspecific form, which would be equally appro- priate for trivial names published before the introduction of the new scheme and for names published after its introduction, the Régles should provide two standards by which such names might acquire ‘status as subspecific trivial names, one, more lenient, to be applied to names already published, the other, more rigorous, to be applied to names published in the future ; that, in view of the need for giving adequate notice to zoologists of the new provisions before they became operative, the point of time to be specified in the Régles as that from which the more rigorous of the standards referred to in (4) above should be applicable should be midnight G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time), 31st December, 1950/Ist January, 1951 ; that, in order to ensure against the risk that names intended by their authors to be the trivial names of subspecies might fail to acquire status as such on account of some technical nomenclatorial reason, care should be taken to avoid prescribing unduly detailed conditions to be complied with by names, in order that, on being first published, they should acquire the status of a trivial name of a subspecies and not merely that of a trivial name of an infra-subspecific form ; that the conditions to be prescribed should therefore represent a minimum standard ; but that, in order to provide a guide to the highest standard to be aimed at, Recommandations prescribing that standard should be added to the relevant new provisions of the Regles ; that the criterion to be applied for determining whether a given trivial name was to be regarded as the trivial name of a subspecies or as the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form should be the 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 91 objective standard provided by the terms in which the name in question was originally published, and that the Régles should accordingly provide :— (a) that any trivial name published, prior to the point of time specified in (5) above, as the trivial name of a taxonomic unit of less than specific rank should be deemed to have been published as the name of a subspecies or, as the case may be, of an infra-subspecific form in accordance with the following rules :— (i) as the trivial name of a subspecies, when, at the time of the original publication of the name, the author concerned either (1) clearly indicated that he regarded the taxonomic unit named as of subspecific rank or (2) did not clearly indicate the status attri- buted by him to the unit so named, that is to say, whether he regarded it as being a subspecies or as being an infra-subspecific form ; (i) as the trivial name of an infra- subspecific form, only when, at the time of the original publication of the name, the author concerned expressly indicated that he regarded the taxo- homic unit so named as being an infra-subspecific form ; (b) that any trivial name published, after the point of time specified in (5) above, as the trivial name of a taxonomic unit of less than specific rank should be deemed to have been . published as the name of a subspecies or, as the case may be, of an infra-subspecific form in accordance with the following rules :— (i) as the trivial name of a subspecies, only when, at the time of the original publication of the name, the author concerned clearly indicated that he regarded the taxonomic unit so named as being a subspecies ; (li) as the trivial name of an infra- subspecific form, in all cases where, at the time of the original publication of the name, the author concerned either expressly indicated that he regarded the taxonomic unit so named as being an infra-subspecific form or, if he did 92 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. not so indicate the status of the taxonomic unit concerned, where he failed to indicate clearly that he regarded that unit as being of sub- specific rank ; (8) that the Recommandations referred to in (6) above should strongly recommend :— j (a) that an author, when publishing a trivial (b name for a previously unnamed subspecies, should cite that name in a trinominal combination (consisting of (1) the generic name, (2) the specific trivial name, and (3) the subspecific trivial name) and should add, immediately after the subspecific trivial name, the expression “ssp. n.” or some equivalent expression, thereby in- _ dicating both that the name is a new name ~— and that it is intended to apply to a sub- species ; that an author, when publishing a trivial name for a previously unnamed infra- subspecific form, should (1) cite the specific name (consisting of a binominal combination of the generic name and the specific trivial name) of the species concerned or, if the form is described as a form of a subspecies only, the name of that subspecies (consisting of a trinominal combination of the generic name and the specific and subspecific trivial names of the subspecies concerned), (2) insert after the specific or subspecific trivial name, as the case may be, a comma followed by an expression indicating the status attributed to the form in question (e.g. an expression such as ‘‘ form. vern.’’, ‘‘ 9-form,”’ or “ ab.”’), and (3) add the name of the new infra-sub- specific form, followed by the expression “form. n.”’ or some equivalent expression, — thereby indicating both that the name is a new name and that it is intended to apply to an infra-subspecific form ; (9) that a clear distinction should be drawn in the Régles between the status of a name originally published as the trivial name of a subspecies or species and that of a name originally published as the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form, and therefore. that provisions should be inserted to secure :— 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 93 (a) (e) (f) that, while the Law of Priority (Article 25) and the Law of Homonymy (Articles 35 and 36) apply both to the trivial names of sub- species and species on the one hand and to the trivial names of infra-subspecific forms on the other hand, those Laws apply separately to each of these two categories of names, which thus constitute self-contained and mutually independent sectors of nomen- clature ; that (as at present) the trivial names of subspecies should be co-ordinate with the trivial names of species and wice versa; that the trivial name given to any infra- subspecific form be co-ordinate with the trivial names given to all other infra- subspecific forms but not with the trivial names given to subspecies and species ; that a trivial name orginally published as the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form may be elevated to the status of a subspecific trivial name or of a specific trivial name by a subsequent reviser and in that event shall rank in its new status for purposes of priority as from the date on which it was so elevated and shall be attributed to the author by whom it was so elevated ; that, for the purposes of (d) above, an ‘author is to be deemed to have elevated to the status of a subspecific or specific trivial name a name originally published as the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form if he is the first author expressly to state that he is so doing or to make it clear that he regards the animal in question as repre- senting a subspecies or species instead of an infra-subspecific form, the mere citation of the name in question in trinominal form, if unaccompanied by further evidence, not constituting evidence of elevation ; that, where a name, originally published as the trivial name of an infra-subspecific form, is elevated to the status of a trivial name of a subspecies or species by a subse- quent reviser, acting under (d) above, and some other author does not recognise the taxonomic validity of the action taken by International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the previous reviser and in consequence continues to regard the animal concerned as representative not of a subspecies or species but of an infra-subspecific form, the trivial name of that organism shall, for any such author, retain its original priority and shall be attributed to its original author ; that, where an animal which, when originally named, was treated as representing a sub- species or species, is treated by a subsequent reviser as representing a taxonomic unit of infra-subspecific rank, the trivial name originally given to that animal shall continue to be applied to it and shall in its new status retain its original priority and be attributed to its original author ; oe (10) that, in order to obtain as high a degree of clarity ~— as possible, a Recommandation should be added to the provisions to be inserted in the Regles to give - effect to (9)(d) above, urging that, when an author is the first author to treat as representing a sub- species or species an animal which, when originally named, was treated as representing an infra- subspecific form, and in so doing is the first author to elevate the name originally published for that animal to the status of a subspecific or specific trivial name, that author should expressly state that he is so doing and should, as soon as possible thereafter, notify his action to a recording serial such as the Zoological Record, either by sending a marked copy of the paper concerned or otherwise ; that a provision should be inserted in the Régles prescribing that, when an author cites the name of an infra-subspecific form, he should (a) cite the specific name (consisting of a binominal combination of the generic name and the specific trivial name) of the species concerned or, if the form is treated as a form of a subspecies only and not of the species as a whole, the name of that subspecies (consisting of the trinominal combina- tion of the generic name and the specific and sub- specific trivial names of the subspecies concerned), (b) insert after the specific or subspecific trivial name, as the case may be, a comma followed by an expression indicating the status attributed to the form in question (e.g. an expression such as “form. vern.”’, ‘‘ 9-form,” or “ ab.””) and (3) add > the name of the infra-subspecific form ; OS (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 7) VOL.4@4 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 95 (12) that, in view of the decision to recognise and define (13 (14) (15 — ~— the new nomenclatorial category “ infra-sub- specific name,’ words should be inserted in Article 2 providing :— (a) that, where an infra-subspecific form is cited in relation to a species, the scientific designa- tion of that form is a qualified trinominal, having regard to the fact that a descriptive designation is interpolated between the trivial name of the species and the trivial name of the infra-subspecific form, and thus differs from the unqualified trinominal constituted by the scientific designation of a subspecies ; (b) that, where an infra-subspecific form is cited in relation to a subspecies, the scientific designation of that form is a qualified quadrinominal ; that, having regard (a) to the decision taken at the meeting of the Commission noted in the margin to insert a Recommandation to Provise (c)(1) to Article 25, laying down the ideal procedure to be followed by authors when naming new taxonomic units, and (b) to the present decision to recognise and define the new nomenclatorial category “ infra-subspecific name,’ words should be added to the Recommandation referred to above urging every author, when drawing up a descrip- tion of an infra-subspecific form not only to give an absolute description of that form, but also to indicate the characters which distinguish that form from some previously described infra- subspecific form in the same species or, if there is no known form with which such a comparison could be made, the characters which distinguish the new form from the general population of the species or subspecies concerned ; that a provision or provisions should be inserted in the Régles applying to the trivial names of infra-subspecific forms the provisions in the Régles relating to the trivial names of species and subspecies, other than those provisions, which, having regard to recommendations (1) to (13) above, it would be inappropriate so to apply ; that, in order to prevent the confusion which might arise (and to remove the confusion which in certain instances had already arisen) when 96 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 2 : insertion of reference to category “subgenus” different trivial names were applied to parallel infra-subspecific forms occurring in two or more allied species or their subspecies, provisions should be inserted in the Régles :— (a) empowering the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, on the applica- tion of specialists in the groups concerned, to use their plenary powers to establish technical designations to be applied to such parallel infra-subspecific forms, such desig- nations to be exempt from invalidation under the Law of Homonymy and :— (i) to consist of Latin or Latinised words or words treated as such; and (u) to comply with the provisions in the Regles relating to the formation, derivation and orthography of specific and subspecific trivial names ; — in = prescribing that, where a given term is specified under the foregoing procedure to be the technical designation of a parallel infra-subspecific form occurring in two or more allied species, the term so specified shall have absolute priority over :— (i) any trivial name which may already have been given to that form in any of the species concerned, and over (u) any other use of the same word as the name of any other infra-subspecific form of any species in the same genus or genera. 2. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion 1 above relating to the addition required to be made to Article 2 of the Régles consequent upon the recognition for nomenclatorial purposes of the new nomenclatorial category ‘* infra-subspecific name,” attention was drawn to the fact that the drafting of Article 2 was defective and required amendment. For although that Article purported to give a general indication of the nature of the scientific designa- tion applicable to each of the taxonomic categories recognised for nomenclatorial purposes, it failed to make it clear that, as the category “subgenus” was an optional category, a subgeneric name, when used, was to be ignored in calculat- ing the number of words of which a specific or subspecific name was composed. It was necessary that this ambiguity . should now be removed. — Articles 35 and 36: problem of specific homonyms: preliminary consideration VOL, 4 @? 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 97 THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in Article 2 to indicate:— that, as the subgenus is an optional category, the name of a subgenus, when used, is not to be taken into account when determining the number of words comprised in the scientific designation of species and subspecies and therefore that the interpolation of a subgeneric name between the generic name and the specific trivial name of a species does not, in the case of the name of a species, convert that name from a binominal into a trinominal or, in the case of the name of a subspecies, convert that name from a trinominal into a quadrinominal. 3. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a memorandum containing proposals for the amendment of the provisions of Articles 35 and 36 in relation to specific homo- nyms submitted by the Secretary to the Commission as Commission Paper I.C.(48)8. THE ACTING PRESIDENT said the question of the meaning of the provisions of the Régles in regard to specific homonymy had first been officially placed before the Commission by the late Professor T. D. A. Cockerell in 1937. The particular case then submitted involved the question of whether a trivial name replaced as a secondary homonym should be revived if the union of genera which had created the secondary homonymy was no longer recognised (cf. paragraphs 3 and 4 of Paper I.C.(48)8). Owing to his pre- occupation at that time with the reorganisation of the Secretariat of the Commission and other matters, the Secretary to the Commission had invited President Jordan to undertake, on his behalf, a preliminary sounding of the views of the Commissioners on the question raised by Professor Cockerell. This consultation had been completed by the summer of 1939 but further progress in the matter had been interrupted by the outbreak of war in Europe in September of that year and it had not been until 1943 that it had been possible to resume work on this problem. Since that date, he (the Acting President), in his capacity of Secretary to the Commission, had given a great deal of further consideration to the matter and had received a large volume of correspondence from many different sources. In this correspondence a number of extremely helpful contribu- tions had been received. In the first place he desired to ack- nowledge the valuable analysis of the problem made by Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.). Interesting and suggestive 98 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. points had been raised also by: Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, Cal.); Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of California); Professor Carl L. Hubbs (University of Michigan) ; Dr. J. Brookes Knight.(United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) ; Dr. E. W. Price (U.S. Bureau of Animal Husbandry); Professor Dr. Rudolf Richter (Senckenberg Institution, Frankfurt, Germany); Dr. Hobart M. Smith (University of Rochester, N.Y.). In addition, he had had extensive personal discussions with leading specialists in many countries. The visit which he had been able to pay to the United States and Canada at the end of 1947 had been of particular value in providing extensive opportunities for discussions both with organised groups of specialists and with individual workers in particular parts of the Animal Kingdom. Finally, he wished to express his grateful thanks to his wife who had worked over the whole of the material and had taken an active part in the formulation of the document now before the Commission. Continuing, THE ACTING PRESIDENT said that from the communications which he had received and the con- sultations which he had held, two things had become evident: first, that the general opinion and practice of zoologists in the treatment of so-called secondary homonyms was developing and changing, second, that the original plan that the Commission should confine itself to giving an authoritative interpretation of the existing text of Articles 35 and 36 was no longer adequate to the situation and that a more radical treatment of the whole problem was needed. The need for a fresh approach was evident, both because a closer examination of Articles 35 and 36 disclosed a number of gaps and ambiguities and failed to provide answers to a number of essential questions and also because the preliminary consultations conducted by President Jordan had brought to light a fundamental confusion of two distinct questions: first, what the Regles, as they stand, really mean, and, second, what zoologists in general would like them to mean, which might be, and in this particular case apparently was, entirely different. This confusion no doubt arose from the unduly defeatist attitude then prevalent towards the possibility of amending the Regles and the conviction that the only way of securing the desired end was to persuade the International Commission to render an Opinion interpreting the existing provisions of the Reégles in the desired sense, irrespective of the normal meaning of the words actually used in the Articles concerned. Such a procedure could not be regarded as satisfactory or as likely to promote the general respect and adherence which the Regles should command. If zoologists in general were not 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 99 Y satisfied with the provisions of the Regles as they stood, it would be mich better for the provisions concerned to be amended in the direction required, than for the Commission —or individual workers—to try to read into the existing words a meaning which was obviously not there at present. The gaps and ambiguities in Articles 35 and 36 showed very clearly that the problem of specific homonymy was much more complex than the authors of the Regles had realised, and that-any satisfactory regulation of this subject would call for provisions both more precise and more comprehensive than those embodied in the present Articles. In the paper (I.C.(48)8) which he (the Acting President) had submitted to the Commission, he had taken, as a basis of discussion, the schematic presentation of the eight major types of specific homonym which had recently been put forward by Dr. Richard Blackwelder. In order to weigh the relative advantages of the various possible solutions of the problem presented by specific homonymy, it was necessary carefully to examine the various circumstances in which a situation of homonymy might arise. In the first of the cases to be considered—Case “A ”—a specific trivial name (albus) was published for two different species, each of which at the time that this trivial name was applied to it was referred to the genus “X”: in this case it was assumed that the two species were still regarded by all taxonomists as congeneric. In this case, therefore, a situation of unequivocal homonymy existed from the date on which the specific trivial name albus was published for the second of the two species concerned. Case “ B” was exactly similar to Case “ A,” except that at some date subsequent to the publication of the specific trivial name albus for the second species, either that species or the other species bearing the same specific trivial name had been removed on taxonomic grounds to another genus (genus “Y”). InCase “CO” the first of the species to be described under the specific trivial name albus had been removed (on taxonomic grounds) from the genus “ X,” before the date of the description in genus “ X ” of the second species bearing the same trivial name (albus). In Case “ D,” the two species bearing the same trivial name (albus) were originally described in different genera, but before the description in genus “ X ”’ of the later of the two species to be described, the species bearing the older trivial name had been trans- ferred to genus “ X ” (from genus “ Y ”), thus producing unquestionable homonymy. Case “E” was similar to Case “ D,” except that the transfer to the genus “ X ” of the species bearing the older trivial name took place after the date of the description in that genus of the species bearing the later-published trivial name. Cases “ F,” “@” and 100 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ““H”’ were similar to Cases ‘‘D” and “EH,” except that the transfer to genus “ X ” of the species bearing the older trivial name was temporary ; in Case “ F ” entirely prior to, in Case “G” entirely subsequent to, and in Case “H” partly before, and partly after, the description in that genus of the second of the species to be published with the trivial name albus. The Acting President went on to say that discussions of the problem of homonyms, both past and recent, had disclosed wide divergences of views and suggested that it was not likely to be possible to find any solution which would give complete satisfaction to everyone. The solution to be aimed at must satisfy, to as high a degree as possible, a number of different, and, in part, mutually inconsistent, requirements. It was the difference in weighting attributed to these conflicting desiderata, rather than a difference in views on the desiderata themselves, that was responsible for the widely divergent proposals advocated in different quarters. The principal desiderata which any satisfactory solution must aim to supply to the highest degree mutually compatible with one another were six in number: (1) the avoidance of the confusion which would arise if the same name were used for two different species of animals ; (2) the avoidance of the confusion which would arise if one species of animal were known by two different names; (3) the avoidance of the need for unnecessary time-consuming researches into early literature; (4) the avoidance of any subjective element in the interpretation of the Régles, so that the trivial name which they prescribe may be inde- pendent of the taxonomic views of individual workers ; (5) the avoidance of unnecessary changes in trivial names now in use; (6) the avoidance of the risk of names being unnecessarily replaced through deliberate misuse of the provisions of the Régles. Although there was no mention of it in the Régles, a distinction had been drawn by many zoologists between primary homonyms on the one hand and secondary homo- nyms on the other: Primary homonyms were pairs of specific names consisting of combinations of a generic name and a speeific trivial name identical at the time of their original publication. Secondary homonyms were all other kinds, namely pairs of identical specific trivial names which were not originally published in combination with the same generic name but subsequently came to be used in combination with the same generic name through the transfer of one or both of the species concerned to another genus or through the union of two or more genera. Of the eight types of homo- nym to which he had referred a few moments earlier, Cases a 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 101 A,” “ B,” and “ C ” were examples of primary homonyms, while Cases “ D,” “E,” “F,” “G,” and “H” were ex- amples of secondary homonyms. Every zoologist would agree that, where in his judgment homonymy currently existed (e.g. in Cases “ A,” “ D,” and “ E”’) the later published of the two identical trivial names must certainly be replaced. But there was no general agreement as to what a zoologist should do in those cases where there had at one time been homonymy but in his judgment no homonymy currently exists. The main issues on which opinions (and practice) differed were the following :— (1) Should a primary homonym be replaced whenever it was discovered, or only when the condition of homonymy was considered still to exist (Case “ A ”’) but not otherwise (Cases ““B” and “© ”) 2 (2) Should a secondary homonym be replaced whenever it was discovered, or only when the condition of homonymy was considered still to exist (Cases “D” and “E”) but not otherwise (Cases “ F,” ee G,” and “ce H if} 2 (3) If a primary homonym had been replaced because a condition of homonymy existed at that time, should the original name be restored later when, through the transfer of one or both of the species to another genus (or other genera) or through the subdivision of the original genus into two or more genera, the condition of homonymy was considered no longer to exist ? If a secondary homonym had been replaced because a condition of homonymy was considered to exist at _ that time, should the original name be restored later when, through the further transfer of one or both of the species to another genus (or other genera) or through the subdivision of the genus in which the homonymy occurred into two or more genera, the condition of homonymy was considered no longer to exist ? — bn The various permutations and combinations of possible answers to these questions, the Acting President pointed . out, provided more than a dozen possible solutions. Of these, five only had been put forward or had received any appreciable support from zoologists. These were :— Proposal (I). The permanent replacement of all homonyms whenever they were discovered (i.e. the rejection and permanent replacement of the later published of the pair of trivial names consisting of the 102 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : 1 ee 99 ¢¢ >) 6¢ 99 6 99 6 x9 ae 39 word: albus i Cases “A,” “ Be”? t.6,° “DY SB? oR “G,” and “ H,” whenever homonymy was discovered). Proposal (II). The permanent replacement of all primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined with the temporary replacement of secondary homonyms only if discovered when, and for the period during which, homonymy was considered to exist (i.e. the rejection and permanent replacement of the later published of the two identical trivial names in Cases “A,”’ “ B,”’ and “‘C,”’ when- ever discovered, and the temporary replacement of the later published of the two identical trivial names if homonymy was discovered during the period in which it was considered to exist, with the restoration of that trivial name when the condition of homonymy was thought no longer to exist as in Cases ““G” and “ H”’). In Cases “‘D” and “‘ E,” the later published identical trivial name must necessarily be replaced after the dates on which the two species were transferred to the same genus, for in those cases the condition of homonymy was assumed to persist. In Case “ F”’ there was no need at any stage to replace the later published of the two trivial names. Proposal (III). The temporary replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms if discovered when, and for the period during which a condition of homo- nymy was considered to exist. This proposal was the same as Proposal (II), except that under it the later published of the two identical trivial names would not have to be replaced permanently in Case “ B ” but only during the period in which the condition of homonymy was considered to exist. It would not have to be replaced at all unless the homonymy were discovered during those years. In Case “C” the later published of the two identical trivial names would not have to be replaced at all under this Proposal. Proposal (IV). The permanent replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms, but only if discovered during the period in which a condition of homonymy was considered to exist. This Proposal differed from Pro- posal (I) only by reason of the fact that the replacement of both primary and secondary homonyms would take place only if these were discovered during the period in which the condition of homonymy was considered still to exist. Proposal (V). The permanent replacement of primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined with the permanent replacement of secondary homo- nyms only if these were discovered during the period in Se ee _—S 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 103 which the condition of homonymy was considered still to exist. This Proposal differed from Proposal (II) only by reason of the fact that the replacement of secondary homonyms, whenever it took place, was to be permanent. THE ACTING PRESIDENT then said that he had listed fullythe merits and demerits of each of these proposals in paragraphs 18 to 27 of the paper which he had submitted (Commission Paper I.C.(48)8) and, after setting the one against the other, had come to the conclusion that the last of these proposals was the one to be preferred, offering, as it did, in his view, the least disadvantages or disadvantages ' which were most amenable to remedy by other means. He asked the Commission, before proceeding further, to consider very carefully the various arguments in favour of, or against, each of the five proposals which he had outlined and to decide which of them provided the best basis for an agreed solution. IN THE DISCUSSION which ensued, general agree- ment was expressed with the view that the problem of specific homonymy could not be dealt with satisfactorily by means of.an Opinion rendered by the Commission inter- preting the existing provisions of Articles 35 and 36. What was needed was the substitution for those Articles of new Articles which would set out clearly and comprehensively whatever provisions might be agreed upon for regulating this question. The Commission turned then to consider the relative merits and demerits of each of the five main proposals which had been outlined by the Acting President, particular attention being paid to the summary of the considerations on either side given in paragraphs 18 to 27 of Commission Paper I.C.(48)8. In the course of this discussion, the following views were expressed :— (a) Proposal (1) went much further than was either necessary or desirable, for it contemplated the rejection and replacement not only of trivial names which had been homonyms at the time when they were originally published or which were now regarded as homonyms, but also of every trivial name which, through carelessness, ignorancé or any other cause, had ever been a homonym of some other trivial name (Cases “ F,” “ G,” and “‘H”’). This proposal, if adopted, would cause unending trouble and confusion to the systematic worker who would need to be constantly on the watch to make sure that no author had amalgamated some genus with another and thus destroyed the validity of what had 104 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. previously been a perfectly valid name. Such workers would require to make a close study of the works not only of the best authors (as at present) but also of the worst authors, for it would be mostly in the works of such authors that the lumping of taxonomically valid genera into large omnibus genera would be likely to be found. Systematic workers would also have to extend their reading to educational and semi-popular works where the nomenclature used was often extremely faulty. (b) Whatever scheme was adopted, it should be such as to satisfy the second of the desiderata enunciated by the Acting President, namely that it should ensure that any given species should always have the same word as its valid trivial name, irrespective of the subjective view of taxonomists as to the genus to which that species should be referred. This consideration ruled out both Proposal (II) and Proposal (III). ~ The choice before the Commission lay, therefore between Proposal (IV) and Proposal(V). Both these proposals secured that every species should always have the same trivial name, whatever might be the subjective views of individual workers regarding the taxonomic relationship of one species with another. The two proposals differed from one another only by the treatment proposed to be accorded to primary homonyms which, under Proposal (IV), would be liable to rejection and replacement on the same terms as secondary homonyms, whereas, under Proposal (V), they would be permanently rejected whenever discovered. The distinction between primary and secondary homonyms which lay at the basis of Proposal (V) was concerned with the nomenclatorial problem of homonyms in the field of nominal species, whereas Proposal (IV) was directed solely to the taxonomic problem of homo- nyms in the field of taxonomic species. The advocates of Proposal (IV) argued that it was sufficient to secure that every currently recognised taxonomic species had a distinct name, and considered that it was of no importance whether two nominal species were originally described under the same name in the sense of the same binominal combination, since a reference to the original author and date of publication would avoid any confusion arising therefrom. These workers argued therefore that there was no need to replace a primary homo- 5th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 105 nym when the species concerned was no longer referred to the same genus as that containing the other species having an identical but earlier published trivial name. The Acting President said that he had given the most careful consideration to this proposal, which offered the advantage in some groups of reducing the number of cases in which changes of trivial names would be necessary. But, on the other hand, he was impressed by the fact that the name of the author and the date of publication did not form part of a zoological name and that it was extremely desirable that each nominal species should possess as its nomenclatorially valid specific name a binominal combination of a generic name and a specific trivial name that was unique, in the sense of not being shared with any other species. More- over, he was impressed further by the fact that to abandon the distinction between primary and secondary homonyms would be to depart from the commonly accepted practice of zoologists. On balance, therefore, although in some cases Proposal (V) would involve changes in trivial names which would not be called for under Proposal (IV), he felt that it was to be preferred in the interests both of avoiding nomenclatorial (as contrasted with taxono- mic) confusion and of securing continuity of practice. Both Proposals (IV) and (V) suffered from the dis advantage that they were open to abuse in the form of the deliberate creation of secondary homonyms by irresponsible or malicious revisers, but, if any _ such abuse were to be attempted, it could promptly be countered by the Commission employing their plenary powers. to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes any book or paper in which the Régles were misused in this way. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to adopt Proposal (V) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8, namely the permanent replacement of primary homo- nyms whenever discovered, combined with the permanent replacement of secondary homonyms only if these were discovered during the period in which the condition of homonymy was considered still to exist, as the basis of the new provisions relating to specific homonymy to be recommended for insertion in the Regles in place of the existing Articles 35 and 36. 106 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Sixth Meeting of 4. On the proposal of the Acting President, THE the Commission (QMMISSION agreed :— during its Paris Session: time sapamnted to postpone their consideration of the detailed pro- . visions required to give effect to the decision just taken - in regard to the reform of the Reégles in regard to specific homonymy until their next meeting, to be held the same afternoon at 1700 hours. (The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1620 hours.) ( 107 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth I nternational Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948 CONCLUSIONS of the Sixth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Thursday, 22nd J uly, 1948, at 1700 hours PRESENT : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor H. Boschma (N etherlands) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor R. Spirck (Denmark) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following were also present : Dr. KE. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) ~ Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personai Assistant to the Secretary Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer Articles 35 and 36 : 1. THE ACTING PRESIDENT recalled that at the Nd oi - ecific Close of their last meeting the Commission had concluded further the first part of their consideration of the problem of consideration specific homonymy by agreeing to recommend the adoption (Previous reference: Paris Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 3) of Proposal (V) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8, namely the permanent replacement of primary homonyms whenever discovered, combined with the permanent replacement of secondary homonyms only if these were discovered during a period in which the condition of homonymy was considered still to exist, as the basis of the new provisions relating to specific homonymy to be inserted in the Regles in place of the existing Articles 35 and 36. It now remained for the Commission to consider the various detailed suggestions for giving effect to the foregoing decision set out in para- graphs 30 to 40 of Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 and for embodying in the Régles provisions relating to certain matters which were either omitted from, or were am- biguously or otherwise unsatisfactorily dealt with in, the existing text of Articles 35 and 36. 108 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The following is a summary of the principal points which emerged in the ensuing discussion. (A) Need for the definition of the expressions “ homonym,” “ primary homonym,” and “ secondary homonym”’: It was generally agreed that, in view of the decision to introduce into the Reégles a distinction between the treatment of a “ primary homonym ” and a “ secondary homonym,” it was essential that, as suggested by the Acting President in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraph 31), clear definitions of these expressions should be inserted in the Régles. It was felt also that it would be useful to incorporate into the Régles a definition of the expression “‘ homonym ” in place of the definition of homonymy given in a footnote in the present text. (B) Scope of the definitions to be given to the expressions “primary homonym” and “ secondary homonym”: The Acting President had suggested in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraph 31) that, as proposed in paragraph 15 of that paper, the expression “ primary homonyms ” should be defined as “ pairs of specific names consisting of identical combinations of generic and specific trivial names at the time of their original publication ” and that the expression ‘secondary homonyms” should be defined as “ pairs of identical specific trivial names which were not originally published in combination with the same generic name but which later came to be so combined through the transfer of one or both of the species concerned to another genus or through the union of two or more genera.” These definitions had been restated in the singular in paragraph 41(7) of the same paper. The wording employed in these suggested - definitions had been deliberately selected to cover two different classes of case, namely: (1) the case where two nominal species having the same specific trivial name were either originally published in, or were subsequently trans- ferred to, the same genus; and (2) the case where two nominal species having the same specific trivial name were originally published in different genera but through the accident of an undetected condition of generic homonymy those two genera had the same name, and the case where two nominal species having the same specific trivial name were originally published in different genera, each having a different name, but later one or both of these nominal species were transferred to another genus (or other genera) which through the accident of an undetected condition of generic homonymy had the same generic name. Clearly, the first of these classes of case must be covered by the definitions to be adopted for primary and secondary homo- nyms respectively, but it was not so clear that the second ee (For a later decision modifying this decision, see Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 28) 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 109 need be included in these definitions. The second class of case was not gf great practical importance, in view of the fact that the number of occasions on which the particular situation there envisaged had actually arisen was relatively small. A provision of some sort should be included in the Reégles to cover such cases, for otherwise authors encounter- ing such cases would not know how to proceed. On balance, it was felt that this class of case ‘should be covered by the definitions to be adopted for primary and secondary homo- hyms respectively. It was agreed therefore that the definitions to be adopted for these expressions should be framed on the lines suggested in paragraph 15 of Commission Paper I.C.(48)8, (C) Essential differences between primary and secondary homonyms: In their earlier discussion regarding the type of scheme to be adopted for regulating specific homonymy, the Commission had accepted the view that every species should possess as its nomenclatorially valid specific name a binominal combination of generic and specific trivial names which was unique, not being shared with any other species. Thus, in cases where the two species concerned were no longer regarded as congeneric, it was a purely nomen- clatorial consideration which pointed to the need to reject the later published of any pair of primary homonyms. The rejection of secondary homonyms rested on an entirely different foundation, for it was the taxonomic need for ensuring that every species in a given genus should have a different specific trivial name which made it essential to reject the later published of any pair of secondary homo- nyms. But this was not the only difference between primary and secondary homonyms: the existence of a condition of primary homonymy between two specific names was an objectively ascertainable nomenclatorial fact, whereas a condition of secondary homonymy arose only through the application by zoologists of their subjective taxonomic ideas. In the case of primary homonyms, therefore, there was no need to provide a special procedure in the Regles for the rejection of the later published of any pair of primary homonyms, for such a name was invalid from the moment of its publication ; all that it was necessary to do was to provide rules for the replacement of invalid primary homonyms, when detected. The situation was quite different as regards secondary homonyms, for there was no directly objective test which could be applied to determine whether any pair of specific trivial names should be treated as secondary homonyms of one another. The provisions to be inserted in the Régles must prescribe a procedure which would result in a uniform nomenclature being applied by all concerned, not only by the author who rejects a 110 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusions 6, 7 & 8) specific trivial name as a secondary homonym, but also by all subsequent authors who may have occasion to refer to the species concerned. This procedure must ensure that a given species would be referred to by the same specific trivial name, irrespective of the subjective taxonomic views of the authors concerned. The rules of procedure for rejecting a specific trivial name as a secondary homonym must be sufficiently precise to secure uniformity, but care would have to be taken to avoid the insertion in the Regles of mandatory provisions which, by aiming at too high a standard, would have the undesired effect of invalidating on technical nomenclatorial grounds specific trivial names given in replacement of invalid secondary homonyms in a manner which would be readily understood and generally acceptable. This was the error into which the Commission and the Congress had fallen when at Budapest in 1927 they had increased the precision of certain of the provisions in Article 25, an error which at the meeting noted in the margin held during their present Session the Commission had found it necessary to redress by suggesting the insertion of a more generalised phraseology in place of portions of the text adopted at Budapest and to insert the more rigid provisions in a non-mandatory form in a Recommandation added to the part of Article 25 concerned. In the light of this discussion it was agreed to consider the problems involved in regulating primary homonyniy, before passing to the more complex problems raised by secondary homonymy. (D) Rejection of invalid primary homonyms: There was no need to include in the Régles any special procedure for the rejection of the later published of any pair of specific names which were primary homonyms of one another, for the existence of a condition of primary homonymy was a readily ascertainable objective fact and did not depend in any way upon the action of subsequent authors. All that was required, therefore, was a provision (such as that in the existing text of the Régles) that every such name must be» rejected and that such rejection should be permanent, thus making it impossible for the rejected specific trivial name ever again to be applied to the species in question. Under this provision it would be the duty of every zoologist who encountered a situation of primary homonymy to reject the later published of the pair of specific names concerned. In order, however, to minimise the risk of the continued use of invalid primary homonyms, it was desirable that there should be added to the appropriate Article of the Régles a Recommandation strongly urging that every author who discovered that a given specific name was a primary homo- nym of a previously published specific name and was there- fore invalid should publish a note drawing attention to this eT ee eS oo VOL. 4H 6th M eeting, Paris, July, 1948. 111 discovery and should also notify it, by sending a marked copy of the paper containing the note in question or otherwise, to a literature-recording serial such as the Zoological Record, so that the discovery in question might be recorded in the next issue of that serial. (E) Replacement of invalid primary homonyms: Tt was an essential feature of any scheme for dealing with homo- nyms that, where a condition of homonymy was discovered, the later published of the two homonyms concerned must be rejected and be replaced by another vame. In Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraphs 32 and 34) the Acting President had expressed the view that every homonym, whether primary or secondary, should, on being discovered, at once be replaced by a new name. Only in this way would it be possible to provide the nominal species concerned with a trivial name that unquestionably belonged to it. The only circumstance in which, in the scheme suggested by the Acting President, it would not be necessary to provide a new specific trivial name for the species the name of which had been rejected as an invalid homonym would be where there existed one or more other nominal species based upon the same type specimen as the nominal species the name of which had been rejected. In the discussion which took place on this question, it was agreed that, unless a new specific trivial name was given to a species the name of which had been rejected as an invalid homonym, the nominal species concerned would remain without an objectively available trivial name of its own. For the only other course would be subjectively to identify some other nominal species with the nominal species the name of which had been rejected as a homonym and to apply to that species the specific trivial name originally published for the other nominal species. Such a procedure inevitably carried with it an element of risk, for it would automatically break down if the subjective identification of the two nominal species were later to be found to be erroneous. On the other hand, it was felt that the inclusion in the Régles of a provision (such as had been suggested) making it obligatory for any worker who discovered a condition of homonymy to give a new specific trivial name to the nominal species the name of which had been rejected as an invalid homonym would lead to the publication of large numbers of trivial names which would never be used for taxonomic purposes, owing to the existence of trivial names published for other nominal species which had been subjectively identified with the nominal species the name of which had been rejected as an invalid homonym. Such a procedure would add unnecessarily to the already large 112 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. number of trivial names in synonymy. It was accordingly agreed that where the name of a species was found to be invalid by reason of being a homonym of a previously published name and where therefore it was necessary to provide that species with another name, this must be done by giving to that species a new name where there was no other nominal species which was either objectively identical with that nominal species, by reason of being based upon the same type specimen or was subjectively identified with the nominal species in question ; that, where there existed one or more nominal species based upon the same type specimen, the oldest of the trivial names of those nominal species, if otherwise available, should be treated as being the ob- jectively available name for the species, the name of which had been rejected ; but that, where there was no nominal species based upon the same type specimen but there were one or more nominal species which were subjectively iden- tified with the species the name of which had to be rejected as a homonym, it should be open to the author who dis- covered the condition of homonymy either to give a new name to the species the name of which was an invalid homonym or to apply to that species the trivial name of the nominal species which was subjectively identified with that species or, if there were more than one nominal species so identified with the species the name of which was rejected, the oldest available trivial name of any of those species. Where the author concerned elected to give a new trivial name to the species concerned, that new name would take precedence (as at present) for purposes of priority only as from the date on which it was published. It should be understood that, where the author who discovered the condition of homonymy elected not to give a new name to the species bearing the later published of the two homony- mous names (preferring to apply to that species the trivial name of some other nominal species which he subjectively identified with the nominal species, the name of which had been rejected as a homonym), it would be open nevertheless to any later author, who so desired, to give a new name to that nominal species. Finally, it must be understood that where, instead of giving a new name to a nominal species, the name of which is invalid as a homonym, an author applies to such a nominal species the name of another nominal species which he subjectively identifies with the former species, the name so applied is the correct name for the nominal species in question only for so long as the two nominal species concerned are subjectively identified with one another. (F) Rejection of invalid secondary homonyms: Unlike primary homonyms, secondary homonyms were necessarily VOL, 4 H® 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 113 subjective in origin, depending, as they did, on the subjective taxonomic views of individual revisers. In discussing this subject in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraph 34), the Acting President had expressed the following view: “ Our aim must be to avoid the confusion to which secondary homonyms may give rise, but at the same time somehow to translate their subjective origin into objective provisions which are simple to apply and are capable of being carried out in a uniform fashion by any worker, irrespective of his individual taxonomic standpoint. The provision must per- mit no individual discretion and must call for no laborious researches on the part of zoologists in general and must be such as to create the maximum of uniformity and stability in nomenclature. For this reason the onus of establishing the existence of secondary homonymy should be laid squarely on those from whose taxonomic judgment such homonymy arises.” In other words, the question of whether a given trivial name is to be regarded as having been validly rejected as a secondary homonym must depend exclusively upon the action of the reviser responsible for its rejection, and it was this action which should determine whether or not all zoologists were to renounce permanently the use of the trivial name in question for the species concerned. Unlike primary homonyms, secondary homonyms had in the past been treated in a far from uniform way, owing mainly to the uncertainty on the part of zoologists as to the extent to which Articles 35 and 36 were intended to apply to this class of homonym. Some zoologists had been in the habit of rejecting names as secondary homonyms, only when they themselves regarded the species concerned as . belonging to the same genus as another species which iad an identical, but earlier published, trivial name; other zoologists had rejected as a secondary homonym the trivia name of any species which any author had ever treated as being in the same genus as another species having an identical but earlier published trivial name, even where they themselves (the later zoologists) regarded the species as being referable to different genera. In extreme cases a trivial name had been rejected as a secondary homonym of another trivial name, where the two species had at no one time been placed in the same genus, one of the species concerned having been removed therefrom before the other was assigned to the genus. Again, some zoologists had gone so far as to reject one trivial name as a secondary homonym of another trivial name, merely because some author, without citing by name either species, had stated that he united into a single genus two genera in each of which there was in fact a species bearing the same trivial name as that of 114 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. a species in the other genus. Again, there had been no uniformity in the treatment accorded to trivial names rejected as secondary homonyms, when on some later revision the two species concerned were placed in different genera ; some authors had continued to regard the rejected name as invalid, whereas others had revived that name, as soon as the condition of secondary homonymy had in their view ceased to exist. The new provisions in the Régles must lay down clearly that a specific trivial name must be rejected as a secondary homonym by any reviser, when, in his opinion, two species each having the same specific trivial name were referable to the same genus. It was an essential feature of the scheme that a specific trivial name, once rejected as a secondary homonym, should never be eligible again for use for the species concerned. It was inevitable that, whatever scheme were adopted, some changes in names would be unavoidable, in view of the lack of consistency in past practice. The aim must therefore be to keep these changes within the narrowest practicable limits. It was thought that this object could best be achieved by following the procedure adopted in other cases, that is to say by prescrib- ing two standards, one, the more rigorous, to apply to the rejection of secondary homonyms after a future date to be specified in the Régles, the other, less rigorous, to apply to the rejection of names prior to that date. It was thought that the point of time dividing the two periods should be the same as that selected for other similar cases, namely midnight, G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time), 31st December, 1950/1st January, 1951. It was agreed that, where, after the specified point of time, an author rejected the trivial name of a species as a secondary homonym of the trivial name of another species, it was essential that, in order that that rejection should be effective (i.e. that it should be binding upon all other zoologists), the author concerned should be required to make it clear, first, that he himself regarded as congeneric the two species bearing identical specific trivial names, and, second, that he rejected the later published of these names as a secondary homonym of the other. As regards names rejected as secondary homonyms, prior to the specified point of time, it was felt that, in view of the diversity of practice in the past, the best course would be to provide in the Régles that a rejection of a specific trivial name as a secondary homonym of an earlier published specific trivial name should be treated as a valid rejection, even where the author who had made the rejection did not himself consider the two species concerned to be congeneric with 6th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 115 one another. The advantage of this arrangement would be that it would provide a valid basis for the large number of rejections which had been made in the past by authors who accepted a wider interpretation of the rules than those now proposed to be prescribed and would in consequence secure validity for the large number of new names proposed by those authors as substitute names and now in common use. (G) Need for maximum publicity for the rejection of names as secondary homonyms: After the new provisions came into operation (i.e. after 31st December, 1950) the rejection of a specific trivial name as a secondary homonym of another specific trivial name would have important nomenclatorial consequences, for, once a specific trivial name had been duly rejected as a secondary homonym in accordance with the provisions now to be inserted in the Regles, that rejection would be permanent and the rejected name could never again in any circumstances become the valid name for the species concerned. It was therefore of the highest importance to secure the maximum publicity for every rejection of a specific trivial name as a secondary homonym of another specific trivial name effected in the future, for it was only in this way that the specialists in the group concerned could be made aware of the fact that the name so rejected could never again validly be used for the " Species in quéstion. It was felt therefore that it was most (For a later decision modifying this decision see Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 28) important that a Recommandation should be added to the appropriate Article dealing with specific homonymy strongly urging that every author who rejected a specific trivial name on account of secondary homonymy should notify that rejection as soon as possible after it had been published to a literature-recording serial such as the Zoological Record, by sending a marked copy of the paper containing the rejection or otherwise, so that the rejection in question might be recorded in the next issue of that serial. (H) Secondary specific homonymy arising through an undetected condition of generic homonymy: In view of the fact that it had already been decided to include in the definition of a secondary homonym the case where such homonymy arose not only through two species bearing the same specific trivial name being placed in the same genus but also through two species bearing identical specific trivial names, though never so united, being placed in genera which through an undetected condition of generic homonymy bore the same generic name, it would be necessary so to draft the provisions relating to the rejection of specific trivial names as secondary homonyms as to cover both classes of case. 116 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (1) Replacement of a specific trivial name rejected as an invalid secondary homonym: It was agreed that the rules which had already been agreed upon for the replacement of a specific name rejected as an invalid primary homonym of another specific name should be applied to the replacement of a specific trivial name rejected as an invalid secondary homonym of another specific trivial name. It was noted, however, that the rejection of a name as a primary homo- nym was automatic, whereas the rejection of a name as a secondary homonym was not. It would therefore be neces- sary, in the case of secondary homonyms, to- include in the Régles a provision making it clear that, where, after 31st December, 1950, a new name (as contrasted with the name of some other nominal species subjectively identified with the species concerned) is given to a species on the ground that the specific trivial name of that species is an invalid secon- dary homonym but the author giving that name fails to make it clear both that he is of the opinion that the condition of homonymy still exists (that is to say that he regards the species in question as one of a pair of congeneric species, each bearing the same specific trivial name, and that it is for this reason that he rejects the later published of the two specific trivial names and gives a new specific trivial name to the species in question) the existing specific trivial name of that species is to be regarded as not having been validly rejected. In such a case the new specific trivial name given to that species is to have no status in zoological nomenclature. (J) Need for safeguards against deliberate abuse of the provisions relating to the replacement of secondary homonyms: It was recognised that the new scheme would be liable to misuse by any malicious or irresponsible person for the deliberate purpose of creating secondary homonyms or of providing opportunities for publishing new names. It was not thought that this was a serious risk, but it was felt that it was one which should be guarded against, so far as possible. It was accordingly agreed that a provision should be inserted in the Régles requiring the Commission to use their plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes any book or paper in which, in their opinion, the provisions of the Régles in regard to the rejection and replacement of secondary homonyms had been deliberately misused for either or both of the purposes referred to above. (K) Status of subgeneric names in relation to specific homonymy: Consideration was then given to the problem of the status, if any, to be accorded to subgeneric names in relation to specific homonymy, a question which had been raised by the Acting President in paragraphs 37 and 41(10) of Commission Paper I.C.(48)8. It was generally felt that, (For a later decision modifying this decision, see Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 28) 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 117 as the use of subgeneric names was optional and those names did not constitute an essential feature of the name of a species, no account should be taken of subgeneric names in determining whether a given specific name was a primary . homonym of another specific name or whether a given specific trivial name was a secondary homonym of another specific trivial name. It was agreed that a provision to this effect should be inserted in the Regles and that for this pur- pose Article 6 (which lays it down that generic and sub- generic names are co-ordinate with one another, that is to say of equal value) should be amended to such extent as might be necessary. (L) Treatment of subspecific names in relation to specific and subspecific homonymy: The scheme so far discussed was concerned only with the situation which arose when one specific name was a primary homonym of another specific name or when one specific trivial name was a secondary homonym of another specific trivial name. As pointed out by the Acting President in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraphs 38-39 and 41(11) ), it was necessary to insert provisions to deal also with homonymy, when this arose in connection with subspecific trivial names. It was agreed that the rules applying to cases where a pair of species having identical specific trivial names were either originally des- cribed, or were subsequently placed, in the same genus or, through the accident of an undetected condition of generic homonymy, in different genera bearing the same name should apply also to cases where of two species so described or so placed (a) the specific trivial name of one Species is iden- tical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the same or another species, or (b) the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of one species is identical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the same or another species. Words should, however, be inserted to prevent the sub- specific trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species from being rejected as a homonym of the specific trivial name of that species. (M) The expression “ of the same origin and meaning ” as used in paragraph (3) of the existing text of Article 35: The Commission then turned to consider the expression “ of the same origin and meaning ”’ as used in the third paragraph of the existing text of Article 35 of the Reégles. As pointed out by the Acting President in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraph 40), the limitation imposed in this paragraph of Article 35 by the words quoted above made it impossible in many cases to apply the provisions of that paragraph, owing to the impossibility of determining whether any given pair of names differing from one another to the slight 118 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (For a later decision qualifying thisdecision, see Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 43) (For a later decision modifying this decision, see Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 28) extent specified in that paragraph were or were not of the same origin and meaning. Even where it was possible to find an answer to this question, it was often necessary to devote a large amount of time to the study of the origin and meaning of the Latin or Latinised Greek words concerned, which could be much more profitably spent on zoological work. It was agreed to recommend that the expression “ of the same origin and meaning ” should be deleted from the Article which would replace the third paragraph of the existing Article 35 and that in its revised form the provision now embodied in that paragraph should merely lay it down that any pair of trivial names (whether specific or sub- specific) which differed from one another only by the differences in spelling specified in that paragraph were to - be treated as homonyms of one another. At the conclusion of the foregoing discussion, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that the present Articles 35 and 36 should be deleted from the Régles and that there should be inserted in their place Articles giving effect to the provisions specified in (2) to (21) below ; (2) that, as a first step towards the regulation of homonyms, words should be inserted in the Regles defining the expression “‘ homonym ”’ and expressly recognising the existence for nomenclatorial pur- poses of two types,of specific homonym, to be known as “ primary homonyms” and “ secondary homonyms ”’ respectively, these expressions to be defined as follows :— Expression Definition of expression “Homonym” Where the same name is applied to two different units belonging to the same taxonomic category, for example, to two different genera or two different species, each of the names so used is a “homonym ” of the other. “ Primary Where two species at the time of homonym ” the original publication of their names are placed in the same genus or are placed in different genera which, through the acci- dent of an undetected condition of generic homonymy, bear the same name, and each species is given the same specific trivial (For a later decision, modifying this ision, see Paris Session, 12th Meeting , Conclusion 28) 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 119 name, each of the specific names (binominal combinations of a generic name and a specific trivial name) so published is a “ primary homonym” of the other specific name. “ Secondary Where two Species which at the homonym ” time of the original publication of their names are placed in different genera and are given the same specific trivial name are later placed in the same genus or are placed in different genera which, through the acci- dent of an undetected condition of generic homonymy, bear the Same name, each of the specific names 80 formed is a “ second- ary homonym” of the other specific name. (3) that a specific name which is the later published of a pair of specific names which are primary homonyms (4) that, in order to minimise the risk of the continued (5) that, when the Specific name (binominal combination of a generic name and a Specific trivia] name) of a nominal Species is found to be an invalid primary homonym and, in consequence, that name (hereinafter referred to as the “rejected name ”) is permanently rejected, the name to be applied to that nominal species shall be determined in accordance with the rules Specified below :— (a) where there exists a nominal species (i) which PoOssesses an available name and is based upon the same type 120 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. species *’), the objectively available specific name of the nominal species bearing the rejected name shall be the specific name borne by the objectively sub- stitutable nominal species, and that name shall take precedence under the Law of Priority as from the date on which it was first published ; where there exist two or more objectively substitut- able nominal species, the objectively available specific name of the nominal species bearing the rejected name shall be the first published of the specific names of any of the objectively substitutable nominal species concerned and shall take precedence in like manner as specified in (a) above ; where there exists no objectively substitutable nominal species, as aforesaid :— (1) the author discovering the condition of primary homonymy may either give to the nominal species bearing the rejected name a new specific name consisting of a binominal combination of a generic name and of a specific trivial name different from that comprised in the rejected name, the specific name so given becoming the objectively available specific name of that nominal species and taking precedence under the Law of Priority as from the date on which it was so published, or (2) if from the subjective taxonomic standpoint of the author discovering the condition of primary homonymy, there is no need to give a new specific name to the nominal species bearing the rejected name, that author may elect to leave that nominal species without an objectively available specific name of its own, it being understood in such a case that it shal] be open at any later date for the same or any other author to give to that nominal species a new specific name comprising a specific trivial name different from that comprised in the rejected name, the specific name so given thereupon becoming the objectively available specific name of that_ nominal species and taking precedence under the Law of Priority in like manner as specified in (1) above ; (6) that the specific trivial name to be applied to the taxonomic species represented by a nominal species bearing a rejected name (as defined in (5) above) shall be determined in ac- cordance with the Law of Priority, that is to say :— (a) where there exist one or more nominal species which are either (i) objectively substitutable nominal species (as defined in (5) (a) above) or (ii) nominal species bearing available names comprising specific trivial names different from that comprised in the rejected name referred to above, which is,.or which are, subjectively identified with the nominal species bearing the rejected name (such a nominal species being hereinafter referred to as a ‘“ subjectively substitutable nominal species ’’), the specific trivial name properly applicable to the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species bearing the rejected name shall be the first published of the specific trivial names of any of those nominal species, provided that, if that name is the name of a nominal species which is subjectively but not objectively a substitutable nominal species, that name shall cease to be the specific trivial name properly applic- (For a decision reversing the decision re recorded, see Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 28) 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 12] (8) (9 (10) (11) ~~ able to that taxonomic Species, if later, and for so long as, the nominal species to Which that name was originally given ceases to be subjectively identified (b) where there exists neither an objectively nor a sub- jectively substitutable nominal species, the nominal species bearing the rejected name is to be given a the rejected name for go long as no subjectively substitutable nominal species having an earlier published name is subjectively identified ag also that is to say, if he regards the two species ag being congeneric with one another, but in no othér species ; that such adaptations should be made in (7) to (10) 122 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. an undetected condition of generic homonymy bears the same generic name as that of the genus to which the other species is referred ; that, in view of the importance of securing that, whenever the specific trivial name of a species was duly rejected, in accordance with (7) above, as part of an invalid secondary homonym of the specific name of another species, the fact that that name had been so rejected should be brought prominently to the notice of interested specialists, in order to minimise the risk of the continued use of that name in contravention of the provisions of (10) above, a Recommandation should be added to the appropriate Article of the Régles strongly recommending that every author who rejects a specific trivial name as part of an invalid secondary homonym should notify that rejection as soon as possible after its publication, to a literature-recording serial such as the Zoological Record, by sending a marked copy of the paper containing that rejection or otherwise, so that the rejection in question may be recorded in the next issue of that serial ; (13) that, when the specific name (binominal com- bination of a generic name and a specific trivial name) of a nominal species is found to be an invalid secondary homonym and in consequence the specific trivial name comprised in that specific name (hereinafter referred to as the “ rejected trivial name”) is permanently rejected in ac- cordance with the provisions of (7) above, the specific trivial name to be applied to that nominal species shall be determined in accordance with the rules specified below :— (a) Where there exists an objectively substitut- able nominal species (as defined in (5) above, the objectively available specific trivial name of the nominal species bearing the rejected trivial name shall be the specific trivial name borne by the objectively substitutable nominal species, and that name shall take precedence under the Law of Priority as from the date on which it was first published ; (b) Where there exist two or more objectively substitutable nominal species, the objectively available specific trivial name of the nominal species bearing the rejected trivial name shall be the first published of the specific trivial names of any of the objectively substitutable 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 123 nominal. species concerned and shall take precedence in like manner as Specified in (a) above ; (c) where there exists no objectively substitutable nominal species, as aforesaid ;— (1) the author discovering the condition of secondary homonymy may either give to the nominal species bearing the rejected trivial name a new specific name consisting of a binominal combination of a generic name and a specific trivial name different from the rejected trivial name, the specific trivial name so given becoming the objectively available specific trival name of that nominal Species and taking precedence under the Law of Priority as from the date on which it was so published, or (2) if, from the subjective taxonomic standpoint of the author discovering the condition of secondary homonymy, there. is no need to give a new specific name- to the nominal Species bearing the rejected trivial name, that author may elect to leave that nominal Species without an objectively available specific name of its own, it being understood in such a case that it shall be open at any later date for the same or any other author to give to that nominal species a new specific name comprising a specific trivial name different from the rejected trivial name, the specific trivial name so given thereupon be- coming the objectively available specific trivial name of that nominal Species and taking pre- cedence in like manner as specified in (1) above; (14) that the Specific trivial name to be applied to the taxonomic species represented by a nominal Species bearing a rejected trivial name (as defined in (13) above) shall be determined in accordance with the Law of Priority, that is to say :— (a) where there exist one or more nominal species which are either (i) objectively substitutable nominal species (as defined in (5) above) or (ii) subjectively substitutable taxonomic species, if later, and for so long as, the nominal species to which that name was originally given ceases to be subjectively identified with the nominal Species bearing the rejected trivial name. (b) where there exists neither an objectively nor a sub- jectively substitutable nominal species, the nominal species bearing the rejected trivial name is to be given a new specific name comprising a specific trivial name different from the rejected trivial name, the specific trivial name so given becoming thereupon the name pRoperly applicable to the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species bearing the rejected trivial name for so long as no subjectively substituable nominal species having an earlier published name is subjectively identified as also representing that taxonomic species. (15) that, when, after the point of time specified in (8) above, a new specific name is given to a nominal Species on the ground that 124 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (For a later decision modifying this decision, see Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 28) (16) ~— the specific name of that nominal species is an invalid secondary homonym but the author who gives the new name fails to make it clear both that he is of the opinion that the condition of homonymy still exists, that is to say that he regards the species in question as one of a pair of congeneric species, each bearing the same specific name, and that it is for this reason that he rejects the later published of the two specific trivial names and gives a new specific trivial name to the species in question, the existing specific trivial name of that species is to be regarded as not having been validly rejected and in consequence the new specific trivial name given to that species is to have no status in zoological nomenclature ; that, in order to minimise the risk of the foregoing provisions relating to specific homonymy being abused by irresponsible or malicious persons for the deliberate purpose of creating secondary homonyms or of providing opportunities for publishing new names, a provision should be inserted in the Régles requiring the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature to use their plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes any book or paper, in which, in their opinion, the provisions of the Régles in regard to the rejection and replacement of secondary homonyms had been deliberately misused for either or both of the purposes referred to above ; that provisions should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear that subgeneric names are to be dis- regarded for the purpose of determining whether a given specific name is a primary homonym of another specific name or whether a given specific trivial name is a secondary homonym of another specific trivial name, and that Article 6 should be amended to such extent as may be necessary for this purpose ; that the provisions in the Régles relating to cases where a pair of species having identical specific trivial names were either originally described, or were subsequently placed, in the same genus or, through the accident of an undetected condition of generic homonymy, in different genera bearing the same generic name, should apply also to cases where of two nominal Species so described or so placed (a) the specific trivial name of one species is identical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the other species or (b) the subspecific trivial (For a later decision qualifying this decision, see Paris Session, 6th M. eeting, Conclusion 43) Need for publicity for new names and for selections of type species of genera 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 125 name of a subspecies of one species is identical with the subspecific trivial name of a subspecies of the same or of another species, save that nothing in the foregoing provisions should be held to invalidate the subspecific trivial name of the nominotypical subspecies of a species having two or more subspecies on the ground thatt hat name is the same as the specific trivial name of the species itself ; (19) that there should be omitted from the provision which is to replace the third paragraph of Article 35 (which prescribes that certain trivial names which differ from one another only in the ways there specified are to be treated as homonyms of one another), the condition that such names must be of the same origin and meaning and that the opening words of the new provision should be drafted so as to provide merely that within a given genus any pair of trivial names (whether specific or subspecific) which differ from one another only by the differences in spelling specified in that paragraph are to be treated as homonyms of one another. 2. During the discussion recorded in Conclusion 1 above, THE COMMISSION had under consideration recommendations submitted by the Acting President in Commission Paper I.C.(48)8 (paragraphs 33, 34, 41(13) ) in favour of the insertion in the Régles of a Recommandation to be attached to the appropriate Article strongly recom- mending that every author who publishes a new specific name in replacement of an invalid primary homonym or a new specific trivial name in replacement of an invalid secondary homonym should notify the publication of that name to the Zoological Record or other literature-recording serial, so that the new name so published might be recorded in the next issue of that serial. At the same time the Acting President had suggested that this Recommandation should be so drafted as to apply not only to names published in replacement of invalid homonyms but also to all names published for new species. In the ensuing discussion general agreement was expressed with the proposal submitted but it was felt that the procedure suggested should apply not only to new specific and. subspecific names but also to new names of all taxonomic categories recognised by the Régles, that is to Say, at one end of the scale to the names of new Families, Sub-families, genera and sub-genera, and at the other end of the scale to the names of infra-subspecific forms. The view was expressed also that it was highly desirable that a corresponding Recommandation should be added to Article 126 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Publicity for new family and sub-family names ~ Publicity for new generic, subgeneric specific, subspecific, and infra-subspecific names Publicity for the selection of the type species of genera established prior to Ist January 1931 30, strongly recommending that every author who selects a nominal species to be the type species of a nominal genus should notify that selection to a literature-recording serial with a view to its being recorded in the next issue of that serial. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that a Recommandation should be added to Article (2) ~— 4 strongly urging that every author who establishes a new Family or a new Sub-family should notify the establishment of that Family or Sub-family as soon as possible after the publica- tion of the paper in which it is established, to a literature-recording serial such as the Zoological Record, by sending a marked copy of the paper concerned or otherwise, in order that the name of the new Family or Sub-family, as the case may be, may be recorded in the next issue of that serial ; that a Recommandation should be added to Article 25 strongly recommending that every author who publishes a new generic or a new subgeneric name, either as the name of a new genus or sub- genus or in replacement of a generic or subgeneric name which is invalid as a homonym or who publishes a new name for a species, subspecies or infra-subspecific form or who elevates to specific or subspecific rank a name originally published for an infra-subspecific form or who publishes a name to replace a specific, subspecific, or infra-subspecific name which is invalid as a homonym should notify the publication or, as the case may be, the elevation, of that name as soon as possible after its publication to a literature-recording serial sucl» as the Zoological Record, by sending a marked copy of the paper concerned or otherwise, so that that new name or, as the case may be, that elevation of the status of a name may be recorded in the next issue of that serial ; that a* Recommandation should be added to Article 30 strongly recommending that every author who selects a nominal species to be the type species of a nominal genus established prior to Ist January, 1931 should notify that type selection as soon as possible after its publication to a literature-recording serial such as the Zoo- logical Record, either by sending a marked copy of the paper concerned or otherwise, so that that type selection may be recorded in the next issue of that serial. 7 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 127 Definition of the 3. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion a » 1 above, it became evident that (as pointed out by the and “ specific Acting President in paragraph 30 of Commission Paper trivial name ” 1.C.(48)8) any consideration of the problem of specific homonymy involved both the concept of the binominal combination which constitutes the scientific designation of a species and also the concept of that portion of that designa- tion which distinguishes a given species from all other species in the same genus. In the existing text of the Régles both these concepts were referred to under the expression nom spécifique (specific name). In order to put an end to the confusion so caused, it was essential that in the revised text of the Régles these concepts should be distinguished from one another by means of clearly defined expressions. The distinction between these concepts and the need for a definition of each had been recognised by Linnaeus himself who had applied the expression nomen specificum to desig- nate the binominal combination which constitutes the scientific designation of a species and the expression nomen triviale for the portion of the scientific designation of a species which distinguishes the species concerned from every other species in the same genus. THE COMMISSION agreed :-— (1) that, in order to put an end to the present state of confusion, it was essential that the Régles should distinguish clearly between the binominal combination which constitutes the scientific designation of a species and the second term of such a combination, which distinguishes a given species from every other Species referred to that genus ; (2) to recommend :— (a) that, in order to give effect to the consid- erations specified in (1) above, words should be inserted in the Regles expressly recognising the two concepts referred to above, the first of these to be designated by the expression “ specific name”, the second by the expression “ specific trivial name ”’; that the foregoing expressions should be defined in the Régles as follows :-— Expression Definition of expression “Specific name” The binominal combina- tion of a generic name and a specific trivial name which constitutes the scientific designation of a species. = (b ~~ vor 4 1 128 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Definition of the expressions “ subspecific name” and “ subspecific trivial name ” (Previous reference : Paris Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 1 (2) and (3)) The second term of the binominal combination which constitutes the scientific designation of a species, being the por- tion of that designation which distinguishes the species concerned from every other species re- ferred to the genus con- cerned. (c) that, wherever the expression “specific name ”’ is used in the Régles in the sense not of a “specific name”, as defined in (b) above but in the sense of a “ specific trivial name ’’, as there defined, the latter expres- sion should be substituted for the former. “Specific trivial name” 4. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion 3 above, it was pointed out that there was an ambiguity in the use in the Régles of the expression “ subspecific name ”’ exactly parallel to the ambiguity already noted in the case of the expression “specific name”. As it had now been decided to eliminate the ambiguity in the case of the latter expression, it followed that it would be necessary to take corresponding action in regard to the expression “ sub- specific name ”’. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that words should be inserted in the Reégles distinguishing clearly between the trinominal combination which constitutes the scientific designation of a subspecies and the third term of such a combination, which distinguishes a given subspecies of a particular species from every other subspecies of that species, the first of these _concepts to be designated by the expression “‘ sub- specific name’’, the second by the expression “ subspecific trivial name ” ; (2) that the foregoing expressions should be defined in the Régles as follows :— Expression “Subspecific name” Definition of expression The trinominal combination of a generic name, a specific trivial name and a _ sub- specific trivial name which constitutes the scientific designation of a subspecies. The third term of the trinominal combination which constitutes _— the “Subspecific trivial name” 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 129 scientific designation of a subspecies, being the por- tion of that designation which distinguishes the sub- species concerned from every other subspecies of the species in question. (3) that, wherever the expression “ subspecific name” ~ is used in the Reégles in the sense not of a “ sub- specific name ”’, as defined in (2) above, but in the sense of a “ subspecific trivial name ’”’, as there defined, the latter expression should be substituted for the former. Specific trivial 5. In the course of the discussion on the replacement of or legate tobe secondary homonyms recorded in Conclusion 1 above, the paws path ers view was expressed that care should be taken to make it generic names absolutely clear in the Régles that, when a new specific trivial name was published in substitution for a specific trivial name that had been rejected on account of secondary homonymy, the new name so published must, in order to be an available name, be published, if not in actual combina- tion with a generic name, at least in connection with such a name. There were cases in the literature where this had not been done and where in consequence it was necessary to infer from the context the name of the genus to which the author of the new specific name intended to refer the species in question. It was pointed out that it was not only in connection with new specific trivial names published in substitution for invalid secondary homonyms that there existed this risk, for there were cases in the literature in which an author, either not knowing, or being doubtful regarding, the genus to which he should refer a new species which he was describing, had published a specific trivial name for that species without indicating any generic name for it. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles making it clear that no specific trivial name published either for a previously undescribed species or in substitution for a specific trivial name rejected as an invalid homonym possesses any status in zoological nomenclature, unless the author concerned specifies a generic name in connection therewith. eee of ‘. 6. During the discussion recorded in Conclusion 1 and Hoticuying ¥ above regarding the status of a new name published in substitution for an invalid homonym (whether primary or VOL, 4 1 130 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Application to generic names of the provisions in secondary), attention was drawn to the fact that the present text of the Regles was defective in that the Articles dealing respectively with the Law of Priority (Article 25) and the Law of Homonymy (Articles 34-36) appeared to have been drawn up entirely independently of one another with the result that each lacked a qualifying reference to the other. It was pointed out on the one hand that in addition to the existing provisions in Article 25 that Article should contain a provision that the oldest published name for a genus, subgenus, species, subspecies or infra-subspecific form would not be the valid name of the genus, subgenus, species, subspecies or infra-subspecific form concerned if it was a name which was invalid under the Law of Homonymy (at present dealt with in Articles 34-36). Similarly, in the Articles which would replace Articles 34-36 in the revised text of the Régles, it would be necessary to make it clear that a name which does not satisfy the Law of Priority does not invalidate, under the Law of Homonymy, a later- published name consisting of the same word. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Reégles to co- ordinate the Law of Priority (Article 25) and the Law of Homonymy (Articles 34-36) with one another, this object to be attained by inserting in :— (a) the Article dealing with the Law of Priority a provision that, even if a name satisfies all the requirements specified in Article 25, that name is not a valid name if it falls to be rejected under the Law of Homonymy ; (b) the Articles dealing with the Law of Homonymy a provision that a name which does not satisfy the Law of Priority does not invalidate, under the Law of Homonymy, a later-published name consisting of the same word. ~ 7. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion 1 above regarding the provision relating to the rejection on the third paragraph account of homonymy of a specific trivial name which of Article 35 relating to specific trivial names (Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14) differed from another specific trivial name only in any of the small points of spelling listed in the third paragraph of the existing text of Article 35, THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) reminded the Commission that by a decision taken at their Session held at Lisbon in 1935 the Commission had given an interpretation of Article 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 131 34 applying, mutatis mutandis, to generic names the pro- visions in regard to specific trivial names referred to above. That decision had later been formally embodied in the Commission’s Opinion 147. In view of the decision just taken by the Commission to recommend the deletion from the third paragraph of Article 35 of the words “ of the same origin and meaning”, it followed automatically that a corresponding amendment should now be made in Opinion (Previous reference: | 147. The Commission had however already agreed at their Paris Session, present Session to incorporate in the Régles provisions 4th Meeting, embodying the interpretations of existing Articles given by the Commission in interpretative Opinions and they would shortly be considering the paper (Commission Pape1 T.C.(48)11) which had been submitted by himself on this subject. The Acting President suggested that the most convenient course might be tor the Commission to confine itself to taking note that Opinion 147 now required amend- ment but to defer taking a decision in regard to that amend- ment until they came to consider the question of incor- porating into the Regles the interpretation given in that Opinion. Conclusion 4(2) (a)) THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, if the Congress approved the recommendation which it had been agreed to submit for the amendment of the third paragraph of Article 35 relating to homonomy in specific trivial names by the deletion of the qualifying words “ of the same origin and meaning’, it would be necessary to ensure that simultaneously with the adoption of that amendment, a corresponding amendment should be made in Opinion 147, in which the foregoing paragraph of Article 35 had been applied to generic homonymy (Article 34); (Later reference: (2) to defer further consideration of this question Paris Session, until they came to consider the proposals for 6th Meeting, incorporating into the Régles the interpretations Conclusion 41) : Fi. ; Ane thereof given in interpretative Opinions rendered by the Commission submitted in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. Thanks of the 8. THE COMMISSION agreed :— Commission to Mrs. M. F. W. to place on record their grateful thanks to Mrs. iui M. F. W. Hemming for the active part which, ine conjunction with her husband, Secretary Francis Hemming, she had played in preparing the proposals 132 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Codification of the interpretations of the “Regles” given in “ Opinions ” rendered by the Commission : future procedure in regard to (Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 15) submitted to the Commission in regard to the problem of specific homonymy (Commission Paper I.C.(48)8) and the nomenclature of infra-specific forms (Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)9). MRS. HEMMING thanked the Commission for the resolution which they had just adopted. 9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission on the need for the codification of the interpretations of the Régles given in Opinions rendered by the Commission in their judicial capacity (Paper I.C.(48)10). In introducing this subject, THE ACTING PRESI- DENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that many important interpretations of the Régles had been given by the Commission in Opinions rendered at various times since 1907, the year in which the International Congress of Zoology had conferred upon the Commission the right and the duty to render Opinions on questions of zoological nomenclature submitted to them. Many of these inter- pretations had been given incidentally in Opinions dealing with the status of particular names and it was therefore not surprising that some of them had been widely over- looked. At their meeting held in Lisbon in 1935 the Com- ‘mission had reviewed their practice in this matter and had agreed that, when in future they reached a decision of interest to the general body of zoologists, that decision _ should be presented in such a way as to ensure that it was most readily available to all concerned. The revised procedure then agreed upon had been consistently followed in all subsequent Opinions. It represented a substantial improvement on previous practice, but nevertheless it touched only the fringe of the problem. Much more drastic action would be needed in order to put an end to the chaotic situation which confronted zoologists who desired to ascertain whether any particular provision of the Reégles had been the subject of an interpretative Opinion rendered by the Commission. When during the war the Commission had taken stock of the problems which they would need to tackle immediately the war was over, they had included in their programme the publication of an authoritative edition of the substantive French text of the Régles, and the re- issue of their earlier Opinions which had long been out of print and were virtually unobtainable. The Commission had then proposed to attach to the proposed edition of the Régles an analysis of those of their Opinions which contained interpretations of provisions in the Régles. The preparation a . wo 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 133 of this analysis, which had occupied over two years, had proved laborious and difficult owing largely to the need to distinguish carefully between the actual decisions taken by the Commission on the one hand, and on the other the numerous obiter dicta embodied in the texts of many Opinions which had the appearance of being views expressed by the Commission but were in fact no more than the per- sonal views of the draftsmen of the Opinions concerned. Simultaneously with the preparation of the foregoing analy- sis of the Opinions rendered by the Commission, a start was made with the re-publication of the older Opinions. This was long overdue, for owing to these Opinions having been for so long out of print, they were known to the majority of zoologists only through their “summaries” which often failed to give a clear picture of the decision taken in those cases where the ostensible object of the Opinion was to give a ruling on the status of some particular name, while by far the most important part of the Opinion was the decision taken on the interpretation of some -provision of the Regles. | Attached to each of the Opinions so re-issued were editorial notes prepared by himself (the Acting Presi- dent) in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission. Both the projected analysis of the interpretative Opinions and the publication of an annotated edition of the older Opinions represented steps in the right direction, but each fell short of the ideal solution, for neither the analysis nor the annotations to the older Opinions could in the circum- stances do more than represent the views of the author by whom they were compiled. Obviously, it would be much more satisfactory if means could be found to secure in these matters an authoritative pronouncement made, on the advice of the Commission, by the Congress itself. The Acting President went on to say that within the last 18 months the whole question had been carefully reviewed and the conclusion had been reached that the right and proper course would be to take advantage of the meeting in Paris of the International Congress of Zoology to seek the concurrence of the Congress in a comprehensive codification of the interpretative Opinions rendered by the Commission during the last 40 years. Periodical codi- fications of this kind were a normal feature in the develop- ment of law in countries in which the law consisted partly of statute law and partly of case law built up from inter- pretative decisions taken by the Courts. Only by this means was it possible to prevent the law from becoming unduly difficult to interpret and in the course of time so eomplicated and obscure as almost to defy interpretation. Fortunately the Regles had not yet reached that stage but 134 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusions 3 &.5). (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 6) signs were not wanting that the Regles and the Opinions taken together were becoming so complicated as to make their interpretation by working zoologists unnecessarily time-consuming and burdensome. From the consultations which had taken place on this matter it was evident that a codification of the kind proposed woulda be widely welcomed by zoologists. Once the proposed codification had been carried through, zoologists would be able not only to see what was the present state of the law but also to determine much more easily than was at present possible the directions in which further developments or amendments were re- quired. Vitally important as it was that order should be intro- duced into the Régles by the codification of the inter- pretative Opinions rendered by the Commission, it was equally essential that the Commission should never again permit a recurrence of the present state of confusion. It was accordingly suggested that, when in future the Com- mission were called upon to give an interpretation of a given provision of the Régles, they should not only do so in the most categorical and unambiguous terms but should also so draft the interpretation so given that it could readily be written into the Regles at the next meeting of the Inter- national Congress. The consistent application of this principle would secure that the current authorised edition of the Régles would contain provisions on all matters on which interpretative judicial decisions had been taken by the Commission up to and including the last meeting of the Congress. In order to ascertain the state of the law, a zoologist would therefore only have to consult the Reégles and such few interpretative decisions as the Commission might have rendered since the last Congress. The Acting President added that, in order to facilitate reference to interpretative decisions of this kind, it was proposed that in future Declarations should be reserved for recording this type of decision, decisions relating to the status of individual books and of individual names, together with decisions relating to the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ being recorded, as at present, in Opinions. The Commission had already noted that in three cases at least interpretations given in Opinions were manifestly incorrect and the Commission had agreed to cancel the Opinions in question (Opinions 20, 37 and 8). In another case the Commission had agreed to recommend that a particular provision of the Régles (Article 25, Proviso (c) (2)) should be amended and in consequence an Opinion (Opinion 138) giving an interpretation of the passage now to be deleted from that Article had become inappropriate and (For later decisions on this subject, see Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 31 ; 12th Meeting, Conclusion 19) . 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 135 misleading. In this case also the Commission had agreed to cancel the Opinion in question. Opinions containing interpretations of the Régles would be in a different position after those interpretations had been written into the Regles as the result of the proposed codification. Such Opinions would no longer be an authorised source to which zoologists could look for interpretations of the Régles, since for this purpose those Opinions would have been super- seded by the new provisions inserted in the Régles. It was desirable, however, that such Opinions should remain on record for historical purposes, but it was essential that it should be made clear that every such Opinion was repealed for interpretative purposes. Where an Opinion contained both an interpretation of the Régles and also a decision regarding the status of a particular book or a particular name, that Opinion, though repealed in so far as it con- tained an interpretation of the Régles, would remain in full force, so far as the decision in regard to a particular book or a particular name was concerned. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) as regards “ Opinions” already rendered by the Commission (i.e. Opinions 1—194) :— (a) to cancel any Opinion :— (i) which might be found to contain an erroneous interpretation of a pro- vision in the Régles, the said cancel- lation to become operative forthwith ; (ii) which contained an interpretation of a provision of the Régles which, though correct under the existing text of the Régles, would cease to be correct as soon as the present (Paris) Congress had approved the recom- mendation to be submitted to them for the amendment or deletion of the provision interpreted in the Opinion in question, the said cancellation to become operative as from the date on which the amendments to the Regles made by the present Congress came into force ; (b) to repeal for interpretative purposes any Opinion or part of an Opinion containing an interpretation of a provision of the Régles, where the present Congress decided to incorporate that interpretation, in whole 136 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2) as or in part, in the text of the Regles, the said repeal to become operative as from the date on which the amendments to the Régles made by the present Congress come into force ; (c) to request any zoologist who might consider that any Opinion, other than an Opinion that had been cancelled or an Opinion repealed for interpretative purposes under (a) or (b) above, contained an interpretation of the Régles on a matter not expressly dealt with therein which through inadver- tence had either not been incorporated in the Régles as part of the present codification or had not been expressly repealed for interpretative purposes, to notify the Com- mission as soon as possible, so that they might consider what recommendation in regard thereto to submit to the next meeting of the Congress ; (d) to place on record their intention :— (i) to make proposals to the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress for the incorporation in the Régles of any interpretation thereof given in any Opinion rendered prior to July 1948 which they might find was inadver- tently not incorporated in the Regles by the present Congress and which’ they might deem expedient should be so incorporated ; (ii) to repeal for interpretative purposes every Opinion rendered prior to the above date which might not already have been either cancelled or repealed for interpretative purposes under (a) or (b) above, the said repeal to become operative as from the date on which the amendments to the Régles made by the next Congress came into force ; regards “‘ Declarations” and “ Opinions” rendered after the close of the present Congress :— (a) to reserve the series entitled Declarations for the recording of interpretations of provisions of the Régles and the consequent submission of proposals for the amendment Interpretations of provisions in the “Regles” given in “ Opinions ” : proposals for incorporation in the “ Regles ” to be considered item by item (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, © Conclusion 4 (2) (a)) 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 137 of the Régles and the series entitled Opinions for decisions relating to the status of individual books and of individual names, together with decisions relating to the “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (b) to lay it down that the decision given in any Declaration or Opinion is to be looked for only in the “ summary ” of that Declaration or Opinion, that every such “summary ” is to be rigidly construed, and that no deductions, other than those expressly specified therein, are to be drawn there- from ; ~— (c) to place on record that no new interpretation of any provision of the Régles is to be drawn from any Opinion, every such inter- pretation to be recorded in a Declaration, as provided in (a) above ; to report to each meeting of the Congress any interpretations of provisions of the Régles which they may have given in a Declaration or Declarations rendered since the last previous- meeting of the Congress, with a recommendation that every such interpretation be incorporated forthwith in the Regles ; (e) to repeal for interpretative purposes any Declaration, the contents of which shall have been incorporated into the Régles by direc- tion of a meeting of the Congress, acting on a recommendation submitted to it in accord- ance with (d) above, the said repeal to become operative as from the date on which the amendments to the Régles made by that Congress shall come into force ; (3) to incorporate into the By-Laws of the Commission the provisions specified in (2) above. & 10. THE COMMISSION had before them a memoran- dum by the Secretary to the Commission containing detailed proposals for the codification of the interpretations of various provisions in the Régles given by the Commission in Opinions rendered at various dates from the year 1907 onwards (Commission Paper 1.0.(48)11). THE COMMISSION :— (1) recalled that, since Commission Paper I.C.(48)11 had been prepared, they had agreed in principle 138 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 4 and ** Opinion” 141 (Family names) at the meeting noted in the margin to recommend the incorporation in the Regles of provisions embodying the interpretations of existing Articles given by the Commission in Opinions already rendered, subject to such modifications or excep- tions as they might consider proper ; (2) agreed to examine Commission Paper I.C.(48)11, paragraph by paragraph, with a view to reaching conclusions regarding the recommendations to be submitted in this regard. 11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Article 4 of the Régles given in Opinion 141 and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraphs 1-3 of the list contained in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)11. In the discussion on this question it was generally agreed that the existing provisions (Articles 4 and 5) in regard to Family and Sub-Family names constituted a totally inadequate treatment of this complicated problem. It was not possible on the present occasion to study this matter in the requisite detail but it was very desirable that the issues involved should be thoroughly investigated as soon as possible. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that the Secretary to the Commission should be invited to make a thorough study, in consultation with interested specialists, of the problem of the nomenclature of Super-Families, Families, Sub- Families and Tribes and to submit a Report there- on, with recommendations, for consideration by the Commission at their meeting to be held during the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress, with a view to the submission by the Commission of proposals for the insertion in the Régles of com- prehensive provisions dealing with this subject ; (2) that, without prejudice to (1) above :— (a) words should be inserted to make it clear :— (i) that the genus bearing the oldest available generic name in a family need not be taken as the type genus of a family ; (u) that an author establishing a new family is free to select as the type genus of that family whatever genus he considers the most appropriate ; 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 139 (iii) that the name of a family is to be based upon the name of its type genus, and that the selection of a given generic name to be the basis of a family name constitutes ipso facto a definite designation of the genus bearing that name to be the type genus of that family. Example: The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758, was definitely designated as the type genus of the family MUSCIDAE by reason of the fact that the stem of the word “‘ Musca” was used as the basis of that family name. (iv) that the provisions of (i) to (ii) above are to apply to the names of sub-families in like manner as to the names of families ; (b) a Recommandation in the following sense should be added to the provision specified in (a) (ii) above : “‘ The genus selected to be the type genus of a family should, so far as possible, be a well-known and common genus and one which, from the taxonomic standpoint, occupies a central position in the family so established.” (c) a Recommandation in the following sense should be added to the provision specified in (a) (iii) above : ‘‘ Where a well-established family name has not been formed in accord- ance with (iii) above but where it would be undesirable to change existing practice, authors should, before making any such change, refer the question to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for ‘such action as it may think proper.” Article 8 and 12. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the “ Opinion ” 183 interpretation of Article 8 of the Régles given in Opinion (generic names to be published in 183 and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in para- the nominative graph 4 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. singular) THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that the provision in Article 8 that a generic 140 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Later reference : Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 7) Article 14, first paragraph, and ** Opinion ” 64 (single letters not eligible as trivial names) - Status of specific trivial names when preceded by serial letters or serial numerals at the time of their original publication (Later reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 32) name is to consist of a noun in the nominative singular requires that no name is to be accepted as a generic name until it has been published as a noun in the above case and number and that a noun first published in some other case or number is available as a generic name only as from the date on which it is for the first time published in the nominative singular and is to be attributed to the author by whom it is first so published. 13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the . interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 14 of the Régles given in Opinion 64 and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 5 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that a. single letter, such as “a”, “b”, “ec”, etc. is not to be accepted as the trivial name of a species or subspecies. 14. In the course of the discussion (recorded, in Con- clusion 13 above), regarding the codification of the inter- pretation of Article 14 of the Régles given in Opinion 64, attention was drawn to the fact that, where an author, in giving a list of the species which he referred to a given genus, had placed a serial letter or a serial numeral immedia- tely in front of the trivial name of the species concerned, some later authors had sought to argue that, in the case of any new name published in this manner, the serial letter or the serial numeral, as the case might be, should be regarded as forming part of the trivial name. In order to eliminate discussion on this contention, which was clearly misconceived, it would, it was felt, be ~ helpful if words were inserted in the Régles making it clear that serial letters and serial numerals, when used in the manner indicated above, do not form part of the trivial name of the species concerned. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted at some appropriate point in the Regles making it clear that, where a new specific trivial name is published in a list of species referred to a given genus and is there preceded by a serial letter or serial numeral, that serial letter or serial numeral is not to be taken as constituting part of the specific trivial name in question. Article 19 and “ Opinions ” 26, 27, 29, 36, 41, 60, 61 and 63 (emendation of names) 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 141 15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretations of Article 19 of the Reégles given in Opinions 26, 27, 29, 36, 41, 60, 61, and 63, and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraphs 7-9 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. In the discussion on this question, the following points were made :— (a) In various respects the interpretation of Article 19 ~— had been rendered more, rather than less. difficult by the Opinions given by the Commission at various times, for some of those Opinions were irreconcilable both with the terms of Article 19 itself and with the interpretation of that Article given in other Opinions. It was evident that, before a satisfactory solution could be reached in regard to the complex of pro- blems raised by this Article, a much closer study than any hitherto attempted would need to be made. Further, this study would need to be directed to the substantive French text of this Article, rather than to the imperfect English translation of that text commonly in use, to which most of the discus- sions hitherto had been directed. (c) Various proposals had been received for making changes in Article 19, but it was very difficult to judge the merits of these proposals until the present meaning of that Article had been clarified by the incorporation into it of such of the interpretations given by the Commission in Opinions on particular cases as were consistent with the meaning of the words actually used in the Article itself. The con- solidation of the present law in this matter was thus an indispensable preliminary to the consideration of its development or reform. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that the Secretary to the Commission should be invited to make a thorough study, in consultation with interested specialists, of the problems involved in the emendation of scientific names which, when originally published, contained errors of transcription or of orthography or printers’ errors and to submit a Report thereon, with recommendations, for consideration by the Com- mission at their meeting to be held during the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress, with a view to the submission by the Commission of proposals for the insertion in the Régles of comprehensive provisions dealing with this subject ; 142 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (2) that, without prejudice to (1) above :— (a) words should be inserted in Article 19 to make it clear that,.in determining whether, as regards any given name, an error of transcription or of orthography or a printers’ error is “ évident” in the original spelling of a scientific name, particular attention should be paid to evidence contained in the book or paper in which the name was first published ; it should be made clear in Article 19 in some manner which will not detract from the generality of the expression “ évident ” as used in that Article that the following examples illustrate cases where the original spelling of a name should be emended :—. (i) Where it is evident that a generic name or a specific trivial name is based upon a personal name and where the spelling of the scientific name so published is not identical, except for the termination used, with the correct spelling of the name of the person to whom the genus or species is dedicated, the spelling of the scientific name in question is to be emended so as to correspond with the correct spelling of the name of that person. Example: The names Ruppelia Swainson, 1839, and Rupellia Swainson, 1839, are to be emended to Riippellia, in view of the fact that this genus was dedicated to a zoologist named Riippell. (u) When an author founds a new name upon one or more Greek words but inadvertently commits an error in transliterating into the Latin alphabet one or more of the Greek letters of which the word was (or the words were) composed, the error of transcription is to be corrected. Example: The inadvertent mis- transliteration of the Greek letter Zeta committed in the spelling “Pentoxocera”’, a name formed YOL,4 5 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 143 (iii) (iv) from the Greek words zévre (five), efos (branch), and xepas (horn), is to be corrected and the spelling of this name is to be emended to “ Pentozocera ”’. When an author founds a new name upon one or more Greek words cited in the original publication of the name and when one of those words is there incorrectly spelt and in con- Sequence the scientific name founded thereon is also incorrectly Spelt, the spelling of that name is to be that that name was based upon a Greek word similarly spelt (i.e. a word having the Greek letter Theta as its second letter). In fact, however the Greek word concerned had as its second letter the Greek letter Beta. The spelling of this generic name is therefore to be emended to “ Ab- lennes ”, obtained but, as the result of his misreading or miscopying the name of the locality or district from the label on the type specimen, publishes as the trivial name of the species a Latinised word which fails to indicate the locality or district intended, the spelling of the name so published is to be emended. Example : When Giinther gave to a new fish the name Leuciscus hakuensis, he selected that trivial name because he had misread as “ Lake Hakou ” the locality of the type specimen of this species. In fact, however, the name of the type locality was “Lake Hakone”. "In these circumstances, the trivial name hakuensis is to be emended to hakonensis. 144 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 25 and “ Opinion ” 2 (status of a name based ona hypothetical form) Article 25 and “ Opinion ” 49 (status of a specific name published conditionally) (v) When an author, in naming a new species, selects for its trivial name a word which, though adjectival in form, is not a recognised Latin adjective and where that author uses for the nominative singular of that word the termination “ -ius”’ (mas- culine) or “-ia”’ (feminine), these terminations are to be corrected to “-eus” and “-ea” respectively. Example : The word “ iridia ” (pub- lished by Gibbons in 1855 as a new trivial name in the combination Salmo iridia), though adjectival in form, is not a recognised Latin adjective. This trivial name is, therefore, to be emended to irideus (masculine), zidea (feminine), or trideum (neuter). 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Article 25 of the Régles given in Opinion 2 (which relates to the status of a name based upon a hypothetical form) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 10 of the list contained in Commis- sion Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that a name based upon a hypothetical form has no status in zoological nomenclature. Example : The generic name Pithecanthropus Haeckel, 1866, being the name of a genus based upon a hypothetical species, has no status in zoological nomenclature and does not preoccupy the generic name Pithecanthropus Dubois, [1894], the name of a genus based upon a known species. 17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Article 25 of the Régles given in Opinion 49 (which relates to the status of a specific name published conditionally) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 11 of the list contained in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (a) that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, where an author doubtfully identifies known material with a described species but publishes for that material a new specific Article 25 and Pinion ” 4 (status of a manuscript name on being first validly published with an “ indication ”) (Later reference: Paris Session, ith Meeting, Conclusion 15) (Later reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 28) VOL, 4 K? 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 145 name for use therefor if later it is found that that material is referable to an unnamed species, the specific name, given conditionally in this manner, is available for that species as from the date of its original publication and is to be attributed to its original author. Example: The specific name Siphonophora asclepiadifolii, given conditionally by Thomas in 1879 to known material which he doubtfully identified with a previously named species (Aphis asclepiadis Fitch) is available as from 1879 for the material so named by Thomas. (b) that a Recommandation should be inserted at an appropriate point in the Régles strongly deprecat- ing the publication of names conditionally. 18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Article 25 of the Régles given in Opinion 4 (which relates to the status of a name which, prior to being published, was a manuscript name) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 12 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. It was pointed out in discussion that the expression “ printed in connection with the provisions of Article 25 ” used in Opinion 4 was not happily chosen : (1) because it prejudged the question whether, in order to be accepted, a book containing new names must be actually printed, as contrasted with being reproduced by some other process (a subject on which proposals would be submitted to the Commission at a later meeting during its present Session), and (2) because it was difficult to regard a manuscript name rejected by the author by whom it was first published as the name by which the genus or species concerned had been first designated (“. . . . sous lequel ils ont été le plus ancienne- ment designés ”’) as prescribed in the opening words of the Article. What was intended was, no doubt, that a manu- script name, to become available, must first be published (“divulgué dans une publication ”) in conditions which satisfied the requirements of the provisos to Article 25. It would be well to make this clear, now that the decision in this Opinion was to be incorporated in the Regles. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear that a manuscript name acquires status in zoological nomenclature only when it is validly published and, on being so published, is published in conditions which satisfy the requirements of the 146 Article 25 and “ Opinions ” 87, 59, and 190 (various aspects of the problem of publication) (For a later decision amplifying the present decision, see Paris Session, Tth Meeting, Conclusion 15) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. provisos to Article 25, and that the status of a manu- script name, so published, is not affected by the question whether the author by whom it is published accepts it as an available name or sinks it as a synonym. 19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretations of aspects of the problem raised by the expression “divulgué dans une publication” as used in Article 25 given by the Commission in Opinion 87 (which relates to the status of a name when it appears for the first time in a proof sheet) in Opinion 59 (which relates to the status of a name which first appears in an advance separate) and in Opinion 191 (which relates.to the status of a name when it appears for the first time in documents, etc., distributed by an author to colleagues or students), together with the proposals thereon submitted in paragraphs . 15, 17 and 14 of the list contained in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear :— ; (a) that the distribution of proof sheets does not constitute publication and that a new name given currency in this way has no status in zoo- logical nomenclature until such later time as it is duly published in accordance with the pro- visions of Article 25 ; that, where a new name appears in a paper published in a book or serial and separates of that paper are distributed in advance of the publication of the paper concerned, the new name ranks for the purposes of the Law of Priority not from the date of the distribution of the separates but from the later date on which the paper was actually published either in that book or serial or elsewhere. that a new name introduced in a note (whether printed or otherwise reproduced) in explanation of a photograph or other illustration of an animal is not “ divulgué dans une publication ” where the author concerned does no more than distribute copies of such a note and photograph or other illustration to colleagues or students or when he merely attaches copies of such a note and illustration to separates of a paper dealing with the same subject but either not Articles 30 and 35 and “ Opinion ” 148 (status and type species of a generic name published as an invalid emendation of an earlier name) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 1(21) 6th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 147 containing the new name in question or con- taining it without satisfying the requirements of Article 25. Example: The specific name Khynchonella alta has no status under the Law of Priority as from the date (about 1878) on which it appeared in a note with accompanying photograph , distributed by Samuel Calvin but tanks for purposes of priority as from 1890 when it was published with an indication by H. S. Williams. 20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretations of Articles 30 and 35 of the Reégles given in paragraph (1) of Opinion 148 (which relates to the status of a generic name published as an invalid emendation of, or as a substitute for, an earlier generic name of the same origin and meaning) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraphs 16 and 26 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. It was pointed out that the decision given in the Opinion referred to above carried with it the corollary that, if a generic name which had been invalidly emended was later rejected as an invalid homonym, the invalid emendation of that name becomes an available name for the genus con- cerned, as from the date on which it was originally published. In the example given in Opinion 148, Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, was rejected as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck, 1799, of which it was an invalid emendation. Like any other synonym, Achatinus de Montfort would become an available name for the genus concerned, if it were to be found that the earlier name (Achatina Lamarck, 1799), of which it had been sunk as a synonym, was an invalid homonym. The decision in this part of Opinion 148 was subject to the limitation imposed by Opinion 147 (proposals for the in- corporation in the Régles of which were submitted in paragraph 41 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11) that the original name and the invalidly emended version should not be so similar to one another in spelling as to fall within the categories of names which, under that Opinion, were to be treated as homonyms of one another. It was pointed out also that, in view of the decision taken earlier during the present meeting to recommend that the phrase “‘of the same origin and meaning” should be deleted from the third paragraph of Article 35 (which relates to speaific homonymy, that phrase (which had been intro-. duced into Opinion 148 by analogy from Article 35) should be omitted in the proposed incorporation in the Reégles of the decision given in paragraph (1) of Opinion 148. 148 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 25, Proviso (a), and “ Opinion ” 1 (meaning of the expression “indication ’’) THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear :— (a) that a generic name published as an invalid emendation of an earlier name (an emendation made otherwise than in accordance with Article 19) is to be rejected as a synonym of the earlier name, where that name is an available name, the type species of the later published nominal genus being automatically the same species as the type species of the earlier published nominal genus ; US that, where the name of a genus is rejected as an invalid homonym and the next oldest name is a name published as an invalid emendation of that name and that invalid emendation is sufficiently different in spelling from the original name not to be a homonym thereof under the provisions contained in the third paragraph of Article 35 as applied to Article 34 by Opinion 147, the generic name originally published as an invalid emendation becomes an available name for the genus in question and has priority as from the date on which it was first published as an invalid emendation and is to be attributed to the author by whom it was so published. 21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles given in Opinion 1 (which relates to the meaning of the expression “indication ” as used in the Proviso in question), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 18 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. In the discussion on this proposal, it was pointed out that, since the foregoing paper had been prepared, the Commission had decided to recommend the liberalisation of the third of the provisions relating to generic names specified in Opinion 1. It remained now to consider the codification (and to such extent as might be necessary, the clarification) of (1) the remaining portion of Opinion 1 as regards generic names, and (2) the whole of the portion of that Opinion which was concerned with specific trivial names, and the concluding sentence of that Opinion, which referred both to © generic names and to specific trivial names. In the decision to be taken on these matters it would be necessary to make it clear that the whole of the interpretation of the expression “indication” here under consideration related (Later reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 29) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 13) Article 25, Proviso (a), and “ Opinion ” 43 (status of a new specific name published jointly with a new generic name and vice versa) 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 149 only to names published prior to 1st January, 1931, the date on which the more rigorous provisions of Proviso (c) to Article 25 came into operation. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear, as regards generic names and specific trivial names published prior to Ist January, 1931 :— (a) (b) (c) that a specific trivial name is to be accepted as having been published with an “ indication ” if it is published (i) with a bibliographical reference to a previously published definition or description, or (ii) in conjunction with a figure (illustration), or (ili) as a substitute for a previously published name which is invalid as a homonym ; that a generic name is to be accepted as having been published with an “ indication” if it is published (i) with a bibliographical reference to a previously published definition or descrip- tion, or (ii) in the manner agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin, or (iii) as a substi- tute for a previously published name which is invalid as a homonym ; that neither a reference to a museum label nor to a museum specimen nor to a vernacular name is to be accepted as an “indication” either for a generic name or for a specific trivial name. _22. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Regles given in Opinion 43 (which relates to the status of a new specific name published jointly with a new generic name), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 19 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, where, prior to Ist January, 1931, a new nominal species was described in a new nominal genus and the genus and species concerned were described jointly, no separate description being given for either, the joint description so given is to be accepted as an ce indication” both for the new generic name and for the new specific name. 150 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 25, Proviso (a), and * Opinion ” 52 (significance of the citation of a type locality in an original description) Article 25, Proviso (b), and “ Opinion ” 5 (status of a name originally published before 1758 when re-published after 1757) Article 26 and “ Opinion ” 3 (relative status of works published in the year 1758) 23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Reégles given in Opinion 52 (which relates to the significance to be attached to the citation of a type locality in the original description of a new species) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 20 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that the citation of a type locality unaccom- panied by any other particulars, does not constitute an ‘indication’? for the purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25. . 24. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles given in Opinion 5 (which relates to the circumstances in which a name originally published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature in 1758 (Article 26) is to be accepted as an available name on being republished after the close of 1757), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 21 in the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that a name which, by reason of having been published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature (ie. prior to Ist January, 1758), possesses no status under the Régles does not acquire such status if, when republished after 1757, it is simply reprinted with its original diagnosis, it being necessary, if such a name is to acquire rights under the Régles, that, on being republished, it should be reinforced by being adopted or accepted by the author by whom it is republished. 25. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Article 26 of the Régles given in Opinion 3 (which relates to the status to be accorded to works published in the year 1758), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 24 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. Articles 25 and 1 and “ Opinion ” 88 (status of a specific name published for a composite nominal species) 6th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 151 THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that any work published in the year 1758 is to be treated as having been published subsequent to the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus and therefore subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature. 26. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of the Regles given in Opinion 88 (which relates to the status of the name of a nominal species, the original description of which contained descriptions of the bodily parts of more than one species and to the status of the name of a genus having such a nominal Species as its type species), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 25 of the list contained in Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)11. In the discussion on this matter, it was pointed out that Opinion 88 was silent regarding the Article or Articles of which it gave an interpretation. This was a question which must, however, be determined before the ruling given Article 31. The second issue raised by this Opinion was the status of a generic name, in a case where the type species of the genus concerned was, when first published, 152 (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11) Article 30, Rule (a), and “ Opinion ” 7 (type species of a genus the name of which was published with the formula “ n.g., n.sp. ”) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. based on two or more taxonomic species (Article 31). It was perhaps a weakness in the Régles that there was not also a provision, which would appropriately form part of Article 25, expressly laying it down that the name of a nominal species is not invalidated by reason of that species being, when first published, a composite species consisting of two or more taxonomic species. The incorporation of the ruling given in Opinion 88 provided a convenient opportunity for the insertion of such a provision. There was clearly no need to incorporate in the Régles any provision relating to the status of a generic name iti a case where the type species was, when first published, an indeterminate composite nominal species, for once it was made clear that the name of such a nominal species was an available name and it was clearly laid down how the identity of such a composite species was to be determined, there could be no doubt as to the status of the name of a genus having such a species as its type species. At the conclusion of the discussion, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that a provision should be inserted at some appro- priate point in the Régles making it clear that a specific name is not invalidated by reason of the fact that, in the original description of the nominal species to which that name was applied, there were included descriptions either of two or more species or of parts of different animals belonging to two or more species ; (2) that words should be inserted in the revised text which it had been agreed should be inserted in the Reégles in place of the existing Article 31 to make it clear that the provisions of that Article applied not only to the case where the original description of a nominal species contained descriptions of two or more species but also to the case where the original description of such a species contained descriptions of parts of different animals belonging to two or more species. 27. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (a) in Article 30 of the Reégles given in Opinion 7 (which relates to the question of the type species of a genus established prior to 1st January, 1931, with the formula “n.g.,n.sp.’’), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 27 of the list con- tained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the fact that, although the obvious intention of the Commission in Opinion 7 was to lay down that, in the case of a genus with no designated type species, where the expression “ n.g., 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 153 n.sp.”’ was used in relation to one but not more than one of the included species, that Species was to be taken as the type species, the wording actually used in that Opinion applied also to the case where the foregoing expression was used in relation also to two or more species. In such a case the Opinion became meaningless, for it was impossible for a genus to have more than one species as its type species. It was important that, when this Opinion was codified, it should be made clear that the decision given in it applied only to the case where the expression “n.g., n.sp.’’ was used in relation to one but not more than one species. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-— that words should be inserted in the Reégles to make it clear that, where, prior to lst J. anuary, 1931, the name of a nominal genus was published without a designated or indicated type species, but the formula “n.g., Isp.” or an exactly equivalent formula was employed in relation to that nominal genus and to one but not more than one new nominal species described thereunder, the employment of such a formula is to be taken as constituting the designation of the nominal species in question as the type species of the nominal genus concerned. Article 30, Rule (c), 28. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the rive hoor = interpretation of Rule (c) in Article 30 of the Régles given genus for which in Opinion 47 (which relates to the type species of a genus cota hee gra which was not intended by its original author to be mono- the original author) typical but for which only one species was definitely cited by name at the time of the original publication of the generic name), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 28 in the list contained in Com- mission Paper 1.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear that, where a genus is established without a designated or indicated type species and only one nominal species is cited as being referable to that genus, the nominal species so cited is the type species of the genus by monotypy, irrespective of whether or not the author concerned regarded the genus as mono- typical. Article 30, Rule (d), fered quate Geir 1/099.) TEIN, COMMISION had under consideration the nominal genus, interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 of the Reégles given orb lt we in Opinion 18 (which relates to the questions whether it is - of which has necessary that, in order that the type species of a genus 154 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. a synonym Possessing a tautonymous trivial name not cited in the original publication) Article 30, Rule (d), and “ Opinion ” 16 (type species of a nominal genus of which an included nominal species had a pre-1758 tautony- mous univerbal specific name cited as a synonym) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 27) shall be determined by absolute tautonymy, the tautony- mous specific or subspecific trivial name must actually be cited in the original publication of the generic name), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 29 of the list contained in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, where, prior to lst January, 1931, a genus was established with no designated or indicated type species and one of the included nominal species had at that time either as its valid name or as a synonym a specific trivial name consisting of the same word as the generic name or had a subspecies the sub- specific trivial name of which consists of such a word, it is immaterial for the purposes of Rule (d) in Article 30 whether the tautonymous specific or subspecific trivial name was or was not cited in the original publication of the generic name. 30. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 of the Régles given in Opinion 16 (which relates to the type species of a genus established without a designated or indicated type species but containing a species for which a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name is cited as a synonym), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 30 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the fact that the wording employed in Opinion 16 suffered from a defect similar to that which had already been noted in Opinion 7. In the present case the Commission had clearly intended to lay down a rule that, where a genus established without an expressly designated type species had among its originally included species one for which a particular type of synonym was cited at the time of the original publication of the generic name, that species was to be treated as being the type species by absolute tautonomy. As drafted, however, Opinion 16 applied also to the case-where there were two or more originally included species for each of which a synonym of the special kind envisaged was cited. In such a case the ruling in Opinion 16 became meaningless, for no genus could have more than one species as its type species. In this case also it was important that, on codifica- tion, it should be made clear that the decision applied only to the case where one but not more than one of the originally included species was distinguished by having among its Article 30, Rule (f), and “ Opinion ” 35 (type species of a substitute genus where one or more of the originally included species were not cited under a binominal name) Article 30, Rule (zg), and “ Opinion ” 35 (type species of a Nominal species where one or more of the originally ‘included Species 6th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 155 cited synonyms a Synonym of the special kind dealt with in this Opinion. that words should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear that, where, prior to Ist January, 1931, a genus . Was established without a designated or indicated type species and where in the Synonymy cited for one, but there was cited a name which, prior to 1758, had been published as a univerba] specific name and that name mous univerbal specific name was cited as a synonym is the type species of the genus by absolute tautonymy, 31. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Regles given in the proposals in regard thereto submitted in Paragraph 3] of the list contained in Commission Paper T.C.(48)11, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :-_ that words should be inserted in the Reégles to make it clear that, where, prior to Ist January, 1931, a generic genus) and that for this purpose it is not necessary that the species so selected should have been cited under a binominal hame when originally cited either 32. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Régles given in 156 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. were not cited under a binominal name) Article 30, Rule (g), and “ Opinion ” 10 (type species of genera having identical limits) Article 30, Rule (zg), and “ Opinion ” 62 (a nominal species eligible for selection as the type species of more than one nominal genus) ~ eligibility of a species not originally cited under a binominal name for selection by a subsequent author as the type species of a genus), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 32 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, where, prior to Ist January, 1931, a genus was established without a designated or indicated type species, any of the species originally included in the genus is eligible for subsequent selection by the same or another author as the type species of the genus, irrespective of whether or not that species was cited under a binominal name at the time of the original publication of the generic name. 33. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Regles given in Opinion 10 (which relates to the type species of genera established with identical limits), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 33 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, where, prior to lst January, 1931, two or more genera with identical limits (i.e. with the same included nominal species) were formed independently by different authors and neither genus or none of the genera had a designated or indicated type species, any of the included nominal species may be subsequently selected by the same or another author to be the type species of either or all of the genera concerned. 34. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Régles given in Opinion 62 (which lays down the proposition that a nominal species which is the type species of one genus is not thereby excluded from selection to be the type species of another genus), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 34 of the list contained in Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that in the case of a genus established prior to Ist January, 1931, without a designated or indicated type species, any author may later select to be the type species of that genus any of the originally included Article 30 and “ Opinion ” 164 type species of a genus not affected by the subjective union of that genus with another genus) Article 30, Rule (g), and “ Opinion ” 6 (special method of selecting the type species of a genus established before 1931 with only two included species) Article 30, Rule (g), and “ Opinion” 14 (selection of a nominal species to be the type species of a genus not invalidated where 6th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 157 nominal species, irrespective of whether the nominal Species so selected may already be the type species of another nominal genus. 35. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Article 30 of the Reégles given in Opinion 164 (which lays it down that the type species of a genus is not subject to change upon the union of the genus concerned with another genus), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 35 of the list contained in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend _ that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, when two or more genera are subjectively united on taxonomic grounds, such union in no way affects the type species of the genera concerned, the combined genus so formed taking as its name the oldest available name of any of the nominal genera concerned and the genus bearing that name retaining as its type species the nominal species previously designated, indicated or selected as such. 36. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Regles given in Opinion 6 (which lays it down that the type species of a genus established without a designated or indicated type Species and containing two, but not more than two, originally included nominal species is automatically determined when one of the nominal species becomes the type species of a monotypical genus), together with the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 36 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, where, prior to Ist J anuary, 1931, a genus established without a designated or indicated typ® species contains two, but not more than two, originally included nominal species and later the same or another author designates or indicates one of those nominal species as the type species of a new monotypical genus, that action automatically constitutes the selection of the remaining species as the type species of the original genus. 37. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 given in Opinion 14 (which lays it down that, where an author, in selecting a nominal species to be the type species of a genus established - without a designated or indicated type species, himself 158 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the author making the selection him- self misidentifies the species which he so selects) Article 30 (all Rules) and “ Opinions ” 65 and 168 (the original author of a generic name to be assumed to have identified correctly the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named) misidentifies the species which he so selects, that error does not invalidate the selection of the type species so made) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 37 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, where, prior to lst January, 1931, a genus was established without a designated or indicated type species and at any time after the date of publication of the generic name in question an author selects one of the originally included nominal species to be the type species but, in doing so, himself misidentifies the species which he so selects, that selection is not invalidated by reason of the error so committed. 38. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the interpretation of Article 30 given in Opimons 65 and 168 (which lay down the proposition that an author who publishes a generic name is in the first instance to be assumed to have identified correctly the species referred by him to the genus so named) and the proposals in regard thereto submitted in paragraph 38 of the list contained in Commission Paper I.C.(48)11. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that words should be inserted in the Reégles to make it clear that an author who publishes a PURCHASED name for a genus is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be assumed to have identified 46 MAY 1858 correctly the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named and therefore that, where either the original author himself designates or indicates, or the same or some other author later selects, one of the originally included nominal species to be the type species of the genus, the designation, indication or, as the case may be, the selection so made, is not to be rejected on the ground that the original author of the generic name misidentified some other nominal species with that nominal species, but (2) that, where there were grounds for considering that such a species had been misidentified by the original author of the genus, the case was to be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature which, if satisfied that the species in question had been so misidentified, was, under its plenary powers, to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) THANKS TO _ U.N.E.S.C.O. a The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume. ae BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the completion of volume 1 and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 a Tae a0 Fee TS The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4.and 5 :— Volume 1: A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be published shortly. Volume 2: This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica- i‘ tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted ° by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- ¢ clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date. Volume 3: This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu- ree ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth 5. International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris 4 in July 1948. - 4 : Volume 4: This volume will be devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948. a Parts 1-9 have already been published and the remaining Parts beh are in the press. a Volume 5: At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International | Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication bolt of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature : J of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, Fuly 1948, f together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section : on Nomenclature. . _ INQUIRIES All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses:— = International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7, England. * International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Secretariat of the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. Pat: SS enn LEU ttn tte "i Printed in Great Britain by MeTcHIM AND Son, Ltp., Westminster, London (iv) the termination “ -arum” where the trivial name is based on the names of two or more women, each having the same surname ; (c) Where a trivial name is based upon the name of a modern personage and that personage is a woman whose surname ends in the letter “a’’, the trivial name based thereon should be formed by substituting the termination “ -ae”’ for the termination “ -a ” ; (d) Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of any of the following modern personages, that name should be formed as follows :— Modern surname Trivial name based on surname in column (1) (1) (2) Linnaeus or Linné ~— Linnaei_ (not linnaeusi or linnet) Fabricius fabrict (not fabriciust) Poda podae (not podat) (e) Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage and that surname ends with the letter ““q”, the letter “u” is to be inserted im- mediately after the letter “‘q” and before the appropriate genitival termination ; : (f) Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage and that surname is preceded by a nobiliar particle (e.g. the particle “de,” “di,” “von,” etc.), that particle is to be omitted when forming the trivial name in question (the correct form for a trivial name based, for example, upon the modern surname “de Lessert ” thus being lesserti not delesserti), save in those cases :— (i) where the particle is actually attached to the modern surname in question (as in the case of the surname “ Dujardin ’’) or where, by long ' custom, it forms an integral portion of the surname (as in the case of the surname “ De - Geer”), in either of which cases the particle is to be retained when forming a trivial name based upon the surname in question (the correct form for trivial names based upon the 202 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. modern surnames cited in the foregoing examples being in the first case dwardint (not jardini) and in the second case degeert (not geert) 5 (ii) where the particle consists either of the letters “Mac ” or “‘ Mc” or the letter ‘“‘ O ” followed, in the latter case, by an apostrophe, in either of which cases the particle and, in the second case, the apostrophe also, is to be retained when forming a trivial name based upon the surname in question, the first letter of the portion of the surname following the particle being written with a small letter (trivial names based upon the modern surnames MacCook and O’Connor thus taking the forms maccooki and o’connori respectively) ; (g) Where a trivial name is based upon a modern surname commencing with the particle “ Mc,” the letter ‘“‘a’’ should be inserted between the letter ““m” and the letter “c”’ ; (h) Where a trivial name is based upon a modern French surname and that surname is preceded by the definite article (“ le,” “la” or “les ’’) (as in the case of the surname “‘ Le Sueur’’), the definite article is to be incorporated in the trivial name (the correct form of trivial name in the example cited above thus being lesueuri, not sueurt) ; Where a trivial name is based upon a modern French surname and that name is preceded first by the particle “‘de’’ and second by the definite article “la”, the definite article is to be incorporated in the trivial name but not the particle “ de ” (the correct form for a trivial name based on the surname “de la Roche” thus being larochei not delarocher); Where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage and that surname consists of two surnames linked together by a hyphen, one only of the two names in question should be selected when forming the trivial name in question, preference being given to the better known of the two surnames in question (for example, in forming a trivial name based on the surname of the French naturalist Guérin-Méneville, preference should normally be given to the name Guérin, by which this naturalist was commonly known, rather than to Méneville, the trivial name formed being thus guérini, though the trivial name ménevillet would also be permissible) Tth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 203 (k) Where a trivial name is based upon the name of a Christian Saint, the qualifying adjective (Saint, Sainte, Sancti, Sancto, San, etc.) should be excluded from the trivial name, a trivial name based upon the name of Saint Remy thus taking the form remy?). In the discussion which ensued the following points were made :— (i) (ii) (iii) Proposal (a): The first part of this proposal dealt with a matter which was already covered by Article 14, though only inferentially, and it was certainly desirable that an express provision should be inserted to deal with it. The second part of this proposal dealt with a matter on which the Régles were at present silent. It was certainly a defect that no distinction should be made in Article 14 between “ prénoms”’ on the one hand and surnames on the other in the case of names of modern personages where those names were selected to form the basis of a trivial name. The proposal submitted was desirable and should be accepted. It would be necessary for the new Article to deal separately. with names of Latin and Greek origin and to provide that the latter should follow the rules of Greek declension. Proposal (b): This proposal was in the main a restatement of the existing provision in Article 14. It was however an improvement on the existing text, both because it made it clear that the provisions in question applied only to the sur- names of modern personages and also because it gave clearer and more precise directions regarding the terminations to be attached to the end of a modern surname, when it was decided to use that surname as the basis of a trivial name formed in the genitive case. It was pointed out, however, that there was one situation which had not been covered, namely where it was desired to form a trivial name based upon the surname of two or more persons and those persons were of different sex. Clearly, in such a case the normal rule of Latin grammar should be applied and the termination to be selected should be in the masculine gender. This should be made clear when Article 14 is redrafted. Proposal (c) : The question raisedin this proposal required consideration, for although the addition of the “‘ -ae” to a feminine name which ended in International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (v (vi — — the letter “‘a’’ was both inharmonious and ano- malous, it was felt that further study of the implications of the proposal was desirable before a recommendation on-this subject was submitted to the Congress. Proposal (d): This proposal was warmly wel- comed, it being felt that it would be absurd to insist that a trivial name based upon the name of Linnaeus should take the form linnaeusi, though, as the name Linnaeus was a modern surname, this was what was required by the existing provisions of Article 14. It was obvious that special provision would need to be made for exceptional cases of this kind. It was likely that experience would show the need for adding to the list of exceptions in this matter. Proposal (e): This proposal was also warmly welcomed. It was a barbarism, in any system of nomenclature which purported to use the Latin language to permit the existence of words in which the letter ““q” was followed by any letter other than the letter “u”’. The fact that this matter was not dealt with in the existing text of the Régles was no doubt due to inadver- tence on the part of the original draftsmen. Proposal (f): A long discussion took place on the first part of this proposal. It was agreed that in principle the proposal was well founded but the evidence brought forward showed that in some languages (for example, in Italian) it would be impossible in practice to apply a provision of the kind suggested. The second part of this proposal met with general approval. (vii) Proposal (g): It was considered that, although logical, this proposal was misconceived, for it was explained that it was often no matter of accident whether a surname of the classin question started with the letters “Mac” or “Mc”. It was agreed however that it should be made clear at an appropriate point in the Régles that, where the foregoing was the only difference in spelling between two surnames, the publication of a trivial name based upon one such name (say, the trivial name maccooki based upon the sur- name MacCook) would render invalid as a homo- nym a later published trivial name based upon the other surname (e.g. a name mccooki based 7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 205 upon the name McCook would in such circum- stances be invalid). (viii) Proposal (h) : General agreement was expressed with this proposal. It should be extended to cover modern surnames of French origin as well as modern French surnames. (ix) Proposal (i): It was felt that further study of the probable effects of a rule of the kind proposed was desirable before a proposal thereon was submitted to the Congress. (x) Proposal (j): This proposal was logical but it was considered that in this case also further study was required before a proposal was sub- mitted to the Congress. It would be necessary to co-ordinate any provision on the lines sug- gested with the existing provisions relating to the formation of trivial names based upon the names of places. It would probably be found that, while there were many trivial names based upon the names of places (e.g. St. Helena), the first portion of which, when Latinised, started with the adjective sanctus or sancta (as in Sancta Helena), the number of trivial names actually selected for the purpose of honouring Saints was very small. THE COMMISSION :— (1) agreed to recommend that Article 14 should be redrafted to such extent as might be necessary to provide :— (a) that a trivial name formed in the genitive case which is based either (i) upon the name of a personage of Classical Antiquity (in- cluding gods, goddesses and mythological characters) or (ii) upona “prénom” (i.e. any name borne by a person in addition to his or her surname) of a modern personage, whether living or dead, in any case where that first name is of Latin or Greek origin, should follow the rules of Latin declension in the case of a name of Latin origin and the rules of Greek declension in the case of a name of Greek origin ; (b) that a trivial name based upon the surname of a modern personage, whether living or dead, including a trivial name based upon a surname of Latin or Greek origin, should, subject to the provisions of (c) and (d) 206 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. below, consist of the exact surname of the person concerned, to which should be added the appropriate termination in the genitive case, that is to say :— (i) in the case of a trivial name based on the surname of a man, the ter- mination “ -1”’ ; (ii) in the case of a trivial name based on the surname of a woman, the ter- mination “‘ -ae”’ ; (ii) in the case of a trivial name based on the surname of two or more persons having the same surname, where one or*more of the persons is a man, the termination ‘“‘ -orum ”’ ; (iv) in the case of a trivial name based on the surname of two or more persons having the same surname, where all the persons concerned are women, the termination “‘ -arum ” ; (c) that, where a trivial name is based upon the (d) ~— surname of any of the undermentioned modern personages, that name should be formed as follows :— Surname of modern Trivial name based personage on surname specified in Column (1) (1) (2) Linnaeus (Linné) —_ linnae? (not linnaeusi or linnet) Fabricius fabrictt (not fabriciust) Poda podae (not podaz) that, where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage and that surname ends with the letter “q”’, the letter ““u”’ is to be inserted between the letter “q’”’ and the appropriate genitival termination ; that, where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage and the first portion of that surname consists either (i), of the particle “Mac” or “Me” or (ii) of a particle composed of the letter “ O ” followed by an apostrophe, the particle, in the first case, and the particle and the 7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 207 apostrophe in the second case, is to be retained in the trivial name, the first letter of the remaining portion of the surname being written with a small letter, trivial names based, for example, on the modern surnames “ MacCook” and “ O’Connor % thus taking the form of maccooki and o’con- nori respectively ; (f) that, where a trivial name is based upon a modern French surname or upon a modern surname of French origin and that surname is preceded by the definite article (“le”, “Ja”, or “les’’). (as in the surname, “Te Sueur”), the definite article is to be incorporated in the trivial name (the correct form of a trivial name based on the surname cited in the foregoing example thus being lesueurt not sueurt) ; (2) agreed to postpone for further consideration the undermentioned proposals :— (a) that, where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage and that personage is a woman whose surname ends in the letter “‘a”’, the trivial name so based should be formed by substituting the termination “-ae” for the existing termina- fou as (b ~— that, where a trivial name is based upon a modern French surname or upon a modern surname of French origin and that surname is preceded first by the particle “de” and second by the definite article ee the definite article is to be incorporated ‘n the trivial name but not the particle “de”, the correct form of a trivial name based, for example, on the French surname “De la Roche” thus being larocher not delarochet ; - (c) that, where a trivial name is based upon the name of a Christian Saint, the qualifying adjective sanctus should be omitted from the trivial name, the correct form of a trivial name based, for example, on the name of St. Remy thus being remyt; (3) agreed to reject the undermentioned proposals :— (a) that, where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage and that VOL. 4 0 208 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. surname is preceded by a nobiliar particle (e.g. the particle “de”, “di”, “von”, etc.), that particle is to be omitted when forming the trivial name (the correct form of a trivial name based, for example, on the modern surname “de Lessert”’ thus being lesserti not delesserti), save in those cases where the particle is actually attached to the modern surname in question (as, for example, in the case of the surname “Dujardin ”’) or, where, by long custom, it forms an integral portion of the surname (as, for example, in the case of the surname “De Geer ’’), in either of which cases the particle is to be retained when forming a trivial based thereon, the correct form for trivial names based, for example, on the modern surnames cited above being in the first case dwjardini (not jardin) and in the second case degeeri (not geert) ; (b) that, where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage which commences with the particle “Mc”, the letter ‘“‘a’’ should be inserted between the letter “‘m”’ and the letter “c”’; (4) agreed to recommend that provision should be made in the Article which was to replace the existing Article 35 to secure that, where a trivial name is based upon the surname of a modern personage, the first part of which con- sists of the particle “Mac” or “‘ Mc”, as the case may be, the trivial name so formed is to be rejected as a homonym if there is a species or subspecies which was either originally described, or is now placed, in the same genus, which is based upon the surname of another modern personage which is identical with the surname on which the later published trivial name is based, save that the first part of the surname consists, as the case may be, of the particle “Mc” or the particle ‘‘ Mac” and that a corresponding addition should be made to Article 34 in relation to generic names so formed ; (5) agreed to recommend that a Recommandation should be added to Article 15, urging any author, when proposing to publish a trivial name based upon the surname of a modern personage, whose surname is a compound name consisting Seventeen Propositions submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) : review of position regarding VOL. 4 0? 7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 209 of two surnames, whether or not, linked together by a hyphen, to give serious con- sideration, in the interests of brevity in nomen- clature, to the possibility of basing the trivial hame upon one only of the two surnames of which the compound surname is composed, and, if this course is found to be feasible, to give preference to whichever is the better known of the surnames in question (for example, if it were decided to base a trivial name upon the surname ** Guérin-Méneville ” but to make use for this purpose of one only of the surnames of which that compound surname is com- posed, preference should be given to the name “-Guérin’’ by which this French naturalist was commonly known rather than to the name * Méneville”, the trivial name selected being thus guérini, though the trivial name ménevillet would in such a case also be permissible. ) 12. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) suggested that it would be convenient if at this stage the Commission were to review the position reached in regard to the propositions, seventeen in number, which had been submitted to them by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) for consideration, if possible, during the present (Paris) Session. The propositions in question! were concerned with the following matters :— (1) the question whether the names published in Clerck’s Aranei svecici should be made available for nomenclatorial purposes, notwithstanding the fact that they were published in 1757, i.e. before the starting point of zoological nomenclature as pre- scribed in Article 26 of the Regles (file Z.N. (S.) 238) ; (2) the insertion in the Regles of a provision recognising a Law of Prescription which would prevent the Law of Priority from upsetting well-established names in favour of names which had long been forgotten (file Z.N. (S.) 359) ; the partial suspension of the Law of Homonymy for the purpose of protecting well-established generic names (file Z.N. (S.) 359) ; (4) the deletion from Article 13 of the option to use a capital when writing the first letter of certain trivial names (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ; (3 ~~ ? For the text of Professor Bonnet’s propositions, see 1950 , Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 1: 171-199, 210 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (5) the insertion in Articles 14 and 15 of provisions designed to remove certain ambiguities and to fill in certain gaps (file Z.N. (8.) 352) ; (6) the insertion of a Recommandation in Article 11, urging authors not to publish trivial names consist- ing of words already used as such for species in allied genera, families or Orders (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ; (7) the deletion from Article 15 of the option to use a hyphen joining together the two parts of a com- pound trivial name (file Z.N. (S. 352) ; (8) the insertion of three new Articles dealing with the formation of compound trivial names (file Z.N. (S.) 390) ; (9) the agreement of trivial names, when adjectives, with the gender of the generic names with which they combined (file Z.N. (8.) 352) ; (10) the insertion in the Reégles of a new Article dealing with polymorphism of certain words used as trivial names (file Z.N. (S.) 356) ; (11) the need for co-ordination of the provisions of Articles 19 and 32 of the eégles (file Z.N. (S8.) 352) ; (12) the need for avoiding the selection, as names, of words which were either inharmonious or unduly long or which carried a bizarre meaning (files Z.N. (S.) 297 and 352) ; (13) the amendment and clarification of Article 22 (file Z.N. (S.) 352) ; (14) the deletion from Article 14 of the obsolete Recommandation relating to the abbreviation of authors’ names (file Z.N. (8.) 352) ; (15) the addition to Article 14 of a provision relating to the formation of adjectival trivial names having a geographical meaning and ending in the termination “-ensis”’ (file Z.N. (8.) 391) ; (16) the modification of the Recommandation to Article 20 of the Regles (file Z.N. (S.) 392) ; (17) a minor amendment. of the document which at present figures as Section “F” of the Appendice to the Regles (file Z.N. (S.) 393). Continuing, the Acting President said that, in view of the importance of, and the wide interest taken in, Professor Bonnet’s Proposition 1, he proposed in his capacity as President of the Section, to call upon Professor Bonnet to make a statement on Clerck’s Arachnid names at an early meeting of the Section. He further proposed that, in the 7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 211 light of the general discussion so afforded, the Commission should consider this proposal in detail at a later meeting during the present Session. Professor Bonnet’s Propositions 2 and 3 were closely related to one another and could be conveniently considered together with the proposal on the same subject which stood in the name of Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark). These three proposals would, therefore, be considered in the first instance at a meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, after which the Commission would be asked to formulate recommendations for the approval of the Section. The Commission had already taken decisions on the issues raised in Professor Bonnet’s Propositions 4 and 14 and on the first and third parts of his Proposition 12, when they had had Paper I.C.(48) 11 under consideration, while Propositions 5, 6, and 7 and been dealt with at the present meeting. He (the Acting President) proposed to deal, in papers shortly to be circulated in the I.C.(48) series, with Professor Bonnet’s Propositions 9, 11, 13, and the second part of his Proposition 12. He suggested therefore that the consideration of these Propositions should be deferred until the relevant I.C.(48) papers were available. The subject dealt with in Professor Bonnet’s Proposition 10 was closely connected with the general problem raised by Article 19 and he (the Acting President) suggested therefore that the subject raised by Professor Bonnet in this Proposition should be referred to the general study of Article 19 which, when considering Paper I.C.(48)11, the Commission had agreed should be undertaken by the Secretary to the Commission before the next meeting of the Congress. The Acting President suggested that the consideration of the remaining Propositions submitted) by Professor Bonnet (namely Propositions 8 and 15-17) should be deferred until after the close of the present Congress. THE COMMISSION agreed :— as regards the 17 propositions submitted by Professor ‘Pierre Bonnet :— (a) that, in view of the decisions already taken, no further action was called for as regards the propositions numbered 4 to 7 and 14 and the first and third parts of the proposition num- bered 12 ; (b) that, having regard to the close connection between the subject dealt with in the proposi- tion numbered: 10 and the general problem yd - raised by Article 19, the question raised in (Previous reference: 86i that proposition should be included among the Paris Session, 6th eat : : : : Meeting, Conan - questions ‘to be studied in the examination 15) pike of Article 19 which it had been agreed at the bo bo Article 18 (nomenclature of hybrids): drafting amendments (Previous reference : Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 5) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. meeting noted in the margin should be under- taken by the Secretary to the Commission with a view to the consideration of the whole matter during the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress ; (c) that the propositions numbered 1 to 3, 9, 11 and 13, together with the second part of the pro- position numbered 12, should be considered at later meetings during the present Session in the manner proposed by the Acting President ; (d) that the consideration of the propositions numbered 8 and 15 to 17 should be deferred until after the close of the present Session of meetings. 13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N. (S.) 21) for the insertion of certain drafting amendments in the provisions of Article 18, relating to the nomenclature of hybrids submitted by Dr. Hans Bytinsky-Salz (Rovigno d’Istria), together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (24) of Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)14. It was explained that the sole object of this proposal was to eliminate certain drafting defects in the existing - text of Article 18 of the Régles. This proposal which had been published in 1933 (Int. Ent. Z.27: 153-162) had been received by the Commission later in the same year. It was unfortunate that they had not found it possible to deal with this application at their meeting held in Lisbon in 1935. It should be made clear also that a specific name given under Article 18(d) was subject to all the provisions governing specific names. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that Article 18 of the Régles should be amended in the manner indicated below :— (a) Section (a), at end add:—‘‘In the case of a hybrid between two species belonging to the same genus, the trivial names of the two parents united by the sign of multiplication may be placed in round brackets (parentheses) and cited immediately after the name of the common genus. Example: Tetrao (tetrix x urogallus).” (b) Section (b), at end:—Substitute the words ‘‘ who first published a description of the hybrid as such” for the words “ who first recognised the hybrid torm as such”; Names published either anony- mously or over initials only : status under the Law of Priority Tth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 213 (c) Section (ec), after the example at present cited: add the words :— Tetrao tetrix or —————————-_ x Gallus gallus” Tetrao urogallus ce (d ~— Section (d), at the beginning :—Substitute the words ‘“‘ When the identity of either of the parents of a hybrid is not incontestably established both as to species and sex” for the words “ when the parents of a hybrid are not known as such” and after the words “ specific name” add the words: “a name so given being subject to all the provisions governing specific names.” 14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the status of names (generic and trivial) published either anonymously or over initials only (file Z.N. (S.) 84) and in this connection had before them a note submitted by the Secretary in Point (25) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. It was clearly most undesirable that new names should be published either anonymously or over initials only, for the publication of a name in this way made it difficult for later authors clearly to cite that name. On the other hand there was nothing in the existing text of Article 25 (Law of Priority) to suggest, still less to prescribe, that a name published in this way forfeited the rights which it would otherwise have possessed under the Law of Priority. It was suggested that Article 25 should be amended to secure that in future a name so published should have no rights under the Law of Priority until such later date as it was republished by an author whose name was stated in the paper in which the name was so re-published. It was felt, however, that it would not be practicable or desirable to give retroactive effect to this provision, for in the older literature there was a number of important books which had been published anonymously. One example of such a book was the celebrated work on the Lepidoptera of Europe, commonly known as the “ Vienna Catalogue’ which was published anonymously in 1775 by (as was now known) the two Viennese priests Schiffermiiller and Denis. If this book were to be ruled out for the purposes of the Law of Priority, numerous well-known names would cease to be available, the type localities of many other species would have to be changed and great confusion would ensue. It was accordingly proposed that the new provision ruling out for availability names until they-had been published in a work, in which the author’s name was given should come into effect as from the same future date as that selected as 214 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the date on which other new provisions now proposed to be inserted in the Régles should become operative. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that Article 25 should be amended in such a way as to make it clear :— (a) that, when, prior to midnight Greenwich (b) (c) Mean Time, 31st December 1950/1st Janu- ary 1951, a name belonging to a category, to which Article 25 applies, is published anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials only, that name, notwithstanding its having been so published, is to be accepted as having availability under Article 25, provided that its manner of -publication satisfies the requirements speci- fied in that Article ; : that, when, subsequent to the point of time specified in (a) above, a name belonging to a category, to which Article 25 applies, is published anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials only, that name is to have no availability under Article 25 until such later date as it is re-published by the same or some other author in a book or paper in which that author’s name is given ; that the fact of re-publication by a named author shall be sufficient to confer avail- ability upon the name in question for the purposes of Article 25, provided either :— (i) that the author by whom the name is republished complies, when so doing, with the requirements specified in Provisos (b) and (c) to Article 25, or (ii) in cases where the foregoing require- ments had been duly complied with in the earlier book or paper in which the name had been published anony- mously, over a pseudonym or over initials only, that the author by whom the name is republished cites, when so doing, a_ bibliographical reference to the book or paper in which the name had _ previously been published anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials only ; (d) that, when a name originally published anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials acquires availability under Article 25 7th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 215 through being republished in the manner specified in (c) above, that name shall rank for purposes of priority as from the date on which* it so acquired’ such availability and shall be attributed to the author of the book or paper, the publication of which conferred that availability upon the name in question ; (2) that a Recommandation should be inserted in the portion of Article 25 containing the provisions specified in (1) above, recommending authors, when citing a book or paper which was published anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials only, but the author of which is known from other sources or when citing the name of a taxonomic unit published in such a book or paper prior to the date specified in (1)(a) above, to place square brackets round the name of the author of the book or paper concerned or, as the case may be, round the name of the author of the taxonomic unit cited, in order to indicate that the work or hame concerned had originally been published anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials only ; (3) that a Recommandation should be added to the _ portion of Article 25 containing the provisions specified in (1) above recommending that every author, on validating a name previously published anonymously, over a pseudonym or over initials only by republishing that name in the manner specified in (1) above, should make it clear in the book or paper concerned that he is conferring availability upon the name in question and should notify the fact that availability under Article 25 has been so conferred upon the name in question to a literature-recording serial such as the “ Zoological Record” as soon as possible after the publication of the book or paper concerned, either by sending to that serial a marked copy of that book or paper or otherwise, so that the fact that the name in question has acquired availability under Article 25 may be recorded in the next issue of that serial . (4) that the provisions in (1) to (3) above should apply, mutatis mutandis to names formed under Article 4. Article 25 15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a Gaconine of = historical account of the deliberations of the Commission “divulgué dans une since 1910 on the question of the meaning to be attached publication ”) to the expression “ divulgué dans une publication ”’ as used in Article 25, submitted by the Secretary to the Commission. 216 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. together with proposals for action, in Point (26) in Com mission Paper I.C.(48)14. The lack of an authoritative definition of what consti- tutes publication for the purposes of zoological nomenclature was a constant source of difficulty for zoologists, and the failure of the Commission adequately to grapple with this problem had led to much well-merited criticism. A start had been made in 1910 (in Opinion 15) and the matter had been carried a little further two years later when in 1912 Opinion 51 had been published. Nothing more was done in this matter until some years after the close of the war of 1914-18. In the late twenties, however, the subject was extensively discussed between the members of the Com- mission and in 1930 this subject (which by then had been given the reference number ‘“ 1930H ’’) was the subject of a tentative proposal which had shortly before been published by Dr. C. W. Stiles, then Secretary to the Commission (Trans. IV int. Congr. Entom. : 628-629). Though brought before the Commission at their meeting held in Padua in 1930, this matter was not discussed at that meeting. It was not even placed on the Agenda for the Lisbon meeting in 1935. Although the proposal put forward in 1930 had been shelved at that time, the proposal itself raised a number of valuable points to which careful consideration had been given during the recent re-examination of this subject. The correspondence which had led up to that proposal (file Z.N.(8.)84), though incomplete, had also proved of great interest. The proposition laid down in 1910 (in Opinion 15) was that: ‘‘ Publication, in the sense of the Code, consists in the public issue of printed matter.” In 1912 (in Opinion 51) the Commission had re-stated the proposition enunciated two years earlier and had added: “ The qualifying word “public * in this definition indicates that the printed matter in question is not intended for special persons only or for a hmited time, but that it is given to the world, or used in the nature of a permanent record.” In the 36 years which had elapsed since the publication of the more recent of these Opinions, a development had occurred which had not been anticipated by the Commission, namely the publication—if it could properly be called “ publication ”—of new names in books and papers reproduced by some method (e.g. photographic and lithographic processes of various kinds, mimeographing and similar systems) other than printing. Some of these methods were extremely unsatisfactory but others attained a high degree of technical excellence. It would be unreasonable to accept new names appearing in papers reproduced by methods falling in the first of these Tth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 217 classes, but it would be equally unreasonable to reject new names appearing in papers reproduced by methods falling in the second of these classes, some of the methods of repro- duction being fully as good as printing, the finished paper being indeed better than some papers reproduced by actual printing. The preliminary definitions given in 1910 and 1912 needed, therefore, to be reviewed from this point of view. The proposals now submitted had been the subject of extensive consultations with specialists, both by corres- pondence and by personal] discussion notably during the visit paid by the Secretary to the United States and Canada at the end of 1947. These consultations had led to certain modifications of the proposals previously considered. For example, it was evident that it would not be appropriate to require that, in order for a paper to qualify as having been ‘‘ published,” at least some copies must have been placed on sale, for it had then been ascertained that certain University institutions in the United States distributed the whole edition of their publications free of charge, no copies being placed on sale. It would clearly be wrong so to define “publication” as to render invalid, because not “ pub- lished,’” new names appearing in papers which had been “ divulgués ” in this way. Finally, the whole subject had been carefully reviewed in order to exclude provisions of a “ ritualistic ’’ character, that is to say technical provisions, the non-compliance with which would have the effect of invalidating names. With this object in view, the proposals had been drawn up in two groups: (1) mandatory provisions specifying the minimum standard which must be complied with in order to enable a book or paper to qualify as having been published and therefore to ensure that a new name which appears therein had been duly “ divulgué dans une publication ”’ ; (2) non- mandatory provisions to be inserted in Article 25 as Recommandations setting out the ideal standard to be aimed at. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend :— (a) that, either in Article 25 or at some other appropriate point in the Régles, there should be inserted provisions prescribing :— (i) that a name made public, prior to midnight G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time), 31st December, 1950/1st Janu- ary, 1951, is to be deemed to have been made public in a publication 218 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (ii) (“ divulgué dans une publication ’’) only if the document containing the name satisfies both of the following conditions :— (a) it must have been reproduced either by printing or by some other mechanical method of reproduction which secures that every copy is identical with every other copy ; (8) it must be a document issued for purposes of record and therefore of consultation by interested persons and must accordingly not be a document issued for exclusive considera- tion by special persons only, or only for particular purposes or for a limited time ; that a name made public, subsequent to the point of time specified in (i) above, is to be deemed to have been made public in a_ publication (‘‘ divulgué dans une publication”’), only if the document containing the name satisfies all of the following conditions :— («) it must have been made public in conditions which satisfy the requirements both of section (2) and of section (8) of (i) above ; = it must be reproduced on paper, and with ink, of quality and durability sufficient to offer a reasonable prospect of per- manency ; . (y) where the document containing the name is distributed by, or on behalf of, its author to certain selected persons, at least some copies must also be placed on sale or made avail- able for issue free of charge to any institution or person who may apply for a copy ; Tth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 219 (b) (c ~— » (iii) that, where there is any reasonable doubt as to whether a given book or paper has been made public in con- ditions which satisfy the requirements of section (i) or section (i) above, as the case may be, and therefore as to whether new names contained therein have been made public in a publica- tion (“ divulgué dans une publica- tion’’), the question should be referred forthwith to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision ; that, associated with the provisions specified in (a) above, provisions should be inserted in the Regles making it clear that a new name is not to be deemed to have been made public in a publication (“ divulgué dans une publication ”) if the only action or actions to make that name public consists of :— (i) the deposit of the paper containing the new name in a public library or in the library of a scientific institution, however that document may have been reproduced ; (ii) the mention of the new name in a paper presented orally before a meeting of any kind ; (iii) the affixing of the new name on the label attached to a museum specimen; that the provisions specified in (b) above should be linked with the undermentioned provisions which it had already been agreed at the present Session should be inserted in the Régles, namely the provisions relating to the status of a new name when the only action taken to make that name public consists of :— (i) the distribution of printer’s proof sheets of the book or paper containing the new name (Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 19(a) ) 5 (ii) the distribution of separata in advance of the appearance of the paper in question in the book or serial, for ‘nclusion in which it was printed (Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Con- clusion 19(b) ) ; 220 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (iii) the introduction of the new name in a note in explanation of a photograph or other illustration, where that note and accompanying photograph or other illustration is merely dis- tributed by the author to colleagues or students or inserted by him in separates of a paper which did not itself contain the new name accom- panied by an indication (Paris Session 6th Meeting, Conclusion 19(c) ) ; the inclusion of the new name in a book or paper published anony- mously or over a pseudonym or initials only, where that book or paper is published subsequent to midnight (G.M.T.), 31st December, 1950/Ist January, 1951 (Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 14(1)(b)) ; (iv ~— (d) that there should be added to the provisions ~— specified in (a) above a Recommandation, urging institutions and individuals respon- sible for the publication of books and papers affecting the status of names to secure that there appears in the book or, as the case may be, the part of the book or serial affecting, or comprising papers affecting, such names, a clear statement specifying :— (i) the name of the institution, firm or individual responsible for publishing the book or serial concerned ; (ii) the address from which the book or serial concerned may be purchased or, where the book or serial is not placed on sale, the address from which a free copy may be obtained ; (iii) the price for which a copy may be purchased, in those cases where the book or serial is placed on sale ; that there should be added to the provisions specified in (a) above a Recommandation urging institutions, authors and other persons responsible for the publication of books and serials on zoological or palaeontological subjects to avoid publish- ing anything affecting the status of names Tth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 221 in books or serials reproduced by any method other than printing ; (f) that there should be added to the provisions specified in (a) above a Recommandation urging authors not to publish in the non- scientific press zoological or palaeontological papers containing new names ; (g) that the first sentence (relating to the languages recommended as the only lan- guages to be used for describing new it: systematic units) of Section “A” of the rai aia Appendice to the Régles (in future to be 4th Meeting, known, in accordance with the decision apa at) (2) noted in margin, as the “‘ Second Schedule ” to the Régles) should be deleted and that, in order to give greater prominence to this important question, there should be added to Article 25 a Recommandation urging that in every book or paper containing the name of a new genus, subgenus, species, subspecies or infra-subspecific form or a new name for any unit belonging to any of the foregoing categories, the existing name of which requires to be replaced under the Law of Homonymy, the description, definition or indication published for the unit to which the new name is given should be published in one or other of the five following languages, namely, German, English, French, Italian or Latin, in addition to the language in which the book or paper is written, when that language is not one of the five languages specified above ; (2) to repeal Opinions 15 and 51 for interpretative purposes. Names of new 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a taxonomic units communication submitted by Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt ee. in advance (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) regarding the of the paper or of the status of names published in abstracts in advance of the Scere tpi paper containing the description of the new taxonomic description of the Unit concerned (file Z.N.(S.)262), together with a proposal new unit: status of on this subject submitted by the Secretary to the Com- mission in Point (27) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. Formerly, new names had often been published by learned societies in abstracts printed and distributed before _ the meeting at which the paper containing the new names 222 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Generic and trivial names first published in keys: status of was to be presented. This practice had led to difficulties, for it had often involved the publication either of nomina nuda or of names of genera and species so inadequately characterised that it was a matter of doubt and dispute whether the name had been published with an indication, within the meaning of Article 25 of the Regles. It had, moreover, often been a matter of difficulty to determine whether a new name made public in this way had been “ divulgué dans une publication’ within the meaning of Article 25 and therefore whether it possessed any avail- ability under the Law of Priority. This method of publish- ing new names was open to strong objection and should be discouraged. Similar objections applied to the publication of a new name in an abstract or summary at the head of a paper and to the publication of a new name in the intro- ductory portion of a paper in advance of the description of the new taxonomic unit concerned. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that a Recommandation should be added to Article 25 of the Régles, urging institutions and individuals responsible for the publication of books or papers containing new names to refrain from publishing those names for the first time either (1) in abstracts issued in advance of the publication of the book or paper containing the description of the taxonomic unit so named or (2) in abstracts placed at the head of the book or paper containing the description of the new taxonomic unit or in the introductory portions of the book or paper concerned in advance of the actual description of the new taxonomic unit. 17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a communication submitted- by Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) regarding the status of generic and trivial names first published in keys (file Z.N.(S.)262), together with a proposal on this subject submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (28) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. It would clearly be wrong to refuse to accept names of new genera er species when those names were first published in keys. Nevertheless, this method of publishing new names was open to objection, for this method of publication made it difficult, and, in the case of trivial names, virtually impossible, properly to comply with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. It was desirable therefore that this method of publishing new names should be discouraged. Article 25 (criteria to be adopted in determining the date of publication of a given book or paper) (Previous reference, Paris Session, ith Meeting, Conclusion 15) VOL. 4 P Tth Meeting; Paris, July, 1948. 223 THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that a Recommandation should be added to Article 25 urging authors not to publish new names for the first time in keys, or, if it were desired to publish such names in a book or paper which contained, or consisted primarily of, a key, to publish those names with accompanying descriptions at the beginning of the book or paper concerned and in advance of the key. 18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a note on the question of the criteria to be adopted in determining the date of publication of a given book or paper, submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (29) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. It was explained that the question of the meaning of the expression “date of publication” and the criteria to be adopted for determining, for any given book or paper, what was the date of its publication, had received some considera- tion from the Commission when, during the inter-war years, they had examined the cognate problem of the criteria to be adopted for determining whether or not a given book or paper had been published at all and therefore whether new names appearing therein had been duly made public in a publication (“divulgué dans une publication”’) for the purposes of Article 25 (file Z.N.(S.)84). No effective progress had, however, been made in this matter and zoologists had been left without any guidance as to the line which they should follow when it was impossible to deter- mine with certainty the relative dates either of two names, each applying to the same unit, or of the same name applied to different taxonomic units. The object of the present proposals was to fill this gap by inserting in the Regles simple rules which followed the general lines of the unofficial practice of zoologists in this matter. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— the insertion in or near Article 25 of the following provisions :— (a) the date on which copies of a work (the expression “work” for the purpose of the present provision and of provisions (b) and (c) below, to include any independent work or serial publication or, in either case, a volume or part thereof) produced in con- ditions which constitute publication are mailed to subscribers or are placed on sale or, where the whole edition is distributed free of charge, are mailed to institutions and individuals to whom such free copies are normally distributed, is to be taken to be the date of publication of that work. (b) where a work bears a date purporting to specify or to indicate the date of publication, that date is to be deemed to be correct, unless and until evidence is published showing that date to be incorrect, in which 224 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. case the work or any specified portion thereof is to be deemed to have been published on the latest date (whether earlier or later than the date specified or indicated in the work itself) that is compatible with the evidence so adduced ; (c) where there is no evidence to suggest that the date specified or indicated in a given work is incorrect, the date as on which that work is to be deemed to have been published is to be determined in ac- cordance with the following rules :— (i) (it) (iii) (iv) a work which bears a statement of the year, month and day of publication is to be deemed to have been published on the date so specified ; a work which bears a statement of the year and month, but not of the day of publication is to be deemed to have been published on the last day of the month so specified, save where evidence is published showing that. publica- tion took place during the month in question on some day prior to the last day, in which case the work in question is to be deemed to have been published on the latest day compat- ible with the evidence so adduced ; a work which bears a statement of the year but not of the month and day of publication is to be deemed to have been published on the last day of the last month of that year, save where evidence is published showing that publication of the whole or of some portion or portions of the work concerned took place during the year in question but prior to the last day thereof, in which case the work or the portion or portions concerned is, or are, to be deemed to have been published on the latest date compatible with the evidence so adduced, any portion of such a work. in respect of which no such supplementary evidence regarding the date of publication is forthcoming is to be deemed, as provided above, to have been published on the last day of the last month of the year concerned ; a work which contains no evidence regarding the date on which it was published, except a range of years, specified on the title page or elsewhere, is to be deemed to have been published on the last day of the last month of the later, or, as the case may be, the latest of the years so specified, save that, where evidence is published showing that a portion, or that portions, of that work, was, or, as the case may be, were, published prior to the date specified above, each portion concerned is to be deemed to have been published on the latest date compatible with the evidence so adduced, any portion of the work in respect of which no such supplementary evidence regarding the date of publication is forth- coming to be deemed, as provided above, to have been published on the last day of the last month of the later, or, as the case may be, the latest of the years specified in the range of years given in work concerned ; (d) where a work contains no direct evidence regarding the date on which it, or any portion of it, was pub- lished, the date of publication is to be determined a ee Date of publication of a name: method of citation recommended VOL. 4 Pp? ith Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 225 by reference to such evidence as may be available from other sources, including evidence afforded by the date of publication of the first published book or serial publication or portion thereof containing a reference to the work in question or any portion thereof, the date to be adopted as the date of pub- lication to be the latest date compatible with such evidence. 19. THE COMMISSION turned next to consider the proposals for the insertion in the Regles of Recommandations regarding the method of notation to be adopted by authors when citing the date of publication of a given name, for the purpose of distinguishing between (1) a date expressly specified in the volume in which the name concerned was first published, (2) a date ascertained from indirect evidence obtained from an examination of the volume in question, and (3) a date ascertained solely by reference to external sources (file Z.N.(S.)84). In this connection, the Commission had before them certain proposals submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in the second portion of Point (29) of Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. It was pointed out in discussion that care would be needed in the choice of the wording to be used in the Regles to give effect to the present proposals, owing to the fact that the expression “ bracket ” was used in different senses in England and America, in the former country this expression having the meaning of a sign, either semilunar or square, used to divide off certain words in a sentence from other parts of the sentence, the word “ bracket ” being qualified by the adjective “round ” or “square ” according to the form of the sign used, whereas in America only the square sign (called a “ square bracket ” in England) was denoted by the expression “ bracket,” the semilunar form being denoted by the expression “ parenthesis.” THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that there should be added to the mandatory pro- visions recommended in Conclusion 18 above a Recommandation urging authors when citing the date of publication of a name :-— (a) to refrain from placing either semilunar signs - (i.e. parentheses or round brackets) or square signs (i.e. square brackets) round the date of publication of a name, if that date is given on the title page of the volume containing the name or in an express statement regarding the date of publication of the volume or of the parts in which that volume was published, where such a statement is included in the volume itself ; 226 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 25 (priority to be accorded to a name published in a work issued in instalments where that name is pub- lished on one date and the relevant description or part of it at a later date) (Later reference: Paris Session, llth Meeting, Conclusion 12) (b) to enclose within semilunar signs (i.e. paren- theses or round brackets) the date of publication of a name or a part of that date (e.g. the month of publication), where that date or that part of that date cannot be ascertained directly in the manner specified in (a) above, but can be ascertained indirectly by reference to other evidence afforded by the volume in which the name was originally published, e.g. evidence afforded by dates either printed on the first pages of individual signatures or on the wrappers (covers) in which successive portions of the volume were published ; (c) to enclose within square signs (i.e. square brac- kets) the date of publication of a name or a part ° of such a date (e.g. the month of publication), where that date or that part of a date cannot be ascertained either directly or indirectly in the manner specified respectively in (a) and (b) above and can be determined only by reference to external sources of evidence. 20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the question of the priority to be accorded to names published in books or journals issued in instalments, in those cases where a new name appears in one instalment and the description of the taxonomic unit so named or a part of that description appears in a later instalment (file Z.N.(8.)352). In this connection, the Commission had before them a proposal submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (30) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. No difficulty arose where a name was published without any description, definition or indication in the portion of the text of a book issued in one instalment, the whole of the description, definition or indication being published in a later instalment, for in that case the name, as published in the earlier instalment, was a nomen nudum. Clearly in such a case the name in question could rank for purposes of priority only from the date of publication of the later instalment containing the description, definition or indica- tion of the taxonomic unit to which the new name was applied. There was, however, a real difficulty in those cases where a new name appeared in one instalment of a work and that instalment contained part only of the description, definition or indication, the remaining part appearing on the first page of the next instalment. In such cases the criterion to be applied should be whether the descriptive matter given in the first instalment Article 25 (status of a trivial name published in conjunction with a generic name which does not comply with the requirements of Proviso (c) ) 7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 227 was sufficient to afford an indication for the purposes of Article 25 of the Regles. The question was of some importance, for owing to the interval which sometimes occurred between the publication of successive parts of a given work, cases might arise where the relative priority of two names for (say) the same species or subspecies might turn on the answer to be given to the foregoing question. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that there should be added to Article 25 a provision that, where a new taxonomic unit to which that Article applies is described in a book or serial which is published in parts and the name of the taxonomic unit is published in one instalment and the description, definition or indication relating to the taxonomic unit so named is published partly in the instalment in which the name is published and partly in the next succeeding instalment, the name is to rank for purposes of the Law of Priority as from the date of publication of the later published of the parts concerned, except where the portion of the description, definition or » indication contained in the earlier published part is sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 25 ; (2) that there should be added to the mandatory provision recommended in (1) above a Recom- mandation urging institutions and individuals responsible for the publication of books or serials containing new names to ensure that, where a book or serial is published in parts, the description of a new taxonomic unit, belonging to a category to the names of which Article 25 applies, is not cut into two portions, the first portion being published at the end of one instalment and the remainder at the beginning of the next succeeding instalment. 21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration communications in regard to the status of a trivial name published subsequent to 3lst December, 1930, in cases where the generic name used in conjunction with the trivial name in question is invalid by reason of its not satisfying the requirements of Proviso (c) to Article 25 received (a) from President Karl Jordan and (b) from specialists in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (file Z.N.(S.)315), together with a note on the same subject submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (31) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. bo bo oo Schedule replacing the former “ Appendice ” to the “ Regles ”: proposed addition to, of a section on the transliteration of words from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3(3)(a) (ii)) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In view of the fact that doubts had been raised as to the correct interpretation of Article 25 in relation to trivial names published in the manner described above, it was clearly desirable that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make the position absolutely clear. As regards the nature of that action, it would clearly. be “ ritualistic ” in the highest degree to prescribe that a trivial name published in the foregoing circumstances is invalid and possesses no status under the Law of Priority until such later time as it is republished in a binominal combination in which the generic name was a nomenclatorially available name. Moreover, such a decision would have the further serious disadvantage that it would make it necessary to provide also that a trivial name published in a binominal combination in which the generic name was invalid by reason of being a homonym was itself invalid until such later time as it was republished in combination with a generic name which was a nomen- clatorially available name. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make it clear that the status of a trivial name (specific, subspecific or infra-subspecific) is not adversely affected where the generic name with which it was combined when first published is a name which was itself either an unavailable name by reason of its having been published in conditions which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 (Law of Priority) (proviso (c) cases) or was invalid under the Law of Homonymy. 22. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)310) that there should be added to the Appendice to the Reégles a section giving particulars as to the manner in which words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin - alphabet in cases where words belonging to such languages were selected to form the basis of generic or trivial names ~ and had therefore to be Latinised in accordance with the provisions of Article 3. In this connection, the Commission had before it also a note submitted by the Secretary to the Commission in Point (32) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. It was pointed out that the Appendice to the Reégles (henceforward, as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin, to be a Schedule to the Régles) contained a Section prescribing the manner in which words of Greek origin should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet in cases where such wo1ds required Latinisation as a preliminary to being used as generic or trivial names, and that it was (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3) Eighth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session: date and time noted (Previous reference: Paris Session: 6th Meeting, Conclusion 77) 7th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 229 equally desirable to provide a corresponding Section relating to the transliteration for the same purpose of words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet. The rules governing the transliteration of such words were known to very few persons not personally acquainted with languages using the Cyrillic alphabet ; the growing number of scientific names based upon such words made it in- creasingly necessary to provide guidance on this subject. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that there should be added to the Schedule which it had been agreed should replace the existing Appendice to the Regles a Section setting out the manner in which words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet, for the purpose of forming zoological names in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 ; (2) that, consequential upon (1) above, the Section forming Section G to the present A ppendice should be amended so as to exclude from the scope of the recommendations set forth therein geographical and proper names originating in languages using the Cyrillic or Greek alphabets (for the first of which provision would be made under (1) above, while, for the second, provision had already been made in Section F of the Appendice) and to secure that the recommendations set forth in this Section should relate to the proper method of transliteration into the Latin alphabet only of geographical and proper names originating in languages which either used alphabets other than those specified above or which had no recognised alphabet. 23. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) proposed that, now that the examination of Commission Paper I.C.(48)14 had been completed, the - Commission should adjourn for the day. As already arranged, the next meeting of the Commission, which would be held concurrently with the First Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, would take place on the morning of the following day (Friday, 23rd July, 1948) at 0900 hours. THE COMMISSION took note of the above arrange- ments. (Lhe Commission thereupon adjourned ut 2250 hours) ( 230 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948 CONCLUSIONS of the Eighth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Friday, 23rd July, 1948, at 0900 hours (Meeting held concurrently with the First Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature) PRESENT : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor E. Beltran (Mexico) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor R. Spirck (Denmark) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) Professor Robert. L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following were also present : M. H. Berthet (France) Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) M. André Chavan (France) Mr. J. Delacour (U.S8.A.) Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.) Professor E: Raymond Hall (U.S8.A.) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom) Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.) Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer Procedure proposed 1, THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS to be adopted at the HEMMING) said that the present meeting ot the Com- present (eighth) Meeting mission was a public meeting held concurrently with the first meeting of the Section on Nomenclature. All the matters which would be brought forward would be of interest to the Commission as a body, and he proposed there- fore that the Commission should remain in continuous session througkout the meeting. He (the Acting President) anticipated that matters might be brought before the Section during the joint meeting on which the Commission might Emendation to Psolos of the spelling of the generic name Psodos Treitschke, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): M.-H. Berthet’s proposal Extension, and incorporation in the “ Regles ”, of the provisions relating to the Commission’s plenary powers: Dr. H. Lemche’s proposal 8th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 231 feel that, if they were given the necessary opportunity, they would be able to reach an immediate decision which could then be reported back to the Section forthwith. If the discussion were to develop in this way, it was his intention, in his capacity as President of the Section, to invite the Section formally to adjourn to enable the Commission to consider matters so brought forward. Those members of the Section who were not members also of the Commission would remain in their places during any such adjournment and would be free, as at the previous public meetings of the Commission, to take part in the discussion of the Commission to such extent as they might desire. THE COMMISSION :— took note of, and approved, the procedure proposed by the Acting President. 2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by M. H. Berthet (Paris, France) that they should render an Opinion declaring that under Article 19 of the Régles the spelling of the generic name Psodos Treitschke, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) should be emended to Psolos (file Z.N.(S.)362).? THE COMMISSION agreed :—- (1) to render an Opinion stating that the spelling Psoidos Treitschke, 1825, and the spelling Psodos Treitschke, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) were erroneous and should be emended to Psolos under the provisions of Article 19 of the Regles. to place the name Psolos (emend. of Psoidos and Psodos) Treitschke, 1825 im Ochsenheimer, Schmett. Europa 5 (Abth. 2): 434 (type species : Phalaena equestrata Fabricius, 1777, Gen. Ins. : 288) (type species selected by Duponchel, 1829, in Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. France 7(2): 112) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” (2 ~— 3. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication (file Z.N.(S.)359) submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche (Copenhagen, Denmark) on behalf not only of himself but also of a large group of Scandinavian zoologists, in which the applicants asked that there should be inserted in the Régles a provision embodying, and at the same time expand- _ |. * For the text of the communication made by M. Berthet, see page 157 of Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 3-5 of Volume 5, bo oo bo (See Section on Nomenclature Paris Session lst Meeting, Minute 3) ( Previous reference: Paris Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 7) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusions 1-6, 8) Incorporation in the “ Regles ” of a provision establishing a Law of Prescription limiting the scope of the Law of Priority : proposals of Dr. H.Lemche and Professor P. Bonnet International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ing the scope of, the provisions of the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913, under which plenary powers to suspend the provisions of the Regles in certain cases were conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. A long discussion (which is fully reported in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature) then ensued, in the course of which the ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING), in his capacity as President of the Section, submitted for approval the more modest proposals for dealing with the problem of the plenary powers which the Commission had agreed to submit when they had had Commission Paper I.C.(48)5 under consideration, together with the proposals of the Commission for the reform of the composition of the Commission (based upon the proposals in Commission Paper I.C.(48)3) and for the introduction of improvements in the procedure of the Commission when dealing with applications submitted to it for decision (based on the proposals submitted in Commission Paper I.C.(48)4. At the conclusion of this discussion, Mr. LEMCHE (Denmark) intimated that, while the proposals submitted by the Commission for the reform of the plenary powers procedure did not go as far as he and his colleagues had advocated, he recognised that the reformed procedure was a great improvement on that laid down in 1913. The Section on Nomenclature thereon unanimously approved the recom- mendations submitted by the Commission :— THE COMMISSION took note :— that, in view of the outcome of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature on the proposal for the extension of the plenary powers submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark), no action. was called for on the part of the Commission. 4. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication (file Z.N.(S.)359) submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche (Copenhagen, Denmark) on behalf not only of himself but also of a large group of Scandinavian zoologists, in which the applicants asked that a provision should be inserted in the Régles limiting the Law of Priority, in its application to names published prior to the year 1850 but not used subsequent to that date, by a Law of Prescription * For the text of the communication madejby Dr. Henning Lemche, see pages 158, 159-161 of Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 5-13 of Volume 5. 8th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 233 which would prevent such hames from being substituted for names currently in use.4 At the same time, the Commission and the Section had under consideration a similar proposal] submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France),5 (See Section on In the course of a long discussion (which is reported in /Sestierbnaaa , full in the Minutes of the Section on Nomenclature) it 1st Meeting, became evident that numerous members of the Section felt Minute 4) strongly that some appropriate means should be found to Secure greater stability in nomenclature, even if this meant imposing some restriction upon the scope of the Law of Priority. No member of the Section spoke in favour of the continuance of the present system under which the Law of Priority not only failed to promote uniformity but was itself actively instrumental in leading to confusion and instability in nomenclature. As regards the particular proposals under consideration, it was suggested by ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (United Kingdom) that the Commission should be asked to consider, and report to the next Congress on, means to be adopted for banning the upsetting of well- known names through the digging-up of old names and the unearthing of old books containing forgotten names. The Acting President (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING), in his capacity as President of the Section on N, omenclature, all systematic workers. It was essential therefore to ensure that full account was taken of all relevant considera- and who in consequence desired to strengthen that Law at the expense of the Commission’s plenary powers. Mr. JEAN DELACOUR (U.S.A.) said that the proposal _ to postpone a decision on this important matter could onl * For the text of the communication made by Dr. Henning Lemche, see pages 159-161 of Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature. see pages 13-19 of Volume 5, ° For the text of Professor Bonnet’s paper, see pages 177-179 of Volume 3. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature clature by upsetting well-known names in favour of long- forgotten names but instead at once to report to the Commission any case where the Law of Priority appeared to require the upsetting of a name in this way and to maintain in use the currently accepted name until such time as the Commission had decided whether the Law of Priority should be permitted to operate in the case in question. Considerable further discussion took place, in which the importance of devising a satisfactory solution of the difficulties caused by the unfettered operation of the Law of Priority was stressed and, in some cases, regret was expressed at the prospect of a further period of four or five years during which no remedy would be available for countering the present ills. The view*was expressed that the proposed Recommandation should single out for special mention as names requiring particular consideration names of importance in medicine, agriculture and other fields of applied biology. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to take note of the applications submitted (i) by Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) and (ii) by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) in favour of the incorporation in the Régles of a provision recog- nising a Law of Prescription which would prohibit the replacement, on grounds of priority, of well- known names by names published long previously and not subsequently used for a long period ; (2) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to examine, in consultation with interested specialists, all means which might secure greater stability . in zoological nomenclature and to submit a Report thereon, with recommendations, for consideration by the Commission at their meeting to be held during the next (XI Vth) meeting of the Congress, with a view to the submission by the Commission of proposals for the insertion in the Régles of provisions to secure the end specified above ; to recommend, without prejudice to the proposal to be submitted to the next meeting of th Congress in the report referred to in (2) above, that there should at once be inserted at an appropriate point in the Reégles a provision :— (a) that, where a worker discovers that a well- known name in common use, particularly a name of importance in medicine, agri- — oo — Nomenclature of Protozoan and other parasites of Man: need for stabilisation : Prof. E. Beltran’s communication (See Section on Nomenclature, Paris Session, Ist Meeting, Minute 5) 8th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 235 culture, veterinary science or other applied fields of biology, is invalid under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy or, in the case of a generic name, has as its type species a species not commonly accepted as referable to the genus in question or to a segregate thereof, that worker should at once report the case to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for such action as the Commission may deem to be proper ; that in such cases neither the worker by whom the error in accepted practice is discovered nor any other worker should change that practice by substituting some other name for that in common use, until such time as the decision on the future status of the name in question is made known by the said Commission. 5. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication (file Z.N.(S.)397) submitted by Alternate Commissioner Enrique Beltran (Mexico) on the subject of the nomen- clature of Protozoan parasites of Man.® ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER BELTRAN pointed out that at the present time many of the Protozoan parasites of Man were known to bacteriologists by names which possessed only a de facto basis and were’ not in accordance with the provisions of the Régles. The situation so created was extremely unsatisfactory and should be rectified as quickly .as possible. Alternate Commissioner Beltran sug- gested the appointment of a committee of protozoologists charged with the duty of studying the nomenclature of Protozoa, particularly species parasitic on Man, with a view to the submission of recommendations to the Commission for the addition to the “ Official List’ of the names of genera, in those cases where it was found that the names in question were available under the Régles for use in the sense in which they were commonly employed, and in the case of names not found to be so available for validation by the Commission with a view to their being also placed on the Official List.” In the course of his presentation of the foregoing problem, Alternate Commissioner Beltran alluded to the need for the Commission to exclude taxonomic considerations when deciding whether to include generic names on the “ Official Sc — * For the text of the communication made by Alternate Commissioner Beltran, see pages 162-163 of Volume 8 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomen- clature, see pages 19-23 of Volume 5. 236 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. List.” He therefore welcomed the action taken by the Commission in Opinion 104, when dealing with the names of the human malaria parasites, in avoiding any attempt to express an opinion on the question whether two genera or one genus only were involved. The Commission had, in his view, acted with wisdom on that occasion in placing on the “ Official List’? two generic names (Plasmodiam and Laverania) for use for these parasites, the first by those specialists who regarded the quartan and aestivo-autumnal parasites as congeneric and by all specialists for the first of these parasites, the second for use for the aestivo-autumnal parasite by those specialists who regarded it as generically distinct from the quartan parasite. In the subsequent discussion general agreement was expressed with the proposal submitted by Alternate Com- missioner Beltran that a special effort should be made to stabilise the names of parasites of importance in human medicine. It was felt that it was indefensible that the Laws of Priority and Homonymy, in which only systematic zoo- logists were interested, should be allowed to cause confusion and disturbance in the nomenclature of such species. On the other hand, it was most undesirable that the present situation, in which many such species were habitually known by names which were incorrect under the Régles, should be permitted to continue. For names of the kind under consideration there was a clear prima facie case for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers. The view was expressed also that the problem raised by Alternate Commissioner Beltran regarding the nomenclature of parasites of Man was by no means confined to Protozoa ; that there were numerous similar instances in Phyla other than Protozoa. It was agreed by all present that the proposals submitted by Alternate Commissioner Beltran should be expanded to apply to the names of genera con- taining species parasitic on Man, irrespective of the Phyla to which they belonged. . On the question raised by Alternate Commissioner Beltran regarding the need for the Commission to avoid taking, or appearing to take, a view on taxonomic issues, when placing generic names on the “ Official List,” the Commission, in agreement with the Section on Nomen- clature, decided that, in future, in order to eliminate taxonomic problems from consideration when names are added to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” two or more generic names should be placed on that List, in cases where specialists were agreed on the importance of stabilising the nomenclature of a particular group but were not unanimous on the purely taxonomic question of “ Official List 8th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 237 whether more than one genus was involved and that this decision should be embodied in the regulations governing the preparation of the ‘‘ Official List.” THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to take steps, in compliance with the request addressed to them by the Section on Nomen- elature, to concert with specialists to secure the appointment of a committee or committees (a) to study the nomenclature of the Phylum Protozoa and other Phyla containing species which were parasites of Man and (b) to make proposals to the Commission for the addition to the “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” whether under their plenary powers or otherwise, of the names of leading genera of such Phyla, particularly genera containing species which were parasites of Man, for the purpose of promoting the stabilisa- tion of the nomenclature of the groups concerned ; (2) to issue a statement drawing the attention of specialists to the action proposed in (1) above. 6. Arising out of the discussion recorded in Conclusion of Generic Names in 5 above, THE COMMISSION agreed :— Zoology ” : addition to the regulations relating to, of a provision designed to eliminate taxonomic considerations Ninth and Tenth Meetings of the Commission | during its Paris Session: date and time appointed to take note that the Section on Nomenclature had decided that there should be added to the regulations governing the preparation of the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” a provision that, in order to eliminate taxonomic considerations when names were added to the said “ Official List,’ two or more generic names should be added thereto, in cases where specialists were agreed on the importance of stabilising the nomenclature of a particular group but were not unanimous on the purely taxonomic question of whether more than one genus was involved. 7. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that it had previously been contem- plated that it would be necessary for the Commission to hold two further meetings that day, the first in the afternoon and the second in the evening. Such good progress had been made by the Commission in the consideration of their Agenda that it was now possible for him to propose that there should be no meeting that afternoon, thereby making it possible for such members of the Commission who so desired to take part in the excursion to the Chateau de Versailles which had been arranged by the authorities of the Congress. This change in plan would make it possible 238 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. also for him to make progress with the preparation of further documents for the consideration of the Commission. He proposed therefore that the next meeting of the Commission should be held that evening at 2030 hours. As regards the following day there would be a joint meeting with the Section on Nomenclature at 0900 hours. THE COMMISSION took note of the above arrange- ments. ‘(The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1205 hours) ( 239 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth I nlernational Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948 CONCLUSIONS of the Ninth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Friday, 23rd J uly, 1948, at 2030 hours PRESENT : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following were also present : Dr. EK. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) Professor E. Raymond Hall (U.S.A.) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer Miscellaneous 1. THE COMMISSION had before them a memorandum sche era Ri by the Secretary (Commission Paper 1.C.(48)15), containing clarification of a third instalment of miscellaneous proposals received from the “ Regles ” : various sources for the amendment or clarification of the third instalment Re : egies. For convenience of reference these proposals, (Previous reference: which were 31 in number, had been numbered consecutively Lares Session, with the proposals brought forward in the paper containing 7th Meeting, Conclusion 6) Article 27 the second instalment (Commission Paper I.C.(48)14).- The present proposals were therefore numbered (33) to (63). THE COMMISSION agreed :— to examine Commission Paper I.C.(48)15, point by point, for the purpose of reaching conclusions regarding the recommendations to be submitted on the questions raised therein. 2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a cierto hha proposal submitted by Dr. C. A. Hoare (London) (file it clear that this Z.N.(S.)291), asking for the addition of words to Article 27 ie ee to make it clear that the provisions of that Article applied naming of forms to polymorphic species, together with a note on the same of polymorphic subject set forth in Point (33) in Commission Paper species) VOL. 49 T.C.(48)15. It was not clearly stated in Article 27 that its 240 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 35 (polymorphism in trivial names arising from use of the same word in noun and adjectival form) provisions applied to cases where one form of such a species was named before another in the same way as to different stages in the metamorphosis of a species possessing only a single adult form. Dr. Hoare observed that, while the present wording might be appropriate for the needs of the Metazoa, it did not meet the needs of the Protozoa, where the problem of species possessing both sexual and asexual forms was of special importance. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) observed that Dr. Hoare had drawn attention to what was undoubtedly a technical flaw in Article 27 as that Article at present stood and words should be inserted to make this matter clear. The adoption of an amendment in the sense proposed would not lead to changes in the current nomenclature of the Protozoa, for protozoologists had rightly assumed that the intention, though not the wording, of Article 27 was that its provisions should apply to names given to forms of polymorphic species. This Article had always been so interpreted, for example, in the synonymy of the names given to the human malaria parasites, a subject on which Professor Robert L. Usinger and himself had each made a special study and on which proposals would be laid before the Commission at a later meeting. Though the problem raised by Dr. Hoare was of special importance to protozoologists, it was not a problem confined to the Protozoa, for polymorphism of a very similar kind occurred also in the Class Insecta, where also other forms of poly- morphism commonly occurred. It was desirable therefore that the wording to be proposed to meet the point raised by Dr. Hoare should be sufficiently wide to cover all forms of polymorphism in species. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in Article 27 to make it clear that the provisions of that Article applied to names published for forms of polymorphic species and therefore that, in the case of such species, the oldest available specific or subspecific trivial name applied to any form is to be accepted as the trivial name of the species as a whole. 3. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a communication received from Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.), on the question whether trivial names which differed from one another only by the form of their termination, for example, in the use of the terminations “-costa’”’ and “ -costata”’ (file Z.N.(8.)309) should be regarded as homonyms of one another, together with a note on the same subject contained in the first part of Point (34) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. VOL. 4 Q° 9h Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 241 In his submission on this matter Mr. Baily had taken the view that, as the spelling differences referred to above were not among the differences specified in paragraph (3) of Article 35, names differing from one another only in this way were not to be rejected as homonyms under the Reégles. At the same time he brought forward two pairs of names of this kind, where, in his opinion, confusion had already arisen through the great similarity of the trivial names concerned. The cases in question were those presented (1) by the names Cardita crassicosta Lamarck, 1819, and Cardita crassicostata Sowerby, 1825, and (2) Cardita laticosta Kichwald, 1830, and Cardita laticostata Sowerby, 1832. In each of these cases, Mr. Baily-asked that the Commission should use their plenary powers to suppress the later published of the two names in question. In Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)15, the Secretary to the Commission took the same view as Mr. Baily regarding the interpretation of the Régles in this matter but recommended that Article 35 should be amended to make names belonging to this class homonyms of one another. In the discussion which ensued the view was expressed — that no objection need be taken in principle to the con- current use in the same genus of trivial names differing from one another solely by reason of the fact that in the one case the word concerned was in noun form and could therefore be treated as being a nominative singular in apposition to the generic name, while in the other case the name was in adjectival form and thus required to agree in gender with the generic name. There should normally be no room for confusion in such cases, having regard to the fact that, under the decisions which had been taken during the present Congress, it would now be made absolutely clear that the list of spelling differences specified in paragraph (3) of Article 35 was an exhaustive list and therefore that no name was to be rejected as a homonym of another name which dif- fered from it in spelling in any other way. On the other hand, it was desirable that trivial names within a given genus should be readily distinguishable from one another. Authors should therefore be recommended to avoid selecting as the trivial name of a new species or subspecies a name which differed only in its termination (noun form or adjectival form, as the case might be) from a trivial name already published for a species in the same genus or allied genera. Naturally, the recognition of names of the kind under discussion as available names, notwithstanding their close similarity, would not preclude the Commission from using their plenary powers to suppress such a name where in an individual case it could be shown that the concurrent 242 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature existence of two such closely similar names had already caused, or was likely to cause, confusion. THE COMMISSION :— (Previous reference’: (1) agreed that, having regard to the fact that it had Paris Session, ; ; é 6th Meeting, now been decided to make it clear that the list of Conclusion 43) differences in spelling given in paragraph (3) of Article 35 was an exhaustive list, no action required to be taken in regard to trivial names of the same origin and meaning which differed from one another only by reason of the fact that in one case the name was in a noun form, while in the other it was in an adjectival form (e.g. crassicosta and crassicostatus, -a, -wm), for it would now be clear that, where such names occurred in a single genus, they were not to be regarded as homonyms of one another ; (2) agreed to recommend that there should be inserted in the Regles a Recommandation urging authors not to select a compound word as a new trivial name, where there already existed either in the same genus or in an allied genus a compound trivial name of the same origin and meaning differing therefrom only by reason of the second part of that name consisting of a word in a noun form whereas the corresponding part of the proposed new name consisted of the same word in an adjectival form or vice versa. (Example: where in a given genus or group of genera there already exists a trivial name crassicosta (noun form), an adjectival trivial name such as crassicostatus, -a, -wm, should be avoided, and vice versa.) ; (3 ~~ agreed to recommend that, where in any given case it could be shown that the concurrent existence within a single genus or group of allied genera of trivial names differmg from one another only in the manner indicated in (1) above has caused, or was likely to cause, confusion, an end should be put to such confusion or, as the case might be, such confusion should be prevented from arising, by the use of the plenary powers ; (4 ~~ agreed that the Secretary should explain the position in this matter to Mr. Baily and should ask him whether in the circumstances he desired to pursue his application in regard to the two pairs of names in the genus Cardita Bruguiére, 1792 (Phylum Mollusca) which he had already sub- mitted to the Commission (file Z.N.(8.)309). 9h Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 243 anne 34 and of 4. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an propored eddxien pplication submitted by Captain E. Rivenhall Goffe a add application submitted by Capt G fate inthe a (King’s Somborne, England) asking that certain additions category) should be made to the list of spelling differences specified in (Previous reference: paragraph (3) of Article 35 (file Z.N.(S.)198), together with a Paris Session, proposal in regard thereto submitted in the second part of ps hoe ae Point (34) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. Conclusions 41 & 43) THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that the following differences in spelling should be added to the list of such differences to be inserted in the Articles replacing the present Articles 34 and 39 as differences to be ignored in determining whether one name is a homonym of another :—(1) the tran- scription of the semivowel or consonantal “i” as y, “ei,” “ej” or “ij ” or (2) the use of the letters “e fie and a3 ph ae Articles 34 and 35 5. Arising out of the discussion on the question dealt {words differing — with in Conclusion 4 above, THE COMMISSION agreed to solely by having as recommend :— h b ; : : ae selletie we! is that a Recommandation be added both to Article 34 or “en”: proposed (generic names) and Article 35 (trivial names) urging insertionofa authors to avoid selecting as a generic name or a Recommandation ats E : ; urging avoidance) trivial name a word which, in the former case, differs from an existing generic name only by having as its 3 accented syllable the syllable “en” or “an” as the case may be, as in the case of the names Tarentula and Tarantula, and, in the latter case, differs only in the same respect from an existing trivial name in the same genus or group of allied genera. Article 4: 6. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the Ss ea ner the situation which arises when the application of Article 4 in existing Provisions its present form leads to the formation of identical family leads to the names for families in different parts of the Animal Kingdom, establishment of : ! ‘ : 2 identical family together with a note on this subject submitted by the names in Secretary in Point (35) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. In different groups) this connection, the Commission had under consideration also correspondence on this subject which had passed between Commissioner H. Boschma (Netherlands) and the Secretary, consequent upon the former having proposed that means should be found to put an end to the anomaly created by the concurrent existence of the family name CYPRINIDAE in two parts of the Animal Kingdom (namely the Class Pelecypoda and the Class Pisces )(file Z.N.(S.)210). In the discussion on this question, the view was generally expressed that it was a grave defect in the Articles of the Regles relating to the formation of family names that, 244 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. although those Articles contained a provision (admittedly confused and inadequate as it was) regarding the application of the principle of priority to family names, those Articles contained no provision at all for the equally important question of the application of the Law of Homonymy. This was clearly a matter which should be dealt with in the ; Report on the reform of the provisions in the Régles relating ade ariel erence“ to the nomenclature of families which it had been agreed that 6th Meeting, é the Secretary should prepare for consideration at the next Conclusion 11) (XIVth) meeting of the Congress. The existence of duplicate family names in different groups might not be a source of inconvenience to workers who specialised in a narrow field, but it constituted an indefensible anomaly in the classifica- tion of the Animal Kingdom as a whole. Pending the complete redrafting of Articles 4 and 5 of the Regles, it would be possible to deal with this problem on an ad hoc basis; it was desirable that this should be done, for the sooner the more glaring of the present anomalies were removed the better. It should normally be possible to ‘find appropriate solutions on the lines adopted by the Commission in Opinion 140 when dealing with the question of the form of the family names to be constructed from the generic names Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and Merope Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta). THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that, without prejudice to any decisions that might be taken in the light of the comprehensive Report which the Secretary had been invited to prepare on the question of family names, there should be inserted in the Régles a provision that, where the application of Article 4 led to the establishment of two or more families havmg the same name, the case is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, whose duty it shall be to determine the name to be applied to each of the families concerned. Article 4 (name 7. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an to be appliedtoa = application submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet family where two <4 : : or more existing (British Museum (Natural History), London) on the question families are _ of the procedure to be followed for determining the name of a peas ds) taxonomic family when two or more previously established families are postponement of united on taxonomic grounds (file Z.N.(8.)265), together decision pending with a note on the same subject submitted by the Secretary general inquiry in Point (36) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. The particu- lar case raised by Dr. Corbet was concerned with the relative priority to be accorded to the family names RIODINIDAE (formerly ERYCINIDAE) and LIBYTHEIDAE (Class Insecta, (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 11) Article 3 ; (definition of the expression “ Latin” as there used) Ith Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 245 Order Lermoprera), by an author who regarded these two groups as forming a single family only. In the discussion on this question, the view was expressed that it was important that provision should be made in the Reégles as soon as possible for determining the name to be applied to a family in the circumstances described above, for the problem involved was one of the most central of the issues awaiting settlement in the field of family names. It was felt, however, that, inconvenient and unsatisfactory as it was that there should be no rules governing this matter, it would be a mistake to prejudge the issue of the proposed investigation into the problem of the nomenclature of families by making a recommendation to the present Congress on this subject. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that the question of the provisions to be inserted in the Regles in regard to the name to be adopted for a family when two or more existing families were united on taxonomic grounds was one of the problems to which special attention should be paid in the Report on the nomenclature of families and super- generic groups below family level which at the meeting noted in the margin the Commission had invited the Secretary to prepare for their consideration at their meeting to be held during the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress. 8. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application submitted by Professor L. W. Grensted (Oxford University) in regard to the need for the introduction into Article 3 of the Régles of words defining the sense in which the word “ Latin ” is used in that Article (file Z.N.(S.)313), together with a proposal in regard thereto submitted by the Secretary in the first part of Point (37) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that a provision on the following lines be inserted in Article 3 :— In the interpretation of this Article regard is to be paid to the fact that Latin as used for zoological nomenclature is a living language and therefore that, while classical Latin is necessarily the standard to which zoological names should, so far as possible, conform, that standard is not to be applied in such a way as to ignore later developments of the language or as to override considerations of scientific accuracy, uniformity, intelligibility or practical usefulness, 246 Article 4 (proposed removal of ambiguities regarding the method to be followed in forming a family name from a given generic name) Article 14 — (agreement in gender with the generic name of a - trivial name, when an adjective) (Previous reference: Paris Session. 7th Meeting, Conclusion 12) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application submitted by Professor L. W. Grensted (Oxford University) in regard to the need for removing from Article 4 the ambiguities regarding the procedure to be followed when forming a family name from a given generic name (file Z.N.(S.)313), together with a proposal in regard thereto submitted by the Secretary in the second part of Point (37) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that, in confirmation of the decision taken by the Kighth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Graz in 1910, that the word “stem” should be substituted for the word “root” in the English translation of Article 4 of the Reégles, the word “theme” should be substituted for the word “radical” in the ’ substantive French text of that Article ; (2) that a provision to the following effect should be added to Article 4 :— The expression “‘ stem ”’ is to be interpreted as meaning either (1) the grammatical or classical stem or (2) a part of the stem, the choice to be made in favour of whichever of the foregoing methods both shows most clearly the relation- ship between the generic name on the one hand and the name of the family on the other and provides the simpler and more euphonious form compatible with that relationship. 10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration (1) a proposal submitted by Mr. W. Parkinson Curtis (United Kingdom) and (2) a proposal submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) on the subject of the agreement in gender with the generic name of trivial names, when adjectival mn form (file Z.N.(S.)214), together with a note on the same subject submitted by the Secretary as Point (38) in Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)15. Mr. Parkinson Curtis suggested that the provision that an adjectival trivial name should agree in gender with the generic name should be -deleted from Article 14 on the ground that it was obsolete and virtually unworkable. Professor Bonnet’s proposals were designed to elucidate certain obscurities in regard to the application of the present provisions, while those submitted by the Secretary were more far-reaching in character, being designed to provide a means for determining the gender of every generic name. In Point (39) of the same Commission Paper (Commission Paper I.C.(48)15) a proposal was sub- mitted that, for the convenience of those zoologists who 7 (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 9) (Later reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 25) 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 247 were unfamiliar with the Latin language, there should be added to the Second Schedule to the Regles a statement of the rules governing the gender of Latin nouns, together with particulars of the better known of those nouns which were exceptions to the normal rules. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that, as the existing provisions of Article 14 regarding the agreement of adjectival trivial names in gender with the generic names with which they were conjoined, as also the supplementary provisions now proposed to be added to those provisions, were mandatory in character, it would not, as he had previously thought, be appropriate to include the proposed statement of the tules governing the gender of Latin nouns in the Schedule which was to replace the present Appendice to the Regles, for, as already agreed at the meeting noted in the margin, it was now to be made clear in the Régles that the provisions of that Appendice, and therefore of the Schedule which was to take its place, were non-mandatory in character. If, therefore, the Commission adopted the proposal that the rules governing the gender of Latin nouns when used as generic names should be added to the Réegles, it would be necessary, in view of the mandatory character of those provisions, to place them in a Schedule distinct from that in which the existing Appendice was to be incorporated. The Acting President went on to say that he desired to supplement in one respect the proposal which he had sub- mitted in this matter. It was not only the determination of the gender of Latin nouns which had proved a stumbling- block to those zoologists who had not had a classical education, for the rules governing the declension of Latin adjectives were far from simple and here too it was easy to fall into error. He accordingly proposed that particulars of the rules governing this matter also should be included in the suggested Schedule. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, having regard to the provisions of Article 3 of the Régles, it was essential and inevitable that a trivial name, when an adjective, should agree in : gender with the generic name and that the application submitted by Mr. Parkinson Curtis should therefore be rejected ; (2) that it was essential that the clearest possible directions should be included in the Régles regarding the procedure to be followed for determining the gender of generic names ; “a 48 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (3) in view of (2) above, to recommend :— (a) that the following provisions should be inserted in the Reégles for the purpose of determining the gender of nouns used as generic names and consequently for deter- mining the gender in which trivial names, when adjectives, should be cited :— (i) where a generic name or, in the case (ii) (iii) of a name consisting of a compound word, the terminal portion of such a name consists either of a classical Latin noun or of a noun, which, though unknown in classical Latin, is found in the later history of the Latin language, the generic name concerned is to be treated as being of the same gender as that of the Latin noun in question, save that, where a Latin noun occurs in more than one gender, the generic name consisting of that noun is to be treated as being of the masculine gender ; where a generic name or, in the case of a name consisting of a compound word, the terminal portion of such a name, consists of a Latinised Greek noun either of the classical or non- classical period, the generic name concerned is to be treated as being of the same gender as the Latinised Greek word in question in like manner as in (i) above, Greek nouns for this purpose to retain their original gender, save in any case where a Greek noun became an integral part of the Latin language and, on being so incorporated, was treated as being of a gender different from that which it possessed prior to being so incorporated ; where a generic name or, in the case of a name consisting of a compound word, the terminal portion of such a name consists of a word unknown in any stage of the Latin or Greek languages, except in so far as it is 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 249 treated as a Latin or Latinised word for the purposes of zoological nomen- clature, the following rules are to be followed in determining its gender :— (1) if the word so treated as a Latin — or Latinised noun has a ter- mination found in the nomina- tive singular of any of the Latin declensions, that word, if having a termination found in the first or fifth declensions, shall be treated as being of the feminine gender, and, if having a termination found in the second, third or fourth declen- sion, shall be treated as being of the gender normally appro- priate to a noun having that termination, save that every such word having the termina- tion “-us,” or, as the case may be, the termination “-es” shall be treated in the former case as being of the masculine gender, and in the latter case of the feminine gender ; if the word has a termination not found in the nominative singular of any of the five Latin declensions, that word is to be treated as being of the masculine gender. (b) that, in order to facilitate the determination of the gender of any given generic name and the correct formation of adjectival trivial names :— (i) there should be added to the Reégles a Schedule, to be inserted at an appropriate point among the other Schedules, containing a concise state- ment of the rules governing :— (1) the gender of Latin nouns and of Greek nouns, when latinised, together with particulars of the better known of such nouns, the gender of which differed from that normally appropriate for a noun belonging to the declension con- cerned and having the termination in question ; 250 Article 25, Proviso (c) (point of time as from which effective) “‘ Appendice ” to the “ Regles ” (proposed correction of an error in section “ Gc <2) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (2) the formation of the respective genders of Latin adjectives and of Greek adjectives, when latinised, together with particulars relating to the better - known of such adjectives, the genders of which were not formed in accerdance with the normal rules ; “ (ii) there should be inserted in relation to sub-paragraph (a) of the first para- graph of Article 14 words prescribing that the gender of generic names is to be determined in accordance with the rules specified in (a) above as supple- mented by the Schedule specified in (b) (i) above, and the gender of adjectives is to be formed in accord- ance with the rules specified in the said Schedule. 11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) for the clarification of the point of time decided upon by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927 as the point of time as from which the proviso (c) then added to Article 25 was to come into operation, submitted by the Secretary in Point (40) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that the provisions of Proviso (c) to Article 25 came into operation as from midnight G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time) 3lst December, 1930/1st January, 1931. 12. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by Commissioner H. Boschma (Nether- lands) for the correction of a minor error in Section “ G ” of the Appendice to the Regles (file Z.N.(G.)10), together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (41) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed :—- (1) to take note that the statement contained in the sentence “‘the soft aspirate may be used to represent the Arabic ain,’ which appeared at the end of the sixteenth of the recommendations enumerated in Section G of the Appendice to the Regles, shortly to be converted into a Schedule, was incorrect ; (Previous reference: Paris Session, ith Meeting, Conclusion 22) Article 14 (status of a trivial name consisting of an unchanged surname of a modern personage treated as a Latin or Latinised word) 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 251 (2) to recommend that the error referred to in (1) above should be corrected when the wording of the recommendations set forth in Section G of the Appendice were revised as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin. : 13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by the late Professor T. D. A. Cockerell (U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(S.)165) that a ruling should be given on the question whether a trivial name consisting of an unchanged surname of a modern personage but treated as a Latin or Latinised word should be corrected to comply with the requirements of Article 14 (see Cockerell, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 89), together with a note thereon sub- mitted by the Secretary in Point (42) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that until fairly recently almost the only cases of the kind referred to in Professor Cockerell’s application were those found in the works of French authors of the early decades of the XIXth century. Within recent years there had, however, been a recrudescence of this type of trivial name, as the result—as it appeared from correspondence— of a misreading of the first paragraph of Article 14 which provided that a trivial name might be a noun in the nominative singular in apposition to the generic name. Trivial names consisting of unlatinised modern patronymics must however be regarded as defective, for such a method of forming a trivial name based on a modern patronymic was inconsistent with the intention, if not with the actual provisions, of the third paragraph of Article 14. Moreover, even where such names were printed in italics it was difficult to sustain an argument that a name, so formed, had been “ latinisé ” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Réegles. Whatever decision the Commission might take on the question raised by Professor Cockerell, it was desirable that the provisions in Article 14 relating to the formation of trivial names based upon the surnames of modern -personages should be co-ordinated with the general provisions relating to the formation of trivial names specified in the first paragraph of that Article. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that words should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear that, where a trivial name is pub- lished in the form of an unchanged surname of a modern personage (e.g. where, to honour the Frenchman Cerisy, Godart published in 1824 a 252 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 14 (status of a trivial name consisting of a phonetic reproduction of the initials of one or more persons) — trivial name cerisy in the binominal combination Papilio cerisy) and (as in the example cited above) the author treated the name, so formed, as a Latin or Latinised word, the form of the trivial name so published is to be corrected so as to comply with the requirements of the paragraph of Article 14 which deals with the formation of trivial names based on modern patronymics (the name cerisy in the example quoted above thus being corrected to cerisyt), the name so corrected to retain priority as from the date on which it was published in the incorrect form: (i.e. in the above case from 1824, the date when the name was published in the incorrect form cerisy) and to continue to be attributed to the author by whom it was so published ; that Article 14 should be amended in such a way as to make it clear that the provision in the first paragraph of that Article that a trivial name may be a noun in the nominative singular in apposition to the generic name does not apply to trivial names based on the surnames of modern personages. 14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by Mr. R. G. Fennah (St. Lucia, B.W.1.) (file Z.N.(S.)163) that a ruling should be given on the question whether a trivial name based upon the phonetic reproduction of the initials of a zoologist or zoologists complied with the requirements of the Régles (see Fennah, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 89), together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in the first part of Point (43) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend that words should be inserted in ~— Article 14 to make it clear that a trivial name (like a generic name) may consist of an arbitrary combination of letters, a trivial name so formed to be treated as an indeclinable noun in the nominative singular ; that, on the adoption of the recommendation submitted in (1) above, a trivial name consisting of a phonetic reproduction of the initials of one or more persons would, if treated as a Latin word, comply with the requirements of Article 14. Article 8 (conversion of “ Recommanda- tions ” into mandatory provisions) (Later reference : Paris Session, Oth Meeting, Conclusion 37) Articles 8 & 14 (proposed “ Recommanda-~ tion ” condemning names suggesting a bizarre or other objectionable meaning in some language other than Latin) (Previous reference: Paris Session, ith Meeting, Conclusion 12) 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 253 15. In the course of the discussion on the proposal dealt with in Conclusion 14 above, attention was drawn to the fact that in its present form Article 8 was defective, since the second and third of the three provisions concerned (of which the third was exactly parallel to the provision which it had now been agreed to be added to Article 14) appeared not as mandatory provisions but, quite inappro- priately, as Recommandations. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that on the forthcoming revision of the text of the Regles, the two provisions which at present appeared as Recommandations annexed to Article 8 be con- verted into mandatory provisions, subject as regards the second, to names falling within the scope of sub- paragraph (h) being excluded from the scope of sub-paragraph (k). 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) that a provision should be inserted in the Régles invalidating names which, while purporting to be Latinised words, were combinations of syllables conveying in some language other than Latin a meaning that was bizarre or otherwise improper (file Z.N.(S.)352), together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in the second part of Point (43) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. In submitting this proposal Professor Bonnet had drawn attention to the generic names Ochisme and Marichisme published in 1904 by the British zoologist Kirkaldy, names which might appear innocuous to any non-English speaking zoologist but which to any person acquainted with the _ English language were obviously unsuitable and improper being no more than the English expressions “0, kiss me” and “Mary, kiss me” written together as though the three words wereone. Such names were ona par with names like Vienferdodoleon or Prentoncafelea if coined by an irresponsible Frenchman. Names of this kind were open to strong objection and their publication should be prohibited. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that there should be added to Article 8 a Recommandation condemning the selection as a generic name of a word which purported to be an arbitrary combination of letters but which, when pronounced, appeared to be a word or words in some language other than Latin, especially where those words had a bizarre, comic or otherwise objectionable meaning, and urging authors to refrain from publishing such names ; 254 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 23 (proposed clarification in certain respects) PURCHASED 20 Nia 135 (2) that a Recommandation in terms similar to those af: specified in (1) above but relating to trivial names should be inserted in Article 14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration the following papers relating to the use of parentheses (round brackets) in cases where subgeneric names are cited in addition to generic names or the status of a trivial name is altered in a given genus. (a) (b) a request received from Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck (U.S.A.) for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 23 in cases where a species is originally described as being both in a genus and in a subgenus and later the subgenus is elevated to generic rank and the species is transferred to the genus so erected (file Z.N.(S.) 128) (see Muesebeck, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 92) ; a request received from Professor R. Chester Hughes (U.S.A.) for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 23 in relation to the use of parentheses (round _ brackets) when citing the name of an author of a subspecific trivial name when that name appears in conjunction with the same generic name but not in the same relationship thereto as when originally published (file Z.N.(S.)129) (see Hughes, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomenc., 1: 91-92) ; a note on the above cases submitted by the Secretary in Point (44) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that Article 23 should be redrafted, so far as (2 bo _— necessary, to make it clear that the provisions of that Article apply only to the case of a species or subspecies which is originally described as belonging to one nominal genus but later is transferred to another nominal genus, and therefore that it is irrelevant for the purposes of Article 23 whether a species or subspecies, when first described, in addition to being placed in a genus was placed also ih a subgenus, as also is the question whether a species or subspecies originally published in a genus without a subgenus being cited is later cited under both a generic and a subgeneric name and vice versa ; that the name of an author is not-to be placed in brackets (parentheses) when a trivial name originally published as the name of a species is THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume. BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the completion of volume 1 and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4.and 5 :— Volume 1: A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be published shortly. Volume 2: This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica- tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date. Volume 3: This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu- ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948. Volume 4: This volume will be devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in fuly 1948. Parts 1-9 have already been published and the remaining Parts are in the press. Volume 5: At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature : of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948, together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section on Nomenclature. INQUIRIES All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses :— International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: 41, Queen’s Gate, — London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Secretariat of the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. — Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim AND Son, Ltp., Westminster, London VOLUME 4. Parts 10/12 9th Fune, 1950 pp. 255—350. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 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 : The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Page Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in Fuly 1948: ~ Conclusions of Ninth Meeting (concluding portion) eee - - - 255-271 Conclusions of Tenth Meeting - - - 272-279 | Conclusions of Eleventh Meeting - - - 280-305 Conclusions of Twelfth Meeting (first instalment) - - - . - 306-350 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, 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. 1950 Price One pound, eight shillings. (All rights reserved) Article 25 (question whether a description of the work of an animal but not of the animal itself constitutes an “ indication ”’) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 16) Article 25 (Question whether a generic name based solely upon a figure is published with an ‘ indication ”’) VOL. 4R yJuly, 1948, later treated as the name of a subspecies and vice versa, so long as that species or subspecies is cited in its original nominal genus. 18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a request submitted by Commissioner J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(S.)140) for a ruling on the question whether the description of the work of an animal (for example, the borings made by a beetle), unaccompanied by any description of the animal itself or of any part of it constitutes an “ indication ” for the purposes of Article 25 (see Bradley, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 93-94), together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (45) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) the insertion in Article 25 of words to make it clear that the description of the work of an animal constitutes an “indication’’ for the purposes of Article 25, even if unaccompanied by a description of the animal itself and that a name so given is not to be rejected on the grounds that it is based upon a hypothetical form ; (2) the addition to Article 25 of a. Recommandation urging authors, so far as possible, to avoid giving names to new taxonomic units, where those units are based solely upon the work of an animal. ~— 19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a request submitted by Dr. Harald A. Rehder (U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(S.)68) for a ruling on the question whether a generic name based solely upon a figure satisfies the requirements of Article 25 (see Rehder, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 94-95), together with a note thereon published by the Secretary in 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 95-96) and a supplementary note submitted by the Secretary in Point (46) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make it clear that a generic name published prior to Ist January, 1931, on a legend to a plate or plates but without explanatory matter is to be treated as having been published with an “ indication ” for the purposes of Article 25. 256 Trivial name “ aegyptiellus ’ Strand, 1909, con- ? ditionally published for a subspecies of “ Halictus morbillosus ” Kirchbaumer, 1873: status of, determined (Previous reference : Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 17) Article 25 (significance of the citation of the host species in an original description of a parasite) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 23) Article 25 (significance of the citation of a geological horizon in an original description of a fossil species) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application submitted by the late Professor T. D. A. Cockerell (U.S.A.) (file Z.N.(8.)45) for a ruling on the authorship and date to be attributed to a trivial name published conditionally in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) (Cockerell, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 97), together with a note submitted by the Secretary in Point (47) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that the point of principle raised in the application submitted had been settled by the decision taken at the meeting noted in the margin at the time when Opinion 49 was under consideration and therefore that the trivial name aegyptiellus given conditionally as the trivial name of a subspecies of Halictus morbillosus Kirchbaumer, 1873, ranked for priority as from 1909, the year in which it had been published by Strand and is to be attributed to that author. 21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by President Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) (file Z.N.(S.)167) that a ruling should be given on the question whether the citation, in the case of a parasitic species, of the name of the host species, unaccompanied by any description of the parasite itself, constituted an “indication ” for the purposes of Article 25 (see Jordan, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 97-98), together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (48) in Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that the citation of the name of the host species of a parasitic species, unaccompanied by any other particulars does not. constitute an “indication” for the purposes of Article 25 but that the provision regarding the significance of the citation of a type locality in an original description which at the meeting noted in the margin they had agreed to recommend should be inserted in the Régles should be expanded to cover also the citation, in the case of a parasitic species, of the name of the host species. 22. Arising out of the discussion on the preceding item, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that the provision recorded in Conclusion 21 above should be extended to cover also the citation, in the Article 25 (meaning of the expression “ le plus anciennement designé ”’) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 18) Article 28 (relative advantages of the “ First Reviser ” and “ Page Precedence ” principles), Secretary to submit Report on VOL. 4 R® 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 257 case of a fossil species, of the geological horizon in which the fossil was found, where no descriptive matter is given. 23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by Dr. Satyu Yamaguti (Japan) (file Z.N.(S.)125) that a ruling should be given regarding the manner in which the expression “le plus anciennement désigné” as used in Article 25 should be interpreted (see Yamaguti, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl.,1 : 102), together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (49) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the principal point raised by Dr. Yamaguti had been settled by the decision taken at the meeting noted in the margin that there should be added to the Régles provisions prescribing the method to be followed in determining the exact date to be assigned, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, to any given book. It would be useful, however, if the Commission were now to deal with the position which arose when two competing names were found to have been published in different books on the same date. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles prescribing that, where two books, each containing a different name for the same taxonomic unit or the same name for different taxonomic units are published on the same day or, under the decisions taken by the present (Paris) Congress, are to be treated as having been so published, by reason of the exact date of publication of the books concerned being unknown, the question as to which of the two names is to be given priority over the other is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. a 24. In the course of the discussion regarding the relative priority to be accorded to identical names published on the same day in different works recorded in the im- mediately preceding Conclusion, a discussion took place also on the cognate question of the provisions in Article 28 in its application to different names published for the same species, or the same name published for two or more different species, in the same book. It was generally agreed that the present wording of this Article was unsatisfactory. At the same time the view was expressed that it was desir- (Later reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 17) Article 22 (Dr. Jacot’s proposal that this article be deleted) Article 23 (proposal by the American Malacological Union that this Article be deleted) Article 1 and Articles 34& 35: co-ordination of, in relation to the names of species transferred from the Animal Kingdom to the Vegetable Kingdom International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. able that consideration should be given to the practical difficulties involved in applying the “ first reviser ”’ principle laid down in that Article and that in this connection an examination should be made of the relative advantages on the one hand of retaining the “ first reviser ”’ principle and on the other of substituting for this provision a provision prescribing that in such cases relative priority should be determined in accordance with the principle of page precedence. At the conclusion of the discussion, THE COMMISSION agreed :— to invite the Secretary to make a study, in the light of the foregoing discussion, of the problems involved in Article 28 and to submit a Report thereon, with recommendations, at the earliest possible moment. 25. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(8.)12) submitted by the late Dr. Arthur P. Jacot (U.S.A.) that Article 22 should be deleted from the Reégles and that in its place there should be inserted a Recommandation that authors’ names should not normally be cited (see Jacot, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 90), together with a counter-proposal submitted by the Secretary in the first part of Point (50) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to reject the proposal in regard to Article 22 submitted by the late Dr. Arthur P. Jacot. 26. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a Resolution (file Z.N.(S.)142) adopted by the American Malacological Union urging the deletion from the Regles of Article 23 (see Robertson, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 93), together with a counter-proposal submitted by the Secretary in the second part of Point (50) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to reject the proposal in regard to Article 23 submitted by the American Malacological Union. 27. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that with the consideration of Point (50): in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15, the Commission had concluded their examination of all the proposals affecting the interpretation of the Régles published in Part 5 of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature with the exception of a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)155) submitted by (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 1) Article 25 (authorship of nomina nuda and manuscript names when first validly published with an ** indication ”) (Previous reference : Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 18) 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 259 himself (Hemming, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencel., 1: 103-106) on the interpretation of Article 34 in relation to the pro- visions in regard to the status of names of genera which were originally described as belonging to the Animal King- dom but were later transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom. There was no real doubt, on any reasonable interpretation of the wording actually used in the substantive French text, that paragraph (3) of Article 1 (though a poorly-drafted provision) governed Article 34 and therefore that, where a genus, originally described as belonging to the Animal Kingdom, is later transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom, the generic name published for that genus retains its original status in zoological nomenclature for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy (Article 34). It would be well, however, to take advantage of the present clean-up of the Regles to make this clear. The same principle should be made clear also in relation to the application of paragraph (3) of Article 1 to Article 35 (i.e. to the Law of Homonymy in relation to specific names and specific trivial names). THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that the provisions contained in the concluding portion of Article 1 should be redrafted, so as to bring out more clearly that those provisions were concerned with the status in zoological nomencla- ture of the generic and specific names given to a species in the belief that that species belonged to the Animal Kingdom, when later that genus or species was treated as belonging to the Vegetable Kingdom ; . that such drafting amendments should be made in Article 34 (generic homonymy) as might be necessary to ensure that it was consistent with Article 1 and that regard should be paid to the same consideration in the choice of the wording to be employed in the Article which (as agreed at the meeting noted in the margin) is to replace the existing Article 35 (specific homonymy). 28. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S8.)352) regarding the authorship to be attributed to a name, when first published with an “indication,” in cases where the name in question had, prior to being so published, been either a nomen nudum or a manuscript name, together with a proposal in regard thereto submitted by the Secretary in Point (51) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted either in Article 25 or some other part of the Régles to make it clear that, bo — 260 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 30 (interpretation of Rule (g)) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 72) Title to be given to the “ Regles ” as amended by the present Congress when a name is validly published in conditions which satisfy the provisos to Article 25 and the name in question accordingly acquires rights under the Law of Priority and, prior to being so published, that name had either been published as a nomen nudum or had been a manuscript name, the name is to be attributed to the author by whom it was first published in conditions which satisfied the requirements of the said provisos to Article 25 and not to the earlier author by whom it had either been published as a nomen nudum or had been given currency as a manuscript name. . 29. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) relating to the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30 submitted by the Secretary in Point (52) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that, since this proposal had been drafted, the point at issue had been dealt with by the Commission, when considering the proposal submitted in Point (11) in Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)12. No action was called for, therefore, on the part of the Commission as regards the present proposal. THE COMMISSION took note of the above statement. 30. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) relating to the title to be applied to the Régles as revised at the present Congress, submitted by the Secretary in Point (53) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that an Article should be inserted in the Regles prescribing :— (a) that the title of the Régles as amended by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in 1948 shall be the “ Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, 1901-1948 ” ; (b) that the foregoing Régles may be referred to by the short title “‘ Regles, 1901-1948 ” ; (2) that a provision should be inserted in the Régles revised as in (1)(a) above, repealing the Régles previously in force as from the date on which the revised Reégles come into force. Addition of a further Schedule or Schedules to the “ Regles ” for recording decisions by the Commission on the invalidity of books or names ° (Later reference : Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 19) Words having the terminations “ widae ” and “ winae”’: restriction on use other than for names of families and subfamilies 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 261 31. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) regarding the method in future to be adopted: for recording decisions taken by the Com- mission either (1) that a given work is not available or (2) that a given name or class of name (for example the class of name dealt with in Opinion 124) is not available, submitted by the Secretary in Point (54) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)15.- . THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that decisions taken by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature (a) that a given book is not available for nomenclatorial purposes or (b) that a given name is not available should be recorded in a further Schedule or, if found more convenient, in two further Schedules to be attached to the Régles ; that it should be left to the jurists to determine the order in which the several] Schedules to the Regles should be arranged. (2 ~~ 32. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(8.)200) submitted by Commissioner H. Boschma (Netherlands) proposing an amendment to the Regles to secure that words having the terminations “ -idae ” and “ -inae,” prescribed in Article 4 as the terminations for the names of families and subfamilies, shall not be used either (1) as names for suprageneric groups other than those respectively specified in Article 4 or (2) as names of genera or of units of lower rank, except where such a termination is required for a trivial name formed in the first declension in the genitive singular. At the same time also the Com- mission had before them a proposal on this subject sub- mitted by the Secretary in Point (55) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)15. In his application on this subject, Com- missioner Boschma referred to the highly objectionable practice adopted by certain authors in coining names of the above kind as the names (for example) of sections of sub- families and cited in this connection the use by Hancock (1906) of the name Bufonidae as the name of a section of the subfamily Tetriginae of the family ACRIDIDAE (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera). THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that provisions should be inserted points in the Régles:— (a) prohibiting the use of words having either the termination “ -idae ” or the termination “nae” as the names of suprageneric groups other than at appropriate bo for) bo Article 12 (redrafting of, to eliminate confusion between taxonomy and nomenclature) Article 7 (redrafting of, to eliminate confusion between taxonomy and nomenclature) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. families or, as the case may be, subfamilies, and invalidating such names when published for such purposes ; (b) prohibiting the use of words having either of the terminations specified in (a) above as the names either (i) of genera or (ii) of taxonomic units of lower rank and invalidating such names when published for such purposes, save in the case of a trivial name which consists of the name of a place or personage of which the nominative singular has the termination “ -ina ” or ‘‘-ida,” cited in the genitive singular (as, for example, the trivial name catharinae). 33. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) for the redrafting of Article 12 of the Reégles in such a way as to eliminate the confusion between taxonomic ideas and nomenclatorial facts which at present marred that Article, submitted by the Secretary in Point (56) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that Article 12 of the Régles should be redrafted on the following lines :— When a specimen or specimens originally des- cribed as representing a species is or are treated by a later author as representing a subspecies, the name published as the specific trivial name of the species becomes the subspecific trivial name of the subspecies, and vice versa. 34. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that Article 7 should be redrafted to eliminate the confusion between taxonomy and nomen- clature implicit in the present wording, submitted by the Secretary in Point (57) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that Article 7 of the Régles should be redrafted on the following lines :— When a species or group of species originally described as constituting a genus is treated by a later author as constituting a subgenus, the name published as the generic name for the genus becomes the subgeneric name of the subgenus, and vice versa. Articles 6& 11: co-ordination of texts Articles 19 & 32: co-ordination of texts (Previous reference: Paris Session, ith Meeting, Conclusion 12) Article 8: (amendment of provision proposed in replace- ment of second “Recommandation” 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 263 35. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that the discrepancy between the wording employed in the parallel Articles 6 and 11 of the Regles (a discrepancy which was undoubtedly due to inadvertence in drafting) should be rectified by amending Article 6 so as to bring the wording used in that Article into line with that employed in Article 11, submitted by the Secretary in Point (58) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that, in order to bring the texts of Articles 6 and 11 into line with one another, the words “et recom- mandations ’” should be inserted in Article 6 after the word “ régles.” 36. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled at this point that among the proposi- tions submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) was one which also related to the formal co-ordination of two Articles of the Reégles, which he suggested might be con- veniently considered by the Commission at the present point. This proposition (file Z.N.(S.)352) aimed at securing that words should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear that Article 32 did not impose any limitation on the generality of the provisions of Article 19 of the Regles. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the Régles to ensure the co-ordination of Articles 19 and 32 by making it clear that nothing in the last-named Article detracts from the generality of the provisions of Article 19. 37. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(8.)253) submitted by Professor L. W. Grensted (United Kingdom) that Recommandation (2)(b) to Article 8, relating to the formation of a compound name where the words used in forming that compound name are of Greek origin, should be amended so as to eliminate the sentence condoning the formation of such a name inan incorrect manner, such a sentence being unnecessary and inappropriate in a non-mandatory provision such as a Recommandation. It was bad enough to have such a generic name as Hippopotamus which Linnaeus. had presumably thought meant a “ river-horse ” but which, in fact, through being incorrectly formed, meant a “ horse- river,” but it was intolerable that an incorrectly formed name of this kind should be gratuitously referred to in a provision which was ostensibly concerned only to show the correct manner of forming compound names. At the same 264 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 15) (For a proposed addition to this “© Recommandation ”’, See Paris Session, llth Meeting, Conclusion 20) time the Commission had before them a proposal on the same subject submitted by the Secretary in Point (59) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. It was pointed out in discussion that, since the foregoing proposals had been formulated, the Commission had agreed - to recommend that the Recommandations to Article 8 should be converted into mandatory provisions. This decision made it necessary that in the interest of stability in nomenclature words should be inserted to preserve compound names consisting of words of Greek origin, even when formed in a totally incorrect manner (as in the case of the name Hippopotamus). It was suggested that this end might best be secured by confining to a bare enumeration of the permissible types of generic names the portions of Recommandation (2) to be made mandatory and by retaining as Recommandations the comments included in the present provision in regard to certain of the types of names there enumerated. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that, when, as agreed at the meeting noted in the margin, the second of the two Recommandations to Article 8 was redrafted as a mandatory pro- vision, that provision should be confined to a bare enumeration of the types of words there listed as words admissible for selection as generic names, together with appropriate examples, and that the comments which were at present attached to, or which at present constitute, items (a), (b )x(e)s (f), (bh), (8), (€) and (4), (i), (j) should be given as Recommandations attached to the provisions relating to the items concerned ; (2) that, in the case of category (b), the whole of the existing comment should be deleted, namely, the words “in which the attributive should precede the principal word,’ the examples cited im- mediately thereafter and the whole of the following paragraph (“This does not . . Biorhiza’’) and that, in place thereof, there should be inserted a Recommandation on the following lines :— Where a name consisting of a compound word is formed from words of Greek origin, the attribute should, if it expresses a quality, precede the principal word, but where it ex- presses either an action or an activity or a state, may either precede or follow the word with which it is conjoined. Articles 34& 35: relative precedence to be given to generic and subgeneric homonyms and to specific and subspecific homonyms of the same date (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 1) Article 36 (re-allocation to Articles 34 and 35 ° “ Recommanda- tions ”’) Previous reference : Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 1) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conciusion 9) Ih Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 265 38. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) for the conversion into a mandat- ory provision of the addition relating to the relative precedence to be accorded to homonyms of identical date made to Article 36 by the XIth International Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930 which at present appears as a Recommandation, submitted by the Secretary in Point (60) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) pointed out that this provision was totally valueless in the form of a Recommandation only, and that it was only if it became a mandatory provision that it could have any practical utility. That this provision appeared in the Régles as a Recommandation and not as a mandatory provision might well be due to editorial inadvertence, for it was expressly stated in the Commission’s Opinion 124, which dealt with another aspect of the same * matter, that the provision in question was an “ amendment to Article 36’, a statement which would not have been correct if this provision had been no more than a Recom- mandation. In any case this Recommandation was quite inappropriately placed in Article 36, to which it was unrelated in subject. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that the provision relating to homonyms of identical date added by the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology to Article 36 in the form of a Recomman- dation should be converted into a mandatory provision and that the portion concerned with generic and subgeneric names should be related to Article 34 and ' that concerned with specific and subspecific trivial names to Article 35, when the last-named Article was redrafted in accordance with the decision already taken at the meeting noted in the margin. 39. Arising out of the discussion recorded in Conclusion 38 above, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that, when Article 36 was redrafted in accordance with the decision taken at the meeting noted in the margin, the provisions which at present appear as Recommandations attached to that Article should, subject to any necessary drafting amendments, be allocated respectively to Article 34, so far as generic names are concerned, and to Article 35, so far as trivial names are concerned ; that, consequential upon the recommendation agreed to be submitted to give effect to a correction made in Article 4 by the Eighth International (2) 266 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Status of certain alleged subgeneric names: completio of decision given in “ Opinion ” 124 (Later reference : Paris Session, llth Meeting, Conclusion 9) (Later reference: Paris Session, 13th Meeting Conclusion. 2) Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Graz in 1910, a corresponding correction (by the substi- tution of the word “ théme”’ for the word “ radical ’’) should be made in the third and fourth of the unnumbered Recommandations at present attached to Article 36. 40. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a n Proposal (file Z.N.(S.)394) for the completion of the decision regarding the status of certain terms, published in circum- stances which had something of the appearance of giving to those names a subgeneric status recorded in Opinion 124, submitted by the Secretary in Point (61) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT - (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that this question, which had first been raised by Dr. Ashley B. Gurney (U.8.A.), was one of a number which arose in connection with the failure of the Commission on some occasions in the past to deal in their Opinions with the whole of a given problem submitted to them for decision. A proposal for dealing with this anomaly had been received from Commissioner H. Boschma (Netherlands) and would be brought before the Commission at a later meeting. In the case of Opinion 124, the defect which required to be rectified was that, as worded, that Opinion applied only to terms of the class in question (alleged subgeneric names), as published by Linnaeus in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae, whereas the decision in that Opinion should have covered the use of such terms in all the works of Linnaeus, for, when he used such terms in other works, he always did so in a sense similar to that adopted in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae. It was desirable also that, when the Commission made this correction, they should extend the decision in regard to the use of the terms in question by Linnaeus to cover the use of the same or similar terms by Fabricius (J.C.), who in this matter had followed a practice exactly parallel to that adopted by Linnaeus. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, where in any of his works (and not merely in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae) Linnaeus, when citing the name of a species, placed an intermediate term or intermediate terms between the name of the genus and the trivial name of the species, an intermediate term so used was not to be treated as having thereby acquired the status of a subgeneric name as from the date of being so published ; 9h Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 267 (2) that the decision set out in (1) above applies also to intermediate terms placed between the generic name and the trivial name of a species by Fabricius (J.C.) in any of his works ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decision speci- fied in (1) and (2) above. fra i ac Bl 41. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a cology”: status Proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) that a provision should be inserted of names placed on jn the Reégles clarifying the status of a generic name, once it has been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’, submitted by the Secretary in Point (62) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) observed that the object of this proposal was to lay down clearly the status of a generic name once it was placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’. This proposal did not prejudge in any way the general investigation into the problem of finding ways and means | for stabilising zoological nomenclature, which at their 4 ne meeting held that morning the Commission, at the request Sth Meike of the Section on Nomenclature, had undertaken to carry Conclusion 4) out before the next meeting of the Congress. All that the present proposal did was to provide a breathing space between the time when a mistake in the “ Official List ” was detected and the time when action was taken to correct that mistake. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend that there should be inserted in the Régles provisions :— (a) prescribing that, for the purpose of pro- moting the stabilisation of generic nomen- clature, there shall be an “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’, on which shall be inscribed the following classes of generic name, each name being accompanied by the name of the type species of the genus concerned and particulars as to the manner in which that species was so designated, indicated, or selected :— (i) every generic name validated by the Commission under its plenary powers or for which the type species has been similarly designated ; 68 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (ii) the name of every genus, when an available name, in respect of which or its type species the Commission has rendered an Opinion ; (iii) the name of any genus which the Commission, in consultation with specialists coricerned, considers it desirable to stabilise ; (b) directing that, when a generic name has (c) been placed on the “ Official List’, that name is to be used, in preference to any other name, for the species which is the type species of the genus so named, save that, where, as agreed at the meeting noted in the margin, the Commission, in order not to appear to prejudge a purely taxonomic question, place on the “ Official List ”’ the names of two or more genera, the respective type species of which are regarded by some systematists as belonging to differ- ent genera but by others as being con- generic with one another, the later pub- lished of the two generic names in question is for use only by those workers who regard the respective type species of the two genera concerned as not being congeneric with one another ; specifying that, where a generic name belonging either to the second or the third of the classes specified in (a) above is found, after having been placed on the “ Official List’, either (1) not to be an available name or (2) not to be the oldest name available, there being an older name for a genus having as its type species a species either subjectively identified with, or subjectively regarded as being congeneric with, the type species of the genus the name of which has been placed on the “ Official List ” or (3) to have as its type species some species other than the type species attributed to it in the “ Official List’, the generic name in question is nevertheless not to be discarded in favour of some other name or used in a sense different from that specified in the “ Official List”, unless and until the Commission, on having the facts laid before it, shall so direct ; “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”: establishment of, and status of names placed on (For a decision. to alter the title of thia “* Official List,” see Paris Session, llth Meeting, Conclusion 5) _ 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 269 (d) prescribing any other provisions relating to the “ Official List’ which the present Congress may enact in regard to the said * Official List ”’ ; (e) laying it down that it is the duty of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to maintain the said “Official List’ and to foster its development by every means in its power ; (2) agreed that the duties imposed upon the Commission in (1) above should be specified in the By-Laws of the Commission when revised in the light of the decisions taken by the present (Paris) Congress. 42. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(G.)48), that there should be established an “ Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology ” parallel to the “ Official List ” established for generic names by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913, submitted by the Secretary in Point (63) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) pointed out that, although the Plenary Powers Resolution adopted by the Congress in 1913 applied both to generic names and to trivial names, the “ Official List ” established by the Congress at the same meeting was concerned only with generic names. This was an anomaly which should be corrected. The “ Official List of Trivial Names ” now proposed would be an exact parallel of the existing “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” and the status of names placed on these “ Official Lists ” would be subject to similar regulations. A reference to the new “ Official List ” would be needed in the body of the Régles. A parallel reference would be needed also in the By-Laws of the Commission, when revised in the light of the decisions taken by the present Congress. In the discussion which ensued, general agreement was expressed with the proposal that there should be established an “ Official List ” of the kind proposed. It would provide a valuable means both for recording decisions taken by the Commission in regard to the names of particular species and also for stabilising the names of important species. The view was expressed however that it might be better if this “ Official List ’’ were given the title of “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” rather than the title of “ Official List of Trivial Names in Zoology ”, 270 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. THE COMMISSION :— (1) agreed to recommend the insertion in the Reégles of provisions prescribing : (F 0 (a) that there should be an “ Official List of may Oifieiae , ees Specific Names in Zoology ”’, parallel to the here established, see “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”’, Paris Session, on which should be inscribed the oldest llth Meeting, Ongclibeon 5} available trivial name of any species, the specific name of which it was desired should be stabilised, together with the generic name, in combination with which the trivial name in question was originally published ; that the status of a specific name, once placed on the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” shall be subject to regulations similar to those prescribed for the status of generic names placed on the “* Official List for Generic Names in Zoo- logy”, that is to say, a specific name once stabilised in this way is to be used in preference to any other name for the species in question and the trivial name in question is not to be replaced by any other trivial name, even if later it is found either (1) that the trivial name in question is not an avail- able name or (2) that it is not the oldest available trivial name for the species in question, unless, and until, on the facts being laid before the Commission, the Com- mission shall so direct ; (c}) that the names to be included in the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ” should include :— (i) every name validated by the Com- mission under its plenary powers ; — J ~— (ii) any name, being an available name, on which the Commission has at any time rendered an Opinion ; (iii) the name of the type species of any genus, the name of which is placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”, save where such a name is not, either objectively or subjectively, the oldest available name for the species in question, in which case there shall be added to the “ Official List of Specific Names in “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” : additional provision relating to Tenth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session: date and time noted (Previous reference: Paris Session, 8th Meeting, Conclusion 7) VOL. 4S 9th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 271 Zoology ” the oldest available name for the taxonomic species concerned ; (iv) the oldest available name for :— (1) species of importance in medicine, agriculture, veterinary science and other fields of applied biology, in stratigraphy and in the teaching of zoology ; (2) species, the nomenclature of which the Commission, in consultation with specialists concerned, consider — it desirable to stabilise ; (d) that the insertion on the “ Official List ” of a given specific name is not to be interpreted as an expression of opinion on the taxonomic question whether the animal so named should be regarded as being on the one hand a distinct species or on the other hand a subspecies of some other species ; that it is the duty of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to maintain the said “ Official List” and to foster its development by every means in its power ; (2) agreed that the duties imposed upon the Commis- sion in (1) above should be specified in the By- Laws of the Commission, when revised in the light of the decisions taken by the present (Paris) Congress. (e ~— 43. Arising out of the discussion in regard to the scope of the proposed “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” recorded in Conclusion 42 above, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that the recommendation specified in Conclusion 42(1)(c)(iv)(1) above in relation to names to be admitted to the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ” should be applied also in relation to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” 44. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) proposed that, now that the Commission had completed their examination of the recommendations submitted in Commission Paper I.C.(48)15, they should adjourn until the next day. As already announced, their next meeting, which would be held concurrently with the second meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, would take place on the morning of the following day (Saturday, 24th July, 1948) at 0900 hours. THE COMMISSION took note of the above statement. (The Commission thereupon adjourned at 2315 hours). INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948 CONCLUSIONS of the Tenth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Saturday, 24th July, 1948, at 0900 hours (Meeting held concurrently with the Second Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature) PRESENT : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Dr. E. Hindle (United Kingdom) Professor Harold Kirby (U.8.A.) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following were also present : M. J. Aubert (Switzerland) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) M. André Chavan (France) M. Georges Deflandre (France) Mme. Marthe Deflandre-Rigaud (France) Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.8.A.) Professor E. Fischer-Piette (France) M. H. Gisin (Switzerland) Professor R. Jeannel (France) Dr. P. Jespersen (Denmark) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom) Dr. H. H. J. Nesbitt (Canada) Mr. C. D. Radford (United Kingdom) Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.) M. J. Segal (U.S.8.R.) Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary Miss J. H. Shorey, Acting Documents Officer Nomenclature of supergeneric groups below family level : communication by Prof, R. Jeannel (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 11) Nomenclature of families and sub-families : Prof. R. L. Usinger’s communication (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 11) The concepts “ grade” and “ pseudo-genus ” : communication by M. G. Deflandre 10th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 273 1. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication (file Z.N.(S.)357) submitted by Professor R. Jeannel (France) on the subject of the nomenclature of supergeneric groups below the family level’. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that the problem of the nomenclature of supergeneric groups submitted by Professor R. Jeannel should be included among the matters to be dealt with in the Report on the problems arising in connection with Family and Sub-Family names which it had been agreed at the meeting noted in the margin the Secre- tary to the Commission should be invited to prepare for consideration by the Commission at their meeting to be held during the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress. 2. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, were informed by Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) that he did not now propose to make the communication (file Z.N.(S.)357), of which he had given notice, for, as this was concerned with the rules governing the nomenclature of families, it could, he thought, better be treated as forming part of the documentation which would form the basis of the Report by the Secretary, to which reference had just been made. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that the paper on the nomenclature of families and subfamilies by Professor E. Gorton Linsley and Professor Robert L. Usinger which had been received — from Professor Usinger should form part of the mater- ial to be studied by the Secretary to the Commission in preparing the Report which at the meeting noted in the margin the Commission had asked him to furnish for their consideration at their meeting to be held at the next (XIVth) meeting of the Congress. 3. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication® submitted by M. Georges Deflandre (France), in which the applicant asked that the Reégles should be amended to provide recognition of the concepts “ grade” and “ pseudo- genus ”’ (file Z.N.(8.)363). * For the text of the communication made by Professor Jeannel, see pages 164-165 in Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 28-29 in Volume 5. _ * For the text of the communication made by M. Deflandre, see page 166 of Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 30-31 in Volume 5. VOL. 4 S® 274 (Later reference: Paris Session, 1lth Meeting, Conclusion 13) Fragments (organites and sclerites) of fossil invertebrates : communication by M. G. Deflandre and Mme. M. Deflandre- Rigaud (Later reference: Paris Session, L1th Meeting, Conclusion 14) Arachnid names published in Clerck, 1757 : proposal to make available : pre- liminary discussion International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. THE COMMISSION agreed :—‘ to take into consideration as soon as possible the proposal that recognition should be given in the Regles to the concepts “‘ grade ” and “ pseudo-genus ”. 4, THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication -submitted by M. Georges Deflandre and Mme. Marthe Deflandre Rigaud (France)®, in which the applicants asked that the Regles should be amended so as to recognise a new system of terminology—the terms concerned to be those used in the Roman military hierarchy—for use for frag- ments (organites and sclerites) of certain fossil invertebrates (file Z.N.(S.)364). THE COMMISSION agreed :— to take into consideration as soon as possible the proposal that recognition should be given in the » Regles for a new system of terminology for use for fragments (organites and sclerites) of certain fossil invertebrates. 5. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France)!° and similar communications received from M. Maurice Thomas (Belgium), in which the applicants asked that the Commis- sion should make available nomenclatorially the generic name Araneus and the trivial names published for certain Arachnid species by Clerck in his Aranei svecici, notwith- standing the fact that those names were published in 1757, i.e. prior to the date prescribed as the starting point of zoological nomenclature in Article 26 of the Régles (file Z.N.(S.)238). PROFESSOR PIERRE BONNET (FRANCE) said that the proposal which he laid before the Commission was one of the utmost importance in the study of Arachnology. That proposal aimed at securing an exception to the pro- visions of Article 26 in favour of the Arachnid names pub- lished by Clerck in 1757, the year prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature as prescribed by that Article. The precise form of the method to be adopted to secure this end was of indifference to himself and was primarily a matter for the Commission to: determine. What was essential was to provide authority for the use of the names published by Clerck, for these names were used by the great majority of Arachnologists, and great confusion would result if an attempt were made to apply to the species * For the text of the communication made by M. and Mme. Deflandre, see page 167 of Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 31-32 of Volume 5. _ 1° For the text of the communication made by Professor Bonnet, see pages 173-176 of Volume 3, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 33- 35 of Volume 5. 10th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 275 concerned the later names properly applicable thereto under the Régles. In many cases it was a matter of doubt what were the alternative names which should strictly be used, and in consequence the small minority of specialists who did not use the Clerckian names had found it necessary to cite not only the names which they believed to be the correct names under the Regles but also the corresponding Clerckian hames, as it was only by so doing that they could ensure that Arachnologists reading their works would understand to which species they were referring. The 54 Species named by Clerck were the commonest European species and prior to the adoption of the Regles the great majority of these names had been in universal use. It had been a grave error on the part of the authors of the Regles not to provide an exception in Article 26 in favour of the Clerckian names, notwithstanding the fact: that they had been published one year prior to the date selected in the Reégles as the starting point of zoological nomenclature. The application now submitted to the Commission in favour of action which would render the Clerckian names available was based upon a consultation which had been carried out with the 62 specialists in different parts of the world who today consti- tuted the entire body of workers in the field in question. Of these specialists 54 had furnished statements of their views: 48 of these specialists had expressed themselves as being in favour of the present petition ; 4 were opposed to it; 2 had considered themselves not sufficiently exper- lenced to justify them in expressing an opinion. Of the 8 specialists who had not replied, 6 were nationals of countries with which for political reasons communication was difficult and their silence should certainly not be interpreted as indicating a desire on their part to abstain from voting on the present application. It would be seen therefore that there was an overwhelming consensus of opinion on the part of interested specialists in favour of the present application. -In returning a favourable reply to the present application, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would give much satisfaction to the great majority of the specialists interested in this group who al- ready used the names published by Clerck and were anxious that this usage should now be officially approved. Such a decision would give satisfaction also to almost all of the small minority who did not at present use the Clerckian names but who had expressed themselves as most anxious to do so, if official approval were to be given to this course. The grant of the present application by the Commission would confer a signal benefit on the nomenclature of Arachnology and would redound greatly to the honour of the nomen- claturists of 1948, (Later reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeling, Conclusion 10) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the subject matter of the present application had constituted a serious problem in the group concerned long before the present Régles were adopted. It had not been found possible in the Régles to provide an exception in favour of Clerck’s Arachnid names and in consequence it had not been possible to make any progress in this matter in the period between 1901, the year in which the Régles were adopted, and the year 1913, when the Congress had granted plenary powers to the Commission to suspend the Régles in cases where they were satisfied that greater confusion than uniformity would otherwise ensue. It was unfortunate that this case, which was admitted by all to be one of great importance to specialists in the group concerned had not long ago formed the subject of an appli- cation for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers. The long delay which had occurred in submitting such a request naturally made the problem more difficult of solution. Moreover, if the Commission were now to find it possible to grant the request submitted, they would equally have been able to so do thirty years before. Thus, the delay had caused also quite unnecessary inconvenience to all students of the group concerned and the expenditure of much unnecessary time on discussion of a question which could readily have been settled in one sense or another a generation earlier. Continuing, the Acting President said that, in view of the exceptional interest of this case and of the special features which it presented, he considered that the best course would be to defer its further consideration until a later meeting of the Commission, in order to allow everyone who had heard Professor Bonnet’s presentation of the case to consider the issues involved. He accordingly proposed that this application should be considered at a later meeting of the Commission to be held joimtly with the Section on Nomenclature. In the meanwhile, he proposed to hand the dossier relating to this case to Professor di Caporiacco, - whom he would call upon to make a further explanatory statement at the opening of the meeting when this matter was next considered. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to defer further consideration of the application that they should use their plenary powers to make available nomenclatorially the names published for certain taxonomic units in the Class Arachnida by Clerck in 1757, prior to the date fixed by Article 26 of the Reégles as the starting point of zoological nomenclature until Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Congress on the work performed during its Paris Session 10th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 277 a later meeting to be held jointly with the Section on Nomenclature on Monday, 26th July, 1948. 6. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that he had originally expected that it would be necessary to ask the Commission, as also the Section on Nomenclature, to meet again that afternoon and perhaps also in the evening. Both the Commission and the Section had, however, made such good progress in the consideration of the matters requiring their attention that it would not now be necessary to ask either body to meet again before the weekend. That this should be so would, he felt sure, be welcomed by the members of the Commission and the Section, some of whom, no doubt, desired to attend the function organised for that afternoon by the authorities of the Congress. A day and a half’s break in the meetings of the Commission would also be most valuable to himself (the Acting President), for it would provide him with an opportunity to prepare the draft of the Report to be sub- mitted by the Commission to the Congress on their work during their Paris Session, which, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, it was his duty to prepare for the consideration of the Commission. He proposed that, as on former occasions, the first part of the Report should be devoted to giving a succinct account of matters relating to the work and personnel of the Commission which had been dealt with since the last meeting of the Congress, including particulars in regard to such matters as changes in the membership of the Commission, together with the proposals of the Commission for the filling of certain of its offices which would fall vacant at the close of the present Congress, and for the filling of vacancies in the membership of the Commission arising from the completion of the term of service of the Class 1949. Second, he proposed that the Report should set out the proposals of the Commission for the reform of.their composition and of their procedure and matters connected therewith. Finally the Report should deal with the question of the reforms which it had been agreed to recommend should be made in the Reégles. It would not be necessary to refer in detail to the numerous minor changes which it had been agreed to recommend, for these had all been agreed with the Section on Nomenclature, to which, jointly with the Commission, the Congress looked “for advice in such matters. It was however, desirable that the Report should give a general picture of the reforms pro- posed and in particular that it should refer specifically to the more important features of those reforms. Turning to tne question of the procedure to be adopted in considering the draft Report, the Acting President 278 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Eleventh Meeting of the Commission during its Paris Session: date and time noted recalled that the following Monday, 26th July, 1948, was the last day on which it would be possible to hold meetings of the Commission and the Section prior to the final Concilium Plenum of the Congress to be held on the morning of the following day, Tuesday, 27th July. In spite of the excellent progress made by the Commission and the Section during the past week, there still remained a large amount of work to be despatched if the full programme was to be carried through to a successful issue. It was essential therefore that the best possible use should be made of the limited amount of working time which still remained. To this end, he (the Acting President) suggested that the draft of the Commission’s Report should be considered first at a meeting to be held jointly between the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature on the morning of Monday, 26th July. This procedure would have the advantage that, while affording the Commission the fullest opportunity for considering the document submitted for their consideration, it would also enable them to obtain the views and advice of the members of the Section on Nomenclature at a stage when their Report was still in draft and changes in wording and emphasis could be made in a way which would not be possible—except with considerable difficulty—if the Report were to be formally adopted by the Commission prior to its being brought before the Section. Under the procedure suggested the Commission would be able to make any changes in the draft Report which they might consider desirable and at the same time to incorporate in that docu- ment any suggestions for its improvement which might have been made during the joint consideration of the draft with the members of the Section. It should be possible in this way to secure the fullest agreement between the Commission and the Section on the Report to be submitted to the Congress and to do so in the promptest and most businesslike manner. At the present stage of the Congress this latter consideration was of great importance, in view of the large number of individual problems of nomenclature still awaiting decision. THE COMMISSION took note of, and approved, the proposals submitted by the Acting President in regard to the procedure to be adopted in the preparation, and sub- sequent consideration, of the Report to be submitted to the Congress. 7. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) then proposed that the Commission should adjourn for the day. As already announced, the next meeting of the Commission, which, like the present meeting, 10th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 279 would be held concurrently with a meeting of the Section, on Nomenclature, would take place on Monday, 26th J uly, 1948. The meeting would start at 0900 hours. THE COMMISSION took note of the above arrange- ments. (Lhe Commission thereupon adjourned at 1210 hours). ( 280 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948. CONCLUSIONS of the Eleventh Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948, at 0930 hours. (Meeting held concurrently with the Third Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature.) PRESENT : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Dr. E. Hindle (United Kingdom) Professor A. R. Jorge (Portugal) Professor Harold Kirby (U.S8.A.) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor R. Spirck (Denmark) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following were also present : Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) M. André Chavan (France) Mr. C. F. dos Passos (U.S.A.) Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom} Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.) Signor Antonio Valle (Italy) Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom) Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary areeer ei a : 1. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS eg eae o HEMMING) apologised for having kept the meeting waiting. The reason, as the Commission appreciated, was that, although ever since the close of the meeting on Saturday he had been engaged continuously on work in connection with today’s meetings of the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature, he had only just completed the preparations necessary for that purpose. Programme for the meetings to be held during the day 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 281 2. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) outlined the procedure which he proposed for the meetings to be held that day. In spite of the excellent progress made at the meetings held during the previous week, there remained a large number of matters awaiting the attention of the Commission. These included a con- siderable number of further proposals for the improvement of the Regles and also a large number of applications relating to individual problems of nomenclature which had been submitted to the Commission for decision. It was impor- tant that decisions should be taken on as many as possible of these applications : first, because the applicants con- cerned, many of whom—owing to the war and other causes —had been waiting for a decision for a number of years, were most anxious to secure a settlement of the problems which they had submitted to the Commission, second, because it was important that the Commission should decide as many of these cases as possible without further delay, in order to demonstrate to zoologists generally that they were capable of reaching definite decisions on cases which had been carefully prepared and properly submitted. Continuing, the Acting President said that it would be necessary for the Commission—as also thé Section on Nomenclature—to devote to the purpose the whole of the present day and in addition probably to meet again in the evening after dinner. All the meetings to be held that day would, like the present meeting, be concurrent meetings of the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature. This procedure would enable the Commission to reach decisions on the matters awaiting their attention in the presence of the members of the Section and with the assis- tance and advice of any members of the Section who might desire to take part in these discussions. Under this procedure, it would be possible to report to the Section recommendations agreed upon by the Commission directly they had been formulated. He proposed therefore from time to time to adjourn the meeting of the Commission, to enable him, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commis- sion, to report to the Section recommendations and con- clusions reached by the Commission. THE COMMISSION :— took note of the programme outlined by the Acting President and approved the proposals which he had submitted in regard to the procedure to be adopted, 282 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Election of Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) to be an Alternate Member of the Commission for the duration of the Paris Session (Previous reference: Paris Session, 1st Meeting, Conclusion 6(2) ) Withdrawal of 3. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) reported that, in accordance with the arrange- ment made at the first meeting of the Commission during its present Session, Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) had been invited to serve as an Alternate Member of the Commission during the present (Paris) Session of meetings, vice Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) who was unable to be present. This invitation had been accepted by Professor Mansour. THE COMMISSION :— took note of the above statement and welcomed Professor Mansour to their table. (Lhe election of Professor K. Mansour to be an Alternate Member of the Commission was thereupon reported to the Section on Nomenclature). 4. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS Professor R. Sparck HEMMING) said that he had to report that, much, as he and nomination of Dr. H. Lemche as prospective Danish member of the Commission (Previous reference: Paris Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion, 17(3) ) felt sure, to the regret of all members of the Commission, Professor R. Sparck (Denmark) had intimated that on reflection he felt that pressure of his other duties, especially duties in connection with the next meeting of the Congress, would make it preferable that some other Danish zoologist should be nominated to be the Danish member of the Commission in succession to Dr. Th. Mortensen, whose resignation on grounds of ill-health had caused such regret to all members of the Commission. Discussions on this question had accordingly been held between the Danish zoologists present at the Congress, who had recommended that the vacancy caused by the withdrawal of Professor Sparck should be filled by the election of Dr. Henning Lemche. Dr. Lemche was well known to the members of the Commission not only through his published work but also on account of his active participation both in the public meetings of the Commission and in the meetings of the Section on Nomenclature during the present Congress. THE COMMISSION :— (1) took note with regret that on account of pressure of other work Professor R. Spirck (Denmark) had felt bound to ask for permission to withdraw his acceptance of nomination as the Danish member of the Commission in succession to Dr. Th. Mortensen (resigned on account of ill- health) ; (2) agreed to nominate Dr. Henning Lemche (Den- mark) to be the Danish member of the Commission as from the close of the Paris Congress in succession Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Congress : detailed examination of draft proposed (Previous reference: Paris Session, 10th Meeting, Conclusion 6) Danish representation on the Commission and the arrangements proposed to be adopted in place of the system of three nine-year Classes in the membership of the Commission Previous references: Paris Session, 11th Meeting, Conclusion 4 ; 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3) Proposed “ Official List ” of names of species : title to be changed (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 42) llth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 283 to Commissioner Th. Mortensen (resigned) and to appoint Dr. Lemche to be an Alternate Member of the Commission for the remainder of the Paris Session vice Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) who had been unable to attend that Session. (Dr. Lemche thereupon took his place as an Alternate Member of the Commission.) (Lhe Nomination of Dr. Lemche to be a member of the Commission in succession to Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark) vice Professor R. Spirck (withdrawn) was thereupon reported to the Section on N. omenclature.) 5. THE COMMISSION then turned to consider the draft of the Report to be submitted by them to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its final Plenary Session to be held on the following day (Tuesday, 27th July, 1948) (Commission Paper I.C.(48) 20), which, as arranged at the meeting noted in the margin, had been prepared for their consideration by their Secretary, Com- missioner Francis Hemming. After having satisfied themselves regarding the general scope and form of the proposed Report, THE COMMISSION, in conjunction with the Section on Nomenclature, examined the draft Report, paragraph by paragraph. In the course of this examination, THE COMMISSION, in agreement with the Section, signified their intention to make the under- mentioned changes in the following paragraphs of the proposed Report — (1) Paragraphs 17 and 19.—These pargaraphs would need to be amended (a) to take account of the changes in the arrangements for Danish representa- tion on the Commission which had just been agreed upon, and (b) to indicate (in the second of these paragraphs) the revised arrangements which, at the meeting noted in the margin, it had been agreed to substitute for the existing system by which the membership of the Commission was divided into three 9-year Classes ; Paragraphs 44 and 45.—It was desirable that these two. paragraphs, of which the first was concerned with the “ Official List of Generic Names in. Zoo- logy” and the second with the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology,” should be drafted in similar terms. Paragraph 45 should therefore be redrafted to correspond with paragraph 44. It was desirable to indicate the types of name which it was proposed should be placed on the new “ Official List ” and also to emphasise that the names to be (2 — 284 Verification of text of revised * Regles ” : an ad hoc Editorial Committee substituted for the Executive Committee of the Commission (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 12) (3 ~— International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. standardised in that ‘Official List ’ were the trivial names comprised in the specific names con- cerned, and to make it clear that, although the generic name with which any such trivial name was originally published must necessarily be included in the ‘‘ Official List,’’ such inclusion did not confer any status on the binominal combination in which that trivial name had originally been published or imply any view on the taxonomic question of the genus to which the species so named should be referred. For this purpose, it was desirable that the title of this “‘ Official List’ should be changed from the ‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” to the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.” It was desirable that an explanation on the foregoing lines regarding the scope of this “* Official List’ should be prefixed to this “ List” when it was published. These points should be made clear in the revised draft of paragraph 45. Paragraph 47.—It was felt that, although this paragraph, as drafted, correctly represented both the recommendation which the Commission had sub- mitted to the Section on Nomenclature regarding the procedure to be adopted after the Congress for seeing the revised text of the Reégles through the press and also the conclusion thereon reached by the Section, the subject was of such great importance that it was desirable, if possible, to strengthen the arrangements that had been proposed. It was suggested that this end would be achieved if the duty of making a close examination of the draft text of the Régles prepared by the jurists were entrusted not to the Executive Committee of the Commission (as hitherto proposed) but to a specially appointed ad hoc Editorial Committee composed of three members (or Alternate Members) of the Commission . who had been present throughout the discussions held in Paris. The duties involved were heavy, and it was felt that they could better be discharged by such a body than by the Executive Committee of the Commission, only one of the three members of which had been present at the Paris Congress. It was agreed that the change suggested was an improve- ment over the arrangement hitherto contemplated and that paragraph 47 should be redrafted accor- dingly. As regards the composition of the proposed ad hoc Editorial Committee, it was felt that a decision should be postponed until later in the day (Later reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 62) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 42) llth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 285 in order to permit of informal consultations for the purpose of. bringing forward a proposal which would be generally acceptable. At the close of the foregoing discussion, attention was drawn to the fact that, as the Commission was to sit continuously throughout the day, it might happen that they would wish to make some addition to their Report in the light of the further business which they would then have transacted. While it was agreed that it was desirable that the Commission should at once seek the approval of the Section on Nomenclature for their Report, that approval should be sought on two understandings. The first of these understandings related to the scope of the approval given by the Section to miscellaneous amendments of, and changes in, the Régles. The Report, as drafted, covered all such amendments or changes as had already been approved by the Commission and confirmed by the Section. In addition, however, there were other proposals for amend- ments and changes in the Régles awaiting consideration by the Commission and the Section. The reference in the Report to the approval of miscellaneous amendments of, and changes in, the Réegles was therefore.to be understood as applying not only to the amendments and changes already approved but also to any other such amendments or changes as might be approved by the Commission and confirmed by the Section. either later during the present nieeting or at meetings to be held later during the present day. Second, it must be understood that, if subsequent to the adoption of the Report by the Commission and of its approval by the Section, the Commission desired to include in the Report . references to other decisions taken later in the day, they ~ should be free to do so, provided that in every such case they obtained the approval of the Section for the insertion in the Report of the passage concerned. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) in the light of the discussion held jointly with the Section on Nomenclature, recorded above, to modify as follows the under-mentioned recommen- dations previously adopted, that is to say :— (a) to substitute for the recommendation agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin, that the new “ Official List’ of the names of species should be given the title “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology”, the recommendation that the title to be given to this “Official List” should be the 286 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Sesston, “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ ; (b) to substitute for the recommendation agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin, that the duty of examining the draft text of the Régles revised in accordance with the decisions of the Paris Congress, when that draft text was received from the jurists, should be entrusted to the Executive Committee of the Commission, the recom- mendation that this duty should be en- trusted to an ad hoc Kditorial Committee of three Members or Alternate Members of the Commission who had been present throughout the discussions held during the Paris Congress ; (2) that, subject (a) to the incorporation in the (38 ~— paragraphs numbered 17 and 19 in the draft (relating to the Danish representation on the Commission and to the arrangements proposed to be adopted in place of the system of three 9-year Classes in which the membership of the Commission was at present divided) of the correc- tions noted in the discussion recorded above, and (b) to the redrafting of the paragraphs numbered 45 and 47 in the draft (relating respectively to the new “‘ Official List ’’ of the names of species and to the body to which should be entrusted the duty of examining the revised draft of the Regles, when received from the jurists) to conform with the conclusions respectively recorded in regard thereto in (1)(a) and (1)(b) above and subject also to the incorporation in the first of these paragraphs of the drafting amendments agreed upon in the discus- sion with the Section on Nomenclature recorded above, the draft Report prepared by Secretary Hemming (Commission Paper I.C.(48)20) gave full effect to the conclusions reached by the Commission during their Paris Session and to the action taken thereon by the Section on Nomencla- ture, and that a Report in these terms would provide the Congress with all the data required to enable it to judge of the results achieved during the present Session ; with reference to (1)(b) above, to request the Acting President to confer with leading European and American zoologists present at the Congress on the question of the composition of the ad hoc Unanimous adoption by the Commission of its Report to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology vyoL.47 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 287 Kditorial Committee and to submit recommenda- tions in regard thereto at a later meeting to be held in the course of the same day. 6. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to adopt as their unanimous Report to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology the draft prepared by Secretary Hemming (Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)20), subject to the incor- poration therein of the drafting and other changes specified in Conclusion 5 above ; to authorise and request Commissioner Hemming, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, to sign their Report, in the form unanimously approved and adopted in (1) above, and to submit it on their behalf to the Section on Nomenclature, with a recommendation that the Section :— (a) approve and adopt each and all of the indivi- dual recommendations submitted in the Report ; (b) agree :— (i) that their approval to the passage relating to the adoption of miscel- laneous amendments of, or changes in, the Regles should be understood as applying not only to such amend- ments and changes as had already been approved but also to any other such amendments or changes as might be adopted by the Commission and confirmed by the Section either later during the present meeting or at other meetings held later during the day ; (i) that if, as the result of further discussions either later during the present meeting or at other meetings held later during the day, the Commission desired to insert addi- tional passages in their Report, they should be free so to do, provided that in each case they first obtained the concurrence of the Section for the addition so proposed to be made and that, on any such addition being so approved, Commissioner Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, 288 Miscellaneous proposals for the amendment or clarification of the “* Regles”: Fourth Iastalment (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 1) Article 32 (suggested amendment to provide for the rejection of trivial names on grounds of inappropriateness in certain cases) International Commission on.Zoological Nomenclature. should be authorised and requested to incorporate the addition in question, before the Commission’s Report was submitted to the Congress at the Plenary Session to be held on the following day (Tuesday, 27th July, 1948) ; (c) approve the Commission’s Report as a whole, subject to the understandings speci- fied in (a) and (b) above, and should authorise and request Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, to submit that Report to the Congress at the Plenary Session to be held on the following day and, in doing so, to inform the Congress that the Report had been unanimously approved and adopted by the Commission, by whom it had been submitted to the Section on Nomenclature, by whom in turn it had been unanimously approved and adopted. (The Report of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was thereupon submitted to the, Section on Nomenclature for approval.) 7. THE COMMISSION had before them a memorandum by the Secretary (Commission Paper I.C.(48)16), containing a fourth instalment of miscellaneous proposals for the amendment and clarification of the Régles. For con- venience of reference these proposals, which were seventeen in number, had been numbered consecutively with the proposals brought forward in the paper containing the third instalment (Commission Paper I.C.(48)15). The present proposals were therefore numbered (64) to (80). THE COMMISSION agreed :— _to examine Commission Paper I.C.(48)16, point by point, for the purpose of reaching conclusions regard- ing the recommendations to be submitted on the questions raised therein. 8. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal submitted by Mr. Philip P. Graves (Eire) (file Z.N.(S.) 205) that Article 32 should be amended so as to provide for the rejection of trivial names in certain cases on the ground that those names were totally inappropriate, having been selected by the original author as the result of a misapprehension on a question of fact (e.g. where a butter- fly occurring only in the Philippine Islands was named 1 For the record of the approval of the Commission’s Report by the Section on Nomen- clature, see page 89 of Volume 5, * Opinion” 124; extension to cover certain terms intermediate between generic and trivial names published by Habner (J.) (Previous reference : Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 40) VOL, 4 7? 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 289 californica by a credulous systematist who purchased an example labelled “ California”), together with a note on the foregoing proposal submitted by the Secretary in Point (64) in Commission Paper I.C.(48) 16. The view was expressed in the discussion on this pro- posal that, although at first sight this appeared a logical and desirable proposal, it was in fact one which contained a considerable element of danger. If Article 32 were to be relaxed in the manner suggested, it might lead to consider- able instability in the case of trivial names based upon the names of countries, for it might lead to numerous requests for changes in such names, where, as the result of political - changes, there were changes in the status of countries or parts of countries or changes in the names by which countries were known. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to reject the proposal that express provision should be made in Article 32 for the rejection in certain circum- stances of trivial names on the ground of inappro- priateness, 9. THE COMMISSION had under consideration -— (4) a proposal submitted by Dr. R. Ferreira d’ Almeida and Dr. José Oiticica Filho (Brazil) that in the case of names of species of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published by Hiibner (J.) in volume 1 of his Sammlung exotischer Schmetter- linge in (apparently) trinominal form, as (for example) the name Princeps dominans capys, the trivial name (capys) should be accepted for nomenclatorial purposes but not either of the other names (i.e. in the example cited, the names Princeps and dominans) (file Z.N (S.) 218) ; a letter addressed to Dr. Ferreira d’Almeida by . Professor Charles D. Michener (U.S.A.) con- curring in the proposal that in the case of names of the kind discussed in (a) above the intermediate term (for example, dominans) should be rejected and that the third term (for example, capys) . should be accepted, but expressing the view that it would not be reasonable to exclude the first term (Princeps) from nomenclatorial availability as well as the second (file Z.N.(S.) 218) ; (c) a proposal, that in the case of the names in question the intermediate terms (in the present example, the term dominans) should be rejected as not of subgeneric status by an extension to these terms (b — 290 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Addition to the “ Regles” of a provision definin the functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the decision given by the Commission in Opinion 124 in regard to- somewhat similar inter- mediate terms published by Linnaeus in 1758 in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae for species belonging to the same Order of the Class Insecta, submitted. by the Secretary in Point (65) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that the above system of nomenclature had been employed by Hiibner not only in the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge but also in the Systematisch-alpha- betisches Verzeichniss, published in 1822. Whatever de- cision was taken should apply to both works. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, where in volume 1 of the work Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge or in the Systematisch- alphabetisches Verzeichniss, Hiibner (J.) cited a species under a name having an apparently tri- nominal form (e.g. the name Princeps dominans capys), the generic name (Princeps) and the specific trivial name (capys) are to be accepted as satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the Regles but that the intermediate term (dominans) is not to be treated as having acquired the status of a subgeneric name by virtue of having been so published ; (2) to render an Opinion, supplementary to Opinion 124, embodying the decision specified in (1) above. 10. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.) 352) that a provision should be inserted in the Régles defining the functions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, sub- mitted by the Secretary in Point (66) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. In the foregoing paper the Secretary reminded the Commission that, among the provisions which, on the proposal of the Commission, the Section on Nomenclature had agreed to recommend the Congress to add to the Regles, were several provisions entrusting special duties to the Commission. In these circumstances, it was necessary that there should be inserted in the Regles a provision defining the functions of the Commission, for it would not be either logical or practicable to include in the Regles provisions conferring special duties upon the Com- (Later reference Paris Session, 11th Meeting, Conclusion 16) (Previous references Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 9) 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 291 mission without having first defined generally the functions of that body. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that the functions enumerated in Point (66) were all functions already entrusted to the Commission before the opening of the present Congress. To these must be added the function in regard to the rendering of Declarations on a new basis which has been agreed upon during the present Congress. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that a provision should be inserted in the Reégles defining the functions of the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature on the following lines :— (a) The centralisation, discussion and elaboration of all questions relating to zoological nomen- clature are entrusted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (here- inafter referred to as the ‘“ Commission ”’), which is charged with the following duties, in addition to such other duties as are prescribed elsewhere in these Régles :— (1) (3) the submission, as may be required, to the International Congress of Zoology (hereinafter referred to as the ‘“‘Congress”’) of recommendations for the amendment or clarification of, or for the insertion of additional provisions in, the Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoo- logique (hereinafter referred to as the “ Regles”’), where, in its opinion, such amendments, clarifications or additions are required ; the preliminary consideration, on behalf of the Congress, for such a period, not exceeding one year, as in any given case the Commission may decide, of every proposition relating to a proposed change in the Regles which may be submitted to the Congress from any source ; the rendering, during periods between successive Congresses, of Declarations embodying recommendations for changes in the Regles adopted by the Commission under (1) above in respect of proposals dealt with by the Commission during such periods ; 292 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 25 (status of a holotype or lectotype in relation to an inadequate original description) (4) the rendering of Opinions on questions of zoological nomenclature submitted -to the Commission, the decisions embodied in which to become operative immediately upon the Opinion in question being so rendered, without further reference to the Congress ; (5) the compilation of the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” and the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” and of the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names and the rendering of Opinions in regard thereto ; (6) such other functions as have been, or may be, agreed upon by the present Congress ; (b) The Commission possesses also plenary powers to suspend, in whole orin part, any Article of these Régles, other than the present Article, as applied to the names in any book or to any individual name, where, in its opinion, . . . (here should be inserted the provisions in regard to the use by the Commission of its plenary powers as agreed upon by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, as amended by the present (Paris) Congress, together with all other provisions relating to the plenary powers agreed upon by the present (Paris) Congress.). 11. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(8.)291) submitted by Dr. C. A. Hoare (London) that Article 25 should be clarified to indicate whether, where the original description of a species is poor and the identification of the species named therefore either difficult or uncertain—the case cited was that of Trypano- soma suis Ochmann, 1905—the type specimen, if available, can be called in aid to supplement the published description. At the same time, the Commission had under consideration a proposal in regard to this question submitted by the Secretary in Point (67) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. It was pointed out in discussion that Article 25 was concerned only with the nomenclatorial status of names ; for the purpose of that Article the taxonomic application of a name was irrelevant. The question of the taxonomic species to which should be applicable a specific name (pub- lished in conditions which satisfied Article 25) when there llth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 293 @ r ag reference: — existed a recognisable type specimen (holotype or lectotype) aris Oess by . . . al . 4th Meeting, had been settled in connection with the amplification of Conclusion 11) Article 31 agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that in the forthcoming revision of the Régles a clear distinction should: be drawn between (1) the question whether a given specific name was an available name in the sense that it possessed rights under the Law of Priority and (2) the question of the taxonomic unit to which any given specific name was to be treated as adhering, the first of these questions depending upon. whether the name in question satisfied the requirements specified in Article 25, while the second was a matter to be determined in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 31. P Article 25 12. THE COMMISSION reviewed the decision taken (priority to be at the meeting noted in the margin regarding the priority to fe pas “sine as be accorded to a specific or generic name where that name instalments where _is published on one date and the description or part of the peritncras be description relating thereto is published on a later date, in Nete and ae ro UG light of a note submitted by the Secretary in Point (68) relevant description in Commission Paper I.C.(48)14. In this note the Secretary apa ona _ pointed out that special provisions of a rather more stringent supplementary character needed to be adopted in the case of generic names decision published after 31st December, 1930 (i.e. after Proviso (c) (Previous reference: . tO Article 25 became operative) since, as regards these Paris Session, 7th names, it was essential to make it clear that no name was to ae Conclusion be accepted as having satisfied the requirements of the foregoing Article until a clear designation of its type species had been published. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the provision which it had been agreed at the Seventh Meeting of their Paris Session (Conclusion 20) should be added to Article 25, to make it clear that, where, in the case of a generic name published subsequent to 31st December, - 1930, the description of the genus so named is published in two successive portions of a book or serial published in instalments, such a name is to rank for purposes of priority only as from the later of the instalments concerned, if the designation of the type species of the genus is not included in the earlier published of the instalments concerned. The expressions 13. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a .erade” and | ~~ proposal (file Z.N.(S.)363) submitted by M. Georges pseudo-genus ” : ai J : 3 proposed Deflandre (France) that a provision should be inserted in recognition of, the Reégles, recognising the categories “ grade” and “ pseudo- eal genus,” together with a summary of a note thereon, sub- mitted by the Secretary in Point (69) in Commission Paper (Previous reference: Paris Session, 10th 1.C.(48)16. Meeting, Conclusion3) - THE COMMISSION agreed :— rer bins (1) that, while the expressions “ grade ” and “ pseudo- genus’ had been found convenient by some palaeozoologists for certain taxonomic purposes, 294 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. those expressions were to be regarded as technical terms only and, as such, fell outside the scope of zoological nomenclature ; (2) that, in view of (1) above, it would be inappropriate to include definitions of the foregoing expressions in the Régles; (3) to render a Declaration recording the foregoing decision. Exepoes new 14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a si duane proposal (file Z.N.(S.)364) submitted by M. Georges ralaesmernce yaad Bellet and Mme. Marthe Deflandre-Rigaud (France) that invertebrates found provisions should be inserted in the Régles prescribing a ap ecoemrerany special system of nomenclature to be applied only to certain rejection of proposal fragments (organites and sclerites) of fossil invertebrates (Pestana mrafeeet: found in sedimentary rocks, together with the summary of Paris Session, 10th a note thereon, submitted by the Secretary in Point (70) in Meeting, Conclusion 4) Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, while for certain purposes palaezoologists might require to make use of a special system of terminology for denoting certain fragments, such as organites and sclerites, of fossil species of invertebrates found im sedimentary rocks where the fragments in question were not sufficient to form the basis of a taxonomic unit of a category recognised in zoological nomenclature, the expres- sions employed to denote such fragments were to be regarded as technical terms and not as zoo- logical names and as such fell outside the scope of zoological nomenclature ; - (2) that, in view of (1) above, it would be inappro- priate to include in the Reégles provisions speci- fying and defining the terms to be used for the foregoing purposes and therefore that no term so published was to be recognised as having any status in zoological nomenclature ; (3) to render a Declaration recording the foregoing decision. eo of 15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a the “ Regles ” proposal (file Z.N.(8.)352) that a provision should be i ‘ inserted in the Regles defining the status of interpretations rendered by the of the Régles given by the Commission in Declarations Commission in rendered by the Commission in periods between successive periods between Congresses, submitted by the Secretary in Point (71) in successive Congresses Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 295 Sabena feferinces THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— ‘aris Session, 6th i : j ' Meeting, Conclusion 9, that an Article should be inserted in the Regles to and 1th Meeting, make it clear that when, during a period between Conclusion 10) ; ; é Ree : successive Congresses, the Commission give an interpretation of the Régles in a Declaration, the interpretation so given is to become operative im- mediately upon the publication of the said Declaration and is, until the next meeting of the Congress, to have like force and vigour as though it had already been embodied in the Régles, and that the proposed amendment or clarification of, or addition to, the Regles specified in the said Declaration shall be considered by the Section on Nomenclature at the next meeting of the Congress, with a view to the submission thereby of a recommendation to the Congress that the Régles should be amended, clarified or extended in the manner indicated in the Declaration in question. Method to be 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a esate eae proposal (file Z.N (S.)352) that a provision should be ““Regles ” : inserted in the Régles prescribing the manner by which alone insertion in the changes can be made in the Regles, submitted by the gee ae ee Secretary in Point (72) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that an Article should be inserted in the Régles prescribing that no amendment in, clarification of, or addition to, the Régles may be made by the Congress, save on the recommendation of the Section on Nomenclature at Congresses where such a Section is established and in other cases on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature but that in the former case no such recommendation may be submitted by the Section on Nomenclature, unless the proposal that the Regles should be amended, clarified or extended in the manner proposed has been submitted to the Com- mission for a period of one year prior to the opening of the Congress or for such less time as in any given case the Commission may agree is sufficient and the (Previous reference: Commission has submitted to the Section a recom- Paris Session, 11th mendation as to the action desirable on the said Meeting, Conclusion 10(a)(2) ) proposal. Article 35 17. THE COMMISSION reviewed the decision taken (polymorphism in at the meeting noted in the margin to recommend the exvial mames insertion in the Régles of a Recommandation urging authors ising f; th f eee cae ci Sebel dik eaten to avoid publishing as the trivial name of a species a 9 word in noun and adjectival form): addition of a further example in ** Recommandation ” (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 3) Article embodying the plenary powers of the Commission: drafting amendment (Previous reference: Paris Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 7) Neotypes {erroneous statements regarding, deleted from “ Opinion ” 126) 296 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. compound word having as its termination a word in noun form (e.g. -costa) where a similar compound word having as its termination the same word in adjectival form (e.g. -costatus or -costata) has already been published as the trivial name of another species in the same or an allied genus, and in this connection had under consideration a supple- mentary proposal submitted by the Secretary in Point (73) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that the example afforded by the use of the noun- form ‘‘ cauda”’ and the adjective-form ‘‘caudatus, -a, -um’’, should be added to the Recommandation which, at the meeting noted in the margin, it had been agreed to recommend should be added to the Reégles regarding the need for avoiding, so far as possible, the use in the same or allied genera of compound trivial names differmg from one another solely through having as their respective terminations the same words in noun-form or adjective-form or vice versa. 18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a note submitted by the Secretary in Point (74) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16, drawing attention to the inadvertent inclusion in paragraph 6(2)(a) of Commission Paper 1.C.(48)4, of a recommendation that, when the Plenary Powers Resolution of 1913 (Declaration 5) was embodied in an Article of the Régles, there should be embodied at the same time the fourth of the four Articles of which the foregoing Resolution was composed, this Article being con- cerned with a matter of great importance (collaboration between the Commission and groups of specialists), which, however, it would be inappropriate to deal with in the proposed Article. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that the fourth of the four Articles which together constituted the Plenary Powers Resolution of 1913 should not be embodied in the Article which, at the meeting noted in the margin, it had been agreed to recommend should be inserted as a new Article of the Regles. 19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration certain unfortunate obiter dicta included in Opinion 126 (relating to the status of new names in d’Orbigny’s Prodrome), which were so drafted as to give the misleading impression that the Commission had already given a ruling on the status of neotypes, together with a proposal in regard 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 297 thereto submitted by the Secretary in Point (75) in Com- mission Paper I.C.(48)16. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the decision in regard to the status of new names published in d’Orbigny’s Prodrome of 1850 (ie. that the specific names published in the above work are available under the Régles, when accompanied by a description or indication) given in the “ summary ”’ to Opinion 126, should be incorporated in the appropriate schedule to the Regles ; (2) in order to remove such misunderstandings as had arisen, expressly to place on record that, as in the case of other Opinions, the decision taken by — the Commission in Opinion 126 was to be looked for only in the “ summary ” of that Opinion and that no observation contained in the body of Opinion 126 but not included in the “ summary ” thereof was to be regarded as recording a decision by the Commission as respects either the inter- pretation of the Reégles or any other matter. Article 8 20. THE COMMISSION reviewed, in the light of a tadestion f° ke b) recommendation submitted by the Secretary in Point (76) af the ecEdad ‘af thelial Commission Paper 1.C.(48)16, the recommendation which, existing at the meeting noted in the margin, it had been agreed to eee ae tis submit regarding the amendment of item (b) of the second incorporation in of the two Recommandations at present attached to Article 8, the “ Regles ” prior to the incorporation of the provisions of that Recom- pro Rrra ‘4 mandation in the Régles as a mandatory provision. Pera Seooien, Oth THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— ge Ro sb c that the generic name Stenogyra should be added as ate an example of the class of name referred in the first part of the Recommandation proposed to be attached to the substantive provision which it had been agreed, at the meeting noted in the margin, should be incorporated in the Régles in place of the second of the two existing Recommandations to Article 8, item (b), and that the generic names Hydrophilus and (Previous reference: Philydrus should be inserted as examples of the class one tenia om -of name referred to in the second part of the proposed 37) Recommandation. Addition of 21. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a paaerepl set proposal that reference to Articles of the Régles containing composite Articles more than one paragraph should be facilitated by the in the “ Regles ” allocation to each such paragraph of a serial number, 298 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Addition of serial numbers where. there is more than one “Recommandation” in any given Article of the “ Regles” Subdivision into paragraphs of Articles and “ Recommanda- tions ” consisting of two or more sentences Article 30, Rule (e) (clarification of) submitted by the Secretary in Point (77) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. In submitting this recommendation, the Secretary drew attention to the error fallen into by many authors through the lack of such paragraph numbers in the case, for example, of Article 14, where the first paragraph, which grammatically consisted of a single sentence, was divided into three subheads, lettered ‘‘ a,” “ b,” and “¢” respectively, and where the letter ‘‘ ¢ ” had commonly been cited as though it were a designation which governed the whole of the remainder of the Article which in fact consisted of two distinct and entirely independent paragraphs. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that, when the text of the Régles was revised in the light of the amendments agreed upon by the present (Paris) Congress, serial numbers should be allotted to each paragraph of any Article consisting of more than one paragraph. 22. Arising out of the discussion recorded in Conclusion 20 above, THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that, when the text of the Régles was revised in the light of the amendments agreed upon by the present (Paris) Congress, serial numbers should be allotted to Recommandations in cases where more than one such Recommandation was attached to any given Article. 23. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal that reference to the Articles of the Régles should be simplified by the subdivision into two or more paragraphs of those Articles which at present consisted of two or more sentences, each containing a separate provision, submitted by the Secretary in Point (78) in Commission Paper 1.C.(48)16. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that, when the text of the Régles was revised in the light of the amendments agreed upon by the present (Paris) Congress, any Article and any Recommandation which eonsisted of two or more sentences, each containing a separate provision, should be subdivided into paragraphs, each containing only a single sentence and each serially numbered. 24. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a request received from Mr. R. G. Fennah (Trinidad, B.W.1.) (file Z.N.(S.)236) for an interpretation of the expression “ species inguirenda’’ as used in Rule (e) ‘in Article 30 of Article 30 (expression to be used to denote a species designated or selected as the type species of a genus) 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 299 the Régles, together with a note thereon submitted by the Secretary in Point (79) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— _ that the second section (section (8) ) of Rule (e) in Article 30 of the Régles should be redrafted so as to make it clear that the species there referred to are species, regarding the taxonomic identity of which the author of the genus expressed a doubt at the time of the original publication of the generic name, either because the species concerned was or were unknown to him or because of difficulties in identifying it or them or for any other reason, other than that specified in Section (y) of the same Rule. 25. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)352) submitted by the Secretary tn Point (80) in Commission Paper I.C.(48)16, that, in view of the widespread use of the expression “‘ genotype” by geneticists in a sense entirely different from that in which that expression had been used in zoological nomenclature, a Recommandation should be inserted in Article 30 of the Régles urging zoologists to refrain from using that expression when referring to the type species of a genus. In the discussion on this proposal, the point was made that the expression “genotype” had been used by zoologists to denote the type species of a genus long before it was used by geneticists. If therefore zoologists desired to retain the use of this expression, they would be in a strong position if they were to approach geneticists with a request that some other expression should be adopted in genetics. The general view was against an attempt being made to retain the use of this expression in zoological nomenclature. The expression “ genotype,” viewed as an attempt to latinise the concept of the type species of a genus, could not be regarded as a success; the expression was consequently far from clear in meaning ; moreover, its use in zoological nomenclature was much less common now than formerly and its elimination would be welcome. The proposal that a Recommandation should be inserted in the Regles urging authors to abandon the use of this expression accordingly received general support. At the same time the view was generally expressed that it was desirable not to stop short at giving this negative advice ; it was desirable that zoologists should be given positive advice as to the expression which it was desired should be used to denote the concept in question. The relative merits of a number of expressions, such as “ generitype,’ “‘ generotype,” etc., were discussed, but, as 300 ** Necator ” Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda), an invalid name inadvertently placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” in “ Opinion ” 66: validation of, under the plenary powers International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the French and French-speaking zoologists present pointed out, all expressions of this kind were unacceptable, since it would be impossible to employ them in the substantive French text of the Régles, as, if so used, such expressions would be either incomprehensible or definitely misleading. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— (1) that, where in the Régles (as in Article 30) or in the Schedules thereto, it was necessary to refer to the concept of “ a type species of a genus,”’ the expression “espéce type,” and, in the English translation, the expression “‘ type species ” should invariably be employed ; that there should be inserted in Article 30 a Recommandation urging zoologists when referring to the concept of the type species of the genus always to employ the expression “ espéce type ” or “type species” or strictly corresponding expressions in other languages and to refrain from using the expression “genotype” or any other expression for this concept. (At this point the recommendations adopted by the Commission in the course of the discussion of Commission Paper I.C0.(48)16 were reported to the Section on Nomenclature.) 26. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS -HEMMING) said that, when, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, he had checked the bibliographical references given in the Opinions in which names had been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” in the course of preparing that “ List ’’ for publication, he had found that there were a number of errors in the entries concerned, errors which had led in some cases to erroneous citations of type species and in others to names which were actually invalid being placed on the “ List.” All these errors would need to be corrected in one way or another before the “ List ” was published and as many as possible of the cases concerned would be brought before the Com- mission during its present Session. One of the generic names in question had been referred to in a different connec- tion in an earlier discussion and it would, he felt, be convenient if the Commission were now to consider this case (file Z.N.(S.)366). Continuing, the Acting President said that the name in question was Necator Stiles, 1903, the name of a genus of Nematodes, which had been included in the first instalment of names placed on the “ Official List ” in 1915 (Opinion 66). Validation, under the plenary powers, of long-established use of the generic names “ Tethys ” and “ Aplysia” (Class Gastropoda) and matters incidental thereto 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 301 This name was invalid because, under the decision given in Opinion 125 (relating to Borus Agassiz, 1846—an emenda- tion of Boros Herbst, 1797—and Borus Albers, 1850), Necator Stiles, 1903, must be regarded as a junior homonym of Necator Sclater and Saunders, 1896, an emendation of Nicator Finsch and Hartlaub, 1870, a genus in the Class Aves. Immediately upon making the foregoing discovery, he, as Secretary to the Commission, had consulted the late Dr. W. L. Sclater, who had informed him that no incon- venience would be experienced by ornithologists if the Commission were to suppress the name Necator Sclater and Saunders, 1896 (in the Class Aves), for the purpose of validat- ing the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903, in the Class Nematoda, for the genus of birds concerned was always known by the name Nicator, the spelling originally used by Finsch and Hartlaub. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress for all purposes the generic name Necator Sclater and Saunders, 1896 (Class Aves), an emendation of the name Nicator Finsch and Hartlaub, 1870 ; (b) to validate the generic name Necator Stiles, 1903 (Class Nematoda) ; (2) to confirm the entry ofthe name Necator Stiles, 1903, made in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” in accordance with the directions given in Opinion 66 ; (3) to render an Opinion setting out the foregoing decisions. 27. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(8.)22) submitted by Dr. H. Engel (Netherlands) that the Commission should use their plenary” powers to validate the long-established usage of the generic names Tethys and Aplysia (Class Gastropoda), to desig- nate the type species of those genera in a manner which would eliminate all further possibility of confusion in regard to the foregoing names, and to take certain other action incidental thereto. In the discussion on this proposal, the view was generally expressed that a decision on this case was long overdue, both because of the importance of the names concerned and because of the excessive delays which had occurred in the handling of this case by the Commission. 302 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Later reference: Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 2) COMMISSIONER H. BOSCHMA (NETHERLANDS) said that he shared the general view that a decision ought now to be taken by the Commission for stabilising the usage of the names Tethys and Aplysia ; he pointed out however that the application submitted asked also for decisions in regard to certain specific trivial names which were not directly concerned with the main problem at issue. He suggested that the Commission should deal as proposed with the names Tethys and Aplysia but that they should defer taking decisions regarding the portion of the application which related to specific trivial names not directly involved in the stabilisation of the foregoing generic names. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that it would be impossible to deal with the generic names Tethys and Aplysia without at the same time dealing with the associated question of the trivial names of the species to be designated as the type species of those genera. The question of the trivial names of the other species dealt with in the present application could however be dealt with separately at a later stage, although the adoption of this course would offend against the canon suggested by Commissioner Boschma in another case that the Commission should in future carefully abstain from their former practice of giving answers to a part only of any given application submitted to them for decision. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION it was generally agreed that the questions submitted in the present application in regard to certain specific trivial names, other than those of the species to be specified as the type species of the genera Tethys and Aplysia, might properly be deferred for later consideration, provided, first, that these matters were brought to a decision as soon as possible after the close of the present Session, and, second, that the postponement of a decision on this part of the application submitted should not be held available to be cited as a precedent for similar action on any future occasion. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that under Article 19 of the Reégles the spelling of the generic name Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat.) (ed. 12), 1(2): 1089) was to be emended to Aplysia; (2) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress for all purposes the generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1: 653) and any other use of that name, prior to the publication of the generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 ; VOL. 4 U 11th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 303 (b) to Suppress, for all purposes, other than those of Article 35, the use in the genus Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, of the specific trivia] names leporina and limacina; (c) to suppress all uses of the specific trivial name depilans in the Senus Aplysia (emend, of Laplysia) Linnaeus, 1767, prior to its publication, in the combination Aplysia depilans, by Gmelin in 1791 (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13), 1: 3103) ; (d) to validate the generic name Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 ; (e) to validate the undermentioned trivial names and to direct that those names were to be used in preference to any other trivial hames for the Species Tespectively con- (i) the trivial name depilans as published in the binomina] combination Aplysia depilans by Gmelin in 1791 ; (il) the trivial name jfimbria as published in the binominal combination Tethys Jimbria by Linnaeus in 1767 : (f) to set aside all type selections for the of these genera shall be the species Specified below :— Name of genus Type species Aplysia Linnaeus, Aplysia depilans 1767 Gmelin, 179] Tethys Linnaeus, Tethys fimbria 1767 Linnaeus, 1767 (3) to place on the « Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” the generic names Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, and Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Gastropoda, (4) without prejudice to the general principle that decisions should be given by the Commission on 304 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. “ Venus ” Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda): designation of type species, under the plenary powers (5 ~— (6) all questions raised in any given application and on the strict understanding that the action now to be taken should not be held available to be cited on any future occasion as a precedent in favour of dilatory procedure, to postpone for further consideration the question of fixing, under the plenary powers, the identity of the species to which the undermentioned specific trivial names should apply :— fasciata Poiret, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination Aplysia fasciata Poiret, 1789, Voy. Barbare, 2 : 2) ; punctata Cuvier, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Laplysia [sic] punctata Cuvier, 1803, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris, 2: 310). to request the Secretary to the Commission to resubmit the portion of Dr. Engel’s application relating to the names specified in (4) as soon as possible after the close of the present Session, with a view to a decision being taken by the Commission thereon without further delay ; to render an Opinion setting out the decisions specified in (1) to (5) above. 98. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a proposal (file Z.N.(S.)189) submitted by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (U.S.A.), that the Commission should use their plenary powers to set aside the designation of Venus dione Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Venus Linnaeus, 1758, and to validate the long-established usage of that generic name, by designating, as the type species, either Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, or Venus mercenaria Linnaeus, 1758. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to set aside all selec- tions of the type species of the genus Venus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Eulamellibranchia), made prior to the present decision and to designate Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus ; (2) to place the generic name Venus Linnaeus, 1758 (type species : Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758), on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; llth Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 305 (3) to place the specific trivial name verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Venus verrucosa), on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology aus (4) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. tee (cls Linnaeus, 99. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a Gaivodotel.: proposal (file Z.N.(S.)190) submitted by Mr. Joshua L. designation of type Baily, Jr. (U.S.A.), m consultation with Dr. Harald E. a aera of, rt Ae Rehder (U.S.A.), that the Commission should use their 2 cara ah plenary powers to set aside the designation of Bulla naucum Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758, and to preserve the long-established usage of the name by designating Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species. - THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to set aside all selec- tions of the type species of the genus Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda, Order Bullo- morpha), made prior to the present decision and to designate Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type spévies of this genus ; (2) to place the generic name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (type species: Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758), on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (3) to place the specific trivial name ampulla Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Bulla ampulla) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; (4) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. (At this point the decisions reached by the Commission in regard to the names Tethys and Aplysia, Venus and Bulla were reported to the Section on N omenclature.) Twelfth meeting 30. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS a Somipionne HEMMING) then proposed that the Commission and the Pacis Geuicn F Section on Nomenclature should now adjourn. The next time appointed meeting which, like the present meeting, would consist of (Previous reference: concurrent meetings of the Commission and of the Section, Paris Session, 11th would be held at 1445 hours that afternoon. Meeting, Conclusion 2) : THE COMMISSION took note of the above arrange- ments. (The Commission thereupon adjourned at 1225 hours) VOL. 4 U? ( 306 ) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION on ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948. CONCLUSIONS of the Twelfth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1445 hours (Meeting held concurrently with the Fourth Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature) PRESENT : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) 2 Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) Professor K. Mansour (Egypt) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following were also present : M. Belloc (France) Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (U.S.A.) Dr. Isabel Gordon (United Kingdom) Professor E. R. Hall (U.S.A.) Mr. T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott (United Kingdom) Dr. H. H. J. Nesbitt (Canada) M. G. Ranson (France) Miss Louise Russell (U.S.A.) Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (United Kingdom) - Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom) Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary “ Gryphaea ” 1. THE COMMISSION, jointly with the Section on Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda), Nomenclature, had under consideration a communication!” problem of type submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson (France) on the question of species of : the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Sg nr ato Pelecypoda, Order Pseudolamellibranchiata) (file Z.N.(S.) 365). THE COMMISSION agreed :— to defer for consideration after the close of the present (Paris) Congress the application submitted by M. G. 12 For the text of the communication made by M. Ranson, see pages 168-170 of Volume 3 of this journal, and for the record of the discussion in the Section on Nomenclature, see pages 96-8 of Volume 5. a Status of generic names published in books dealing with classification of taxonomic units down to the genus level but no further : . case of Brunnich, 1771, “* Zoologiae Fundamenta” 12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 307 Ranson in regard to the ‘type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Pseudolamellibranchiata). 2. THE COMMISSION had under consideration a request submitted by Mr. R. Winckworth (United Kingdom) that a ruling should be given on the question whether new generic names published by Briinnich in 1772 in his Zoologiae Fundamenta were to be regarded as complying with the provisions of Article 25, Proviso (b) (file Z.N.(S.)151). The text of Mr. Winckworth’s application had been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl.,1 : 113-117, facsimile). THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that, while it was important that a decision should be taken on the status of the nine generic names published for the first time in Briimnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta, which formed the subject matter of Mr. Winckworth’s application, it was much more important that the Commission should reach a decision on the question of principle involved in the acceptance or rejection of those names, namely whether an author was to be regarded as having applied the principles of binominal nomenclature (“ appliqué les principes de la nomenclature binominale ”’), as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, as amended by the present Congress, where, in the work in question, that author was concerned with general questions of classification and did not carry his analysis below the genus level. A new generic name published in such a book after 31st December, 1930, was clearly ruled out by the terms of Proviso (c), the proviso added to Article 25, with effect from that date, under a decision taken by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927. The status of a new generic name published in such a work prior to Ist January, 1931, had never been clearly defined, and the present was a good opportunity for reaching a decision on this subject with a view to the submission to the Section on Nomenclature of a recommendation for the clarification of the Regles in this regard. On a point of detail, it should be noted that, subsequent to the publication of Mr. Winck- worth’s paper, the attention of the Commission had been drawn by Dr, Kurt Teichert (University of Western Australia) to the fact that the University of Copenhagen possessed a copy of Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta, dated “1771,” as well as copies dated ‘‘ 1772,” the date cited by Mr. Winckworth. The two editions were identical except for the date on the title page. In view of this information, this book should in future be attributed to 308 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the year 1771. The Acting President added that the Commission were very glad to have Mr. Winckworth with them that afternoon and he called upon him to present his application in person. MR. R. WINCKWORTH (UNITED KINGDOM) said that in the Zoologiae Fundamenta Briimnich gave a general description in Latin (left-hand pages) and Danish (right-hand pages) of the classification of the Animal Kingdom, including tables of allthe genera. He did not, however, cite the names of species, as regards which he stated in the preface: ““Enumeratio specierum nimis foret prolixa.” It was evident that it was only on the grounds of space that Briinnich stopped short at the genus level. He (Mr. Winckworth) asked the Commission to declare that the generic names used by Briinnich in the Zoologiae Fundamenta were available under Article 25 of the Régles. He asked also that one of the new names published by Briinnich, namely Jonna Briinnich, should be placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” with Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. The other new generic names published in the Zoologiae Fundamenta would need to be dealt with on their merits in the light of advice received from specialists, but it might be thought appropriate to suppress the name Orthoceros Briinnich, for, if Nautilus orthocera Linnaeus, 1758, were to be taken as the type species, it would run counter to the plan of Briinnich’s book which was not concerned with fossils. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) suggested that it might be convenient to take a decision first on the general issue involved, and second,to take such decisions as might be considered appropriate in regard to individual names concerned. As to the nature of that decision, he was in full agreement with Mr. Winck- worth that Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta satisfied the requirements of Article 25 and that it was desirable that the Commission should render an Opinion to that effect. He was however of the opinion also that, in order to prevent the recurrence in the case of other books of doubts similar to those which had arisen in the present case, it was desir- able that the Commission should recommend to the Section on Nomenclature that words should be inserted in the Régles clarifying the application of Proviso (b) to Article 25 in relation to books such as Briinnich’s Zoologiae Funda- menta. The Acting President further observed that, as the Commission were painfully aware from their experience with Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification of 1800, it was often very dangerous for the Commission to give a ruling that a given book was an available book without at the same time 12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 309 examining the effect of that decision on the nomenclature of the group concerned, for such a decision, although perfectly correct, was capable of causing great confusion in nomenclature, unless appropriate preventive action were taken immediately by the Commission under its plenary powers. He accordingly suggested that the Commission should recommend to the Section on Nomenclature that there should be inserted in the Régles a provision prescribing that, where the Commission gave a ruling that a given book satisfied the requirements of Article 25, it should be the - duty of the Commission, in consultation with specialists, to examine the names first published in that book and, having done so, to place on the appropriate “ Official List *’ such of the names concerned as were nomenclatorially available and also the oldest available names for the taxo- nomic units concerned, except, where the adoption of any given name concerned would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned, in which case it should be made the duty of the Commission to suppress the name concerned under their plenary powers. It should be the duty of the Commission also to place on the appropriate “ Official Index ” any new name published in such a book that was either not available nomenclatori- ally or was not the oldest available name for the taxonomic unit concerned, together with any name which might have been suppressed under the plenary powers under the procedure suggested above. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, where, prior to lst January, 1931, an author had published a new generic name in a work dealing with classification down to the generic level but no further, it was not necessary for the purpose of Proviso (b) to Article 25 that in the work concerned the author in question should have cited trivial names of species under that genus or other genera discussed in the book concerned, provided that it was evident that the author concerned would have applied the principles of binominal nomenclature for species if in the book concerned he had dealt with taxonomic units below the genus level ; (2) to recommend that words should be inserted in Article 25, embodying, in relation to Proviso (b) to that Article, the interpretation given in (1) above ; (3) to render an Opinion stating that, for the reasons given in (1) above, the generic names published in 310 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. “ Tonna” Brunnich, 1771 (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” The word “* Cercopithecus, ” validated as a generic name as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia, Order Primates), Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta complied with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles ; (4) to recommend that a provision should be inserted in the Régles prescribing that, where the Commis- sion gave a ruling that a given book of previously doubtful status satisfied the requirements of Article 25, it should be the duty of the Com- mission, in consultation with specialists, to examine the names first published in that book and, having done so, (a) to place on the appropriate “ Official List’? such of the names concerned as are (i) nomenclatorially available and (ii) the oldest available names for the taxo- nomic units concerned, save, in the latter event, where, in the opinion of the Commission, the adoption of the name concerned would cause instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned, in which case the name in question should be suppressed under the plenary powers, and (b) to place on the appropriate “ Official Index” any name found to be either not available nomenclatorially or not the oldest name for the taxonomic unit in question, together with any name or names suppressed under the plenary powers in accordance with (a) above. 3. Arising out of the discussion on the proposal (file Z.N.(S.)151) in regard to the status of generic names first published in Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta, recorded in Conclusion 2 above, THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to place the generic name Zonna Briinnich, 1771, Zool. Fundamenta: 248, 232 (type species: Buccinum galea Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1: 734, designated by Suter, 1913, Manual N.Z. Moll. : 314) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (2) to place the specific trivial name galea Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Buccinum galea), on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions set out in (1) and (2) above. 4. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that one of the names which, as matters now stood, was a name first published by Briinnich in the Zoologiae Fundamenta, was the name _ Cercopithecus Briinnich, 1771 (Class Mammalia, Order Primates). This and type species designated, under the plenary powers ** Limulus ” Muller, 1785 (Class Arachnida, Order Xiphosura) placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoclogy ” by “ Opinion ” 104, a synonym of “Xiphosura ” 12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 311 word had originally been published in the nominative plural (as “Cercopitheci”’) by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1: 26), as the name of a subdivision of the genus Simia Linnaeus, 1758. It possessed no status, however, as. a subgeneric name as from that date, for in Opinion 124 the Commission had ruled that these infra-generic group names, as used by Linnaeus in 1758, were'not to be accepted as of subgeneric rank as from the date of being so published. Unfortunately, however, in an earlier Opinion, Opinion 104 (published in 1928), the Commission had inadvertently accepted a proposal that Cercopithecus, attributed to Linnaeus, 1758, should be placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (with Simia diana Linnaeus, ‘1758, as type species). This error must be rectified either by deleting the foregoing entry from the “ Official List ” or by validating it under the Commission’s plenary powers. The latter course was the one which he (the Acting President) recommended. If this course were to be adopted no problem would arise in connection with the name Cercopithecus Briinnich, 1771. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to validate the name Cercoyithecus as from Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of this genus ; (2) .to confirm, in the light of (1) above, the (previously erroneous) entry of the name Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758 (type species as specified in (1) above), made in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” in accordance with the directions given in Opinion 104 ; to place the specific trivial name diana Linnaeus, 1758 (as originally published in the combination Simia diana Linnaeus, 1758), on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; and the name Cercopithecus Briinnick, 1771, on the “Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (4) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions recorded in (1) to (3) above. 5. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) next drew attention to the fact that, as pointed out by Mr. Winckworth (1945, Bull. zool. Nomenel.,1 : 116), one effect of accepting the new generic names published by Briinnich in his Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 was to validate as from that date the generic name Xiphosura Briinnich, with Monoculus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species, This result was objectionable from two points (3 ~— 312 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Brunnich, 1771 : situation so disclosed to be given immediate consideration “ Orthoceros ” Brinnich, 1771: decision on postponed, pending further consultations with palaeontologists of view : (1) Monoculus polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of the well-known genus Limulus Miiller, 1785, the name of which had been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”? by Opinion 104. In the ~ circumstances now disclosed, that entry was seen to have been erroneous and must now either be validated (under the Commission’s plenary -powers) or cancelled. (2) The genus Limulus Miiller belonged to the Order Xiphosura of the Class Arachnida, and it would be objectionable to have in an Order a genus bearing the same name (Xiphosura Briinnich) as that of the Order itself. It appeared to him (the Acting President) that this was a case where the strict application of the Régles would lead to greater confusion than uniformity, but he thought that it would be desirable that the Commission should take the views of interested specialists before reaching a decision. The matter was urgent, however, for it should certainly be settled before the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” (now in the press) was published in book form. THE COMMISSION agreed :— that consideration should be given as soon as possible after the close of the present (Paris) Congress to the question whether the name Limulus Miiller, 1785, erroneously placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” by Opinion 104 should be validated under the plenary powers or alternatively be removed from the ‘ Official List’, and that to this end the Secretary to the Commission be asked to prepare a Report on this subject, with recommenda- tions, for the consideration of the Commission. 6. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING), referring to the generic name Orthoceros, which now became an available name as from Briinnich, 1771, said that, prior to the opening of the present (Paris) Congress, he had had correspondence with Mr. Winckworth on the question whether it was desirable that this name should be suppressed by the Commission under their plenary powers. He had had also correspondence on this subject with Dr. A. K. Miller (U.S.A.), Dr. Kurt Teichert (University of Western Australia) and others (file Z.N.(S.)44). In view of the interest of palaeontologists m this name, he suggested that the Commission should at this point confine themselves to taking note of Mr. Winckworth’s suggestion that the name Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771, should be suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes and should defer taking a final decision on this question until the views of palaeontologists had been more fully ascertained, “ Manatus ” Brunnich, 1771, “ Rosmarus ” Brunnich, 1771, and “ Ammonia’ Brunnich, 1771: Report on, asked for Brisson, 1762, “Regnum Animale ” (status of generic names published in) : Consideration of, Postponed 12th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 313 THE COMMISSION agreed :— to invite the Secretary to complete as quickly as possible his consultations with palaeontologists on the action to be taken in regard to the generic name Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771, and in the light of those consultations and of the present discussion, to submit a proposal to the Commission for consideration, 7. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that there were three generic names (Manatus, Rosmarus, Ammonia) which, in consequence of the decision which had just been taken (in Conclusion 2 above) that new generic names published in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta satisfied the requirements of Article 25 of the Réegles were now seen first to have been validly published in the foregoing work, In accordance with the procedure which the Commission had agreed (in the same Conclusion) to adopt in such cases, these three generic names should either be placed on the appropriate “ Official List’ or “ Official Index ” or, as the case might be, sup- pressed by the Commission under their plenary powers. THE COMMISSION agreed :-— to invite the Secretary to confer with specialists in the groups concerned with the purpose of submitting a Report, with recommendations, on the action to be taken in regard to the following generic names first validly published by Briinnich in 1771 in his Zoologiae Fundamenta: (1) Manatus Briinnich ; (2) Rosmarus Briinnich: (3) Ammonia Briinnich. 8. In the course of the discussion of the generic names first published by Briinnich in 1771 in his Zoologiae Funda- menta recorded in the preceding Conclusion, THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) observed that the status of five of the generic names published in that work (Lutra, Hyaena, Giraffa, Tapirus, Ceratodon) could not be finally determined until a decision had been taken by the Commission on the status of the generic names published by Brisson in 1762 in the Second Edition of his Regnum Animale, for each of the five names concerned had been published by Brisson in the foregoing work and should be attributed to that author if the Regnum Animale were to be found to comply with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. If however it were necessary to reject that work, then Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta was the 314 “ Hyaena ” Brisson, > “ Lutra ” Brisson, 1762, and International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. first work in which those names had been validly published with an indication by a binominal author. Continuing, the Acting President said that, as the Commission would recall, the question of the availability of names in Brisson’s Regnum Animale had been submitted to them for decision in a brief note prepared by Dr. G. H. H. Tate (American Museum of Natural History, New York) (file Z.N.(S.)124), which had been published in 1945 (Tate, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 115). Having regard to the importance of this question to mammalogists and in view also of the rarity of Brisson’s Regnum Animale, he (the Acting Presi- dent), in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, had come to the conclusion that a full presentation of the issues involved was desirable before a decision was taken by the Commission. He had accordingly prepared for the con- sideration of the Commission a paper on this subject, illus- trated by facsimile reproductions of extracts from Brisson’s book. This paper would be published as soon as possible in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In the circum- stances, he (the Acting President) suggested that the Commission should defer taking a decision on the status of the names in Brisson’s Regnum Animale of 1762 until they had had an opportunity of studying the paper referred to above but that, in taking this decision, they should take note of the fact that, if the foregoing work were to be rejected as not satisfying the requirements of Article 25, the place in which the five generic names to which he had referred would be found to have been first validly published in conditions which satisfied the requirements of Article 25 would be Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to take into consideration the question of the status of generic names first published in Brisson, 1762, Regnum Animale, as soon as possible after the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the paper on this subject prepared by the Secretary ; (2) to take note that, if it were found that the above work did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25, the names of the undermentioned genera in the Class Mammalia Lutra, Hyaena, Giraffa, _ Tapirus, Ceratodon would be found to have been first published by Briinnich in 1771 in his Zoologiae Fundamenta. ¥ 9. Arising out of the discussion on the item recorded in Conclusion 8 above, THE COMMISSION agreed :— to defer, until a decision had been reached on the i i ig (For the rule under . which a trivial name such as‘ 4-maculatus”” is to be transliterated as “‘ quattuor- maculatus,’ see Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 10) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, _ Conclusion 10) VoL. 4A 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 447 (b) to set aside the selection by Latreille (1810) of “ Carabus 4-maculatus Fab.” (=Carabus quattuor- maculatus Linnaeus, 1758) as the type species of the genus Lebia Latreille [1802-1803], and to designate in the place of that species Buprestis marginatus Fourcroy, 1785, to be the type species of the fore- going genus (Andrewes, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 251-252; Marshall, Andrewes, Balfour-Browne, Blair & Cameron, 1947, abid., 1: 252-253) ; (c) to set aside the. selection by Westwood (1838) of Bembidium obtusum Sturm, 1825, as the type species of the genus Tachys Stephens, 1828, and to designate in the place of that species Tach ys scutellaris . Stephens, 1828, to be the type species of the fore- going genus (Andrewes, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 253; Marshall, Andrewes, Balfour-Browne, Blair & Cameron, 1947, ibid., 1: 254) ; ) to set aside the selection by Latreille (1810) of “ Trechus meridianus Clairv.” (= Carabus meridianus Linnaeus, 1761) as the type species of the genus Trechus Schellenberg, 1806, and to designate in the place of that species Carabus quadristriatus Schrank, 1781, to be the type species of the foregoing genus (Andrewes, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 255; Marshall, Andrewes, Balfour-Browne, Blair & Cameron, 1947, ibid., 1: 256.) In discussion the view was expressed that it was desirable to seek additional information in regard to these applications in the same way as had been agreed upon in the case of the name Bradycellus Erichson, 1837, which the Commission had considered a few minutes earlier. THE COMMISSION agreed :-— (1) that the information in their possession on the question whether the strict application of the Reégles in the case of the undermentioned names of genera in the Order Coleoptera (Class Insecta) would lead to greater confusion than uniformity - Was not sufficient to show whether in these cases the plenary powers should be used in the manner proposed :— Harpalus Latreille [1802-1803] and Ophonus Stephens, 1827 Lebia Latreille [1802-1803] Tachys Stephens, 1828 Trechus Schellenberg, 1806 ; 448 Part 11 of Volume 1 of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” : applications published in, to be considered in turn (Previous reference: Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 15) “ Dinornis novae- zealandiae ” Owen, 1842 (Class Aves, Order Dinorni- formes): deter-~ mination of lectotype of, under Article 31 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (2) to notify the foregoing conclusion to the Royal Entomological Society of London (through which the foregoing applications had been submitted to the Commission) and at the same time to ask for supplementary statements setting out, for each of the names concerned, the nature and extent of the confusion apprehended by the Society if the Régles were strictly applied in relation to the names specified in (1) above ; to defer taking decisions on the applications referred to above, until the supplementary state- ments, asked for in (2) above, were severally available. — go ~— 13. THE COMMISSION. had before them Part 11 of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature con- taining 21 papers relating to 18 individual problems of nomenclature. THE COMMISSION :— (1) took note that two of the papers published in Part 11 of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (i.e. the papers relating to the generic name Coriva Geoffroy, 1762) had already been considered at the meeting noted in the margin when the Commission had examined the question of the availability of generic names published in Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Pars; agreed to examine, in turn, each of the remaining 17 applications, 19 papers relating to which had been published in the foregoing Part of the Bulletin. ‘ 14. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application (file Z.N.(S.)136) submitted by Dr. Gilbert Archey (Auckland Institute and Museum, New Zealand) and Dr. R. 8. Allan (Canterbury University College, Christchurch, New Zealand) asking for-a ruling on the identity of the type species of the nominal species Dinornis novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (Class Aves, Order Dinornithi- formes), having regard to the fact that Owen did not designate a type specimen for this species and that of his three syntypes, one, the tarso-metatarsus (m3), had later (1844) been designated by Owen as the holotype of Dinorms struthoides while another, the tibio-tarsus (t2), had at the same time been designated as the holotype of another new nominal species, Dinornis ingens Owen (Archey & Allan, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl.,1: 257). The applicants (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11) VOL, 4 42 14th M. eeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 449 which later had been designated as the holotype of Dinornis ingens Owen, 1844, or if they were to rule that it was the specimen (the femur (f12) ), which alone of the original Session, it might have been difficult to answer the question decision taken at the meeting noted in the margin that Article 31 (applying to type specimens of species the provisions of Article 30 in regard to the type Species of incorporated in the Régles) (that an author, acting under Rule (g) in Article 30, could, if he go desired, select as the type species of a genus a species which was already the. type species of another genus) applied also in the field of another. It was clear therefore that the first selection of a lectotype for the Species originally described as Dinornis and the holotype of the species bearing the later published of the names in question. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that Lydekker ( 1891) did not act in contravention of Article 31 when he selected from among the three syntypes of the nominal species Dinornis 450 International Commassion on Zoological Nomenclature. (For the decisions that Article 15 should be amended to require that a compound trivial name should be written as a single word and that names published in contravention of that Article should automatically be corrected, see Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 9, and 4th Meetng, Conclusion 5, respectively) Martin (W.), 1793 “Fig. Descr. Petrif. Derbyshire”, and 1803, “ Petrificata Derbiensia”, declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes novaezealandiae Owen, 1843, the tibio-tarsus (t2) . to be the lectotype of that species and conse- quently the foregoing lectotype selection, being the first to have been made under Article 31, was valid under the Regles; bo — Owen, 1844 (published in the binominal combina- tion Dinornis ingens), being the trivial name of a nominal species of which the specimen referred to in (1) above was the holotype, was an objective synonym of the older trivial name novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 ; to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— (3 ~~ novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis novaezea- landiae), determined in the manner specified in (1) above ; struthoides Owen, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis struthoides) ; (4) to place the trivial name ingens Owen, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis ungens), on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” (5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. ° 15. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application (file Z.N.(S.)147), submitted by Dr. J. Brookes Knight (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) asking for a ruling on the question of the availability of names first published in two works by W. Martin: (1) that author’s Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire, published in 1793; (2) his Petrificata Derbiensia; or Figures and descriptions of Petri- factions collected in Derbyshire, published in 1809 (Knight, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl.,1: 260). By way of illustration of the type of nomenclature employed by Martin in these works Dr. Knight had submitted the following examples : (1) “ CONCHYLIOLITHUS (catillus) HELICIS ” which appeared in Martin’s Fig. Deser. Petrif. Derbyshire of 1793, as regards which Dr. Knight had stated that it was clear from the discussion given (in English) that Martin did not regard Conchyliolithus as a name, looking upon it merely as a designation for fossil shells, for in the above case he that, in view of (1) above, the trivial name ingens i (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 451 used the expression “ a fossil shell, of the genus Helix” in connection with the species to which he had applied the trinominal designation quoted above ; (2) “ Conchyliolithus Anomites productus” and “ Conchyliolithus Nautilites Ammonites listeri,’ which appeared in Martin’s Petrificata Derlnensia of 1809. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that it was impossible to argue that the expressions quoted by Dr. Knight were examples of bi- nominal nomenclature and therefore to claim that in the two works in question Martin had “ appliqué les principes de la nomenclature binominale ” as was now required by Proviso (b) to Article 25. There was, therefore, in his view, no doubt but that both the foregoing works by Martin should be rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, the new “names ” published therein not complying with the require- ments of Proviso (b) to Article 25. According to the information submitted by Dr. Knight, a decision in the foregoing sense would do no more than confirm the existing practice of specialists, so far as Martin’s so-called “ generic names ” were concerned, these having been “ universally ignored.” Dr. Knight had added, however, that later authors had almost universally adopted the so-called “trivial names’? employed by Martin in the later of the two works in question, namely the Petrificata Derbiensia of 1809. It was not clear whether the rejection of the Petrificata Derbiensia of 1809 as unavailable for nomen- clatorial purposes would give rise to confusion in the field of trivial names (as well as preventing such confusion in the field of generic names), for where a work had to be rejected in this way, it was commonly found that the next author to use one of the trivial names so rejected (who in such cir- cumstances became for nomenclatorial purposes the author of the name) had used the name in the same sense as the author whose use of the name had been rejected. Normally, in such circumstances the name continued to be the name for the species to which it had been originally applied, although now attributed to a later author and ranking for purposes of priority from a later date. Only when the name in its new priority was antedated by some other name published in the meantime by some other author or when, through the action of another author, the name had become a homonym, would a name, when so republished by a later author, cease to be the available name for the species in question. It was to be hoped that examination of the literature would show that the majority of the trivial names in question were &still the oldest available names for the species to which they had been applied by 452 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Twelve generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published in 1807 by Fabricius and Illiger in different senses : suppression under the plenary powers of the names so published by Illiger Martin, even if they had now to be attributed to different authors and to later dates. In so far as this was not the case, it would still be open to specialists to apply to the Commission for the validation of any given trivial name as from its use by Martin in 1809, if they were satisfied that otherwise confusion would ensue. The Acting President added that the present case had been advertised _ as a.case in which it might be desired to use the plenary powers of the Commission, but, for the reasons which he had explained, there was, in his opinion, no reason for the adoption of such a course. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that in the undermentioned works Martin (W.) did not apply the “principes de la nomenclature binominale ”’ as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 and that therefore no name, whether an apparent generic name or an apparent trivial name, published in either of these works possessed any availability under the Regles as from the date of being so published :— (a) Martin, 1793, Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire; (b) Martin, 1809, Petrificata Derbiensia: or Figures and Descriptions of Petrifactions collected in Derbyshire; (2) to give sympathetic consideration to any applica- tion which might be submitted” by interested specialists for the validation as from Martin, 1809, of any trivial name first published by that author in his Petrificata derbiensia where that name was in general use for a common species and it could be shown that under (1) above it would be necessary to change the name of that species and that such change would lead to confusion in nomenclature ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 16. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application (file Z.N.(S.)148) submitted by Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom), in regard to the relative priority to be assigned to certain generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) which had been published in 1807 independently by Fabricius and Illiger respectively, by whom they had been applied in very different senses (Hemming, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomenel., 1 ; 261-269). — ( Previous reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 14) 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 453 THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the present application, which had been submitted by himself as a specialist in the Order Lepidoptera, was designed solely to remove doubts regarding the priority to be assigned to 12 generic names which were known to have been published in different senses in the Same year (1807) but of which the relative dates of publica- tion were unknown and would probably always remain so. Each of the names in question had been published by Fabricius in the well-known paper (in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin fur I nsektenkunde) in which he had broken ground as the first author to attempt a substantial generic classifica- tion of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera. With one exception (Thymele), each of these hames, as published by Fabricius, was today in universal use, nine for genera of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera and two for genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera (for groups which Fabricius had mistakenly considered to be butterflies), On 19th December, 1807, the same names had been published anonymously by Tlliger in a review of the first 34 plates of Jacob Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, Ag published by Illiger, these generic names applied to species entirely different from those assigned to the genera in question by Fabricius, although Illiger, in publishing these names, claimed to be applying the Fabrician nomenclature. In a number of cases (as he had shown in his application) the greatest possible confusion would arise if it were hecessary to use these names in the sense employed by Illiger instead of in that employed by Fabricius, “He accordingly asked the Commission to remove the cause of confusion which would arise if it were necessary to use these Fabrician names as published by TIlliger by suppressing them for nomenclatorial purposes. The use of the plenary powers in this case was necessary, not because the strict application of the Régles would lead to confusion, but because of the 454 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 42) paper at the meeting noted in the margin, any doubt as to the scope of the plenary powers in this matter had now been removed. No objection of any kind had been brought forward against the present proposal and he felt sure that all lepidopterists would welcome the action proposed. The Acting President added that, in preparing the present application, he had followed strictly the interpretation of the expression “indication ”’ given by the Commission in Opinion | and had accordingly rejected as unavailable four names which, under the liberalisation of this aspect of Article 25 that had been agreed upon during the present Session were now available names. In the circumstances he asked that the decision now to be taken should cover not only the eight generic names specified in paragraph 21(ii) of the application submitted to the Commission, but also to the four names (Brassolis, Huploea, Mechanitis, Thymele) which (as already explained) he had previously rejected (paragraph 8) as invalid, but which were now available names. Turning to the question of the addition to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of the corresponding names as published by Fabricius in 1807, the Acting President asked that of these names the following seven should now be placed on the foregoing “ Official List ” :—Apatura; Brassolis; Castnia; Emesis; Mechan- iis; Neptis; Urania. Four of the remaining Fabrician names (Huploea, Helicopis, Nymphidium, Pontia) had already been placed on the “ Official List’ before the bibliographical problem which had given rise to the present application had been discovered. The Acting President recommended that the position of these names on the “ Official List” should be confirmed. The twelfth of the Fabrician generic names in question (Thymele Fabricius, 1807) was invalid, having as its type species the same species (Papilio tages Linnaeus, 1758) as the earlier genus Erynnis Schrank, 1801, and should therefore now be placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.” The Acting President then pointed out that the trivial names of the type species of the four genera, the position of the names of which on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” should, he had recom- mended, now be confirmed, were all available.names and, under the decision taken at the meeting noted in the margin, would therefore now be placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology.” Of the five names of genera belonging to the Sub-Order Rhopalocera which he had recommended should be added to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” three (Apatura, Brassolis, Mechanitis) possessed as their type species nominal species, the names of which were the oldest available names for the (Later reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 39) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 42) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 455 species concerned ; he recommended therefore that the trivial names of these species should be added to the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names,” In the case of the genus Apatwra Fabricius, there was a doubt, as between two closely allied and certainly congeneric species, as to the species to which the trivial name of the type species was applicable, but, as proposals for the clarification of this doubt would be brought before the Commission later during the present meeting, there was no reason why the trivial name in question (iris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris) should not now be placed on the “ Official List.” There were slight complica- tions in the case of the trivial names of the nominal species which were the type species of the two remaining genera : (1) The type species of Neptis Fabricius, 1807, had for its trivial name aceris Esper [1783] (published in the binominal combination Papilio aceris); this name was the oldest available name for the European insect so named, but that insect was commonly regarded as being a subspecies of the Asiatic species originally named Papilio hylas by Linnaeus in 1758; (2) The nominal Species which was the type species of Hmesis Fabricius was Papilio ovidius Fabricius, 1793, which was regarded by specialists as a synonym of the nominal species Papilio cereus Linnaeus, 1767. In accord- ance with the principle agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin at the time when the “ Official List of Trivial Names ” had been established, it would be desirable in the first of these cases to place on the “ List ” the trivial name both of the nominal species which was the type species of the genus concerned (N. eptis Fabricius) and also the trivial name of the species of which it was regarded as a subspecies, while in the second case the trivial name of the’ nominal Species which was the type species of the genus in question (Emesis Fabricius) should not be placed on the “ List ” but the trivial name of the nominal species (cereus Linnaeus) of which the type species (ourdius Fabricius) was regarded as a synonym should be so placed. The Acting President added that, while he had obtained the support of Mr. N. D. Riley and Mr. W. H. T. Tams (British Museum (Natural History) ) for the proposed addition to the “ Official List of Generic Names” of the two names of genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera (Castnia, Urania), he had not at that time considered the question of the oldest available names for the type species of those genera, there having been no need to do so, the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names ” not then having been in existence. In the case of the type species of the first of these genera, there was, he knew, a difficult underlying problem of the relative prece- dence to be accorded to certain books published on unknown 456 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. dates in the same year (1775), on which a decision would first have to be taken by the Commission as a question of principle. The books concerned: were: (1) volume 1 of Cramer’s Uitlandsche Kapellen (in which Papilio icarus, the name of the type species of the genus Castmia Fabricius, was first published) ; (2) a paper entitled Anmerkungen zu den - Hufnagelischen Tabellen der Schmetterlinge by von Rottemburg published in volume 6 of the journal Natur- forscher; (3) the anonymous work Ankundigung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend (the so-called Wiener Verzeichniss) by Schiffer- miiller & Denis; (4) the Systema Entomoligiae of Fabricius. In the circumstances, he proposed that the Commission should agree to place on the “ Official List’ whatever might ultimately be found to be the oldest available trivial names for the type species of these genera. THE COMMISSION agreed :-— (1) to use their plenary powers, in so far as that might be necessary :— (a) to suppress for the purposes of Articles 25 and 34 the undermentioned generic names published in the issue of 19th December, 1807, of the Allgemeine-Lateratur Zeitung, Halle [Jena] in an anonymous review by Illiger of the first 34 plates of Jacob Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge to have been published :— ‘ Apatura [Illiger], 1807. Brassolis [Iliger], 1807. Castnea [Illiger], 1807. Emesis [Illiger], 1807. Euploea [Illiger], 1807. Helicopis [Illiger], 1807. Mechanatis [Illiger], 1807. Neptis [Illiger], 1807. Nymphidium [Mliger], 1807. Pontia [Illiger], 1807. * Thymele [Illiger], 1807. Urama [Illiger], 1807. (b) to render available under ‘Articles 25 and 34 all the generic names specified abaye other than Thymele, as published by Fabricius in 1807 in Volume 6 of Illiger’s - Magazin fur Naturkunde ; (2) to place on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ the 12 generic names specified in (1) (a) above ; 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 457 (3) to place the undermentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below, on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Name of genus Type species of genus specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) Apatura Fabricius, Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758 1807 (type species selected by Curtis, 1831). Brassolis Fabricius, Papilio sophorae Linnaeus, 1807 1758 (type species selec- ted by Blanchard, 1840) Castnia Fabricius, Papilio icarus Cramer, 1807 . [1775] (type species selected by Latreille, 1810) Emesis Fabricius, H. esperva ovidius Fabricius, 1807 1793 [=Papilio cereus Linnaeus, 1767] (type species selected by West- wood, [1851]) Mechanitis Papilio polymnia Fabricius, 1807 Linnaeus, 1758 (type Species selected by Scudder, 1875). Neptis Fabricius, Papilio aceris Esper [1783] 1807 [=Papilio hylas Lin- naeus, 1758, ssp.] (type species selected by Croteh, 1872). Urama Fabricius, Papilio leilus Linnaeus, 1807 1758 (type species selec- : ted by Latreille, 1810) ; (4) to confirm the entries on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” relating to the under- mentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below :— Name of genus Type species of genus specified in Col. (1) (2) Euploea Fabricius, Papilio corus Fabricius, 1807 1793 (type species desig- nated under the plenary powers in Opinion 163) Helicopis Papilio cupido Linnaeus, Fabricius, 1807 1758 (type species selec- ted by Scudder, 1875) 458 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (5) (6) Nymphidium Papilio caricae Linnaeus, Fabricius, 1807 1758 (type species selec- ted by Crotch, 1872) Pontia Fabricius, Papiliodaplidice Linnaeus, 1807 1758 (type species selec- ted by Curtis, 1824) to bina, the generic name Thymele Fabricius, 1807 (type species, by selection by Westwood, 1840: Papilio tages Linnaeus, 1758) on the “ Official Index of pene and Tovalid Generic Names in Zoology ” to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology’ the undermentioned trivial names, being the trivial names of the type species of certain of the genera, the names of which had been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” under (3) above, with the exception of the trivial name /ylas Linnaeus, 1758, which, from the standpoint of some specialists, was the trivial name of .a subspecies of the same collective species as, and had priority over, the trivial name aceris Esper [1780], the type species of the genus Neptis Fabricius, 1807 :— aceris Esper [1783] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aceris) (without prejudice to the prior rights of the trivial name hylas Linnaeus, 1758, if that name is held to apply to a subspecies of the same collective species) cereus Linnaeus, 1767 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio cereus) hylas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio hylas) iris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio zis) polymnia Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio polymnia) sophorae Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio sophorae) ; to take note that, under the decisions adopted at the time of the establishment of the ‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology,” the trivial names of the type species of the genera specified in (4) above, being all the oldest available names for the species severally concerned, were to be placed on the foregoing “ Official List ” ; (Previous references : Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Conclusion 18 ; 9th Meeting, Conclusion 23) ‘Hygriobia ” Latreille, 1804 Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) : emendation of, to Hygrobia ” under Article 19 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 459 (8) to invite the Secretary to the Commission, in consultation with other specialists in the Order Lepidoptera, to submit proposals for the deter- mination by the Commission, under the procedure agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin of the relative priority to be assigned to different names for the same species and to the same name for different species published in 1775 (a) by Cramer in volume 1 of his Uitlandsche Kapellen (b) by von Rottemburg in a paper entitled Anmerkungen zu den Hufnagelischen Tabellen, der Schmetterlinge published in volume 6 of the journal Naturforscher (c) by Schiffermiiller & Denis in the anonymous work Ankiindigung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend, and (d) by Fabricius in his Systema Entomologiae ; to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ whichever might, in the light of the decision on (8) above, be found to be the oldest available trivial name for the type species of the genus Castnia Fabricius, 1807. (10) to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” whichever, after consultation with specialists, was found to be the oldest available trivial name for the type species of the genus Urania Fabricius, 1807 ; (9 ~— (11) to render Opinions recording the decisions specified in (1) to (6), and, when completed, in (9) and (10) above. ‘ 17. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application (file Z.N.(S.)159) submitted jointly by Mr. H. E. Andrewes (Leicester, England), Professor W. A. F. Balfour- Browne (formerly Professor of Entomology, Imperial College of Science, London), Dr. K. G. Blair (British Museum (Natural History), London), Mr. M. Cameron (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring), and Mr. C. E. Tottenham (University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, England), asking for a ruling from the Commission that the spelling of the name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) should be emended to Hygrobia (Andrewes, Balfour-Browne, Blair, Cameron and Tottenham, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1 : 270). It was stated by the applicants that the emended spelling Hygrobia was in universal use and had been used by workers ever since Latreille (1817) had published the name in this form. The reversion to the original spelling of Hygriobia 460 International Commission on Zoological N omenclature. would, in the view of the applicants, cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would cause greater confusion than uniformity. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that, although the applicants had asked the Commission to use their plenary powers to secure the end sought in their petition, the first matter which should be considered was whether the original spelling Hygriobia was correct or defective and, in the latter event, whether under Article 19, it should be emended. Not until an answer had been given to these questions could the possible use of the plenary powers be appropriately considered. Only one comment had been received in regard to this case, namely a letter from Dr. Richard Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.), who had expressed his strong personal objection to the use of the plenary powers in this case, but had offered no observations on the prior question of the applicability or otherwise of Article 19 to the name under consideration. IN THE DISCUSSION on this case the view was ex- pressed that, having regard to the fact that the genus under consideration was a genus of water beetles and to the com- mon use of compound words consisting, in part of the Greek adjective typés, meaning “ wet,’ it was evident that the correct spelling of this generic name was “ Hygrobia ” and that the barbarism ‘“‘ Hygriobia”’ was due either to a “faute d’orthographe’”’ or to a ‘faute d’impression.” Article 19, accordingly, applied to this case, and in conse- quence the spelling of this name-should be emended from _Hygriobia to Hygrobia. In these circumstances, no question arose of the use of the plenary powers in this case. THE COMMISSION agreed :-— (1) that it was ‘“‘évident” that the spelling as Hygriobia of the generic name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) was due either to a ‘‘ faute d’orthographe ” or to a “ faute d’impression”’; - (2) that, in view of (1) above the foregoing generic name was, under Article 19, to be emended to Hygrobia; (3) to place the generic name Hygrobia Latreille, 1804 (type species, by monotypy: Dytiscus hermanni Fabricius, 1775) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; “ Schwagerina ” von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) : determination of type species of 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 461 (4) to place the trivial name tardus Herbst, 1779 (as published in the binominal combination Dytiscus tardus) (the oldest available name for the type species of Hygrobia Latreille, 1804) on the “Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ ; (5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. 18. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application (file Z.N.(S.)87) submitted by Professor Hubert G. Schenck (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) asking for a ruling on the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) (Schenck, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 271-272). Professor Schenck explained that this mono- typical genus had undoubtedly been based upon a mis- identified type species. The only species cited by von Moller under this genus was Borealis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, but a recent examination of Ehrenberg’s type material by modern critical methods had shown that the species so named by Ehrenberg differed morphologically from that on which von Moller had based the genus Schwagerina, belonging not only to a different species but differing generically therefrom. The species so misidentified by - von Moller was later named Schwagerina moelleri by Rauser- Chernoussova in 1937. Thus, some 60 years elapsed before the error of identification by von Méller was detected and during that period the species which that author had misidentified as Borealis princeps Ehrenberg had been universally accepted as the type species of the genus Schwagerina. When in 1935 Dr. Carl O. Dunbar had detected this error, he had inquired of the Commission whether in the exceptional circumstances they would be prepared to entertain an application that they shguld use their plenary powers to designate as the type species of the genus Schwagerina the species which von Moller had intended to refer to, when he established that genus, in place of the species to which, through an error of identifica- tion, he did in fact then refer. Unfortunately, at that moment the Secretaryship of the Commission had been vacant, and Dr. Dunbar had been unable to obtain-any reply from the Commission. Accordingly, he and Dr. Skinner had decided that they had no option but to apply to this case the interpretation of Article 30 given in the Commission’s Opinion 65. They had’ therefore accepted the true Borealis princeps Ehrenberg as the type species of Schwagerina von Miller, and had established a genus (Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar and Skinner, 1935) for the 462 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23) species which von Moller had misidentified with Borealis princeps Ehrenberg and for its immediate allies. Since then most workers had adopted Pseudoschwagerina in place of Schwagerina in its old sense and had applied the latter name to the true Borealis princeps Ehrenberg. In the light of these events, Professor Schenck considered that uniformity and stability would best be secured by the Commission confirming Borealis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, as the type species of the genus Schwagerina von Moller, 1877. Professor Schenck was supported in this view by Professor M. L. Thompson (University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.). THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that the Commission would, he felt sure, regret the delay which had occurred in dealing with this case, for, if it had been possible to take action promptly when this problem was first brought to notice by Dr, Carl O. Dunbar, the Commission, by using their plenary powers, could have saved the name Schwagerina von Moller for use in the then universally accepted sense, namely as the generic name for a widely-known guide fossil to the Lower Permian throughout the Northern Hemisphere. For the genus Schwagerina von Maller was clearly a genus based upon a misidentified species, and, as such, could readily have been dealt with by the Commission under Opinion 65 and the fuller Opinion (Opinion 168) on the same subject which they had adopted at their Lisbon Session, for at that time it was clear that the substitution as the type species of the genus Schwagerina von Moller of the species (Borealis princeps Ehrenberg) actually cited by von Moller for the species (Schwagerina moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova) to which he had intended to refer would certainly have led (as, in fact, it did lead) to confusion and instability in nomenclature. At the present time, however, the position was different, for the “‘ agony ” (as one leading American paleontologist had termed it) involved in the change of the type species of Schwagerina had been overcome and workers were in general accustomed to the new use of that generic name. Professor Schenck (who before the present practice had become crystalised, had favoured the recognition of Schwagerina moellert as the type species of Schwagerina) now recommended that in the altered circumstances the Commission should give a ruling that the true Borealis princeps of Ehrenberg was to be recognised as the type species. He (the Acting President), as Secretary to the Commission, had had considerable correspondence with specialists in regard to this case, notably Professor M. L. Thompson, Dr. Carl O. Dunbar and Dr. Myra Keen, all of whom favoured the course now pro- (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 38) VOL, 4 8B 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 463 posed. In addition, he-had raised this question at a widely- attended meeting on nomenclature held at Ottawa at the beginning of that year during the annual meetings of the Paleontological Society of America and of the Geological Society of America. “All the specialists then present had favoured the solution now proposed. In addition, this case had been considered by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, which (by 11 affirmative and no negative votes) had adopted a resolution supporting the action recommended by Professor Schenck, The Acting President added that such a decision would be in strict conformity with the provisions which it had been agreed (at the meeting noted in the margin) should be inserted in the Reégles to give effect to the decisions relating to the interpretation of Article 30 given in Opinions 65 and 168, for, although, in general, those provisions enjoined the Commission to use their plenary powers to designate as the type species of a genus based upon a misidentified type - species the species intended by the original author of the genus (as contrasted with the species actually cited by that author), there had been inserted, as the Commission would recall, a saving clause directing that the plenary powers should not be used even where a genus had clearly been established on a misidentified type species, in cases where the Commission considered that such a use of the plenary powers would lead to greater confusion than uniformity. In his (the Acting President’s) view, the present was such a case, and he accordingly recommended the Commission to approve the application submitted. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to place on record their regret at the delay which had occurred in reaching a decision on the present case, a delay which, the Commission recognised, had prejudiced the issues involved : that, under the Reégles the type species of the monotypical genus Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) was the species Borealis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842, the sole species cited by von Méller, when he first published the name Schwagerina, and not the Species which that author had misidentified with the foregoing species and had before him when he established the foregoing genus, which, specialists were agreed, was the species that was at that time unnamed but had since received the name Schwagerina moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937 (2 ~~ 464 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. * Alydus ” Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) : validation of, under the plenary powers (3) that, having regard to the delay referred to in (1) (4 (5 ~ ~— above, and without prejudice to the decision which might have been taken if the case had been dealt with promptly and before therefore the situation had developed in the way that it did subsequent to 1935, it was not desirable in existing circumstances to use the plenary powers to vary the application of the Regles in the present case ; in view of (3) above to place the undermentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below, on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) (type species, by mono- typy : Borealis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842) Pseudoschwagerina Dunbar & Skinner, 1935 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) (type species, by original designation : Schwagerina uddeni Beede and Kniker, 1924) ; to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937 (as published in the binominal combination Schwagerina moelleri) princeps Ehrenberg, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Borealis princeps) uddeni Beede and Kniker, 1924 (as published in the binominal combination Schwagerina uddent); (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (2) to (5) above. 19. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :— (a) a paper (file Z.N.(S.)160) by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) containing a discussion of the status of the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), the relationship of that name to the name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, and the relationship of the latter name to the name Nabis Latreille [1802-1803], and suggesting alternative methods by which the name Alydus Fabricius, 1803, might be conserved (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 1 : 273-274) ; Oe ae ee VOL. 4 B? 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 465 (b) an application (file Z.N.(8.)160) submitted jointly by Mr. E. E. Green (Camberley, England) and Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) for the suppression, under the plenary powers, of the generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, and the consequent validation of the name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (Green & China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 275). The present application had been submitted to the Commission by the Royal Entomological Society of London on the recommendation of their Committee on Generic Nomenclature on the basis of data submitted to that Committee by its Hemiptera Sub-Committee (in a Report published by the Society in 1943 as an annexe to the Kighth Report of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature). The paper by Dr. China (see (a) above) was an extract from the paper which that specialist had submitted to the Hemiptera Sub-Committee, while the joint paper by Mr. Green and Dr. China (see (b) above) was an extract from the Report of the Hemiptera Sub-Committee. The object of the application was to validate the name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (type species : Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758), the portion of the application relating to the older name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, having been introduced only because certain authors (e.g. Reuter (1888), Kirkaldy (1900), Stichel (1925) ) had synonymised Coriscus dauci Schrank, 1801 (the type species of the genus Coriscus Schrank) with Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758 (the type species of Alydus Fabricius, 1803), notwithstanding the substantial structural difference between these genera noted by Schrank in his original description of the genus Coriscus and of his express statement that the sole included species (then referred to by him as the ‘“‘ Méhrensichelwanze ”’ and later named by him Coriscus dauct) was not the same as -Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus. Accordingly, from the stand- point of the authors referred to above and of any other specialists who shared their taxonomic opinion regarding the identification of Coriscus dauct Schrank with Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803, was a synonym of Coriscus Schrank, 1796. Dr. China and Mr. Green did not accept the taxonomic conclusions of the foregoing authors, but, in order to put an end to any » doubts on this matter, they had recommended in the Report of the Hemiptera Sub-Committee that the Com- mission should be asked to use their plenary powers to designate Coriscus crassipes Schrank, 1801, as the type species of the genus Coriscus Schrank, 1796. The effect of this proposal would be to make Coriseus Schrank, 1796, and 466 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Nabis Latreille [1802-1803], different names for the same genus. The applicants attached importance to the mainten- ance of the name Nabis Latreille, but had been under the misapprehension that their proposal would make Coriscus Schrank a synonym of Nabis Latreille, although it was the older of the two names, in view of the fact that (in Opinion 104) the Commission had placed the name Nabis Latreille on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) explained that, when in 1944 he, as Secretary to the Commission, had prepared the present application for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, he ° had drawn the attention of the applicants to the fact that the name Nabis Latreille had been placed on the “ Official List ” in the belief that under the Régles it was an available name, and that, as it had not been validated by the Com- _ mission under the plenary powers, it was liable to be removed from the “ Official List,” if it. were later found to be an invalid name. As the result of this correspondence, the applicants had decided to amend their application to the form in which it was later published in the Bulletin (see (b) above). In its revised form the application asked for the suppression of the generic name Coriscus Schrank under the plenary powers. This action would at one stroke both remove any doubt as to the availability of the name Alydus Fabricius and safeguard fully the position of Nabis Latreille on the “ Official List.” Subsequent to this correspondence but prior to the publication of the revised application, Dr. R. I. Sailer (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) had written (1945) objecting to the original proposal on the ground that it was incomplete and, if adopted, would lead to Nabis Latreille being sunk as a synonym of Coriscus Schrank. He further expressed the view that during the last 25 years the name Coriscus Schrank had become well established in the literature in place of Alydus Fabricius and that, in view of the fact that its suppression in the manner proposed by Green and China in the Report of the Hemiptera Sub-Committee would endanger the important name Nabis Latreille, the proposal submitted by the Sub-Committee should be rejected. In his reply, the Acting President (as Secretary to the Com- mission) had informed Dr. Sailer that he shared his view that,.as submitted by the Sub-Committee, the proposal regarding Alydus Fabricius, would, if adopted, throw Nabis Latreille into synonymy with Coriscus Schrank and that, in order to remove this objection to their proposal, Dr. China and Mr. Green had agreed upon a re-wording of their application which would safeguard fully the position of 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 467 Nabis Latreille. The application had subsequently been advertised, but the advertisement had elicited no objection to the action proposed by Dr. China. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) for the purposes of Article 25, though not for those of Article 34 ; (b) to validate the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; (2) to place the generic name Alydus Fabricius, 1803 (type species, selected by Curtis, 1831: Cimex calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (3) to place the name Coriscus Schrank, 1796, on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ ; (4) to confirm the entry on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of the name Nabis Latreille [1802-1803] ; (5) to place the trivial name calcaratus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cimex calcaratus) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (5) above. “ Salda” 20. THE COMMISSION had under consideration :— Fabricius, 1803 : (Class Insecta, (a) a paper (file Z.N.(S.)161) by Dr. W. E. China claw ae ual (British Museum (Natural History), London) on species of, under the status of the name Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class the plenary powers Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencel.,1 : 276) ; (b) an application submitted jointly by Mr. E. E. Green (Camberley, England) and Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers to designate Cimez littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Green & China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencel., 1: 276-277) ; 468 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It was explained in the application that the universally accepted concept represented by the name Salda Fabricius, 1801, was based upon the belief that Cimea littorals Linnaeus, 1758, had been correctly selected as the type species of this genus by Blanchard in 1848 (in Orbigny, Dict. univ. Hist. nat., 11; 311). It was now realised that the Heteroptera section of the Disciples’ Edition of Cuvier’s Régne Animal, in which Blanchard had selected Cimex grylloides Linnaeus, 1761, as the type species of Salda Fabricius, was published as early as 1838 and therefore this type selection had priority over that of Czmez littoralis in 1848. The acceptance of Cimez grylloides Linnaeus as the type species of this genus would, however, lead to confusion, for it would involve the transfer of the genus Salda Fabricius to another family (now known as the LyGAEIDAE), where it would replace the well-known name Geocoris Fallén, 1814, while the family now known as the saLprpaE would be left without a name. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that the present application, like that relating to the name Alydus Fabricius, which the Commission had just considered, had been submitted to the Commission by the Royal Entomological Society of London, on the recommendation of their Committee on Generic Nomen- clature, acting on the advice of the Hemiptera Sub-Com- mittee, the members of which were Dr. China and Mr. Green. The application had been advertised subsequent to publica- tion in the Bulletin. The only objection received had come from Dr. Richard Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) who considered that the grounds advanced in the application were insufficient to justify the use by the Commission of their plenary powers. IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that the application submitted contained sufficient evidence as to the likelihood of confusion arising if the Régles were strictly applied in this case and that the application should there- fore be granted. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of a type species for the genus Salda Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) made prior to the present decision ; (b) to designate Cimex littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; Names of ten genera in the Order Hemiptera (Class Insecta) based upon misidentified type species: (1) type species of “ Gastrodes ” Westwood, 1840, designated under the plenary powers ; (2) type species of remaining genera similarly designated conditionally 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 469 (2) to place the generic name Salda Fabricius, 1803, with the type species designated in (1) (b) above, on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ ; (3) to place the trivial name littoralis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cimex littoralis) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 21. THE COMMISSION turned next to consider the application (file Z.N.(S.)144) submitted by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) in regard to the names of ten genera in the Order Hemiptera (Class Insecta), each of which, it was considered, was based upon a misidentified type species. The applications so submitted sought in each case the use of the plenary powers to designate as the type species of the genus concerned the species originally intended (as contrasted with the species actually cited) by the author of the generic name in question. The applications were the following :— (a) Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800 Gerris paludum Schellenberg, 1800, had been selected as the type species of this genus by Kirkaldy, 1906, but it was considered that the species referred to under this name by Schellen- berg was Cimex najas De Geer, 1773. The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type species of the genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 277-278). (b) Bellocoris Hahn, 1834 Cimex maurus Linnaeus, 1758, had been selected ‘asthe type species of this genus by Westwood (1840), but it was considered that the species referred to under this name by Hahn was Cimex austriacus Schrank, 1776. The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type species of this genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 278-279). (c) Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843 This genus was monotypical, the sole species referred thereto by the authors of the generic name being Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1803. It was considered that the citation of this name was due to a misidentification and that the species 470 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. which Amyot and Serville intended to refer to was Cimex maritimus Scopoli, 1763. (The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type species of this genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 279-280). (d) Catoplatus Spinola, 1837 This genus was monotypical, the sole species referred thereto by Spinola being Acanthia costata Fabricius, 1794. It was considered that the citation of this name was due to a misidentification and that the species which Spinola intended to refer to was Tingis fabric Stal, 1868. The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type species of this genus (China, Bull. zool. Nomenel., 1: 281). (e) Dictyonota Curtis, 1827 Tingis eryngii Latreille, 1804, had been designated by Curtis at the time (1827) that he first published the generic name Dictyonota, but it was considered that the species so referred to under this name by Curtis was Dictyonota strichnocera Fieber, 1844. The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type species of this genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 282). (f) Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 This genus was monotypical; the sole species referred thereto by Westwood being Cimex abietis Linnaeus, 1758. It was considered that the citation of this name was due to a misidentific- ation and that the species which Westwood intended to refer to was Cimex abietum Bergroth, 1914. The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type species of this genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 283). (g) Oncotylus Fieber, 1858 Kirkaldy (1906) selected as the type species of this genus the species which Fieber had referred thereto under the name Capsus tanaceti Fallén, 1807, but, in making this selection, Kirkaldy had made it clear that he realised that Fieber had misidentified Fallén’s species and that the species which he (Kirkaldy) was then selecting as the type species- was Oncotylus punctipes Reuter, 1873 (2.e. the species to which Fieber had intended to refer when he entered the trivial name tanacets Fallén as the name of a species of this genus). Nevertheless, under the Régles the type species 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 471 of this genus was the true Capsus tanaceti of Fallén. The Commission were asked to designate Oncotylus punctipes Reuter, 1873, as the type species of this genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencel., 1: 284). (h) Pachylops Fieber, 1858 This genus was monotypical, the sole Species referred thereto by Fieber being Capsus chlorop- terus Kirschbaum, 1855. It was considered that the citation of this name was due to a mis- _ identification and that the species which Fieber intended to refer to was Litosoma bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1868. The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type Species of this genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 1: 285). (i) Ptlophorus Hahn, 1826 This genus was monotypical, the sole Species referred thereto by Hahn being Cimex bifasciatus Fabricius, 1775. It was considered that the citation of this name was due to a misidentification and that the species which Hahn intended to refer to was Cimer clavatus Linnaeus, 1767. The Commission were asked to designate the latter species as the type species of this genus (China, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 286). (j) Tetyra Fabricius, 1803 Curtis (1838) selected Cimer maurus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of this genus. It was considered that the species referred to under this name by Fabricius was Cimer austriacus Schrank, 1776 (the species which, under (b) above, the Commission were asked to designate as the type species of the genus Bellocoris Hahn, 1834). The acceptance of Cimex maurus Linnaeus as the type species of Tetyra Fabricius would (i) involve the transfer of the name Letyra Fabricius from the American, to the European list, (ii) leave without a name the American genus now known as Tetyra, and (iii) cause the name Eurygaster Laporte, 1832 (a name of some importance in economic entomology as including pests of wheat) to fall as a synonym of Tetyra. Such consequences would be open to the strongest objection. It was accordingly proposed that the Commission should designate as the type species of Tetyra Fabricius, 1803, the species so selected by the next author after Curtis to select a type species for this genus, i.e, Kirkaldy (1900). International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The species in question was cited by Fabricius under the name Cimex arcuata Fabricius, 1794, but that name was invalid, being a homonym of Cimex arcuatus Gmelin, 1789. The oldest avail- able name for the Fabrician species was Cimex antillarum, a nom. nov. published by Kirkaldy in 1909. It was this nominal species which it was proposed that the Commission should designate as the type species of the genus Tetyra Fabricius 1803. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that unfortunately through some over- sight the Commission File (file Z.N.(S.)144) dealing with the present series of applications had not been included among those which he had brought with him to Paris to assist the Commission in the consideration of problems calling for decision. So far as he could recall, no objections to the action proposed in these cases had been received from any source. These cases appeared to be exactly of the kind envisaged in Opinion 168. They all related to genera based upon misidentified species, where the acceptance of the type species actually cited (as contrasted with that intended) by the original author would certainly cause great confusion. In such cases the Commission were now under an obligation to use their plenary powers to avoid disturbance in accepted nomenclature. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. USINGER (U.S.A.) said that, as a hemipterist, he was familiar with the problem presented by the name Gastrodes Westwood (case (f) above) and was in full agreement with the conclusions reached by Dr. China. He accordingly supported the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to designate Cimex abietum Bergroth, 1914, as the type species of this genus. IN THE ENSUING DISCUSSION the view was generally expressed that all the necessary data had been submitted by Dr. China in support of the remaining applications and that those applications were well founded. It was felt, however, that,*before a final decision was taken on these cases, it was desirable to make sure, by reference to the Commission’s file, that no adverse comment of any kind — had been received from any specialist in the groups concerned. If any such adverse comments were found to have been received, the application concerned should be resubmitted to the Commission, but if no such adverse comments had been received, the Secretary to the Commis- sion should prepare Opinions in the sense proposed. 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 473 THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to set aside the designation by Westwood of Cimex abietis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type Species of the monotypical genus Gastrodes Westwood, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; (b) to designate Gastrodes abietum Bergroth, 1914, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the generic name Gastrodes Westwood, 1840, with the type species specified in (1)(b) above, on the “ Official List of Generic N. ames in Zoology ” ; « (3) to place the trivial name abhietum Bergroth, 1914 (as published in the binominal combination Gastrodes alnetum), on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above ; (5) as regards the names of the nine genera in the Order Hemiptera (Class Insecta) specified below :— (a) that, if an examination of the Commission’s file Z.N.(S.)144 showed that no objection to the action proposed had been received from any source, the plenary powers should be used to designate as the type species of the genera concerned the species severally specified below, but that, if in any case it were to be found that such an objection had been received, the application concerned should be resubmitted to the Commission for further consideration :— Name of genus Name of species pro- posed to be designated, under the plenary powers as the type species of the genus specified in Col. ( 1) (1) (2) Aquarius Schellen- Cimex najas De Geer, berg, 1800. 16% Bellocoris Hahn, Cimex austriacus 1834. Schrank, 1776. 474 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Certain applications not yet published in the ** Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” : the Commission’s files relating to, to be examined in turn Beosus Amyot & Cimex maritimus Serville, 1843. Scopoli, 1763. Catoplatus Spinola, Tingis fabricic Stal, 1837. 1868. Dictyonota Curtis, Dictyonota strichno- 1827. cera Fieber, 1844. Oncotylus Fieber, Oncotylus punctipes 1858. Reuter, 1873. Pachylops Fieber, Litosoma bicolor 1858. Douglas & Scott, 1868. Pilophorus Hahn, Cimex clavatus Lin- 1826. naeus, 1767. Tetyra Fabricius, Cimex antillarum 1803. Kirkaldy, 1909 ; (b) that, where under Sub-Conclusion (5) (a) above, the plenary powers were used to designate as the type species of the genus concerned the species specified in Col. (2) of the table annexed to the said Sub- Conclusion, the generic name specified in Col. (1) should be placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” and the trivial name specified in Col. (2) as the name of the type species of the genus concerned should be placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial. Names in Zoology ” ; (c) that in every case where, under (5) (a) above, the plenary powers are used to designate as the type species of a genus the species specified against the name of that genus in Col. (2) of the table annexed to that Conclusion, an Opinion should be rendered recording the decision so taken. (Note by the Secretary to the Commission.— I have examined the Commission’s file Z.N. (S.) 144, and find (i) that Dr. R. I. Sailer (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) has registered his support for each of the proposals specified above, and (ii) that no adverse comment on the action proposed has been received from any source. (Signed) Francis Hemming. Secretariat of the Commission, London, N.W.1. 15th September 1948.) 22. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the application submitted by Dr. W. E. China in regard to the names of certain genera in the Order Hemiptera (Class Insecta) which the Commission had just considered completed their examination of the applica- tions that had so far been published in the Bulletin of . The trivial name “idas” Linnaeus, 1758, (as published in{the binominal combination “ Papilio idas ss suppressed, and the trivial name “idas” Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binominal combination 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 475 President), as Secretary to the Commission, had accordingly picked out the Commission Files (of the Z.N.(S.) Series) THE COMMISSION agreed :— to examine, in turn, the Commission’s Files (of the Z.N.(S.) Series) relating to applications in regard to individual nomenclatorial problems, which the Acting President, as Secretary to the Commission, had brought to Paris from London, with a view to reaching decisions on the questions submitted in every case where the evidence afforded by those Files showed clearly what action should be taken. Dr. Henry Beuret (Neuewelt, Bale, Switzerland) and Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) asking no useful purpose, in order (2) to validate the trivial name tdas Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binominal combina- 476 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature “ Papilio idas ”) tion Papilio idas) for the species which had been known bere poe a) ‘Since 1871 up to about ten years ago by the trivial name validated, and its = agyrognomon Bergstrasser 1779, a name which it had anplionton asiey, now been found was applicable to a different, though crackles HT snatters closely allied, species (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). incidental thereto THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the present application related to the name to be applied to a common Palaearctic species of butterfly, the nomenclature of which had become so confused that stability could not be secured unless the Commission used their plenary powers to assist that end. The confusion arose through the mistakes made in the past in applying trivial names to three very similar species, which might for convenience be called species “‘ A,” species “ B,” and species “‘C.” Linnaeus in 1758 had recognised one only of these species (species “‘ A ’’), to which he had applied the name Papilio argus. In 1761, he had, however, given the name Papilio idas to the Swedish subspecies of species “ B,” though, owing to the fact that species “ B” and “©” both occurred in Sweden and their distinguishing characters had not been detected until more than a 100 years after Linnaeus’s day, it was possible that, when he wrote the description of Papilio idas, he had before him specimens of both these species. The name so given was, however, invalid, being a homonym of Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1758, a name given to an Oriental Hesperiid which it had never been found possible to identify to the satisfaction of specialists in that group. The first major element of confusion was introduced by Schiffermiiller and Denis (1775) who, on clearly recognising the characters which distinguished species “‘ B ” from species “ A,” applied to the former the trivial name argus Linnaeus, 1758 (which properly belonged to species “‘ A ’’) and gave a new name (aegon) to species “‘ A.” This mistake persisted until 1871, when Kirby restored the name argus Linnaeus to its rightful owner. It was at this stage, however, that Kirby introduced the second major cause of confusion into this problem by applying to species ‘“‘ B ” (which required a trivial name on ceasing to be known (incorrectly) as argus Linnaeus) the trivial name argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argyrognomon), believing that*to be the oldest available name for the collective species “ B.”’ From then onwards until 1935, that species was almost universally known by that name. The opening phase of the next stage was marked by the discovery by Chapman in 1917 of the existence of a third ) species (species “‘C”’) which had hitherto been confused . with species “ B.” To this new species Chapman gave the a 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 477 trivial name aegus Chapman (in the binominal combination Plebeius aegus). It was not long before it was realised that other subspecies of species “©” had already been named, prior to the publication of the trivial name aegus Chapman, by authors who (erroneously) supposed that the insects in question were subspecies of species “ B.” In consequence, a general search of the literature was made for the purpose of determining the oldest available trivial name for species “€.” This search led ultimately to the discovery by Dr. Beuret (one of the present applicants) of the third major error in the nomenclature of this group, namely the discovery that the trivial name argyrognomon Bergstrasser, for so long and so universally applied to species “ B,” was in fact applicable not to that species but to species “C.” In retrospect, it was clear to him (the Acting President) that at that point the best course would have been to ask the Commission to use their plenary powers to suppress the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser, the . transfer of which from species “ B ” to species “C” could not fail to cause the utmost confusion. However, that course had not been taken at that time, and in consequence there had followed a long period of confusion. This confusion had been greatly aggravated by the impossibility of determining what trivial name was properly applicable to the collective species “ B,” which once again (as in 1871) was without an accepted trivial name. This difficulty arose from the fact that the inadequacy of the original des- criptions, the crude nature of the original figures (in. those cases where figures had been published by the original authors) and the absence of type specimens made it impossible to determine whether any, and, if so, which of the trivial names given by early authors to nominal species commonly synonymised with species “ B ” really repre- sented subspecies of that collective species or whether they represented subspecies of species “(C.” It was this nomenclatorial impasse which had led Dr. Beuret and other specialists to revert to a proposal originally advanced (in a different form) by Dr. Roger Verity (1913) that the best way to secure stability for the nomenclature of these species would be to acquire authority to apply to species “B” the trivial name das Linnaeus, 1761. This proposal had many important advantages : (1) it involved no disturb- ance whatever in the nomenclature of other groups, for the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1758, the suppression of which was presupposed by this proposal, would not cause a ripple anywhere, that name being regarded as a nomen dubium and in consequence not being in use by any author; (2) the name idas Linnaeus, 1761, had never been applied by any author to any of the species here under consideration, 478 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference : Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23) apart from species “ B”’; if therefore, that name were to be applied officially to species “ B’”’ (and, subspecifically, to the Swedish subspecies of that species), every worker would in future know to what species reference was being made when the name idas was used ; (3) the very early date (1761) of the trivial name idas provided an insurance against the risk of there being some earlier trivial name which would take priority over the name idas Linnaeus, 1761, for the collective species ““B”; (4) a settlement on these lines would not prejudice the taxonomic question of the relationship of insects ‘‘ B ” and “ C,” since any worker who (contrary to the present general opinion) might © regard these two insects as conspecific would be free to treat as the name of a subspecies of the collective species “B” the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser (the oldest available name for the group of subspecies treated by the present applicants as together constituting the collective species “C”’). Continuing, the Acting President said that the present proposal was supported by all the leading specialists in the group concerned, including Dr. Roger Verity (Florence, Italy), Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London), the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London), Dr. V. Nabokov (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, U.S.A.) and Mr. B. J. Lempke (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The Acting President added that, if, as he hoped, the Com- mission were now to use their plenary powers in the manner | recommended, it would be necessary for them, when placing the trivial name zdas Linnaeus, 1761, on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology,” to specify that the name so stabilised was to be held to apply to the species which he had referred to under the name species “ B” ; this could best be done by citing one of Chapman’s figures of the male genitalia, those being the characters by which that species could most readily be distinguished from the species that he had referred to as species “C.”’ At the same time the trivial name argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (which in Opinion 169 the Commission had designated under their plenary powers as the type species of Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819] ) and the trivial name argus Linnaeus, 1758 (the type species of the genus Plebejus Kluk, 1802) should also be added to this “ Official List,” bibliographical references being inserted to show that the first of these names was to be applied to species ““C” and the second to species “ A.” ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) said that, as had been indicated by VOL. 4 ¢ 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 479 the Acting President, he strongly supported the present proposal, He was convinced that stability would never be attained in the nomenclature of this group of species without the use by the Commission of their plenary powers. The settlement proposed would, he felt confident, be welcomed warmly by all interested specialists, IN DISCUSSION it was agreed that this was a particu- larly clear case for the use of the plenary powers to put anend to a state of confusion in nomenclature which could be remedied in no other way. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Papilio adas) ; (b) to validate the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binominal com- * bination Papilio idas) ; (c) to direct :— (i) that the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio idas), validated as specified in (b) above, *should be applied to the species (the nomino- ‘typical subspecies of which was described by Linnaeus from speci- mens collected in Sweden), the male genitalia of which show the charac- ters exhibited in the photograph published by Chapman (TAL 1917 as figure 7 of plate III in Volume 14 of Oberthiir’s Etudes de la Lépidoptérologie comparée (photo- graph of the male genitalia of a specimen collected at Allos (Basses- Alpes, France) and figured as “ Ple- beius argus var. alpina”) : that the trivial name argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argyrognomon) should be applied to the species (the nominotypical sub- Species of which was described by Bergstrasser from specimens collected in the “Bruchkéhl Wald” in the Graftschaft Hanau-Miinzenberg ”), the male genitalia of which show the {= ~~ 480 Six generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) placed on International Commission on Zodlogical Nomenclature. (iii ~~ characters exhibited in the photo- graph published by Chapman (T.A.) in 1917 as figure 23 on plate VIII in Volume 14 of Oberthiir’s Etudes de la Lépidoptérologie comparée (photo- graph of the male genitalia of a specimen collected at Versoix (Swit- zerland) and figured as “‘ Plebeius aegus ”’) ; that the trivial name argus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argus) should be applied to the species (the nomino- typical subspecies of which was des- cribed by Linnaeus from specimens collected in Sweden), the male genita- lia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph pub- lished by Chapman (T.A.) in 1909 as figure 1 on plate XX in Volume 3 of Tutt’s Natural History of the British Butterflies (photograph of the male genitalia figured as “‘Plebeius argus’’); (2) to place the trivial name zdas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio idas), suppressed under (1) (a) above, on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ ; (3) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— idas Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the bi- nominal combination Papilio idas), as validated under (1) (b) above and as defined in (1) (ce) (1) above ; argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argyro- gnomon), as defined in (1) (c) (ii) above ; argus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argus), as defined in (1) (c) (iii) above ; : (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 24. Arising out of the discussion recorded in the preceding Conclusion, THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that, when discussing the SS eee eee — 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 481 the “ Official List of trivial name argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (as published Generic Names in Zoology ” and three generic names in the same Order placed on,the ** Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” (Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 42) VOL, 4 Cc? in the binominal cofnbination Papilio argyrognomon), he had reminded the Commission that at Lisbon in 1935 they had used their plenary powers to designate the foregoing species as the type species of the genus Lycaeides Hiibner [1819]. Now that the Commission had placed the foregoing trivial name on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology,” it was desirable that they should stabilise also the name of the genus of which that species was the type ee by placing that generic name on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.”’ Action in this sense, if taken now, would merely anticipate action which would in any case be taken a little later, for, as the Commission would remember, they had agreed during their present Session (at the meeting noted in margin) that every nomenclatorially available name which was also the oldest available name for the genus or species concerned which had formed the subject of a decision by the Commission should now be placed on the appropriate “Official List,” irrespective of whether a decision to that effect had been expressly recorded in the Opinion setting out the Commission’s decision in regard to the name in question, and had invited him (the Acting President) in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission to examine all the Opinions so far rendered by the Commission for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing decision. If, as he recommended. the Commission were now to deal expressly with the generic name Lycaeides Hiibner, it would + be convenient if at the same time they were to deal also with the other generic names, the type species of which had also been varied under the plenary powers on the same occasion. As could be seen by reference to the Official Record of Proceedings of the Meeting concerned (1943, Bull. Zool. Nomencel., 1: 23-25), there were altogether nine names involved. Of these, however, three names (Latiorina Tutt, 1909; Orpheides Hiibner [1819]; Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835) were the names of nominal genera which were duplicates, i.e. objective synonyms, of other nominal genera (Agriades Hiibner [1819]; Princeps Hiibner [1807] ; Carcharodus Hiibner [1819]). The Commission had only been asked to use their plenary powers in the case of these duplicate nominal genera, in order to prevent these latter from ceasing to be synonyms, a result which would other- wise have followed from the decision by the Commission to vary the type species of the genera having the older names. The names of these three duplicate genera should now be placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Narhes in Zoology.”’ All the other names concerned were available and, with one exception, were in universal use. These names should therefore now be placed on the 482 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 8th Meeting, Conclusion 6) “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” The exception was the name Princeps Hiibner [1807], which was treated by all specialists as a synonym of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, its type species, Papilio demodocus Esper [1798], being regarded as congeneric with Papilio*machaon Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Papilio Linnaeus. In spite, therefore, of the Commission having used their plenary powers to designate the type species of the genus Princeps Hiibner [1807], he recommended that that name should not now be placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” Turning to the question of the admission to the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” of the trivial names of the type species of the genera discussed above, the — Acting President said that two only calléd for comment. The species concerned were the type species respectively of the genera Euchloé Hiibner and Polyommatus Latreille. In the first of these cases the difficulty was due to un- certainty as to the taxonomic limits of the collective species concerned, while in the second of the cases bibliographical uncertainties made it impossible at the present time to determine what was the ‘oldest available name for the species concerned. The type species of the genus Huchloé had for its trivial name the name espert Kirby, 1871, which had originally been published as a subspecific trivial name, its author considering that the insect in question represented the South of France subspecies of a collective species to which the trivial name ausonia Hiibner was then applied. While espert Kirby was still accepted as a subspecies, most specialists now regarded the oldest available name for the collective species to which it belonged as orientalis Bremer, 1864. Some specialists, however, considered that the _ Species was not confined to the Palaearctic Region but that the North American group of subspecies should be united with the Palaearctic subspecies. From the standpoint of these systematists, the oldest available trivial name for the collective species was creusa Doubleday, [1847] (as published in the binominal combination Anthocharis creusa). In order to avoid the appearance of passing judgment on these taxonomic questions, the Commission would be well advised to follow in this case the procedure which, on the suggestion of Alternate Commissioner Beltran, they had .agreed to adopt in-analogous circumstances, when a similar case arose in connection with the addition of generic names to the “ Official List of Generic Names.” He (the Acting President) therefore recommended that the Commission should now place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ all three of the trivial names which he (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 16) 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 483 had mentioned but that in so doing, they should add a note, in the case of the name espert Kirby, 1871, that this name was added to the “ List,” because it was both an available name and the name of the nominal Species that was the type species of the gerius Euchloé Hiibner and that the addition of this name to the “ Official List” did not prejudice the priority of the trivial names ereusa Doubleday, [1847], or’ orientalis Brémer, 1864, from the standpoint of specialists who considered esperi Kirby to be congeneric with either of the insects referred to above. In the case of orientalis Bremer, a similar note should be added to make it clear that the entry of this name on the “ Official List ” did not prejudice the priority of the trivial name ereusa Double- day [1847], from the standpoint of those specialists who regarded orientalis Bremer and creusa Doubleday ag conspecific. As regards the trivial name of the type species of the genus Polyommatus Latreille, it must be noted that that trivial name (icarus Rottemburg, 1775, as published in the binominal combination Papilio icarus) was a homonym of the trivial name icarus Cramer 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio icarus), which applied to an entirely different species, which was the type species of the genus Castnia Fabricius, 1807. Both these trivial names had been published in 1775 and there was no means at present by which to determine which should be regarded as having priority over the other. The Commission would recall that earlier during the present meeting they had considered this difficulty when they had placed the generic name Castnia Fabricius on the “ Official List” and had come to the conclusion that the trivial name of the type species of that genus could not be placed on the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology * until the Commission, acting under their plenary powers, had determined the relative priority to be assigned to the works in which these trivial names had respectively been published in 1775. As a preliminary to taking such a decision, the Commission had invited him (the Acting President) in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission to prepare a Report containing recommendations on this subject. In these circumstances, the Commission could only defer consideration of the question of the addition to the “ Official List ” of the type species of the genus Polyommatus Latreille in the same way as they had deferred the corresponding question: in regard to the trivial name of the type species of the genus Castnia Fabricius. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to place the names of the undermentioned genera, 484 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 23) with the type species severally specified below, on the “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Name of genus (1) Agriades Hiibner [1819] Carcharodus Hiibner [1819]. Euchloé Hiibner [1819] Lycaeides Hiibner [1819] Polijommatus Latreille, 1804 Type species of genus specified in Col. (1) (2) Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798 (type -species designated under the plenary powers) Papilio alceae Esper [1780] (type species designated under the plenary powers) Euchloé ausonia Hiibner var. espert Kirby, 1871 (type species designated under the plenary powers) Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (identified as in Conclu- sion 23 above) (type species designated under the plenary powers) Papilio wcarus Rottem- burg, 1775 (type species © designated under the plenary powers) (2) to place the undermentioned generic names on the “* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Latiorina Tutt, 1909 (type species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers : -Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798) Orpheides Hiibner [1819] (type species, by | designation under the plenary powers: Papilio demodocus Esper [1798] ) Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers: Papilio alceae Esper [1870] ) ; (3) to take note that argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argyrognomon), the trivial name of the type species of the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], had already been placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 16(8) ) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 485 (4) (a) to take note that icarus Rottemburg, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio icarus), the trivial name of the type species of the genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, was published in the same year as wcarus Cramer [1775] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio icarus), a trivial name which applied to an entirely different. species, that the relative dates of publication of these trivial names was unknown, and that there existed no means of determining the relative dates of publication of volume 6 of the journal Naturforscher (in which the first of these trivial names was published) and volume 1 of Cramer’s Uit- landsche Kapellen (in which the second of ~ these trivial names was published until, on the receipt of the Report on the relative priority which it was desirable should be assigned to these, and certain other, works published in the same year, which, at the meeting noted in the margin, the Commission had invited its Secretary to prepare for their consideration, the Commission put an end to the present state of confusion in this matter by using their plenary powers to determine the relative priority to be assigned to the works in question ; to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” whichever might, in the light of the Report referred to in (a) above, be found to be the oldest available trivial name for the type species of the ‘genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804. to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology’ the undermentioned trivial names, being the trivial names of the type species of the genera, the names of which had been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” under (1) above, other than the names specified in (3) and (4) above, or, in the case of the generic name Euchloé Hiibner [1819], the trivial names of earlier published nominal species regarded by certain specialists as being con- specific with the type species of that genus :— alceae Esper [1780] (as published in the bi- nominal combination Papilio —_alceae) : ereusa Doubleday [1847] {as published in the _— ao ~ 486 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. « The “ Hildesheim List, [1839] ”, suppression of, for nomenclatorial purposes, under the plenary powers © binominal combination Anthocharis creusa) ; espert Kirby, [1871] (as published as a subspecific trivial name in the trinominal combination Euchloé ausonia Hiibner var. espert) (without prejudice to the prior rights of the trivial names creusa Doubleday, 1847, and orientalis Bremer, 1864, from the standpoint of specialists who regard either of these as the names of subspecies of the same collective species as esperi Kirby, 1871) ; glandon Prunner, 1798 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio glandon) ; orientalis Bremer, 1864 (as published as a subspecific trivial: name in the trinominal combination Anthocharis belemida Hiibner var.. orientalis) (for those specialists for whom this name is the oldest available name for the collective species of which, from their stand- point, espert Kirby, 1871, is a subspecies) (but without prejudice to the prior rights of the trivial name creusa Doubleday from the stand- point of those specialists who consider orientalis Bremer and creusa Doubleday to be conspecific) ; (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1), (2) and (5) above. 25. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)196, containing an application submitted by Dr. H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam) that the Commission should use their plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes an anonymous and undated pamphlet of 20 quarto pages believed to have been published in 1839 and bearing the title Verzerchniss einer aus Java iibersandten sehr ansehnlichen Sammlung von Thieren aller Classen und einigen botanischen Gegenstiinden, welche ber dem Post-Spediteur und Senator Holzapfel in Stolzenau zum Verkauf ausstehen. Hildesheim. This pamphlet, which, on the analogy of the “ Erlangen List,” suppressed by the Com- mission in 1935, might be called the ‘“‘ Hildesheim List,”’ had been entirely unknown, until in 1940 or 1941 a unique copy, formerly in the Provincial Library at Leeuwarden, came to light. From the standpoint of stability in nomen- clature, this pamphlet was extremely dangerous, for it © contained new specific names (with accompanying Latin diagnoses) for one species of mammal and 18 species of birds. In order to prevent the chaos which might be expected to result if these unknown names were now to be substituted for the names currently used for the Javanese EE EDN ee (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 47) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 487 “ species concerned, Dr. Engel recommended that the Com- mission should at once use their plenary powers to suppress this pamphlet for nomenclatorial purposes. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that Dr. Engel was to be congratulated on having taken such prompt action to bring this pamphlet to the attention of the Commission, thereby making it possible to secure its suppression under the plenary powers before confusion and instability was introduced inito nomenclature by the adoption of the numerous new names which it contained. The proposal submitted by Dr. Engel had been advertised but, as was only to be expected, no specialist had, come forward in opposition to the action proposed. IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that it was most fortunate that through Dr. Engel’s action it would be possible to prevent any harm being done through the discovery of this pamphlet. It was a thousand pities that equally prompt action could not have been taken to deal with two other unwanted discoveries (namely the discovery of Meigen’s Nowvelle Classification (Order Diptera) and the “ Erlangen List’ (Order Hymenoptera) ) before the introduction of the new names which they contained ~had had time to create chaos in the generic nomenclature of the two Orders concerned. THE COMMISSION agreed :— - (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress for nomen- clatorial purposes the anonymous and undated pamphlet bearing the title Verzeichniss einer aus Java iibersandten sehr ansehnlichen Sammlung von Theren’ aller Classen und einigen botanischen Gegenstinden, welche bei dem Post-Spediteur und Senator Holzapfel in Stolzenau zum Verkauf ausstehen. Hildesheim (the so-called ‘ Hildesheim List ”’), believed to have been published in 1839 ; (2) placed on record that, in view of the decision specified in (1) above, any name, the first publica- tion of which was in the “ Hildesheim List” ranks for purposes of the Law of Priority (Article . 25) and of the Law of Homonymy (Articles 34. and 35) as from the date subsequent to the ‘ Hildesheim List ’’ on which it was first ptiblished in conditions which satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and is to be attributed to the author by whom it was so published; and that any such name which had never been subsequently pub- lished in conditions which satisfied the require- ments of Article 25 possessed no status in zoological nomenclature ; 488 Hiibner (J.), (1806), “ Tentamen: ” (1) the valid names of the genera for certain of the species cited in, placed on the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (2) procedure to be adopted for determining the valid generic names for the remaining species cited in International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (3) agreed to render an Opinion recording to decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 26. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that at this point he desired the Commis- sion to take into consideration the question of the names to be used for the genera cited by Jacob Hiibner in 1806 in the leaflet known as the Tentamen, having regard to the fact that Opinion 97 had ruled that the names there used for those genera were not available as from their appearance in that leaflet. This subject was dealt with in the Com- mission File Z.N.(8.)314, which he now invited the Com- mission to examine. It had to be admitted that the handling of this case in the past had been unfortunate, for, ‘ulthough an application to validate the Tentamen names under the plenary powers had been received before Opinion 97 had actually been published in October, 1926 (as could be seen from the note appended at the end of that Opinion), no action had ever been taken in regard to that application, apart from the publication of an announcement of its receipt. Moreover, none of the papers relating to that application had been included among the documents transferred to his (the Acting President’s) custody on his election as Secretary to the Commission. On learning from Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) in 1947 that Professor Wm. T. M. Forbes (Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A.) was interested in this matter, he had entered into correspondence with him about it. As a result Professor Forbes had furnished him with a copy of the petition referred to at the end of Opinion 97, from which it appeared that the date of the petition was 1926 and that ° its signatories had been “Wm. Schaus, August Busck, Carl Heinrich and others.” Continuing, the Acting President said that, as was inevitable, the situation had been gravely prejudiced from the standpoint of the supporters of the Tentamen names by the interval of over 20 years that had elapsed since they had submitted their application, for in the meantime specialists had taken Opinion 97 as constituting a final decision - against the Tentamen names. Subject to certain possible exceptions among the generic names in the Sub-Order Heterocera, even those of the Tentamen names which, prior to the publication of Opinion 97, had enjoyed a certain currency had dropped out of use. Clearly, in these circumstances it could not be claimed for these names that there was any justification for the Commission now using their plenary powers to validate them, for such action, far from leading to greater uniformity, would in existing 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 489 conditions merely introduce a new source of confusion. Kqually, however, it was desirable that an end should be put to the confusion caused by the Tentamen controversy of a generation ago by determining which were the oldest available names under the Regles for each of the genera recognised by Hiibner in the Tentamen (i.e. which were the oldest available names of the genera to which were referable the species cited by.Hiibner in the Tentamen). During his visit to the United States at the end of 1947, he (the Acting President), while in Washington, had had the benefit of a full discussion of this problem With Professor Forbes and with Dr. J. G. Franclemont and Dr. W. D. Field (Smith- sonian Institution). At this conference Professor Forbes had explained that all that he riow sought was that the Commission should take action under their plenary powers to validate such of the Tentamen names for genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera as were still in general use but which were invalidly so used, either because those names under the Regles (i.e. as published on the first occasion subsequent to the Tentamen) properly applied to some other genus or because there existed older available-names for the genera in question. The problem did not arise in the case of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera, for one Tentamen name only was employed to-day for a genus belonging to that Sub-Order and that as from a later date. He (the Acting President) had felt that there was force in the view advanced by Professor ~ Forbes and he had accordingly suggested that, in so far as either he or any other specialist in the Sub-Order Héterocera desired to see the preservation of a Tentamen name. he or they should submit applications suitably documented, to the Commission for the use of the plenary powers in those cases. Professor Forbes had replied that (as was indeed the case) the generic nomenclature of the Sub-Order Heterocera was in such a state that extensive bibliographical investigations might well be required before it was possible to establish the action which would be needed in order to validate the Tentamen names in question. At this point Professor: Forbes had reverted to certain discussions which he had had with Mr. N. D. Riley in 1928, For his part, Professor Forbes said, he would be satisfied with any selection of the Tentamen names which Mr. Riley might decide to place before the Commission. He (the Acting President) had then given an undertaking that any adequately documented proposal on this subject which might be received from any source would be laid before the Commission as soon as possible ; in the meantime, he would himself, as a specialist in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera, prepare for the consideration of the Commission a proposal for the addition to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of the names 490 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. of the genera properly applicable to the species of that Sub- Order cited by Hiibner in the Zentamen; this proposal would be entirely non-controversial, for (as already noted) no Tentamen name was now in use in that Sub-Order, except one with priority from a later date. Very shortly after his return to London from the United States, he had sent (on 28th January, 1948) the promised paper in draft to Dr. Franclemont, in order to make sure that that specialist had no objection of any kind to the action proposed. He (the - Acting President) had not since then received any comments from Dr. Franclemont, who, he therefore concluded, saw no objection to the action proposed. In conclusion the Acting President recommended the Commission to place on the “ Official List’ the oldest available names for ten of the genera in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera dealt with in the present application (the names of the remaining three genera having already been - placed on the “ Official List ’’), thereby settling once and for all the generic. names applicable under the Regles to the species of that Sub-Order cited by Hiibner in the Tentamen. As regards the corresponding names of genera of the Sub- Order Heterocera, he recommended that the Commission should place on record their desire that the earliest available names for the genera in question should also be placed on the “‘ Official List ’’ with as little farther delay as possible (thereby putting an end to discussion as to the names | applicable under the Régles to the genera of which the species so cited by Hiibner were severally the type species) and that they should add a further declaration stating their willingness to give sympathetic consideration to any application for the use of the plenary powers to validate any geneyic name in the Sub-Order Heterocera that had originally appeared in the Tentamen, where it could be shown that the name in question was in general use, that’ confusion would ensue if, under the Régles, the name in use had to be changed, but that such change was inesitable, unless the Commission, ‘by using their plenary powers, rendered such a change unnecessary. IN DISCUSSION the view was generally expressed that it was desirable to lay the ghost of this old controversy by placing on the “ Official List” the names of the genera which, under the Régles, were properly applicable to the species cited by Hiibner in the Tentamen, exceptions being made in favour of Tentamen names where it could be shown that otherwise confusion was to be expected. . The proposals submitted by the Acting President were calculated to secure this end and should therefore be accepted. 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. - 491 THE COMMISSION :— (1) agreed to take steps with as little further delay as (2 ~ possible to eliminate doubts regarding the generic names properly applicable to the 102 species of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) for which new generic names would have been provided in the leaflet entitled the Tentamen, which liad been distributed to correspondents by Jacob Hiibner in 1806, if it had not been for the fact that the names which appeared in that leaflet had been ruled to be unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 97, which, as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin, was, after clarification, now to be incorporated in the Schedule to the Regles in which all such decisions were now to be recorded ; agreed that the object specified in (1) above could best be secured by placing the generic names concerned on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (3) took note :— (a) that, so far as concerned the Sub-Order Rhopalocera, no generic names which had originally appeared in the Tentamen were now in use in the sense in which they had applied in that leaflet with the exception of one name which now ranked for priority from a later date, that there was no difference of opinion among specialists regarding the generic names which, under the Regles, were properly applicable to the genera in question, and therefore that the way was iow clear for placing on the _ . Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ the names of the 13 genera in question, in so far as this had not already been done : (b) that, as regards the Sub-Order Heterocera, the present state of knowledge regarding the literature was not sufficient to make it possible, without further investigation by specialists, to*determine what were the generic names properly applicable under the Regles to the species of that Sub-Order cited by Hiibner in the Tentamen under generic names which, for the reason specified in (1) above were not available under the Regles as from the date of their appearance in that International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. leaflet, and that, in consequence it was not at present possible to determine what were the generic names in this Sub-Order which should be placed on the “ Official List of — Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (4) took note :— (a) that, of the names of the 13 genera referred to in (3)(a) above, the following three names had already been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Apatura Fabricius, 1807 (the equivalent of Potamis of the Tentamen) Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (the equivalent of Dryas of the Tentamen) Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807 (the equi- valent of Nereis of the Tentamen) (b) that the names of the remaining ten genera referred to in (3)(a) above, with their Tentamen equivalents, were as follows :—. Name of Genus ‘ (1) Aulocera Butler, 1867 Consul Hiibner, [1807] “ Tentamen ” equivalent of generic name cited in Col (1) (2) Oreas (Satyrus brahminus Blanchard, 1844, (the type species of Aulo- cera Butler) being sub- jectively congeneric with Papilio proserpina [Schiffermiiller and Denis], 1775, which would have been the type species of Oreas of the Tentamen, if that had been an available name) - Consul (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as the later name Consul Hiibner [1807]) ——— ae 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 493 Danaus Kluk, 1802 ELuphydryas Scudder, 1872 Limenitis Fabricius, 1807 Nymphalis Kluk, 1802 Limnas (Papilio plezippus Linnaeus, 1758 (the type species of Danaus Kluk) being subjec- tively congeneric with Papilio chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758, which would have been the type species of Limnas of the Tentamen, if that had been an avail- able name) Lemonias (Papilio phaeton Drury [1773] (the type species of Buphydryas Scudder) being subjectively con- generic with Papilio maturna Linnaeus, 1758, which would have been the type species of Lemonias of the Tentamen, if that had been an available name) Najas (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the Same type species as Limenitis Fabricius) Hamadryas (Papilio polychloros Linnaeus, 1758 (the type species of V ymph- alis Kluk) being sub- jectively congeneric with Papilio to Lin- naeus, 1758, which would have been the type species of Hama- dryas of the Tentamen, if that had been an available name) Princeps (which, if it had been an available name, 494 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. would have had the same type species as Papilio Linnaeus) Pieris Schrank, Mancipium 1801 (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as Preris Schrank) Plebejus Kluk, Rusticus - 1802 (which, if it had been . an available name, would have had the same type species as Plebejus Kuk) Pyrgus Hiibner, Urbanus : [1819] (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as Pyrgus Hiibner) (5) agreed to place the undermentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below, on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” :— a Name of genus Type species of genus specified in Col. (1) 1 (2) Aulocera Butler, Satyrus brahininus Blan- 1867 chard, 1844 (type species designated by Butler, : 1867) Consul Hiibner Papilio fabius Cramer [1807] [1776] (type species by monotypy) Danaus Kluk, 1802 Papilio plexippus Lin- naeus, 1758 (typespecies _ selected’ by. Hemming, 1933) | ; Euphydryas Scud- Papilio phaeton Drury der, 1872 [1773] (type species designated by Scudder, 1872) Limenitis Fabricius, Papilio populi Linnaeus, er 1758 (type species selec- ted by Dalman, 1816) VOL. 4D 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 495 Nymphalis Kluk, Papilio polychloros 1802 Linnaeus, 1758 (type species selected by Hem- ming, 1933) Papilio Linnaeus, Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758 1758 (type species selec- ted by Latreille, 1810) Pieris Schrank, Papilio brassicae Lin- 1801 naeus, 1758 (type species selected by Latreille, 1810) Plebejus Kluk,1802 Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, as identified in Conclusion 23 above (type species selected by Hemming, 1933) Pyrgus Hiibner Papilio alveolus Hiibner, [1819] [1800-1803] [= Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758] (type species selected by Westwood, 1841) ; (6) agreed to place on the “ Official Index of (7 (8 ) ~~ Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” the thirteen ‘“‘Tentamen” names specified in (4) above ; took note that the trivial names of the type species of the undermentioned genera, the names of which had been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” under (5) above, had already been placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— Danaus Kluk, 1802 (type species: Papilio plecippus Linnaeus, 1758) Plejebus Kluk, 1802 (type species: Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758) ; agreed to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ’’ the undermentioned names, being the names of the type species of the genera placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ under (5) above, other than the genera specified in (6) above, save that in the case of the type species of the genus Pyrgus Hiibner [1819], the trivial name now placed on the “ Official List ” is not the trivial name of the type species of that genus but is the trivial name of the nominal species subjectively identified with that species which -has the oldest available trivial name :-— o 496 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. brahminus Blanchard, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Satyrus brahminus) brassicae Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio brassicae) fabius Cramer [1776] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio fabius) machaon Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio machaon) malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the ~ binominal* combination Papilio malvae), as identified in (5) above phaeton Drury [1773] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio phaeton) polychloros Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio polychloros) populi Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio popult) ; (9) with reference to (1), (2) and (3) (b) above, agreed - (10 to invite the Secretary to confer with specialists in the Sub-Order Heterocera and to submit proposals as soon as possible for the addition to the “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of the names applicable to the genera for which names would have been provided as from 1806 in Hiibner’s Tentamen, if the names introduced in that leaflet had been available under the Regles, and, with reference to that request, to place on record their readiness to use their plenary powers to validate, as from the Tentamen, 1806, the name for any of the genera in question where it could be shown to their satisfaction (i) that the name in question was in general use for the genus concerned, (ii) that it was nevertheless not the oldest available name for the genus concerned, but (iii) that confusion would ensue unless the Commission used their plenary powers to validate the name in hai as from the foregoing date ; agreed to render an Opinion recording the decisions relating to generic and specific trivial names in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) specified in (5) and (7) above, and, as regards the corresponding names in the Sub- Order Heterocera of the foregoing Order, to invite the Secretary to the Commission to bring to the urgent attention of specialists in that Sub-Order the conclusions recorded in (1), (2) and (3) (b) above and the request recorded in (8) above. * Papilio podalirius ” Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) identity of, determined under the plenary powers VOL. 4 p2 ~~ 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 497 27. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(8.)183, containing an application submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London) that the Commission should use their plenary powers to determine the identity of the species bearing the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio podalirius). After observing that, although this species was usually treated as having been first described by Linnaeus in the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae, it had, in fact, first been named in a footnote on page 463 of the 10th edition, Dr. Corbet had pointed out (i) that the bibliographical references there cited by Linnaeus included only one (Ray) in which a locality (‘‘ prope Liburnum portum in Etruria ”’) had been given, but (ii) that Linnaeus had himself given the locality “‘ Habitat in Europae australis et Africae Brassica.” The locality ‘‘ Europa australis” was appropriate to the species to which the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus was universally applied, but, according to current systematic ideas, the locality “ Africa ” (i.e. Palaearctic North Africa) was not, for the insect which occurred there’ (i.e. the insect, the oldest available trivial name for which was feisthameli Duponchel, 1832), which had formerly been regarded as a subspecies of Iphiclides podalirius (Linnaeus) was now regarded as being specifically distinct therefrom. The difficulty in the present case, Dr. Corbet had explained, arose from the fact that the Linnean collection (now in the possession of the Linnean Society of London) contained a specimen of the North African feisthameli Duponchel which bore a label “ podalirius” in Linnaeus’ own hand- writing. Dr. Corbet had had no doubt that this specimen should be regarded as Linnaeus’ “ type” of the species which he had named Papilio podalirius. For the reasons explained, great confusion would arise if it were necessary to transfer the trivial name podalirius from the well-known European species to which it had always been applied to the North African inséct, which had always been known by the name feisthameli ever since, in 1832, it had been dis- tinguished by Duponchel as (subspecifically) distinct from ‘podalirius Lmnaeus. Dr. Corbet had accordingly asked the Commission to prevent such confusion from arising by using their plenary powers to determine the European species (as contrasted with the North African species) as the species to which the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus, . 1758, should be held to apply. He had suggested that this end should be secured by the Commission selecting from the bibliographical references cited by Linnaeus for Papilio podalirius the reference to Ray, a decision which, 498 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. by making Livorno in Italy the type locality of this species, would eliminate all doubt as to its identity. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the danger of confusion to which Dr. Corbet had drawn attention was serious and would remain so, until, by using their plenary powers, the Commission made it clear how the Régles were to be applied. As a lepidopterist, he (the Acting President) was confident that action on the lines recommended by the late Dr. Corbet would be warmly welcomed by all interested specialists. This application had been advertised, but, as in the circumstances was to be expected, that advertisement had elicited no adverse comment from any source. The Acting President pointed out that the means by which the late Dr. Corbet had suggested that the Commission should attain the end desired was particularly happily chosen, for its adoption would not only determine beyond possibility of question the species to which the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, should be applied, but would also serve to designate precisely the type locality of that insect (i.e. the type locality of the nominotypical subspecies of Papilio podalirius Linnaeus), a matter of some importance, in view of the fact that several European subspecies of this species had later been distinguished. The Acting President added that, in accordance with the excellent maxim adopted by the Commission on the advice of Alternate Commissioner Beltran, when they had been considering the principles governing the admission of generic names to the “ Official List,”’ it would be well if, when the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus was added to the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names,” the trivial name feisthameli Duponchel were also to be so added. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) supported the proposal submitted by the late Dr. Corbet. This case was well-known to him and there was not the slightest doubt that serious confusion would arise if the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus were to be transferred to the North African insect now known by the trivial name feisthameli Duponchel; a transfer which, however, appeared inevitable, unless the Commission used their plenary powers in the sense proposed. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to direct that the reference to ‘“‘ Raj. ins. m. n. 3” (ie. Ray (J), 1710, Hist. Ins.: 111 n. 3) cited by Linnaeus, when in 1758 he first published the name Papilio 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 499 podalirius, was to be treated as representing the type specimen of that species and therefore that the trivial) name podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (as . published in the binominal combination cited above) was to be applied ta the species there described by Ray from specimens taken at Livorno in Tuscany (“ prope Liburnum, portum Etruriae ”’) ; — bo ~— to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— podalirius Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio podalirius), as defined in (1) above ; feisthameli Duponchel, 1832 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio feisthameli) (without prejudice to the prior rights of the trivial name podalirius Linnaeus, 1758, from the standpoint of specialists who regard these as the names of subspecies of a single collective species) ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. ‘ Article 31 (need for 28. THE COMMISSION examined the undermentioned elaboration of, to = Commission Files containing proposals for the elaboration Savcial easel F of the provisions in Article 31 in relation to the designation Secretary invited to of holotypes and the selection of lectotypes submitted _ eh akan peg respectively by Dr. W. J. Arkell (then of the University Museum, Oxford) and Dr. H. E. Hinton (British Museum (Natural History), London) :— (a) File Z.N.(8.)179, containing a request received from Dr. Arkell for a ruling on the question of the procedure which an author should adopt when selecting a lectotype of a previously named species in cases where the author of the specific name had given » both a description or figures of specimens and also bibliographical references to previously published descriptions or figures and, in publishing, the name, had given an indication, such as the use of the expression “‘ nom. nov.” (or an equivalent expres- sion) or the selection as the basis for the new trivial name either of the personal name of the author to whose work a reference had been given, or of the name of the type locality of the species, which implied that the species thus given a new name was more closely linked to the material to which _ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the cited bibliographical reference applied than to the new material before the author at the time when he published the new name ; (b) File Z.N.(S.)180, containing a fequest received from Dr. Hinton as to the species to which a trivial name should adhere, if, when first published, it was applied both to certain material there described and also to a previously published nominal species, the name of which required to be replaced by reason of its being an invalid homonym, in a case where later examina- tion shows that the author of the new trivial name was in error in identifying the material which he described with the species which required a new trivial name. De Arkell had illustrated the aaa which he had submitted by referring to certain names published in 1938 by M. V. Maire for new species of the Order Ammonoidea (Class Cephalopoda). Dr. Arkell took the view that, where a new specific name was based partly upon a previously published description and partly upon additional material, the latter should be excluded from consideration when a lectotype is selected by a later author in every case where the author of the new name applies to it the expression “nom. nov.” (or an equivalent expression such as “ nom. mut.”). Dr. Arkell further suggested that.a Recommanda- tion should be added to the Régles urging that in cases such as those referred to above authors, when selecting a lectotype for a nominal species, should give preference to the specimen described by a previous author even where the expression “nom. nov.” (or equivalent expression) was not used, in cases where the trivial name of the new species was based either upon the personal name of the previous author whose work was so cited, or upon the name of the type locality specified by the previous author. Dr. Arkell had realised that cases would arise where an author would be faced with the need to give a new name to.a species already described or figured in the literature under a wrong name but where ~ that description or figure was much less satisfactory than that which, with the help of additional material, the later author was in a position to give. To meet this type of case, Dr. Arkell suggested that a further Recommandation should be added to the Regles urging authors in such cases to describe the species as a new species and to avoid taking the name of the earlier author or of the type locality cited by that author as the basis for the new trivial name. The application submitted by Dr. Hinton arose out of the circumstances in which in 1856 the specific name Ptinus tectus (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) had been published - en) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 501 by Boieldieu. Boieldieu had published that name with a description of a Tasmanian insect but had explained that he regarded that insect as the same as that already named Ptinus pilosus White [1846], a name which, however, could not be used for this species, since it was an invalid homonym of Ptinus pilosus Miiller, 1821; he (Boieldieu) accordingly renamed White’s pilosus giving it the name Ptinus tectus. Dr. Hinton went on to explain that, while the description of the Tasmanian insect clearly applied to a true Ptinus, . the species which White had named Ptinus pilosus was (as Blair (1928) had shown) not a Ptinid at all but an Anobiid. The question was to which of these totally different species did the name Ptinus tectus Boieldieu properly belong under the Regles. Dr. Hinton considered that the correct view to take was that on the same page Boieldieu had given the same name (Ptinus tectus) independently to two different species, that the relativé priority to be assigned to those »two names should be determined by reference to the position on the page on which they respectively occurred, and therefore that, as the name Ptinus tectus had been applied by Boieldieu to the Tasmanian’ species higher on the page than the place where he had stated that the name was a nom. nov. for Ptinus pilosus White, the name Ptinus tectus Boieldieu applied to the Tasmanian species, the same name given as a nom. nov. to White’s pilosus being invalid as a junior primary homonym. It was pointed out in discussion that, although the cases submitted by Dr. Arkell and Dr. Hinton respectively were not strictly identical with one another, they had one feature in common, in that they were both concerned with the identification (through the selection of a lectotype or otherwise) of the species (or the specimen) to which a given specific name should adhere when that name was based partly upon material before the author at the time when he drew up the description of the new species and partly. upon a previously published description or figure, the new name being expressly designated by its author as a “ nom. nov.” The approach to this problem by these specialists was noticeably different, Dr. Arkell considering that in such a case the material of the earlier author cited in the original description of the later published nominal species should alone be eligible for selection as the lectotype of the latter species, the material actually before the later author being ruled out for this purpose, while Dr. Hinton considered that, where the author of a name applied that name both to the material before him and also as the nom. nov. for a previously published species and it was later found that the former was not conspecific with the latter, the question as to which of 502 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Meuschen’s Index to Gronovius, 1763-1781, “ Zoophylacium Gronovianum ” rejection or, for nomenélatorial purposes the species concerned should be the species to which the new name should adhere should be settled in accordance with the principle of page, and, if necessary, line precedence. This difference in outlook suggested that before a decision was taken on these questions, it would be desirable to obtain information regarding the general practice in cases of this kind and on the general wishes of zoologists in this matter. It was felt therefore that as a preliminary to the considera- tion of these cases, the Secretary to the Commission should be asked to confer with interested specialists in different groups of the Animal Kingdom and in the light of the information so obtained to submit a full Report, with recommendations, for the consideration of the Commission at their meeting to be held at Copenhagen in 1953 during the next (XIVth) meeting of the International Congress of Zoology. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that the Secretary to the Commission should be invited to make a thorough study, in consultation with interested specialists, of the problems arising under Article 31 in relation to the identity of the species to which a given specific name applied, where that name was based partly upon specimens and partly upon a description previously published for a nominal species, the name of which or, as the case might be, the name applied to which by a previous author was rejected by the author of the new name, either because the name so used by the previous author was an unavailable name or because, when originally published, it had been applied to some other species. 29. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)311, containing, inter alia, an application submitted by Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) asking the Commission to give a ruling that the narhes published by Meuschen (F. C.) in the index to Gronovius’ Zoophylacium Gronovianum, 1763-1781, were not available under the Régles, that author on that occasion not having applied the principles of binominal nomenclature as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that his work as a lepidopterist had led him before the outbreak of war in 1989 to examine carefully the index prepared by Meuschen to the non-binominal work, Zoophylacium Gronovianum of Gronovius, for the purpose of ascertaining whether that index contained any trivial ~ names for species of butterflies of which account should be OE an - (Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 3) (Previous references: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3 ; 6th Meeting, Conclusion 67) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 503 taken. That examination had shown clearly that, while in this index Meuschen had applied the principles of “ binary” nomenclature in the sense in which that ex- pression was then commonly used (i.e. he had recognised that the name of an animal should be constructed in such a way as to recognise two concepts, that of the genus and that of the species included in the genus) but that he had not applied the principles of binominal nomenclature, although many of the names there applied to Species (in addition to the generic name) consisted of single words. This was the result mainly of the fact that in the great majority of cases these names consisted of univerbal trivial names copied by Meuschen from the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus. In these circumstances, he had put this matter on one side, consideririg that no definite decision regarding the availability of new names in Meuschen’s index could be reached until, at its next meeting the International Congress of Zoology reached a final decision on the meaning of the expression “ nomen- clature binaire ” (as used in the Regles) in the light of the comprehensive Report which at Lisbon it had been agreed should be prepared by the Commission for consideration at the XIIIth International Congress. All doubts as to the meaning to be attached to Proviso (b) to Article 25 (where the expression “ nomenclature binaire ” had hitherto figured) had been removed by the decisions taken during the present Session to recommend that the expression “ nomenclature binominale ” should be substituted for the expression “ nomenclature binaire ” and that the expression “principes de la nomenclature binominale” should be - Clarified. These recommendations had been approved by the Section on Nomenclature and on the following morning would. be submitted to the Congress for final approval in Concilium Plenum. As the result of these decisions, a hame was only to be accepted as available under Article 25 if throughout the work in which it was published the author of the name consistently applied the principles of binominal .nomenclature, Meuschen in his index to Gronovius’ Zoophylacium Gronovianum had certainly not consistently applied these principles, as could readily be seen from the photostat in the file of a portion of the index made from the copy in the British Museum that had been kindly furnished by Mr. N. D. Riley. Accordingly, no new names that figured in Meuschen’s index possessed any availability under the Regles as from the date of being so published. He (the Acting President) accordingly invited the Commission to’ give a decision in this: sense. The Acting President added that a decision on this question 504 (Later reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 53) “ Podura ” Linnaeus, 1758, and “ Tomoceros ” Nicolet, 1842 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) : designation of type species of, under the plenary powers ; “ Linnaeus, 1758, correction in “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of entry relating to Podura” International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. was needed as a preliminary to the correction of the errors in Opinion 13 (relating to the trivial name of the Sand Crab), proposals in regard to which would be brought before the Commission later during the present meeting and in con- nection with which the status of Meuschen’s Index to the Zoophylacium had recently been raised by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.). IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that it was very desirable tliat rulings should be given by the Commission in regard to the availability of names published in little known (and, as in the present case, scarce) books by old writers of questionable binominal standing, in order, to give a guide to systematists as to which of these works were to be accepted and which ignored. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that in his index to Gronovius, 1763-1781, Zoophylacium Gronovianum, Meuschen (F.C.) had- not consistently applied the principles of bi- nominal nomenclature, as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 ; (2) that, in view of (1) above, no new name published in the foregoing index prepared by Meuschen possessed any availability under the Régles in virtue of having been so published ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. 30. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)199, containing the undermentioned applications for the use of the plenary powers for the purpose of designating Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Podura Linnaeus, 1758, in place of the unrecognisable nominal species Podura plumbea Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) :— (a) an application submitted by M. Hermann Gisin - Pp Mf (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva) ; (b) an application submitted by Dr. Jiri Paclt (National Museum, Prague, Czechoslovakia). In his application M. Gisin had explained that the type species of the genus Podura Linnaeus, 1758, was Podura plumbea Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been so selected by Latreille (1810). The Commission itself had accepted this species as the type species of this genus when (in Opinion 104) they had placed the generic name Podura Linnaeus, 1758, on the “ Official List.’’ Unfortunately, however, it was not possible definitely to identify the 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 505 species to which Linnaeus had applied the name Podura plumbea, but it was clear that it was some species of the genus now known as Tomocerus Nicolet, 1842, of which, indeed, this nominal species was one of the originally included species. On the other hand, the name Podura Linnaeus was very well known as the name of the mono- typical genus. containing the species Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758. An enormous literature had grown up around the generic name Podura as used in this sense, and great confusion would be caused if it were necessary not only to abandon the use of the name Podwra Linnaeus for the species Podura aquatica Linnaeus, but also, in future, to use that generic name in an entirely different sense, that is, as the name of the genus now known as Tomoceros Nicolet. For over 100 years every worker in the group, except Borner (1901) (who had subsequently recanted), had - used the generic name Podura Linnaeus for Podura aquatica Linnaeus. It was the object of the present application to validate the universal practice of specialists in this matter. As regards the genus Tomoceros Nicolet, both the originally included nominal species were unrecog- nisable. Thus, if, as was highly desirable, the position of this generic name was to be regularised, it would not be possible to designate either of the originally included species to be its type species. M. Gisin suggested that the desired end should be. secured by the designation, under the plenary powers, of Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862, as the type species of this genus, this being a well-established species which specialists were agreed was referable to’ this genus. The application received from Dr. Paclt (which was concerned only with the name Podura Linnaeus) followed the same lines as that submitted by M. Gisin, Dr. Paclt expressing the view that a state of confusion would be created if it were necessary to accept the unrecognisable nominal species’ Podura plumbea Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Poduwra Linnaeus, 1758, and recommending that the Commission should therefore use their plenary powers to designate Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of this genus. THE ACTING’ PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that, when, in the process of preparing the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” for publication in book form, he, as Secretary to the Com- mission, had examined the Opinions under which the “ Official List ” had been built up, he had discovered that (in Opinion 104) the Commission had accepted the unrecog- nisable nominal species Podura plumbea Linnaeus, 1758, as 506 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the type species of the genus Podura Linnaeus, 1758. It was clearly useless to place on the “ Official List” a generic name that was indeterminate, through being based upon an unrecognisable species. He had therefore intended himself to make a proposal to the Commission in regard to this generic name in order that, by the designation, under the plenary powers, of a recognisable species to be the type species of this well-known genus, the position of the name Podura Linnaeus might be regularised before the “ Official List ” was published. The receipt of M. Gisin’s application had, however, rendered such action on his part unnecessary. The advertisement of this case, subsequent to the receipt of the applications submitted by M. Gisin and Dr. Paclt, had elicited strong support for the action proposed from Dr. Harlow B. Mills (Chief, State Natural History Survey Division; Department of Registration and Education, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.).. Interest in this application had been shown also by Mr. J. T. Salmon (Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand). Finally (in a letter to -M. Gisin, communicated by the latter to the Commission) Dr. Maynard (University of Rochester, New York, U.S.A.) had also intimated his support for the present proposal. IN DISCUSSION, it was agreed that there were excellent grounds for using the plenary powers to regularise the position of the well-known generic name Podura Linnaeus, and therefore that the present applications should be approved. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of a type species for the undermentioned genera of the Order Collembola (Class Insecta), made prior to the present decision :— (i) Podura Linnaeus, 1758 (ii) Tomoceros Nicolet, 1842 ; (b) to designate the undermentioned species to be the type species of the genera specified in (1) above :— (i) Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Podura Linnaeus, 1758 ; (ii) Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862, to be the type species of the genus Tomoceros Nicolet, 1842 ; (2) to confirm the entry on the “ Official List of Generic Narfies in Zoology ” of the generic name “ Amplypterus ” Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): determination of type species of 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 507 Podura Linnaeus, 1758, subject to the substitution, as its type species, of the species specified in (1)(b)(i) above and of the insertion of a note that this species had been designated as the type species of this genus by the Commission under their plenary powers ; — oo — to place the generic name Tomoceros Nicolet, 1842 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers: Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ ; (4 ~ to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— aquatica Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Podura aquatica) minor Lubbock, 1862 (as published in the binominal combination Macrotoma minor) ; (5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. 31. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)204, containing an application from Senhor José Oiticica Filho (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), asking for a ruling on the question of the type species of the genus Amplypterus Hitbner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), with special reference to the question of” principle raised in this case. Senhor Oiticica had drawn attention to a passage in a paper (1865) in which Grote, commenting on Hiibner’s treatment of this genus at the time that he established it, remarked that it contained “discordant material, while A. ganascus is regarded evidently as the typical species of his genus by Hiibner.” Was this sentence, Senhor Oiticica asked, to be regarded as a selection by Grote of the foregoing species as the type species of this genus? Senhor Oiticica had compared Grote’s action with that of Crotch who in a paper on the type species of Sphingid genera had on seyeral occasions referred first to one author as having selected a type species for a given genus and then to another as also having selected a type species for the same genus. Crotch’s action had been rejected by subsequent authors as not constituting a selection of the type species of the genera in question within the meaning of Rule (g) in Article 30. Senhor Oiticica concurred in this view and considered also that the action by Grote in the passage quoted above should be similarly rejected, on the ground that there was no clear 508 . International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 72) indication in that passage as to whether Grote himself regarded ganascus Stoll as the type species of the genus Amplypterus. In discussion it was pointed out that, as the wording of Rule (g) in Article 30 had stood at the opening of the present Session, it had undoubtedly been too restrictive in character, for the then existing wording was such as to exclude from the scope of that Rule the very numerous cases where the currently accepted type selection rested upon a statement by a given author either (1) that a given previous author had selected a certain species to be the type species of the genus concerned in cases where no such previous selection had beén made or (2) in the case of the older authors, that such and such a species was the type species of the genus in question as the result of the action of previous authors in “ eliminating”’ from the genus the other originally included species. To meet cases of this kind the Commission had, during their present Session, agreed upon a liberalisation of the provisions of Rule (g). In so doing, they had agreed that while the revised wording should be such as to bring within the scope of the Rule cases where an author clearly stated that a given nominal species was the type species of the genus concerned, even where that author expressly stated that he was not himself then selecting that species for this purpose, the Rule in its amended form should provide alg> that it should be a condition of the acceptance of such a statement as a valid type selection that the author should make it clear that he himself regarded. (for whatever reason) the species in question as the type species of the genus under consideration. In these circumstances, it was now clear that Senhor Oiticica had interpreted Article 30 correctly when he had rejected Grote’s action in 1865 as not complying with the requirements of Rule (g) in that Article. In view of the clarification of that Rule agreed upon during the present Session, no question of principle arose any longer in con- nection with the present application, for it was evident from the words used by Grote that, while he had there expressed an opinion regarding the view held by Hiibner, he had given no indication regarding his own opinion on the question at issue. . THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the statement by Grote (1865) that Hiibner, when establishing the genus Amplypterus Hiibner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), had evidently regarded A. ganascus Stoll “as the typical species of his genus,” did not constitute Phylum Echinodermata : eight applications for the use of the plenary powers to validate accepted nomenclatorial usage submitted by Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark) : preliminary considerations relating to ‘14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 509 the selection by Grote, under Rule (g) in Article 30, of that species as the type species of the foregoing genus, for he had given no indication that he (Grote) himself accepted the above species as the type species of that genus ; (2) that, in view of (1) above, the type species of this genus was the species first subsequently so selected in conditions which satisfied the requirements of the foregoing Rule (i.e. Sphinx panopus Cramer [1779], so selected by Kirby (1892) ) ; _(3) to place the generic name Amplypterus Hiibner [1819] (type species by selection by Kirby, 1892 : Sphinx panopus Cramer [1779]) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (4) to place the’trivial name panopus Cramer [1779] (as published in the binominal combination Sphinx panopus Cramer) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; (5) to render an Opinion recording the decision: specified in (1) to (4) above. ; Pa 32. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(8.)18, containing an application submitted to the Commission by Dr. (now Commissioner) Th. Mortensen (Denmark) for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers to validate the current use of the undermentioned generic names in the Phylum Echinodermata, in order to avoid the confusion which the strict application of the Reégles would cause :— (a) Enerinus Schultze, 1760: proposed validation with Enerinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801, as type species ; (b) Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1844: proposed validation with Cidaris urii Fleming, 1828, as type species ; (c) Luidia Forbes, 1839: proposed validation, conse- quent upon the suppression of Bipinnuria Sars, _ 1835 ; (d) Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, and Fibularia Lamarck, 1816: proposed validation with Spatagus pusillus Miiller (O. F.), 1776, and Echinocyamus craniolaris Leske, 1778, as respective type species ; (e) Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, and Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835: proposed validation with Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubia Brandt, 1835, and Echinus (Strongylocentrotus) chlorocentrotus Brandt, 1835, as Tespective type species ; International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (f) Spatangus Gray, 1825; Ova Gray, 1825 ; Schizaster Agassiz [1836]; Echinocardium Gray, 1825; Moira Agassiz, 1827; Brissus Gray, 1825: pro- posed validation with the undermentioned species as respective type species: Spatagus purpureus Miiller (O. F.), 1776 ; Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck 1816; Schizaster studeri Agassiz, 1840; Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777 ; Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816 ; Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske, 1778 ; (g) Diadema Gray, 1825: proposed validation with Echinometra setosa Leske, 1778, as type species ; (h) Pholidocidaris Meek & Worthen, 1869, and ~ - Lovenechinus Jackson, 1912: proposed validation with Lepidocentrus irregularis Meek and Worthen, 1869, and° Oligoporus missouriensis Jackson, 1896, as respective type species. Prior to submitting the foregoing applications to the Commission, Commissioner Mortensen had consulted 38 leading specialists in the Class Echinoidea and had obtained their views on the action proposed to be recommended to the Commission. Dr. Mortensen had then embodied the results of these consultations in a paper entitled “ A Vote on some Echinoderm Names” which was published in October, 1932 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 10: 354-368). The following is the list of specialists recorded as having taken part in the foregoing consultations :— F. A. Bather (British Museum, London); A. G. Brighton (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge); A. H. Clark (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.); H. L. Clark (Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.); J Cottreau (Museum d Histoire Naturelle, Paris); E. D. Currie (Hunterian Museum, Glasgow); E. Deichmann (Museum of Comparative Zoélogy, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) ; A. M. Diakonov (Zoological Museum, Leningrad) ; L. Déderlein (Munich); Sv. Ekman (Zoological Institute, Uppsala); A. Faas (Geological Committee, Leningrad); D. M. Fedotov (Zoological Laboratory, Leningrad); W. K. Fisher (Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, California) ; T. Gislén (Zoological Institute, Uppsala) ; Seitaro Goto (Tokio); J. W. Gregory (Geological Department, University, Glasgow) ; J. A. Grieg (Zoological Museum, Bergen); H. L. Hawkins (Geological Department, Unwersity, Reading); R. Hecker (Geological Museum, Leningrad); §. Heding (Zoological Museum, Copen- hagen); EH. Hérouard (Laboratoire de Zoologie, La Sorbonne, Paris); N. v. Hofsten (Zoological Institute, (Previous reference : Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusions 1-3) VOL. 4 E 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 511 Uppsala); R. T. Jackson (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A); ¥. Klinghardt (Musewm f. Naturkunde, Berlin); J. Lambert (Paris) ; I. Lieberkind (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen) ; Aug. Nobre (Zoological Institute, Porto, Portugal) ; H. Ohshima (Zoological Laboratory, Fukuoka, Japan); A. Panning (Zoological Museum, Hamburg); A. Reichensperger (Zoological Institute, Bonn): I. P. J. Rayn (Palaeonto- logical Department, University, Copenhagen); W. E. Schmidt (Prussische Geolog. Landesanstalt. Berlin) ; W. K. Spencer (Ipswich, England); G. Stefanini (Geological Institute, Pisa); Dom Aurélien Valette (Saint-Léger-Vauban, France); (. Vaney (Laboratoire de Zoologie, Lyon); J. Wanner (Geological Institute, Bonn) ; N. Yakovlev (Geological Committee, Leningrad). THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that the foregoing application had been received in November, 1932, but for various reasons it had not been found possible by his predecessor to make progress with any of these cases except that relating to the names Luidia Forbes and Bipinnaria Sars (case (c) above), on which proposals had been submitted for consideration by the Commission at their meeting held in Lisbon in September, 1935. At that meeting, the Commission had reached a decision on the foregoing case (a decision which had shortly afterwards been embodied in Opinion 129) and had held a preliminary discussion in regard to case (g) (Diadema) and case (d) (Echinocyamus). On the first of these cases, the Commission had invited Dr. Mortensen and himself (Com- missioner Hemming) to confer together with a view to the submission of a fuller statement of the issues involved ; case (d) had been postponed for further consideration. Continuing, the Acting President said that it had not been possible to carry further the consideration of these cases (except Dradema (case (g) above) on which a further state- ment prepared by Dr. Mortensen in consultation with himself had been submitted to the Commission) by the time when in 1939 the outbreak of war in Kurope had first made It necessary temporarily to close down the Secretariat of the Commission and later, by the German occupation of Denmark, had made it impossible for him (the Acting President), as Secretary to the Commission, to communicate with Dr. Mortensen. Immediately after the close of the war, he had, however, written to Dr. Mortensen asking him to furnish concise statements, with full bibliographical data, in regard to each of the cases in question. In addition, he had visited Copenhagen in August, 1946, and had had an opportunity of a full discussion with Dr. 512 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ( Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 2) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 27) Mortensen in regard to these cases. As a result, Dr. Mortensen had submitted supplementary statements in regard to cases (b) (Archaeocidaris), (d) (Echinocyamus), (e) (Phyllacanthus), and (f) (Spatangus). Dr. Mortensen had intimated, as regards case (a) (Hncrinus), that he would prefer that the work on the remaining stages of this application should be undertaken by some Crinoid specialist, while, as regards case (h) (Pholidocidaris), he had stated that he regarded this case as of much less importance than the others which he had submitted and in the circumstances did not propose to continue with it. The position was therefore that out of the eight cases submitted by Dr. Mortensen in 1932, one (Luidia) had been settled at Lisbon in 1935, and another (Diadema) during the present Session, one (Encrinus) had been transferred by Dr. Mortensen to other hands, and one (Pholidocidarts) had been withdrawn. The files containing the four remaining cases should, he (the Acting President) suggested, now be examined by the Commission with a view to decisions being taken on the issues involved. THE COMMISSION :— (1) took note :— (a) that a decision on the third of the applica- tions submitted by Dr. Mortensen (Copen- hagen) (relating to the names Bipinnaria Sars, 1835, and Luidia Forbes, 1839) (case (c) ) had been taken at the Session held at Lisbon in 1935 and that the only action which now required to be taken was to place on the “Official List of Specific Trivial Names” the trivial name ciliaris Philippi, 1837 (as published in the binominal combination Asterias ciliaris), that being the oldest available trivial name of a species subjectively identified by specialists with the species bearing the trivial name fragilissima Forbes, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Luidia fragilis- sima), the type species of the genus Lwidia Forbes, 1839, placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” in Opinion 129 rendered by the Commission in con- sequence of the decision referred to above ; (b) that a decision had already been reached during the present Session on the seventh of the applications submitted by Dr. Mortensen (relating to the name Diadema Gray, 1825) ( case (g) ) ; VOL, 4 £2 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. B13 (2) (3 ~~ (4) (c) that Dr. Mortensen had suggested that the responsibliity for the remaining stages of the first of the applications which he had submitted (relating to the name Encrinus Schultze, 1760) (case (a)) could more appropriately be undertaken by a specialist in Crinoids than by himself ; (d) that Dr. Mortensen had intimated his desire to be permitted to withdraw the eighth of the applications which he had originally submitted, namely case (h) relating to the names Pholidocidaris Meek and Worthen, 1869, and Lovenechinus Jackson, 1912 ; agreed, with reference to (1)(a) above, to place the trivial name ciliaris Philippi, 1837 (as published in the binominal combination Asterias ciliaris) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; invited the Secretary to the Commission, with reference to (1)(c) above, to arrange, in consulta- tion with Dr. Mortensen, for a specialist in Crinoids to undertake responsibility for the remaining stayes of the application relating to the name Encrinus Schultze, 1760, with a view to a decision being taken with as little further delay as possible either to use the plenary powers in this case or, alternatively, to place the foregoing generic name on the “ Official List” in the sense in which it should be applied under the Regles ; agreed, with reference to (1)(d) above, that, having regard to the wide publicity which had been given to the proposal that the plenary power should be used in the case of the names Pholi- docidaris Meek & Worthen, 1869, and Loven- echinus Jackson, 1912, it would not be appropriate to allow that application to lapse, the proper course in such a case being to place on the relevant “ Official List’? the names for which it had previously been proposed that the plenary powers should be used, the entries so made to be those prescribed under the Regles, and accordingly invited the Secretary to the Commission to confer with specialists for the purpose of securing the submission to the Commission of alternative proposals on the foregoing lines, if that was the general wish of interested specialists ; “ Echinocrinus ” Agassiz, 1841 (Class Echinoidea, Order Cidaroida), proposed suppression of, and “ Archaeocidaris ” M’Coy, 1844, proposed validation of, under the plenary powers : consideration postponed for additional information to be obtained International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (5) agreed to examine, in turn, the undermentioned Commission Files relating to the four remaining applications (cases (b), (d), (e) and (f) ) submitted by Dr. Mortensen, for the purpose of reaching decisions on the questions so submitted :— (a) Commission File Z.N.(S.)320, relating to case (b) (Archaeocidaris) ; (b) Commission File Z.N.(S.)318, relating to case (d) (Hchinocyamus) ; (c) Commission File Z.N.(S case (e) (Phyllacanthus) ; (d) Commission File Z.N.(S.)317, relating to case (f) (Spatangus). 33. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)320, containing an application submitted by Dr. (now Commissioner) Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on his own behalf and on that of a large group of other specialists in .)319, relating to “the Class Echinoidea that the Commission should use their plenary powers to suppress the generic name Echinocrinus Agassiz, 1841, and to validate the name Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1844 (type species, by monotypy: Cidaris uri Fleming, 1828) (Class Echinoidea, Order Cidaroida). Dr. Mortensen explained that the early history of these names was clearly stated in a paper entitled ‘‘ Echinocrinus versus Archaeocidaris ’’ published by the late Commissioner F.A. Bather (United Kingdom) in 1907 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7) 20: 452-456) and treated as part of the present application. Briefly, what had happened was _ that Agassiz (1841) had established the genus Echinocrinus for four species, of which the first was Cidaris uri Fleming, 1828 ; no type species was designated by Agassiz for this genus. In 1844, M’Coy recognised the genus Echinocrinus, including in it Cidaris urii Fleming and other species. Of Cidaris uri, M’Coy said that he “ had long ago distinguished this species in”’ his “‘ MSS., under the name of Archaeo- cidaris.” By publishing this observation M’Coy had unwittingly established the genus Archaeocidaris with Cidaris urii Fleming as the type species by monotypy. Once the fact that these fossils were Echinoids unrelated to Crinoids had been recognised, specialists were attracted by the appropriateness of the name Archaeocidaris published, but rejected, by M’Coy, and various authors had adopted it in place of Lchinocrinus, including ultimately (1849) M’Coy himself. Later, this name had been adopted by some authors as the basis of a family name. Great difference of opinion had existed among specialists for many years on the question of which of these generic names should be used for 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 515 the species originally described by Fleming as Cidaris uri. The late Commissioner Bather, in the paper referred to above, had rightly concluded that, under the Reégles, Echinocrinus Agassiz, 1841, was an available name, and must therefore take precedence over Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1844. That conclusion was reached, however, six years before the grant to the Commission of plenary powers to suspend the Reégles in certain cases and the fact that on this occasion Bather accepted chinocrinus (though with reluctance) in preference to Archaeocidaris did not imply that he would have done so, if it had been possible at that time to seek the opposite solution by means of the plenary powers. This was clearly shown by the fact that many years later (1932) Commissioner Bather had joined with Dr. Mortensen in submitting the present application. This application had been one of the eight applications which had formed the subject of extensive preliminary consultation by Dr. Mortensen (as described in Conclusion 32 above). Of the 38 specialists then consulted, 35 had voted in favour of the submission of the present proposal to the Commission, while one (Lambert) had expressed the view that Archaeo- cidaris could be retained without resort to the plenary powers (i.e. that it was an available name under the Regles) ; only two of the specialists consulted (Gislén and von Hofsten) had withheld their vote, taking the view that, if this proposal were to be granted, it might lead to too many applications of a similar kind being brought forward. Dr. Mortensen strongly urged the adoption of the present proposal, arguing that it would be most unfortunate from every point of view if it were necessary to reject the highly appropriate name Archaeocidaris in favour of the absolutely misleading name Echinocrinus; such a change would be of no possible value to science and would be sure to lead to great confusion. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the present application had been advertised, but that the advertisement had elicited no adverse comment on the action proposed. IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that, although the application had clearly established that the name ' Echinocrinus was inappropriate and that from this point of view the name Archaeocidaris was to be preferred, no clear evidence had been advanced in support of the argument that actual confusion was likely to ensue if the Regles were allowed to take their course in this case and the availability of Echinocrinus Agassiz formally recognised. On the other hand attention was drawn to the statement at the conclusion of the late Commissioner Bather’s paper (submitted by Dr. 516 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. “‘ Echinocyamus ” van Phelsum, 1774, and “ Fibularia ” Lamarck, 1816 (Class Echinoidea, Order Clypeastroida) : designation of type species of, under the plenary powers Mortensen as part of his application) that already by 1907 the generic name Archaeocidaris had given its name to a family (ARCHAEOCIDARIDAE). It would be helpful if, before a decision were taken on this application, further information could be obtained on the nature and extent of the confusion to be expected if the name Archaeocidaris were now to be relegated as a synonym of Echinocrinus An application supported by virtually the entire body of interested specialists in all parts of the world was not to be lightly placed on one side. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, before a decision was taken on the applica- tion submitted by Dr. Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on his own behalf and on that of a large group of interested specialists that the Commission should use their plenary powers (a) to suppress the generic name Echinocrinus Agassiz, 1841, and (b) to validate the generic name Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1844 (type species, by monotypy: Cidaris urii Fleming, 1828) (Class Echinoidea, Order Cidaroida), it was desirable to obtain further information regarding the nature and extent of the confusion apprehended if in this case the Régles were permitted to take their course, Echinocrinus Agassiz, 1841, replacing the name Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1844 ; (2) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to communicate the foregoing conclusion to Dr. Mortensen and, in consultation with him and other interested specialists, to prepare for the consideration of the Commission a Report setting out the views expressed by such specialists on the issue referred to in (1) above, in order that, in the light of the views so expressed, the Commission might reach a final decision on the foregoing application. 34. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)318, containing an application submitted by Dr. (now Commissioner) Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on his own behalf and on that of a large group of other specialists in the Class Echinoidea that the Commission should use their plenary powers to secure that the generic names Echinocy- amus van Phelsum, 1774, and Fibularia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Echinoidea, Order Clypeastroida), should be used in their long-established sense, the former for species of the flat type, the latter for species of the high globose type. 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 517 Dr. Mortensen explained that, when van Phelsum first published the generic name Lehinocyamus, he placed in the genus so named what he regarded as 14 different species, some of which he stated had been taken in the Adriatic, the remainder in America. These “ species” had not been given Latin trivial names by van Phelsum, but these were supplied four years later by Leske (1778). The figures given by van Phelsum were very poor, but certain of them left no doubt in Dr. Mortensen’s mind that the species figured were of the flat type, while the reference to some of these specimens having been taken in the Adriatic confirmed this view, for only the flat species, known as Echinocyamus pusillus (Miiller (O.F.), 1776), i.e. the species originally described as Spatagus pusillus by Miiller, occurred in that area. Lamarck (1816) had not used the generic name Echinocyamus and had introduced a new name, Fibularia, in which he had placed three new nominal species, trigona (which was unrecognisable), ovulum, which was recognisable as a species of the high globose type and tarentina, which was another name for the flat type species known as Echino- cyamus pusillus. The first author to recognise that the species of the flat type and those of the high globose type were generically distinct from one another was Agassiz (1841), who then applied the name Echinocyamus van Phel- sum to the species of the flat type and Fibularia Lamarck to the species of the high globose type. Agassiz did not select type species for these genera, but from that time onwards until the publication of Lambert’s paper in 1891, all specialists had proceeded on the assumption that Echino- cyamus pusillus Miller (O.F.), 1776, was the type species of Echinocyamus van Phelsum and Fibularia ovulum Lamarck the type species of Fibularia Lamarck. In 1891, however, Lambert had published a paper in which he claimed to have proved that the figures given by van Phelsum for species of _ his genus Echinocyamus were of specimens of the high globose type and therefore that the name Echinocyamus van Phelsum must in future be transferred from the species of the flat type to those of the high globose type till then referred to the genus Fibularia Lamarck. At the same time Lambert applied the name Fibularia Lamarck to the species of the flat type, thus causing a most confusing exchange of meaning as between these two well-known generic names. Lambert’s conclusions had been challenged by the foremost authorities on fossil Echinoids, e.g. by Cottreau (1894) and de Loriol (1897) and also by Dr. Mortensen himself (1907, 1910) ,;who had rejected Lambert’s conclusions and, in so doing, had been joined by almost every other specialist concerned. Nevertheless Lambert had maintained his point of view and in 1914 in his “* Essaide International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. bs nomenclature raisonée des Kchinides,’ written — jointly with Thiéry, the names Hchinocyamus and Fibularia were used in the transposed sense. When Dr. Mortensen had held the consultation with specialists on which the present application was founded, all but one of the 38 specialists in question (for whose names see Conclusion 32 above) had supported the submission of the present application to the Commission, the single opponent being Lambert himself. The application now before the Commission in its resubmitted form was identical in object with the original petition of 1932, but it differed from that petition ‘in one point of detail. In 1932 the applicants had asked that the Commission should designate as the type species of Fibularia Lamarck the species Echinocyamus craniolaris Leske, 1778, that name being then considered to be the oldest available name for the high globose species to which Lamarck had given the name Fibularia ovulum. It was now realised that this identification was incorrect, the species to which Leske had given the name craniolaris being not a species of the high type but the flat species which Miiller (O.F.) in 1776 had named Echinocyamus pusillus. Ac- cordingly, in the application, as resubmitted, the Commission were asked to designate Fibularia ovulum Lamarck as the type species of Fibularia Lamarck, thereby securing that that generic name should be used for the species of the high globose type. THE ACTING PRESIDENT said that the present case had been advertised but the advertisement had elicited no adverse comment on the action proposed. IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that this was a case where confusion had arisen (or was calculated to arise) in the main not through the strict application of the Reégles but through doubt as to how the Régles should be applied as the result of differences of opinion on the taxonomic question of the identity of the species included by van Phelsum in his genus Echinocyamus. In addition, however, there were strictly nomenclatorial issues involved, such as the doubt as to whether van Phelsum could properly be regarded as a binominal author (and therefore whether, without the use of the plenary powers, the name Echinocyamus had any standing as from van Phelsum, 1774) and the situation created by the selection by H. L. Clark (1914), as the type species of Fibularia Lamarck, of the species Fibularia trigona Lamarck, a species regarded by the present applicants as being unrecognisable. There was general agreement, however, that the plenary powers should be used in this case, in order to prevent the confusion which would inevitably follow the transfer of the name 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 519 Echinocyamus to the genus now known as Fibularia and of the name Fibularia to the genus now known as Echinocyamus. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to set aside all selec- tions of type species for the undermentioned genera and to validate the generic names in question, with the species specified below as respective type species :— Generic name Species designated as the validated type species of the genus specified in Col. (1) aN) She wba) Echinocyamus van Echinocyamus pusillus Phelsum, 1774. Miiller (O.F.), 1776. FibulariaLamarck, Fibularia ovulum 1816. Lamarck, 1816. (2) to place on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ the generic names Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774, and Fibularia Lamarck, 1816, with the type species severally specified in (1) above ; (3) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— pusillus Miiller (O.F.), 1776 (as published in the binominal combination Echinocyamus pusillus) ; ovulum Lamarck, 1816 (as published in the binominal combination Frbularia ovulum) ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. “ Phyllacanthus ” 35. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File ea Cider: Z.N.(S.)319, containing an application submitted by Dr. aad ibid (now Commissioner) Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on his own “Strongylocentrotus behalf and on that of a large group of other specialists in (Class Echinoidea, St ley the Class Echinoidea that the Commission should use their Camerodonta) plenary powers to direct that the names Phyllacanthus rien as of Brandt, 1835 (Class Echinoidea, Order Cidaroida) and al aS Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835 (Class Kchinoidea, Order 1835, under the Camarodonta) were to be treated as having been published plenary powers by the above author as subgeneric names with Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubius Brandt, 1835, and Echinus (Strongylocentrotus) chlorocentrotus Brandt, 1835, as re- spective type species. Dr. Mortensen explained that the names Phyllacanthus and Strongylocentrotus were accepted by Agassiz and by all subsequent authors up to the year 520 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1909. Both names, especially Strongylocentrotus, had in this way become widely known, not only in echinological literature, but also in biological literature generally. In 1909, however, Lambert and Thiéry had advanced the view that these names had not been published by Brandt as new subgeneric names, but as synonyms, respectively, of Cidar- ites Leske, 1778, and Echinus Linnaeus, 1758. On the basis of this conclusion, these authors had then proceeded to make a considerable number of consequential changes in the nomenclature of the group of which these genera formed part. The conclusions reached by Lambert and Thiéry in regard to Brandt’s intentions when he published these two names were regarded as highly disputable by echinologist generally, by whom the changes in nomenclature suggested by Lambert and Thiéry had not been accepted. While in Dr. Mortensen’s view, it was possible that these two names had, in fact, been looked upon by Brandt as synonyms (of Cidarites and Echinus respectively), the practical applica- tion of this conclusion would, in his opinion and in that of the large number of specialists associated with him in the present application, lead to great confusion and could not possibly be justified. The present application had been one of the eight applications on which Dr. Mortensen had consulted 38 leading specialists before (in 1932) he submitted his proposals to the Commission. Of these specialists (the names of whom have been given in Conclusion 32), 37 had voted in favour of the submission of the present proposals to the Commission, the sole exception being Lambert himself. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the present case had been advertised but the advertisement had elicited no adverse comment on the action proposed. As regards the trivial name of the type species of the genus Strongylocentrotus Brandt, the Acting President observed that that species was invariably known by the trivial name drobachiensis Miiller (O.F.), 1776 (as published in the binominal combination Echinus drobachiensis) and that, in view of the fact that it was proposed in. any case to use the plenary powers to validate the generic name Strongylocentrotus, and to designate its type species, it would be desirable at the same time to designate the foregoing nominal species to be the type species rather than the nominal species Echinus (Strongylo- centrotus) chlorocentrotus Brandt, 1835, the name under which the taxonomic species concerned had been cited by Brandt, when he published the name Strongylocentrotus. IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that it would clearly be wrong to countenance the introduction of 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 521 extensive and confusing changes in the nomenclature of a group, on the strength solely of an argument which (as here) rested upon a subjective interpretation of the intention of a given author when publishing a given name, when (as here) that interpretation was contested by almost the entire bod y of interested specialists. In view of the doubts arising from the interpretation by Lambert and Thiéry of Brandt’s intentions when he first published the names Phyllacanthus and Strongylocentrotus, it would be necessary for the Commission to use their plenary powers, in order to put an end to further discussion. It would be desirable, however, that, in this, as in previous similar cases, the Commission should use those powers conditionally and to such extent (if any) as might be necessary. In other words, the Commission should make it clear that in using those powers for the purpose of validating the foregoing names as of subgeneric status as from Brandt, 1835, they did so only if and in so far as this course was necessary to attain the desired end and that their action in this matter was not to be construed as expressing an opinion on the question whether (as alleged by Lambert and Thiéry) the names in question had been regarded by their original author, not as subgeneric names, but as synonyms of the generic names, with which these names had been severally associated by that author. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to such extent as might be necessary :— (i) to validate the names Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, and Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835 (Class Kchinoidea, Order Cidaroida) as of subgeneric status as from the date of being so published ; (ii) to designate Cidarites (Phyllacanthus) dubius Brandt, 1835, as the type species of Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, (b) to designate Echinus drobachiensis Miiller (O.F.), 1776, to be the type species of the genus Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835 ; (2) to place on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” the names Phyllacanthus Brandt, 1835, and Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835, validated as in (1) above and with the type species there severally specified ; 522 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. “* Spatangus ” Gray, 1825, “ Ova” Gray, 1825, “* Schizaster ” Agassiz, [1836], * Echinocardium ” Gray, 1825, “ Moira” Agassiz, 1872, and “ Brissus” Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea, Order Spatangoida) : validation of current nomenclatorial practice in regard to, under the plenary powers (3) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— dubius Brandt, 1835 (as published in the binominal combination Cidarites (Phyllacanthus ) dubius) ; drobachiensis Miiller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the binominal combination Echinus dro- bachiensis) ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 36. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(8.)317, containing an application submitted by Dr. (now Commissioner) Th. Mortensen (Denmark) on his own behalf and on that of a large group of other specialists in the Class Echinoidea that the Commission should use their plenary powers in various ways to validate existing nomen- clatorial practice in regard to six associated generic names in the foregoing Class, where, if the Regles were to be strictly applied, serious disturbance and consequential confusion would inevitably ensue. The generic names in question were: Spatangus Gray, 1825; Ova Gray, 1825 ; Schizaster Agassiz [1836]; Echinocardium Gray, 1825; Moira Agassiz, 1827; Brissus Gray, 1825. The following is a summary of the principal points made by Dr. Mortensen in regard to each of the foregoing names :— (1) Spatangus Gray, 1825: This name had been used by the older authors (Klein, Leske) in a very wide sense under which it covered species now included in different families and even different Orders. Lamarck (1816) applied it to all the Spatangoids, of which, however, he cited only one by name, the new nominal species Spatangus vulgaris Lamarck (which had proved to be the same species as that now known as Brissus carinatus). If therefore Lamarck were treated as the author of the name Spatangus, that generic name would replace Brissus Gray and the species now known as Brissus carinata would have to be known as Spatangus vulgaris Lamarck. No one had, however, adopted this course. The true author of the generic name Spatangus in the modern sense was Gray (1825), who had placed in this genus only Spatagus purpureus Miiller (O. F.), 1776. So regarded, the genus Spatangus Gray was monotypical with the above species as its type species. It was in this sense that the generic name Spatangus had been used by all subsequent specialists until in 1902 Lambert had advanced the view that this name should be used not in the sense 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. ' 523 in which it had been employed by Gray in 1825 but in the sense in which it had first been used by Klein ; that on this basis this generic name was not applicable to the species Spatagus purpureus Miiller, which accordingly Lambert placed in a new genus to which he applied the name Prospatangus. Dr. Mortensen agreed that Gray had used the name Spatangus in a sense different from that of Klein. It would, however, in Dr. Mortensen’s view. create the greatest confusion to abandon the use of the name Spatangus for purpureus Miiller and to apply that name, as suggested by Lambert, to Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck, 1816. (2) Ova Gray, 1825: The type species of this genus by monotypy was Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck, 1816. Accordingly under Lambert’s view Ova Gray was an objective synonym of Spatangus as interpreted by that author. Dr. Mortensen asked that, when the Commission validated the name Spatangus as from Gray, 1825, and in consequence validated the designation of Spatagus purpureus Miiller as the type species of that genus, they should also confirm the availability of Ova Gray, 1825, with Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck as its type species. (3) Schizaster Agassiz [1836]: The type species of this genus was the fossil species Schizaster studeri Agassiz, 1840. This genus had been accepted even by Lambert and Thiéry notwithstanding their views on the generic position of Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck (see (1) above), a species which had formerly been referred to the genus Schizaster. (4) Echinocardium Gray, 1825, and (5) Moira Agassiz, 1872: Gray had placed in the genus Echinocardium three species, of which the first was Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816. Agassiz, the next author to deal with this subject, rejected the name Echinocardium Gray, sinking it as a synonym of a new generic name of his own (Amphidetus). At the same time Agassiz transferred Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816, to his new genus Schizaster, in which also (as shown in (3) above) he placed the new species Schizaster studert. In their “Catalogue raisonée” Agassiz and Desors cited Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, as the first species of the genus Amphidetus Agassiz, 1836 (which, as noted above, Agassiz had previously adopted in place of the earlier name Hchinocardium Gray, 1825). In a later paper (“ Synopsis des Echinides fossiles”) Desors accepted Echinocardium Gray (sinking Amphidetus Agassiz as a synonym), citing Echinus cordatus Pennant as the first species. In the meantime Michelin had established the genus Moera Michelin, 1855, based upon Spatangus atropos Lamarck, which was accordingly treated by later authors as though it had been designated as the type species of the or International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. genus Moera Michelin. Later it was found that this generic name was an invalid homonym, and Agassiz (1872) accordingly altered it to Moira. Since that date all specialists in the group had accepted the genera Echino- cardium Gray, 1825, and Moira Agassiz, 1872, treating Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, as the type species of Echinocardium Gray, 1825, and Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816, as the type species of Moa Agassiz, 1872. Dr. Mortensen and his colleagues asked that this practice should be validated under the plenary powers. (6) Brissus Gray, 1825: Gray had established this genus for four nominal species. The trivial names of the first and second of these species were ventricosus Leske and unicolor Leske respectively. The species bearing the first of these names had later been transferred to the genus Meoma Gray, 1851. Thereafter, the species bearing the trivial name wnicolor Leske had been treated by all authors as the type species of the genus Brissus Gray. Dr Mortensen asked the Commission to validate this practice under their plenary powers. In conclusion, Dr. Mortensen had expressed the view that the six generic names covered by the present applica- tion were so inextricably connected that they could not be treated separately. He accordingly asked the Commission to use their plenary powers to validate all the generic names in question, as from the authors and dates of publication, and with the type species, indicated in the application. This application had been one of the eight applications on which, before submitting it to the Com- mission (in 1932), Dr. Mortensen had consulted 38 leading specialists who were working on the group in various parts of the world. Of these specialists, 35 had voted in favour of the submission to the Commission of the present applica- tion, two (Bather; Brighton) had not voted, while one only (Lambert) had voted against the course proposed. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the present group of applications had been advertised but the advertisement had elicited no adverse comment. IN DISCUSSION the view was expressed that it was evident that the strict application of the Reéegles would completely change the way in which these generic names would in future have to be used. Great disturbance in nom- enclatorial practice would be involved and this would inevitably lead to widespread confusion, in view of the very extensive literature, extending far beyond the literature of systematic zoology, which had accumulated around such 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 525 names as Spatangus and Echinocardium. For these reasons and, having regard also to the strong support for these pro- posals expressed all but unanimously by the leading workers in this field in both Hemispheres, it was generally agreed that the objects sought by the applicants should be met by the Commission. On the other hand, some of the argument advanced in the application were not of a character which could be entertained by the Commission ; in particular, it was not possible either to ignore for the purposes of Articles 25 and 34 the uses of a generic name prior to a certain date (on the ground that the earlier authors had placed discordant material in the genus concerned), or, under Article 30 to accord any right to be accepted as the type species of a genus to a given species, on the ground only that it was the first of the species to have been cited, among others, under the name of the genus by its original author. In drawing up the conclusion of the Commission on these applications, it would be necessary to pay due regard to these considerations. Again in some cases (for example, in the case of the names Schizaster Agassiz [1836], and Moira Agassiz, 1872 (as derived from the invalid homonym Moera Michelin, 1855), it was not clear from the application how the species there mentioned as type species of the genera concerned had come to be recognised as such, whether that process had been in accordance with the Rules specified in Article 30 and therefore whether the use of the plenary powers was necessary or not. In further discussion it was agreed that the plenary powers should be used, where this was necessary, to secure the ends sought in the present application, but that, where it was doubtful (for any reason) whether the use of those powers was necessary to achieve the desired object, it should be expressly recorded that the plenary powers were used for that purpose only to the extent that might be necessary therefor. The Acting President, as Secretary to the Commission, was accordingly invited to examine the present application from the foregoing point of view after the close of the present Session and, in the light of that examination, to draft the Conclusion on this matter in such a way as, in his opinion, would meet fully the objects set out in the application and also the points made in the discussion as recorded above. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the undermentioned generic names :— (i) Brissus Miiller, 1781 (Class Echin- oidea) 526 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (ii) Brissus Modeer, 1793 (Class Echin- oidea) (i) Brissus Link, 1807 (Class Echin- oidea) (iv) Brissus Oken, 1815 (Class Echin- oidea) (v) Brissus Dahl, 1823 (emend. of Bryssus Dejean, 1821) (Class In- secta, Order Coleoptera) (vi) Bryssus Dejean, 1821 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (vii) Brissus, as used by any other author prior to the publication of Brissus Gray, 1825 (vil) Echinocardium Leske, 1778, in so far as that name was published by that author as a generic name (ix) Spatangus Leske, 1778 (x) Spatangus Modeer, 1793 (xi) Spatangus, as used by ary other author prior to the publication of Spatangus Gray, 1825 ; (b) to validate the undermentioned generic names :— (i) Brissus Gray, 1825 (Class Echin- oidea) (ul) Echinocardium Gray, 1825 (Class Kchinoidea), in so far as this name requires to be validated by reason of the existence of the prior name Echinocardium Leske, 1778, sup- pressed, in so far as may be necessary in (a)(vill) above) ; (ii) Spatangus Gray, 1825 (Class Echin- oidea) ; (c) to set aside all selections of type species for the undermentioned genera made prior to the present decision and to designate the species severally specified below to be the type species of the genera concerned :— (i) Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, to be the type species of the genus Echinocardium Gray, 1825, as validated, in so far as may be necessary, in (b)(1i) above ; (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 12) VoL. 4F 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 527 (ii) Schizaster studert Agassiz (L.), 1840, to be the type species of the genus Schizaster Agassiz (L.) [1836] ; (iii) Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske, 1778, to be the type species of the genus Brissus Gray, 1825, as validated in (b)(i) above ; (iv) Spatagus purpureus Miiller (O.F.), : 1776, to be the type species of the genus Spatangus Gray, 1825, as validated in (b)(iii) above ; (d) in so far as the use of the plenary powers may be necessary to secure that Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816, shall be the type species of the genus Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872, to set aside all selections of type species made for that genus prior to the selection of the above species by Clark (H. L.), 1917; (2) to place on record that the reputed generic name Brissus Leske, 1778 (Class Echinoidea), has no existence under the Réegles, as interpreted in Opinion 183 (now, as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin, to be incorporated in the Regles), having regard to the fact that this term was published by Leske in the nominative plural (as Brissi) instead of in the nominative singular, as required by Article 8 ; (3) to place the names of the undermentioned genera of the Class Echinoidea (Order Spatangoida), with the type species severally specified below, on the “© Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ :— Name of genus Type species of genus specified in Gol. (1) (1) ~ (2) Brissus Gray, 1825, Spatangus brissus var.uni- asvalidatedin(1) color Leske, 1778 (type (b) (i) above. species designated under the plenary powers in (1) (c) (ii) above). Echinocardium Echinus cordatus Pennant, Gray, 1825, as 1777 (type species desig- validated in (1) nated under the plenary (b) (i) above. powers in (1) (c) () above). 528 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Moira Agassiz(A.), Spatangus atropos 1872. Lamarck, 1816 (type species designated under the plenary powers in (1) (d) above). Ova Gray, 1825 Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck, 1816 (type species by monotypy). Schizaster Agassiz Schizaster studeri Agassiz (L.) [1836]. (L.), 1840 (type species ' designated under the plenary powers in (1) (c) (11) above). Spatangus Gray, Spatagus purpureus Miiller 1825, as vali- (O. F.), 1776 (type dated in (1) (b) species designated under (i1) above. the plenary powers in (1) (c) (iv) above). (4) to place the undermentioned generic names and reputed generic names on the-“ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” :— (i) the eleven generic names suppressed under the plenary powers, as specified in (1) (a) (i) to (xi) above ; (ii) the reputed but non-existent generic name Brissus Leske, 1778, rejected under (2) above ; (iii) Prospatangus Lambert, 1902 ; (iv) Moera Michelin, 1855 ; (5) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in : Zoology ” :— atropos Lamarck, 1816 (as published in the binominal combination Spatangus atropos) canaliferus Lamarck, 1816 (as published in the binominal combination Spatangus canaliferus) cordatus Pennant, 1777 (as published in the binominal combination Echinus cordatus) purpureus Miller (O. F.), 1776 (as published in the binominal combination Spatagus purpureus) studeri Agassiz (L.), 1840 (as published in the binominal combination Schizaster studert) VOL. 4 F? ‘14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 529 unicolor Leske, 1778 (as published as a sub- specific trivial name in the trinominal combina- tion Spatangus brissus var. wnicolor) (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (5) above. ° Report by the Secretary to the Commission : In accordance with the request of the Commission, I have re- examined the application submitted in this case for the purpose of determining how the objects set forth therein can be attained with the minimum use of the plenary powers, those powers being used only in respect of those purposes which can be achieved inno other wa y and being used con- ditionally “in so far as may be necessary ” in cases where such use may be necessary to achieve the desired ends but that need is not clearly established. In the course of this re-examination, I have had the benefit of the advice of Dr. Mortensen. In addition, I have consulted a number of the books and papers cited in the present application. The conclusions which I have reached are as follows :— (1) Brissus and Spatangus: If, as proposed, the generic names Brissus and Spatangus are to be made available in the sense in which they were respectively used by Gray in 1825, it will be necessary to use the plenary powers to suppress all prior uses of these names, and to validate these two names as from Gray, 1825. In view of the fact that Gray did not.publish the names Brissus and Spatangus as new names and each, in order to acquire recognition under the Régles, requires the use by the Commission of their plenary powers, the same powers should be used to designate the type species of these genera. Quite apart from this consideration, the plenary powers would be necessary to ensure that the animal to which in 1778 Leske applied the trivial name unicolor should be the type species of this genus, for, even if that was the first of the originally included species to be selected by a later author to be the type species of this genus (which appears probable from, but is not clearly established in, the application submitted to the Commission), the type species of this genus would, under the Régles (Article 30, Rule (d) ), be Spatangus brissus Leske, 1778, by absolute tautonymy, in view of the fact that the trivial name unicolor was published by Leske in the combination Spatangus brissus var unicolor. If it had not been for the consideration indicated above, it would not have been necessary to use the plenary powers to designate Spatagus purpureus Miller (O. F.), 1776, as the type species of the genus Spatangus Gray, 1825, for that nominal species (attributed, however, to Leske) was the sole species then cited (: 430) by Gray under the generic name Spatangus and would accordingly have been the type species by monotypy. '(3) Echinocardium Gray, 1825: This name is usually treated as having been first published in 1825 by Gray (by whom it was doubtfully attributed to van Phelsum), but, as pointed out in the application, the term Echinocardium appears in Leske’s Additamenta of 1778 as a trans- lation of the Belgian expression “ Egelhart ” used by van Phelsum. In order, therefore, to obviate the risk of a claim later being advanced that Leske used this word as a generic name and therefore that Echino- cardium Gray, 1825, is an invalid homonym, the conditional use of the ‘plenary powers under the formula “in so far asthe use of the plenary powers may be necessary ” is desirable to suppress the name Echino- cardium as used (and in so far as it was used) by Leske in 1778 as a generic name and to validate, in so far as necessary, the generic name Echinocardium Gray, 1825. As regards the type species of this genus, the plenary powers are certainly necessary to secure the acceptance of Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777, for that nominal species was not cited by Gray (: 430) when he published the generic name Echinocardium. (4) Schizaster Agassiz (L.) [1836]: The name Schizaster Agassiz is itself an available name, but the plenary powers are needed to secure that Schizaster studeri Agassiz should be its type species, since although that . 530 “* Arachnoides ” Leske, 1778, “ Echinarachnius ” Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea) validated under the plenary powers, . and, with “* Echinodiscus ” Leske, 1778 (Class Echinoidea), placed on the “© Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. name (binominal combination) appears in Agassiz’s original description of the genus Schizaster,.it was then only a nomen nudum, the trivial name in question not being published with an indication until 1840 (Agassiz, 1840, Cat. Ect. Ech.: 3). (5) Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872: This name (which was published as a substitute for the invalid homonym Moera Michelin, 1855), is an avail- able name; the species, Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816, which is commonly treated as its type species, is eligible for selection as such, having been one of the species included by Michelin in his genus Moera. Moreover, that species has certainly been selected as the type species of this genus, e.g. by Clark (H. L.) in 1917 (Mem. Mus. comp. Zool., 46 : 195). It is not clear, however, either whether this was the first occasion on which this species was selected as the type species or whether any of the other originally included species had previously been so selected. In order to prevent any question being raised as to the validity of the selection of this species as the type species of this genus, it would be well, as in the case of the question of the availability of the generic name Echinocardium Gray, 1825 (discussed in (3) above), to use the plenary powers conditionally and “to such extent as may be necessary” to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Moira Agassiz, 1872, made prior to the selection of Spatangus atropos Lamarck as such by Clark (H. L.) in 1917. (6) Ova Gray, 1825: This name, wrongly attributed by Gray (: 431) to van Phelsum, is an available name and the type species of the genus so named is Spatangus canaliferus Lamarck, 1816, by monotypy- The plenary powers are thus not required either to validate this name or to secure that the species accepted as the type species of this genus should in fact be its type species. This name was only included in the present application because the type species of this genus had been (erroneously) alleged by Lambert (1902) to be referable to the genus Spatangus, as interpreted by that author. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, I have drafted the record of the Commission’s decision in this case in the terms set forth in Conclusion 36 of the Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Paris Session, at which it was discussed, those terms giving effect to the decision of the Commission to meet the objects sought by Commissioner Mortensen in the present application and at the same time involving, as desired by the Commission, the minimum use of the plenary powers consistent with securing the objects referred to above. (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretariat of the Commission, 28, Park Village Kast, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. 22nd August, 1949. 37. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)322, containing an application submitted by Commissioner Th. Mortensen (Denmark) that the Com- mission should use their plenary powers to place on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” the well- known generic names Arachnoides, Echinarachnius and Echinodiscus (Class Echinoidea) in such a way as to secure that these names should be rendered available for use in their accustomed sense. The following is a summary of the main points made by Commissioner Mortensen in his application in regard to each of these names. (1) Arachnoides: This name was commonly attributed to Klein (1734), although it possessed, as from that date, 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 531 no availability under the Reégles, having been published by Klein prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature. The first occasion subsequent to 1757 on which it was published by a binominal author was when it was so. published by Leske in 1778, Leske, however, while accept- ing the concept represented by Klein’s genus Arachnoides, had changed the name to Echinarachnius. eske had cited under this genus only Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758. This species had been treated as the type species of Arachnoides by every subsequent author and had been definitely selected as such by Agassiz (L.) in 1841. The name Arachnoides had continued to be used in this sense by virtually all workers in the group until in 1914 Lambert and Thiéry had rejected the name Arachnoides of Klein and Leske in favour of Echinarachnius Leske, 1778, on the ground that the name Arachnoides had been used in a different sense by Linck in 1733 and therefore that this name, as used by Klein in 1734, was invalid, his Arechnoides being a junior homonym of Arachnoides Linck, 1732. The acceptance of the contention advanced by Lambert and Thiéry, involving the transfer of the name Echinarachnius from its well-known sense (see (2) below) to the genus universally known by the name Arachnoides, would lead to great confusion. Although other specialists in the group had not accepted the views of Lambert and Thiéry, Dr. Mortensen had thought it desirable, in order to avoid any danger of the great confusion which would follow such an acceptance, to ask the Commission to use their plenary powers to place the generic name Arachnoides Klein on the * Official List of Generic Names” with Echinus placenta Linnaeus as type species. (2) Echinarachnius Gray, 1825: This genus had been characterised by Gray who had placed in it Echinus placenta Linnaeus (the species similarly placed therein by Leske in 1778 when he first published this generic name) and Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816. The latter species had been selected as the type species of Echinarachnius by Agassiz (L.) in 1841 on the same occasion as that on which (as shown above) he had selected Echinus placenta Linnaeus to be the type — Species of the genus Arachnoides. This genus, with the above species as type species, had been unanimously accepted by all subsequent workers until in 1914 Lambert and Thiéry (in the paper referred to in (1) above) had revived the name Echinarachnius Leske, 1778, for Echinus placenta Linnaeus, thus making the name Echinarachnius as used by Gray in 1825 an invalid homonym. It was part of Dr. Mortensen’s proposal that, in order to avoid the confusion 532 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. which would otherwise be inevitable, the name Echin- arachnius Gray, 1825 (type species: Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816) should be validated by the Commission at the same time as they similarly validated the name Arachnoides Klein. (3) Echinodiscus Leske, 1778: This genus was estab- lished by Leske for a large number of species, of which Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778, came-to be regarded by all workers as the type species and was ultimately selected as such by Clark (H. L.) in 1911. Except for a short period when some authors referred the above species to the genus Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841 (a name which had to be rejected when it was found to be a homonym), all specialists in this group had accepted the genus Echino- discus Leske (with the above species as type species) until in 1883 Pomel had advanced the claim that this name should be used as the generic name for Echinus placenta Linnaeus, on the ground that it had been used for that species (among other discordant material) by Breynius in 1732, that author’s use of the name Hchinodiscus thus antedating by one year the use by Klein (1734) of the name Avrachnoides forthe species referred to above. The admission of this contention which would involve the acceptance as from their original date of publication of names published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature (i.e. before 1758) would render the generic name Hchinodiscus Leske an invalid homonym of the genus Echinodiscus Breynius. Although other specialists had not accepted the contention of Pomel, Commissioner Mortensen thought it desirable to ask the Commission to settle the matter once and for all by using their plenary powers to place Hehinodiscus Leske, 1778 (type species: Hchinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” at the same time that they disposed of the contention advanced by Lambert and Thiéry (also based on the action of an author prior to the startmg point of zoological nomen- clature) by validating the generic name Avrachnoides in its well understood and generally accepted sense. Summing up, Commissioner Mortensen had said that great confusion would arise in the nomenclature of three of the most widely known genera in the Class Echinoidea if the views advanced, in the case of the names Arachnoides and Hehinarachnius, by Lambert and Thiéry and, in the case of the above names and also the name Echinodiscus, by Pomel were to gain currency. To prevent this from happening, he (Commissioner Mortensen) asked the Com- mission to use their plenary powers in the manner proposed, oe (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 24) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 533 IN THE DISCUSSION which ensued it was generally agreed that a case had been established regarding the likeli- hood of confusion arising in the event of current nomencla- torial practice in regard to the generic names Arachnoides, Echinarachnius and Echinodiscus being disturbed in the manner which would be inevitable if either the contention advanced by Lambert and Thiéry (1914) or that advanced by Pomel (1883) were to be accepted. The plenary powers should, it was agreed, be used to such extent as might be necessary to prevent this from happening. On the other hand, care would need to be taken to restrict the use of the plenary powers to those portions of the application (for example, the validation of the name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, as against the earlier identical generic name Echinarachnius Leske, 1778), which could only be granted after the use of those powers. Those powers should not be used in respect of those portions of the application which dealt with difficulties arising from erroneous interpretations of the Reégles, such as those arising from the action of Pomel (1883) and Lambert and Thiéry (1914) in claiming for names originally published before 1758 (i.e. before the starting point of zoological nomenclature as prescribed in Article 26) either (a) rights of priority prior to the date on which, subsequent to 1757, they had been given availability through being reinforced (by adoption or acceptance) by the same or another author or (b) the power, before being so reinforced, of influencing the availability of the same name as published by a binominal author subsequent to 1 a At the conclusion of this discussion the Acting Presi- dent, as Secretary to the Commission, was invited in this case (as in that of Spatangus referred to above) to examine the application from the foregoing point of view after the close of the present Session and, in the light of that examination, to draft the Conclusion on this matter in such a way as, in his opinion, would meet fully the objects set out in the application and also the points made in the discussion as recorded above. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, having regard to the interpretation of Article 25 given in Opinion 5 (the relevant provisions of which were now, as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin, to be in- corporated in the Régles) :— (a) the name Arachnoides Klein, 1734 (a name published prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature, as prescribed in 534 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 26) acquired no rights under the Law of Priority in virtue of Klein’s work in which it originally appeared being re- published in 1778, since this was merely a re-issue of the 1734 work, or in virtue of having been published in Leske’s Addtta- menta (1778) to the foregoing work, since on that occasion Leske not only did not reinforce the name by adoption or accept- ance (as prescribed by Opinion 5) but actually rejected it, publishing a new name, Echinarachnius, as a substitute for it ; (b) the name Echinodiscus Breynius, 1732 (a name published prior to the starting-point of zoological nomenclature), not having been given availability under the Régles by being re-inforced (through adoption or acceptance) prior to the publication of the name Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, possessed no status in zoological nomenclature as at that date and accordingly (contrary to the view erroneously expressed by Pomel in 1883) the name Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, is not to be rejected under Article 34 as an invalid homonym ; (2) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to validate as from Leske, 1778, the generic name Arachnoides and to designate Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of that genus ; (b) to suppress the generic name Echinarachnius Leske, 1778, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of the name Hchinarach- nius Gray, 1825 ; (c) to validate the generic name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, and to designate Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816, to be the type species of that genus ; (3) to place the undermentioned generic names on the “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ :— Arachnoides Leske, 1778, validated as in (2)(a) above (type species, by designation under the plenary powers, as specified in (2)(a) above: Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758) Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, validated as in (2)(c) above (type species, by designation under 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 535 the plenary powers, as specified in (2)(c) above : Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816) ; Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 (type species, by selection by Clark (H. L.), 1911: Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778) ; (4) to place the undermentioned generic names on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Arachnoides Klein, 1778 (a reputed name rejected in (1)(a) above) Echinarachnius Leske, 1778 Echinarachnius as used by any author sub- sequent to Leske, 1778, and prior to Gray, 1825 Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841 ; (5) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— bisperforatus Leske, 1778 (as published in the binominal combination Echinodiscus _ bis- perforatus) parma Lamarck, 1816 (as published in the binominal combination Scutella parma) placenta Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Echinus placenta) ; (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (5) above. Report by the Secretary to the Commission : In accordance with the request of the Commission, I have re- examined the application submitted in this case for the purpose of determining how the objects set forth therein can be attained with the minimum use of the plenary powers. In the course of this re-examination I have had the benefit of the advice of Dr. Mortensen. In addition, I have consulted a number of the books and papers cited in the present application. The conclusions which I have reached are as follows :— (1) Arachnoides: The plenary powers are certainly needed to validate this name as from 1778, the first date subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature (1758), on which this name was pub- lished, for, as then published by Leske, it was a name taken from a pre- 1758 author (Klein) which Leske not only did not re-inforce by adoption or acceptance (the conditions laid down in Opiuion 5 as the sole means by which such a name can be given status under the Régles), but which he actually rejected in favour of a new name (Hchinarachnius) proposed by himself. This being so, the plenary powers will be needed also to designate a type species for this genus. (2) Echinarachnius Gray, 1825: Gray (: 428) did not look upon himself as publishing Echinarachnius as a new name, for he correctly referred this name to Leske, by whom (as shown in (1) above) it had been published in 1788. In order to be able validly to treat Echinarachnius as an available name first published by Gray in 1825, it will thus be necessary to use the plenary powers to suppress the name Echinarachnius 536 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. “ Echeneis ” Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces, Order Discocephali), designation of type species of, under the plenary powers, the position of ** Echeneis ’ Linnaeus on the “ Official List ” cenfirmed, and “ Remora ” Gill, 1862 (Class Pisees, Order Discocephali)} added thereto Leske, 1788, and all subsequent uses of that name prior to Gray, 1825, to validate the name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, and to designate a type species for the genus so named. (3) Echinodiscus Leske, 1778: This is an available name, the objec- tion raised against it by Pomel (1883) being totally groundless, being based upon a misconceived belief that a use put to 4 generic name by an authar (Breynius) at a date (1732) prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature (1758) can affect the status of the same name as published after 1758. ‘There is therefore no need for the plenary powers to be used to validate this name. Nor is there any need for those powers to be used to designate a type species for this genus, for the species (Hchinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778) which it is desired should be recognised as such was in fact so selected by Clark (H. L.) in 1911. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, I have drafted the record of the Commission’s decision in this case in the terms set forth in Conclusion 37 of the Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Paris Session, at which it was discussed, those terms giving effect to the decision of the Commission to meet the objects sought by Commissioner Mortensen in the present application and at thé same time involving, as desired by the Commission, the minimum use of the plenary powers consistent with securing the objects referred to above. (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretariat of the Commission, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. 23rd August, 1949. 38. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)156, containing an application submitted by Commissioner Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) as Secretary to the Commission that the Commission should use their plenary powers to designate Echeneis naucrates (an emendation of neucrates) Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758 (thereby giving valid force to the erroneous entry in regard to this generic name made in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” under a decision recorded in Opinion 92), and at the same time to place on the “ Official List ’’ the generic name Remora Gill, 1862 (Class Pisces, Order Discocephah), with Hcheneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that, when in 1944 he had been engaged in preparing the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ for publication in book form and in consequence had had occasion to examine in detail the entries made in that “ List ’’ under the Opinions rendered by the Commission, he had noted, when examining Opinion 92, that under that Opinion the generic name Heheneis Linnaeus, 1758, had been placed on the “ Official List ” with Echeneis neucrates Linnaeus, 1758, as type species, notwithstanding the fact (1) that among the synonyms cited by Linnaeus for Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758 (the other species placed by him in the genus Zcheneis at the time when he first 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 537 published that generic name) was the pre-1758 universal specific name, “ Echeneis ”’, and therefore (2) that, under the interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 given in the Commission’s Opinion 16, Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of the genus Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy. It was immediately evident that it was necessary for the Commission either to correct the entry in the “ Official List ” in regard to this generic name or to validate that entry by the use of the plenary powers. It had appeared to him that the latter would be the more appropriate course, having regard to the fact (a) that the erroneous entry in Opinion 92 corresponded with the generally current practice of ichthyologists, and (b) that the strict application of the Régles would involve the confusing transfer of the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758, to the species now always placed in the genus Remora Gill, 1862, and the sinking of the latter name in synonymy. - He had accordingly consulted Dr. C. M. Breder, Jr.(American Museum of Natural History, New York), Dr. Leonard P. Schultz (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) and Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London), all of whom were in favour of the action now proposed, Dr. Schultz had added that Dr. Samuel F. Hildebrand and Dr. Robert R. Miller, both actively engaged on systematic work on ichthyology in the U.S. National Museum, concurred in the views which had been submitted in this case. It was evident therefore that there was massive support for the present application. In 1947, it had been published as Note 6 of the “ Editorial Notes ” attached to the reissue of Opinion 16, in view of the fact that ‘in that Opinion the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus had actually been cited with its true type species Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758 (Hemming, 1947, in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1: 287-297). No adverse com- ment on the action proposed had been received in conse- quence of the application being so published, nor had any such comment. been elicited when later an advertisement of this application had. been published in Science and Nature. The Acting President added, with reference to the proposal that the name Remora Gill, 1862, should now be placed on the “ Official List,” that (as would be seen from the text of the application published in: 1947), it was necessary first to clear up the question where, and by whom, the generic name Remora had been first published, in view of the fact that in the latest Nomenclator (Neave, 1940, Nomencl. Zool., 4: 21) references were given to two generic 538 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. names Remora, each alleged to have been published prior to Remora Gill, 1862. The works in which these reputed generic names (Remora Gouan, 1770, and Remora Forster, 1771) had been published had been kindly examined by Dr. Leonard P. Schultz, whose conclusions were contained in a letter included in File Z.N.(S.) 156 which had been published in the present application (Schultz, 1947, in Hemming, loc. cit., 1: 293). It was clear from the particulars so furnished by Dr. Schultz that neither Gouan (1770) nor Forster (1771) had published the word ‘‘ Remora ” as a generic name and that this name had not been so published by any other author previous to Gill, 1862. In these circumstances the way was clear for putting the name Remora Gill, 1862, on the ‘‘ Official List ’’ without resorting in this matter even to a conditional use of the plenary powers (as he had originally suggested). It would, however, be necessary for the Commission to put on record that there were no such generic names as those attributed to Gouan and Forster. As regards the trivial name of the species proposed to be designated as the type species of the genus Hcheneis, the spelling “ neucrates”’ was an evident error of orthography (“ faute d’orthographe ’’) and as such had been universally emended by specialists to “‘ naucrates.”’ This emendation had been accepted by the Commission itself, when in Opinion 92, they had placed the name Echeneis Linnaeus on the “ Official List.” It would be well to take the present opportunity to place on record that under Article 19 this was the correct spelling for this name. IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED that in view of the confusion which would result from the strict application of the Régles in the present case, the desirability of avoiding (wherever possible) the making of changes in entries previously made in the “ Official List,” the wide and representative support for the present proposals received from leading ichthyologists and the complete lack of opposition of any kind, a case for the use of the plenary powers in the present instance had been established and that the application should be granted. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to set aside the original indication of Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Hcheneis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces, Order Discocephali) by absolute tautonymy (Article 30, Rule (d), as interpreted by Opinion 16) and in the place of that species to designate Echeneis neucrates 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 539 Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus ; (2) that neither Gouan (1770) nor Forster (1771) when using the word “ Remora,” had used it as a generic name and therefore that the reputed generic names Remora Gouan, 1770, and Remora Forster, 1771, were to be rejected as having no existence under the Regles; (3) to confirm explicitly the decision given implicitly in Opinion 92 (when the generic name Echenets Linnaeus, 1758, had been placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”’) that a “faute d’orthographe” was evident in the spelling of the trivial name neucrates Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combinatton Echeneis neucrates) and therefore that the spelling of that trivial name is, under Article 19, to be emended to naucrates ; (4) to confirm the position on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of the generic name Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758 (type species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers under (1) above : Echeneis naucrates (emend. of neucrates) Linnaeus, 1758) (decision confirming action taken in Opinion 92) ; — i) | — to place the generic name Remora Gill, 1862 (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Echeneis remora Linnaeus, 1758) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (6) to place the undermentioned reputed but non- existent generic names, rejected under (2) above, on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” :— (i) Remora Gouan, 1770 ; (ii) Remora Forster, 1771 ; (7) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— naucrates Linnaeus, 1758 (emendation, under (3) above, of neucrates, as published in the binominal combination Echeneis neucrates) remora Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Echeneis remora) ; (8) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (7) above. 540 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. “ Papilio iris ” Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera): identity of, determined under the plenary powers 39. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)184, containing an application submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London) that the Commission should use their plenary powers to determine the identity of the species to which the trivial name 277s Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris) should adhere and the locality to be accepted as the type locality of the species so named. Ever since it had been published, this trivial name had been applied to the Nymphaline butterfly of the genus Apatura Fabricius, 1807, which occurred in England and was there known as the “Purple Emperor.” A recent examination of the butterflies in the Linnean collec- tion, now in the possession of the Linnean Society of London, had convinced the late Dr. Corbet and Mr. W. H. T. Tams (British Museum (Natural History), London) that there was no evidence to support the allegations that had sometimes been made that Sir James Smith had altered labels on specimens in the Linnean collection ; in conse- quence, both these specialists were of the opinion that the labels on these specimens could be relied upon and that by this and other evidence (e.g. the type of pin used, the style of setting employed) it was possible to identify the “ types ” of the majority of the species described by Linnaeus. In the case of the species now under consideration, Dr. Corbet had concluded that without doubt Linnaeus had based his description of Papilio iris not upon the “ Purple Emperor ” of England, but on the closely allied (and very similar) species which was widely distributed in Continental Kurope (but did not extend to England), to which in 1775 — Schiffermiiller and Denis had given the trivial name da (in the combination Papilio iha), the name by which the species in question had ever since been known. Dr. Corbet’s conclusion, which was based in the first instance on his examination of the Linnean collection, had been” confirmed by a manuscript note by Linnaeus in his own copy of the 10th Edition of the Systema Naturae, which could apply only to the species now universally known by the trivial name zlia [Schiffermiiller and Denis]. Never- theless, the description of zris Linneaus must have been based, at least in part, on descriptions of the “ Purple Emperor” of England, for otherwise he could not have written (as he did) that this species occurred in “ Anglia.” The greatest confusion would occur if it were necessary to transfer the trivial name iis Linnaeus, 1758, from the Apaturid which occurred in England and on the continent of Europe to the allied species which occurred in Continental Hurope but not in England. This was a case where, owing _ to uncertainty regarding the manner in which the Reégles a ei (Previous reference & Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 7) (Previous reference: Paris Session,, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 16) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 541 should be applied, there would be a perpetual risk of confusion until the Commission gave a ruling under their plenary powers as to which of the two species in question was the species to which the trivial name iris Linnaeus should be applied. Dr. Corbet had accordingly proposed that the Commission should use those powers to direct that this trivial name should be applied to the species to which it had always been applied and that of the two localities (“ Germania’ and “ Anglia ’’) cited by Linnaeus in 1758 “ Anglia ” should be accepted as the type locality. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that it was difficult to imagine a case where the transfer of a trivial name from one species to another would cause more certain or more serious confusion than in the present case. Hvery lepidopterist who was concerned with this group would be in agreement with the present proposal. The application had been advertised but no objection had been received from any source to the action proposed. It would be necessary in this case, as in other similar cases (for example, the case dealing with the identity of the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio plexippus, which the Commission had considered at the meeting noted in the, margin), to specify a good figure of an undoubted specimen of the species (the “ Purple Emperor ” of England) as the figure to be used in determining the identity of the species to which the trivial name wis Linnaeus, 1758, should apply. He suggested that for this purpose the figure of the ¢ given in fig. 1 on pl. 29 of South’s “‘ The Butterflies of the British Isles ” should be selected for this purpose, the figure in question being a good one and the ~ work in which it was published being inexpensive and widely known. The Acting President added that, when a decision had been taken on the present application, the difficulty in regard to the identity of the type species of the genus Apatura Fabricius, 1807, to which he had referred when earlier in the present meeting the Commission had been considering an application for the suppression under the plenary powers of the possibly earlier name Apatura [Illiger], 1807, would have been satisfactorily overcome. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) said that he had no doubt that the application submittéd by the late Dr. Corbet should be granted. Any other course would inevitably lead to the most serious confusion. 542 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The trivial names ** ascanius ” Linnaeus, 1768 (as published in the binominal combination * Papilio ascanius ”) and “ aristolochiae ” Pallas (as published in the binominal combination * Papilio aristolochiae ”’), in so far as published prior to 1780, suppressed, and the trivial names “* aristolochiae ” Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination “ Papilio aristolochiae ”) and “ ascanius ” Cramer, [1775] (as published in the binominal THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to direct that the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris) should be applied to the species figured as Apatura iris by ED South (R.), 1906, The Butterflies of the British Isles as figure 1 on plate 29 and that the type locality of this species, i.e. the type locality of the nominotypical subspecies of this species, should be deemed to be “England” (“ Anglia” of Linnaeus, 1758) ; ; (2) that the foregoing definition of the meaning to be applied to the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758, should be entered against that trivial name, when, in accordance with the decision recorded in Conclusion 16(6) of the present meeting that name was inscribed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; (3) to place the trivial name tha [Schiffermiiller and Denis], 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ila) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 40. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(8.)186, containing an application submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London) that the Commission should use their plenary powers: (1) to suppress the trivial names ascanius Linnaeus, 1768 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ascanius) and aristolochiae Pallas [? 1775 or prior] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aristolochiae), and (2) to validate the trivial names aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aristolochiae) and ascanius Cramer [1775] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ascanius) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). Dr. Corbet had explained that the specific name Papilio ascanius Linnaeus, 1768 (which was based upon a Papilionid butterfly taken by Sparrman in Java) had been a nomen dubium, until in 1941 he had himself identified the insect so named as a form (form diphilus Esper [1793] ) of the species to which in 1775 Fabricius had given the specific name Papilio aristolochiae. Tf, therefore, the Reégles were to be strictly applied in the present case, the totally unknown trivial name ascanius Linnaeus, 1768, would replace the es THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O, The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume. BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE — Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the — | completion of volume 1 and for the publication of q volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 2 | ; The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of et volumes 2, 3, 4and 5 :— se ba Page, Table of Contents, and ae subject index, will be published shortly. cee Volume 2: This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica- ee tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted = by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- ¥ clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date. Volume 1: A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title : 7 g 4 Volume 3: This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted _ to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu- ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of eeoey at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948. Volume 4: This volume is devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948. Twenty-one Parts have been published and this volume is now complete except for the index which will be published in a concluding Part. Volume 5: At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature — of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, Fuly 1948, together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section on Nomenclature. INQUIRIES 2 All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the Tatetnatonal eo 4 Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of — ie the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses :— International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: 41, Queen’s Gua London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Secretariat a re. the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, Engen : a Printed in Great Britain by Metcum™m AND Son, Lrp,, Westminster London VOLUME 4. ig 19/21 9th Fune, 1950 m pp. 543—651 piso.sce ¢NOMENCLATURE & * 4 ' Lon 4 ie t The Official Organ of 3 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE . Edited by os % FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. CONTENTS : Mi _ The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission Page on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in Fuly 1948 : Conclusions of Fourteenth Meeting (concluding portion) 543—648 a 2 Conclusions of (Informal) Fifteenth Meeting 649—651 . | LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by tke International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1950 Price One pound, twelve shillings, (All rights reserved) combination “ Papilio ascanius ”) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) validated, under the plenary powers VOL. 4a . 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. — - 543 name aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775. This would create great confusion, for not only was the latter name universally applied to the species in question, but, in addition, the trivial name aristolochiae had given its name to one of the principal groups into which for many years the species of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 (sensu lat.) had been habitually divided. Dr. Corbet accordingly asked that the trivial hame ascanius Linnaeus, 1768, should be suppressed by the Commission under their plenary powers. Before, however, the position of the name aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, could be regarded as assured, it was necessary also to safeguard it against a possible threat under Article 35 (Law of Homonymy), for Esper [1780], writing of the common European Zerynthiid (which he had referred to under the name of Papilio polyxena [Schiffermiiller and Denis], 1775) had cited as a synonym the name Papilio aristolochiae, which he stated had been given to that species by Pallas. The long quotation from Pallas given by Esper, coupled with the locality ‘‘ Das siidliche Russland” strongly suggested that this name had appeared somewhere in that author’s Reise Prov. russisch. Reich. The most careful search of the three volumes of that work had, however, failed to trace the place where that name had been published. The first volume of Pallas’s Reise had been published in 1771, and there was thus a possibility that the name Papilio aristolo- chiae Pallas had priority over, and therefore invalidated, the name Papilio aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, with which the present application was primarily concerned. In order to safeguard the position against the foregoing danger, Dr. Corbet had asked the Commission to use their plenary powers to suppress the trivial name aristolochiae Pallas (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aristolo- cae) if, and in so far as, that name had been published by Pallas prior to the publication in 1775 of the trivial name aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 (in the same binominal combination). Turning to the later history of the trivial hame ascanius as used in the genus Papilio Linnaeus, Dr. Corbet had pointed out that in 1775 Cramer had used this name for a South American species, which ever since had been known by that name. Dr. Corbet asked that, in the interest of stability in nomenclature, the Commission should use their plenary powers to validate the use of this trivial name for that species, even though it was not altogether clear whether, in using that name, Cramer had looked upon himself as introducing a new name or as applying to the species in question the earlier name ascanius Linnaeus, 1768 (as published in the same binominal com- bination), which (as now explained) it was desired that the Commission should suppress. 544 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that the present application had been drawn up by the late Dr. Corbet in consultation with himself and that it was on his suggestion that Dr. Corbet had added to that application the portion relating to the name Papilio aristolochiae Pallas, the reference to which by _ Esper he had discovered before the outbreak of war in 1939 when he had been making a systematic search of the older literature relating to the Sub-Order Rhopalocera. The late Dr. C. D. Sherborn, the late Dr. Corbet and himself had each spent many fruitless hours searching Pallas’s Reise for the place where the foregoing name had first been published. Nevertheless, it was quite possible that a later investigator might succeed in finding that name either in the Reise or in some other work written by Pallas. Time- consuming searches of this kind were one of the worst features of the Law of Priority, and for this reason also he felt that it was most desirable that the Commission should now use their plenary: powers to invalidate this name in so far as it might have been used by Pallas prior to the publication in 1775 for a different species of the same name (Papilio aristolochiae) by Fabricius. The Acting President added that this application had been advertised, but that the advertisement had elicited no adverse comments. This was only to be expected, for no responsible lepidopterist would wish to see current nomenclature disturbed by the resurrection of the two totally unknown names which formed the subject of the present application. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) supported the proposal. Great confusion would result if the name aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775, had to be discarded for the species to which it was universally applied. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress’ the trivial name ascanius Linnaeus, 1768 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ascanwus) ; (b) in so far as such use might be necessary, to suppress the trivial name aristolochiae Pallas (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aristolochiae), prior to the publication by Esper in [1780] of an. extract, containing this name, from some work by Pallas ; Zimmermann von), 1777, “ Bieciméi Zoologiae -geographicae ’ declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes ;_ Zimmermann, 1778-1783, ** Geographische Geschichte ”, _ declared an — available work Vou 4 G2 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 545 (c) to validate the undermentioned trivial names :— aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aristolochiae) ascanius Cramer [1775] (as published in the _ bmominal combination Papilio ascanius) ; (2) to place on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” the trivial names specified in (1)(a) and (1)(b) above ; (3) to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” the trivial names specified in (1)(c) above ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 41. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)182, containing an application submitted by the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago) that the Commission should give a ruling that in the work entitled “‘ Specimen Zoologiae geographicae, Quadrupedum domicilia et migra- tiones sistens,” published in 1777, Zimmermann (E. A. W. von) had not complied with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 and therefore that no new name which first appeared in the above work possessed availability under the Régles as from the date of being so published.’ At the same time Dr. Osgood had asked for a ruling in the opposite sense as regards the later work published by the same author in the period 1778-1783 under the title Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten vierfiissigen Thiere, nebst einer hieher gehérigen zoologischen Weltcharte. Dr. Osgood had explained that, although these. works were similar to one another, the earlier being written in Latin and the later in German, they were quite distinct and separate works, the Geschichte not being (as had sometimes been alleged) merely a translation of the Specimen Zoologiae geographicae. In spite of the arguments advanced by Allen (1902), specialists had continued to regard the Specimen Zoologiae geographicae of 1777 as a work in which Zimmermann had not complied with the requirements of Article 25 and had accordingly rejected new names published in that work. It would be helpful if the Commission were to place on record that. this view of the status of new names in the Specimen Zoologiae was correct. On the other hand, Zimmermann’s Geschichte had 546 Later reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 43) International Commassion on Zoological Nomenclature. been accepted by mammalogists and the new names published in it were in general use. In this case, too, Dr. Osgood asked the Commission to confirm current practice and to give a ruling that the Geschichte of Zimmer- mann complied with the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that new names in that work were available under the Régles as from the date of being so published. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) explained that the present application arose indirectly out of a-much earlier application relating to the status of the name Dama virginiana as published by Zim- mermann in 1780 in the Geschichte. This question had been submitted to the Commission by Dr. Marcus W. Lyon, Jr. (Washington, D.C.) as long ago as 1915. No decision had ever been taken by the Commission on this application, which had only come to light when, consequent on his (the Acting President’s) election as Secretary to the Comntission, the surviving records of the Commission had been transferred to his custody. It was with the object of making some progress in this case that in 1944 he had applied to the late Dr. Osgood for assistance and advice. It was in his reply on this subject that Dr. Osgood had submitted the present application, taking the view that it was much more important that the Commission should give general rulings on questions relating to books of doubtful status than that it should consider the question of the availability of individual names published in such works. He (the Acting President) shared Dr. Osgood’s view that it was important that the Commission should concentrate its attention on general questions, the settlement of which would (as in the present case) clarify the position as regards the status of all the new names published in a work, the ~ status of which, under the Régles, had been a subject of discussion among interested specialists. It was not possible, however, on that account, for the Commission to ignore applications submitted to them in regard to the status of individual names first published in such works. “The proper course was first to take a decision on the question of principle involved ; second, in the light of that decision, to give a ruling in regard to the status of the individual name: concerned. He proposed, therefore, that consideration of Dr. Lyon’s application in regard to the status of the name Dama virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, should be deferred until the Commission had reached decisions on the status of the work (Geographische Geschichte) in which that name had been published by Zimmermann, and of the work entitled Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere, published by Frisch (J. L.) in 1775 (Later reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 42) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 547 (on which also an application had been submitted by the late Dr. Osgood), in which the name Dama had been used by Frisch two years earlier than by Zimmermann (1777). Turning to the subject matter of the present application, the Acting President said that that great authority, the late Dr. C. D. Sherborn, had examined both the Specimen Zoologiae (1777) and the Geographische Geschichte (1780) of Zimmermann, and had concluded (Sherborn, 1902, Index Anim., Sectio prima : lvi) that the Specimen Zoologiae was not an available work under the Reégles, but that the Geographische Geschichte was so available. When, eight months ago (December, 1947), he had visited the United States, he had discussed Dr. Osgood’s application both with Dr. Remington Kellogg (United States Nationa] Museum, Washington, D.C.) and with Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum), both of whom were in agreement with the recommendations submitted by the late Dr. Osgood. He (the Acting President) had himself examined copies of both the works by Zimmermann in question and, as a result, fully shared the views of the authorities to whom he had just referred. He accordingly commended Dr. Osgood’s proposals to the Commission for their favourable consideration. IN DISCUSSION, the view was generally expressed that the proposals submitted by the late Dr. Osgood should be approved. There was unanimity among the eminent specialists who had been consulted regarding the status which should be accorded to the two works by Zimmermann covered by the present application. A decision in the sense proposed would be of value as eliminating doubts regarding the status of two works which had in the past been a subject of discussion and would have the further advantage of assuring mammalogists that the current general practice in regard to these books was in strict accord with the Régles. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the book by Zimmermann (A. E. W. von), published in 1777 under the title Specimen Zoologiae geographicae, Quadrupedum Domicilia et Migrationes sistens was not available for nomen- clatorial purposes under the Reégles, Zimmermann not having applied therein the principles of binominal nomenclature, as prescribed by Proviso (b) to Article 25, and therefore that the names attributed to Zimmermann as from the foregoing work possessed no nomenclatorial status there- from ; 548 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (2) that in the book entitled Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein verbreiteten vierfiissigen Thiere, nebst einer hieher gehérigen zoologischen Weltcharte, published in the period 1778-1783, Zimmermann (A. E. W. von) had complied with the requirements of Article 25, that, in consequence, the foregoing work was available for nomenclatorial purposes, and that any new name, accompanied by an indication, published in it possessed status under the Régles as from the date of being so published ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) and (2) above. Frisch (J. L.),1775, 42. THE COMMISSION turned next to examine dey wievfausigen Commission File Z.N.(S.)254, containing the second part Thiere” declared of the application submitted by the late Dr. Wilfred H. pep pa Osgood (Chicago), narnely the request that the Commission purposes should give a ruling on the question of the availability of Passi: serene the new names published in 1775 in the work by Frisch Paris Session, (J. L.) entitled Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere. 14th Meeting, Dr. Osgood had explained that there was fairly general Conclesianiam agreement that in this work Frisch had not complied with the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that this work should not be accepted. Occasionally, however, an individual name published by Frisch was brought forward by some author, and in consequence a general ruling by the Commission on the availability of this work would be helpful. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that the status of this work had been con- sidered by the late Dr. C. D. Sherborn who had come to the conclusion that in it Frisch had not applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. He had therefore rejected it, when compikng his monumental Index Animalium (Sherborn, 1902, Index Anim. (Sectio Prima) : xxv). The same conclusion had been reached in an exhaustive study of the subject by Thomas and Miller : (1905). When he (the Acting President) had recently visited the United States, he had discussed the question of the availability of this work with Dr. Remington Kellogg (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) and with Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum), both of whom considered that Frisch’s work did not satisfy the requirements of the Régles and should be rejected. The Acting President added that he had him- self examined Frisch’s Natur-System and was in complete agreement with the authorities referred to above. He accordingly recommended the Commission to give a ruling ~ = ~ ia Dama »” Zimmerman, 1780, and the specific name “ Dama virginiana ” Zimmerman, 1780 (Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia) : consideration of status of, . postponed for additional information to be obtained 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. . 549 that this book was not available under the Régles. The more that the Commission gave rulings on the availability of books, the status of which was not absolutely self-evident and was. therefore open to question, the more they would serve to promote stability in the nomenclature of the groups . dealt with in such books. IN DISCUSSION, there was general agreement that the Commission should dispose of this case by giving a ruling that Frisch’s Natur-System was not an available work. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the book by Frisch (J. L.) published in 1775 under the title Das Natur-System der vierfiissigen There was not available for nomenclatorial purposes under the Reégles, Frisch not having applied therein the principles of binominal nomenclature, as prescribed by Proviso (b) to Article 25, and therefore that the names attributed to Frisch as from the foregoing work possessed no nomenclatorial status therefrom ; (2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) above. 43. THE COMMISSION reverted to the study of Commission File Z.N.(S.)182, containing an application submitted by Dr. Marcus W. Lyon, Jr. (Washington, D.C.), that the Commission should give a ruling on the question of the availability of the name Dama virginiana Zimmer- mann, 1780 (Geographische Geschichte, 2: 129), as the designation of the Virginian Deer. In submitting this inquiry, Dr. Lyon had furnished a quotation of the passage in Zimmermann’s work in which the name Dama virginiana had appeared, which showed that Zimmermann had documented this name, both by citing bibliographical references to descriptions of the species published by previous authors (Ray, Lawson, Pennant) and by himself giving a description of that species: Thus, the only question which arose in connection with this name was whether the work in which it was published was an acceptable work under Article 25 of the Régles. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that, in view of the decisions which the Com- mission had just taken regarding*the status of Frisch (1775), Zimmermann (1777) and Zimmermann (1780), the position under the Reégles of the specific name Dama virginiana had been completely clarified : (1) The decision 550 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 42) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 8th Meeting, Conclusion 4(3) ) on the Geographische Geschichte of Zimmermann (1780) made it clear that the specific name Dama virginiana was published in a work which came within the framework of the Régles and this, coupled with the fact that Zimmer- mann had then published a description for the species to which he applied this name, made it clear that the specific name Dama virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, possessed rights under the Law of Priority ; (2) the decision that the Natur-System of Frisch (1775) possessed no status under the Régles eliminated the reputed generic name Dama Frisch, 1775, from consideration and with it any doubt as to the availability of the generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1780. Continuing, the Acting President said that, while there was now no doubt that the generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1780, and the trivial name virginiana Zimmermann, 1780 (as published in the binominal com- bination Dama virginiana) were both available names under the Régles, there remained a question of quite a different order which he suggested should be considered by the Commission before these names were brought back into current literature from the oblivion in which they had lain for so long. The question here, to which his attention had been drawn by Mr. T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London),was that the acceptance of Dama Zimmermann, 1780, as the generic name (by monotypy) of the Virginia Deer would involve a confusing transfer of that generic name to the American list from the European list, in which this generic name (attributed to a later author) was in use for the European Fallow Deer. In these circumstances, the Acting President felt that this case was essentially similar to the class of cases covered by the Recommandation which (at the jomt meeting of the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature held on the forenoon of Friday, 23rd July, 1948) it had been agreed to insert in the Régles urging authors, on discovering, inter alia, that the type species of some genus of importance in applied biology was some species other than that commonly accepted as such, to report the case at once to the Commis- sion for such action as they might consider proper, and in the meanwhile to refrain from using the generic name in the sense so found to be correct until such time as the decision of the Commission was made known. IN DISCUSSION general agreement was expressed with the view that before the generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1780, was transferred from the European Fallow Deer to tlfe Virginia Deer of America, it was desirable that the Commission should be given an opportunity of considering whether confusion was likely to result therefrom and there- fore whether the use of the plenary powers was called for, 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 551 THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) (2) (3) (4) that, having regard to the decisions just taken (a) that Zimmermann, 1780, Geographische Geschichte was an available work but (b) that Frisch, 1775, Das Natur-System was to be rejected as an unavailable work, the undermentioned names, each having been published with a description or an indication, were available names in the Class Mammalia (Order Ungulata) :— (a) the generic name Dama Zimmermann, 1780 ; (b) the trivial name virginiana Zimmermann, 1780 (as published in the binominal com. bination Dama virginiana) ; having regard to the representations received as to the confusion to be expected if the generic name Dama was now to be transferred from the Fallow Deer of Europe to the Virginia Deer of America, to examine as quickly as possible, in conjunction with interested specialists, the question whether the degree of confusion likely to result from the foregoing transfer was such as to call for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers to secure the continued employment of the generic “name Dama in its accustomed sense : to invite the Secretary to the Commission, by publishing the foregoing decision in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and otherwise, to obtain as rapidly as possible the views of interested specialists on the question of the future status to be accorded to the generic name Dama Zimmer- mann, 1780, and the specific name Dama virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, with a view to a decision being taken by the Commission thereon with as little further delay as possible : to recommend specialists to refrain from trans- ferring the generic name Dama from the Fallow Deer of Europe to the Virginia Deer of America, pending the outcome of the examination of the issues involved as agreed upon in (2) above, and to request the Secretary to convey this reeommenda- tion to specialists when making the consultations referred to in (3) above, 552 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Meigen (J. G.), 1800, “ Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes ” (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) : (1) Report by the Secretary regarding ; (2) future procedure on, determined 44. THE COMMISSION examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)191, containing the correspondence which since the Session held by the Commission at Lisbon in 1935 had passed between the Secretary to the Commission and specialists in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) in regard to the generic names in that Order published by Meigen in 1800 in the pamphlet entitled Nouvelle Classification des _ Mouches a deux Ailes. In the same file also were the notes relating to the discovery by the Secretary that the Hendel (1908) transcript of Meigen’s diagnoses of the genera established in the Nouvelle Classification, on which (owing to the extreme rarity of Meigen’s pamphlet) practically every dipterist who had taken part during the last 30 years in discussions on the Meigen (1800) names had had to tely, contained a number of errors, some at least of which were of substance from the point of view of interpreting Meigen’s intentions. It was this discovery which had led the Secretary to the Commission to seek the approval of the Council of the Zoological Society of London for the publica- tion in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the facsimile reproduction of the fine copy of Meigen’s pamphlet possessed by the Society, which appeared in 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 1: 119-160, together with a covering note by the Secretary to the Commission drawing attention to the discrepancies between Hendel’s transcript and the original version, as published by Meigen. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said that in its main ofttlinés the problem presented by the Meigen names of 1800 was extremely simple. It was the way in which this problem had been handled by the _Commission that was mainly responsible for the present lack of uniformity in the nomenclature of the Order Diptera, though this result had been contributed to also by a certain lack of initiative shown by dipterists themselves, who had not sufficiently realised that in a disputed matter of this kind finality could be achieved only by obtaining from the Commission a definitive decision in regard to each of the names concerned. For over 100 years after its publication, Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification had been ignored by dipterists, very few of whom had ever seen a copy or were even aware of its existence. In 1908, however, this pam- phlet had sprung into the limelight when Hendel had published a transcript of the diagnoses published in it by Meigen and had advanced a claim that these names should be ‘accepted in place of other long-established names published by Meigen himself in 1803. The immediate reception of Hendel’s paper was on the whole very critical, but it was not long before it became clear that the Meigen 14th M eeting, Paris, July, 1948. 553 names of 1800 were likely to cause serious disagreement among specialists and consequent confusion in the generic nomenclature of the important Order Diptera. Accordingly, at this stage the late Dr. J. M. Aldrich invited the Com- mission to give a ruling on the admissibility of these names. The availability of these names could not be impugned on the ground that they had been published without a descrip- tion, diagnosis or indication, for Meigen had given a concise diagnosis for each of them. Nor could these names be challenged on the ground that Meigen had not cited species by name for the genera which he there established, for there were large numbers of genera in other parts of the Animal Kingdom which had been established in exactly the same way and were universally accepted. The extreme rarity of Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification had, however, suggested that the names contained in this pamphlet had not been duly published (‘ divulgués dans une publication ’’) within the meaning of Article 25 and that possibly therefore those names might be ruled as unavailable on this account. This aspect of the problem had been care- fully considered by the Commission who had come to the conclusion that, on the evidence available, this pamphlet must be accepted as having been duly published. The Commission had accordingly adopted an Opinion (Opinion 28, published in 1910) that the generic names in Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification must be regarded as available under the Reégles. In most cases of this kind, such a decision would have cleared the way for the im- mediate introduction of the names in question and, after the inevitable disturbance had subsided, for the restoration ‘of stability in the nomenclature of the group concerned. This did not happen in the present case, for, apart from the fact that some workers refused to accept the ruling given in Opinion 28, many of those who desired to regulate their work in accordance with the Régles had found difficulty in so doing owing to the lack of guidance at that time as to the method to be followed in selecting the type species of a genus originally established with no included species cited by name. Not long afterwards, however, this subject was considered by the Commission, and it might therefore have been hoped that difficulties under this head would then have disappeared. Unfortunately, the ambiguous and obscure Opinion (Opinion 46) rendered by the Commission on this subject, instead of simplifying this problem greatly added to its complexity. As was only to be expected, those workers who wished both to observe the Regles and also to avoid using the Meigen names of 1800 were not slow to take advantage of the weaknesses of Opinion 46 in arguing against the acceptance of the “ Meigen ( 1800) ’’ names on the ground 554 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous references: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 39 ; 12th Meeting, Conclusion 30) (Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 15) that it was not possible under that Opinion to recognise the originally included species, from which alone the type species could be selected. Discussions on these lines had continued right up to the present time, it being only during the present Session that it had been agreed to simplify and make self-consistent the interpretation of Article 30 given in Opinion 46, on that interpretation, as amended, being incorporated into the Régles, Opinion 46 at the same time being repealed for interpretative purposes. It was largely: for the reasons described above that no progress was made during the inter-war years in resolving the difficulties created by the recognition of the availability of the “Meigen (1800)”’ names. But in part also this lack of progress was due to a projected movement among certain dipterists (mainly in Europe) to seek the suppression of these names by the Commission under their plenary powers. This movement came to a head at the meeting of the International Congress of Entomology held in Paris in 1932. That Congress, however, gave no support to that movement, adopting instead, by a majority, a resolu- tion asking the Commission to give a ruling that the Meigen names of 1800 should now be brought into use. This resolution was considered by the Commission at its Session held at-Lisbon in 1935. The Commission had then rightly felt that they could not properly deal with this question in this wholesale way, without any investigation regarding either the validity of the type selections made for the genera concerned, or the weight to be attached to special considera- tions of other kinds involved in the case of particular names. The Commission had accordingly adopted an Opinion (Opinion 152) in which they had at the same time reaffirmed their previous decision (Opinion 28) that under the Régles account must be taken of the Meigen names of 1800 and had invited specialists who were of the opinion that the adoption of any given one of those names would lead to confusion to submit an application, with supporting data, for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers to suppress the name in question in favour of the name generally in use. The Commission had hoped that, by this means, it would be possible within a short period to stabilise the nomenclature of the genera concerned. In this hope, the Commission had, however, been disappointed, as the result largely of the continuing difficulties experienced in interpreting Opinion 46, the importance of which in this connection they had underestimated when they considered this question at Lisbon. For this reason and also. because of the difficulties created by the war, no effective progress had been made since the Lisbon Session of 1935. Opinion 152 had, however, elicited two applications : (1) an applica- i (Previous reference: Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 8) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 555 tion from Dr. John Smart (then of the British Museum (Natural History), London), for the use of the plenary powers to preserve certain generic names which were the type genera of families but which (it was agreed) were due to be sunk in synonymy in favour of corresponding “ Meigen (1800) ” names, unless the plenary powers were used to prevent this from happening ; (2) an application from Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) for the suppression of the name Titania Meigen, 1800, in favour of the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803. The receipt of these applications was an encouraging sign, and he (the Acting President) proposed that these applica- tions should be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature as soon as might be practicable, with a view to decisions being taken by the Commission thereon with as little further delay as possible. It was essential that the Commission should not allow this question to drift in- definitely through fear of giving offence in one quarter or another (as unfortunately they had for so long done in the case of the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, in the Class Aves). On the other hand, it was extremely important that, short of falling into such delays, the Commission should do everything possible both to ascertain the views of interested specialists and to promote unity among them on the questions at issue. With this end in view, he (the Acting President) had taken advantage of his recent visit to the United States to discuss the Meigen problem with interested specialists and since his return he had held similar discussions with specialists in Europe, in the hope of devising some agreed formula which could be applied in determining whether a given “ Meigen (1800 )” name should he accepted or on the contrary rejected under the plenary powers. He was bound to report that no results of practical value had so far emerged from these discussions. Continuing, the Acting President said that he had come to the conclusion that the proper course for the Commission . now to adopt would be to take decisions as promptly as possible on applications submitted in accordance with ‘ Opinion 152. In each case, they should take steps to ascertain the extent to which the ‘‘ Meigen (1800) ” name in question was already in current use (in the sense which would result from the assumption that the first species selected as the type species was, in fact, the type species), and the degree of disturbance, if any, which the general acceptance of that name would involve. Having done so, the Commission should, he recommended, either decide in. favour of the adoption of the ‘“ Meigen (1800) name concerned (by formally rejecting a proposal for its sup- International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. pression) or should use their plenary powers either to vary the type species of the genus so named or to suppress that name in favour of the corresponding Meigen name of 1803. In each case the decision taken should depend upon the action necessary, in the opinion of the Commission, to avoid confusion and promote stability. Every name so accepted, either with or without resort to the plenary powers, should then be placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” the corresponding rejected name being at the same time placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.” Prompt decisions on applications submitted under Opinion 152 would settle once and for all the question whether the “‘ Meigen (1800) ” name concerned should be the correct name for the genus in question, and the decision reached, whatever its nature, would stabilise the name to be applied thereafter to that genus. The Commission, he recommended, should begin by dealing as promptly as possible with the applications already received from Dr. Smart and Dr. Sabrosky. In addition, they should do everything in their power to promote the submission of further proposals. With this end in view, he proposed, as Chairman of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London, to recommend the Diptera Sub-Committee of that Committee (the work of which had been brought to a virtual standstill through doubts regarding the status to be accorded to the relevant “ Meigen (1800) ” names) to ask the Society to seek rulings from the Commission on each of the Meigen names which affected the British List. He was hopeful that, once some degree of progress had been made on these lines, specialists interested in securing stability in the generic nomenclature of other groups in the Order Diptera would be attracted to submit further similar applications, until eventually the names of all the genera concerned had been stabilised through being placed on the “ Official List.”’ ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) said that, from his contacts with specialists, he was satisfied that there was today a much greater desire than ever before among dipterists, especially among the younger workers, to see an end put to the fruitless controversy which for over 30 years had done so much harm to the nomenclature of this Order. There was also a much greater willingness to sink individual preferences in the interests of the general good. He considered, therefore, that the Secretary should be encouraged to continue his efforts to promote a solution-of this difficult 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 557 problem. He was in agreement with the specific proposals in regard to procedure submitted by the Secretary, powers, if those powers had been invoked as soon as they had been granted to the Commission, had since been widely, though by no means tnanimously, used both in systematic and technical literature and in routine identifica- tions by entomological institutions, with the result that any application for the use of the plenary powers to suppress those names would today present features which would have been absent if a corresponding application had been made 30 years earlier. It was generally agreed that, as suggested @ generation earlier had been so severely impaired by the discovery of Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification, THE COMMISSION :— (1) took note of the Report submitted by the Secretary to the Commission on the discussions - which had taken place since their Session held at * Lisbon in 1935, for the purpose of devising means for stabilising that part of the generic nomencla- ture of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) which had been thrown into confusion as the result of the controversy which had arisen consequent upon the publication in 1908 of the paper in which Hendel had claimed to have recognised the genera for which diagnoses had been published by Meigen in 1800 in the pamphlet entitled Nowvelle Class; Jication des Mouches a deux Ailes; (2) agreed :— (a) to take all practicable steps to promote the submission to the Commission of applica- tions under the provisions of Opinion 152 558 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (b) (c) regarding individual Meigen (1800) names which specialists desired either should be placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” or should be suppressed by the Commission under their plenary powers ; to reach decisions as rapidly as possible on all applications submitted in accordance with (a) above, on the basis of all available information relating to the degree of confusion to which the stabilisation or, as the case might be, the suppression of the Meigen (1800) names concerned would be likely to give rise, and, in particular, of data regarding the relative use (i) in systematic literature, (ii) in the literature of applied biology, and (iii) in routine identifications carried out by entomological institutions, of the Meigen (1800) names in question and the corresponding Meigen (1803) or other names, in successive recent periods, the plenary powers being used or withheld according to which course appeared likely to cause the least confusion and disturbance in current nomenclature ; where, in response to an application submitted in accordance with (a) above, the plenary powers were used to suppress a Meigen (1800) name, to place that name forthwith on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology,” and at the same time to place on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” whichever name (whether a Meigen (1803) or another) became thereby the oldest available name for, and therefore the valid name of, the genus concerned ; where, in response to an application sub- mitted in accordance with (a) above, the Commission refused to use its plenary powers to suppress a Meigen (1800) name, to place the name concerned on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” at the same time placing on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” the name, the application for the validation of which under the plenary powers had been refused. Individual problems of zoological nomenclature on which decisions had been taken during the present (14th) Meeting of the Commjssion : Report on, to be submitted to the Section on Nomenclature VOL. 4H 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 559 45. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that, now that the Commission had examined Commission File Z.N.(S.)191 (relating to the discussions in regard to the problem of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta), published by Meigen in 1800, which had taken place since this matter had been considered by the Commission at Lisbon in 1935), they had completed the examination of all the Commission Files which he had brought with him to Paris for their considera- tion, with the exception of Commission File Z.N.(8.)143 (relating to certain serious errors in Opinion 104 in regard to the nomenclature of the human malaria parasites), which he proposed to bring before the Commission a little later during the present meeting. The present, therefore, seemed an appropriate moment at which to report to the Section on Nomenclature the decisions taken by the Commission during the present meeting in regard both to the individual nomenclatorial problems, the applications relating ‘to which had been published in Parts 10 and 11 of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and also to the similar cases dealt with in the Commission files which the Commission had just examined. As the present meeting of the Commission was being held jointly with a meeting of the Section and the decisions taken by the Commission on all the individual cases in question had been taken unanimously by the Commission in full agreement with the other members of the Section present, the Report now to be submitted would be purely formal. Nevertheless, such a Report should be submitted, in order that it might be on record that the cases in question had been submitted by the Commission to the Section for their approval. - THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to report to the Section on Nomenclature the decisions reached on the undermentioned indi- vidual problems of zoological nomenclature and to seek the approval of the Section therefor :— (a) the problems dealt with in the applications published in Parts 10 and 11 of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Conclusions 2-12 and 14-21) ; (b) the problems dealt with in the Commission Files examined by the Commission (Con- clusions 23-44) ; (2) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, forthwith to submit to the Section on Nomenclature the Report referred to in (1) above. 560 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Reissues of “* Opinions ” 1-16: examination (1} of comments on interpretations of the “ Regles ” given in, and (2) of certain proposals for further action submitted either in “‘ Editorial Notes ” attached to, or in footnotes added to (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 9) . on Zoological Nomenclature.” (The Acting President thereupon submitted the foregoing Report to the Section on Nomenclature.) 46. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) proposed that the Commission should now turn their attention to the commentaries on certain of the earher Opinions contained in ‘“ Editorial Notes” written by himself as Secretary to the Commission at the time when those Opinions (which had long been out of print and in consequence were virtually unobtainable) had been republished in Volume | of the work entitled ‘‘ Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission As the Commission would recall, he (the Acting President) had already referred to these “ Editorial Notes’? when they had had under consideration the proposals for the codification of the interpretations of the Régles given in Opinions which had been submitted in Commission Paper I.C.(48)10. For the reasons explained, these “ Editorial Notes”? had been a step in the right direction, but, as he had then observed, they inevitably suffered from the disadvantage that, however obvious the points made in them in any given case, the points so made were points made by a single individual and lacked therefore the value which they would command if they had been issued as the considered views of the Commission as a body. As he had pointed out, the codification of the interpretation of the Régles as recom- mended in Paper I.C.(48)10 would render such ‘‘ Editorial Notes ” unnecessary, for, after codification, the Opinions themselves would cease to have any but a historical value and it would be not only unnecessary but positively wrong in future to look to these Opinions for guidance as to the interpretation of the Regles. The comments in the “« Editorial Notes ” attached to the reissues of the Opinions in question were of two kinds: first, there were notes concerned with the interpretation of the Regles given in the Opinions concerned ; second, there were notes con- taining proposals for further action by the Commission in regard to individual nomenclatorial questions either dealt with directly in the Opinions in questions or arising in connection with the discussion of those Opinions. The decisions taken by the Commission during the present Session for the codification of the interpretations of the Régles given in these Opinions covered all the points relating to matters of interpretation raised in these ‘‘ Editorial Notes’ with the exception of that raised in Note 5 to the reissue of Opinion 4, which was concerned with the scope of the ruling given in that Opinion in regard to the status of names which, prior to being published, had existed only as manuscript names. One of the questions 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 561 relating to individual nomenclatorial questions raised in these “ Editorial Notes ” (the question of the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758) had also been settled by the Commission during the present Session. The Acting President proposed that the Commission should now examine the question of interpretation raised in Note 5 to Opinion 4 and that, having done so, they should consider those of the “ Editorial Notes ” relating to individual nomenclatorial questions which had not already been considered during the present Session. He suggested that included among these questions should be the problem of the status of names published in 1758 in the Geslachten der Vogelen of Nozeman and Vosmaer, reports on which by President Karl Jordan had been reproduced in a footnote to the reissue of Opinion 5. THE COMMISSION agreed :— to examine, in turn, the undermentioned questions raised either in “ Editorial Notes ” attached to, or in footnotes inserted in, the reissues of Opinions 1-16 (1944-1947, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1: 73-304), with a view to reaching decisions on the questions so raised :— (a) Note 5 to the reissue of Opinion 4 on the subject of the scope of the decision in that Opinion in regard to the status of names which, prior to being published, existed only as manuscript names ; (b) Footnote 10 to the reissue of Opinion 5, con- taining Reports prepared by President Karl Jordan on the question of the availability of names as published in 1758 in the Geslachten der Vogelen of Nozeman and Vosmaer ; (c) Notes 3 and 5-8 to the reissue of Opinion 13, containing recommendations for the adoption of :— (i) an Opinion on the availability of names in the edition of Mark Catesby’s Natural _ History of Carolina edited by George Edwards and published in 177] : (ii) an Opinion on the availability of names published in 1778 in Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum; (ui) an Opinion relating to the trivial name of the Sand Crab, correcting the errors in Opinion 13 and cancelling that Opinion; ; vou 4? or (=P) bo Article 25: question whether, when an author, on publishing a manuscript name or republishing with an indication a name previously published as a “nomen nudum”, omits expressly to state that he is so doing, that omission is material to the status of the name so published or republished, clarification of position regarding (Previous reference: Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 18) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (d) Notes 3-5 to the reissue of Opinion 16 regarding certain generic names discussed in that Opinion but on which the Commission then gave no ruling as to the species severally to be accepted as the type species of the genera concerned ; Note 7 attached to the reissue of Opinion 16 on the need for the use of the Commission’s plenary powers to validate the entry in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” of Taenia soliwm Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cestoidea), made under the authority of Opinion 84, notwithstanding the fact that, as pointed out in Opinion 16, the type species of that genus under the Reégles was Taenta vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy. — oO ~— 47. THE COMMISSION examined Note 5 attached to the reissue in 1944 of Opinion 4 (relating to the status of names published as manuscript names), in which the Secretary to the Commission had drawn attention to the fact that, although the title of that Opinion (“ The status of names published as manuscript names ”’) suggested that the decision there given applied only to those cases in which an author, when publishing a name, expressly stated that that name was a manuscript name, it was clear from the form of words employed in the “summary” of that Opinion (‘‘ Manuscript names acquire standing in nomen- clature when printed in connection with the provisions of Article 25 ...”’) that in fact the ruling in that Opinion applied to all manuscript names when published with an indication, definition or description by a binominal author, irrespective of whether or not that author expressly stated that the name which he is publishing is a manuscript name. In discussion it was generally agreed that it was desirable that in the provision which it had been agreed (at the meeting noted in the margin) should be inserted in the Régles to give effect (in a suitably corrected form) to the interpretation of Article 25 given in Opinion 4 words should be inserted to make it clear that it was immaterial for the purposes of that provision whether an author who published a name which had previously existed only as a manuscript name expressly stated or not that he was so doing. It was desirable also that it should be made clear that the same principle applied in cases where an author published with an indication, definition or description a yame previously published as a nomen nudum. It was pointed out that in the older literature it frequently happened Article 25: publication of names which had previously existed - aS manuscript names and the republication of names previously published only as * nomina nuda,” addition of a “Recommandation” condemning 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 563 that a manuscript name, when published, was attributed by the author by whom it was published to the author by whom it had been originally proposed in manuscript, either because he was not aware that in fact that name had never been published by its original author or out of a mistaken idea that, by so doing, it might be possible to link that author’s name with the name in question, now that it had at last been published. Similarly, some authors, when republishing with an indication, definition or description a name which had previously been published as a nomen nudum, attributed the name in question to the author by whom it had previously been published as a nomen nudum. It would be well that the decision now to be taken should apply to such cases also. THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in the provision which, on the recommendation of the Commission (at the 6th Meeting (Conclusion 18) of their Paris Session), it had now been agreed to insert in Article 25 of the Reégles to give effect to the decision embodied in Opinion 4, making it clear that it was immaterial for the purpose of that provision whether an author, when publishing a manuscript name or republishing with an indication (including the citation of the name in question in the synonymy of a species or subspecies having a validly published name), definition or description a name previously published only as a nomen nudum, ex- pressly states that he is so doing or whether an author publishing or, as the case may be, republishing, such a name attributes that name to some previous author in the erroneous belief that that name had been validly published by that author or as a tribute to the author by whom the name in question had been originally proposed either in manuscript or published as a nomen nudum. 48. In the course of the discussion recorded in Conclusion 47 above, the view was expressed that the publication of names which had previously existed only as manuscript ‘names and of names which had previously been published only as nomina nuda was calculated to cause confusion and should therefore be avoided, save in exceptional circum- stances where there existed some special reason which made the publication of such a name desirable. THE COMMISSION agreed :—- (1) to recommend that a Recommandation should be inserted in Article 25 of the Régles strongly condemning (a) the publication of names which 564 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. had previously existed only as manuscript names and (b) the republication of names which had previously been given an irregular currency through having been published as nomina nuda, and urging any author who might consider that for some special reason it was important that such a name should be published or, as the case may be republished, expressly to draw attention to the action which he was taking ; (2) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, forthwith to report to the Section on Nomenclature the reeommenda- tion specified in (1) above, together with the recommendation for the clarification of the provisions in the Reégles in relation to the status of names which, prior to being published, had existed only as manuscript names, and of names which, prior to being published with an indication, definition or description, had previously been published as nomina nuda, recorded in Conclusion 47 above. (The Acting President thereupon submitted the foregoing recommendations to the Section on Nomenclature.) Article 21 : 49. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS authorship of HEMMING) recalled that at their meeting held on the names and the = evening of Friday, 23rd July, 1948, the Commission had adopted inciting | made a survey of the position as regards the 17 applications auihers once: submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (University of steiiteat aac pie Toulouse, France) and had agreed, as regards those of the regarding proposals in question on which decisions had not at that time been taken, that certain of those proposals should be considered at a later meeting during the present Session, with a view to decisions being taken thereon, while others should be remitted for further study after the close of the present Session. The Commission had now taken decisions on all the applications in question which it had then been agreed should be dealt with during the present Session, with the exception of Professor Bonnet’s Proposition 13, which he accordingly now invited the Commission to consider. In this proposition Professor Bonnet had — recommended that words should be inserted in the Régles prescribing the criteria to be adopted in determining the authorship of a new name published in a joint paper by two or more authors, in those cases where it was clearly stated in the paper that the description of the taxonomic unit to which a given new name was applied was the - exclusive’ work of one only of the authors concerned, — oF ae a ae 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 565 Professor Bonnet had proposed that a provision should be inserted in the Régles prescribing that in a case such as that indicated above, where a paper was the joint product of two authors (authors “A” and “B”) and the paper contained clear evidence that the description of all or of certain specified taxonomic units there named for the first time was the exclusive work of one only of the authors concerned (say author “ B ””) the name or names in question were to be attributed to author “ B” (and not to authors “A” and “ B ” jointly) and were to be cited as having been named by author “ B” “ in‘ A’ and‘ B’,’” this attribution being followed in the ordinary way by the title of the joint book in which the name in question appeared or, as the case might be, the title of the serial in which the joint paper containing that name was published. Similarly, where the author of a book or paper (say author ‘“ A ’’) expressly states that the description of a taxonomic unit named therein for the first time was written by some other author (say author “(C”’), the name in question should be attributed to author ‘‘C”’, not to author “ A”, and should be cited as having been published by “‘C’ in‘ A’.” In discussion, it was agreed that it would be helpful if there were added to the Régles a provision such as that suggested by Professor Bonnet, for it would serve the useful purpose of giving formal recognition to the best current practice in this matter. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend that the following provisions should be added to Article 21 prescribing the method to be followed (i) in determining the authorship to be attributed to a name published in a book or paper written jointly by two or more authors and to a name published by one author in a book or paper written by another author, and (ii) in citing names so published :— (a) Where in a book or paper written jointly by two or more authors, it is clearly stated that one of those authors is exclusively respon- sible for the description of one or more specified taxonomic units there named, the name or names so published are to be attributed solely to the author stated to be responsible for the descriptions thereof and not jointly to both or all of the joint authors of the book or paper. The name of a taxonomic unit so described and named by an author “ B” in a paper written jointly 566 Nozeman & Vosmaer, 1758, “ Geslachten der Vogelen ” (a International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. by himself and one or more other authors (say, a paper written jointly by authors “A” and “B”’) is to be cited as having been published by “‘ B’ in‘ A’ and‘ B’” (b) Where in a book or paper written by one author (say author “ A ”’) it is clearly stated that the description of one or more specified taxonomic units there named has been prepared exclusively by some other author (say, author “C’’), the name or names in question are to be attributed to author “ C,” not to author “A.” The name of a taxonomic unit so described and named is to be cited by later authors as having ee published by “‘C’ in‘ A’.” (2) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, to report forthwith to the Section on Nomenclature the recommenda- tion recorded in (1) above. (The Acting President thereupon submitted the fore- going recommendations to the Section on Nomenclature.) 50. THE COMMISSION examined Footnote 10 to Note 4 of the ‘“‘ Editorial Notes ”’ attached to the reissue in 1944 of Opinion 5 relating to the status of names originally translation into published prior to 1758 (the starting-point of zoological Duich of a work by Moehring entitled nomenclature), when republished by a binominal author “Avium Genera” subsequent to 1757 (Opinions and Declarations rendered published in 1752): by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature declared not available for 1: 121-122), containing two Reports by President Karl nomenclatorial Jordan (United Kingdom) on the question of the availa- - Purposes bility of generic names published in 1758 by Nozeman and Vosmaer in a translation, entitled Geslachten der Vogelen of a work by P. H. G. Moehring entitled Avium Genera which had been published in 1752 (i.e. prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature, as defined by Article 26) (file Z.N.(S.)367, formerly file Z.N.(G.)24). ~~ President Jordan had shown in his Reports, which were illustrated by quotations from the Geslachten of Nozeman and Vosmaer and contained also a comparison of that work with the Aviwm Genera of Moehring, that in their Geslachten Nozemann and Vosmaer had not re-inforced, by adoption or acceptance, the generic names published by Moehring in 1752. These names, as published by Nozeman and Vosmaer thus failed to satisfy the requirements laid down in the Commission’s Opinion 5, and hence possessed no status under the Régles, as from the date of being so published, 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 567 THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) explained that the question of the availability of generic names as published by Nozeman and Vosmaer in 1758 had arisen when, as Secretary to the Commission, he (the Acting President) had been engaged in the preparation of the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” for publication in book form. For when he had examined from this point of view the entries on the “ Official List” in regard to the generic names Coturnir Bonnaterre, 1790, and Grus Pallas, 1766 (placed on the “Official List” in Opinions 67 and 103 respectively), he had found that, if Nozeman and Vosmaer’s Geslachten der Vogelen was an available work, each of the above generic names was an invalid homonym of a generic name published by Nozeman and Vosmaer. On being consulted, President Jordan had kindly agreed to make a critical examination of Nozeman and Vosmaer’s Geslachten, with special reference to the question whether generic names published therein satisfied the tests laid down in Opinion 5 for the acceptance of pre-1758 names, when re-published by a binominal author after 1757. It was evident from the Reports furnished by President Jordan that Nozeman and Vosmaer’s Geslachten der Vogelen did not fulfil the require- ments laid down in Opinion 5 and therefore that new names published in that work possessed no status under the Régles as from the date of being so published. Continuing, the Acting President said that, during the war, he had had correspondence with Vice-President James L. Peters (U.S.A.), who, as an ornithologist, was anxious to be assured that the so-called generic names of Nozeman and Vosmaer were not available under the Régles; Dr. Peters explained that he had been informed by the late Commissioner L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) that the status of these names had already on a previous occasion formed the subject of consideration by the Commission. It might well be, the Acting President considered, that the late Com- missioner Stejneger’s recollection in this matter was correct, for he had been famed for his accurate and retentive memory. If so, this must have been one of the cases which in the past the Commission had at some time taken up, but on which they had never reached a decision. The generic names which appeared in Nozeman and Vosmaer’s Geslachten were not currently accepted by ornithologists, but they none-the-less constituted a potential cause of confusion and instability in ornithological nomenclature so long as there was no definite ruling by the Commission that they were to be rejected as possessing no status in zoological nomenclature as from the date of their having been so published. He (the Acting President) accordingly recom- 568 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Edwards’ edition (1771) of Catesby {M), “ Natural History of Carolina ” (status of names in): clarification of decision in “* Opinion ” 89 relating to mended that the Commission should now dispose of this problem by giving such a ruling. IN DISCUSSION there was general agreement that President Jordan had clearly established that the Geslachten der Vogelen of Nozeman and Vosmaer (1758) did not satisfy the requirements of Opinion 5 and therefore that names, as published in that work, possessed no status under the Régles. The action proposed met therefore with general approval. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the work published in 1758 under the title Geslachten der Vogelen, consisting of a translation — into Dutch by Nozeman and Vosmaer of the work entitled Aviwn Genera by Moehring (P.N.G.) originally published in 1752 (ie. before the starting-point of zoological nomenclature, as prescribed by Article 26) was not available under the Régles, Nozeman and Vosmaer not having reinforced the names contained therein by adoption or acceptance in the manner prescribed in Opinion 5, and therefore that those names possessed no status in zoological nomenclature as from the date of being so published ; (2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) above. 51. THE COMMISSION examined Notes 3 and 8 of the ‘Editorial Notes” attached to the reissue in 1947 of Opinion 13 containing a recommendation that, when (as there proposed) Opinion 13 was replaced by an amending Opinion, a separate Opinion should be rendered in regard to the status of names appearing in the edition of Mark Catesby’s Natural. History of Carolina, edited by George Edwards and pub- lished in 1771 (Hemming, 1947, in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1: 213-215, 227-232). In this note the Secretary to the Commission had pointed out that implicit in the decision given in Opinion 13 (regarding the trivial name of the Sand Crab) was a decision on a matter of general interest which should logically have been stated in express terms and embodied in a separate Opinion. The | decision in question was that Catesby’s names were not reinforced by adoption or acceptance when his Natural History of Carolina was edited and republished by George Edwards, and, in consequence, that these names, so re- published, did not thereby acquire any status under the re: =< 7 oe 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 569 Regles. Fifteen years after the publication in 1910 of Opinion 13 the late Commissioner David Starr Jordan (U.S.A.) had proposed that the plenary powers should be used to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes a number of early books, one of which was the Edwards edition (1771) of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina. The proposals so submitted were approved by the Commission on general grounds and without any detailed examination of the nomenclatorial status of the individual books in question. In their Opinion on this subject (Opinion 89), the Com- mission added after the words “ Under suspension of the rules”? the qualifying words ‘“‘in any case where such suspension may be considered necessary according to the interpretation now or hereafter adopted by the Com- mission,’ thus showing that, as regards some at least of the books suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the plenary powers in that Opinion, they entertained some doubt as to the need for the action so taken. As noted above, that action was entirely unnecessary in the case of the Edwards edition of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina, for already in 1910 (in Opinion 13) the Commission had taken the stand that the names used by Catesby in the original edition of the foregoing work published in the period 1731-1743 did not acquire status under the Régles in virtue of having been republished after the starting-point of zoological nomenclature in the edition prepared by Edwards and published in 1771. Thus, not even the conditional use in Opinion 89 of the plenary powers in regard to the Edwards edition of Catesby’s work was called for. As was well known, the use of the plenary powers at that time was confined to cases where there was absolute unanimity in the Commission in favour of such action. It appeared from the particulars of the voting on this case recorded at the close of Opinion 89 (published in 1925, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 3): 32-33) that, in voting in favour of the proposed Opinion, the late Commissioner L. Stejneger (U.S.A.) had done so subject to the express proviso that the proposed use of the plenary power was not to apply to the concordance prepared by Edwards, in which the equivalent Linnean names were giyen, which was appended to Volume 2 of the Edwards edition under the title ““ A Catalogue of the Animals and Plants repre- sented in Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina: With the Linnaean Names.” In a note added by the then Secretary to the Commission (: 33) in regard to Commissioner Stejneger’s reservation, that Officer had written: ‘‘ Com- missioner Stejneger’s reservation is interpreted by the Secretary as limiting the unanimous vote of the Commission in the case of Catesby 1771 so that the suspension does not 570 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. include the concordance.” This interpretation of the effect of Commissioner Stejneger’s reservation was un- doubtedly correct, but unfortunately it had not been recorded in the “ summary ”’ of Opinion 89, recording the decision taken on Commissioner D. §. Jordan’s application, with the result that the limitation imposed on the action then taken in regard to the Edwards edition of Catesby’s book had been frequently overlooked. At the close of the ‘ Editorial Notes ” to Opinion 13 now under consideration by the Commission, the present Secretary had suggested that, as part of the decision to cancel Opinion 13 (as there recommended) and to replace it by an Opinion-setting out the correct position in regard to the name of the Sand Crab, the Commission should render an Opinion also setting out the decision in regard to the Edwards edition of Catesby’s book implicitly laid down in Opinion 13. The juridical position as regards the names published in that book would thus be unaffected by the cancellation of Opinion 13. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that, since the time when, as Secretary to the Commission, he had prepared for the consideration of the Commission the “ Editorial Notes” now under _ examination, he had come to the conclusion that, in view (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusions 3 (3) (a) (ii)) of the decision taken by the Commission in Opinion 89 to use their plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes names used by Catesby in his pre-1758 Natural History of Carolina, as republished by Edwards in 1771, the position, as it had existed before that decision, had become a matter of academic interest only, and therefore that there was no need now for the Commission to render an Opinion restating the decision on this subject given implicitly in Opinion 13. It was desirable, however, in his view, that the Commission should render an Opinion clarifying the decision in regard to the Edwards (1771) edition of Catesby’s book given in Opinion 89, for it was misleading in the highest degree that there should be no express mention in that decision of the material limitation imposed thereon by the reservation attached to Commissioner Stejneger’s vote. It was essential that by one means or another such a clarifica- tion should be made before the decision in that Opinion was recorded in the Schedule which (as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin) was now to be added to the Reégles recording decisions taken by the Commission under their plenary powers. IN DISCUSSION, it was generally agreed that it was necessary that the decision in Opinion 89 should be clarified in the manner proposed, + re a a en Meuschen (F.C.), 1778, ‘“ Museum Gronovianum ” : declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 571 THE COMMISSION agreed :— to render an Opinion, supplementary to Opinion 89, making it clear :— (a) that the decision taken in Opinion 89 to use the plenary powers, in so far as that might be necessary, to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes the names which appeared in the edition of Mark Catesby’s pre-1758 work The Natural History of Carolina, edited by George Edwards and published in 1771, did not apply to the names employed in accordance with the Linnean system in the concordance of the Linnean nomenclature of the species concerned with the nomenclature used therefor by Catesby in the original edition of the foregoing work, given by Edwards in Volume 2 of the edition issued in 1771 under the title ““ A Catalogue of the Animals and Plants represented in Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina: With the Linnean Names ”’ ; (b) that, in view of (a) above, the names employed by Edwards in accordance with the Linnean system in the concordance referred to above, but not the names used by Catesby in the original pre-1758 edition of The Natural History of Carolina given in a second column in the same concordance, were available under the Regles as from 1771, the year in which the volume containing Edwards’ concordance was published. 52. THE COMMISSION examined :— (a) Note 7 of the “ Editorial Notes ” by the Secretary to the Commission attached to the reissue in 1947 of Opinion 13 relating to the trivial name of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), on the subject of the status to be accorded to names as published in 1778 in the Museum Gronovianum of Meuschen (F.C.) (Hemming, 1947, in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1: 219-227, 2 pls.) ; (b) the concluding portion of Note 8 attached to the foregoing reissue of Opinion 13, containing a recommendation submitted by the Secretary to the Commission that the Commission should give -# ruling that Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. was not available for nomenclatorial purposes (Hemming, 1947, in ibid. 1: 231). In the first of the foregoing notes, Secretary Hemming had recalled that one of the assumptions adopted by the late Miss Mary J. Rathbun (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) in her application for a ruling by the Commission on the question of the oldest available trivial name for the Sand Crab (dealt with in Opinion 13) had been that the trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1793 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) was not available for the Sand Crab, owing to its being a primary homonym of another trivial name quadratus, also originally published in the binomial combination Cancer quadratus. Two points had to be noted at this stage : (i) the name Cancer quadratus had been first given to the Sand Crab, not in 1793 (Ent. Syst.) (as stated in Miss Rathbun’s application to the Commission) but in 1787 (in the first volume of the Mantissa Insectorum) ; (ii) Miss Rathbun had not indicated the place of publication of the earlier binominal combination Cancer quadratus, which, in her view, rendered invalid that name as applied by Fabricius to the Sand Crab. In examining the issues involved in Opinion 13, the Secretary to the Commission had had therefore to ascertain whether, and if so where, the name Cancer quadratus had been published, either for the same or some other species, prior to the publication of the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787. Investigation had shown that the only place where such a name had been published was in Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum, issued in 1778. An examination of a copy of that very rare book had shown that it was a sale catalogue of the collection formed by Gronovius. Further, that examination had shown that the Museum Gronovianum had been printed for use by special persons only (7.e. by prospective purchasers of items in Gronovius’ collection), that it had been printed for a special occasion only (?.e. for use at the sale of the foregoing collection) and that it had not been prepared by Meuschen as a document to be used in the nature of a permanent scientific record. Thus, the Museum Gronovianum of Meuschen failed to satisfy any of the tests laid down in Opinion 51 as constituting the criteria to be adopted in deciding whether a given work had been duly published as required by Article 25. It followed, therefore, that Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum was not available under the Reégles for nomenclatorial purposes, and that no name which first appeared in it acquired any status under the Régles as the result of having so appeared. Secretary Hemming had recommended that, in order to obviate any further misunderstandings regarding the status of names m ee Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) : (1) the trivial name “ quadratus ” Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 573 Meuschen’s Museum Gronovianum, the Commission should give a ruling in the sense indicated above. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that, in view of the decision taken during the present Session that the expression “ nomenclature binaire.” as used up till then in the Régles had a meaning identical with the expression “ nomenclature binominale ” (by which it was now to be replaced), it was evident from this point of view also that the Museum Gronovianum of Meuschen failed to satisfy the requirements of the Regles and must therefore be rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED in discussion that the reproduction in facsimile of pages of the Museum Gron- ovianum contained in Secretary Hemming’s paper on this subject made it absolutely clear that in that work Meuschen had not applied the principles of binominal nomenclature (as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25) and therefore that the above work was not available under the Reégles. It was evident also that it had never been published in the sense of Article 25 and that for this reason also the Musewm Gronovianum. was not an available work, and that names, as appearing in it, possessed no status in zoological nomenclature. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the work by Meuschen (F. C.) issued in 1788 under the title Musewm Gronovianum, was not available for nomenclatorial purposes under the Reégles (a) because (by having been printed for special persons only and for a special occasion only, and not having been issued as a document to be used in the nature of a permanent scientific record) it could not be regarded as having been duly published within the meaning of Article 25, and (b) because in this work Meuschen had not applied the principles of binominal nomenclature, as prescribed in Proviso (b) to the aforesaid Article, and therefore no name acquired any rights under the Régles by reason of having appeared in the above work ; (2) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) above. 53. THE COMMISSION examined Notes 5 to 8 attached to the reissue in 1947 of Opinion 13 (relating to the trivial name of the Sand Crab), in which the Secretary to the Commission drew attention to certain defects in the foregoing Opinion and recommended that it should be 574 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. binominal combina~ replaced by a new Opinion based upon the additional tion “‘ Cancer quadratus ”) the oldest available trivial name for ; (2) “ Opinion ” 13 to be cancelled as incorrect ; (3) a revised “ Opinion ” to be rendered when views of specialists have been obtained on action desirable (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 52) information now available (Hemming, 1947, in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1: 216-232, 2 pls.). In these notes Secretary Hemming had drawn attention to the following considerations : (i) the statement that the trivial name arenarius as published by Edwards in 1771 in the binominal combination Cancer arenarius, was (for the reasons there given) not available for the Sand Crab, was incomplete and misleading, for even if the reasons given in Opinion 13 had not been applicable, the name Cancer arenarius Edwards, 1771, would nevertheless have been invalid, that name being a junior primary homonym of the name Cancer arenarius Toreen, 1765, a name which had been given to an entirely different species ; (11) the trivial name guadratus Fabricius (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus), the next trivial name to be given to the Sand Crab, had been first published in 1787 (in volume 1 of the Mantissa Insectorum), not (as stated in Opinion 13) in 1793 (ie. in the Entomologia systematica) ; (iii) the statement in Opinion 13 that the trivial name quadratus Fabricius (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) was invalid on the ground that it was a junior primary homonym of another trivial name quadratus (also published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) was incorrect, for the only previous occasion on which this trivial name had appeared in print in the foregoing binominal combi- nation was in 1778 in Meuschen’s Museum Grovovianum, a work which did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25, appearance in which therefore conferred no status on any name not previously published. It appeared from the foregoing considerations that, contrary to the statement contained in Opinion 13, the trivial name quadratus Fabricius (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus and attributed not to the Ent. syst. (1793) but to the Mant. Ins. (1787) ) was an available name and, as the oldest available name for the Sand Crab, should be used for that species. It remained true that, on the premises adopted .by the Commission in Opinion 13, the oldest available trivial name for the Sand Crab was albicans, Bose, [1801-1802] (as published in the binominal combin- ation Ocypoda albicans), but, in view of the fact that (as was now apparent) the premises on which that conclusion was based were faulty, the statement in this Opinion that albicans Bose was the oldest available trivial name for the Sand Crab was totally misleading as a guide to practical action. Secretary Hemming had accordingly recommended that Opinion 13 should be replaced as soon as possible by a (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 29) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3; 6th Meeting Conclusion 67) VoL. 41 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 575 revised Opinion, stating that, for the reasons explained above, the oldest available trivial name for the Sand Crab was quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the bino- minal combination Cancer quadratus). THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that he had received two communications in regard to this application : the first, from Dr. I. Gordon (British Museum (Natural History), London), the second, from Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.). Dr. Gordon had stated that she was in agreement both with the line of argument adopted in the application as set out in Notes 5 to 8 of the ‘‘ Editorial Notes ” attached to the re-issue of Opinion 13, and with the action there recommended to the Commission for approval. Dr. Fenner Chace, while reporting that some zoologists in America were already giving effect in their work to the recommendations now before the Commission, had suggested that, before those proposals were approved, the Commission should consider also the question of the availability of names published by Meuschen in the index to the Zoophylacium Gronovianum of Gronovius which had been published in 1781, for that index contained the trivial name quadratus (in connection with the generic name Cancer). If, therefore, the index of the Zoophylacium was held to be an available work for nomenclatorial purposes, the name Cancer quadratus Fabricius, 1787, for the Sand Crab would be a homonym of Cancer quadratus Meuschen, 1781, and in consequence the trivial name quadratus would not be available for the Sand Crab, unless it were found that it was to that species also that Meuschen had applied that name in 1781. In that case the name quadratus would still be the oldest available name for the Sand Crab, but would have to be attributed not to Fabricius, 1787, but to Meuschen, 1781. As he (the Acting President) had explained earlier during the present meeting, the question of the availability of the names published in the index to the Zoophylacium had been studied by himself before the war in connection with his review of the older literature relating to the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). He had then formed the conclusion that the author of that index could not be regarded as a binominal author, though he was what was then commonly called a ‘“‘ binary author”’; in conse- quence this was not a matter on which a decision could be taken until the present Congress had decided what meaning was properly to be attached to the expression “‘ nomen- clature binaire ” as used in Article 25 of the Régles. That matter having now been settled, he had accordingly (earlier during the present meeting) brought before the Commission the question of the availability of apparent new names in 576 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 11) (Previous reference: Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 4) the index to the Zoophylacium, and the Commission, after examining the evidence, had decided that the above index was not available for nomenclatorial purposes and there- fore that new names in it had no status under the Régles as from the date of being so published. Continuing the Acting President said that, although it was clearly necessary to correct the errors contained in Opinion 13, he now felt that the question of the decision to be taken in regard to the trivial name of the Sand Crab in place of that recorded in that Opinion should be governed, as in other cases of errors detected in earlier Opinions, by the principle of adopting whatever course would best promote stability and uniformity in the nomen- clature of the group concerned. Where -(as in the case of the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, erroneously placed on the “ Official List ” in Opinion 77), the name in question had passed into general use, the Commission had used their plenary powers to validate the erroneous decision made in the earlier Opinion, believing that it would be wrong to disturb existing practice for technical nomenclatorial reasons, particularly where (as in the case referred to) that practice owed its origin to an error made by the Commission itself. On the other hand in another case (regarding the type species of the genus Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, about which a mistake had been made in Opinion 92), specialists in the group concerned had realised that the decision given by the Commission was erroneous and had accordingly ignored that decision. In this case the Commission had considered it sufficient to correct the previous error. In the present instance it was not so clear what was the best course to take. In the first place the Commission had not given in Opinion 13 an abso- lute ruling on the question of what was the oldest available trivial name for the Sand Crab ; all that they had done was to state that on the basis of the premises submitted (which they had not themselves verified) the oldest available trivial name for that species was albicans Bosc [1801-1802] (as published in the binominal combination Ocypoda albicans). This form of decision had been adopted in this and other early Opinions not because the Commission wished to impugn the accuracy of the premises submitted to them but because at that time (which was several years prior to the establishment of the first of the “ Official Lists’) they did not regard it as part of their functions to give an absolute ruling in such a case. Nevertheless, this form of decision inevitably detracted from the authority of the ruling given and might therefore influence workers in deciding what name to apply to the species in question (in this case, the Sand Crab). So far however as he had VOL, 4 1? 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 577 been able to ascertain, this species, as the result, presumably, of Opinion 13, was now generally known by the trivial name albicans Bosc. If this was in fact the general practice, the consistent course for the Commission to adopt would be to use their plenary powers to validate the name albicans Bosc by suppressing the earlier available trivial name quadratus Fabricius 1787 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus). The species in question was, he understood, confined to the Atlantic shores of the American Continent from Rhode Island to Santa Catharina in Brazil. It was therefore desirable that the Commission should be in possession of the views of American specialists before they decided what action to take in this matter. In the circum- stances, he (the Acting President) suggested that the Commission should now agree that their plenary powers should be used to validate the trivial name albicans Bose as the trivial name of the Sand Crab, if after the close of the present Session specialists indicated that they considered that confusion would arise if, consequent upon the dis- covery of the error in the premises on which Opinion 13 had been based, it were necessary to replace the trivial name albicans Bosc by the trivial name quadratus Fabricius as the trivial name of the Sand Crab. This would not involve any delay in the publication of the Opinion recording the decisions taken on the present application, for some time would necessarily elapse before it would be possible to publish all the Opinions recording the decisions taken during the present Session, and the Opinion relating to the present _ matter could readily be left as one of the last to be so published. It would however be reasonable to fix some time limit, for the reception of comments. He suggested a period of six months from the date of the publication of the Minutes recording the present decision. At the same time he would take steps to bring the matter to the attention of specialists in the group concerned, particularly workers on the American Continent. IN THE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION, it was generally agreed that it was essential that the errors in Opinion 13 should be corrected. It was felt however that this question was quite independent of the question of whether or not the plenary powers should be used to validate the name albicans Bose [1801-1802], as the trivial name of the Sand Crab. On this, the general view was that, as it was the Commission itself which was mainly responsible for the acceptance of the foregoing name as the trivial name of this species, through their action in adopting Opinion 13 thirty-eight years earlier, they should certainly agree now that their plenary powers should be used if on enquiry it were to be found that specialists considered that 578 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 51) (Previous references: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusions 29 and 52) confusion would ensue if it were necessary to adopt the name guadratus Fabricius as the trivial name of the Sand THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to cancel Opinion 13, relating to the trivial name ~ (3) (4 ~— of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), the decision set forth in that Opinion being incomplete, in part incorrect, and the whole entirely misleading ; that, even if (contrary to the decision noted in the margin) the names published in 1771 by Edwards (G.) in his edition of Mark Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina, had been available under the Regles, the trivial name arenarius as so published by Edwards in 1771 in the binominal combination Cancer arenarius, though the first such name given to the Sand Crab subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature (1758), would have been invalid, since that name would in any case have been a homonym of the earlier trivial name arenarius Toreen, 1765 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer arenarius), a name bestowed by Toreen upon an entirely different species found at a place named Queda in the Straits of Malacca, an area far removed from that in which the Sand Crab occurred; and that the trivial name arenarius as published by Edwards in 1771 should now be placed on the “ Official Index ” ; that the first trivial name bestowed upon the Sand Crab after the name arenarius had been cited in connection therewith by Edwards in 1771 was the trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in Vol. 1 of the Mantissa Insectorum in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) ; that the trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, was an available name, not being invalidated by the prior use of the same trivial name in com- bination (or association) with the generic name Cancer (a) by Meuschen in 1781 in his index to the Zoophylacitum Gronovianum of Gronovius, and (b) by Meuschen in 1778 in his own work, the Museum Gronovianum, both of which the Com- mission had ruled to have failed to comply with the requirements of the Régles, names published in these works, in consequence, possessing no status in zoological nomenclature ; 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 579 (5) before deciding what action should be taken in (6 ~— regard to the trivial name of the Sand Crab, consequent upon the discovery of the error in regard thereto contained in the Commission’s Opinion 13, to ascertain from interested specialists whether, in their opinion, confusion and in- stability would ensue, if it were now necessary to rectify the erroneous decision published as far back as 1910 in the Opinion referred to above, and if, in consequence, it were now necessary to use the trivial name quadratus Fabricius for the foregoing species ; and for this purpose to request the Secretary to the Commission to seek the views on this question held by interested specialists by the publication of a notice in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or otherwise ; that, on the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the publication of the present decision in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the. following action should be taken in the light of the comments received from specialists in response to the consultation referred to in (5) above :— (a) of specialists were of the opinion that confusion and instability would result from the adoption of the trivial name quadratus Fabricius for the Sand Crab: to use the Commission’s plenary powers (i) to suppress the trivial name guadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) and to validate the trivial name albicans Bose [1801-1802] (as published in the binominal combination Ocypoda albi- cans), at the same time placing the first of these trivial names on the “ Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” and the second on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ ; if specialists were of the opinion that con- fusion and instability would not result from the adoption of the trivial name quadratus Fabricius for the Sand Crab: to place the trivial name quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ; — a — (7) on a decision being taken either in the sense indicated in (6)(a) above or in that indicated in (6)(b) above, to render an Opinion recording the 580 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. * Opinions ” 16, certain generic names discussed in, placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (Previous reference: Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 2) decisions specified in (1) to (4) above, and setting out, as the case may be, either the decision specified in (6)(a) above or that specified in (6)(b) above. 54. THE COMMISSION examined Notes 3 to 5 of the “‘ Editorial Notes’ attached to the reissue in 1947 of Opinion 16 (interpreting the application of Rule (d) in Article 30 of the Reégles in cases where at the time of the original publica- tion of the generic name in question there had been cited as a synonym of one of the included species a pre-1758 uni- verbal specific name consisting of the same word as that selected as the name for the genus in which the species in question was included). In these notes, the Secretary to the Commission had referred to the 63 genera, the type species of which had been discussed in Opinion 16, pointing out that it was very unsatisfactory for the status of individual names to be discussed in detail in Opinions - rendered by the Commission in which, however, no decision was given by the Commission on the questions so discussed. Decisions had been taken in Opinion 16 on two only of the 63 names involved, but in later Opinions the type species of 32 of the other genera had been determined, the generic names in question having then been placed on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.”’ In addition, two of the generic names concerned (Holothuria Linnaeus, 1758, and Simia Linnaeus, 1758) had since been suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Commission’s plenary powers. Thus, of the generic names discussed in Opinion 16, there were still 27 names on which no decision had ever been taken by the Commission. The Secretary to the Commission had suggested that the Commission should dispose of this matter by at once taking these names into consideration, with a view to placing on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ all of the names in question in respect of which it was found, on enquiry, that the species accepted by specialists as the type species of the genera concerned were the species which, under the provisions of Opinion 16, were, under the Régles, their type species by absolute tautonymy. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) recalled that, since the time when, as Secretary to the Commission, he had submitted the foregoing recom- mendations, the Commission itself (at the meeting noted in the margin) had placed on record its disapproval of the practice by which formerly the Commission had (as in the present case) discussed the status of individual names in their Opinions without coming to any decision in regard thereto, and had decided that the older Opinions should be examined 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 581 from this point of view for the purpose of remedying defects of this kind as rapidly as possible. Most of the names involved in the present case were the names of very common and widely known genera and it was desirable that the position as regards these should be clarified with the least possible further delay. He accordingly recommended that the Commission should now decide to place on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ all those of the 27 generic names in question, in respect of which inquiry showed that the names in question were accepted by specialists as taxonomically valid genera and the species accepted as the type species of the genera concerned were those which, as indicated in the second paragraph of Opinion 16, would be the type species, if, under the interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 given in that Opinion, the type species of those genera fell to be determined by absolute tautonymy. If in any case it were to be found that the name in question was either unavailable nomenclatorially or that current practice was not in harmony with the Reégles, as interpreted in Opinion 16, the Commission should, he suggested, con- sider whether confusion would be likely to ensue if the Regles were to be strictly applied in that case. If the Commission were now to deal in the manner suggested with the cases raised, but left unsettled, in Opinion 16, it would be helpful, if at the same time they were to place on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ the names of the two genera, the type species of which had been settled in that Opinion. IN DISCUSSION general agreement was expressed with the proposals submitted by the Acting President. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to place on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ the names of the undermentioned genera, the type species of which had been determined by the Commission in Opinion 16 :— Alcea Linnaeus, 1758 (type species, by absolute tautonymy: Alca torda Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Aves) Equus Linnaeus, 1758 (type species, by absolute tautonymy: Equus caballus Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Mammalia) ; (2) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to make inquiries, by the publication of a notice in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or otherwise, in regard to each of the undermentioned generic 58% = International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. names discussed in Opinion 16, 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 nomenclatorially, 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 concerned :— (a) Names of genera of the Class Mammalia (Commission File Z.N.(S.)275) :— Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 Rhinoceros Linnaeus, 1758 (b) Names of genera of the Class Aves (Com- mission File Z.N.(S.)274) :— Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758 Certhia Linnaeus, 1758 Charadrius Linnaeus, 1758 Corvus Linnaeus, 1758 Cuculus Linnaeus, 1758 Fringilla Linnaeus, 1758 Fulica Linnaeus, 1758 Lozia Linnaeus, 1758 Meleagris Linnaeus, 1758 Merops Linnaeus, 1758 Motacilla Linnaeus, 1758 Otis Linnaeus, 1758 Pavo Linnaeus, 1758 Pelecanus Linnaeus, 1758 Phasianus Linnaeus, 1758 Scopolax Linnaeus, 1758 Sterna Linnaeus, 1758 Strix Linnaeus, 1758 Tetrao Linnaeus, 1758 Tringa Linnaeus, 1758 Upupa Linnaeus, 1758 Vultur Linnaeus, 1758 (c) Names of genera of the Class Pisces (Com- mission File Z.N.(S.)276) :— Gymnotus Linnaeus, 1758 Stromateus Linnaeus, 1758 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 583 (d) The name of a genus in the Phylum Protozoa (Commission File Z.N.(S.)277) :— Chaos Linnaeus, 1767 (3) on the completion of the inquiry referred to in (2) above or of any part thereof :— (a) to place forthwith on the “ Official List of ~— Generic Names in Zoology” each of the generic names specified in (2) above which the inquiry so completed had shown was currently regarded by specialists as the name of a taxonomically valid genus and of which the species accepted as the type species was the species specified in the second paragraph of Opinion 16, and on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ’’ the trivial names of the type species of the genera concerned ; that a statement regarding the position as regards each of the generic names specified in (2) above, which the inquiry had disclosed was either not regarded by specialists as the name of a taxonomically valid genus or for which the species commonly accepted as the type species was not the species so specified in the second paragraph of Opinion 16 should be submitted to the Commission by the Secretary, together with proposals for determining, at the earliest possible date, the status of the generic name in question (including the determination of its type species) and for placing on the appropriate “ Official Lists ”’ or ‘“‘ Official Indexes ” the generic names concerned and the trivial names of the respective type species of those genera ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) ; (5) on the close of the inquiries specified in (2) above, to render an Opinion or Opinions giving effect to the decision specified in (3) (a) above, in relation to any generic name or generic names specified in (a), (b), (c), or (d) in (2) above, to which, as the result of those inquiries, that decision thereupon applied, 584 “ Taenia ” Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cestoidea) ; use of the plenary powers (1) to designate “ Taenia solium ” Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of, and (2) to validate an erroneous entry relating to, in the * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (correction of an - error in ** Opinion ” 84) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 55. THE COMMISSION examined Note 7 of the “ Editorial Notes”? attached to the reissue in 1947 of Opinion 16, submitted by the Secretary to the Commission on the subject of an inconsistency in the treatment accorded to the generic name Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cestoidea) in Opinions 16 and 84, and the consequent error in the second of those Opinions in regard to the type species of that genus (Hemming, 1947, in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1: 297-302). The Secretary to the Commis- sion had pointed out that’ in Opinion 16 the Commission had correctly noted that in the original description of the genus Taenia, Linnaeus had cited the pre-1758 univerbal specific name “‘ Taenia ’’ as a synonym of one of the species (Taena vulgaris) which he then included in that genus. Accordingly, under the interpretation of Rule (d) in Article 30 given in the foregoing Opinion, the species Taenia vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy, unless it could be shown that the word “‘ Taenia”’ as used by the pre-1758 author cited by Linnaeus had not been used as a univerbal specific name in the sense of “The Taenia”’. Some fifteen years after the publication of Opinion 16, the Commission had before them an application for a number of names to be placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology’, one of which was the name Taenia Linnaeus, 1758. The applicant had asked that this name should be added to the “ Official List” on the basis that its type species under the Reégles was Taenia solium Linnaeus, 1758. In apparent total forgetfulness of what they had said about this generic name in Opinion 16, the Commission had thereupon in Opinion 84 placed the generic name J'aenia Linnaeus on the “ Official List’? with Taenia solium Linnaeus as its type species, but without any indication as to how this species came to occupy that position. Everyone was agreed in treating Taenia solium Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus ; everyone was agreed also that great and totally unjustifiable confusion would arise, if, for any technical nomenclatorial reason, that species were to be displaced from its position as the type species of this important genus. Nevertheless, there was no doubt that under the Régles that species could no longer be accepted as the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus, unless either (a) it could be shown that the circumstances in which the word “ Taenia”’ had been cited by Linnaeus as a synonym of Taenia vulgaris Linnaeus did not satisfy the requirements laid down in Opinion 16 and therefore that that species was not the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus by absolute 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 585 tautonymy, or (b) specialists subjectively identified the nominal species Taenia vulgaris Linnaeus with Taenia solium Linnaeus. Noone had attempted to advance the first of these arguments, and there appeared no grounds on which a claim, so based, could be sustained. It must be accepted, therefore, that under the Régles the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus was Taenia vulgaris Linnaeus. Nor could any help be looked for from the second of the two possible lines of argument suggested above, for, far from identifying the nominal species Taenia vulgaris Linnaeus with the nominal species Taenia soliwm Linnaeus, specialists were agreed in identifying Taenia vulgaris with Taena lata Linnaeus, 1758, the third of the four species placed by Linnaeus in the genus Taenia. Further, the trivial name vulgaris Linnaeus was usually sunk as a synonym of the trivial name lata Linnaeus, although the former had page precedence. . Finally, it should be noted that the species lata Linnaeus (=vulgaris Linnaeus) was not regarded by specialists as even being congeneric with Taenia solium Linnaeus, the former species being referred either to the genus Dibothriocephalus Luhe, 1899, or to the genus Diphyllobothriwum Cobbold, 1858. Thus, the strict application of the Régles in this case would create the maxi- mum of confusion by not only removing the species bearing the trivial name soliwm Linnaeus from the genus Taenia Linnaeus, of which it was universally accepted as the type _species (following its selection as such by Braun in 1900), but also by the transfer of the universally known generic name Taenia Linnaeus to a genus for which that name was never used. The only way by which these disastrous results could be avoided would be by the Commission using their plenary powers to designate Taenia soliwm Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Yaenia Linnaeus. This therefore was the course which the Secretary to the Com- mission had recommended the Commission to adopt. IN DISCUSSION it was agreed that it was unthinkable that the Commission should countenance the devastating confusion which would result from a strict application of the Regles in the present case. The plenary powers should certainly be used in the manner proposed. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to set aside the indication of Taenia vul- _garis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute | tautonymy, and also all selections of that or other species to be the type species of this genus, made prior to the present decision ; 586 Schneider (J. G.), 1784, “ Samml. Abhandl.Aufklar. Zoologie Handlungsge- schichte ” : (1) suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name “ Octopodia ” Schneider and of five trivial names published in that genus ; (2) eight reputed generic names declared to be cheironyms ; (3) “ Octopus ” Cuvier, [1797], and “ Eledone ” Leach, 1817, placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (b) to designate Taenia solium Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 ; (2) to insert in the entry in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” relating to the generic name Taenia Linnaeus, 1758, a note stating that the species Taenia solium Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of the foregoing genus by designation by the Commission under their plenary powers ; to place the trivial name soliwm Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Taenia solium) on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’; to render an Opinion, supplementary to Opinion 84, drawing attention to the error contained therein as respects the generic name Taenia Linnaeus, 1758, and recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 56. THE COMMISSION examined the Appendix annexed to Opinion 166, in which the Secretary to the Commission had pointed out that the alleged generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784° (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea), which was referred to in the discussion on the generic name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) dealt with in Opinion 166, was a cheironym, that seven other reputed generic names alleged to have been published by Schneider in the same paper were also cheironyms but that the paper by that author in which those names were alleged to have been published did contain a new generic name (Octopodia), which, though completely overlooked by later authors, was an available name and had priority over the extremely well-known name Octopus Cuvier, [1797] (Hemming, 1945, in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 388-394). In the foregoing paper, the Secretary to the Commission recalled that at _their Session held at Lisbon in 1935, at which (in the absence of the Secretary through ill-health) he had officiated as Acting Secretary, the Commission had agreed that after the close of that Session he (Commissioner Hemming) should examine the bibliographical references cited in the documents considered at Lisbon with a view to correcting any errors that might be found therein, before the Report then sub- mitted by the Commission to the Congress was published. It was in the discharge of the duty so entrusted to him that (Previous reference: Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 587 he had examined the work by Schneider published in 1784 under the title Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklérung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte. On doing so, he had found at once that, what Schneider had done was to erect a new genus Octopodia Schneider and to place in it the five species which Linnaeus had placed in the genus Sepia, one of Linnaeus’ species. of Argonauta, one of his species of Nautilus and one species (Octopodia moschites) not described in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae. For five of these eight species Schneider published new trivial names. The generic hame Octopodia occurred only once, on page 108 at the head of the genus, and the trivial names of the eight species placed by Schneider in this genus were each printed with a capital initial letter. It was these facts which had no doubt been responsible for the mistake which later authors had fallen into of supposing that these eight names were generic names. It was desirable that these eight reputed but non-existent generic names should now be formally branded as cheironyms by the Commission. Further, consideration should be given to the question of using the plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the totally neglected generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, for otherwise the name Octopus Cuvier, [1797], would disappear into synonymy. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that subsequent to the publication of the paper reproduced as an Appendix to Opinion 166, Mr. R. Winckworth (London) had submitted a more detailed application in which, after concurring in the general con- clusions reached by himself (the Acting President), he had proposed that, in addition to making it clear that the eight generic names attributed to Schneider were non- existent, being based upon a misreading of Schneider’s book, the Commission should (a) suppress the one generic name which Schneider had in fact published in the portion of his Sammlung under consideration (namely Octopodia Schneider, 1784) and also the five new trivial names which he had published, which had been totally neglected through having been misread as being generic names, the intro- duction of which could only cause confusion, and (b) place on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” the well known generic names Octopus Cuvier, [1797], and Eledone Leach, 1817. Both had been challenged by some workers on the ground in the one case that it was a synonym of Polypus Schneider, 1784, and, in the other case, that it was a synonym of Moschites Schneider, 1784, two of the re- puted but non-existant generic names referred to above. 588 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The suppression of Octopodia Schneider, 1784, and the elimi- nation of these ghost names would make Octopus Cuvier an available name and Polypus Leach, 1817 (which through the disappearance of the reputed name Polypus Schneider, 1784, was seen not to be invalid as a homonym), would become an objective synonym of Octopus Cuvier [1797]. Eledone Leach 1817 was also an available name, the older name Ozoena Rafinesque, 1814, being invalid as a homonym. In discussion, there was general agreement that advantage should be taken of the Report submitted by the Secretary to prevent a recurrence of the type of confusion in regard to the trivial names published by Schneider which had embarrassed the discussion at Lisbon of the case of the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798. For this purpose those names should be suppressed, as also should be the totally forgotten generic name Octopodza Schneider, 1784. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress :— (a) the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda) ; (b) the undermentioned specific trivial names:— moschites Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia moschites) nautilus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia nautilus) polypus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia polypus) sepia Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia sepia) teuthis Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia teuthis) ; (2) to declare that the undermentioned reputed generic names were never published by Schneider, the names so attributed to that author being cheiro- nyms, owing their alleged existence to a misreading by later authors of the relevant passage in Schneider’s Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklirung der Zoologie und der Handlungs- geschichte where he used as trivial names of species of his own genus Octopodia the words later wrongly thought to have been published by him as generic names, the error arising (it must be supposed) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 589 from the fact that, following the practice of many 18th century authors, he printed the words in question with capital initial letters and did not actually combine the trivial names in question with the name of the genus (Octopodia) to which he referred those species, that generic name being cited only at the head of the account given for the genus :— Loligo Schneider, 1784 Moschites Schneider, 1784 Nautilus Schneider, 1784 Polypus Schneider, 1784 Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (as already recorded in Opinion 166) Sepia Schneider, 1784 Sepiola Schneider, 1784 Teuthis Schneider, 1784 ; (3) to place the undermentioned generic names on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Eledone Leach, 1817 (type species, by mono- typy: Octopus moschatus Lamarck, 1798) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Decapoda) Octopus Cuvier [1797] (type species, by absolute tautonymy under the principle laid down in Opinion 16: Octopus vulgaris (correction of vulgare) Cuvier [1797]) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Decapoda) ; (4) to place the undermentioned generic names and alleged generic names on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” :— Loligo Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) Moschites Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possess- ing no status under the Régles) Nautilus Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possess- ing no status under the Régles) Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (suppressed under the plenary powers under (1)(a) above) Ozoena Rafinesque, 1814 (invalid, because a junior homonym of Ozaena Olivier, 1812) Polypus Leach, 1817 (invalid, because an objective synonym of Octopus Cuvier [1797]) Polypus Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possess- ing no status under the Reégles) 590 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. “ Opinions ” already published (individual questions of zoological nomenclature arising in) : Report to Section on Nomenclature on conclusions reached by the Commission in regard to Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possess- ing no status under the Reégles) Sepia Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) Sepiola Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Reégles) Teuthis Schneider, 1784 (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) (5) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— moschatus Lamarck, 1798 (as published in the binominal combination Octopus moschatus) vulgaris Cuvier [1797] (as published in the binominal combination Octopus vulgaris) ; (6) to place on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ the undermentioned trivial names suppressed under the plenary powers under (1)(b) above :— moschites Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia moschites) nautilus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia nautilus) polypus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia polypus) sepia Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia sepia) teuthis Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia teuthis) ; (7) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (6) above. 57. Having now completed their examination of the proposals relating to individual questions of nomenclature submitted either (a) in the “‘ Editorial Notes ” attached to reissues of certain of the older Opinions originally published in 1910 or in footnotes to those reissues, or (b) (in one case) in an Appendix to an Opinion rendered in pursuance of a decision taken at their Session held at Lisbon in 1935, THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to report to the Section on Nomenclature the con- clusions reached in regard to the undermentioned matters arising out of an examination of Opinions already rendered by the Commission :— “ Opinions ” 1-133: arrangements to be made for publication of ** facsimile ” edition of VOL. 4K 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 591 (a) the status of names in Nozeman and Vosmaer, 1758, Geslachten der Vogelen (Conclusion 50) ; (b) the status of names in the edition of the pre- 1758 work by Mark Catesby entitled Natural History of Carolina edited by George Edwards and published in 1771 (Conclusion 51) ; (c) the status of names in Meuschen (F. C.), 1778, Museum Gronovianum (Conclusion 52) ; (d) the trivial name of the Sand Crab (Conclusion 53) ; (e) the type species of certain genera discussed in ~ Opinion 16 (Conclusion 54) ; (f) the type species of the genus T'aenia Linnaeus, 1758 (Conclusion 55) ; (g) the status to be accorded, under the plenary poWers or otherwise, to certain names and alleged names published by Schneider in 1784 (Conclusion 56) ; (2) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, to report forthwith to the Section on Nomenclature the conclusions reached by the Commission in regard to the cases specified in (1) above. (Lhe Acting President thereupon submitted a report on the above cases to the Section on Nomenclature.) 58. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) invited the Commission at this stage to consider the question of the re-publication of the older Opinions, many of which were now out of print and practically unobtainable. The position generally as regards the Opinions of the Commission had changed materially as the result of decisions taken by the Commission, in agreement with the Section on Nomenclature, in the course of the present Session. Formerly, these had been the sole official record of decisions taken by the Commission on questions sub- mitted to them. This would still be the case during inter- Congress periods as regards Opinions published since the last preceding Congress, but would cease to be so after the Congress next following the adoption of any given Opinion, for under the arrangements which had now been agreed upon, all decisions recorded in such Opinions would at that Congress be inserted in the appropriate schedule to the Regles. Nevertheless the Opinions rendered by the Com- mission would always be of great value, quite apart from International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. their historical interest, for many of them contained important information on a wide range of subjects, which was not to be found anywhere else. No zoological library with any pretension to completeness could possibly afford to be without a complete set. There were adequate supplies available of the Opinions rendered subsequent to the date when (in 1939) the Commission itself assumed responsi- bility for publication but this was not the case as respects many of the Opinions published before that date. It was for this reason that the first Opinions to be published directly by the Commission (i.e. Opinion 134 and later Opinions) had been issued as Parts of Volume 2 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Volume I at the same time being reserved for the re-publication of the older Opinions, which had originally been published on behalf of the Commission by the Smithsonian Institution. As the Commission knew, various circumstances had led to only a small start having been made with the publication of parts of Volume I, but it was proposed that, as and when circum- stances permitted, further instalments should be published. A new situation had however been created by the action taken during the present Congress, for the majority of the Opinions in question had now been repealed for all except historical purposes, consequent upon the decisions recorded therein being incorporated, in whole or in part, either in the Régles themselves or in the Schedules thereto. In addition,-a few of these Opinions had been cancelled as being incorrect, while the decisions in two Opinions were to be reconsidered by the Commission, the subjects dealt with therein being in the mean time regarded as sub judice. In these circumstances, it would clearly be neither necessary nor desirable to attach to future reissues of these Opinions “‘ Editorial Notes” of the kind which had been attached to the reissues so far published. * It would however be essential to publish a prefatory state- ment setting out the decisions in regard to these Opinions which had been taken by the present Congress, for other- wise the re-publication of these Opinions would be very mis- leading. As regards the form in which these Opinions should be re-published, the best course would, he (the Acting President) thought, be to publish a facsimile edition, thereby ensuring absolute identity between the original, and the new editions. DR. E. A. CHAPIN (U.S.A.) (a member of the Section on Nomenclature in attendance) said that he had never himself experienced any difficulty in consulting a copy of the original edition of the older Opinions; he wondered VOL. 4 x2 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 593 therefore whether it was essential that these should be re-published. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) said that, whatever might be the position in America, very few institutions in Europe possessed sets of the older Opinions and it was virtually impossible at the present time to purchase copies on the second-hand market. He was therefore strongly in favour of the re-publication of the older Opinions in the manner proposed. He agreed that in existing circumstances, a facsimile edition would be the most satisfactory. DR. E. A. CHAPIN (U.S.A.) explained that he had not been aware of the situation in European institutions, when he had made the suggestion that the re-publication of the older Opinions might not be neeessary. In the circum- stances, he naturally now unreservedly withdrew that suggestion. IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, the view was generally expressed that it was desirable that the reissue of the older Opinions should be completed by the Commission as rapidly as might be fourid to be practicable. Many mis- understandings of decisions by the Commission had occurred in the past through workers being forced, through the impossibility of consulting these Opinions, to rely upon the ‘“ summaries ”’ published elsewhere. THE COMMISSION :— (1) agreed that it was desirable :— (a) that, having regard to the fact that in Kurope and other parts of the world there were many important zoological institutions which were not in possession of sets of Opinions 1-133, and that many of these Opinions were now out of print and virtually unobtainable, arrangements should be made for the re-publication, as soon as might be practicable, of these Opinions in Volume 1 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on. Zoological Nomenclature; ' S that, in order to ensure complete identity between the edition of the foregoing s Opinions now to be published and the edition in which they had been originally published, the new edition should be a facsimile edition of the original edition, 594 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Human malaria parasites, generic and trivial names of: {1) use of the plenary powers to validate existing nomenclatorial practice ; (2) cancellation of erroneous decisions regarding, in “ Opinion ” 104; (3) insertion of amended particulars in the * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” and matters incidental thereto with the addition thereto of a comprehensive subject index ; (2) agreed that, in view of the altered status of the Opinions so far rendered by the Commission, consequent upon the decision taken during the present Session to incorporate the rulings given therein, either in the Régles themselves or in the schedules thereto, there would be no need for the publication of “ Editorial Notes” containmg commentaries on the Opinions now to be re- published such as had been attached to such of the reissues of Opinions as had so far been published (Opinions 1-16) but that there should be published a prefatory statement setting out the decisions in regard to the Opinions in question * taken by the present Congress ; (3) invited the Secretary to the Commission to draw the attention of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature to the conclusion record- ed in (1) above, with a request that, subject to their meeting other urgent calls on their financial resources, they should arrange for the completion as soon as practicable of Volume 1 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the manner specified in (1) and (2) above. 59. In accordance with the arrangement recorded in Conclusion 45 above, THE COMMISSION now turned to examine Commission File Z.N.(8.)143, relating to certain errors in regard to the nomenclature of the human malaria parasites contained in the portion of Opinion 104, in which the generic names Plasimodiwm and Laverania were placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” This file contained :— (a) the extensive correspondence between the Secretary to the Commission and leading malariologists in Great Britain and the United States, which had taken place both prior to, and subsequent to, the discovery by the Secretary to the Commission of the need for extensive corrections in the entries in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” relating to the names Plasmodiwm and Laverania, those entries, though in accord with current nomen- clatorial practice, being incorrect in almost every possible respect ; (b) an application submitted to the Commission in 1944 jointly by Dr. Robert L. Usinger and Dr. C. W. ad 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 595 Sabrosky (then of the U.S. Public Health Service, Malaria Control in War Areas, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.) drawing attention to the serious errors con- tained in the entries in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ made under the authority of Opinion 104, and requesting the Commission to use their plenary powers to validate existing nomen- clatorial practice, in view of the grave confusion which would result from the strict application of the Regles in these cases ; (c) a paper prepared by the Secretary to the Commission :— (i) examining in detail the early literature relating to the generic and trivial names published, or alleged to have been published, for the human malaria parasites ; ; (ii) setting out, in the light of (i) above, the names correctly applicable to the species in question under a strict application of the Reégles thereto ; (iii) drawing attention to the extensive changes in current nomenclatorial practice which such an application of the Régles would involve and the appalling confusion to which it would inevitably give rise ; (iv) recommending the Commission to use their plenary powers to give valid force to existing nomenclatorial practice, for this purpose suppressing certain generic and trivial names, validating other such names, and, in one case (Plasmodium Marchiafava and Celli, 1885) designating as the type species of a genus a species not included therein by the original authors of the generic name con- cerned. On being invited by the Acting President to open the discussion on the proposal which, jointly with Dr. C. W. Sabrosky, he had submitted to the Commission on this subject, ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. USINGER (U.S.A.) said that, when he had taken part in preparing that application, he had examined the nomen- clatorial problems involved and had satisfied himself that the action under the plenary powers there recommended was necessary, if the gravest confusion in malariological literature was to be avoided. The detailed considerations involved were, however, no longer fresh in his memory. He would therefore greatly prefer that this problem should 596 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. be placed before the Commission by the Acting President, who, he knew, was thoroughly familiar with every aspect of this case. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEM- MING) said : (1) In the paper which, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, he had prepared on this subject and which would be published in the Opinion recording the decisions taken by the Commission at the close of the present dis- cussion, he had given full particulars regarding the biblio- graphical and similar problems with which this case abounded. The Commission, he felt sure, would not wish him on the present occasion to go into these minor questions in detail, but would wish rather that he should concentrate upon drawing their attention to those major matters, a due appreciation of which was essential to a proper under- standing of the questions on which decisions were now required. (2) It was important at the outset to realise what were the assumptions on which current practice in regard to the generic and specific nomenclature of the human malaria parasites was based. These assumptions, which, prior to the publication ‘in 1938 of the important paper by Christophers and Sinton, had been universally accepted as valid, by all malariologists, were as follows :— (a) The generic name Oscillaria applied by Laveran in 1881 to the first of the human malaria parasites to be discovered had been universally rejected as inapplicable or invalid. (b) It had been assumed that the species to which in 1881 Laveran gave the trivial name malariae (i.e. Oscillaria malariae Laveran, 1881) was the Quartan Malaria Parasite, to which therefore the trivial name malariae Laveran had been universally applied. (c) The generic name Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, had been accepted as the oldest available generic name for any species of human malaria parasite. It had been accepted as a monotypical genus, having as its type species the Quartan Malaria Parasite. That species had accordingly been referred by all workers to the genus Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli. (d) Those malariologists who had regarded the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite as generically distinct from the Quartan Malaria Parasite had referred the first of these species to the genus Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1890. 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 597 (e) (3) The trivial name malariae applied (in the binominal combination Laverania malariae) by Feletti and Grassi in 1890 to the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite had been rejected for that species on the ground that, having regard to the subsequent union on taxonomic grounds of the Malignant Tertian and Quartan Malaria Parasites in a single genus (Plasmodium), this name was an invalid homonym of the earlier trivial name malariae Laveran, 1881 (as published in the binominal combination Oscillaria malariae), which (as shown in (b) above) had been universally identified with the Quartan Malaria Parasite. The trivial name vwivar Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination Haema- moeba vivax) had been accepted as the oldest avail- able, and therefore as the valid, name of the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite. The trivial name praecor Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination (Haema- moeba praecox) had been rejected as a name for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite on the ground that, although Grassi and Feletti referred in their description of that species to cases of human malaria which specialists were agreed could only have been due to that parasite, the description itself was based upon an avian parasite. The trivial name immaculata Grassi, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba immaculata) had been rejected as a name for the Malignant Tertian Malaria_ Parasite on grounds similar to those explained in (g) above in the case of the trivial name praecor Grassi & Feletti. It had been supposed that the next trivial name to have been published for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite was the name falciparum Welch, 1897 (as published in the binominal combination Haematozoon falciparum). This name had accord- ingly been adopted as the trivial name of this parasite, The commonly accepted assumptions in regard to the nomenclature of the Quartan and Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasites (as set out in (2) above) were incorrect in every particular, both as regards the trivial names of those species and as regards the names of the genera to which, under the Régles, they should be referred. In view of the complex problems involved, he (the Acting President) 598 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. proposed to deal separately with the generic and trivial names, taking the trivial names first. As regards the latter, following :— (a) the considerations which were relevant were the 4 Christophers and Sinton (1938) had shown, as the result of a detailed examination of Laveran’s early papers (including, in particular, the paper published in 1881 in which that worker had published the name Oscillaria malariae) that the material at Laveran’s disposal consisted not of the Quartan Malaria Parasite (as hitherto universally assumed for nearly 40 years) but of the flagellating sexual forms of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. Accordingly, the trivial name malariae Laveran, 1881, was the oldest available name for, and there- fore the valid name of, the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite and was not applicable to the Quartan Malaria Parasite. The assumption that, when in 1885 they established the genus Plasmodium, Marchiafava and Celli placed in that genus the species named Oscillaria malariae by Laveran four years earlier was in- correct. They made no reference to Laveran’s species and accordingly must be regarded as having published a new specific name (i.e. binominal combination), Plasmodium malariae, for the species which they then described. The material to which those authors applied that name consisted over- whelmingly of the asexual amoeboid form of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite, though included among that material there were also examples which had recently been identified by Dr. Martin Young (1946) as the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite. As the latter was the one species of human malaria parasite to which no author had as yet applied the trivial name malariae, he (the Acting President) had himself in the paper now before the Commission selected (under Article 31) the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (of the asexual amoeboid form) to be the species to which the trivial name malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (originally published, as shown above, as the trivial name of a composite nominal species) should adhere. The Quartan Malaria Parasite was first distinguished from the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite by Golgi in 1885. Neither then however nor in his better known paper of 1889 did Golgi give a trivial 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 599 (d) (f) name to the new species, the existence of which he had so established. It was not until the end of 1889 that a name was given to this speciessby Grassi & Feletti. In this paper (which was usually wrongly attributed to the year 1890, in which it was reprinted in the Riforma medica) these authors gave the trivial name malariae to this species, which they placed in a new genus, which they called Haemamoeba, at the same time placing the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (which they correctly called malariae) in a new genus, Laverania, named after the worker by whom that species had first been discovered. In 1890 Grassi & Feletti had published the trivial name praecor (in the binominal combination Haemamoeba praecox) for an avian parasite which they stated had been found also in the blood of human malaria patients. Specialists were agreed that the latter parasite could only have been the amoeboid form of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. The trivial name praecor Grassi & Feletti could not however be applied to that species, since the description of the species so named given by those authors was taken from the avian parasite, which was now recognised as being a distinct species. In 1890 also, Antolisei and Angelini (in a paper which had been completely overlooked) had published a description of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite under the trivial name falciforme (in the binominal combination Ematozoo falciforme, the generic name of which was published with a small initial letter). Grassi in 1891 had published the trivial name immaculata (in the binominal combination Haema- moeba tmmaculata) for a parasite found in the blood of a young Kestrel. Unfortunately, Grassi added the observation that this was the same parasite as one which Celli and Guarnieri had reported (in an earlier paper) as having been found in the blood of human malaria patients. Specialists were agreed that this latter parasite could only have been the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. The name immaculata Grassi, 1891, could not however be held to apply to that species, since Grassi’s deserip- tion of his immaculata was drawn exclusively from the avian parasite, 600 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (g) In 1891 also, Celli and Sanfelice had published a paper in which they treated all the human malaria parasites as a single species, which they cited under the name Plasmodium malariae Marchiafava & Celli. This combined species was then discussed under three heads, according to the type of fever which it produced. To each of the three varieties so distinguished, these authors applied a Latin term consisting of an adjective in the feminine genitive singular (i.e. in grammatical agreement with the specific trivial name malariae Marchiafava & Celli). The terms so used were quartanae (for the Quartan Malaria Parasite, tertianae (for the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite), and quotidianae (for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite). These terms could not, by reason of the way in which they were formed, be regarded as having status as subspecific trivial names as from the date on which they were so published. (h) It was in 1891 also that Danilewsky had published a paper on malaria parasites, the nomenclature used in which was so obscure and inconsistent that later (in Opinion 101) the Commission had ruled that new names published in it possessed no status in zoological nomenclature. It was therefore not necessary to consider in detail the trivial name hominis, published by Danilewsky in the binominal combination Laverania hominis. Kruse in 1892 had treated all the human malaria parasites as a single species, to which he applied the name Plasmodium malariae, which he divided into three forms for which he used Latin adjectives in the feminine genitive singular (in grammatical agreement with the specific trivial name malariae in the same way as Celli and Sanfelice had done in. their paper of 1891 (see (g) above)). The terms so used by Kruse and the species for which they were used were :—tertianae, for the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite; quartanae, for the Quartan Malaria Parasite; irregularis, for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. As in the case of the corresponding terms previously used by Celli and Sanfelice, the foregoing terms used by Kruse could not be regarded as having acquired status as sub- specific trivial names as from the date on which they were so published by that author. In 1894 Labbé had published a paper in which he also treated all the known human malaria parasites Oe 14th Meeting, Paris. July, 1948, 601 (1) 7 as constituting a single species, which he placed in the genus Haemamoeba and to which he applied the new specific trivial name laverani. After describ- ing this species Labbé had stated that it had two varieties, namely guartana (the Quartan Malaria Parasite) and tertiang (the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite). _ Labbé’s treatment of these species, though superficially similar to that adopted pre- viously, first by Celli and Sanfelice, and second by Kruse, was in fact quite different from that of either. He definitely treated the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite as Tepresenting the species with which he was concerned and attached to it as varieties the two other human malaria parasites, giving to each a properly formed trivial name consisting of an adjective in the nominative singular. The terms tertiana Labbé and quartana Labbé were both properly formed trivial names, each possessing rights under the Law of Priority. Tn 1895 Thayer and Hewitson had published the trivial name faletforme (in the binominal combina- tion Haematozoon faletforme) for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. This name, although published in the above authors’ well-known work the “ Malarial Fevers of Baltimore ”, had for some unaccountable reason been completely neglected, in spite of its having been actually referred to by Welch (1897) when he published the name Jaleiparum (see (m) below). Lewkowicz (1897) had published an analysis of the various types of human malaria parasites, using, for this purpose an entirely new terminology. In the first place he introduced the new generic name Haemosporidium : in the second, he employed five terms, all adjectives in the feminine genitive singular, namely ; tertianae, quartanae, undecimanae, sexdecimanae, and vigesimo-tertianae. The first. of these terms applied to the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite, the second to the Quartan Malaria Parasite, and the remainder to various forms of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. The fact that these terms were all adjectives in the feminine genitive singular made it clear that they must be in gramma- tical agreement with some femininé noun, such as “febris ” or (the non-classical) “ malaria ”, under- stood, though not expressed, which, if expressed, would have appeared as “febris”” or “malariae ”, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It was evident that these terms were not used by Lewkowicz -as subspecific trivial names and they could not therefore be accepted as such as from the date on which they were published by that author. (m) In 1897 Welch had published the trivial name falciparum (in the binominal combination Haema- tozoon falciparum) for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. (n) In addition to the names discussed above, there were two other names which it had sometimes been alleged had been given to the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite during the last decade of the XIXth century. These were: (i) the trivial name irregularis alleged to have been published by Sakharov in 1892 as a subspecific trivial name in the trinominal combination Haemamoeba febris wrregu- lavis ; (ii) the trivial name tropica alleged to have been published by Koch in 1899 in the binominal combination Plasmodium tropica. The most careful search of the literature had failed to trace either of these names, and, for the reasons explained in the paper now before the Commission, he (the Acting President) believed that neither of these names had in fact ever been published by the authors concerned. (4) From the foregoing survey it was clear (a) that the oldest available and therefore the valid, trivial name for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite was malariae Laveran, 1881 (as published in the binominal combination Oscillaria malariae), (b) that the following trivial names were syno- nyms of the name malariae Laveran, 1881: malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (as published in the bmominal combination Plasmodium malariae) ; falciforme Antolisei & Angelini, 1890 (as published in the binominal combina- tion Ematozoo-faleiforme) ; laverani Labbé, 1894 (as pub- lished in the binominal combination Haemamoeba laverana) ; falciforme Thayer & Hewitson, 1895 (as published in the binominal combination Haematozoon falciforme) ; falei- parum Welch, 1897 (as published in the binominal combima- tion Haematozoon falciparum); (c) that the following trivial names which had been applied by some authors to the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite were not properly applicable thereto having been given by their original authors to avian parasites: praecor Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in.the binominal combination Haema- moeba praecox) ; immaculata Grassi, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba immaculata) ; (d) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 603 that the following terms which had been treated by some authors as having been published by their original authors as trivial names for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite had in fact not been published as trivial names and possessed no status under the Régles: quotidianae Celli & Sanfelice 1891 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae); irregularis Kruse, 1892 (as published in connection with the binominal com- bination Plasmodium malariae) ; undecimanae, sexdeci- manae, and vigesimo-tertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemosporidium) ; (e) that the alleged trivial names irregularis Sakharov, 1892 (as reputed to have been published in the trinominal combination Haemamoeba febris irregularis) and tropica Koch, 1899 (as reputed to have been published in the binominal combination Plasmodium tropica) had in fact never been so published by the authors concerned and there- fore that these names were mere cheironyms. As regards the Quartan Malaria Parasite, it was now clear (a) that the earliest trivial name to be given to this species was malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba malariae); (b) that the only other trivial name given to this species was the name quartana Labbé, 1894 (as published in the trinominal ‘combination Hamamoeba laverani var. quartana) ; (c) that the following terms which had been treated by some authors as having been published by their original authors as trivial names for the Quartan Malaria Parasite had in fact not been published as trivial names and possessed no status under the Reégles : quartanae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) ; quartanae Kruse, 1892 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) ; quartanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemosporidium). The trivial name malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889, had been not only the oldest, but also the valid, trivial name for the Quartan Malaria Parasite at the time when it was first published ; it had become invalid however as soon as that species and the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (malariae Laveran, 1881) had been united by specialists in a single genus. For it then became a junior secondary homonym of malariae Laveran and as such, had to be rejected per- manently. Accordingly, the valid trivial name for the Quartan Malaria Parasite was the next name to have been given to that species, namely quartana Labbé, 1894. Turning to the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite, the position was now seen to be: (a) that the oldest, and the valid, trivial name of this species was vivax Grassi & Feletti, 604 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1890; (b) that the trivial name tertiana Labbé, 1894 (as published in the trinominal combination Haemamoeba laverant var. tertiana) was a synonym of vivax Grassi & Feletti, 1890 ; (c) that the following terms which had been treated by some authors as having been published by their original authors as trivial names for the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite had in fact not been published as trivial names and possessed no status under the Reégles : tertianae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) ; tertianae Kruse, 1892 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae); tertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemosporidium). (5) On turning from the trivial names bestowed upon the human malaria parasites to the generic names published for those species, a situation of equal confusion was found to exist. The position as regards these names was as follows :— (a) Oscillarva Schrank, 1823 or Oscallarva Laveran, 1881 : Laveran had used the generic name Oscillaria when he first named the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite, giving to that species the name Oscillaria malariae. Laveran had not then stated whether he regarded this as a new generic name but the fact. that he was certainly aware of the existence of Schrank’s Oscillaria and that later without explana- tion he had dropped the name Oscillaria as the veneric name for the human malaria parasites (which he would have been unlikely to have done if he had regarded himself as the author of the name) strongly pointed to the conclusion that, when in 1881 he applied this generic name to his new malaria parasite, he regarded himself as making use of the genus Oscillarva Schrank. The possibility could not however be excluded that he regarded himself as the author of this name. In either case, the generic name Oscillaria was invalid, as applied to the human malaria parasites. The species included by Schrank in 1823 in his genus Oscillaria were now known to have been not animals but minute species of algae. The genus had accordingly been transferred to the Vegetable Kingdom. In these circumstances, it could not be applicable to the human malaria para- sites, none of those species having been included by Schrank in that genus at the time when he published the name Oscillaria. Under Article 1 of the Régles, a name, on being transferred from the Animal 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 605 Kingdom to the Vegetable Kingdom retained its rights in the Animal Kingdom ; in consequence, the name Oscillaria Laveran, 1881, if such a name had ever in fact been published by that author, would have been invalid under Article 34, for it would have been a junior homonym of the name Oscillaria Schrank, 1823, (b) Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885: As had already been shown (in (3) (b) above), the genus Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, was a monotypical genus with Plasmodium malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, as type species, that species being the Malignant Tertian Malaria Para- site. This genus had been universally accepted as having Oscillaria malariae Laveran, 1881, as its type species and that species had been accepted equally universally as being the Quartan Malaria Parasite. These errors dated from the authoritative but totally incorrect statements made first by Luhe (1900) and subsequently by Schaudinn (1902). It was impossible to believe that these great authorities could unwittingly have fallen into such _ an error. The only reasonable (or indeed possible) explanation was to conclude that first Luhe and later Schaudinn realised something which had never been realised by any previous worker, namely that there were two fatal flaws in the currently accepted nomenclature of the human malaria parasites, the correction of which would throw the entire literature of malariology into confusion, The errors in question were ‘—(1) The sole included species, and therefore the type species, of the genus Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, was not the Quartan Malaria Parasite, as. then universally supposed, but the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite ; in consequence for all workers who re- garded these two species as generically distinct from one another, Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli was the correct generic name for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite; the universally used name Laverania (as attributed to Grassi & Feletti, 1890) was no more than a synonym of Plasmodium Mar- chiafava & Celli, the two genera having the same species as type species, while another generic name (Haemamoeba, as attributed to Grassi & Feletti, 1890) would need to replace Plasmodium Marchiafava, & Celli as the generic name of the Quartan Malaria Parasite. (2) The union of the Quartan 606 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Malaria Parasite and the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite in a single genus (Plasmodium) would mean for every worker who accepted that taxonomic view that the trivial name malariae (as attributed to Grassi & Feletti, 1890), then universally in use for the Quartan Malaria Parasite would have to be rejected as a junior secondary homonym of the trivial name malariae Laveran, 1881, which was the oldest (and the valid) name for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite, although it was not at that time used by any worker for that species, which was then generally known either by the nomenclatori- ally inapplicable name praecox Grassi & Feletti or by the similarly inapplicable name immaculata Grassi, 1891. Many years were to pass before a dilemma such as that which confronted Luhe and Schaudinn could be overcome by the use by the Commission of their plenary powers, for it was not until 1913 that those powers were conferred on them by the International Congress of Zoology. In these circumstances the confusion which Luhe and Schaudinn rightly anticipated would result from a strict application of the Regles to the names of the human malaria parasites could only be avoided by a deliberate evasion of the Regles. The existing nomenclatorial practice could be given the appearance of compliance with the Regles only if the interpretation of the literature was deliberately falsified in two respects : (1) by claiming that it was the Quartan Malaria Parasite and not the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite which Marchiafava & Celli had in 1885 included in the genus Plasmodium as sole species; (2) by claiming that it was the Quartan Malaria Parasite and not the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite on which Laveran in 1881 had bestowed the trivial name malariae. Once these two claims had been successfully advanced, the name malariae Laveran, 1881, would remain the oldest available, and therefore the valid, trivial name of the Quartan Malaria Parasite, and the generic name Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli would in all circumstances be the correct name for the Quartan Malaria Parasite, irrespective of the view taken on taxonomic grounds on the question whether that species was congeneric with the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. Neither of these claims had ever been advanced before but both these claims were now put forward first by Luhe and later by Schaudinn. The great authority of these workers, VOL. 44 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 607 (c) coupled with the disinclination of many workers to examine for themselves nomenclatorial problems on which the greatest living authorities had made categorical pronouncements, was sufficient to win immediate and universal acceptance for the views which they had expressed in this matter. This therefore was the reason that for- nearly forty years a totally incorrect nomenclature. had been— and still was—in universal use by malariologists. The cheironym Haematomonas Osler, 1886: Some authors had cited Osler as having published in _ 1886 a generic name Haematomonas for the human malaria parasites. This was a complete misunder- standing of what Osler had written. All that he had said was that, pending a better understanding of the affinities of the human malaria parasites, it would be well, as had been Suggested by Mitro- phanow, to refer these species to the genus Haema- tomonas. This was not the first time that this name had been published and should therefore not be attributed to Osler, this name having already been published by Mitrophanow in 1883 for certain flagellates which were not human malaria parasites. The name Haematomonas was therefore not correctly applicable to the latter species. (d) Hamatophyllum Metschnikoff, 1887 : This name was (e (f) ~— published quite unnecessarily as a nom. nov. pro Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli; 1885, of which therefore it was an objective junior synonym. Haemamoeba Feletti & Grassi, 1889, and Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889: These names (which were usually wrongly treated as having been published in 1890 and attributed to Grassi & Feletti instead of to Feletti & Grassi) were established by their authors as the names of monotypical genera, the first for the Quartan Malaria Parasite (then given the name Haemamoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi), the second for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (there referred to under the trivial name malariae, which was no doubt identified by these authors with malariae Laveran, 1881, in view of the fact that they selected that authority’s name as the basis for their new generic name). Ematozoo Antolisei_ & Angelini, 1890: This was a monotypical genus, having as its type species Ematozoo faleiforme Antolisei & Angelini, 1890, a nominal species identified with the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. es ee SS 608 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (g) Cytamoeba, Cytosporon, Haemocytosporon, and Cyto- zoon Danilewsky, 1891: All these generic names had been declared unavailable nomenclatorially by the Commission in their Opinion 101. (h) Haematozoon Thayer & Hewitson, 1895: This also was a monotypical genus, its type species being Haematozoon falciforme Thayer & Hewitson, 1895, which had been identified as the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. (i) Haemosporidium Lewkowicz, 1897: Lewkowicz included in this genus all three of the human malaria parasites then discovered, treating them all as varieties of a single species, which however was not itself cited by him under a trivial name. No type species was designated for this genus by Lewkowicz and no later author had selected as the type species of the genus any of the three taxonomic species included by Lewkowicz in the single com- posite species recognised by that author but not cited by him under a trivial name. The second of the varieties recognised by Lewkowicz and deno- minated by him under the technical designation quartanae was, in fact, it was agreed by specialists, the Quartan Malaria Parasite. In order to assign a definite status to the generic name Haemosporidium Lewkowicz, he (the Acting President) had himself, in the paper’now before the Commission, selected Haemamoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889, as the type species of the genus Haemosporidium Lewkowicz, 1897, making it an objective synonym of Haemamoeba Feletti & Grassi, 1889, of which the same species is the type species. (6) The information so assembled showed that the generic name Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, was an available name (in the sense that it was not a homonym of any previously published generic name), that its type species was a nominal species (Plasmodium malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885), which was subjectively identified with Oscillaria malariae Laveran, 1881, and that it was the oldest generic name having as its type species either the species so named by Laveran or a nominal species subjectively identified therewith. It was therefore the oldest available generic name for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite. The generic name Hdmatophyllum Met- schnikoff, 1887, was an objective synonym of Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli and the names of the following genera were subjective synonyms of that generic name, VOL, 4 L* 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 609 their respective type species being subjective synonyms of the nominal species that was the type species of the genus Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli :—Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889; Hmatozoo Antolisei & Angelini, 1890 ; Haematozoon Thayer & Hewitson, 1895. The Quartan Malaria Parasite (Haemomoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi 1889) was the type species of the genus Haemamoeba Feletti & Grassi, 1889, and this, being an available name, was the correct generic name for the Quartan Malaria Parasite for any specialist who regarded that species as generically distinct from the Malignant Tertian Malaria ‘Parasite (the type species of the genus Plasmodiwm Mar- chiafava & Celli). The genus Haemosporidium Lewkowicz, 1897, was an objective synonym of Haemamoeba Feletti & Grassi, 1889, the same nominal species being the type species of both genera. The Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite was not the type species of any genus, but, as it was regarded by all workers as congeneric with the Quartan Malaria Parasite, its correct generic name for any given specialist was the name of whatever genus (either Haemamoeba Feletti & Grassi, 1889, or Plasmodium Marchiafava & ' Celli) was accepted by that worker as the genus to which on taxonomic grounds the Quartan Malaria Parasite should be referred. (7) Having now established what under the Régles were the correct generic and trivial names for the human malaria parasites, it was at length possible to compare those names with the names in universal use (which were also the names entered on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” in Opinion 104). This comparison showed the following results :— Vernacular name of human Correct scientific Scientific name malaria parasite name under universally in the “* Regles” use (also the name recognised in ‘‘ Opinion”’ 104) (1) Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (a) For workers who regard this species as con- generic with the Plasmodium Quartan Malaria Para- | falciparum site Plasmodium (Welch, 1897) malariae (b) For workers who regard | (Laveran, 1881) Laverania this species and the falciparum Quartan Malaria Para- | (Welch, 1897) site as belonging to different genera 610 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Vernacular name of human | Correct scientific Scientific name malaria parasite name under universally in the * Regles”’ use (also the name recognised in “ Opinion”? 104) (2) Quartan Malaria Parasite (a) For workers who regard this species as con- | Plasmodium generic with the | quartanum Malignant Tertian | (Labbé, 1894) Malaria Parasite Plasmodim malariae (b) For workers who regard (Laveran, 1881) this species and the | Haemamoeba Malignant Tertian | quartanum Malaria Parasite as | (Labbé, 1894) belonging to different genera (3) Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite (treated by all specialists as congeneric < with the Quartan Malaria Parasite) (a) For workers who regard | Plasmodium } the Malignant Tertian | vivax Malaria Parasite and | (Grassi and the Quartan Malaria Feletti, 1890) Plasmodium Parasite as congeneric vivax (Grassi and (b) For workers who regard | Haemamoeba Feletti, 1890) the Malignant Tertian | vivax Malaria Parasite and | (Grassi and | the Quartan Malaria | Feletti, 1890) |) Parasite as belonging to different genera (8) It was obvious from the foregoing analysis that the gravest confusion would arise in the literature of malario- logy, if the Régles were to be strictly applied to the names of human malaria parasites, involving, as this would, among other changes (i) the transfer of the trivial name malariae from the Quartan Malaria Parasite (for which it was invariably used but to which it did not properly belong) to the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (to which it correctly © belonged but for which it was never used), and (ii) the accept- ance (equally confusing) of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite instead of the Quartan Malaria Parasite as the type species of theg enus Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli. All specialists were agreed in asking the Commission to use their plenary powers to prevent these disastrous changes from becoming necessary. The first could be achieved by suppressing the trivial name malariae Laveran, 1881; altogether, and by validating the trivial name malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889, for the Quartan Malaria Parasite ; the second could be achieved by the Commission 14th M eeting, Paris, July, 1948. 611 using their plenary powers to set aside the existing type designation for the genus Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli and by the Commission itself designating Haemamoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889, to be the type species of this genus. In order to validate the use of the trivial name falciparum Welch, 1897, it would be necessary to suppress all trivial names given to the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite subsequent to the name malariae Laveran, 1881 (which, as indicated above, it would be necessary in any case to suppress for the purpose of enabling the trivial name malariae to be used: for the Quartan Malaria Parasite) and prior to the publication of the name falciparum Welch. He (the Acting President) recommended that advantage should be taken of the present opportunity to suppress, or, as the case might be, to declare invalid or inapplicable or non-existent all the names bestowed upon the human mal- aria parasites up to the end of the XIXth century which had been examined in the study placed before the Commission, other than the names now proposed to be validated. The names published by Danilewsky in 1891 had already been de- clared unavailable under Opinion 101. Turning to procedural questions, the Acting President said that it would be neces- sary (i) to cancel the incorrect statements regarding the generic names Plasmodium and Laverania contained in Opinion 104 and the consequent incorrect particulars regarding those names jn the “Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”, (ii) to insert in that “Official List” amended particulars regarding the foregoing generic names, (ili) to insert entries in the “ Official Index of Rejected - and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ and in the corres- ponding “Index” of rejected and invalid specific trivial names recording the decisions taken to Suppress or to declare invalid, inapplicable or non-existent the names now recommended to be so suppressed or so declared, and (iv) to place on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” the correct trivial names as now stabilised for the three species of human malaria parasites under con- sideration. (9) He (the Acting President) regretted that it had been necessary to burden the Commission with such a mass of detail, but, as they would have realised, this was unavoidable in even the most condensed presentation of the present case, if that presentation was to deal with each of the indi- vidual problems involved. It was difficult to imagine an application for the use of the plenary powers of greater importance than that now submitted or one which would be more widely supported by authoritative opinion in all ‘parts of the world. He (the Acting President) therefore 612 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. confidently placed this application before the Commission for their approval. (10) Finally, he (the Acting President) wished to express his thanks for the valuable advice and great assistance and encouragement which, while preparing the present applica- tion, he had received from leading protozoologists and other interested specialists. In particular, he desired to acknowledge the help received from Sir Rickard Christophers (Cambridge University, Cambridge), Brigadier J. A. Sinton (War Office, London), Dr. C. M. Wenyon (The Wellcome Research Institution, London), Professor Robert L. Usinger (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.), Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.), Dr. C. Robert Coatney (United States Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.), and Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck (United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.), the last two of whom had been so kind as to furnish photostat copies of rare Italian papers on the malaria parasites, originals of which were not available in London. IN THE DISCUSSION which ensued, the view was ex- pressed on all hands that it was the clear duty of the Commission to use their plenary powers in the manner proposed, in order to prevent the catastrophic confusion not only in the’systematic literature of Protozoa but also— and, in this case this was of much greater importance—in the vast medical and technical literature of malariology. The Secretary to the Commission was congratulated upon the masterly fashion in which he had assembled the complex mass of data which it was necessary to consider in order to determine the correct position as it existed under the Regles. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to cancel the incorrect particulars relating to the generic names Plasmodium and Laverania con- tained :— (a) in Opinion 104; * (b) in consequence of (a) above, in the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; (2) to use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress for all purposes the under- mentioned trivial names published for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite :— malariae Laveran, 1881 (as published in the binominal combination Oscillaria malariae) 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948. 613 malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (as published in the binoming] combination Plasmodium malariae) malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Laverania malariae) (in so far as this was published as a new name and not as the trivial name malariae Laveran, 1881) ; (b) to suppress for all purposes other than Article 35 the undermentioned trivial names published for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite :— falciforme Antolisei & Angelini, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination Ematozoo faleiforme) laverani Labbé, 1894 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba laverani) faleiforme Thayer & Hewitson, 1895 (as published in the binominal combination Haematozoon falciforme) ; (c) to set aside the indication, by monotypy, of Plasmodium malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite) as the type species (i) of the genus Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, and (ii) of the genus Hématophyllum Met- schnikoff, 1887 (the name of which was published as a substitute name (nom. nov.) for Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, in the erroneous belief that that name was not available under the Regles), and in place of the foregoing Species to designate Haemamoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (the Quartan Malaria Parasite) to be the type species both of the genus Plas- modium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, and of the genus Hématophyllum Metschnikoff, 1887 ; (d) to validate the undermentioned trivial names :— malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination - Haemamoeba malariae) to be the name of the Quartan Malaria Parasite, not- withstanding the fact that, prior to the 614 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. suppression under the plenary powers of the trivial names consisting of the word “ malariae ’’, specified in (a) above, that name had been an invalid secondary homonym ; “i falciparum Welch, 1897 (as published in the binominal combination Haematozoon falciparum) to be the name of the Malig- nant Tertian Malaria Parasite ; (e) to set aside the indication, by monotypy, of Laverania malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889, or, as the case may be, Oscillaria malariae Laveran, 1881, (being names for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite suppressed under (a) above) as the type species of the genus Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889, and in the place of the species so named to designate Haematozoon falci- parum Welch, 1897. to be the type species of that genus ; (f) to validate the generic name Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (type species, by designation under the plenary ' powers, under (e) above: Haematozoon falciparum Welch, 1897, validated under the plenary powers, under (d) above, as the name of the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite) ; (3) to declare the undermentioned generic names to be invalid or not required for the reasons severally stated -below against the names in question :— Generic name Reason why — generic name cited in Col. (1) is invalid or not required (1) (2) Oscillaria Laveran, Invalid because a homo- 1881 (insofaras nym _ of Oseillaria Laveran published Schrank, 1823, that this as a new name retaining under name and not as Article 1 its right Oscillaria Schrank, under Article 34, not- 1823) withstanding the fact that the genus so named has been trans- ferred to the Vegetable Kingdom 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 615 Hadmatophyllum Invalid because an objec- Metschnikoff, - tive synonym of Plas- 1887 modium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, the two nominal genera having the same nominal species as type species Haemamoeba Feletti Invalid because the type & Grassi, 1889 species of this genus (Haemamoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi, _* 1889) has, under (2) (c) above, been desig- nated under the plenary powers to be the type species of the genus having the older name Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 Ematozoo Antolisei Not required because its & Angelini, 1890 type species (Emato- z00 faleiforme Antolisei & Angelini, 1890) is a subjective synonym of Haematozoon falci- parum Welch, 1897, designated under the plenary powers, under (2) (f) above, to be the type species of the genus Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889; Haematozoon Thayer Not required because its & Hewitson, 1895 type species (Haemato- zoon falciforme Thayer & Hewitson, 1895) is a subjective synonym of Haematozoon falci- parum Welch, 1897, designated under the plenary powers, under (2) (f) above, to be the type species of the genus Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889 ; 616 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Haemosporidium Invalid because its type Lewkowicz, 1897 species, Haemawoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (by selec- tion under Article 30, Rule (g) and Opinion 35) is the same nominal species as that which, under the plenary powers, has, under (2) (c) above, been desig- nated as the type spe- cies of the genus having the older name Plas- modium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (4) to declare that the undermentioned trivial names, each of which was published as the name of a new avian parasite but in the description of each of which there appeared an incorrect statement that the parasite in question had been found in the blood of human malaria patients, were not available as trivial names for the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite (the parasite mis- identified with the avian parasite concerned), these trivial names adhering under the Regles to the avian parasites, from which the original descriptions of these parasites were drawn up ey their respective authors :— praecoz Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in the bmominal combination Haemamoeba prae- cox) immaculata Grassi, 1891 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba immacu- lata) (5) to declare that the wundermentioned terms consisting of Latin adjectives published in the genitive case, in agreement not with the generic name (as required by Article 14(1)(a)) but with the specific trivial name, either expressed or understood, were published not as subspecific trivial names of human malaria parasites, but as technical designations for those species and that the Latin adjectives in question accordingly possess no status under the Reégles as subspecific trivial names :— quartanae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as published 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 617 in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) tertianae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) quotidianae Celli & Sanfelice, 189] (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) tertianae Kruse, 1892 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) quartanae Kruse, 1892 (as published in connec- tion with the binominal combination Plas- modium malariae) irregularis Kruse, 1892 (as published in con- nection with the binominal combination Plas- modium malariae) tertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in con- nection with the generic name Haemosporidium) quartanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemos- poridium) undecimanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemo- sporidium) sexdecimanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemo- sporidium) vigesimo-tertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemo- sporidium) ; (6) to place on record :— (a) that there was no such generic’ name as Haematomonas Osler, 1886, Osler in the passage in question not having published a new generic name but having referred to the previously published name Haematomonas Mitrophanow, 1883 ; (b) that the undermentioned generic and trivial names published for human malaria para- sites by Danilewsky, 1891, possessed no status under the Reégles, the paper in which they were published having been declared 618 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. by the Commission in Opinion 101 to be unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes :— (i) the generic names :— Cytamoeba Danilewsky, 1891 Cytosporon Danilewsky, 1891 Cytozoon Danilewsky, 1891 Haemocytosporon Danilewsky, 1891 . (ii) the trivial name hominis Danilewsky, 1891 (as published in the binominal ° combination Laverania hominis); (c) that the trivial name quartana Labbé, 1894 (as published as a subspecific trivial name in the trinominal combination Haema- moeba laverani var: quartana), is not required. for the Quartan Malaria Parasite, it being a junior subjective synonym of the trivial name malariae Feletti & Grassi 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba malariae) validated under the plenary powers under (2) (d) above ; (d) that the undermentioned alleged trivial names, not having been published, were cheironyms and accordingly possessed no status under the Regles :— irregularis Sakharov, 1892 (erroneously alleged to have been published as a subspecific trivial name in the trinominal combination Haemamoeba febris wregu- laris) : tropica Koch, 1899 (erroneously alleged to have been published in the binominal combination Plasmodium. tropica) ; (7) to declare that the trivial name vivax Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in the binonimal com- bination Haemamoeba vivaz) is the oldest available trivial name for, and therefore the valid trivial name of, the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite ; (8) to declare that the trivial name tertiana Labbé, 1894 (as published as a subspecific trivial name in the trinominal combination Haemamoeba laverant var. tertiana) is not required for the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite, being a subjective synonym of the earlier published trivial name vivax Grassi & Feletti, 1890 ; 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 619 (9) to substitute the following particulars in regard to the generic names Plasmodium and Laverania in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” in place of the particulars deleted therefrom in accordance with-(1) above :—- : Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (type species by designation under the plenary powers: Haemamoeba malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889) (the Quartan Malaria Parasite) ; Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers : Haematozoon falciparum Welch, 1897) (the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite) (generic name to be used by authors who consider the Malignant Tertian (or Aestivo-Autumnal) Mal- aria Parasite to be generically distinct from the Quartan Malaria Parasite) ; (10) to place the undermentioned generic names and alleged generic names on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ :— Cytamoeba Danilewsky, 1891 (a name possessing no status under the Régles, the Commission having ruled (Opinion 101) that the paper in which it was published is not available for nomenclatorial purposes) Cytosporon Danilewsky, 1891 (a name posses- ing no status under the Regles, the Commission having ruled (Opinion 101) that the paper in _ which it was published is not available for nomenclatorial purposes) Cytozoon Danilewsky, 1891 (a name possessing no status under the Régles, the Commission having ruled (Opinion 101) that the paper in which it was published is not available for nomenclatorial purposes) Haemamoeba Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (invalid because an objective synonym of Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, as defined under the plenary powers in (2) (c) above, but available for the purposes of Article 34) International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Haematomonas Osler, 1886 (a cheironym based upon a misreading of a passage referring to the generic name Haematomonas Mitrophartow, 1883) Hiimatophyllum Metschnikoff, 1887 (invalid because an objective synonym of Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, but available for the purposes of Article 34) Haemocytosporon Danilewsky, 1891 (a name possessing. no status under the Régles, the Commission having ruled (Opinion 101) that the paper in which it was published is not available for nomenclatorial purposes) Haemosporidium Lewkowicz, 1897 (invalid be- cause an objective synonym of Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885, as defined under the plenary powers in (2) (c) above but available for the purposes of Article 34) Oscillaria Laveran, 1881 (in so far as published by Laveran as a new name, invalid as a homonym of Oscillaria Schrank, 1823); (11) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— falciparum Welch, 1897 (as published in the binominal combination Haematozoon falciparum) (the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite) malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba malariae) (the Quartan Malaria Parasite) vivax Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in the bmominal combination Haemamoeba vivaz) (the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite) ; (12) to place the undermentioned trivial names and alleged trivial names on the ‘“ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” :— falciforme Antolisei & Angelini, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination Emato- z00 faleiforme) (suppressed under the plenary powers, under (2) (b) above, for all purposes other than Article 35) 7 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 621 falciforme Thayer & Hewitson, 1895 (as published in the binominal combination Haema- tozoon falciforme) (suppressed under the plenary powers, under (2) (b) above, for all purposes other than Article 35) hominis Danilewsky, 1891 (as published in the binominal combination Laverania hominis) (a name possessing no status under the Régles, the Commission having ruled (Opinion 101) that the paper in which it was published is not available for nomenclatorial purposes) wmmaculata Grassi, 1891 (as published in the binominal combinationHaemamoeba im maculata) (not applicable to the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite, but available for the avian parasite, on’ which the description by the original author was based) wregularis Kruse, 1892 (as published in con- nection with the binominal combination Plas- modium malariae) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Regles) wregularis Sakharov (erroneously alleged to have been published in 1892 as a subspecific trivial name in the trinominal combination Haemamoeba febris irregularis) (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) laveranti Labbé, 1894 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba laverant) (suppressed under the plenary powers for all purposes other than Article 35, under (2) (b) above) malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Laverania malariae) (in so far as this was a new name and not merely a use of the trivial name malariae Laveran, 1881) (suppressed for all purposes under the plenary powers under (2) (a) above) International Commission on Zoological N omenclature. malariae Laveran, 1881 (as published in the binominal combination Oscillaria malariae) (suppressed for all purposes under the plenary powers under (2) (a) above) malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (as pub- ‘lished in the binominal combination Plas- modium malariae) (suppressed for all purposes under the plenary powers under (2) (a) above) praecoxr Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba praecox) (not applicable to the Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite, but available for the avian parasite, on which the description by the original authors was based) quartanae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) : 2 quartanae Kruse, 1892 (as published in connec- tion with the binominal combination Plas- modium malariae) (published as a_ technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) quartanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemosport- dium) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence pos- sessing no status under the Régles) quotidianae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as pub- lished in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) sexdecimanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemos- le Vou.4 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 623 poridium) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) tertianae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in conse- quence possessing no status under the Reégles) tertianae Kruse, 1892 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) tertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemospori- dium) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) troptea Koch (erroneously alleged to - have been published in 1899 as a specific trivial name in the binominal combination Plasmodium tropica) (a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles) undecimanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemos- poridium) (published as a technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) vigesimotertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as pub- lished in connection with the generic name Haemosporidium) (published as a_ technical designation, not as a trivial name, and in consequence possessing no status under the Régles) ; (13) to place on record their grateful thanks to the protozoologists, bibliographers and other special- ists who, by furnishing information and advice on systematic and bibliographical questions or by supplying photostat copies of rare papers needed in the course of the present investigation into the nomenclature of the human malaria parasites or otherwise, had contributed to the 624 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 14(1)(a) : on term consisting of an adjective denoting a sub- species or infra- subspecific form of a species,whose trivial name is a noun in the genitive case, declared not to acquire status as a subspecific or infra-subspecific trivial name, if published in grammatical agreement not with the generic name but with the trivial name:of the species, either expressed or understood . (Previous reference: Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 5) successful elucidation of the complex problems involved ; (14) to congratulate Secretary Hemming on the masterly fashion in which he had marshalled the evidence in the light of which the decisions now taken had been reached ; (15) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (12) above. 60. Arising out of the decision recorded in Conclusion 59(5) above, that the terms quartanae, tertianae, etc., used by Celli and Sanfelice, 1891 (in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae), being adjec- tives in the genitive case in grammatical agreement not with the generic name (as required by Article 14(1) (a)) but with the specific trivial name malariae (a noun in the genitive case), were published as technical designations for the subspecies concerned and that this applied also to the same and other adjectives in grammatical agreement with a specific trivial name, consisting of a noun in the genitive case, understood but not expressed, similarly used by Lewkowicz, 1897 (in connection with the generic name Haemosporidium) and therefore that the Latin adjectives so used possessed no status under the Régles as subspecific trivial names, THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend that words should be inserted in the Reégles to make it clear :— (a) that the provision relating to the automatic correction of orthographical and other in- fringements of Articles 14-16, 18 and 20, which, at the meeting noted in the margin, it had been agreed to recommend should be inserted in the Régles, did not apply to a case where a subspecific or infra-subspecific form of a species, the trivial name of which consisted of a noun in the genitive case, was denoted by an adjective in grammatical agreement not with the generic name (as required by Article 14) but with the specific trivial name, either expressed or understood ; that an adjective used in the manner indicated n (a) above for the purpose of distinguishing a subspecies or infra-subspecific form did not acquire thereby the status of a sub- specific, or infra-subspecific, trivial name ; Ss a EE aa, “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”: clarification of scope of, in certain respects (Previous reference: Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 42) (Previous references: Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusions 24 and 36) (Previous reference: Paris Session, - 8th Meeting, Conclusion 6) Vor. 4 me 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 625 (2) to report to the Section on Nomenclature the recommendation specified in (1) above and the conclusions reached in regard to the nomenclature of the human malaria parasites, as recorded in Con- clusion 59 above ; (3) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, forthwith to submit to the Section on Nomenclature the Report referred to in (2) above. (The Acting President therewpon submitted. the fore- gowng Report to the Section on Nomenclature.) 61. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that there were two small points in connection with the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” on which further clarification was desirable. As this “ List ” was intended to provide a means for record- ing the trivial names of species, the nomenclature of which it was desired to stabilise, it would consist mainly of trivial names which had originally been published in binominal combinations. In some cases, however, it happened that the species the name of which it was desired to stabilise (for example because it was the type species of an important genus) had originally been described as a subspecies of some other species. In such a case the trivial name of the species concerned would be a name which had originally been published as a subspecific trivial name as part of a tri- nominal combination. Two such cases had been considered in the course of that evening’s discussions, namely the’ type species of the genus Huchloé Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) and the type species of Brissus Gray, 1825 (Class Echinoidea, Order Spatangoida). In each of these cases, the Commission had agreed that the trivial name in question should be placed on the “ Official List”. This was clearly the right course. It was not absolutely clear, however, whether the existing decision in regard to this “ Official List” covered this class of case. It was desirable therefore that it should be expressly placed on record that in such cases names originally published as subspecific trivial names were eligible for admission to this “ Official List”. The second point was of a somewhat different kind: it would be remembered that, at the suggestion of Alternate Commissioner Beltran it had been agreed, in concurrence with the Section on Nomenclature, that, where it was decided to stabilise the generic nomencla- ture of a given group of species by means of the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” but there was not full agreement among specialists as to whether more than one 626 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. genus should be recognised for taxonomic purposes, two or more names should be placed on the “ Official List,” subject to the insertion against the later published of the generic name or names in question of a note that the generic name concerned had been placed on the “ Official List” for the benefit of those specialists who regarded the type species of the genus so named as generically distinct from the species which was the type species of the genus bearing the oldest of the generic names so placed on the “ List”. A similar — problem would sometimes arise in connection with the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’, for the Commission would sometimes want to place on that “ List ”’ a trivial name which was regarded by some specia- lists as the trivial name of a species, but by others as the trivial name of a subspecies of some second species. It was desirable in this case also that it should be made clear in the provisions governing this “ Official List” that, mutatis mutandis, the principles agreed upon (on the sugges- tion of Alternate Commissioner Beltran) in the case of the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” applied also to the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”. IN THE DISCUSSION which followed, it was generally agreed that express provision should be made in the provi- sions governing the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoolegy ” to meet the two classes of case to which the the Acting President had referred. The view was expressed however that, while this “ Official List ’’ was intended primarily for recording the trivial names of species, this should not be held to render ineligible for admission to this “List” trivial names, which all specialists were agreed were subspecific trivial names, in cases where, in the opinion of the Commission, there. was some good reason why the trivial name in question should be stabilised in this way. This suggestion won general support and in consequence consideration was given to the question whether the title agreed upon for this “ Official List” would require to be changed. Much discussion had already taken place at previous meetings in regard to the title to be given to this “* Official List ” and it was generally felt that the title that had finally been adopted was the most suitable that could be devised. ‘The fact that names regarded by specialists as the trivial names not of species but of subspecies were now to be rendered eligible for admission to this “List ” was in no way inconsistent with its present title, for from the nomenclatorial point of view, a specific trivial name differed in no way from a subspecific trivial name, the’sole difference between the two classes of name being the subjective taxonomic view taken by specialists regarding 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948, 627 the systematic status of the unit represented by the animal so named, that is, whether that unit should be regarded as a species or as a subspecies. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to recommend that it should be made clear in the provisions governing the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” that, in addition to trivial names which were both originally published as specific trivial names (i.e. as part of a binominal - combination) and were also currently regarded by specialists as the trivial names of taxonomically valid species, the following classes of names should also be eligible for admission to the foregoing “ Official List” :— (a) trivial names originally published as the trivial names of subspecies but now regarded as the trivial names of species ; (b) trivial names, whether originally published as specific trivial names or as subspecific trivial names, now regarded as sub- specific trivial names : (2) to recommend that there should be added to the provisions governing the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’ a provision prescrib- ing that, where the Commission decided to place on the “ Official List ” a trivial name regarded as a specific trivial name by some specialists but by others as a subspecific trivial name :— (a) a note should be inserted against the entry in the “ Official List ” to the trivial name in question that it had been placed on the said “ Official List” without prejudice to the question whether it was a Specific, or a subspecific, trivial name ; and that (b) in such a case there should at the same time be placed on the “ Official List ” the trivial name of the species, of which, in the opinion * of some specialists, the taxonomic unit bearing the other trivial name was a sub- species ; (Previous reference: (3) that the extension of the scope of the “ Official Paris Session, List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” oe Medting, specified in (1) and (2) above did not call f 5 1 Specified in (1) and (2) above did not ca or any “ete change in the title which, at the meeting noted in 628 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Editorial Committee charged with the duty of editing the revised text of the “ Regles”’: proposals submitted to the Section on Nomenclature in regard to the composition of (Previous references: Paris Session, llth Meeting, Conclusions 5(1)(b) and (3)) the margin, it had been agreed should be the title of the foregoing “ Official List ” ; “ (4) to report to the Section on Nomenclature the recommendation in regard to the scope of the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” specified in (1) and (2) above and the conclusion in regard to the title to be given to that “ Official List ” specified in (3) above ; (5) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, forthwith to submit to the Section on N omenclature the Report referred to in (4) above. (The Acting President thereupon submitted the fore- going Report to the Section on Nomenclature.) 62. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that at the meeting held that day in the forenoon the Commission, in agreement with the Section on Nomenclature, had agreed to substitute for the arrange- ments previously approved for the examination of the draft of the Régles as revised by the present Congress, when received from the jurists, and for the final settlement of any questions which.might arise from that examination (including any questions which might be raised by Com- missioners and Alternate Commissioners who had been in attendance during the Paris Session or, as respects drafting matters, by Commissioners who had not been in such attendance) an arrangement under which the foregoing duties would be assigned to an ad hoc Editorial Committee composed of three Commissioners, including, if so desired, Alternate Commissioners, who had been present throughout the Paris Congress. this Editorial Committee was not a matter which could have been settled at that meeting and it had accordingly been decided that this question should be postponed for considera- tion at a meeting to be held later in the course of the same day. He (the Acting President) had now to report that in accordance with the request addressed to him at the morning meeting, he had held consultations during the day with leading European and American zoologists on the question of the proposals to be submitted in regard to the selection’ of the zoologists to be invited to serve on the Editorial Committee. There was general agreement that the member- ship of this Committee should consist of the Secretary to the Commission and of one European, and one American, member of the Commission. For the European seat, all agreed that it was desirable to secure the services of a zoo- The question of the composition of . 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 629 logist, whose mother tongue was French but who was also thoroughly familiar with the English language, for this qualification would be of especial value in ensuring the closest comparison of the draft of the substantive French. text of the Regles with the draft of the English translation of that text. The unanimous view of all the zoologists consulted was that this place should be offered to Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) who had not only played an important part as an Alternate Member of the Commission, in the reform of the Regles agreed upon during the present Congress, and possessed in an outstanding measure the special quali- fications required, but was also a zoologist of the highest distinction, whose appointment to the Editorial Committee - would be generally acclaimed by European zoologists. Professor van Straelen was unfortunately detained by another engagement elsewhere but he had authorised him (the Acting President) to state that, if it was the general wish of the Commission that he should serve on the Editorial Committee, he would be willing to be nominated for election thereto. For the American seat on the Committee, the American zoologists consulted would have desired to nominate Professor J. Chester Bradley, the senior of the American members of the Commission attending the present Congress, but they realised that this was not practicable, in view of the arrangements made by Professor Chester Bradley to start an extensive tour of Africa shortly after the close of the Congress. The American zoologists accordingly proposed that the American seat on the Editorial Committee should be offered to Professor Robert L. Usinger, who, as an Alter- nate Member of the Commission, had attended all the meetings of the Commission at which the reform of the Régles had been under consideration and had himself played an outstanding part in the discussions leading to the decisions reached. Professor Usinger had indicated that, if so invited by the Commission, he would be willing to be nominated to serve on the Editorial Committee. IN THE DISCUSSION which ensued, general satis- faction was expressed at the result of the consultations undertaken by the Acting President, the nominations suggested meeting with the approval of all present. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to nominate the undermentioned Members and Alternate Members of the Commission, who had been in attendance throughout the Paris Session, to be the members of the Editorial Committee charged with the duty of examining 630 Tntcrnational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. the text, when received from the jurists, of the Regles Internationales, as revised by the present Congress, the appointment of which the Section on Nomenclature, in agreement with the Commis- sion, had, at the meeting held in the forenoon of the same day, agreed to recommend for approval by the Congress at the final Conciliwm Plenum to be held on the following day (Tuesday, 27th July 1948) :-— Commissioner Francis Hemming (United King- dom) (Secretary to the Commission) Alternate Commissioner V. van _ Straelen (Belgium) Alternate Commissioner Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) ; _— bo ~~ to report the nominations specified in (1) above, to the Section on Nomenclature, with a request that they be approved and adopted, and with an intimation that, if the said nominations were so approved and adopted, it was the intention of the Commission, with the concurrence of the Section, to insert particulars of the membership of the Editorial Committee in the relevant paragraph of the Report to the Congress which they had them- selves unanimously adopted earlier during the present day and which had subsequently been similarly approved and adopted by the Section for submission to the Congress in Concilium Plenum ; (3) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, forthwith to submit to the Section on Nomenclature the Report referred to in (2) above. (The Acting President thereupon submitted the fore- going Report to the Section on Nomenclature.) Report to the 63. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS Cc k : : sorter med by? ihe HEMMING) recalled that, in accordance with an arrange- Commission ment made that morning, in agreement with the Section, Haendgt ae he had at the close of the meeting held in the later part of instalment ~ that afternoon invited the Commission to submit a formal submitted tothe = recommendation to the Section, then sitting jointly with eoueucters the Commission, that the Section agree that the approval (Previous reference: Paris Session, llth Meeting, Conclusion 6 (2)) (Previous reference: 13th Meeting, Conclusion 51)) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 631 of the recommendations and decisions reached by the Commission signified by the Section at the time when it had approved the Commission’s Report to the Congress should be held to extend also to the recommendations and conclusions reached by the Commission at later meetings held jointly with the Section. The recommendations adopted and the conclusions reached by the Commission during the present meeting had all been reported to the Section on Nomenclature. All that was now necessary was therefore to invite the Section to extend to those recommendations and conclusions the approval which it had signified when approv- ing the Report agreed upon by the Commission for sub- mission to the Congress in Conciliwum Plenum. On the adoption by the Section of a proposal so submitted, all the necessary formal action would have been taken; every recommendation adopted, and every conclusion reached, by the Commission during their present Session would have been reported to the Section ; every such recommendation would have been approved by the Section and covered by the Report submitted to the Congress by the Commission and the Section for approval in Concilium Plenum. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to request the Section on Nomenclature, acting under the procedure agreed upon at the meeting held in the forenoon of the same day, to extend the approval then given to the recommendations and conclusions either specified in, or referred to in, the Report then submitted by the Commission for transmission to the Congress, to cover also the recommendations adopted, and the con- clusions reached, by the Commission during their present (fourteenth) meeting and already reported by the Commission to the Section during the course of the said meeting, so that, when the foregoing Report was submitted to the Congress in Concilium Plenum, it should cover the entire ‘field of the work performed by the Commission and the Section during the present Congress ; (2) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, forthwith to submit to the Section on Nomenclature the request specified in (1) above. ~— (The Acting President thereupon submitted the fore- going request to the Section on Nomenclature.) 632 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Decisions taken by the Commission in “Opinions ” and other publications (method to be adopted for recording): consideration of resolution regarding, submitted on behalf of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 64. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that earlier during the present Session Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) had notified him that the Committee on Nomenclature of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. had requested him to submit to the Commission during its Session in Paris a Resolution on the subject of the procedure which, in the opinion of the Committee, was desirable should be followed in preparing texts recording decisions taken by the Commission. On receiving this intimation from Professor Usinger; he had at once assured him that before the close of the Paris Session. he, as the Acting President, would provide an opportunity for Professor Usinger to bring forward his Resolution and for a full discussion to take place on the issues raised. He had added that in the meantime he would be much obliged if Professor Usinger would be good enough to furnish him with a copy of the Resolution which he desired to bring forward, so that he (the Acting President), in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission and there- fore the Officer of the Commission responsible for the recording of decisions taken by the Commission, might have an opportunity of considering the points which it was desired to raise, before the discussion actually took place in the Commission. Professor Usinger had immediately acceded to this request and not long afterwards had handed in the terms of the proposed Resolution. This Resolution was headed: ‘“ Resolution submitted by R. L. Usinger for the Committee on Nomenclature of the Smithsonian Institution: J. Brookes Knight, C. W. Sabrosky, P. W. Oman, C. F. W. Muesebeck, F. A. Chase, and R. KE. Blackwelder.” He (the Acting President) now called upon Professor Usinger to read the Resolution which he had submitted and to make any supplementary explana- tions in regard thereto which he might wish to lay before the Commission. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. USINGER (U.S.A.) then read the following Resolution :— “Tt is of the utmost importance that all published statements of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature carry the full authority of the Commission. This authority can not be the same in the case of Opinions and other publications issued under the ‘‘ agreement in principle” procedure inaugurated at the Lisbon meetings -in 1935 as compared with previous Opinions which were actually seen and voted upon in their final form by the Commission. “‘ Serious objections have been raised to the new procedure because of uncertainty as to whether or not the published wording carries the actual meaning of the points voted by the Commission. Now that the voting procedure has been liberalised it is even more important and at the same time easier to ensure thet the formal stamp of approval be given to the actual wording of feture publica- tions of the Commission. = 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 633 ** Accordingly it is proposed that in every case the final draft, or in cases where urgency is very great proof sheets of official actions of the Commission be submitted to the full Commission with a rigorous time limit and with authority vested in the Secretary to evaluate the resulting comments and judge whether they should (1) be adopted; (2) be rejected, or (3) be submitted again to the Commission for further consideration.” Alternate Commissioner Usinger then said that he hoped that the Commission as a body would not think that, in making this proposal, he and his colleagues were in any way opposed to the Commission or were seeking to place difficulties in its path: The reverse was the case. It was because he and those associated with him were firm supporters of international co-operation in the field of zoological nomenclature that they put forward the present proposal, desiring, as they did, to see the position of the Commission strengthened. This aim could, however, in their view, be attained only by the adoption of measures to ensure that the contribution to the work of the Commission actually made by its members was increased to the maximum not only during the meetings of the Congress but also—and especially—during inter-Congress periods. In order to achieve this end, it was desirable that the responsibilities and powers of the Secretary to the Commission should be circumscribed to the fullest extent possible and that that Officer should be given only so much discretion as was absolutely necessary to enable him to give effect to deci- sions previously taken by the Commission. Further, it was desirable that, so far as possible, the Secretary to the Commission should abstain from expressing in print even his personal views on questions of zoological nomenclature. For the publication of such views, even in papers which were clearly marked as personal contributions only, were liable to give rise to misunderstandings (as had happened in Washington in the case of the ‘‘ Editorial Notes ” attached by the Secretary to the reissues of the older Opinions), since views expressed by the holder of the high Office of Secretary to the Commission inevitably carried great weight, even if they were personal opinions only. Concluding, Alternate Commissioner Usinger expressed the hope that, for the reasons which he had explained, the Commission would adopt the Resolution which he had proposed, and would accordingly instruct the Secretary to guide his work in future by the principles there laid down. COMMISSIONER CHESTER BRADLEY (U.8.A.) said that all would agree that it was essential that the wording used in Opinions for recording decisions taken by the Commission should give full effect to the decision taken by the Commission, neither adding anything to it nor sub- 634 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. tracting anything from it. This had always been the practice. There had been no change in this matter at Lisbon and no “agreement in principle” prodecure had then been adopted. The numerous decisions then taken in regard to individual names, many of them on proposals submitted by himself, had all been recorded in the Report then unanimously submitted by the Commission to the Congress; the Opinions subsequently published merely gave effect to the decisions reached at Lisbon. He thought it important—and he felt sure that this was also the view of Secretary Hemming—that during inter-Congress periods as close a touch as possible should be maintained between the _Secretary’s Office on the one hand and the other members of the Commission on the other. It was equally important however to realise the great difficulties involved in running the Secretariat of the Commission; the volume of work was very great and its despatch depended entirely upon the efforts of the Commission’s spare-time Secretary. He felt confident that Secretary Hemming was fully as anxious as anyone to maintain and develop contacts between himself, as Secretary, and the other members of the Commission during inter-Congress periods. Any practicable proposal for assisting the Secretary in his efforts in this direction would win his (Commissioner Chester Bradley’s) support, but he could not associate himself with a proposal such as that which had been brought forward which, if adopted, would introduce unnecessary additional difficulties in the work of the Secretariat, by unduly limiting the discretion of the Secretary. Even if the proposal submitted by Alter- nate Commissioner Usinger had itself been free from objec- tion, he (Commissioner Chester Bradley) would have felt bound to dissociate himself from the words in which it had been presented to the Commission. It was wrong in principle to speak of instructions being issued by the Commission to their Secretary, such phraseology being altogether mis- placed and unnecessarily harsh. He would however be prepared to give his support to any proposal designed to secure such closer contacts within the Commission as the members of the Commission, including the Secretary, might consider would be helpful. It was, he knew, the desire of the Secretary to foster such contacts and he would, he did not doubt, be willing to extend his existing practice in this matter to the full extent of his power. COMMISSIONER L. DI CAPORTACCO (ITALY) said that he had no sympathy with the proposal submitted by Alternate Commissioner Usinger. As the permanent members of the Commission were well aware, the present arrangements for the drafting of Opinions made it perfectly 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 635 clear what was the decision which had been taken by the Commission. No more could reasonably be required. For his part, he considered that the organisation of the Secre- tariat of the Commission was as good as could possibly be expected, having regard to the Commission’s lack of funds and the fact that it had to rely entirely upon the efforts of its spare-time Secretary. The chief defect of the Commission throughout its history had been the extremely slow rate at which it worked. This was due not to any fault in the Secretariat but to the obsolete voting procedure with which the Commission had for so long unnecessarily burdened itself. Fortunately, this gratuitous handicap had been removed by the decision during the present Session to reform the voting procedure, a decision which, it might be hoped, would materially improve the efficiency with which the work of the Commission would in future be performed ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER E. BELTRAN (MEXICO) associated himself with the views just expressed by Commissioner di Caporiacco. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) said that he agreed—as indeed everyone was agreed—-that it was desirable that, so far as might be practicable, the Secretary to the Commission should keep the other Commissioners in close touch with the work of the Commission during inter-Congress periods. On the other hand, it was necessary to pay due regard to the very great difficulties, on account both of lack of funds and of lack of time, which confronted the Secretary to the Commission, as a spare-time Officer, in dealing with the very large amount of work which passed through the Secretariat of the Commission. He was opposed therefore. to any procedure which would delay the essential work of the Commission, without conferring any corresponding benefit. As regards the Opinions of the Commission, it was, of course, essential that each should contain clear evidence regarding the terms of the decision actually taken by the Commission. This was fully provided for under the existing procedure. In these circumstances, he could not regard the proposal now before the Commission for a change in procedure as beimg of any practical value. He could not therefore give it his support. (At this point further discussion took place in regard to the procedure to be adopted for securing the approval, by Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who had been present during the Paris Congress, of the text 636 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. of the Minutes of the Meetings held by the Commission during its Paris Session, when these were available. The record of this discussion and of the decision reached by the Commission is given in the next following Conclusion.) COMMISSIONER FRANCIS HEMMING (UNITED KINGDOM) (Secretary to the Commission) said that he had listened with close attention both to the remarks which had fallen from Alternate Commissioner Usinger and also to the subsequent discussion. As regards the former, he felt bound to say that the Resolution that had been submitted was based upon a serious misconception on a question of fact. It was a complete delusion to suppose that either at Lisbon or at any subsequent time the Commission had taken any decision which could be described as an “ agree- ment in principle” procedure. For his part, he would have been strongly opposed to any such proposal, if it had ever been made. The Commission was a body charged with serious responsibilities and it would be quite wrong for it to adopt a procedure under which the members of the Commis- sion divested themselves of part of their essential responsibi- lities by throwing them upon the shoulders of their Secretary. The actual proposal now submitted was therefore based upon a complete misunderstanding of the actual procedure of the Commission. He was however in general sympathy with the object sought in the Resolution if he was correct in interpreting what Alternate Commissioner Usinger. had said as meaning that he and his associates desired to see the establishment of closer links during inter-Congress periods between the Secretary and the other members of the Commission. This was a matter however in which it was necessary to temper enthusiasm by a due regard tothe hard facts of the situation. The Commission was not a body of whole-time salaried Commissioners, sitting continuously at a single centre, capable at any time of taking prompt decisions on matters submitted to them and possessing a whole-time salaried staff to carry out their decisions. If the Commission were such a body, many questions that were at present dealt with by the Secretary could usefully be referred to the Commission. As every zoologist knew, however, the actual structure of the Commission bore no resemblance to the ideal organisation outlined above. The members of the Commission were busy responsible zoo- logists holding (in most cases) important appointments in scientific institutions in many different parts of the world ; they received no remuneration for the important services which they rendered as Commissioners ; and the time which they devoted to their duties as members of the Commission was time which they voluntarily gave from what would 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 637 otherwise be their leisure hours. Nor did the Commission possess a whole-time salaried staff to give effect to its decisions ; all that it possessed was a spare-time honorary Secretary. Clearly, therefore, there were limits to the amount of time which the members of the Commission could be expected to give to the discharge of their duties ; equally there was a limit to the amount of time which the Commissioner who held the Office of Secretary could be expected to devote to the duties of that Office. In these circumstances, it was necessary to put first things first : the prime essential was that whatever decision appeared in an Opinion or Declaration was a decision which had been expressly taken by the Commission as a whole either at one of its periodical meetings or by correspondence. Every Opinion or Declaration that had been published during his occupancy of the Office of Secretary had, of course, complied with this requirement. In this matter he had formed the view, when first elected to be Secretary, that the Opinions previously published were defective in form, in that they did not show clearly that the required procedure had been complied with. He had accordingly introduced a form of certificate of verification which he had appended to every Opinion published under his responsibility. In taking this action, he had been criticised as unduly forma- listic by the very group of zoologists who now came forward as the advocates of stricter control over the Secretary. He had always considered that the objections raised to the addition to the Opinions of a certificate of verification were misconceived and the criticisms now advanced from the opposite angle confirmed him in that view. In considering the proposal brought forward by Alternate Commissioner Usinger, it was necessary to bear in mind that there was only a certain amount of time which the Secretary to the Commission could devote (at night and at week-ends) to the work of the Commission : this could be spent in either of two ways, (1) in consulting the members of the Commission in essential matters requiring their decision and for the rest in making such progress as was possible with the scientific work of the Commission ; (2) in consulting members of the Commission not only on matters requiring their decision but on other matters also, to the detriment of the scientific work which the Commission exists to perform. The first of these courses was, in his judgment, the right one; the second, which appeared to be that advocated by Alternate Commissioner Usinger and his friends, the wrong one. If the Commission had shown any disposition to favour the second of these courses, he would have elaborated the grounds on whieh he considered that proposal mischievous and mis- conceived. It was evident however that this was not NS 638 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (Previous reference : Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 9) necessary, for the discussion which had taken place on Alternate Commissioner Usinger’s proposal made it evident that it had won no support from the members of the Commission. Turning to the comments made by Alternate Com- missioner Usinger regarding the “ Editorial Notes” that he had attached to the reissues of the older Opinions, Secretary Hemming reminded the Commission that, when introducing the proposals for the incorporation in the Régles of the decisions embodied in the Opinions, he had pointed out that a minor incidental advantage of the course recommended was that it would eliminate the need for “* Editorial Notes ” of the kind to which Alternate Commis- sioner Usinger had referred, by depriving these Opinions of all except historical interest and importance. At the time when these “‘ Editorial Notes ” had been published, he had considered—-and he remained of the same opinion— that it would have been indefensible to republish those Opinions without commentaries of the kind*provided, for many of those Opinions had been rendered out of date and, in the absence of adequate explanations, positively misleading as the result of the failure of the Commission over a long period to keep their Opinions up-to-date in the light of subsequent events, such as the changes introduced into Article 25 by the Budapest Congress of 1927. Further, as the Commission now realised, there were cases where deci- sions taken by the Commission at one date were inconsistent with decisions already given. In these cases also (such as that presented by the generic name Jaenia Linnaeus), it would have been quite wrong to republish the old Opinions without comment. It would, he agreed, have been better if these “‘ Editorial Notes ” could have been published under the express authority of the Commission, but that was not practicable at the time when the reissues in question appeared. In actual fact, no harm had been done, for, as the Commission was aware, they had during the present Session decided to incorporate in the Régles provisions which gave effect to the comments made in those “ Notes ” and, as regards those which dealt with individual cases of zoological nomenclature, to take action on the matters there raised. Summing up his views on the subject raised by Alter- nate Commissioner Usinger, Secretary Hemming repeated that, so long as he remained Secretary to the Commission, every necessary step would be taken to ensure that, as in the past, decisions recorded in Opinions and Declarations conformed scrupulously in every respect with the décisions actually taken by the members of the Commission. As —— ti (i alr Vou.4n. 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 639 regards other matters, he must be allowed to retain his present discretion as regards what matters should be put to the Commission for decision and what matters could properly be decided on their behalf by himself as Secretary. He fully shared the view that it was desirable that every- thing possible should be done by himself to keep the other members of the Commission fully informed regarding the state of work of the Commission during inter-Congress periods ; he paid tribute in this connection to the under- standing and constructive spirit by which the suggestions made by Commissioner Chester Bradley were inspired. Taking up that suggestion, he (Secretary Hemming) would be prepared, if all those present did likewise, to vote in favour of a resolution which first took note of the existing procedure for securing the prior approval of members of the Commission on all matters relating to decisions recorded in Opinions and Declarations, and, second, invited the Secretary to the Commission to do everything which, having regard to the difficulties inevitably involved in operating the Secretariat of the Commission in the absence of an assured income and without qualified whole-time salaried officials, was, in his opinion, practicable to extend and formalise the existing procedure, (a) for seeking the advice of members of the Commission, (b) for consulting them on minor, as well as on major, matters, as these arose, and (c) for keeping them informed generally of the progress of the work of the Secretariat of the Commission. If Alternate Commissioner Usinger were to find a decision ’ of this kind acceptable and were accordingly to ask leave to withdraw the proposal which he had himself placed before the Commission, he (Secretary Hemming), as Acting President, would then put this alternative pro- posal to the Commission as an alternative motion. If however Alternate Commissioner Usinger desired an express decision by the Commission on his own proposal, then he (the Acting President) would put his alternative proposal to the Commission as an amendment to the proposal sub- mitted by Alternate Commissioner Usinger. If that amend- ment were to be adopted by the Commission, that adoption would carry with it automatically the rejection of Alternate Commissioner Usinger’s proposal. If on the other hand the amendment were to be defeated, the next step would be for the Commission to take a straight vote on Alternate Commissioner Usinger’s proposal. ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. USINGER (U.8.A.) intimated that in the circumstances he did not wish to pursue the proposal under discussion to the extent of asking the Comntission to take a vote upon it. He was prepared to accept the amendment which, on the 640 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. suggestion of Commissioner Chester Bradley, the Acting President had just outlined. THE ACTING PRESIDENT said that the statement just made by Alternate Commissioner Usinger cleared the air. It was, therefore, now possible formally to put to the Commission, as a substantive motion, the proposal embody- ing Commissioner Chester Bradley’s suggestion which he had outlined a few minutes earlier. This he accordingly now did. THE COMMISSION thereupon unanimously agreed :— (1) to take note of the procedure already in force for ensuring that the wording of decisions recorded in the Opinions and Declarations published in their name was such as clearly to indicate the precise terms agreed upon by the Commission, when taking the decision in question ; (2) to defer until the next item the decision to be taken in regard to the arrangements to be made to ensure that the draft of the Minutes of the Meetings held by the Commission during its Paris Session, when prepared by the Secretary after the close of the Congress, were concurred in by the Com- missioners and Alternate Commissioners who had attended the Paris Congress, as constituting a full and accurate account of the decisions then taken ; (3) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to do everything which, having regard to the difficulties inevitably involved in operating the Secretariat of the Commission in the absence of an assured income and without qualified whole-time salaried officials, was, in his opinion, practicable to extend and formalise the existing procedure, (a) for seeking the advice of members of the Commission, (b) for consulting members of the Commission on minor, as well as on major, matters, as these : ae arose, and (c) for keeping them informed generally of the progress of the work of the Secretariat of the Commisssion. A Minato ifthe 65. As recorded in Conclusion 64 above, a discussion Meetings of the — took place in the Commission regarding the nature of the a ay cod procedure to be adopted to ensure that the draft of the arrangements to. Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission held during its be made for Paris Session, when prepared by the Secretary to the finalising the text of (mission after the close of the Congress, were concurred in by the Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who Vou. 4 n2 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 641 had attended the Paris Congress, as constituting a full and accurate account of the decisions then taken. There was general agreement that adequate time should be provided to enable Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who had attended the Paris Congress to study carefully the draft of the Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission held during that Session. This was particularly necessary in“view of the large number aad important character of the decisions taken. In the majority of cases full material in the form of the Papers of the I.C.(48) Series was already in the hands of Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners to enable them to satisfy them- selves of the accuracy of the record prepared and it would only be necessary for them to make sure that any amendments agreed upon in discussion had been duly recorded. In some cases, however, the Commission had taken equally definite decisions but. had agreed that, in view of the complexity of the drafting involved, it should be left to the Secretary to prepare, after the close of the Congress, a form of words which would give effect to the . decision so taken. Special care would need to be taken in these cases to ensure that the wording, so prepared, did in fact give full effect to the decisions taken by the Com- mission. ; There was general agreement also that, in view of the importance of avoiding any unnecessary delay in publish- ing the Minutes of the Paris Meetings of the Commission and thus making known to zoologists generally the important decisions which had been reached, the time to be granted to Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners for examining the draft Minutes should be no more than was required for that purpose. It Wwas recalled that in the Resolution on a kindred subject which had been moved by Alternate Commissioner Usinger in the discussion recorded in the preceding Conclu- sion (Conclusion 64), it had been suggested that in cases of urgency matters requiring the approval of Commissioners should be circulated in proof form and under a rigorous time limit and that discretion should be given to the Secretary to the Commission as to the manner in which any suggested amendment should be dealt with. In the course of the discussion the Secretary to the Commission intimated that he concurred in that proposal, in relation to the present matter, and invited Commissioners and . Alternate Commissioners present to indicate what, in their view, that time limit should be. He added that he proposed to despatch the draft minutes by airmail and he accordingly suggested that it should be on this basis that the Com- ‘642 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. . mission should consider the question of the time limit to be fixed. In reply to a question by the Acting President, ALTER- NATE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. USINGER (U.S.A). said that, as the drafts were to be despatched by oat. and since none of the Commissioners or Alternate Commis- sioners who had attended the meeting lived in Australia or the Far Hast—the most distant from London being in California, a time limit of one month would, in his opinion, be adequate. General agreement was expressed with this view. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that this was an important matter and it was essential that there should be no room afterwards for misunderstanding in any quarter as to exactly what had been agreed upon. The draft minutes would be despatched to all Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners on the same day, those despatched to addresses outside the United Kingdom being despatched by airmail. The period within which comments were returnable would be one month from the date of posting and this would be. made clear in a covering note despatched at the same time. The expres- sion ‘‘one month” should be defined clearly, either as a four-week period or as a calendar month. At the conclusion of the time limit, immediate steps would be taken to deal with any amendments or corrections suggested, with a view to the publication of the Minutes in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” at the earliest possible date. There must be a clear understanding, therefore, as to the action to be taken in the event of suggestions being received after the expiry of the time limit. Tn response to a request for his views on these questions addressed to him by the Acting President, ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER USINGER (U.S.A.) said that it was a matter of indifference to him whether the expression “ one month” for the present purpose was taken to mean a ““4-week period ” or ‘‘ one calendar month.” Perhaps the latter, as the easiest to calculate, was to be preferred. As regards the second point raised by the Acting President, he agreed that, after the expiry of the time limit, the Secretary should be free to press on with the publication of the Minutes as rapidly as possible. Subject to this, however, consideration should be given to any constructive suggestions that might be received after the appointed date. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the draft of the Minutes of the Meetings of the Commission held during its Paris (1948) Session, when prepared by the Secretary to the (Previous reference: Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 26) 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 643 (4 (6 ~~ ~~ — ~~ Commission, should be printed in readiness for publication in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature ”, as already decided upon by the Section on Nomenclature on receiving the recommenda- tion on this subject submitted by the Commission : that, as soon as proofs of the draft minutes, prepared in accordance with (1) above, were available, one copy should be despatched, for approval, to each Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner who had attended the Paris Con- gress, copies addressed to places situated outside the United Kingdom being despatched by airmail ; that a period of one calendar month, calculated from the date of mailing, should be allowed, within which the Commissioners and Alternate Commis- sioners concerned would be free to furnish to the Secretary to the Commission any suggestions for the amendment of the draft Minutes, when communicated to them under (2) above, such Suggestions to be received not later than the last day of the period specified above and that a note reminding Commissioners and Alternate Commis- sioners of this decision should be included with the draft Minutes, when ‘despatched to them in accordance with the procedure specified in (2) above ; that the Secretary to the Commission should be authorised to use his discretion either to accept, in whole or in part, or to reject, suggestions received by him under the procedure specified in (3) above ; that, immediately upon the expiry of the time limit specified in (3) above, the Secretary to the Commission should deal, in the manner specified in (4) above, with any suggestions received prior to that date from Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners, who had attended the Paris Session, and, having done so, should communicate the Minutes of the ‘Meeting of the Commission held in Paris, so determined, to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, with a request that the Trust take immediate steps to arrange for the publication of the said Minutes in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” ; that notwithstanding the provisions of (5) above, the Secretary should be free to consider and give effect to suggestions received after the date 644 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Thanks of the Commission to those members of the Congress who had served as Alternate Members of the Commission during its Paris Session specified in (3) above, provided that this did not entail any delay in the publication of the said Minutes. 66. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING), speaking in the name of the Permanent Members of the Commission, said that he felt sure that it would be the wish not only of those Commissioners who had attended the Paris Session of the Commission but also of those Members of the Commission who unhappily had been prevented, for one reason or another, from taking their places during the Paris Session to express both corporately and individually their thanks to the distinguished zoologists who had consented to assist the work of the Commission by serving as Alternate Members of the Commission during the present Congress. The Commission was greatly indebted to the Alternate Members of the Commission, many of whom had devoted long hours to the proceedings of the Commission, often at considerable personal inconvenience and always at the cost of not participating in the other activities of the Congress. Without question put, THE PERMANENT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION present thereupon agreed :— (1) that the warm thanks of the Commission be accorded to those members of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology who had served as Alternate Members of the Commission during the- present (Paris) Session for the valuable assistance which they had so rendered to the work of the Commission ; (2) that the foregoing resolution be reported to the Section on Nomenclature, in order to give the Section an opportunity of associating itself with the expression of thanks to the Alternate Members of the Commission so recorded by the Permanent Com- missioners ; ~ (3) to invite the Acting President, in-his capacity as Secretary to the Commission both to convey the thanks of the Commission to the Alternate Members of the Commission and also to report to the Section on Nomenclature the Resolution adopted by the Commission on this subject. (The Acting President thereupon conveyed to the Alter- nate Members of the Commission present the Resolution just adopted by the Permanent Members of the Commission and reported it also to the Section on Nomenclature.) “Rising Vote of Thanks to Commissioner Francis Hemming for his services as Secretary to the 14th Meeting, Paris, J uly, 1948, 645 (At this point Commissioner J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) rose in his place and said that he had a proposal which he desired to bring before the Commission regarding the services rendered by Commissioner Francis Hemming im the discharge of his duties both as Secretary to the Commission and as Acting President of the Commission during its Paris Session.) (In accordance with Commissioner Chester Bradley’ s request, Secretary Hemming then vacated the Presidential Chair, which, on: the invitation of the Commission was thereupon taken by Alternate Commissioner Harold Kirby (U.S.A.).) 67. COMMISSIONER J. CHESTER BRADLEY (U.S.A.) said that it would be the wish of the members of the Commission, including those who owing to other Commission and as engagements had been unable to attend this evening's Acting President of the Commission during its Paris Session meeting, to place on record their gratitude to Commissioner and during the Paris Session -he had given to secure that the work of the Commission at that Session should be as fruitful as possible. Mr. Hemming’s work as the Secretary to the Commission was well known to every zoologist who thanks to Mr. Hemming, to join with his name that of his wife, who, as they knew, combined with her duties as a wife those of a highly skilled and indefatigable personal assistant. the Commission and as its Acting President during the present Session by giving him a Rising Vote of Thanks and that. in doing so, they should ask him to convey to Mrs, 646 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Hemming their thanks also for the work which she had done to help to make the work of the Commission a success. Thereupon, without question put, all the members of the Commission, together with the other members of the Section on Nomenclature present, rose in their places and gave Mr. Hemming a Rising Vote of Thanks for’ the services which he had rendered both as the Secretary to the Com- mission and, during the present Session, as Acting President, at the same time associating themselves with . the tribute paid to him on their behalf by Commissioner Chester Bradley and asking him to convey their thanks also to Mrs. Hemming. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS HEMMING said that he desired té express his gratitude for the Rising Vote of Thanks which the Commission had just been good enough to give for his work as their Secretary and, during their present Session, as their Acting President, and, in particular to thank Commissioner Chester Bradley for the flattering terms in which he had made his proposal to the Commission. The duties of the President of the Commission were highly responsible at any meeting of the Commission, for it fell to him so to discharge his Office as to ensure a full opportunity to every member of the Commission, and, at public meetings of the Commission, to every member of the Congress, to express his views on questions brought before the Commis- sion, while -at the same time securing also that the whole programme of the Commission should be duly completed in the limited time available. At the present Congress these duties had been particularly onerous, both because of the long interval of thirteen years which had elapsed since the last Session of the Commission and because of the large number and important character of the problems awaiting the attention of the Commission. That the Commission had been successful in completing their consideration of all the questions brought before them was due mainly to the whole-hearted spirit in which they had addressed themselves to their task, to the co-operative spirit shown from the outset by all the Members of the Commission, and to the ready willingness which they had evinced to bring hard work, and to devote long hours, to the service of the Commission. All had been inspired to do everything in their power to contribute to the common goal and it was this spirit which had made it possible for the Commission to reach all its decisions by unanimity, and to achieve the large measure of definite progress in the development of zoological nomenclature, for which the present Session of the Commission and the present Congress would always be remembered. Vote of Thanks to the Secretary-General of the Congress and to the Authorities of the Congress generally 14th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. ; 647 Commissioner Hemming added that he had been much touched and greatly gratified at the reference which had been made to the great help rendered to him by his wife. He would gladly convey to her the message which had been entrusted to him by the Commission. He was very happy to have this opportunity himself*to pay tribute to the con- stant help and encouragement given to him by his wife. (At this point Alternate Commissioner Harold Kirby left the Presidential Chair which was resumed by Secretary Francis Hemming.) 68. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that he felt sure that, before the Com- mission dispersed, they would wish to express their thanks to the Secretary-General of the Congress for the admirable arrangements which he had made for the meetings of the Commission during the present Congress. Never before probably and possibly never again would the Commission assemble in so distinguished a meeting place as the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard of the famous Sorbonne. The action . of the Secretary-General in placing this room at the exclusive disposal of the Commission had been of the most inestimable value during the present Session, for that action alone had rendered it possible for the Commission to meet almost continuously during the past week. It had also been of the greatest convenience for all those members of the Section on Nomenclature who had wished to attend the public meetings of the Commission, for they had known from the outset where they would always fifid the Commission when in session. The Commission would wish also at the same time to record their gratitude to their French hosts for the arrangements made for their entertainment and for the hospitality extended to them during their visit to Paris. This,had made the Congress not only of outstanding import- ance in the scientific field but also the occasion for the happiest memories for all who had attended it. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to express their thanks to Professor E. Fischer- Piette, Secretary-General to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology for theadmirable arrangements made by him for the meetings of the Commission during its Paris Session ; (2) to record their gratitude to their French hosts for the arrangements made for their entertainment and for the hospitality extended to them during their visit to Paris, 648 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Close of the ad 69. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS Proceedings of the ~HEMMING) said that the Commission had now completed Paris Session the whole of its business and it only remained for him once more to thank the Commission for the kindness which they had shown to him in the porte of his duties as their Acting President. THE ACTING PRESIDENT then pronounced the Paris Session of the Commission to be closed. (The Paris Session of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereupon terminated at 0045 hours on Tuesday, 27th July 1948.) 15th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 649 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Session held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 21st-27th July, 1948 Note or a Decision taken at an Informal (Fifteenth) Meeting held at the Hotel Lutetia, Paris, at the concluson of the Final Banquet of the Congress on Tuesday, 27th July, 1948 at 2215 hours. The following took part in the consultation recorded below: Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Acting President) Professor E. Beltran (Mexico) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Professor L. di Caporiacco (Italy) Dr. E. Hindle (United Kingdom) Professor Harold Kirby (U.S.A.) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) Professor Z. P. Metcalf (U.S.A.) Mr. N. D. Riley (United Kingdom) Professor R. Spirck (Denmark) Professor V. van Straelen (Belgium) Professor Robert L. Usinger (U.S.A.) The following other Member of the Section on Nomenclature was also consulted: Dr. HE. A. Chapin (U.S.A.) The following was also present: Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming, Personal Assistant to the Secretary. ‘Communique on 1. MR. FRANCIS HEMMING (ACTING PRESI- aerate devin DENT) and Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming (Personal Assistant the Thirteenth to the Secretary to the Commission) handed to each of the International Con- (Commissioners and other zoologists named above a copy of sated a *° the draft of a communiqué prepared during the day by 650 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. scientific press of the world: ; manta! of terms ° Secretary Hemming for issue to the scientific press of the world setting out the principal decisions in regard to the development of zoological nomenclature taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the unani- mous advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and of the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress. Several requests for such a Communiqué had already been received by the Secretary to the Commission. Secretary Hemming had every sympathy with these requests and considered that they should be granted. He was of the opinion, however, that the terms of the Communiqué so to be issued should be approved by the Commission and not issued under his personal authority only. He had accordingly prepared during the course of the afternoon the draft now distributed to the Members of the Commission attending the Final Banquet of the Congress and also to Dr. E. A. Chapin (U.8.A.). Each of the Commissioners and other zoologists so consulted was asked to study the draft Communiqué ‘carefully and to inform the Secretary to the Commission whether he agreed that it contained an accurate account of the principal decisions in regard to zoological nomenclature taken during the Congress and, if so, whether he concurred in the issue to the scientific press of the world of a Communiqué in the terms proposed. Each of the Commissioners and other zoologists consulted agreed that the Communiqué was a correct record of the action taken by the Commission and the Congress and associated himself in taking responsibility for the issue of the Communiqué in the name of the Commission and the Congress. One or two Commissioners drew attention to typing errors in the copies circulated or offered suggestions for minor drafting changes. The Secretary to the Commis- sion undertook to take account of these suggestions. THE COMMISSION :— (1) approved, subject to certain minor drafting suggestions, the terms of the draft Communiqué respecting the principal decisions in regard to tle development of zoological nomenclature taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology on the unanimous advice of the Inter- . national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and of the Section on Nomenclature, prepared by the Secretary to the Commission for issue to the scientific press of the world in the name of, and by the authority of, the Commission ; 15th Meeting, Paris, July, 1948. 651 (2) authorised and requested the Secretary to the Commission forthwith to issue in their name a Communiqué to the scientific press of the world in the terms of the draft approved in (1) above, Lhe Secretary to ‘the Commission accordingly undertook to issue to the scientific press of the world the Communiqué Just approved by the Commission, ummediately wpon his return to London, as soon as arrangements could be made for the preparation of the necessary number of copies. PURCHASED 26 JUN Wee THANKS TO U.N.ES.C.O. | " The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ~— ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume. a 3 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the completion of volume 1 and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4and 5 :— Volume 1: A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be published shortly. Volume 2: This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica- tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date. The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1 4 F ; k 4 = Volume 3: This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu- ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948. Volume 4: This volume is devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in Fuly 1948. Twenty-one a Parts have been published and this volume is now complete except for the index which will be published in a concluding Part. Volume 5: At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, this volume will be devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, Fuly 1948, together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter- of national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section on Nomenclature. INQUIRIES All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses :- International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: 41, Queen’s London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat fs the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim AND Son, Lrp., Westminster London "VOLUME 4. Parts 22/24 29th November, 1950 Da pp. 653-760, THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON EGO OLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ayRCns Ea NOY 1350 Edited by ————s FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. CONTENTS : Page The Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in Fuly 948 : Certification of the text of the Official Record of Proceedings : Supplementary Note by the Secretary to the Commission 653 Corrigenda 654 Index .. 655-760 Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published ., rs 7 760 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on instructions received from the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, 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. 1950 Price One pound, twelve shillings, (All rights reserved) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 653 CERTIFICATION OF THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AT ITS SESSION OF MEETINGS HELD IN PARIS IN JULY 1948 Supplementary Note by the Secretary to the Commission In the introductory portion to the present volume (pp. xiii-xv) I recalled the arrangements for securing an agreed text of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during its Paris Session of Meetings, made by the Commission in Paris in July 1948 and approved by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, and set out the steps which subsequently I had taken in compliance with the foregoing decisions. I explained (p. xiv) that of the fifteen (15) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who had been present at the Paris Session fourteen (14) had signified their concurrence in, and approval of, the text as published in the present volume. I added that, in spite of repeated efforts I had been unable to obtain a reply from the fifteenth member concerned, Alternate Commissioner E. Beltran (Mexico), who, I assumed, must be either ill or away from his home. In supplement to the information summarised above, I have now to report that today (13th June 1950) I received by airmail a letter, dated 9th June 1950, in which, after explaining that, until a few weeks ago, he had been away from Mexico City and inaccessible for mail, Alternate Commissioner Beltran stated that he had now examined the draft of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission in Paris and found himself in full agreement with the text submitted. With the receipt of Alternate Commissioner Beltran’s letter, replies have now been received from all the fifteen (15) Members and Alternate Members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature who attended the Meetings of the Commission held in Paris in July 1948 during the sittings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. The Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session, as published in the present volume, have accordingly now been approved by all the Members and Alternate Members of the Commission who attended that Session. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Villiage East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. England. 13th June, 1950. 654 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenciature CORRIGENDA Fifth line from foot of page: substitute “ 1938-1939 ” for “ 1939”. Line 18: substitute “19” for “21”. Fifth line from foot of page : (1) At beginning of line, insert heading “ (b) ”. (2) Before word “ insertion ” insert word “‘ the”. First side heading, line 3: substitute “190 and 191” for “ and 190”. line 13: substitute “‘ Opinions 190 and” for ‘‘ Opinion”. Fifteenth line from foot of page: substitute “ prénom ” for “ prenom Line 2: substitute “1871 ”’ for “ [1871]. ” . INDEX abietum Bergroth, 1914, Gastrodes, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Gastrodes Westwood, 1840; placed on the ‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” OF ip Be Hf Pee

. 432 Sergent in error in rejecting, on aes that, when first published, it was the name of a composite species... a2 ss Ac Be ae Se ore 432-433 | species to which applies, determined by Witenberg (1947) under Article 31 x2 Biches 12. anonymously published names cnet names et over eae or initials only), definition of status of .. Ss a i ar , : ie 213-215 antillarum Kirkaldy, 1909, Cimex, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Tetyra ivaeeea: 1803 ; eet on the “‘ Official List of ieee Trivial Names Zoology ” 44 474 Apatura Fabricius, 1807, validated under the plenary powers ac oe ate -. 486 placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Sic ? (type species selected by Curtis, 1831: Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758) : at Ae an ) Seon Apatura [Illiger}, 1807, suppressed under the plenary La tpde ; plese on the “* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” ste oa 456 Aplysia, the valid emended form of Leplysia Linnaeus, 1767 . . dy at Le -. 302 Aplysia Linnaeus, 1767, Aplysia depilans, Gmelin, 1791, designated, under the plenary powers, to be the type species of —.. aA 301-304 placed on the “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’. . By ae At .. 303 Zoological Nomenclature Aplysiella Fischer, 1872, Secretary to confer with specialists for the purpose of ascertaining whether confusion would result if this name were to be replaced by Petalifera Gray, 1847 Appendice to Régles to be converted into a Schedule see Régles, ete, Appendice. Apstein, Commissioner Karl, resignation of, reported . . Aquarius Schellenberg, 1800, Cimex najas De Geer, 1773, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” a ae oe Se : . Mic aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, Podura, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Podura Linnaeus, 1758 a ye ie Ses at ie or placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” Arachnoides Klein, 1778, rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, as based on mere republica- tion, without reinforcement, of Arachnoides Klein, 1734 : placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” - Arachnoides Leske, 1778, validated under the plenary powers and Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758, similarly designated as type species; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’. . ate er eee ae ai a be At Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1844 (type species, by monotypy: Cidaris urii Fleming, 1828) application for validation of, under the plenary powers, deferred for further information to be obtained .. a of be be es a a : arenarius, as published by Edwards, 1771, in the binominal combination Cancer arenarius not available because a junior homonym of Cancer arenarius Toreen, 1765; placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”. . argus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argus), applica- tion of, determined under the plenary powers ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” . ae Be te ts ee ne Sh: x argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio argyrognomon), application of, determined under the plenary powers... +r 5c placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio aristo- lochiae) validated under the plenary powers : placed on the ‘* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. “ie a a, oe or bie Ss We we aristolochiae Pallas (as published prior to 1780 in the binominal combination Papilio aristolochiae) suppressed under the plenary powers ae ae Ws a om placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” Arndt, Commissioner Walther. election of. in 1937. as a Commissioner vice Commissioner Karl Apstein (resigned) . Page 389 15 473 533 535 534 516 480 479 480 658 Bulletin of Page Arndt, Commissioner Walther, etc.—continued. election of, to Class 1946 on expiry of term of service of Class 1937 Ww murder of, by Gestapo in 1944, reported; adoption by Commission of Resolution emphatically condemning the disgraceful crime which led to the death of Commissioner Arndt at the hands of the Gestapo .. 9 arvensis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Vespa arvensis), application for the use of the plenary powers to determine the use of, deferred for further information to be obtained shi : we : 417 ascanius Cramer, [1775] (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ascanius) validated under the as Ath aa 5 re on the “ Official List of Sei Trivial Names in Zoology ” oe 545 ascanius Linnaeus, 1768 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ascanius) suppressed under the plenary powers . . Ae 544 placed on the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” 545 Aspidoproctus declared available as from Newstead [April] 1901 (type species by monotypy: Walkeriana pertinax Newstead, ee and pecs on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ; at 56 wt ee .. 381 atropos Lamarck, 1816, Spatangus, designated under the plenary pera to be the type species of Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872 as ae ee : are | FORT placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” 528 Aturoidea published by Vredenberg in 1925, declared to be of sub-generic status as from 1925 and accordingly to have priority over Paratwria Spath, 1927 443 Aubert, M. J., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission . . 272 Aulocera Butler, 1867 (type species designated by Butler, 1867: Satyrus brahminus Blanchard, 1844) placed on the “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” . 494 australis Walker, 1856 (as published in the binominal combination Oxycanus australis) ; placed on the “‘ Official List,of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” : Be 357 austriacus Schrank, 1776, Cimex, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Bellocoris nent 1834 ; Ping on the “ Official List of Specie. Trivial Names in Zoology” .. ae 473-474 “ available name,” expression defined (see also “‘ valid name ’’) 336 Belloc, M., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission , . an .- 8, 306, 354 Zoological Nomenclature 659 Page Bellocoris Hahn, 1834, Cimex austriacus Schrank, 1776, designated under the plenary powers to be the type sg of; placed on the * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ey : We oe se i ne oe oe eset! f° | Belone Cuvier, 1817, validated under the plenary powers ; placed on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (type species by absolute tautonomy : Hsox belone Linnaeus, 1761) re oe rs ah Hes ri a ae re Hie ne) ee belone Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binominal combination sox belone) placed on the ** Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” a ae oy ae a, 428 Belone Oken, 1815, suppressed under the plenary powers ; placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. ah Hs of At -. 428 Beltran, Professor Enrique, appointment of, to be an Alternate Commissioner vice Com- missioner Ange] Cabrera Be ee i hs si at * fe = 62 attendance by, at meetings of the Commission ae e: .. 6, 62, 190, 230, 425, 649 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. or a ae a a -. 653 Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite, determination of scientific name of ate ae fa 618 bennetti Waterhouse, 1837, Abrocoma, see Chinchilla Bennett, 1829. Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843, Cimex maritimus Scopoli, 1763, designated under the plenary powers to be the gee epee of; placed on the * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” civ : 5 3 rp : ree oe ae Brame ie! Berthet, M. H., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission Be ate -- 230 bibliographical reference for each name discussed, recommended to be inserted in any given paper cee on SiS ie me 23 Bs ar ae Ae ac 170 bicolor Douglas & Scott, 1868, Litosoma, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Pach gins Fieber, 1858 ; placed on the “ Official List of ae Trivial Names in Zoology”. 474 Bilharzia Meckel von Hemsbach, 1856, suppression of. under the plenary powers. . 319-323 “binary nomenclature’, expression deleted from Régles and expression “ binominal nomenclature ”’ substituted therefor, see Régles, Article 25, Proviso (b). Report on, approved by the Commission and submitted to the Congress . . fe .. 64-65 **binominal nomenclature’, substitution of expression for ‘‘ binary nomenclature ” in Reégles, see Réegles, Article 25, Proviso (b) bisperforatus Leske, 1778 (as published in the binominal combination Hchinodiscus biaperforatus) ; placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” 535 Bolivar y Pieltain, Commissioner Candido, resignation of, reported. . “fs ze a 15 660 Bulletin of Page Bombus Latreille, 1802, validated under the plenary powers so far as necessary, with Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, as type species (by monotypy) .. oie Hae 406-407 placed on the ‘“‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ih a Be Pier clit Bonnet, Professor Pierre, attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission .. 6, 62, 272 proposals submitted by, arrangements for consideration of ie ste ae 209-212 Boschma, Commissioner H., in attendance at Paris Session . . 2 election of, in post-war period, as a Commissioner vice Commissioner Walther Arndt (deceased) re ; ae is avs se ts gs 4c He a 16 appointed to Class 1955 on expiry of term of service of Class 1946 5. oe ae 13 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission .. 1, 6, 37, 62, 83, 107, 190, 230, 280, 306, 354, 649 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. “yc “4 ae ie a5 siete X1V- Bradley, Commissioner J. Chester, in attendance at Paris Session .. as ive a 2 election of, in war period, as a Commissioner vice Commissioner Witmer Stone (deceased) 16 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission .. 1, 6, 37, 62, 83, 107, 190, 230, 239, 280, : 306, 354, 425, 649 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. aye Se te BA ae ah Bradycellus Frickscn, 1£37, applicaticn for the designation under the plenary powers of Carabus collaris Paykull, 1798, as ty Fe eer of, deferred for further information to be obtained ate 5 5 a oe Se ve oun 443, 444 b rahminus Blanchard, 1844 (as Lee in the binominal combination Satyrus brahminus) placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” wid PE ~je 496 brassicae Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio brassicae) ; placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” a ah .. 496 Brassolis, Fabricius, 1807, validated under the plenary powers 26 Se ae aay OG placed on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (type species selected by Blanchard, 1840: Papilio sophorae Linnaeus, 1758) .. ie oe ne ae 157 Brassolis (Illiger], 1807, suppressed under the plenary powers; placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” BT sic BS -. 456 Bremus Panzer-Jurine, [1801-1804], suppressed under plenary powers, so far as necessary to validate Bombus Latreille, 1802 ; pala) on the “‘ Official Index of rau ie and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” oH 406-407 Brisson (M.J.), 1760, Ornithologia sive Synopsis methodica sistens Avium Divisiones in Ordines, names in, validated under the plenary powers .. he se ik i 65 title of above work to be entered in Schedule established for recording decisions taken under the plenary powers, , Re af tr 313-314 Brissus Dahl, 1823 (emend. of Bryssus Dejean, 1821) suppressed under the plenary powers 526 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 528 Brissus Gray, 1825, validated under the plenary powers and Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske, 1778, similarly designated as type species ee i Ba = 626 placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” Bye ae ake -- 527 Brissus Leske, 1778, declared non-existant under the Reégles, because not published in the nominative singular. . 55 HA ae Bo es te Br an aj Oa placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoolo C¥saess ‘528 Brissus Link, 1807, suppressed under the plenary powers .. 3 as Se «- 526 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 528 Brissus Modeer, 1793, suppressed under the plenary powers be ie a0 -« 526 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 528 Brissus Miiller (O.¥.), 1781, suppressed under the plenary powers . . Bi ye Senne ss placed on the “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 528 Brissus Oken, 1815, suppressed under the plenary powers .. ae a 5c «- 526 placed on the “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 528 Brissus, as used by any other author prior to the publication of Brissus Gray, 1825, suppressed under the plenary powers 526 placed on the “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 528 Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta. a nomenclatorially available work a4 307-310 date “ 1772 ” commonly attributed to, incorrect, actual date of publication being 1771... 307 Bryozoa and Polyzoa, question of relative status of, deferred pending Report by Secretary on general question of Class Names ee 30 = a ei ae «+ 386 Bryssus Dejean, 1821, suppressed under the plenary powers. . Se sae 6 «. 526 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 528 Bulla Linnaeus, 1758, Bulla ampulla Linnaeus, 1758, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of ; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” 305 662 Bulletin of Page “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatur ,” Vol. 1, contents of Parts of, to be examined in i turn Part 5. E She si ae ai ahs x he ti a5 55 364 Bart 8 ... a ce sf Be a fe nad af BS ae aa ee Para. Oh. 7 xe ore ne ie ae . 440 Chinchilla Rat (Abrocoma bennetti Waterhouse, 1837), see Chinchilla Bennett, 1829 Chrysopa Leach, 1815, Hemerobius perla Linnaeus, 1758, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology * A Se AS ae ae nA Ae ne Br ae -- 396 ciliaris Philippi, 1837 (as published in the binominal combination Asterias ciliaris) (oldest available name for the type species (Luwidia fragilissima Forbes, 1839) of Luidia Forbes, 1839, placed on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” in Opinion 129) placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” Ac as Ae) 28) Classes, rules governing nomenclature of. question of introducing into the Régles. to be examined by the Secretary .. mm ve = AP Fe oA 2 385-386 clavatus Linnaeus, 1767, Cimex, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Pilophorus Hahn, 1826 ; caine on the “‘ Official List of eee Trivial Names in Zoology” .. 474 Clavellaria Lamarck, 1801, suppressed under the plenary powers for purposes of Article 25; placed on the “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” 404 Clavellarius Olivier, 1789, suppressed under the plenary powers for purposes of Article 25 : placed on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” + .. 404 Zoological Nomenclature 665 Page Clavicera Latreille [1802], see Ceratina Latreille [1802-1803]. Clerck, 1757, Aranei svecici, names in, validated as from 1758 and with priority over Linnaeus, 1758 by a proviso added to Article 26 .. te “E 274-277, 315-319 Code, International, of Zoological Nomenclature, see Régles Internationales de la Nomen- clature Zoologique. coeruleus Miiller (O.F.), 1785 (as published in the binomonal combination Cyclops coeruleus) suppressed under the biieay cincbine for nape of Article 25 but not for those of Article 35 es o. a a SPS hi} placed on the “ Official Index of peeigines and Invalid aly Trivial Names in Zoology ” 377 Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, type species of ; previous delay in dealing with ra regarding condemned ; Secretary to prepare Report on as soon as possible : 362 Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature : composition, personnel, pro- cedure, etc. (a) Arrangements for Meetings of, during Paris Session Alternate Members of the Commission, appointed of, for duration of Paris Session -» 4 meeting place during Paris Session .. Ba 5 ni ae ie = se 36 meetings to be held in public .. or a a ve are ye ne ae 4 meetings to be held jointly with Section on Nomenclature, as far as practicable . . -- £65 Official Languages to be English and French Ne a3 2S a op 6 procedure to be adopted with the object of expediting conduct of business ce “amie 7-8 programme for Paris Session .. a Xe rg is Sa Re a3 .. 27-28 Secretary to officiate as Acting President in the absence of the President and Vice- President ae aie ae ar wu we sis re = st we 1 submission of Reports to Section on Nomenclature, arrangements for Fr .. 32-35 Minutes of Meetings, arrangements for securing agreed text of .. + ee 640-644 communiqué issued to Press at close of Session... a ots Ae 4c 649-651 (b) By-Laws of suspension of, for duration of Paris Session . . Sie 505 ma =f ai ate 8 revision of, on comprehensive basis, to include references to all duties and powers con- ferred by the International Congress of Zoology . . oY ain te Sas .- 59-60 division of, when revised, into two parts: (1) Organic Articles embodying decisions taken by the Congress and therefore not subject to ere ae the e Meniene (2) other Articles (recommendation to Congress) . 327 Secretary invited to submit to members of Commission as soon as practicable after the close of the Congress a revised draft of the By-Laws giving effect to decisions taken by the International Commission during its Paris Session i os .. 60-61 666 Bulletin of (b) By-Laws of—continued. Article regarding, to be inserted in the Régles (recommendation to Congress) .. swe Wee By-Laws, as revised, to be printed and copies to be available at all times for sale . 61,328 (c) composition of, proposed reform of (recommendations to Congress) : discussion regarding 35, 37-50 Proposals submitted to the Congress regarding : removal of upper limit hitherto imposed on the membership of the Commission, the present upper of limit of eighteen to be reained as a minimum; institution of a system providing for the direct representation on the Commission of zoologists in any country in which any considerable amount of zoological work is being conducted 39 provision for establishment of an appropriate balance in the membership of the Commission both geographically and as between different types of knowledge, experience and interest .. je ahs aie 5 ang . 39-40 retention by Commission of right to elect to its membership specialists of outstanding eminence, irrespective of the representative principle % ie AF .. 40, 43 method to be followed in obtaining nominations for representative seats on the Commission a's ibe af: e ae as a7 Lana peat .. 40-43 method to be followed in scrutinising the qualifications of candidates nominated for election as Commissioners; method to be followed in electing Commissioners ; method to be followed in filling casual vacancies in the membership of the Commission 42-44 elections of Commissioners to be announced in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clanune 7 3 Ae ey He of ve ee ae Me 4 He 44 revised procedure for Commissioners to submit themselves periodically to re-election ; abolition of the system by which the membership of the Commission divided into three 9-year Classes ; institution of a revised system for determining the order of precedence of Commissioners at any given time aA ee a me ig 45 grant of leave of absence to Commissioners in certain circumstances and arrange- ments to be made for their temporary replacement by Alternate Commissioners 46-49 removal of Commissioners for certain specified causes . . ~~ 45 sts a Ma AG (d) Emergency created by the outbreak of war in 1939 assumption by the President, on outbreak of war in 1939, of extraordinary powers for the duration of the emergency, to preserve the existence of the Commission and issue of the ‘‘ Emergency Powers, Declaration, 1939 ed ks si a, x .. 10-13 issue by the President of Directions under the Emergency Powers Declaration con- stituting Classes 1949 and 1952 to replace the Classes 1940 and 1943, when time expired Ph ah ee Fe oe ei bi ie a : 13 issue by the President of Directions under the Emergency Powers Declaration con- firming in their Offices those members of the Commission whose term of service as Officers had expired consequent upon the completion of the term of service of the Classes of which they were severally members .. if ae 56 ats .. 16-17 adoption of a resolution approving the action taken by the President at the outbreak of war in 1939 for the purpose of safeguarding the existence of the Commission (recommendation to Congress) ea 6 “4 Fe Ain nae aie .» L2=13 (e) Financial and administrative problems in period 1936-1948 Report by Secretary on » a6 te pte AS. Jie =r us .. 28-31 Zoological Nomenclature 667 Page (1) Membership of Commission losses through death since 1935, report on .. 8 murder of Commissioner W. Arndt (Germany) by Gestapo during the war, adoption of resolution emphatically condemning - 0 9 losses through resignation, ete., since 1935, report on 15 election of Commissioners since 1935 AF R: Ai a ies it -- 15-16 proposed ‘institution of a rule under which in certain circumstances a Commissioner who loses contact with the Commission shall be treated as having vacated his membership (recommendation to Congress) - ar a: Ae ee Bc = l4 German representation on Commission, German zoologists to be given a fresh opportunity of expressing their wishes regarding at he ae .. 18-19 Japanese representation on the Commission, Japanese zoologists to be given a fresh opportunity of expressing their wishes regarding 18-19 Class 1946 established vice Class 1937, on expiry of term of service of Class 1937 ae 10 Classes 1949 and 1952 established during the war by the President under the Emergency Powers Declaration, 1939, on the expiry of the term of service of the Classes 1940 and 1943 respectively 3: Sh ic oe Ae SA a ae ae tie 13 Class 1955 established in 1947 on expiry of term of service of Class 1946 = on 13 Class 1958, proposals for establishment of, vice Class 1949, as from close of Paris Congress it: <: #: ai AL Sa Se a rs oe 17-18, 19 abolition of system by which membership of Commission divided into three 9-year Classes and institution of a revised system for determining the relative precedence of Com- missioners and the order in which submission for re-election required (recommendation to Congress) .. oe ae 7 aa of Re ae ci cha Br 45 consequential withdrawal of recommendation for establishment of a Class 1958, and substitution of revised proposals for renewing part of the membership of the Com- mission at the close of the Paris Congress ae a st Le an -. 45-46 (g) Offices of the Commission Assistant Secretary, Office of creation of, in 1939 .. A: we €h Lt re SA a Bis Se 9 election of Commissioner James L. Peters to, in 1939 .. wes Ae oi 10 proposed abolition of, in its present form, and reconstitution of, as an Office in the Secretariat of the Commission . 24-25 Honorary Life President proposed creation of Office of, as an ad hoc arrangement, the post to be offered to Commissioner Karl Jordan as a mark of affection and respect on his retirement from the Office of President of the Commission (recommendation to Congress) 22 President, Office of resignation of, by Commissioner Karl Jordan on grounds of infirmity ; President Jordan’s resignation accepted with the greatest regret . . cis Sie oi ee 21 668 : Bulletin of President, Office of—continued. Page Vice-President James L. Peters nominated to be President (recommendation to Congress) .. os 46 a ie oe oe ae Se Bic oe 22 Secretary, Office of Commissioner Francis Hemming elected to, in 1936 ¥, Rg 3h art a, 8) nomination of Commissioner Francis Hemming for a further term of service on the close of the Paris Congress (recommendation to Congress) .. a4 + a 23 ° . Vice-President, Office of creation of, in 1939 ; election of Commissioner C. W. Stiles to, in 1939... a. = ie 9 election of Assistant Secretary James L. Peters to, in 1945 (in succession to the late Commissioner C. W. Stiles) se sas i wie es ste a on 17 nomination of Commissioner A. de Amaral to (recommendation to Congress) . . xe 24 Offices, all holders of, confirmed in their position by the President under the Emergency Powers Declaration, 1939, on the expiry of the period of service of the Officers concerned during the war period, consequent upon the completion of the term of service of the Classes of which the Officers concerned were severally members Aicill kota if (h) Ojficial Record of Proceedings of the Commission at iis Paris Session draft (giving full and detailed account) to be prepared by Secretary as soon as possible after close of Paris Session .. a zs 35 4: he ss oe SP 342 draft to be printed and proofs to be submitted for comment and approval to Com- missioners and Alternate Commissioners attending the Paris Session .. sa 642-643 text to be settled by Secretary in the light of comments received from Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners be a * os a 4: oe «lots text to be published in “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” as soon as possible after having been finally settled .. ar os x ee sh ts 342, 643 memoranda considered by the Commission during Paris Session to be published in “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” .. +1 ae ie ae “ -. 342 (i) Procedure, proposed reform of (recommendations to Congress) voting procedure in cases not involving either a suggested change in the Régles or the use by the Commission of its plenary powers . . a Ec a of ne -. 50-51 voting procedure in cases involving a suggested change in the Regles .. 42 2 bl voting procedure in cases involving the use by the Commission of its pega powers (see also ‘‘ Régles, ete., New Article (12) ”’) ss ne y ‘ . .. 53-56 serial publications in which proposed that advertisements of plenary powers cases should be published .. $6 ae Pe eS af acd 4 Bi ag Si 56 revised procedural arrangements to come into force forthwith .. == Ae Ae 57 revised time-table for dealing with applications, and matters incidental thereto .. 58—59 issue to zoologists of announcement regarding revised time-table to be aimed at by the Commission, when dealing with applications on questions of nomenclature .. ee By) Zoological Nomenclature 669 Page (j) Report to Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology draft Report examined in detail jointly with Section on Nomenclature .. ate 283-287 draft Report amended in certain respects .. te Bis aa 23 be 285-286 Report, as amended, unanimously adopted by Commission and submitted to Section on Nomenclature s 5 oh hs ss 5 ay a2 oF 287-288 supplementary points on the Commission’s Report, submission of, to Section on Nomenclature Pa “ 423-424, 559-560, 564, 566, 591, 625, 628-630, 630-631 (k) Secretariat of the Commission Report by Secretary on work during period 1936-1948... wv. we ae -» 28-31 Secretary’s Report to be submitted to the Congress “eg Se nse ce ne 31 Procedure during inter-Congress periods, arrangements for improving liaison between the Secretariat and members of the Commission 43 a a sis 632-640 (1) Co-operation with specialist qrowps Report by Secretary on developments since 1935 .. ae “ he se ~. 25-27 (m) Votes of thanks adopted by the Commission to Alternate Commissioners for services rendered as such during the Paris Session A G44. Elliot, Colonel the Right Hon. Walter, for accepting the Chair maces: of the Inter- national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature i Se 31 Hemming, Francis, for services as Secretary to the Commission and as Acting President during the Paris Session. . es nG a “3 ne = a: 645-647 Hemming, Mrs. M. F. W., Personal Assistant to the Secretary to the Commission, for share in preparing proposals submitted to the Commission in regard to the problems of specific homonymy and the nomenclature of infra-subspecific forms .. ee 131-132 Government Agencies, Museums and other Scientific Institutions, Learned Societies and individual zoologists and palaeontologists in all parts of the world who during period 1938-1948 had assisted the work of the Commission by making donations to its funds 32 Secretary-General, Thirteenth International Congress of HORE, for the admirable arrangements made for the meetings of the Commission ‘ : od «shld French authorities of the Congress for the arrangements for the entertainment of members of the Congress and for the hospitality “extended to them during the visit to Paris Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., for inviting the Secretary of the Commission to visit Washington and other centres in North America in December 1947, for the purpose of discussing problems of zoological nomenclature with American zoologists in preparation for the Paris Session of the Commission . . Bi bk is rs 31 U.N.E.S.C.O. (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) for substantial grants made towards the work of the Commission for the years 1947 and 1948 iia ne Se we i a aie at a ee i 32 Communiqué, issue of, by the Commission to the scientific ies of the world at the close of the Congress .. ; aha ~ . ats S§ 649-651 670 » Bulletin of Page composite nominal species, criteria to be adopted in determining identity of, see Régles, ete., Article 31. composition of the Commission, reform of, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, Section (c). constricta Conrad, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Nuculites pais ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” a2 at 400 Consul Hiibner, [1806], an invalid ‘‘ Tentamen ” name ; placed on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” ae ie ate : 492, 494 Consul Hiibner, [1807] (type species by monotypy : Papilio ne Cramer ANTS Pp placed on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” 494 cordatus Sowerby, 1813, Ammonites, figure 4 on plate 17 of Sowerby’s Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, Vol. I designated under the plenary powers to be the lencty ee of ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. 393 cordatus Pennant, 1777, Echinus, designated under the Beg Peper to be the type species of Echinocardiwm Gray, 1825 te 526 placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” Be a0 Pate 340) Coriscus Schrank, 1796, suppressed under the plenary powers for purposes of Article 25, but not for those of Article 34; eet on the “* Official Index of Beles and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 467 Coriza Geoffroy, 1762, validated under the plenary ees and Corixa ecco Leach, 1817, similarly designated as type species .. 369 placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” oe ay ave eh 370 corus Fabricius, 1793 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio setae ; placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ae : Sit 457, 458 Corvus Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’ to be considered... a big a6 a ot uc Be -. » 582 Cory, Professor Ernest N., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission . . és 6 -costa, compound trivial name ending in noun form, not a HORI OENA of a similiar compound name ending in adjectival form -costatus, -a,-wm .. Se -- 242 -costatus, -a, -wm, see -costa “ eo-type,”” Recommandation to be added to Régles deprecating use of expression . . 190-191 Cramer, 1775, Uitlandsche Kapellen Vol. I., relative priority of names published in, and in (a) von Rottemburg, 1775, Anmerkungen zu den Hufnagelischen Tabellen der Schmetterlinge (published in Vol. 6 of Naturforscher) (b) [Schiffermiiller & Denis], 1775, Ankiindigung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wiener Gegend (published anonymously) and (c) ts 1775, coe ema to be deter- mined by the Commission .. ae .. 4659 Zoological Nomenclature 671 Page creusa Doubleday, [1847] (as published in the binominal combination Anthocharis engl : placed on the *‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. ne 485 Cuculus Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to “ Official List of Generic Names in _Zoology ” to be considered... a Sic = oe if fe < .. 582 cupido Linnaeus. 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio cwpido) ; placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. ie 457, 458 cuvieri Waterhouse, 1837, Abrocoma, see Chincilla Bennett, 1829. Cyrillic alphabet, transliteration of, new Section ies sig to be added to Second Schedule . . ae as ae F ’ ; . 37-46 1.C.(48)4 considered . 49-59 1.C.(48)5 considered . 63-66 1.C.(48)6 considered . 66-78 1.C.(48)7 considered . 78-80 1.C.(48)8 considered... o Se a He a ane ae 97-105, 107-131 I.C.(48)9 considered... Bi: = a: a. a a x .. 81-82, 83-96 I.C.(48)10 considered .. aye ae «ce a ee Re ee 14 132-137 1.C.(48)11 considered .. od aie re oe une Ae fs “ 137-166 1.C.(48)12 considered .. 5 ib Me fs Sa ae .. 171-188, 190-195 1.C.(48)13 considered .. oe f vs oe ao Be 2% ae 166-171 I1.C.(48)14 considered .. By: us be ve oi an és he 195-229 1.C.(48)15 considered .. - old fe cd $3 aS ue ae 239-271 1.C.(48)16 considered .. Xs Ae si ~ ay as Az a 288-300 1.C.(48)17 considered .. ba is ai ite af af PS Ri 323-342 1.C.(48)18 considered .. ays a Re Ae ate bs os He 342-352 1.C.(48)19 considered .. = ss dis olf sa a a ote 354-364 1.C.(48)20 considered .. ate ss cE 23 = ie os at 283-288 documents of I.C. RLS Series to be puplighert in the “ Bulletin of ft Zoplpeteend Nomen- clature ” 342 icarus Cramer, [1775], Papilio, see icarus Rottemburg [1775], Papilio icarus Rottemburg, [1775], Papilio (type species of Polyommatus Latreille, 1804) relative priority of, in relation to icarus Cramer, [1775], Papilio (type species of Castnia ne 1807) to be determined in light of special Report to be prepared by Secretary . . 485 idas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination ee a) 5 eee under the plenary powers ts be 479 placed on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology’ 480 idas Linnaeus, 1761 (as published in the binominal combination gh ae ee validated and application of, determined under the plenary powers 479 placed on the ‘* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” 480 ilia [Schiffermiiller & Denis], 1775 (as published in the binominal combination rae ba placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology *” 542 immaculata Grassi, 1891 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba immaculata) available for.an avian but not for a human malaria parasite . . : . 616 684 Bulletin of Page immaculata Grassi, 1891, ete.—continued. placed on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid ee Trivial Names in pas (as a name for a human malaria parasite) .. ip oa * indicate > and “ indication”, expressions, in relation to Article 30, to be used in a uniform sense... at nie i ve Sa 2s ve ae a ce bee * indication ”, revised definition of meaning of, in relation to generic names, see Régles, Article 25, Proviso (a). ‘* infra-subspecific form ”’, expression, to be inserted in Régles and defined ats .. 89-90 infra-subspecific forms, introduction of rules governing naming of, see Reégles, etc., New Article (1). “* infra-subspecific name ”’, expression, to be inserted in the Régles and defined .. .. 89-90 ingens Owen, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis ingens an objec- tive synonym of novaezealandiae Owen, 1843 as published in the binominal combination Dinornis novaezealandiae) ; placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. “ie phe ae ~€ oe oe .. 450 intemperate language in the discussion of zoological nomenclature, introduction of an Article prohibiting, see Régles, etc., New Article (8). International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature. iris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Ae sat ee a of, determined under the plenary powers . . 4e aR 5 542 placed on the “* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” t3 a 25 yo Aue irregularis Kruse, 1892 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) declared to be a technical designation and not a trivialname .. 617 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ors Ue is a St He Be Ne ee =e 7g) ee irregularis Sakharov, 1892, Haemamoeba febris, declared to be a cheironym Se a. HOLS placed on the ‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology as a or i Pe AF 5 e by es igh Jacques, M. Denis, attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission .. Se oi 62 Jaczewski, Commissioner T., election as a Commissioner in 1939, vice Commissioner Candido Bolivar y Pieltain (resigned) F ee nw y 6 i ee 16 Ee ee Zoological Nomenclature 685 Page Jaczewski, Commissioner T., etc. (continued). election of, to Class 1946 on expiry of term of service of Class 1937 10 postponement of nomination of, as a Member of the Class 1955 on expiry of term of service of Class 1946, owing to impossibility of ascertaining present whereabouts .. 13-14 membership of Commission of, declared vacated owing to feoacsucnmeils of ascertaining whereabouts, and successor appointed + : he 14 Jeannel, Professor R., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission 272 Jespersen, Dr. P., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission 272 Jordan, President Karl, message of regret from, at inability to attend Paris Session owing to total deafness af 1 assumption by, in 1939, of extraordinary powers for the duration of the SmenERney to preserve the existence of the Commission : 2 3: -- 10-13 appointment of, to Class 1949 on expiry of term of service of Class 1940 .. 13 re-appointment of, as President on re-appointment to Membership of Commission in 1941 consequent upon the formation of Class 1949 M: 16 nomination of, to Class 1958 on expiry of term of service of Class 1949 .. of a 19 request from, to be excused from nomination as President for a further term consequent upon total deafness .. : Ey ae .. 19-22 appreciation by Commission of distinguished services rendered by 21-22 nomination of, as a mark of esteem, to proposed new Office of Honorary Life President ; Acting President requested to despatch telegram to, expressing regret by Com- mission at resignation and conveying affection and esteem in which held in .. 22 nomination of, to be a Member of the Commission for a further term, on abolition of the system of 9-year Classes in the membership of the Commission and consequent reversal of decision to establish a Class 1958 h me Hit ae 46 text of telegram to, despatched by Acting President 63 Jorge, Professor Arthur Ricardo, Peer of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Commissioner A. do Amaral : ae 4 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission 280 ‘approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. ire rie ae a os eo OV Kirby, Professor Harold, pees of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Commissioner Norman R. Stoll 22 2 : ve a. ne 4 assumption by, of Acting Chairmanship during portion of Fourteenth Meeting of Com- mission. attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission .. 6, 62, 88, 107, 190, 230, 272, 280, 425, 649 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. sf ns - “6 ee eee) LW 686 Bulletin of : Page Koch (C.L.), 1835-1842, Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden, determina- tion of type species, or species eligible for selection as type species, of genera publishedin 374 1842, Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems, single species figured in, for any given genus, to be accepted as type species, but the Commission prepared to consider applications for use of eee seg in individual cases where confusion would arise from this decision : Ae 52 = ce <5 ae a: eu Mee laniger Molina, 1782 (as published in the binominal combination Mus laniger), see Chin- chilla Bennett, 1829. Laplysia Linnaeus, 1767, emendation under Article 19 of, to Aplysia ns a Ae le Latiorina Tutt, 1909 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers: Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798) ; emacs on the “ Official Index of peeaeee. and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” . 484 laverani Labbé, 1894 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba laverani) suppressed under the plenary powers for all purposes other than Article 35 Kt je 613 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” 621 Laverania Feletti & Grassi, 1889, validated under the plenary powers; Haematozoon falciparum Welch, 1897, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of 614 particulars in regard to, on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” confirmed and clarified .. a by Ai Hie a bu S “4 Po eh 5GI9 Lebia Latreille [1802-1803], application for the designation, under the plenary powers, of Buprestis marginatus geneae 1785, as ey pee of, deferred for further information to be obtained .. as : : = : on Ss we ne 447 “* lectotype,”’ expression to be introduced into the Régles, and defined te os 185-186 Leiodes Latreille, 1796, see Liodes Heyden, 1826. Lemche, Dr. Henning, arpcinueet of, to be an Alternate Commissioner vice Commissioner J.R. Dymond .. = Sie Au st = << 42 oon, ae nomination of, to be a Member of the Commission vice Commissioner Th. Mortensen (resigned) as from close of Paris Congress ae 0 4 en aa v=) meee attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission ee ar 6, 62, 83, 107, 190, 230, 239, 272, 280, 306, 354, 425, 649 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. att er ¥: vi wh Pee <1 Lemonias Hiibner, [1806], an invalid ** Tentamen ” name, ee on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” oe 34 493-495 Zoological Nomenclature 687 Page leporina, suppression, under the niente tae of, as a eippeecsowic trivial name in the genus Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 .. : ie aye .- 303 ligniperda Latreille, 1802 (as published in the binominal combination Formica Eaneaenee)> placed on the * Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. 410 limacina, suppression, under the plenar y seks ers, of, as a permissible trivial name in the genus Tethys Linnaeus, 1767 .. : =f “a a re seemd0S * Limenitis Fabricius, 1807 (ty pe species selected by Dalman, 1816: ty ond os Lin- naeus, 1758) placed on the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’. 494 Limnas Hiibner, [1806], an invalid *‘ Tentamen ” name, Parts on the “ ona Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” 493-494 Limulus Miller, 1785, Secretary to submit BTS on, with reference to the earlier name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771... : a ne oe oe 311-312 Linnaeus, C terms intermediate between generic and specific trivial names cited in works by, pub- lished subsequent to 10th edition (like those published in the 10th edition) of the Systema Naturae (1 ne) not of EebErte ric status in virtue of being so a aa sion of Opinion 124) . : 266 trivial name based on name of, to be formed linnaei and not linnaeusi or linnei cee weak \ Diodes Heyden, 1826, declared an invalid homonym of Letodes Latreille, 1796 ; ings on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 421 literature-recording serials, authors to be requested to notify to, publication of papers containing names new for taxonomic units or affecting the status of previously pub- lished names... * ie ee 4¢ SC ae Le 94, 119, 122, 126, 215 littoralis Linnaeus, 1758, Cimea., a ge under the ea Lesh a to be the type species of Salda Fabricius, 1803 2 468 placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” A a -. 469 Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841; placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. “in “5 me ate ug is Se Sent eet Loligo Schneider, 1784, declared to be a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles ; placed on the “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 589 Lomatoceras Bronn, 1834, suppressed under the plenary powers for purposes of Article 25 but not for those of Article 34 ; ahs on the “ Official Index of pupiected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 378 Loricata, see Polyplacophora. Lovenechinus Jackson, 1912, application for validation of, with Oligoporus missouriensis Jackson, 1896, as type species, Secretary to confer with specialist regarding .. Wa LG 688 Bulletin of Page Loxia Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” to be considered... Re me oes bs 35 as he -- 582 Lutra Brisson, 1762, proposed addition of, to “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” deferred until decision taken on av ailability of names in Brisson, 1762, Regnum animale (ed. 2)... ae Ba! Ps a hag ns “i de ¥ Se 314, 315 Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], placed on the “ Offiial List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (type species designated under the Ee ee Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser 0779); ae He ye a ‘? ef ont .. 484 mabouya Lacépede, 1788, Lacertus, type species of Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, by absolute tautonymy ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” : 356 Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826, type species of, Lacertus mabouya Lacépéde, 1788, by absolute tautonymy ; erroneous statement in Opinion 92 that Scincus sloani Daudin, 1803, type species, to be deleted and entry relating to type ia of, in “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” to be corrected . . a ne a ~. 356 mcfarlandi Cockerell, 1902 (as published in the binominal combination Chromodoris mcefarlandi) emended to macfarlandi under Article 19 ae as ste ae oe, 4M machaon Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio machaon) placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology * E ars -. 496 Macropis Panzer, [1806-1809], application for the validation of, under the BRE. ad deferred for further information to be obtained . : 411 Maire, M. V., question of specimens eligible for selection as leatonyEes of certain species of ammonites named bye ee a 3 Ne Ss ey P a3 ae ripe oO Malaria Parasites, Human, determination of scientific names of .. a a 594-624 malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889, Haemamoeba, validated under the plenary powers as the name of the Quartan Malaria Parasite; designated under the plenary powers as the type species of Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 ; denigueied under the es powers as the type species of Hadmatophyllum Metschnikoff, 1887. : 613 placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” bs 3¢ -. 620 malariae Feletti & Grassi, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Laverania malariae) (in so far as this was published as a new name and not as the trivial name malariae Laveran, 1881) suppressed under the plenary powers... ate ae a. 01g placed on the ** Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specitic Trivial Names in Zoology ” . 629 malariae Laveran, 1881 (as published in the binominal combination Oscillaria malariae) suppressed under the plenary powers ate aur vs ee rab, Ae . Oe Zoological Nomenclatur 689 Page malariae Laveran, L881, ete. (continued). placed on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” a SG Bic os Shae bee zs ae a he za Gos malariae Marchiafava & Celli, 1885 (as published in the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) suppressed under the plenary powers 8 ae ie 34 be ae OS placed on the “ Official Index of eae tains and Invalid te oak Trivial Names in Zoology ” ne » : s Bi ae ea 7 Malignant Tertian Malaria Parasite, determination of scientific name of .. a vs, » Glé malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio malvae) ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” af is ae .. 496 Manatus Briinnich, 1771, Secretary to submit Report on .. a” an a8 pian ol Mancipium Hiibner, [1806], an invalid ‘‘ Tentamen ” name, placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” Pa = a as 494,495 Mansour, Professor Kamel, appointment of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Com- missioner B. Hanké ae as RD 5 a ne Ste oa .. 282 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission ~ ote as .. 6, 37, 280, 306, 354 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. ae by is He a ae hy manuscript name; a name which, prior to being published with an indication, had acquired an irregular currency as a manuscript name, to rank for priority from date of being published + with an indication and to be attributed to the author by whom so published : = ni ve Hie bie “m : .. 259-60, 563 maritimus Scopoli, 1763, Cimex, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Beosus Amyot & Serville, 1843 ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. es we oa ae aye ie .. 474 Martin (W.), Figures and Descriptions of Petrifications collected in Derbyshire, 1793, not available under the Reégles ; Petrificata Derbiensia, 1809, not available under the Régles 452 sympathetic consideration to be given to applications for the use of the plenary powers to validate any well-known name which might be invalidated under above decision .. 452 Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807, validated under the plenary powers. . oR 4c .. 456 placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (type igor selected By Scudder, 1875: Papilio polymnia Linnaeus, 1758) ve 5 457 Mechanitis (Mliger], 1807, suppressed under the plenary powers ; Ser mcee on the “ Official Index of Rejected and ‘Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” ue 456 Megachile Latreille, 1802, Apis centuncularis Linnaeus, 1758, declared to be the type species of, by selection by Curtis, 1828; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” a 3 o>: ‘ 3 ie a 2 ot ote Be a membership of the Commission, changes in, during period 1935-1948, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, Section (f). Merops Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” to be considered... ne Bt wes ae ae ne ae sae Oe Metcalf, Professor Z. P., appointment of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Vice-President James L. Peters a ae ois es as aie ae oT oe a 4 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission as Be Hie avs 6, 62, 83, 649 communication entitled “‘ Static versus Dynamic Nomenclature ” by, not submitted through absence of approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. fe ae ae =e Se Sipe SA Methocha Latreille, [March] 1804, application for the use of the plenary powers to validate Methoca ichneumonides Latreille [Sept.] 1804 as the type bec of, and to emend to Methoca deferred for further information to be obtained we 413, 415 Meuschen (F.C.), index by, to the Zoophylacium Gronovianum of Gronovius, declared to be unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes : Se ae A nee -. 504 Meuschen (F.C.), 1788, Museum Gronovianum declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes Be : Sc $3 5s fe ae a Par Se Facer 73; minor Lubbock, 1862, Macrotoma, ese under the Heey. por. to be the 0p species of Tomoceras Nicolet, 1842... : 506 placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” sis sie hie SOOT Minutes of Meetings of the Paris Session of the Commission, arrangements for preparation and publication of, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, Section (h). misidentified type species, procedure to be adopted in relation to .. ie me 158-159 Moehring (P.N.G.), 1752, Avium Genera translation of by Nozeman and Vosmaer (pub- lished in 1758 as Geslachten der Vogelen) declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes .. ae te oe ve vs eis a Bac oc . eer eS moelleri Rauser-Chernoussova, 1937 (as published in the binominal combination Schwager- tna moelleri) ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. 464 Zoological Nomenclature Moera Michelin, 1855 ; ; placed on the ** Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” Moira Agassiz (A.), 1872, Spatangus atropos Lamarck, 1816, designated under the umeaas powers, in so far as necessary, to be the type species of ae placed on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” Monograpsus Geinitz, 1852, name to be emended to Monograplus .. Monograptus (emend of Monograpsus) Geinitz, 1852, validated under the plenary powers with Lomotoceras priodon Bronn, 1834, as ty pe sneripe a placed on the * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” .. ys aie sie ie ie Monoprion Barrande, 1850, suppressed under the plenary powers for purposes of Article 25 but not for those of Article 34; placed on the *‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” a ty ay fe SE es Be ab monsters, Linnaean system not available for naming of ; attention of teratologists to be drawn to inconvenience arising from misuse of Régles for the naming of monsters morrisont Townsend, 1915 (as published in the binominal combination Phoranthella morrisoni) declared invalid; placed on the ‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ore 378 378 364 383 Morrison-Scott, Mr. T. C. S., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission .. 62, 230, 272, 280, 306, 354 Mortensen, Commissioner Th., absence of, from Paris Session on account of ill-health election of, in post-war period as a Member of the Commission vice Commissioner J. Pellegrin (deceased) resignation of, on grounds of ill-health, accepted by Commission with regret Acting President requested to Sepa i cn to, ee Sa fe and aioe wishes of the Commission text of telegram to, despatched by Acting President moschatus Lamarck, 1798 (as published in the binominal combination Octopus narra - placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” : he : Moschites Schneider, 1784, declared to be a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles ; placed on the “ Official Index of aa ed and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” : ats , oe moschites Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination 1 Oe ssmcagpic a suppressed under the plenary powers , ays : placed on the ‘“* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in . Zoology ” ae Se oe rs ae fe 6 7 fe os Motacilla Linnaeus, 1785, question of admission of, to “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” to be considered : “ ~- ae : = - 590 589 588 590 582 692 Bulletin of Page Museum Gronovianum, 1788, index to, by Meuschen wai C. s declared not available for nomenclatorial purposes = ie : Bes aa 32 Se) eabiss ’ Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803], ys on the “ Official List of Generic Names in gue ae (Opinion 104) confirmed 467 najas De Geer, 1773, Cimex, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Aquarius eat ide ‘Placed ¢ on the “ Official List of Pie aula Trivial Names in Zoology ” ve 473-474 Najas Hiibner, [1806], an invalid “‘ Tentamen ” name; ey on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” Ate 493-495 Natur-System der vierfiissigen Thiere (Deh, 1775, nia Frisch a L.) declared unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes ; 549 Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762, question of validation of, under the plenary wee to be considered by the Commission on receipt of a Report by the Secretary . ahs one naucrates (emend. of neucrates) (as published in the binominal combination Echeneis neucrates) ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” -. 539 Nautilus Schneider, 1784, declared to be a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles ; placed on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 589 ’ nautilus Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Se acca suppressed under the plenary powers ‘ 588 placed on the “ Official Index of Re mer} and Invalid Sees Trivial Names in Zoology ” Es 590 Necator (emend. by Sclater & Saunders, 1896, of NV anes Finsch & Hartlaub, 1870, suppressed under the plenary powers 301 Necator Stiles, 1903, validated under the plenary abe and anager ap of, on “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” confirmed oes 300-301 Neotypes, question of recognition of, as a class of type specimen to be the subject of a Report to be ig by the eet to the Commission in consultation with specialists 4a 3h ne 191-193 misleading reference to, in Opinion 126, cancellation of .. re us ae os | OT Neptis Fabricius, 1807, validated under the plenary powers sts 5c ate .. 456 placed on the “ Official. List of Generic Names in Zoology (type species selected by Crotch 1872; Papilio aceris Esper [1783] [ Papilio hylas Linnaeus, 1758, ssp.]) srsee Ian Zoological Nomenclature 693 Page Neptis | Mliger], 1807, suppressed under the plenary powers ; placed on the ** Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” ae a % z 3 156 Nereis Hiibner, [1806], an invalid ‘‘ 'Tentamen”’ name ; placed on the ** Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” _ in ate a 492-495 neucrates Linnaeus, 1758, (as published in the binominal combination Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758) emended to naucrates under Article 19 as i oe i ik erry ss {) designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Echeneis Linnaeus, 1758... 538 Nesbitt, Dr. H. H. J., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission .. 272, 306, 354 nomen dubium, the name of a nominal species, when the taxonomic species represented thereby cannot be recognised . . ofr a za ars + wre ne a 76 a name not exempt from the provisions of the Law of meen a on the sek that the older published identical name is a nomen dubium .. : — 398-399 nomen nudum, a name published without an “ indication” .. oe =i ss saeeseo name originally published as a nomen nudum, on later being published with an ‘indication ” to rank for priority from date of being so published and to be attributed to the author by whom so published is +" sb < he . 259-260, 563 “nomenclature binaire *’, Report on meaning of expression de Ae 4 .. 63-66 “nominal genus ”’, expression defined .. io 5: oe ae xe mit 179-180 * nominal species ”, expression defined = ele ue & at Fe 179-180 nominotypical subspecies of a polytypic species, introduction of rules governing naming of, see Régles, etc., New Article (3). non-scientific press, Recommandation to be inserted deprecating publication of new names in, see Régles, etc., Article 25, provisions relating to publication. Notozus Forster, 1853, application for the validation of, under the plenary powers, deferred for further information to be obtained aE ae sts Ae ae Re 413, 415 novaezealandiae Owen, 1843, Dinornis, selection of a ey ake, of, by Lydekker 1891, declared to be in conformity with Article 31 . ; - 449 placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” nie Bic .. 450 Nozeman and Vosmaer, 1758, Geslachten der Vogelen, declared not available for nomen- clatorial purposes a = tc ae a ‘fe Sa a ris see DOS Nymphalis Kluk, 1802 (type species selected by Hemming, 1933 : Papilio ha BUS Linnaeus, 1758) ; placed on the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” 495 694 Bulletin of Page Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, entry on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” confirmed (type species selected by Crotch, 1872: Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758) .. 458 Nymphidium [llliger], 1807, suppressed under the plenary powers ; mate on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” : a 456 \ Nysso Latreille, 1796, application for the use of the PNY aes to emend to Nysson deferred for further information to be obtained... 0 414, 415 Octopodia Schneider, 1784, suppressed under the plenary powers .. Se Me -. 588 placed on the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 589 \ Octopus Cuvier, [1797] (type species by absolute tautonymy, under Opinion 16 : Octopus vulgaris (correction of sree! sage (1797) nt on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”. : 5 ae <5 OBO) Odgnerus Latreille, [1802-1803], application for the designation, under the plenary powers, of Vespa spinipes Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of, deferred for further information to be obtained om 2% of : E. _ rs ne i ne 414, 415 offence, political, religious or personal, zoological nomenclature not to be used for giving 193-194 Offices of the Commission, changes in, during period 1935-1948, see Commission, Inter- national, on Zoological Nomenclature, Section (g). ‘: Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology,” generic names suppressed under the ee ee ers or declared to be invalid or non-existent to be recorded in oe : ae 30 ae ce S- a6 a oo ibaa to be recorded in a Schedule to the Régles .. we is xe ae ge ico Oe ** Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology,” names placed on, during Paris Session. Apatura [Mlliger], 1807 A ee, ne “ sts ae ete oh iu antoG Arachnoides Klein, 1778 se ne A a¥ a es 4c oS ebay Belone Oken, 1815 me! ite = sre ie ae oe He fe -. 428 Brassolis (Mliger], 1807 “ff "3 ¥ ats ee oe ae 5 410 schmidti Rohon, 1892 .. & a -» TLremataspis schmidti ‘ ‘ 435 setosa Leske, 1778 < se = .. LEchinometra setosa : : 385 solium Linnaeus, 1758 .. «. Taenia solium .. ae ae -- 586 sophorae Linnaeus, 1758 ae as .. Papilio sophorae ans es -. 458 striatus Emmons, 1842 .. Rf) -. Maclurea striatus os A ura ZS strichnocera Fieber, 1844 Sy 6 «. Dictyonota strichnocera Ae «. 474 struthoides Owen, 1844 .. ae oa .. Dinornis struthoides .. At -. 450 studeri Agassiz (L.), 1840 -. NSchizaster studeri Se SE es eS tardus Herbst, 1779 .. Pes a .. Dyiscus tardus 3 . 461 terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 Mf a6 e. Apis terrestris .. Sc ae | os == 407 thalia Linnaeus, 1758 .. aie Sh -. Papiliothalia .. a ae o-- 395 uddeni Peede & Kniker, 1924 .. Re -. Schuagerinauddeni .. on -. 464 unicolor Leske, 1778 .. -. Syatangus brissus var. unicolor nme) verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758 “a KS -. Venus verrucosa oy =e set oUD vivax Grassi & Feletti, 1890 .. ar .. Haemamoeta vivax 33 = . 620 vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758 Ame a -. Musca vomitoria wk ue Seeing vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] e ie .. Octopus vulgar:s.. na hy Ae SOOO vulgare Sandberger, 1889 se sfc .. Rhipidophyllum vulgare -. 430 vulgaris Schmeil, 1897 .. i v3 .. Diaplomus vulgaris .. ahs Ai ian 31017) (NOTE.—Under a decision taken during the Paris Session, every trivial name which has formed, or in future forms, the subject of a decision by the Commission is automatically to be added either to the ‘“ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” or, as the case may be, on the “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”, save in cases where it has been, or is in future, necessary for the Commission to give a decision on a name which is an available name but which is not accepted by specialists as being required for taxonomic purposes (i.e. a name which is treated as a subjective synonym of some older and available name). In consequence, a number of names dealt with in Opinions published prior to the Paris Session and also certain names dealt with at the Paris Session prior to the decision to establish the above “ Official List ” were also placed on that “ List ” at the Paris Session in addition to the names specified above.) Zoological Nomenclature Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschischte, assistance of specialists to be sought on question of existing practice in regard to, and decision taken on status of, as soon as possible thereafter ve “Ta oe “¥ he hi ve fe of Ai oh Oncotylus Fieber, 1858, Oncotylus punctipes Reuter, 1873, designated under the plenary powers to be the type pe ies of ; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” Ophonus Stephens, 1827, application for the designation, under the plenary powers, of Carabus obscurus Fabricius, 1792, as ty ype species of, deferred for further information to Page 366 474 be obtained 8 ae A ae : as a ac ie 446, 447 Opinions and Declarations of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : recommendations and reports regarding. Opinions and Declarations published since 1935, Report on incorporation in the Régles, in whole or in part, of interpretations of individual provisions bo ~I given in Opinions already rendered Se Ae at a “A 66-67, 132-137 Opinions to be repealed for interpretative purposes when interpretation contained therein incorporated in the Régles .. Sp ae ae ec we on 135-136 invitation to zoologists to notify to Commission particulars of any apparent new inter- pretation contained in any Opinion not repealed by the Paris Congress consequent upon present codification of interpretations given in Opinions so far published Opinions rendered after the Paris Congress to deal only with individual nomenclatorial problems, questions relating to the interpretation and amendment of the Régles being 136 dealt with in Declarations only xt xe . af ee ne 5 136-137 Opinions and Declarations rendered after the Paris Congress, decisions in, to be looked for only in the “‘ summary ”’; Declarations relating to the interpretation of the Régles published in an inter-Congress period to be reported to the next meeting of the Con- gress for the inclusion in the Régles of the interpretations so given, the Declarations in question thereupon to be repealed for interpretative purposes ; incorporation in the By-Laws of the Commission of provisions relating to the method to be followed in future in the adoption of Declarations and of the reporting of Declarations to the Congress , Bu Opinions containing erroneous interpretations of the Régles or interpretations which, though correct when the Opinion in question was adopted, have ceased to be so, conse- quent upon an amendment of the Régles, to be cancelled forthwith certain Opinions already rendered to be cancelled, in whole or in part, except for his- torical purposes, owing to the decisions recorded therein either being incorrect or 137 having lost all practical significance by reason of their transitory character. . . 930-337 decisions on nomenclatorial problems given in Opinions to be recorded in Schedules attached to the Régles, the cs concerned a, PEPE Serene cancelled for all except historical purposes . . : s -- 65, 261, 332, 333 clarification and amendment of certain Opinions prior to the decisions recorded therein being recorded in Schedules to the Régles . . a ae e BC aa 337-338 Secretary to be requested to transfer to Schedules to the Régles decisions on individual nomenclatorial problems given in Opinions already rendered or agreed upon at the Paris Session, any cases of apparent errors so detected to be reported to the Com- mission for any necessary correction a we ar vs Lr ae 340-341 708 Bulletin of Page Opinions and Declarations of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : recommendations and reports regarding (continued). Secretary to examine and complete bibliographical and similar references to individual names and books cited in relation to all decisions regarding individual nomenclatorial problems prior to the transfer thereof to Schedules to the Régles ats ws :. 340 Secretary to ensure that, in the case of every trivial name entered in a Schedule to the Régles, there is cited in connection therewith the generic name in combination with which the trivial name in question was originally published... AG a .. 340 Opinions rendered dealing with part only of question submitted for decision to be com- pleted as soon as possible; practice of issuing Opinions dealing with part only of problem submitted condemned; Secretary to examine Opinions already rendered with a view to submitting proposals for filling any gaps so detected .. ie -. 355 practice of delaying decisions on individual nomenclatorial problems involving con- troversial, though not necessarily difficult, issues condemned as calculated to impair authority and prestige of Commission ; decisions on individual nomenclatorial prob- lems involving controversial, though not necessarily difficult issues, in future, to be given promptly and without fear or favour .. oe af we He .. 363 Opinions 1-16, reissues of, examination of ‘‘ Editorial Notes ’’ and footnotes attached to 2 Pe fre re ar o ae oF a MN uN, 560-562 Opinions 1-133; facsimile edition to be issued as soon as possible. . oe 591-594 Opinions, method of recording decisions taken in .. Se 36 on ah 632-640 Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature prior to Paris Congress, recommendations regarding. Opinion 1, ruling in, relating to the meaning of the expression “‘ indication ” as applied to a generic name cancelled and revised definition agreed upon. . o6 .. 78-80 remainder of, clarified and incorporated in the Régles. . a a6 oe 148-149 repeal of sf a t: a 56 Me 3; Bi “ie A -- 166 Opinion 2 (status of a name based on a hypothetical form), incorporated in the Régles.. 144 repeal of a aa be te Se “24 * a OD oe ie -. 166 Opinion 3 (priority to be assigned to Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, 10th edition), incorporated in the Régles .. a sxe 35 ae “A Se 150-151 repeal of Le: oe nite =e ee de ate be oe —- sony 166 Opinion 4 (status of names which, prior to publication, were manuscript names and of names which, prior to valid publication, had been published as nomina nuda), clarified and incorporated in the Régles ce Se se - ree ss ee 145-146 repeal of Ne teectlD Richter, Commissioner Rudolf, absence of, from Paris Session fe ee ae Fh 3 nomination of, to be a Member of the Class 1952 on the expiry of the term of service of the Class 1943, reservation by Commission regarding attitude towards ne da ah 13 748 Bulletin of I Page Richter, Commissioner Rudolf, etc. (continued). decision not to confirm nomination of, to Class 1952, in order to provide German zoolo- gists with a fresh opportunity of expressing their wishes as to their representation on the Commission pooneaes =e the political and other changes resulting from the close of the war zi : ws nA 7 on BS x x 2 Lake Riley. Mr. N. D., appointment of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Commissioner W.T. Calman .. mC oe ars ate Bs we ev ae ae ric 4 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission — 6, 37, 62, 83. 107, 190, 230, 239, 272, 280, 306, 354, 425, 649 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. 24 a hs ae se sot RW? te Rode, Commisioner Paul, in attendance at Paris Session election of. in post-war period, as a Commissioner vice Commissioner T. Jaczewski (membership vacated) ns “oe p sf os re oe Le Bs 16 apology received from, at being detained by duties as an Officer of a Section of the Congress wi a Ee ve os : ae death of, prior to circulation of draft Minutes ee ae ve BS a: “ xiii te Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771, Secretary to submit Report on .. a ae te .. she Rottenburg (von), 1775, Anmerkungen zu den Hufnagelischen Tabellen der Schmetterlinge (in Vol. 6 of Naturforscher); relative priority to be accorded to, see Cramer, 1775 * Uitlandsche Kapellen. Royal Society of London, grant by, to assist publication of new edition of the Régles = 78 rufa Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Formica — aa =i on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ais ; 410 Russell, Miss Louise, attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission 230, 272, 280, 306, 354 Rusticus Hiibner, [1806], an invalid ‘‘ Tentamen ” name, a on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. - , “ee 494, 495 Salda Fabricius, 1803, Cimez litioralis Linnaeus, 1 heualic designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of. . A es se ay ne pa .. 468 placed on the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’. . a < ot -.. 469 Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, terms intermediate between generic and_ specific trivial names cited on the legends to pee in volume | of, not of subgeneric status on that account .. Ae ee é a ee < ore Me Re oe ©=—- 8) Sand Crab, Opinion 13., relating to trivial name of. cancelled . . wd am me Seeley procedure to be adopted for determining correct name of, agreed upon .. Ag 208 679 Zoological Nomenclature 749 Page scalaris Linnaeus, 1768 (as published in the binominal combination Graptolithus scalaris) suppressed under the plenary powers for purposes of Article 25 but not for those of Article 35 ; placed on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” es Ne ihe ate Me ite aie as wen odd Schiffermiiller & Denis, 1775, Ankiindigung eines Rh aiaee cia Werkes von den Schmetter- lingen der Wiener Gegend (published anonymously), relative priority to be accorded to, see Cramer, 1775, Uitlandsche Kapellen. Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, validation of, under the plenary powers, and position of, on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” confirmed ? ae 3 322 Schizaster Agassiz (L.), [1836], Schizaster studeri Agassiz (L. ) 1840 Ripeia oaks under the plenary powers to be the type species of ¢ 527 placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” 528 schmidti Rohon, 1892, T’remataspis, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866 ; a pen on the ** Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” Fe bs aS as ms .. 435 Schwagerina von Moller, 1877 (type species, by monotypy: Borealis princeps Ehrenberg, 1842) ; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” 0 -. 464 sclerites, see “ organites ” Scopolax Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’, to be considered 582 secondary homonyms, see homonymy Secretariat of the Commission, Report on, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature, Section (k) Secretary to International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature invited to confer with specialists and submit Reports on following matters :— (a) General questions. Article 31, clarification of certain aspects of 502 Classes, Orders and other categories above family level, question of introducing rules for naming of .. a ve Ae ye sa Si ate oa 385-386 emendation of names, question of clarifying Article 19 . 14] families fichadiae superfamilies), and subfamilies, clarification of rules relating to nomenclature of, and question of introducing rules for naming of tribes oe aC 8 oa it a atc Fic 138, 244, 245, 273, 402 neotype, question of recognition of, as a category of type specimen .. ee 192-193 stabilisation of nomenclature (with reference, inter alia, to proposed pie: apes in the Régles of a Law of Prescription) .. ars eo a : 232-234 type species of a nominal genus, the name of which was first published in a generic synonymy a sis os od i is ate oa si 351-352 750 Bulletin of Page secretary to LC.Z.N.. ete. (continued). (6) Questions relating to particular cases. Acmea Hartmann, 1821 and T’runcatella Risso, 1826, relative future status of .. 392 Ammonia Briinnich, 1771, status of es ae Be od as ne ig ibtenliss annulatum Dschunkowsky & Luhs, Piroplasma, date of publication of — .. .. 433 Brisson, 1762, Regnum animale (ed. 2), status of namesin .. ar ts 313-314 Chinchilla Bennett, 1829, type species of 4 i * oe Bs 440-441 Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, type species of ays ae ae re ae = 632 Dama Zimmermann, 1780, and Dama virginiana Zimmermann, 1780, future status to be accorded to -s ae a a ee ne sh es apn! Pchinocrinus Agassiz, 1841, and Archaeocidaris M’Coy, 1841, spas of tee suppression of the former name and validation of the latter we 516 Encrinus Schultze, 1760, arrangements to be made for i ana of auECnHDS relating to, by a specialist in Crinoids ee xe : 5 a» old Jasciata Poiret, 1789 (as published in binominal combination hie hagas future status of . oe Ee ots Fie sie =e Oe generic names, of which status discussed in Opinion 16 but left undecided, question of addition of, to ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” é * 581-583 Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. stone ait ici of valeeee certain nore names as published in bi -- 368 geoffroyi Leach, 1817, Coriza, question whether oldest available name for species in question AY a eh de $e Si ate es Pee ah!) Lepidoptera, relative priority to be assigned to certain books and aie apa: in 1775 containing names of new taxonomic units in : 459 Limulus Miller, 1785, question of validation of at a3 #3 5 pols Lovenechinus Jackson, 1912, proposed use of plenary powers for .. bs a5, ole Manatus Briimnich, 1771, status of ~~ ee ae rs Sn a en ee Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762, question of validation of a a e Fe “3 ORG Oken, 1815-1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, status of names in, and practice in regard thereto .. - a 3 Pa: ihe 3 fe a .. 366 Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771, status of .. 2% eG ac sie 2s Pac | Petalifera Gray, 1847, and At meals ee 1872, future relative status to be accorded to 5 1 : 389 Pholidocidaris Meek & Worthen, 1869, proposed use of the plenary powers for .. 513 Pleuronectes Linnaeus, 1758, type species of .. Me ve aie fe neo punctata Cuvier, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination itiiaintt ss [sic] punctata), future status of ss i aft 304 Rosmarus Briinnich, W771, status of ne oe a = 4 x rit ole = el Zoological Nomenclature 751 Pag? Secretary to I.C.Z.N., ete. (continued). (6) Questions relating to particular cases (continued). Sand Crab, question of trivial name for, acceptance of which would cause least inter- ference with existing nomenclatorial practice 579 Sparus Linnaeus, 1758, type species of 337 “Tentamen *’ pamphlet issued by Hiibner (J.) in 1806, question of the generic names properly applicable to the species cited therein ; : 496 (c) Administrative tasks to be undertaken by Secretary in relation to decisions taken on earlier occasions r construction of Schedules to which to be transferred all names on which decisions taken in Opinions already rendered .. 340 insertion of full bibliographical references for all names to be transferred to Schedules prior to such transfer us a a Be ot ie 340-341 submission of Reports on names available under the Régles in all cases where, in Opinions already rendered, the use of the plenary powers has been refused 332 preparation of Reports on all cases where a decision in an Opinion deals with part only of problem submitted Sr 395 Secretary-General, Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, vote of thanks by Commission to, for arrangements made for meetings of the Commission 647 Segal, M. J., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission 272 select ” and “ selection ’’, expressions, in re'ation to Article 30, to be used in a uniform sense “4 a 179 Sepia Schneider, 1784, declared to be a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles .. 589 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ° 590 sepia Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination bias ia acai) SURETeEseet under the plenary powers 3 os ; 53838 placed on the “ Official Index of Reiected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” 590 Sepiolu Schneider, 1784, declared to be a cheironym possessing no status under the Rvgles 58) placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” 590 setosa Leske, 1778 (as published in the binominal combination Echinometra ny ae on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” . 385 sexdecimanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name Haemosporidium) declared to be a technical designation and not a trivial name . . 617 placed on the “* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” 622 Shorey, Miss J. H., in attendance as Acting Documents Officer 6, 37, 62, 83, 107, 190, 230, 239, 272 752 Bulletin of Page Silvestri, Commissioner Filippo, resignation of, reported 15 Siphonophora Koch, 1855, not invalidated as a generic name by reason of the previous publication of this word as an Ordinal Name (Siphonophora Eschscholtz, 1829) . . 164 Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., vote of thanks by Commission to, for invitation to Secretary to Commission to visit Washington and other North American centres, for purpose of discussing problems of nomenclature to be considered at Paris Session of Commission Ae 31 Solenius, Lepeletier & Brullé, 1835, application for the designation, under the plenary powers, of Crabro continwus Fabricius, [1804-1805], as type species of, deferred for further infermation to be obtained... Se 3¢ ae ai ave ef a .. 415 solium Linnaeus, 1758, T'aenia, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Taenia Linnaeus, 1758; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” : Ae a5 at We as a ie a le 32) 086 sophorae Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio sophorae) placed on the ‘* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” 458 Sparck, R., appointment of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Commissioner Th. Mortensen 4 nomination of, to be a Member of the Commission vice Commissioner Th. Mortensen (resigned) as from close of Paris Congress and proposed assignment to the Class 1958 1g nomination of, to be a Member of the Commission as from the close of the Paris Congress on abolition of the system of 9-year Classes in the membership of the Commission and consequent reversal of decision to establish a Class 1956 . . 46 request to be excused from acceptance of nomination as a Member of the Commission, in view of pressure of other urgent work, acceptance by Commission of .. 282 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission ore be .. 6, 83, 107, 230, 280, 649 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings xiv Sparus Linnaeus, 1758, type species of, to be determined as soon as possible and Opinion 69 thereupon to be cancelled me a ie ore 3e 45 oO Spatangus Leske, 1778, suppressed under the plenary powers. . 526 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” 526, 528 Spatangus Modeer, 1793, suppressed under the plenary powers 526 placed on the “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” 526, 528 Spatangus, as used by any other author prior to the publication of Spatangus Gray, 1825, suppressed under the plenary powers. . A ae a0 ae So 56 ore 526 placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” 526, 528 Zoological Nomenclature 753 Page Spatangus Gray, 1825, validated under the plenary powers, and Spatagus purpureus Miller (O.F.) similarly designated as type species .. 7 eae cig 526, 527 placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology”... Be 4c --. 9528 specialist groups, development of co-operation by Commission with, during pened 1936-48, Report by Secretary on as af 2 ‘ie se ae - ie .. 25-27 ** specific name ”’, expression defined .. sr ets ve oe oe i. wy del27 “ specific trivial name ’’, expression introduced and defined . . ig ay ig a el28 Specimen Zoologiae geographicae, Quadripedum Domicilia et Migrationes sistens, 1777, by Zimmermann (A. E. W. von), declared unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes .. 547 Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers : Papilio alceae Esper [1780]) ee on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. ; : sik ees iz ae Se .. 484 stabilisation of zoological nomenclature, means for securing, to be the eae ofa ee by the Secretary ale ss a a is ? 231-234 Stejneger, Commissioner Leonhard, death of, reported; adoption by Commission of Resolution of regret at death of ss np ae as * Se - fe 9 Sterna Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” to be considered... ae ee as ae Fre ne on eau 582 Stiles, Vice-President Charles Wardell, election of, to Class 1946, on eon of term of service of Class 1937... ci By : ss AF : 10 election of, in 1939 to newly-created Office of Vice-President; death of, reported ; adoption by Commission of Resolution of regret at death of .. x = ie 9 Stoll, Commissioner Norman R., absence of, from Paris Session... as i! =f 3 election of, in war period as a Commissioner vice Vice-President C. W. Stiles (deceased) 16 appointment of, to Class 1955 on expiry of term of service of Class 1946. Be a6 13 Stone, Commissioner Witmer, death of, reported ; adoption by Commission of Resolutién of regret at death of .. aes a fs Die aie sa $3 3h a 9 Straelen, Professor Victor van, appointment of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Com- missioner Rudolf Richter 4 7 ans a} ar i “ sic Be 4 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission Sie i 6, 37, 62, 83, 107, 190, 230, 239, 272, 280, 649 nomination of, to be a member of Editorial Committee of three, charged with the duty of supervising the eretetion of the text of the Régles as revised by the Paris Congress ae An nA af ie Sa ae a av sae, 5.000 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. Ns “it We oc ne Soe) GX1V, 754 Bulletin of Page striatus Emmons, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Maclurea striatus) placed on the ‘* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ae oe «aS strichnocera Fieber, 1844, Dictyonota, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Dictyonota Curtis, 1827; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology” .. Se Senet iat a a rie 45 .. 474 Strix Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology * to be considered... on =e ae oe BA a me ». 582 Stromateus Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” to be considered . . 582 Strongylocentrotus Brandt, 1835, validated as of subgenerie status as from the date of being so published, under the plenary powers, in so far as necessary, and Hchinus drobachiensis Miller (O.F.) 1776 designated under the plenary powers as type apeg ies ; placed on the “ Official Ligt of Generic Names in Zoology Ps5 ae A - oe ot Fb2T struthoides Owen, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Dinornis struthoides) placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”.. : vw) pao studeri Agassiz (L.), 1840, Schizaster, designated under the plenary as ers to be the ty ae species of Schizaster Agassiz (L.) [1836] ast “iA ae : ue : ; ond placed on the “* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” by th .. 528 Subfamilies, rules for governing nomenclature of, to be examined by Secretary in Report on rules for family names “e5 ay ah si te Ba a ais jam el subgeneric names in relation to specific homonymy, see Reégles, etc., Article 2 Sub-Orders, rules governing nomenclature of, question of introducing into the Régles, to be examined by the Secretary of: oe a8 ie ae ie a 385-386 “ subspecific name ”’, expression defined of ats ues - A aie ee 127 ** subspecific trivial name”, expression introduced and defined BE 4 es 128-129 Superfamilies, rules for governing nomenclature of, to be examined by Secretary in Report on rules for family names ns ee > aa se e Me sn ve 17 188 “ syntype ”, expression to be introduced and defined ae aie a at 185-186 Systematisch-alphabetisches Verzeichniss of Hiibner (J.), terms intermediate between generic and specific trivial names cited in, not of subgeneric status on that account .. 290 Tachys Stephens, 1828, application for the designation, under the plenary powers, of Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828, as type species of, deferred for further information tobeobtained .. By ar of Ws Le oy a = a 447,448 Zoological Nomenclature Taenia Linnaeus, 1758, Taenia solium Linnaeus, 1758, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of ; validation of erroneous entry in ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (Opinion 92) Tapirus, generic name, first published in Briinnich, 1771, Zoologiae Fundamenta, if Brisson, 1762, Regnum animale (ed. 2) found to be not av ailable tardus Herbst, 1779 (as published in the binominal combination Dytiscus aka Brae on the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ae : we lectus Boieldieu, 1856 (as published in the binominal combination Ptinus tectus) aneeiion of species to which applicable to be considered Teleosteus Volger, 1860, suppressed under the plenary powers; placed on the * Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ~ Fe * Tentamen ”, see Hiibner (J.). terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Apis Retreat 4 placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” a : tertiana Labbé, 1894 (as published asa subspecific trivial name in the trinominal combination Haemamoeba laverani var. tertiana) a subjective junior synonym of Haemamoeba vivax Grassi & Feletti, 1890 .. a ay ae tertianae Celli & Sanfelice, 1891 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) declared to be a technical designation and not a trivial name placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” lertianae Kruse, 1892 (as published in connection with the binominal combination Plasmodium malariae) declared to be a technical designation and not a trivial name placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” tertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the generic name H pieiee ieee um) declared to be a technical designation and not a trivial name : : Ac placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” Tethys, as a generic name published by any author subsequent to Linnaeus, 1758, and prior to Linnaeus, 1767, suppression of, under the plenary powers me a Tethys Linnaeus, 1758, suppression of, under the plenary powers Tethys Linnaeus, 1767, validated under the plenary powers and Tethys fimbria Linnaeus, 1767, similarly designated as its type species . . a - bs Bi oe is placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” Tetyra Fabricius, 1803, Cimex antillarum Kirkaldy, 1909, designated under the plenary powers to be the type cpa of ; eee on the ~ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” a SN Si atte ae a a: a5 755 Page 586 314 461 501 430 407 618 617 623 303 303 474 756 Bulletin of Page Tetrao Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of. to “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” to be considered .. ae oh ae he te we =i es hoe Teuthis Schneider, 1784, declared to be a cheironym possessing no status under the Régles .. 3 aye as iz rs = ba rg sg hs 2 Lasape placed on the “* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” .. 590 teuthis Schneider, 1784 (as published in the binominal combination Octopodia teuthis) suppressed under the plenary powers oi we ae Bie ae cf ‘2 DSS placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” : xe Ga Si ba a we re Xt se =<», 590 thalia Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of Actinote Hiibner [1819] . . . $5 a dhs ah x3 oC ss seed OOd: placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology”... ie “8 “ig ides Thymele Fabricius, 1807 (type species, by selection by Westwood, 1840: Papilio tages Linnaeus, 1758 ; placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” as - of ai io als - af be. dfeae 458 Thymele [Mliger], 1807, suppressed under the plenary powers; placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology”’.. as oye cA =x) S4o6 Tomoceras Nicolet, 1842, Macrotoma minor Lubbock, 1862, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of .. a%e a ne 2 Ey 43 satel OO placed on the “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’. . Be Cs ne 2a 500% Tonna Brinnich, 1771 (type species, by selection by Suter, 1913 : Buccinuwm galea Linnaeus, 1758), placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” .. at a oa LO Trechus Schellenberg, 1806, application for the designation, under the plenary powers, of Carabus quadristriatus Schrank, 1781, as type species of, deferred for further information to be obtained .. is Be re me <6 pas ek ee oa 447,448 Tractatus physicus de petrificatis, 1758, see Gesner (J 2): Tremataspis Schmidt, 1866, Tremataspis schmidti Rohan, 1892, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of ; placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” .. +e ae ce ar id ba Be Fr fs a. 435 Trewavas, Dr. Ethelwynn, attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission. . 306,354 Tribes, rules for governing naming of, to be examined by Secretary in Report on rules for family names > ne “ie at 23 ie oe < a ‘138 Tringa Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” to be considered... Ae os 5 = ; 582 ristis Van der Linden, 1829, Pemphridon, see Diodontus Curtis, 1834, Zoological Nomenclature 757 Page trivial names, capital initial letters not to be used for, see Régles, etc., Article 13. trivial names consisting of adjectives, method to be used for determining correct termina- tion to be used according to the gender of the generic name with which it is in agreement 248-249 trivial names differing from one another solely by reason of fact that second portion of name consists, in the one case of a word in noun form and, in the other, of the same word in adjectival form, no need to make special provision for, under the Law of Homonymy, having regard to decision that list of differences in epeling2 now to be inserted therein to be an exhaustive list .. _ 242 trivial names, establishment of Official List for, see “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ”’. “ True Chinchilla ’ of Chile (Chinchilla velligera Prell, 1934) see Chinchilla Bennett, 1829. tropica Koch, 1899, Plasmodium, declared to be a cheironym Ae Fe As a<. , (1S placed on the “ Official Index of eerie and Invalid i. Trivial Names in Zoo- logy ” Hs 623 type species of a genus, term to be used for, see Régles, Article 30, general provisions. type specimens, terminology to be applied to .. Ar an ts Ss Es 184-188 type specimen of a species or io aa criteria to be de ioe in Saito “gpa Oe of, see Régles, etc., Article 31 2 uddeni Beede & Kniker, 1924 (as published in the binominal combination Schwagerina uddeni) placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Nameg in Zoology ” ote tot AGE undecimanae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection with the ay name Haemo- sporidium) declared to be a technical designation and not a trivial name. Ae ss GL T placed on the ‘‘ Official Index of bes eine and Invalid sae Trivial Names in Zoo- logy ” 623 U.N.E.S.C.O., vote of thanks to, by the Commission for grant of financial assistance I~ 32 funds provided by, available to assist publication of the revised text of the Régles .. 78 unicolor Leske, 1778, Spatangus brissus var., ih ae under the es bisa: to be the type species of Brissus Gray, 1825 .. : 527 placed on the “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” ay =: sidan eo Upupa Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology” to be considered ., 582 758 Bulletin of Page Urania Fabricius, 1807, validated under the plenary powers oe a oe .. 456 placed on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (type species selected by Latreille, 1810: Papilio leilus Linnaeus) . . re we a ore Re TM Abe oldest available name for type species of, to be placed on “‘ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” when determined... 4° ie 3 a as vat 859) Urania [Iliger], 1807, suppressed under the plenary powers: placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” AS Pie a .. 456 Urbanus Hiibner, [1806], an invalid “ Tentamen ” name, placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ” ie Sa its Ph 494, 495 Usinger, Professor Robert L., appointment of, as an Alternate Commissioner vice Com- missioner Harold E. Vokes’. . ae Js ee via at iis ed Fe 4 attendance by, at Meetings of the Commission 6, 37, 62, 83, 107, 190, 230, 239, 272, 280, 306, 354, 425, 649 nomination of, to be a member of the Editorial Committee of three charged with the duty of supervising the preparation of the text of the Régles as revised by the Paris Congress 630 approval by, of Minutes of Paris Meetings .. Ae s Ar ot ee Pie eh “valid name,” expression defined (see also “‘ available name”). . ee ie Bee Peels Valle, Signor Antonio, attendance by. at public meetings of the Commission ots =. | 280 varieties (below subspecific level), introduction of rules governing naming of, see Régles, ete., New Article (1) velligera Prell, 1934, Chinchilla, see Chinchilla Bennett, 1829 Venus Linnaeus, 1758, Venus verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of; placed on the * Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” ite ae oa 8 on =f “te ae es oe ... 304 verrucosa Linnaeus, 1758, Venus, designated under plenary powers to be the type species of Venus Linnaeus, 1758 AY Ens ae an #3 % ae ce on pee placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names on Zoology ” ae as Jet 2e80b vigesimotertianae Lewkowicz, 1897 (as published in connection. with. the generic name Haemosporidium) declared to be a technical designation and not a trivial name. . oo Gg placed on ‘the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoo- logy” .. a sh ae rie ae ie x be ” 2 vs) O8e EE ——— lll Zoological Nomenclature 759 Page virginiana Zimmermann, 1780 (as published in the binominal combination Dama vir- giniana) available under the Régles: question of future status of, to be examined by Secretary, in consultation with interested specialists 551 vivax Grassi & Feletti, 1890 (as published in the binominal combination Haemamoeba vivax) declared to be the oldest available name for the Benign Tertian Malaria Parasite 618 placed on the * Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” 620 Vokes, Commissioner Harold E., absence of, from Paris Session 3 election of, in war period, as a Commissioner vice Commissioner I. Stejneger (deceased) 16 vomiltoria Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Musca vomitoria) placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” 356 vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] (as published in the binominal combination Octopus vulgaris) placed on the *‘ Official List of Specifie Trivial Names in Zoology ” ae “e mm a90 vulgare Sandberger, 1889 (as published in the binominal combination Rhipidophyllum vulgare) validated under the plenary Eee ; placed on the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” : =f “ee tae ae S -. 430 vulgaris Schmeil, 1897 (as published in the binominal combination Diaptomus ay validated under the plenary powers : : dn ae : 376 placed on the * Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” 377 Vultur Linnaeus, 1758, question of admission of, to ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” to be considered 582 Wenyon, C. M., thanked by the Commission for assistance given in searching the literature to determine the first publication of the name Piroplasma annulatum commonly attributed to Dschankowsky & Luhs .. Ps ad 433 Winckworth, Mr. R., attendance by, at public meetings of the Commission 6, 62, 280, 306 Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, Secretary to submit Report on, with reference to Limulus Stes Pat ee Aa” ne Se Are Epil Ath ODEN 760 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Zimmermann (A. E. W. von), re iene 1777, declared unavailable for nomen- clatorial purposes : ve Geographische Geschichte, 1778-1783, declared available for nomenclatorial purposes .. “ Zoological Record,” see literature-recording serials. Zoographia rosso-asiatica of Pallas Pe) dates of publication of the several volumes determined ec ae : oft 3 43 Zoophylacium Gronovianum of Gronovius lier Meuschen’s index o declared to be unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes . . : Z.N.(S.) Files, applications contained in, to be examined in turn decisions taken on applications contained in, to be reported to section on Nomenclature Page 547 548 403 504 475 559 Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present Volume was published Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication 1/3 T.P.—l, 1—62 21st April 1950 4/6 63—158 25th May 1950 7/9 159—254 25th May 1950 10/12 255—350 9th June 1950 13/15 351—446 9th June 1950 16/18 447—542 9th June 1950 19/21 543—652 9th June 1950 22/24 653—760 FURCHABED 24NOV 1950 ~ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ry VoLtume 4—PartTs 22/24 wey MI On last page 760 bottom right Bia aa hand corner, date of publication should read : he 29th November, 1950. THANKS TO U.N.ES.C.O. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have great pleasure in expressing their grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.) for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume. BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Notice to subscribers regarding the arrangements made for the completion of volume 1 and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5 The following arrangements have been made for completing volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the publication of volumes 2, 3, 4and 5 :— Volume 1: A concluding Part (Part 12), containing, inter alia, the Title Page, Table of Contents, and alphabetical subject index, will be published shortly. Volume 2: This volume, like Volume 1, will be devoted to the publica- tion of applications in regard to nomenclatorial problems submitted by specialists to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for decision. Publication will commence at an early date. Volume 3: This volume, which is now complete in 9 Parts, is devoted to the publication of the memoranda, reports and other docu- ments considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at their meetings held in Paris in July 1948. Volume 4: This volume, which is now complete in 24 Parts, is devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July 1948. Volume 5: At the request of the Bureau of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, this volume has been devoted to the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, Fuly 1948, together with the Reports submitted to the Congress by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Section on Nomenclature. Parts !-6 have already been published. The remaining Parts will be published at an early date. INQUIRIES All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses :— International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: 41, Queen’s Gate, — London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat of the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim Axp Son, Ltp., Westminster, London - ae 7 * ee ao ALD Andis Rest oe oa —_ a a,5 7" | anal’. ee i alt es ay A” ED ib ode iia ated i . " i> y' os PEI ho fn neg ts The. . no ate